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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #376064 > unrolled thread

How do gravity waves pull on things when speeding at light speed?

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

Contents

  How do gravity waves pull on things when speeding at light speed? jamesl51165@gmail.com - 2016-02-11 15:13 -0800
    Re: How do gravity waves pull on things when speeding at light speed? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-12 17:30 +1100
      Re: How do gravity waves pull on things when speeding at light speed? jamesl51165@gmail.com - 2016-02-12 19:03 -0800
      Re: How do gravity waves pull on things when speeding at light speed? David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-14 09:18 -0800
        Re: How do gravity waves pull on things when speeding at light speed? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-15 17:17 +1100
          Re: How do gravity waves pull on things when speeding at light speed? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-02-15 09:41 -0600
            Re: How do gravity waves pull on things when speeding at light speed? David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-15 10:06 -0800
              Re: How do gravity waves pull on things when speeding at light speed? David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-15 10:55 -0800
              Re: How do gravity waves pull on things when speeding at light speed? David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-18 08:44 -0800
                Re: How do gravity waves pull on things when speeding at light speed? David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-18 09:57 -0800
                  Re: How do gravity waves pull on things when speeding at light speed? David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-18 10:06 -0800
            Re: How do gravity waves pull on things when speeding at light speed? Monique de Brabant <moniqb@cafedelmar.org> - 2016-02-18 16:33 +0000
              Re: How do gravity waves pull on things when speeding at light speed? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-19 14:10 +1100
                Re: How do gravity waves pull on things when speeding at light speed? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 02:13 -0500
                  Re: How do gravity waves pull on things when speeding at light speed? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-19 18:40 +1100
                    Re: How do gravity waves pull on things when speeding at light speed? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 04:02 -0500
                      Re: How do gravity waves pull on things when speeding at light speed? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-19 20:09 +1100
                        Re: How do gravity waves pull on things when speeding at light speed? David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-20 16:31 -0800
                          Re: How do gravity waves pull on things when speeding at light speed? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-22 22:22 +1100
                            Re: How do gravity waves pull on things when speeding at light speed? David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-22 09:38 -0800
                            Re: How do gravity waves pull on things when speeding at light speed? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-02-22 20:08 +0100
    Re: How do gravity waves pull on things when speeding at light speed? Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-02-12 20:09 -0800
      Re: How do gravity waves pull on things when speeding at light speed? jamesl51165@gmail.com - 2016-02-14 08:58 -0800
    Re: How do gravity waves pull on things when speeding at light speed? jamesl51165@gmail.com - 2016-02-15 07:48 -0800
      Re: How do gravity waves pull on things when speeding at light speed? Céline Desirée Hedwig <celinedh@bernhardine.org> - 2016-02-15 16:00 +0000

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#376064 — How do gravity waves pull on things when speeding at light speed?

What gets pulled at light speed?

Mitchell Raemsch

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#376102

On 12/02/2016 10:13 AM, jamesl51165@gmail.com wrote:
> What gets pulled at light speed?
>
> Mitchell Raemsch
>

Gravity waves don't pull on anything. They are variations in 
gravitational intensity.

Sylvia.

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

#376145

بتاريخ الخميس، 11 فبراير، 2016 10:30:49 م UTC-8، كتب Sylvia Else:

> > What gets pulled at light speed?
> >
> > Mitchell Raemsch
> >
> 
> Gravity waves don't pull on anything. They are variations in 
> gravitational intensity.

Your intensity is varying quantity strengths of gravity field wave.

So where is the action of that kind of gravity? Is not gravity's
action considered to be a acceleration strength pull together?

> Sylvia.

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

#376223

On 12/02/2016 10:13 AM, james...@gmail.com wrote: 
> What gets pulled at light speed? 
> 
> Mitchell Raemsch 
> 

Gravity waves don't pull on anything. They are variations in 
gravitational intensity. 

Sylvia. 

What was the frequency of the oscillation LIGO detected during the merger?

Was the frequency the orbital period of the merging objects ?
Or was it an oscillation of the fabric of spacetime after the merger of the two objects ?
Or both?
Sounds like the merger released the kinetic energy &  mass of the objects back into the universe as a heat oscillation , jiggling everything for a couple billion light years 

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

#376255

On 15/02/2016 4:18 AM, David Fuller wrote:
> On 12/02/2016 10:13 AM, james...@gmail.com wrote:
>> What gets pulled at light speed?
>>
>> Mitchell Raemsch
>>
>
> Gravity waves don't pull on anything. They are variations in
> gravitational intensity.
>
> Sylvia.
>
> What was the frequency of the oscillation LIGO detected during the
> merger?
>
> Was the frequency the orbital period of the merging objects ? Or was
> it an oscillation of the fabric of spacetime after the merger of the
> two objects ? Or both? Sounds like the merger released the kinetic
> energy &  mass of the objects back into the universe as a heat
> oscillation , jiggling everything for a couple billion light years
>

I don't know that they're sensitive enough to detect the orbital period 
waves.

The two black holes don't instantly form a single spherical black hole. 
There's a period of oscillation. I think that's what was detected.

Combining black holes is the standard way of recovering some of the mass 
that went into them.

Sylvia.

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

#376262

On 2/15/16 2/15/16 - 12:17 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 15/02/2016 4:18 AM, David Fuller wrote:
>> What was the frequency of the oscillation LIGO detected during the
>> merger?

The signal started about 40 Hz, and rapidly increased to about 300 Hz, lasting 
about 100 ms.


>> Was the frequency the orbital period of the merging objects ? Or was
>> it an oscillation of the fabric of spacetime after the merger of the
>> two objects ? Or both?

Both. They observed both the last few orbits of the initial objects and the 
ringdown after they merged.


> Sounds like the merger released the kinetic
>> energy &  mass of the objects back into the universe as a heat
>> oscillation , jiggling everything for a couple billion light years

No. Not even close. The GR model shows that this was a merger of two black holes 
with masses 36 and 29 times the mass of the sun; the final black hole has mass 
62 M_sun, and the radiated energy was 3 M_sun. The merge and ringdown took less 
than 20 milliseconds.

	The paper gives errorbars and LOTS more details:
	Abbott et al, PRL 116, 061102 (2016).

Remember these objects are incredibly massive, and were moving > 0.3 c relative 
to each other just before merging. The orbit just before merge had a diameter 
only slightly larger than the sum of the Schw. radii of objects with those 
masses, which is why they unambiguously identified them as black holes, not 
neutron stars or other types of objects.


> I don't know that they're sensitive enough to detect the orbital period waves.

They are, barely. They only detected the last few orbits before merge. Earlier 
orbits had a lower frequency, where LIGO's noise floor is higher, and no signal 
can be seen.


> The two black holes don't instantly form a single spherical black hole. There's
> a period of oscillation. I think that's what was detected.

They detected the last few orbits before merge, and the ringdown after merge. In 
this case it took only a few milliseconds for the ringdown to occur and fade out 
into the noise.

INCREDIBLE -- radiating 3 solar masses of energy in just a few milliseconds! The 
reason LIGO could see it at all is that it was so bright.


Tom Roberts

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

#376278

They detected the last few orbits before merge, and the ringdown after merge. In 
this case it took only a few milliseconds for the ringdown to occur and fade out 
into the noise. 

INCREDIBLE -- radiating 3 solar masses of energy in just a few milliseconds! The 
reason LIGO could see it at all is that it was so bright. 
Tom Roberts

Seems in Radiating 3 solar masses from a radius of 7.0 *10^8 meters there would be a large quantity of detectable gamma rays. 

If your reply is gravitational energy was radiated, that would seem illogical. 
Gravity lowers vacuum impedance, lowering the energy density per unit volume of space. 
Gravity = negative energy. 
Space = Kinetic energy
Time = negative Kinetic energy = Gravity. 
LIGO most likely was engineered to detect oscillations, not a vector of movement towards the merger. 
My guess is, with each crest and trough of the merger measured by LIGO, space time and earth along  with it, moved slightly towards the merger. 

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

#376279

(2 * (12 * (10^31)) * G) / (c^2) = 178 221.972 m / kg

(6 * (10^30)) * (c^2) = 5.39253107 × 10^47 Joules

((6 * (10^30)) * (c^2)) / (((4 * pi) / 3) * (178 221^3)) = 2.27419352 × 10^31 joules per square meter in one tenth of a second

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

#376461

On Monday, February 15, 2016 at 11:07:08 AM UTC-7, David Fuller wrote:
> They detected the last few orbits before merge, and the ringdown after merge. In 
> this case it took only a few milliseconds for the ringdown to occur and fade out 
> into the noise. 
> 
> INCREDIBLE -- radiating 3 solar masses of energy in just a few milliseconds! The 
> reason LIGO could see it at all is that it was so bright. 
> Tom Roberts
> 
> Seems in Radiating 3 solar masses from a radius of 7.0 *10^8 meters there would be a large quantity of detectable gamma rays....

No one said it radiated it as electromagnetic radiation. They plainly said it was radiated as gravitational waves which is what they had detected, lunatic.

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

#376467

> 
> Seems in Radiating 3 solar masses from a radius of 7.0 *10^8 meters there would be a large quantity of detectable gamma rays.... 

No one said it radiated it as electromagnetic radiation. They plainly said it was radiated as gravitational waves which is what they had detected, lunatic. 

Gaining Gravitational energy would mean loosing vacuum impedance which would lower the energy density per unit volume of the system 

The detections by LIGO of the merger were  of the universe shrinking spherically with the spatial center being the binary merger. 

You are much better at karate than me. 
In karate, You are my superior ....

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

#376470

On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 10:57:32 AM UTC-7, David Fuller wrote:
> > 
> > Seems in Radiating 3 solar masses from a radius of 7.0 *10^8 meters there would be a large quantity of detectable gamma rays.... 
> 
> No one said it radiated it as electromagnetic radiation. They plainly said it was radiated as gravitational waves which is what they had detected, lunatic. 
> 
> Gaining Gravitational energy would mean loosing vacuum impedance which would lower the energy density per unit volume of the system 
> 
> The detections by LIGO of the merger were  of the universe shrinking spherically with the spatial center being the binary merger. 
> 
> You are much better at karate than me. 
> In karate, You are my superior ....

Well if the numerologist that doesn't know about units other than SI says so. Ow wait, that means you don't even have an undergrad understanding of the matter.

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

#376459

Tom Roberts wrote:

> On 2/15/16 2/15/16 - 12:17 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 15/02/2016 4:18 AM, David Fuller wrote:
>>> What was the frequency of the oscillation LIGO detected during the
>>> merger?
> 
> The signal started about 40 Hz, and rapidly increased to about 300 Hz,
> lasting about 100 ms.

To be more correct, that "signal" lasts for 200 ms (four time-divisions a 
0.05sec/division). And it started by a 60 Hz ending at 200 Hz. There is 
nothing above the 200, I did the fourier.

>> Sounds like the merger released the kinetic
>>> energy &  mass of the objects back into the universe as a heat
>>> oscillation , jiggling everything for a couple billion light years
> 
> No. Not even close. The GR model shows that this was a merger of two
> black holes with masses 36 and 29 times the mass of the sun; the final
> black hole has mass 62 M_sun, and the radiated energy was 3 M_sun. The
> merge and ringdown took less than 20 milliseconds.
> 
> 	The paper gives errorbars and LOTS more details:
> 	Abbott et al, PRL 116, 061102 (2016).

No, not paper, I want to see the model and the files from the proper MODEL 
simulation. Without it, you just have a theory, not a model. Let us see 
the inputs to his model, constants, parametres, governing equations, 
domains, constraints, initial conditions, boundaries etc etc. Then show me 
that the output from that MODEL is anything which would resemble a black 
hole, let alone two black holes.

> Remember these objects are incredibly massive, and were moving > 0.3 c

You don't know, but assume. It rather looks like E-Matrix, not black holes.

> relative to each other just before merging. The orbit just before merge
> had a diameter only slightly larger than the sum of the Schw. radii of
> objects with those masses, which is why they unambiguously identified
> them as black holes, not neutron stars or other types of objects.

Hence you admit, that the "real simulation" presented by those in charge 
for the machinery, is totally wrong. Did you see those "black holes" 
diameters when compared to the surrounding star systems?

> They detected the last few orbits before merge, and the ringdown after
> merge. In this case it took only a few milliseconds for the ringdown to
> occur and fade out into the noise.

This is impossible. No significant energy is been outputted before the 
actually merging collision. Orbiting masses are not loosing energy.

> INCREDIBLE -- radiating 3 solar masses of energy in just a few
> milliseconds! The reason LIGO could see it at all is that it was so
> bright. Tom Roberts

Finally we agree. Thanks.

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

#376509

On 19/02/2016 3:33 AM, Monique de Brabant wrote:

> This is impossible. No significant energy is been outputted before the
> actually merging collision. Orbiting masses are not loosing energy.

Well, they have to be if they end up colliding, otherwise they wouldn't.

Sylvia.

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

#376517

On 02/18/2016 10:10 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 19/02/2016 3:33 AM, Monique de Brabant wrote:
>
>> This is impossible. No significant energy is been outputted before the
>> actually merging collision. Orbiting masses are not loosing energy.
>
> Well, they have to be if they end up colliding, otherwise they wouldn't.
>
> Sylvia.
>
You saying there is no such thing a light pressure, sound wave pressure?

-- 

       ___           ___           ___            ___
      /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
     /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
    /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
   /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
  /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
  \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
   \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
    \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
     \::/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
      ~~            \/__/         \/__/

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

#376520

On 19/02/2016 6:13 PM, benj wrote:
> On 02/18/2016 10:10 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 19/02/2016 3:33 AM, Monique de Brabant wrote:
>>
>>> This is impossible. No significant energy is been outputted before the
>>> actually merging collision. Orbiting masses are not loosing energy.
>>
>> Well, they have to be if they end up colliding, otherwise they wouldn't.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>>
> You saying there is no such thing a light pressure, sound wave pressure?
>

Er, no. I'm not saying anything at all about those things.

Sylvia.

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

#376536

On 02/19/2016 02:40 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 19/02/2016 6:13 PM, benj wrote:
>> On 02/18/2016 10:10 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>> On 19/02/2016 3:33 AM, Monique de Brabant wrote:
>>>
>>>> This is impossible. No significant energy is been outputted before the
>>>> actually merging collision. Orbiting masses are not loosing energy.
>>>
>>> Well, they have to be if they end up colliding, otherwise they wouldn't.
>>>
>>> Sylvia.
>>>
>> You saying there is no such thing a light pressure, sound wave pressure?
>>
>
> Er, no. I'm not saying anything at all about those things.
>
> Sylvia.

Then perhaps you'd better explain what is "colliding" creating forces in 
those cases.

-- 

       ___           ___           ___            ___
      /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
     /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
    /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
   /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
  /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
  \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
   \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
    \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
     \::/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
      ~~            \/__/         \/__/

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

#376538

On 19/02/2016 8:02 PM, benj wrote:
> On 02/19/2016 02:40 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 19/02/2016 6:13 PM, benj wrote:
>>> On 02/18/2016 10:10 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>> On 19/02/2016 3:33 AM, Monique de Brabant wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> This is impossible. No significant energy is been outputted before the
>>>>> actually merging collision. Orbiting masses are not loosing energy.
>>>>
>>>> Well, they have to be if they end up colliding, otherwise they
>>>> wouldn't.
>>>>
>>>> Sylvia.
>>>>
>>> You saying there is no such thing a light pressure, sound wave pressure?
>>>
>>
>> Er, no. I'm not saying anything at all about those things.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> Then perhaps you'd better explain what is "colliding" creating forces in
> those cases.
>

The situation is that two black holes in orbit about each other were 
getting closer and closer together. The closer they were, the less total 
energy there was in the system. So, since they were getting closer 
together, they were losing energy.

That's really all there is to it.

Sylvia.

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

#376705

On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 3:09:58 AM UTC-6, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 19/02/2016 8:02 PM, benj wrote:
> > On 02/19/2016 02:40 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >> On 19/02/2016 6:13 PM, benj wrote:
> >>> On 02/18/2016 10:10 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >>>> On 19/02/2016 3:33 AM, Monique de Brabant wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> This is impossible. No significant energy is been outputted before the
> >>>>> actually merging collision. Orbiting masses are not loosing energy.
> >>>>
> >>>> Well, they have to be if they end up colliding, otherwise they
> >>>> wouldn't.
> >>>>
> >>>> Sylvia.
> >>>>
> >>> You saying there is no such thing a light pressure, sound wave pressure?
> >>>
> >>
> >> Er, no. I'm not saying anything at all about those things.
> >>
> >> Sylvia.
> >
> > Then perhaps you'd better explain what is "colliding" creating forces in
> > those cases.
> >
> 
> The situation is that two black holes in orbit about each other were 
> getting closer and closer together. The closer they were, the less total 
> energy there was in the system. So, since they were getting closer 
> together, they were losing energy.
> 
> That's really all there is to it.
> 
> Sylvia.

> Then perhaps you'd better explain what is "colliding" creating forces in 
> those cases. 
> 

The situation is that two black holes in orbit about each other were 
getting closer and closer together. The closer they were, the less total 
energy there was in the system. So, since they were getting closer 
together, they were losing energy. 

That's really all there is to it. 

Sylvia. 


So .... During the merger Event LIGO "At Earth" was measuring the Energy Drop in the "System Universe" by way of Measuring a Measurable (Drop or Oscillation) in the Impedance of the Vacuum in the System.

There is NO Way by Triangulation to determine if the Merger event that caused the distance change between the MIRRORS was 180 degrees in the OPPOSING Direction.

If Gravitational energy is Simply an Oscillation in the Vacuum impedance Supporting the Speed of light from Dropping to Zero, then Gravitational Energy Really CANNOT be considered ENERGY.
It can, at a Minimum, be called an "Oscillation in the Energy of a System" and Not energy, and Gravitational energy is better considered an energy LOSS or Negative Energy  

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

#376834

On 21/02/2016 11:31 AM, David Fuller wrote:
> On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 3:09:58 AM UTC-6, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 19/02/2016 8:02 PM, benj wrote:
>>> On 02/19/2016 02:40 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>> On 19/02/2016 6:13 PM, benj wrote:
>>>>> On 02/18/2016 10:10 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>>> On 19/02/2016 3:33 AM, Monique de Brabant wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is impossible. No significant energy is been
>>>>>>> outputted before the actually merging collision. Orbiting
>>>>>>> masses are not loosing energy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, they have to be if they end up colliding, otherwise
>>>>>> they wouldn't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sylvia.
>>>>>>
>>>>> You saying there is no such thing a light pressure, sound
>>>>> wave pressure?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Er, no. I'm not saying anything at all about those things.
>>>>
>>>> Sylvia.
>>>
>>> Then perhaps you'd better explain what is "colliding" creating
>>> forces in those cases.
>>>
>>
>> The situation is that two black holes in orbit about each other
>> were getting closer and closer together. The closer they were, the
>> less total energy there was in the system. So, since they were
>> getting closer together, they were losing energy.
>>
>> That's really all there is to it.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
>> Then perhaps you'd better explain what is "colliding" creating
>> forces in those cases.
>>
>
> The situation is that two black holes in orbit about each other were
> getting closer and closer together. The closer they were, the less
> total energy there was in the system. So, since they were getting
> closer together, they were losing energy.
>
> That's really all there is to it.
>
> Sylvia.
>
>
> So .... During the merger Event LIGO "At Earth" was measuring the
> Energy Drop in the "System Universe" by way of Measuring a Measurable
> (Drop or Oscillation) in the Impedance of the Vacuum in the System.
>
> There is NO Way by Triangulation to determine if the Merger event
> that caused the distance change between the MIRRORS was 180 degrees
> in the OPPOSING Direction.
>
> If Gravitational energy is Simply an Oscillation in the Vacuum
> impedance Supporting the Speed of light from Dropping to Zero, then
> Gravitational Energy Really CANNOT be considered ENERGY. It can, at a
> Minimum, be called an "Oscillation in the Energy of a System" and Not
> energy, and Gravitational energy is better considered an energy LOSS
> or Negative Energy
>

As a gravitational wave passes an object, different parts of that object 
are subject to different forces. A non rigid object will undergo a 
temporary change of size as a result. That can be exploited to do work, 
so energy is definitely being transferred.

In practice, of course, the amount of work done by a practical system is 
very small, but that doesn't invalidate the argument.

Sylvia.

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

#376865

On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 5:22:30 AM UTC-6, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 21/02/2016 11:31 AM, David Fuller wrote:
> > On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 3:09:58 AM UTC-6, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >> On 19/02/2016 8:02 PM, benj wrote:
> >>> On 02/19/2016 02:40 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >>>> On 19/02/2016 6:13 PM, benj wrote:
> >>>>> On 02/18/2016 10:10 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >>>>>> On 19/02/2016 3:33 AM, Monique de Brabant wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> This is impossible. No significant energy is been
> >>>>>>> outputted before the actually merging collision. Orbiting
> >>>>>>> masses are not loosing energy.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Well, they have to be if they end up colliding, otherwise
> >>>>>> they wouldn't.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Sylvia.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> You saying there is no such thing a light pressure, sound
> >>>>> wave pressure?
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Er, no. I'm not saying anything at all about those things.
> >>>>
> >>>> Sylvia.
> >>>
> >>> Then perhaps you'd better explain what is "colliding" creating
> >>> forces in those cases.
> >>>
> >>
> >> The situation is that two black holes in orbit about each other
> >> were getting closer and closer together. The closer they were, the
> >> less total energy there was in the system. So, since they were
> >> getting closer together, they were losing energy.
> >>
> >> That's really all there is to it.
> >>
> >> Sylvia.
> >
> >> Then perhaps you'd better explain what is "colliding" creating
> >> forces in those cases.
> >>
> >
> > The situation is that two black holes in orbit about each other were
> > getting closer and closer together. The closer they were, the less
> > total energy there was in the system. So, since they were getting
> > closer together, they were losing energy.
> >
> > That's really all there is to it.
> >
> > Sylvia.
> >
> >
> > So .... During the merger Event LIGO "At Earth" was measuring the
> > Energy Drop in the "System Universe" by way of Measuring a Measurable
> > (Drop or Oscillation) in the Impedance of the Vacuum in the System.
> >
> > There is NO Way by Triangulation to determine if the Merger event
> > that caused the distance change between the MIRRORS was 180 degrees
> > in the OPPOSING Direction.
> >
> > If Gravitational energy is Simply an Oscillation in the Vacuum
> > impedance Supporting the Speed of light from Dropping to Zero, then
> > Gravitational Energy Really CANNOT be considered ENERGY. It can, at a
> > Minimum, be called an "Oscillation in the Energy of a System" and Not
> > energy, and Gravitational energy is better considered an energy LOSS
> > or Negative Energy
> >
> 
> As a gravitational wave passes an object, different parts of that object 
> are subject to different forces. A non rigid object will undergo a 
> temporary change of size as a result. That can be exploited to do work, 
> so energy is definitely being transferred.
> 
> In practice, of course, the amount of work done by a practical system is 
> very small, but that doesn't invalidate the argument.
> 
> Sylvia.

Yes, Like water evaporating from your skin cools your skin.

altering the entropy of the system.

Just for simplification, consider the 2 merger object to be 32 solar masses each and their event horizon volumes are also 32 units solar mass (^3)

some mass (4 solar mass units) was lost while orbiting each other, 

but after merger, the Event horizon of the two merged objects will be displacing "120 solar mass units of Volume". 

If on earth, it takes Work to lift a 1 kilogram object 1 meter, the system universe lost energy centered spherically from the merger location.

The universe Shrunk spherically [60 solar mass units of volume / (1 billion light years)^2 as viewed from earth because of the increased volume inside the event horizon before and after merger

((1.1933e32 kilograms) / ((1 billion light years)^2)) * (4 * pi) =

1.67551238 × 10^-17 kg / m^2

LIGO measured the actual movement of earth towards the Merger location, a LOSS of energy 

((1.1933e32 kg) * 5.97200e24 kg * G) / ((1 billion light years)^2) = 0.000531410413 newtons

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

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

csiph-web