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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #376674 > unrolled thread

Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators

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

Contents

  Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-20 12:22 -0800
    Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 12:31 -0800
      Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 21:37 +0100
        Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 13:50 -0800
    Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Stzepan Zdrobněliny <stzepan282@guadalajara.org> - 2016-02-20 20:33 +0000
    Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-02-20 19:12 -0600
      Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-20 17:45 -0800
      Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 21:21 -0800
        Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 22:26 -0800
        Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-24 19:13 +1100
          Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 20:19 -0800
            Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-26 21:50 +1100
              Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-02-26 14:08 +0100
                Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators PC <pc468@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-26 13:15 +0000
                  Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-27 11:27 +1100
                    Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators PC <pc468@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-27 01:11 +0000
                      Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-27 12:24 +1100
                Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-27 11:25 +1100
                  Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-02-28 09:47 +0100
              Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-26 06:46 -0800
                Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 17:49 -0800
                  Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 18:21 -0800
                  Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-02-28 12:11 -0800
                    Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-02-28 23:45 -0800
            Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 08:15 -0600
      Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-20 23:13 -0800
        Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-21 01:44 -0800
          Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 10:38 -0800
            Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 10:51 -0800
              Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-21 19:12 -0800
            Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-21 19:04 -0800
              Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 23:53 -0800
                Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 23:54 -0800
                  Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-25 21:12 -0800
                    Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-25 21:24 -0800
                      Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 21:49 -0800
                  Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-25 21:13 -0800
            Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-21 19:09 -0800
              Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-21 19:13 -0800
          Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-21 22:40 -0800
      Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-02-21 18:20 +0100
        Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-02-21 13:25 -0600
          Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-02-21 21:59 +0100
            Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-02-22 10:03 +0100
            Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 09:50 -0600
              Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-02-22 19:41 +0100
                Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Stzepan Zdrobněliny <stzepan282@guadalajara.org> - 2016-02-22 18:45 +0000
                  Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-22 11:09 -0800
                Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-22 10:56 -0800
                Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-02-22 21:12 +0100
                  Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-02-22 21:39 +0000
                    Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-02-22 22:26 -0600
                Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Steven Carlip <carlip@physics.ucdavis.edu> - 2016-02-22 19:45 -0800
                  Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-02-23 05:54 +0100
                    Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Steven Carlip <carlip@physics.ucdavis.edu> - 2016-02-22 22:11 -0800
                      Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-02-24 05:20 +0100
                        Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-23 21:07 -0800
                          Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-23 21:13 -0800
                            Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-23 21:58 -0800
                        Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 21:24 -0800
                        Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-24 08:30 -0600
                          Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-02-24 09:54 -0600
                            Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators PC <pc468@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-24 16:59 +0000
                              Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-02-24 19:30 +0100
                                Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators PC <pc468@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-24 22:11 +0000
                                  Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-24 18:31 -0800
                                    Re: Another Moon Landing PC <pc468@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-25 17:27 +0000
                                      Re: Another Moon Landing Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-25 10:49 -0800
                                        Re: Another Moon Landing PC <pc468@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-25 19:27 +0000
                          Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-02-26 06:05 +0100
                            Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-25 21:22 -0800
                              Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-02-27 01:02 +0100
                                Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-02-28 09:19 +0100
                                  Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-02-28 15:04 +0100
                                    Subduction (was Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-02-28 09:42 -0600
                                      Re: Subduction (was Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators) Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-02-28 17:06 +0000
                                        Re: Subduction (was Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-02-28 18:43 +0100
                                          Re: Subduction (was Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators) Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-02-28 19:40 +0000
                                            Re: Subduction (was Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-02-29 04:06 +0100
                                          Re: Subduction (was Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-02-29 13:56 -0600
                                            Re: Subduction (was Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-03-01 06:45 +0100
                                              Re: Subduction (was Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-03-02 03:04 +0100
                                                Re: Subduction (was Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators) "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 20:49 -0800
                                                  Re: Subduction (was Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-03-02 07:36 +0100
                                                    Re: Subduction (was Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators) "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 22:44 -0800
                                                    Re: Subduction (was Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-03-06 08:58 +0100
                                                Re: Subduction (was Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-02 08:30 -0600
                                        Re: Subduction (was Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators) "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-02-28 21:39 +0100
                            Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 08:22 -0600
                    Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-02-23 17:27 +0000
                      Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 21:58 -0800
                Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-24 20:17 -0600
      Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Jackpol11@hotmail.com - 2016-03-03 16:12 -0500
        Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 19:56 -0800
          Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-03 22:32 -0600
            Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 21:10 -0800
              Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 22:11 -0800
                Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 23:36 -0800
            Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-03-05 06:20 +0100
              Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 09:19 -0600
                Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-03-07 21:38 +0100
        Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-03-04 08:05 +0100
          Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 07:55 -0600
            Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 18:47 -0800
              Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 09:15 -0600
                Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 18:04 -0800
                  Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 07:41 -0600
                    Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 09:01 -0800
                      Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 18:36 -0600
                        Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 19:28 -0800
                          Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 07:19 -0600
                            Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 08:43 -0800
                              Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 08:47 -0800
                        Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-03-09 13:32 -0800
                          Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-03-09 14:37 -0800
                            Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-03-09 18:16 -0800
                              Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-03-11 07:37 -0800
                                Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-03-11 07:52 -0800
            Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-06 18:37 +0000
      Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators alsor@interia.pl - 2016-03-05 12:33 -0800
        Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 16:42 -0800
          Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Helene Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-06 00:54 +0000
            Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 22:36 -0800
              Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Helene Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-06 12:39 +0000
                Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Helene Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-06 14:40 +0000
          Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 09:23 -0600

Page 3 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7  Next page →

#376775

Am 21.02.2016 02:12, schrieb Tom Roberts:
> Fact 2: in GR, gravitational waves travel with local speed c. This is
> not only in vacuum, but also inside normal matter.


I wonder from which sources you have your informations about the speed 
of gravitational waves, if their existence is not confirmed.



TH

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

#376792

On 2/21/16 2/21/16   11:20 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 21.02.2016 02:12, schrieb Tom Roberts:
>> Fact 2: in GR, gravitational waves travel with local speed c. This is
>> not only in vacuum, but also inside normal matter.
>
> I wonder from which sources you have your informations about the speed of
> gravitational waves, if their existence is not confirmed.

You are supposed to read what I write. Look up there in the text you quoted: "in 
GR" MEANS JUST THAT. That is, I was discussing how GR models gravitational 
waves. And the "sources" for this are any textbook on GR.

And you REALLY have problems reading (look at the subject of this thread), as 
gravitational waves have just been spectacularly confirmed by the LIGO 
collaboration.

	The Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded in 1993 for the initial
	(indirect) observation of gravitational waves.


Tom Roberts

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

#376806

Am 21.02.2016 20:25, schrieb Tom Roberts:

>>> Fact 2: in GR, gravitational waves travel with local speed c. This is
>>> not only in vacuum, but also inside normal matter.
>>
>> I wonder from which sources you have your informations about the speed of
>> gravitational waves, if their existence is not confirmed.
>
> You are supposed to read what I write. Look up there in the text you
> quoted: "in GR" MEANS JUST THAT. That is, I was discussing how GR models
> gravitational waves. And the "sources" for this are any textbook on GR.
>
> And you REALLY have problems reading (look at the subject of this
> thread), as gravitational waves have just been spectacularly confirmed
> by the LIGO collaboration.
>
> The Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded in 1993 for the initial
> (indirect) observation of gravitational waves.
>

Sure, I have noticed, that you have quoted GR.

But GR is a theory, not an observation. If such gravitational waves 
exist and behave like GR predicted, this would certainly support GR.

But where is an observation, which confirms the speed of gravitational 
waves according to the predictions of GR, if they are not confirmed in 
the first place?

TH

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

#376830

On 21.02.2016 21:59, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 21.02.2016 20:25, schrieb Tom Roberts:
>
>>>> Fact 2: in GR, gravitational waves travel with local speed c. This is
>>>> not only in vacuum, but also inside normal matter.
>>>
>>> I wonder from which sources you have your informations about the
>>> speed of
>>> gravitational waves, if their existence is not confirmed.
>>
>> You are supposed to read what I write. Look up there in the text you
>> quoted: "in GR" MEANS JUST THAT. That is, I was discussing how GR models
>> gravitational waves. And the "sources" for this are any textbook on GR.
>>
>> And you REALLY have problems reading (look at the subject of this
>> thread), as gravitational waves have just been spectacularly confirmed
>> by the LIGO collaboration.
>>
>> The Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded in 1993 for the initial
>> (indirect) observation of gravitational waves.
>>
>
> Sure, I have noticed, that you have quoted GR.
>
> But GR is a theory, not an observation. If such gravitational waves
> exist and behave like GR predicted, this would certainly support GR.
>
> But where is an observation, which confirms the speed of gravitational
> waves according to the predictions of GR, if they are not confirmed in
> the first place?
>
> TH

How is it possible in these days to discuss gravitational waves
and not know that LIGO has detected them?

https://paulba.no/paper/LIGO_GravitationalWaves.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/LIGO_TestOfGR.pdf

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

#376857

On 2/21/2016 2:59 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> But GR is a theory, not an observation. If such gravitational waves
> exist and behave like GR predicted, this would certainly support GR.
>
> But where is an observation, which confirms the speed of gravitational
> waves according to the predictions of GR, if they are not confirmed in
> the first place?

I believe gravitational waves have been confirmed experimentally, as of 
this year.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#376878

Am 22.02.2016 16:50, schrieb Odd Bodkin:

>> But GR is a theory, not an observation. If such gravitational waves
>> exist and behave like GR predicted, this would certainly support GR.
>>
>> But where is an observation, which confirms the speed of gravitational
>> waves according to the predictions of GR, if they are not confirmed in
>> the first place?
>
> I believe gravitational waves have been confirmed experimentally, as of
> this year.
>

Ok, gravitational waves have been confirmed recently.

Well, nice, actually.

But how was the velocity of gravitational waves measured?


TH

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

#376880

Thomas Heger wrote:

> Am 22.02.2016 16:50, schrieb Odd Bodkin:
> 
>>> But GR is a theory, not an observation. If such gravitational waves
>>> exist and behave like GR predicted, this would certainly support GR.
>>>
>>> But where is an observation, which confirms the speed of gravitational
>>> waves according to the predictions of GR, if they are not confirmed in
>>> the first place?
>>
>> I believe gravitational waves have been confirmed experimentally, as of
>> this year.
>>
> Ok, gravitational waves have been confirmed recently. Well, nice, 
> actually. But how was the velocity of gravitational waves measured?

Both of you  ladies are wrong. If anything at all is been confirmed, that 
will be Aether, not waves. "Gravitational waves" is archaically centuries 
old oxymoronity. This is been proved to be a fact.

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

#376885

On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 12:45:55 PM UTC-6, Stzepan Zdrobněliny wrote:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
> 
> > Am 22.02.2016 16:50, schrieb Odd Bodkin:
> > 
> >>> But GR is a theory, not an observation. If such gravitational waves
> >>> exist and behave like GR predicted, this would certainly support GR.
> >>>
> >>> But where is an observation, which confirms the speed of gravitational
> >>> waves according to the predictions of GR, if they are not confirmed in
> >>> the first place?
> >>
> >> I believe gravitational waves have been confirmed experimentally, as of
> >> this year.
> >>
> > Ok, gravitational waves have been confirmed recently. Well, nice, 
> > actually. But how was the velocity of gravitational waves measured?
> 
> Both of you  ladies are wrong. If anything at all is been confirmed, that 
> will be Aether, not waves. "Gravitational waves" is archaically centuries 
> old oxymoronity. This is been proved to be a fact.

Both of you  ladies are wrong. If anything at all is been confirmed, that 
will be Aether,

Aether = Vacuum impedance 

Aether has no mass and is the preferred "non-inertial isotropic reference frame"  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotropy

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

#376883

On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 12:41:27 PM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 22.02.2016 16:50, schrieb Odd Bodkin:
> 
> >> But GR is a theory, not an observation. If such gravitational waves
> >> exist and behave like GR predicted, this would certainly support GR.
> >>
> >> But where is an observation, which confirms the speed of gravitational
> >> waves according to the predictions of GR, if they are not confirmed in
> >> the first place?
> >
> > I believe gravitational waves have been confirmed experimentally, as of
> > this year.
> >
> 
> Ok, gravitational waves have been confirmed recently.
> 
> Well, nice, actually.
> 
> But how was the velocity of gravitational waves measured?
> 
> 
> TH

the velocity of gravitational waves is always assumed to be c by way of the impedance of the vacuum setting the "velocity of causality" to c meters per second.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2f/Moodswingerscale.svg/512px-Moodswingerscale.svg.png

1/G = 50 * c

G is 49 nodes of c

http://oi57.tinypic.com/2ltqyhw.jpg

http://oi68.tinypic.com/10sb4ab.jpg

http://oi43.tinypic.com/1hbcaq.jpg

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

#376887

On 22.02.2016 19:41, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 22.02.2016 16:50, schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>
>> I believe gravitational waves have been confirmed experimentally, as of
>> this year.
>>
>
> Ok, gravitational waves have been confirmed recently.
>
> Well, nice, actually.
>
> But how was the velocity of gravitational waves measured?
>
>
> TH

Why don't you read the papers I posted?

https://paulba.no/paper/LIGO_GravitationalWaves.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/LIGO_TestOfGR.pdf

The speed wasn't measured directly.
But there were two detectors, the distance between
the detectors was equivalent to ~10 ms at the speed of light.
The delay between the signals received by the detectors was ~7 ms.
So if the signal had came in along a line through both detectors,
the speed would have to be  ~0.7 c. A more reasonable assumption
is that the signal came in at an angle at the speed of light,
and this together with the directional sensitivity of the detectors
give a area on the sky were the source must be.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1602.03840v1
See Fig 4 for the position in the sky of the source.

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

#376896

"Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> writes:

>http://arxiv.org/pdf/1602.03840v1
>See Fig 4 for the position in the sky of the source.

How were they able to eliminate most of the annulus?

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

#376925

On 2/22/16 2/22/16   3:39 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> writes:
>> http://arxiv.org/pdf/1602.03840v1
>> See Fig 4 for the position in the sky of the source.
>
> How were they able to eliminate most of the annulus?

The response of each detector is not isotropic, and the two detectors are not 
oriented in the same plane. I do not know the details, but I suspect one of 
their technical papers explains how they determined that locus.


Tom Roberts

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

#376922

In article <dj132kFfg3U1@mid.individual.net>,
 Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:

> Am 22.02.2016 16:50, schrieb Odd Bodkin:
 
> Ok, gravitational waves have been confirmed recently.
> Well, nice, actually.
> But how was the velocity of gravitational waves measured?
 
There hasn't been a direct measurement.  The observations
imply that the speed is no more than  1.7 times the speed
of light (see http://arxiv.org/abs/1602.04188), and the
absence of gravitational Cherenkov radiation implies a
lower bound very near c, but it will take an observation
with at least three detectors to get an accurate measurement.

(On the other hand, the observations match the GR prediction
extremely well, and I expect it would take quite a bit of
work to cook up a model which made the same predictions but 
had gravitational waves traveling at a speed different from c.)

Steve Carlip

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

#376927

Am 23.02.2016 04:45, schrieb Steven Carlip:

>> Ok, gravitational waves have been confirmed recently.
>> Well, nice, actually.
>> But how was the velocity of gravitational waves measured?
>
> There hasn't been a direct measurement.  The observations
> imply that the speed is no more than  1.7 times the speed
> of light (see http://arxiv.org/abs/1602.04188), and the
> absence of gravitational Cherenkov radiation implies a
> lower bound very near c, but it will take an observation
> with at least three detectors to get an accurate measurement.
>
> (On the other hand, the observations match the GR prediction
> extremely well, and I expect it would take quite a bit of
> work to cook up a model which made the same predictions but
> had gravitational waves traveling at a speed different from c.)

The interpretation "the measurements stem from waves, which move with c" 
is one of several possibilities.

Other possibilities would be:

the signals had independent sources
the waves move faster than c
the waves move slower than c

So it would be correct to interpret them as "two datapoints", which 
restrict the class of possibilities to a straight line.

TH

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

#376928

In article <dj270cF90h1U1@mid.individual.net>,
 Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:

> Am 23.02.2016 04:45, schrieb Steven Carlip:
> 
> >> Ok, gravitational waves have been confirmed recently.
> >> Well, nice, actually.
> >> But how was the velocity of gravitational waves measured?
> >
> > There hasn't been a direct measurement.  The observations
> > imply that the speed is no more than  1.7 times the speed
> > of light (see http://arxiv.org/abs/1602.04188), and the
> > absence of gravitational Cherenkov radiation implies a
> > lower bound very near c, but it will take an observation
> > with at least three detectors to get an accurate measurement.
> >
> > (On the other hand, the observations match the GR prediction
> > extremely well, and I expect it would take quite a bit of
> > work to cook up a model which made the same predictions but
> > had gravitational waves traveling at a speed different from c.)
> 
> The interpretation "the measurements stem from waves, which move with c" 
> is one of several possibilities.
> 
> Other possibilities would be:
> 
> the signals had independent sources

... that just happened to have identical frequencies, identical
amplitudes, and identical rates of change of frequency, that 
just happened to have signals that arrived at almost the same
time, and that were somehow beamed so that each detector saw
only one?

> the waves move faster than c

... and just happen to exactly match (in frequency, amplitude,
and rate of change of frequency) a signal predicted by a theory
that is only consistent for gravitational waves that travel at
the speed of light?

> the waves move slower than c

... and just happen to exactly match (in frequency, amplitude,
and rate of change of frequency) a signal predicted by a theory
that is only consistent for gravitational waves that travel at
the speed of light?
 
Maybe.  But don't you think that would be a pretty weird
coincidence?

Steve Carlip

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

#376996

Am 23.02.2016 07:11, schrieb Steven Carlip:

>> The interpretation "the measurements stem from waves, which move with c"
>> is one of several possibilities.
>>
>> Other possibilities would be:
>>
>> the signals had independent sources
>
> ... that just happened to have identical frequencies, identical
> amplitudes, and identical rates of change of frequency, that
> just happened to have signals that arrived at almost the same
> time, and that were somehow beamed so that each detector saw
> only one?
>
>> the waves move faster than c
>
> ... and just happen to exactly match (in frequency, amplitude,
> and rate of change of frequency) a signal predicted by a theory
> that is only consistent for gravitational waves that travel at
> the speed of light?
>
>> the waves move slower than c
>
> ... and just happen to exactly match (in frequency, amplitude,
> and rate of change of frequency) a signal predicted by a theory
> that is only consistent for gravitational waves that travel at
> the speed of light?
>
> Maybe.  But don't you think that would be a pretty weird
> coincidence?
>
This type of 'proof' is unscientific.

Assumed the measurements are correct and the same signal of unknown 
origin is measured at two places on Earth with a certain small delay.

Now we don't know, where the signals came from and how fast the signals 
move.

To estimate the source you would need to have the velocity.

To figure out the velocity, you need to have information about the origin.

But you cannot do both with just two measurements.


TH

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

#376998

(G / pi) * (50^(2 * pi)) = 1.0050436
http://i68.tinypic.com/10sb4ab.jpg

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

#376999

(((10^(1 / 2)) / G) / c) / ((4 * pi)^2) = 1.00084808

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

#377002

(49.9599812^(2 * pi)) * (G / pi) = 1 

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

#377000

On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 8:20:22 PM UTC-8, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 23.02.2016 07:11, schrieb Steven Carlip:
> 
> >> The interpretation "the measurements stem from waves, which move with c"
> >> is one of several possibilities.
> >>
> >> Other possibilities would be:
> >>
> >> the signals had independent sources
> >
> > ... that just happened to have identical frequencies, identical
> > amplitudes, and identical rates of change of frequency, that
> > just happened to have signals that arrived at almost the same
> > time, and that were somehow beamed so that each detector saw
> > only one?
> >
> >> the waves move faster than c
> >
> > ... and just happen to exactly match (in frequency, amplitude,
> > and rate of change of frequency) a signal predicted by a theory
> > that is only consistent for gravitational waves that travel at
> > the speed of light?
> >
> >> the waves move slower than c
> >
> > ... and just happen to exactly match (in frequency, amplitude,
> > and rate of change of frequency) a signal predicted by a theory
> > that is only consistent for gravitational waves that travel at
> > the speed of light?
> >
> > Maybe.  But don't you think that would be a pretty weird
> > coincidence?
> >
> This type of 'proof' is unscientific.

You forget the ball is in your court since it is you who claims the coincidences. Steve
only listed them. You are the one who claims them.

--
Jan

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

Page 3 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7  Next page →

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

csiph-web