What's up with gravity wave detection?

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 19:56:31 GMT, "Androcles"
wrote:


"Joseph Lazio" wrote in message
...
| "A" == Androcles writes:
|
| A "Joseph Lazio" wrote in message
| A ...
|
| [PSR B1913+16 and PSR J0737-3039] are not the only two such binary
| neutron star systems in the Universe (...). PSR J0737-3039 has an
| orbital period of 2.4 hr. It's reasonable to ask, even reasonable
| to assume, that there are other binary neutron star systems with
| even tighter periods. These would have higher levels of
| gravitational wave emission. That is a testable rediction.
|
| A So where are the gravity waves?
|
| The fact that none have been detected means that there are no binary
| neutron stars in the final in-spiral stages "close by."

So they are too far away to be detectable. That's what I said.
Hence it is a waste of time building LIGO or any other gravity wave
detector.

Gosh, Androcles.

You know this because...?

I am yet to see you reproduce the calculations that you used to decide
that!




|
| A As I stated earlier, and perhaps it didn't register, the largest
| A negative going gravity pulse imaginable would be for Proxima
| A Centauri to completely annihilate in a cataclysmic supernova, no
| A remnant left, and it still would be too small to register when that
| A pulse reached us.
|
| As I noted earlier, I still don't understand what you mean by
| "negative" in this context, and I note that you don't provide any
| quantitative estimates.

Negative-going simply means from some to none. So measure the gravity
effect of Proxima Centauri as it is now, then the effect if it disappeared,
and the difference is the greatest gravity pulse imaginable.

Moron.

Stars cannot just dissapear. I believe there is a corrosponding law in
thermodynamics. Something about energy and how it cannot be created or
destroyed.

You need an education.

If you want to quantify the force, use G.(M1+M2)/r^2 where M1 is the mass
of the Sun, M2 is the mass of Proxima Centauri and r^2 is 15.2 light years =
1,363,263,031,001,664,000,000,000,000,000,000 metres. That's a mighty big
number to be dividing by to compute newtons. It didn't expect to have to do
it for you. You'll find the mass of the Sun in Kilograms if you search the
web and just double it for the mass of Proxima Centauri, that'll be close
enough.

What the **** kind of engineer were you? Proxima Centauri is .1 solar
masses. You are only off by a factor of 20.

Furthermore, you are using Newtonian gravity to explain an effect that
is relativistic in nature. Idiot. You need an education in modern
physics, which I am rather surprised to see you did not get in your
training as an engineer.


In a talk by Ott, he comments on
| gravitational wave detectability
| (URL:http://jupiter.as.arizona.edu/~burrows/scidac/gr_talk101601.html,
| slide 33), comments that are based on Thorne (1997).
|
| He predicts that LIGO would be capable of detecting a Galactic
| supernova within the range of a few kiloparsec.

Ok, so where's the star that will go supernova within 3260 light years, and
what is the force of gravity it is exerting on us right now?
Hint:
r^2 = (c * 60*60*24*365.25 * 3260 )^2
= (c * 102877776000) ^2
= (300,000,000 * 102877776000) ^2
= 9.5254531152355584e+38 meters,
or circa 1,000,000 times greater than the r^2 I computed for Proxima
Centauri.


Your star going supernova can be up to 1000 solar masses if you like,
totally annihilate it, so the force you are planning to measure is 1/1000th
of the force you feel now from Proxima Centauri.

No, it is not. You are a ****ing idiot. Stop using Newtonian gravity
to quantify gravitational radiation - IT IS WRONG.


I don't think you have any concept of astronomical distances or what the
inverse square law means, and neither does Thorne.

You are right, for once - You do not think.

*looks to the left at MTW*, yea. Thorne knows nothing...right...

Thorne is a respected physicist who is, among other things, a
co-author of THE book on gravitation. You, on the other hand, are a
failed engineer who attempted to learn modern physics and failed
miserably.

So what did you build as an engineer? Given your ... profeciency ...
in math, much can be ruled out.


Androcles.



|
| --
| Lt. Lazio, HTML police | e-mail:
| No means no, stop rape. | http://patriot.net/%7Ejlazio/
| sci.astro FAQ at http://sciastro.astronomy.net/sci.astro.html

"Androcles" bravely wrote to "All" (19 Aug 04 19:56:31)
--- on the heady topic of " What's up with gravity wave detection?"

An From: "Androcles"
An Subject: What's up with gravity wave detection?
An Organization: blueyonder (post doesn't reflect views of blueyonder)
An Xref: aeinews sci.physics:124723 sci.astro:39179
An sci.physics.relativity:76951

An "Joseph Lazio" wrote in message
An ...
| "A" == Androcles writes:
|
| A "Joseph Lazio" wrote in message
| A ...
|
| [PSR B1913+16 and PSR J0737-3039] are not the only two such binary
| neutron star systems in the Universe (...). PSR J0737-3039 has an
| orbital period of 2.4 hr. It's reasonable to ask, even reasonable
| to assume, that there are other binary neutron star systems with
| even tighter periods. These would have higher levels of
| gravitational wave emission. That is a testable rediction.
|
| A So where are the gravity waves?
An |
An | The fact that none have been detected means that there are no binary
An | neutron stars in the final in-spiral stages "close by."

An So they are too far away to be detectable. That's what I said.
An Hence it is a waste of time building LIGO or any other gravity wave
An detector.

I may be wrong but I think LIGO is more likely to detect GRB events than
the much weaker gravity wave radiation from binary neutron star systems.
GRB events are doubtless the strongest gravity wave pulses of all but
even these are probably masked by noise on Earth, hence the need for
LIGO to be stationed in space.

A+s+i+m+o+v

.... Aliens: We hAvE yOuR mArS pRoBe. We WaNt 1 bIlIiOn CrEdItS iN 24 Hrs.

"A" == Androcles writes:

A I don't think you have any concept of astronomical distances or
A what the inverse square law means, and neither does [Kip] Thorne.

Don't ya just love Usenet? Where else do you find astronomers with no
concept of astronomical distances?

--
Lt. Lazio, HTML police | e-mail:
No means no, stop rape. | http://patriot.net/%7Ejlazio/
sci.astro FAQ at http://sciastro.astronomy.net/sci.astro.html

"Joseph Lazio" wrote in message
...
| "A" == Androcles writes:
|
| A I don't think you have any concept of astronomical distances or
| A what the inverse square law means, and neither does [Kip] Thorne.
|
| Don't ya just love Usenet? Where else do you find astronomers with no
| concept of astronomical distances?

So you are unable to estimate the force, in [Isaac] newtons, between Proxima
Centauri and Sol. Thought so.

Androcles.

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 07:45:43 GMT, "Androcles"
wrote:


"Joseph Lazio" wrote in message
...
| "A" == Androcles writes:
|
| A I don't think you have any concept of astronomical distances or
| A what the inverse square law means, and neither does [Kip] Thorne.
|
| Don't ya just love Usenet? Where else do you find astronomers with no
| concept of astronomical distances?

So you are unable to estimate the force, in [Isaac] newtons, between Proxima
Centauri and Sol. Thought so.

Androcles.


You are an idiot.

Estimating the attractive force between Sol and Proxima Centauri is
easy, and doing so proves nothing about the abilities of anyone.

How long are you going to ignore me? Is asking why you feel that you
can calculate the energy of a gravitational wave using Newtonian
mechanics a question that is beneath you?

Gravity is the one subject that I have a definite interest in, and it
pains me to see retards like you mess it up.

Changing your


"Eric Gisse" wrote in message
...
| On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 07:45:43 GMT, "Androcles"
| wrote:
|
|
| "Joseph Lazio" wrote in message
| ...
| | "A" == Androcles writes:
| |
| | A I don't think you have any concept of astronomical distances or
| | A what the inverse square law means, and neither does [Kip] Thorne.
| |
| | Don't ya just love Usenet? Where else do you find astronomers with no
| | concept of astronomical distances?
|
| So you are unable to estimate the force, in [Isaac] newtons, between
Proxima
| Centauri and Sol. Thought so.
|
| Androcles.
|
|
| You are an idiot.
|
| Estimating the attractive force between Sol and Proxima Centauri is
| easy, and doing so proves nothing about the abilities of anyone.

Do it then, moron. Then calculate for a supernova at 1 kiloparsec, which
will be in the order of 10^6 less.


|
| How long are you going to ignore me?

Until you answer my questions, moron, instead of providing a list of
experiments you copied from the FAQs. Only a ****ing lunatic would claim MMX
was evidence of SR, as demonstrated by Fox. You are quite incapable of
deriving the Lorentz Transforms, and that is what I asked you to do.



| Is asking why you feel that you
| can calculate the energy of a gravitational wave using Newtonian
| mechanics a question that is beneath you?

Since it is irrelevant, yes.


|
| Gravity is the one subject that I have a definite interest in, and it
| pains me to see retards like you mess it up.

Then calculate the FORCE (not the energy) between Sol and Proxima Centauri.
But you won't, anymore than you were able to derive the Lorentz Transforms.
You are a troll, only interested in name-calling. Based on my past
experience of you, *plonk* again.
Androcles

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 12:19:00 GMT, "Androcles"
wrote:

Changing your


"Eric Gisse" wrote in message
.. .
| On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 07:45:43 GMT, "Androcles"
| wrote:
|
|
| "Joseph Lazio" wrote in message
| ...
| | "A" == Androcles writes:
| |
| | A I don't think you have any concept of astronomical distances or
| | A what the inverse square law means, and neither does [Kip] Thorne.
| |
| | Don't ya just love Usenet? Where else do you find astronomers with no
| | concept of astronomical distances?
|
| So you are unable to estimate the force, in [Isaac] newtons, between
Proxima
| Centauri and Sol. Thought so.
|
| Androcles.
|
|
| You are an idiot.
|
| Estimating the attractive force between Sol and Proxima Centauri is
| easy, and doing so proves nothing about the abilities of anyone.

Do it then, moron. Then calculate for a supernova at 1 kiloparsec, which
will be in the order of 10^6 less.

Fine. It is painfully trivial...im surprised you feel it proves
anything. No, wait, im not. You are an idiot.

F = mMGr^-2

(.1 M_sun)(1 M_sun)(6.672x10^-11)(2x10^30 kg/M_sun) * [1/ (3x10^8 m/s
* 3600s * 24 h * 365.24 yr * 4.3 ly) ]^2

= ~ 2.73x10^18 N

= ~ 1.36x10^-12 m/s^2 for the sun.

The supernova, at 1 kpc, can still be treated as a point particle at
that distance. The force will be the same for long while, and when the
radiation pulse flys by, the force will still be pretty much the same
[0].

What does this have to do with gravitational radiation? Nothing,
because the force of gravity is not gravitational radiation.



|
| How long are you going to ignore me?

Until you answer my questions, moron, instead of providing a list of
experiments you copied from the FAQs. Only a ****ing lunatic would claim MMX
was evidence of SR, as demonstrated by Fox. You are quite incapable of
deriving the Lorentz Transforms, and that is what I asked you to do.

Im certaintly capable of deriving the Lorentz transforms for you, I
just choose not to because it is a moderate amount of work and I
already know the response I will get.

I could derive it from first principles using a light clock, but you
shat all over that when others have done it for you.

I could derive the metric tensor and use that, but you shat all over
that when Marcus Wellporth tried to do it for you. I still stand by
the assertion that you don't know **** about hyperbolic functions.

Im not going to do anything for you that requires even a moderate
amount of work because not only will you not appreciate it, you will
not understand it.

The citation list I gave you might have been mirrored partly by the
FAQ, but I obtained them from a modern physics book. You could really
use that book.

I have asked you to get an education, multiple times, but you are yet
to do it. I can reasonably assume you are quite incapable of doing so.




| Is asking why you feel that you
| can calculate the energy of a gravitational wave using Newtonian
| mechanics a question that is beneath you?

Since it is irrelevant, yes.

Wow.

Gravitational radiation, a phenomena that is limited to GR, is not
explained by newtonian dynamics - yet you feel no need to justify why
you can explain gravitational radiation using classical
non-relativistic mechanics?

I imagine that I will work through MTW and move on to different things
and you will still be here arguing asinine points whose proper
explanations make your head spin.



|
| Gravity is the one subject that I have a definite interest in, and it
| pains me to see retards like you mess it up.

Then calculate the FORCE (not the energy) between Sol and Proxima Centauri.
But you won't, anymore than you were able to derive the Lorentz Transforms.
You are a troll, only interested in name-calling. Based on my past
experience of you, *plonk* again.

You are too incompetent and uneducated to understand why I ask the
things I do. Since others are not raining down on me when I attempt to
use a technical explanation, I assume I learned it properly.

Why are you even here?

Im an aspiring gravitational physicist - my presense is not
mysterious. You are an ex-engineer of dubious quality who has
delusions of adequacy who cannot handle much of anything above basic
algebra. You seem to hate all of modern physics and physicists, yet
you discuss them tirelessly.

You don't appear to take any joy in physics. All you do is **** upon
the works of others, and insult those who understand or seek to
understand it.

When my fall semester ends, you will still be here arguing things you
do not understand.

When I graduate, you will still be here arguing things you do not
understand.

Your future is about as bright as a black hole. Which ties in quite
nicely with your compactified dementia and negative intelligence.

Androcles

"Eric Gisse" wrote in message
...
| On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 12:19:00 GMT, "Androcles"
| wrote:
|
| Changing your
|
|
| "Eric Gisse" wrote in message
| .. .
| | On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 07:45:43 GMT, "Androcles"
| | wrote:
| |
| |
| | "Joseph Lazio" wrote in message
| | ...
| | | "A" == Androcles writes:
| | |
| | | A I don't think you have any concept of astronomical distances or
| | | A what the inverse square law means, and neither does [Kip] Thorne.
| | |
| | | Don't ya just love Usenet? Where else do you find astronomers with
no
| | | concept of astronomical distances?
| |
| | So you are unable to estimate the force, in [Isaac] newtons, between
| Proxima
| | Centauri and Sol. Thought so.
| |
| | Androcles.
| |
| |
| | You are an idiot.
| |
| | Estimating the attractive force between Sol and Proxima Centauri is
| | easy, and doing so proves nothing about the abilities of anyone.
|
| Do it then, moron. Then calculate for a supernova at 1 kiloparsec, which
| will be in the order of 10^6 less.
|
| Fine. It is painfully trivial...im surprised you feel it proves
| anything. No, wait, im not. You are an idiot.
|
| F = mMGr^-2
|
| (.1 M_sun)(1 M_sun)(6.672x10^-11)(2x10^30 kg/M_sun) * [1/ (3x10^8 m/s
| * 3600s * 24 h * 365.24 yr * 4.3 ly) ]^2
|
| = ~ 2.73x10^18 N
|
| = ~ 1.36x10^-12 m/s^2 for the sun.
|
| The supernova, at 1 kpc, can still be treated as a point particle at
| that distance. The force will be the same for long while, and when the
| radiation pulse flys by, the force will still be pretty much the same
| [0].

0... right.
And you are going to measure what? zero? Well done.
Androcles.

In sci.astro Eric Flesch wrote:
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 21:00:24 +0000 (UTC),
wrote:
In sci.astro Eric Flesch wrote:
On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 23:58:58 -0800, Eric Gisse wrote:
No, EM radiation gravitates too.

No, that's just an error in the practice of current models -- which
themselves don't require such gravitation

Certainly they do. In general relativity, the right-hand side of the
field equations must include the stress-energy tensor for all matter.
Otherwise, the vanishing covariant divergence of the left-hand side is
inconsistent.

You're missing the point. The stress-energy tensor is a classical
description which assumes continuous motion. But QED shows that the
photon path is the summation of all possible paths (diffraction
gratings are an application of this) and the delayed-choice experiment
shows explicitly that the travelling photon cannot be pinpointed to
any particular location in its presumed path(s). The point is that
the "travelling photon" can be modelled only by a quantum description,
and the classical stress-energy tensor does not apply.

Everything you say here is just as true of neutrons, or protons, or
any other elementary particle. Are you saying that we should therefore
not use GR at all?

It's true that the full stress-energy tensor is quantum mechanical, and
that a *complete* treatment would require a quantum theory of gravity
to explain how to couple matter to gravity. But for low energies and
scales large compared to Planck size, we have perfectly good tools --
those of effective field theory -- for understanding classical and nearly
classical behavior. You can write down a low-energy effective action for
the gravitational field without knowing details of quantum gravity. What
you find (no surprise!) is that up to order h corrections, you recover
classical GR coupled to the expectation value of the quantum stress-energy
tensor, including the piece coming from the quantum electromagnetic field.

You can't have it both ways here. If you want to talk about what ``QED
shows,'' you have to allow standard techniques from QED.

[...]

Just trap a bunch
of radiation in a mirrored box and glue it next to a mass. The
radiation will be attracted toward the mass

No it won't be. The mass might have some miniscule effect on the
local geometry, that is all.

Are you serious? You claim that a mirrored box filled with radiation does
not weight more than an empty box?

Here's a simple exercise. I assume you accept that electromagnetic radiation
is red-shifted in a gravitational field, right? So consider a box with a
mirror at the top and one at the bottom, containing radiation in a coherent
state (you accept QED, right?) with an expectation value of momentum that's
in the purely vertical direction and an expectation value of wave packet
width (z^2-z^2) that's small compared to the size of the box. Compute
the momentum transfer to the mirrors, using however much QED you like. You
will find that the momentum transfer to the bottom, where the energy is
blue-shifted, is greater than the momentum transfer to the top. That means
``the radiation will be attracted toward the mass.''

Steve Carlip

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 15:15:15 GMT, "Androcles"
wrote:

[snip]

| | You are an idiot.
| |
| | Estimating the attractive force between Sol and Proxima Centauri is
| | easy, and doing so proves nothing about the abilities of anyone.
|
| Do it then, moron. Then calculate for a supernova at 1 kiloparsec, which
| will be in the order of 10^6 less.
|
| Fine. It is painfully trivial...im surprised you feel it proves
| anything. No, wait, im not. You are an idiot.
|
| F = mMGr^-2
|
| (.1 M_sun)(1 M_sun)(6.672x10^-11)(2x10^30 kg/M_sun) * [1/ (3x10^8 m/s
| * 3600s * 24 h * 365.24 yr * 4.3 ly) ]^2
|
| = ~ 2.73x10^18 N
|
| = ~ 1.36x10^-12 m/s^2 for the sun.
|
| The supernova, at 1 kpc, can still be treated as a point particle at
| that distance. The force will be the same for long while, and when the
| radiation pulse flys by, the force will still be pretty much the same
| [0].

0... right.
And you are going to measure what? zero? Well done.
Androcles.


Lordy! You are an idiot. Gravitational radiation is gravity's analogue
to electromagnetic radiation. Ya know, moving charges and all that?

Your stupidity could also be used to 'disprove' detection of
electromagnetic waves from long distances using F = q_1q_2kr^-2.

To think you actually went to school and had none of it stick.