Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #378535 > unrolled thread

Where did the energy for GW150914 come from?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Where did the energy for GW150914 come from? crisd <crisdunbar@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 19:41 -0800
    Re: Where did the energy for GW150914 come from? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-11 10:14 -0600
      Re: Where did the energy for GW150914 come from? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 08:52 -0800
      Re: Where did the energy for GW150914 come from? Yeriychow Patroklos <yeriypat@kambuneta.com> - 2016-03-12 10:15 +0000
        Re: Where did the energy for GW150914 come from? Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-03-12 10:00 -0800
          Re: Where did the energy for GW150914 come from? Jorge Escalante <jorgeesca@hotmailcom.com> - 2016-03-12 18:19 +0000
            Re: Where did the energy for GW150914 come from? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-13 00:35 +0100
          Re: Where did the energy for GW150914 come from? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 20:19 -0700
            Re: Where did the energy for GW150914 come from? David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-03-15 12:48 -0700
              Re: Where did the energy for GW150914 come from? David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-03-15 14:49 -0700
        Re: Where did the energy for GW150914 come from? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-13 00:32 +0100
          Re: Where did the energy for GW150914 come from? Iephthae Sparrow <yvosp@gideoncloud.net> - 2016-03-13 13:40 +0000
            Re: Where did the energy for GW150914 come from? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-13 23:20 +0000
            Re: Where did the energy for GW150914 come from? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-14 21:47 +0100
              Re: Where did the energy for GW150914 come from? Comhghall Parthalan <compart@draggonpart.org> - 2016-03-14 21:19 +0000
                Re: Where did the energy for GW150914 come from? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-03-14 18:01 -0700
                Re: Where did the energy for GW150914 come from? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-15 15:03 +0100
                  Re: Where did the energy for GW150914 come from? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-15 15:31 +0000
                  Re: Where did the energy for GW150914 come from? Comhghall Parthalan <compart@draggonpart.org> - 2016-03-15 18:17 +0000
    Where did the energy for GW150914 come from? David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-03-11 11:42 -0800
      Where did the energy for GW150914 come from? David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-03-11 11:52 -0800
      Re: Where did the energy for GW150914 come from? David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-03-11 14:41 -0800
        Re: Where did the energy for GW150914 come from? David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-03-13 11:18 -0700
      Re: Where did the energy for GW150914 come from? David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-03-13 13:15 -0700

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#378535 — Where did the energy for GW150914 come from?

Curious amateur here ...

What am I getting wrong?

According to Wikipedia (!), the event of last year was the result of a binary black hole system with a combined initial mass of ~65 solar masses and a resulting black hole of ~62 solar masses, with the remainder being radiated away as gravitational waves.

As I understand it, gravitational waves result from a classical interpretation of GR. So how does mass-energy "escape" from the binary black hole system? Does this not imply that energy was extracted from a black hole? Or was there somehow energy in the "system" (enormous gravitational potential energy, in a hand-wavy way) and it was this energy that was radiated away?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#378585

On 3/10/16 3/10/16 - 9:41 PM, crisd wrote:
> According to Wikipedia (!), the event of last year was the result of a binary
> black hole system with a combined initial mass of ~65 solar masses and a
> resulting black hole of ~62 solar masses, with the remainder being radiated
> away as gravitational waves.

Yes. The original LIGO documents also say this in much more detail, so Wikipedia 
is not wrong.


> As I understand it, gravitational waves result from a classical
> interpretation of GR. So how does mass-energy "escape" from the binary black
> hole system?

In GR, nothing can escape from a black hole, meaning from inside its horizon. 
This initial binary black hole system is generating gravitational waves from 
outside the horizon of either BH.

Gravitational waves are generated "holistically" -- not from specific masses or 
objects, but rather from the configuration of fields throughout the universe. In 
this case, only fields very close to the black hole system are significant.


> Does this not imply that energy was extracted from a black hole?

Not from INSIDE either horizon.


> Or was there somehow energy in the "system" (enormous gravitational potential
> energy, in a hand-wavy way) and it was this energy that was radiated away?

Yes.

Speaking loosely: the energy of the gravitational waves came from the kinetic 
energies of the two black holes -- just before merger they were traveling > 0.5 
c relative to the local inertial frame of their barycenter. The kinetic energy 
of many-solar-mass objects traveling so fast is truly astronomical!

	As a check, consider the "second law of black hole thermodynamics"
	which states that the total area of the horizons of all black
	holes can never decrease. The area of the horizon of a
	Schwarzschild black hole is 4*pi*(2M)^2. While these are not Schw.
	black holes, that is a not unreasonable approximation. Calculation
	shows that in this merger the total horizon area increased by a
	factor ~ 1.8.


Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#378590

On Friday, March 11, 2016 at 8:14:46 AM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 3/10/16 3/10/16 - 9:41 PM, crisd wrote:
> > According to Wikipedia (!), the event of last year was the result of a binary
> > black hole system with a combined initial mass of ~65 solar masses and a
> > resulting black hole of ~62 solar masses, with the remainder being radiated
> > away as gravitational waves.
> 
> Yes. The original LIGO documents also say this in much more detail, so Wikipedia 
> is not wrong.
> 
> 
> > As I understand it, gravitational waves result from a classical
> > interpretation of GR. So how does mass-energy "escape" from the binary black
> > hole system?
> 
> In GR, nothing can escape from a black hole, meaning from inside its horizon. 
> This initial binary black hole system is generating gravitational waves from 
> outside the horizon of either BH.
> 
> Gravitational waves are generated "holistically" -- not from specific masses or 
> objects, but rather from the configuration of fields throughout the universe. In 
> this case, only fields very close to the black hole system are significant.
> 
> 
> > Does this not imply that energy was extracted from a black hole?
> 
> Not from INSIDE either horizon.
> 
> 
> > Or was there somehow energy in the "system" (enormous gravitational potential
> > energy, in a hand-wavy way) and it was this energy that was radiated away?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Speaking loosely: the energy of the gravitational waves came from the kinetic 
> energies of the two black holes -- just before merger they were traveling > 0.5 
> c relative to the local inertial frame of their barycenter. The kinetic energy 
> of many-solar-mass objects traveling so fast is truly astronomical!
> 
> 	As a check, consider the "second law of black hole thermodynamics"
> 	which states that the total area of the horizons of all black
> 	holes can never decrease. The area of the horizon of a
> 	Schwarzschild black hole is 4*pi*(2M)^2. While these are not Schw.
> 	black holes, that is a not unreasonable approximation. Calculation
> 	shows that in this merger the total horizon area increased by a
> 	factor ~ 1.8.
> 
> 
> Tom Roberts

"Speaking loosely: the energy of the gravitational waves 
came from the kinetic energies of the two black holes -- 
just before merger they were traveling > 0.5 c relative to 
the local inertial frame of their barycenter. The kinetic energy 
of many-solar-mass objects traveling so fast is truly astronomical! "

The gravitational wave doesn't have anything to do with the 
ejecta of that matter, which may fall back or may fall off.  
The "wave" is from the >0.5c + >0.5c falling back to <= 1c, 
not from usual effects of matter as the only mediating particle 
of gravity.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#378696

Tom Roberts wrote:

> On 3/10/16 3/10/16 - 9:41 PM, crisd wrote:
>> According to Wikipedia (!), the event of last year was the result of a
>> binary black hole system with a combined initial mass of ~65 solar
>> masses and a resulting black hole of ~62 solar masses, with the
>> remainder being radiated away as gravitational waves.
> 
> Yes. The original LIGO documents also say this in much more detail, so
> Wikipedia is not wrong.

Where are the 3 Suns masses then? Are they about to destroy matter, or is 
something they misunderstood, again. Only quantum level physics can 
transform matter into energy. Three Sun masses energy at 100% conversion, 
I believe that number they pulled out of their fat asses.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#378743

On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 12:16:00 AM UTC-10, Yeriychow Patroklos wrote:
> 
> Where are the 3 Suns masses then? Are they about to destroy matter, or is 
> something they misunderstood, again. Only quantum level physics can 
> transform matter into energy. Three Sun masses energy at 100% conversion...

Dear Yeri, 

Please understand "matter" has many real aspects, but mass is only one aspect of matter. Matter is not made into energy, mass is, in theory, changed into energy. Mass is not equal to matter. Matter causes gravity. Mass is affected by gravity.

Mass is not equal to matter. Matter is protons and neutrons. Mass is the area matter presents to the 4D continuum fluid to react to acceleration.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#378745

Alan Folmsbee wrote:

> On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 12:16:00 AM UTC-10, Yeriychow Patroklos
> wrote:
>> 
>> Where are the 3 Suns masses then? Are they about to destroy matter, or
>> is something they misunderstood, again. Only quantum level physics can
>> transform matter into energy. Three Sun masses energy at 100%
>> conversion...
> 
> Dear Yeri,
> 
> Please understand "matter" has many real aspects, but mass is only one
> aspect of matter. Matter is not made into energy, mass is, in theory,
> changed into energy. Mass is not equal to matter. Matter causes gravity.
> Mass is affected by gravity.
> 
> Mass is not equal to matter. Matter is protons and neutrons. Mass is the
> area matter presents to the 4D continuum fluid to react to acceleration.

Does not matter, big boy, can't you read. The only thing that gives out 
mass is matter. They are about to destroy matter.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#378771

The ’nym-shifting troll blathered as “Jorge Escalante”:

> Does not matter, big boy, can't you read. The only thing that gives out
> mass is matter. They are about to destroy matter.

Not even wrong.  *PLONK*


PointedEars
-- 
“Science is empirical: knowing the answer means nothing;
 testing your knowledge means everything.”
   —Dr. Lawrence M. Krauss, theoretical physicist,
    in “A Universe from Nothing” (2009)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#379012

On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 10:00:05 AM UTC-8, Alan Folmsbee wrote:
> On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 12:16:00 AM UTC-10, Yeriychow Patroklos wrote:
> > 
> > Where are the 3 Suns masses then? Are they about to destroy matter, or is 
> > something they misunderstood, again. Only quantum level physics can 
> > transform matter into energy. Three Sun masses energy at 100% conversion...
> 
> Dear Yeri, 
> 
> Please understand "matter" has many real aspects, but mass is only one aspect of matter. Matter is not made into energy, mass is, in theory, changed into energy. Mass is not equal to matter. Matter causes gravity. Mass is affected by gravity.
> 
> Mass is not equal to matter. Matter is protons and neutrons. Mass is the area matter presents to the 4D continuum fluid to react to acceleration.

Mass is a quantity, matter is a substance.  

It is the particle, the substance, that is 
the mediating particle of gravity, that is 
effectively a field of forces, in a field theory, 
there (and here it is the only "real particle" 
among what begin the virtual particles in a 
field theory), the constituent substance of  
matter (plain regular matter, where "anti-matter" 
is the only other substance with mass).

Mass is a quantity, and it is derivable from charge 
(charge, the mediating force of strong nuclear and 
fall gravity as unifying the forces for the unified 
field theory).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#379114

On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 10:19:10 PM UTC-5, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 10:00:05 AM UTC-8, Alan Folmsbee wrote:
> > On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 12:16:00 AM UTC-10, Yeriychow Patroklos wrote:
> > > 
> > > Where are the 3 Suns masses then? Are they about to destroy matter, or is 
> > > something they misunderstood, again. Only quantum level physics can 
> > > transform matter into energy. Three Sun masses energy at 100% conversion...
> > 
> > Dear Yeri, 
> > 
> > Please understand "matter" has many real aspects, but mass is only one aspect of matter. Matter is not made into energy, mass is, in theory, changed into energy. Mass is not equal to matter. Matter causes gravity. Mass is affected by gravity.
> > 
> > Mass is not equal to matter. Matter is protons and neutrons. Mass is the area matter presents to the 4D continuum fluid to react to acceleration.
> 
> Mass is a quantity, matter is a substance.  
> 
> It is the particle, the substance, that is 
> the mediating particle of gravity, that is 
> effectively a field of forces, in a field theory, 
> there (and here it is the only "real particle" 
> among what begin the virtual particles in a 
> field theory), the constituent substance of  
> matter (plain regular matter, where "anti-matter" 
> is the only other substance with mass).
> 
> Mass is a quantity, and it is derivable from charge 
> (charge, the mediating force of strong nuclear and 
> fall gravity as unifying the forces for the unified 
> field theory).

Mass is a scalar

Another example is mass and weight. Weight is a force which is a vector and has a magnitude and direction. Mass is a scalar. Weight and mass are related to one another, but they are not the same quantity.`

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#379138

On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 2:48:34 PM UTC-5, David Fuller wrote:
> On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 10:19:10 PM UTC-5, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 10:00:05 AM UTC-8, Alan Folmsbee wrote:
> > > On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 12:16:00 AM UTC-10, Yeriychow Patroklos wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Where are the 3 Suns masses then? Are they about to destroy matter, or is 
> > > > something they misunderstood, again. Only quantum level physics can 
> > > > transform matter into energy. Three Sun masses energy at 100% conversion...
> > > 
> > > Dear Yeri, 
> > > 
> > > Please understand "matter" has many real aspects, but mass is only one aspect of matter. Matter is not made into energy, mass is, in theory, changed into energy. Mass is not equal to matter. Matter causes gravity. Mass is affected by gravity.
> > > 
> > > Mass is not equal to matter. Matter is protons and neutrons. Mass is the area matter presents to the 4D continuum fluid to react to acceleration.
> > 
> > Mass is a quantity, matter is a substance.  
> > 
> > It is the particle, the substance, that is 
> > the mediating particle of gravity, that is 
> > effectively a field of forces, in a field theory, 
> > there (and here it is the only "real particle" 
> > among what begin the virtual particles in a 
> > field theory), the constituent substance of  
> > matter (plain regular matter, where "anti-matter" 
> > is the only other substance with mass).
> > 
> > Mass is a quantity, and it is derivable from charge 
> > (charge, the mediating force of strong nuclear and 
> > fall gravity as unifying the forces for the unified 
> > field theory).
> 
> Mass is a scalar
> 
> Another example is mass and weight. Weight is a force which is a vector and has a magnitude and direction. Mass is a scalar. Weight and mass are related to one another, but they are not the same quantity.`

speed of light is a scalar   (mc^2)/E ..... e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0

e^((m*c^2)*pi) + E = 0


Transmitting light in the vacuum is the fastest way we know of transmitting information about one event to its surroundings. Velocity is a vector, it includes a magnitude and a direction. The universal constant c, sometimes referred to as the speed of light, is a scalar quantity having only a magnitude.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#378770

Yeriychow Patroklos wrote:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Obnoxious liar.

> Tom Roberts wrote:
>> On 3/10/16 3/10/16 - 9:41 PM, crisd wrote:
>>> According to Wikipedia (!), the event of last year was the result of a
>>> binary black hole system with a combined initial mass of ~65 solar
>>> masses and a resulting black hole of ~62 solar masses, with the
>>> remainder being radiated away as gravitational waves.
>> Yes. The original LIGO documents also say this in much more detail, so
>> Wikipedia is not wrong.
> 
> Where are the 3 Suns masses then?

As it is explained virtually *everywhere*, *including* the referred 
documents: Emitted as the total energy of the detected gravitational waves.  
(But the system from which they originated is so far away from Terra that 
the strain measured here is still so small that it required something of
the size of LIGO to even detect them.)

> Are they about to destroy matter,

No, gravitational waves go right through everything, and their amplitude at 
this distance is too low to cause significant distortion (the presentations 
were deliberately exaggerated, and the presenters said so).

> or is something they misunderstood, again.

*You* misunderstand, again.  Deliberately, again.  ‘Nym-shifting troll.

> Only quantum level physics can transform matter into energy.

Nonsense.

> Three Sun masses energy at 100% conversion, I believe that number they
> pulled out of their fat asses.

… says the expert in being an ass.

*PLONK*


PointedEars
-- 
Q: What did the nuclear physicist order for lunch?  
A: Fission chips.

(from: WolframAlpha)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#378815

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> Yeriychow Patroklos wrote:
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Obnoxious liar.
> 
>> Tom Roberts wrote:
>>> On 3/10/16 3/10/16 - 9:41 PM, crisd wrote:
>>>> According to Wikipedia (!), the event of last year was the result of
>>>> a binary black hole system with a combined initial mass of ~65 solar
>>>> masses and a resulting black hole of ~62 solar masses, with the
>>>> remainder being radiated away as gravitational waves.
>>> Yes. The original LIGO documents also say this in much more detail, so
>>> Wikipedia is not wrong.
>> 
>> Where are the 3 Suns masses then?
> 
> As it is explained virtually *everywhere*, *including* the referred
> documents: Emitted as the total energy of the detected gravitational
> waves.
> (But the system from which they originated is so far away from Terra
> that the strain measured here is still so small that it required
> something of the size of LIGO to even detect them.)
> 
>> Are they about to destroy matter,
> 
> No, gravitational waves go right through everything, and their amplitude
> at this distance is too low to cause significant distortion (the
> presentations were deliberately exaggerated, and the presenters said
> so).
> 
>> or is something they misunderstood, again.
> 
> *You* misunderstand, again.  Deliberately, again.  ‘Nym-shifting troll.
> 
>> Only quantum level physics can transform matter into energy.
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
>> Three Sun masses energy at 100% conversion, I believe that number they
>> pulled out of their fat asses.
> 
> … says the expert in being an ass.
> 
> *PLONK* PointedEars

So you are not really plonking, liar. You and that filth, say his name, 
Paul Bullshit Andersen, are plonking random people arrived in this forum 
for discussion, but you two are liars, keeping reading and answering each 
an every word, these nice intelligent people have to say, to the rest of 
us. You two half-engineers must feel inferior.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#378884

The nymshifting troll, a.k.a. Iephthae Sparrow <yvosp@gideoncloud.net> 
writes:

Wow! Another new nym! You really have the nymshifter in high gear now!

>So you are not really plonking, liar. You and that filth, say his name, 
>Paul Bullshit Andersen, are plonking random people

Do you really think anyone is being fooled and "random people" are being
plonked?  If so, you're pretty dumb, all the regulars have you figured 
out.  Or do you think each of your nyms really is a separate person? If
so, seek mental health help, multiple personality disorder is serious.

>for discussion, but you two are liars, keeping reading and answering each 
>an every word, these nice intelligent people have to say,

And again, there are no "nice intelligent people", just a single
nymshifting troll.

Don't forget to shift nyms again!!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#378979

The ’nym-shifting troll gibbered as "Iephthae Sparrow":

> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Yeriychow Patroklos wrote:
>>> Three Sun masses energy at 100% conversion, I believe that number they
>>> pulled out of their fat asses.
>> 
>> … says the expert in being an ass.
>> 
>> *PLONK* PointedEars
> 
> So you are not really plonking, liar. You and that filth, say his name,
> Paul Bullshit Andersen, are plonking random people arrived in this forum
> for discussion, but you two are liars, keeping reading and answering each
> an every word, these nice intelligent people
                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
ROTFL.  What do you dream of at night?  All those "people" are *you*, and 
you are not a nice and intelligent person, on the contrary.  Nice and 
intelligent people do not shift pseudonyms and throw insults every time 
their gibbering nonsense is exposed for what it is.

> have to say, to the rest of us.

How dare you to speak for the subscribers of the newsgroups that you have 
been haunting with your utter nonsense for years now?

> You two half-engineers must feel inferior.

*PLONK*


PointedEars
-- 
Q: What did the nuclear physicist order for lunch?  
A: Fission chips.

(from: WolframAlpha)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#378983

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

>> have to say, to the rest of us.
> 
> How dare you to speak for the subscribers of the newsgroups that you
> have been haunting with your utter nonsense for years now?
> 
>> You two half-engineers must feel inferior.
> 
> *PLONK* PointedEars

He right, we not speech to half-engineers. He learn you how to physics 
anytime.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#379008

On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 2:19:28 PM UTC-7, Comhghall Parthalan wrote:
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> 
> >> have to say, to the rest of us.
> > 
> > How dare you to speak for the subscribers of the newsgroups that you
> > have been haunting with your utter nonsense for years now?
> > 
> >> You two half-engineers must feel inferior.
> > 
> > *PLONK* PointedEars
> 
> He right, we not speech to half-engineers. He learn you how to physics 
> anytime.

Oh look, the idiot troll has created yet another ID...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#379044

The ‘nym-shifting troll gibbered as "Comhghall Parthalan":

> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> have to say, to the rest of us.
>> How dare you to speak for the subscribers of the newsgroups that you
>> have been haunting with your utter nonsense for years now?
>>> You two half-engineers must feel inferior.
>> 
>> *PLONK* […]
> 
> He right, we not speech to half-engineers. He learn you how to physics
> anytime.

Next ’nym, next *PLONK*.  (I can do this *easily* all day, you know.)


PointedEars
-- 
Two neutrinos go through a bar ...

(from: WolframAlpha)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#379054

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> writes:

>The ‘nym-shifting troll gibbered as "Comhghall Parthalan":

>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>> have to say, to the rest of us.
>>> How dare you to speak for the subscribers of the newsgroups that you
>>> have been haunting with your utter nonsense for years now?
>>>> You two half-engineers must feel inferior.
>>> 
>>> *PLONK* […]
>> 
>> He right, we not speech to half-engineers. He learn you how to physics
>> anytime.

>Next ’nym, next *PLONK*.  (I can do this *easily* all day, you know.)

The nym-shifting troll really doesn't like being plonked. Which is why
he nym-shifts in the first place.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#379090

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> The ‘nym-shifting troll gibbered as "Comhghall Parthalan":
> 
>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>> have to say, to the rest of us.
>>> How dare you to speak for the subscribers of the newsgroups that you
>>> have been haunting with your utter nonsense for years now?
>>>> You two half-engineers must feel inferior.
>>> 
>>> *PLONK* […]
>> 
>> He right, we not speech to half-engineers. He learn you how to physics
>> anytime.
> 
> Next ’nym, next *PLONK*.  (I can do this *easily* all day, you know.)

You can just stop reading, fool. That's what plonking stands for. What a 
cretin. Just stop reading, without killfiles, programs and shit. If you 
really need a program helping you not to read, you must understand, why 
people are calling you stupid.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#378609

Curious amateur here ... 

What am I getting wrong? 

According to Wikipedia (!), the event of last year was the result of a binary black hole system with a combined initial mass of ~65 solar masses and a resulting black hole of ~62 solar masses, with the remainder being radiated away as gravitational waves. 

As I understand it, gravitational waves result from a classical interpretation of GR. So how does mass-energy "escape" from the binary black hole system? Does this not imply that energy was extracted from a black hole? Or was there somehow energy in the "system" (enormous gravitational potential energy, in a hand-wavy way) and it was this energy that was radiated away? 

Everything in the Universe moved spherically slightly closer to the location of the merger event.

Play the audio recording of the merger backwards.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWqhUANNFXw

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web