Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #376674 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-02-20 12:22 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-03-07 09:23 -0600 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 126 — 22 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
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 5 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 Next page →
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-01 06:45 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Subduction (was Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators) |
| Message-ID | <djkokeF1ehuU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #377506 |
Am 29.02.2016 20:56, schrieb Tom Roberts: >> Plates are not floating at all, since the plates are extremely heavy >> and sit on >> dense, stiff and gluey underground. > > OF COURSE the plates are floating. For the simple reason that their > density is lower than that of the (very viscous but still fluid) magma > below. > > >> Another very important problem, plate tectonic failed to explain, is >> the fact, >> that the entire Earth is covered with plates. This would make it >> extremely >> difficult for plates to move. > > Unless, of course, some plates slide under other plates. This is called > "subduction" and IS OBSERVED TO HAPPEN. No. Subduction was not observed, but postulated. If you look at the map of plate borders, you could see, that subduction zones do not balance spreading zones. They are also in the wrong locations and the assumed mechanism doesn't work. Another problem to explain for plate tectonics is the fact, that former lakes or seas stay extremely levelled, even if continental plates have vanished underneath. This phenomenon is observable in deserts like the Atacama desert. There, high in the Andes is a salt plain, which is very horizontal, though rather old (about 15 million years). In the underground of that region is assumed to have vanished a large chunk of the Pacific's sea-floor. By pushing one large plate of rock under another one will not likely stay unnoticed on the surface. > > [Your fantasies and denials of reality are uninteresting. > Don't expect me to continue unless you come up with > something both sensible and new.] > Well, how about the former harbour of Rome. Now the harbour is behind the airport Fiomicino and 8m above sea-level. (today: Trajan's Lake) The hexagonal shape of the former harbour is easily visible. Also the waterline is visible and it's exact match to where the waterline was at the time of the Romans. But how happens, this waterlevel is 8m above the Mediterranean Sea? Well, if Italy was lifted by 8m, than the hight could be this way. But than the waterline would not be parallel to the former harbour (what it is). So there is only one possible explanation: sea-levels fall by a rate of about 4 meters per millennium. This was my assumption and this could be seen EVERYWHERE. E.g. Dover cliffs, atolls or sea-shells in mountains show all, these formations once where below water-level of former oceans. And this would be possible, if Earth would grow. (To explain these observations other wise would require a lot of questionable arguments.) TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-02 03:04 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Subduction (was Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators) |
| Message-ID | <djn011FjgjgU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #377531 |
Am 01.03.2016 06:45, schrieb Thomas Heger: >>> Plates are not floating at all, since the plates are extremely heavy >>> and sit on >>> dense, stiff and gluey underground. >> >> OF COURSE the plates are floating. For the simple reason that their >> density is lower than that of the (very viscous but still fluid) magma >> below. >> >> >>> Another very important problem, plate tectonic failed to explain, is >>> the fact, >>> that the entire Earth is covered with plates. This would make it >>> extremely >>> difficult for plates to move. >> >> Unless, of course, some plates slide under other plates. This is called >> "subduction" and IS OBSERVED TO HAPPEN. > > > No. Subduction was not observed, but postulated. If you look at the map > of plate borders, you could see, that subduction zones do not balance > spreading zones. They are also in the wrong locations and the assumed > mechanism doesn't work. > > Another problem to explain for plate tectonics is the fact, that former > lakes or seas stay extremely levelled, even if continental plates have > vanished underneath. > > This phenomenon is observable in deserts like the Atacama desert. > > There, high in the Andes is a salt plain, which is very horizontal, > though rather old (about 15 million years). > > In the underground of that region is assumed to have vanished a large > chunk of the Pacific's sea-floor. > > By pushing one large plate of rock under another one will not likely > stay unnoticed on the surface. > >> >> [Your fantasies and denials of reality are uninteresting. >> Don't expect me to continue unless you come up with >> something both sensible and new.] >> > Well, how about the former harbour of Rome. Now the harbour is behind > the airport Fiomicino and 8m above sea-level. (today: Trajan's Lake) > > The hexagonal shape of the former harbour is easily visible. Also the > waterline is visible and it's exact match to where the waterline was at > the time of the Romans. > > But how happens, this waterlevel is 8m above the Mediterranean Sea? > > Well, if Italy was lifted by 8m, than the hight could be this way. But > than the waterline would not be parallel to the former harbour (what it > is). > > So there is only one possible explanation: sea-levels fall by a rate of > about 4 meters per millennium. > > This was my assumption and this could be seen EVERYWHERE. > > E.g. Dover cliffs, atolls or sea-shells in mountains show all, these > formations once where below water-level of former oceans. > > And this would be possible, if Earth would grow. (To explain these > observations other wise would require a lot of questionable arguments.) Who really worries me is this: this question (plate tectonics vs Growing Earth) is of tremendous importance in theoretical physics. If the question is THAT important, then why is it almost impossible to discuss this question? The relevance in other realms of physics (and real life) is the question, whether or not mass is conserved. And if mass turns out to be not conserved, than physicists can through away the greater part of their theories. In comparison most other problems in physics seem to be quite irrelevant (like e.g. the Higgs boson). So why is this question only covered by a few outsiders (like e.g. Neal Adams)? TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-01 20:49 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Subduction (was Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators) |
| Message-ID | <ca925cdf-bb59-4245-a1c2-4183e4919370@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #377649 |
On Tuesday, March 1, 2016 at 6:04:21 PM UTC-8, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 01.03.2016 06:45, schrieb Thomas Heger: > > >>> Plates are not floating at all, since the plates are extremely heavy > >>> and sit on > >>> dense, stiff and gluey underground. > >> > >> OF COURSE the plates are floating. For the simple reason that their > >> density is lower than that of the (very viscous but still fluid) magma > >> below. > >> > >> > >>> Another very important problem, plate tectonic failed to explain, is > >>> the fact, > >>> that the entire Earth is covered with plates. This would make it > >>> extremely > >>> difficult for plates to move. > >> > >> Unless, of course, some plates slide under other plates. This is called > >> "subduction" and IS OBSERVED TO HAPPEN. > > > > > > No. Subduction was not observed, but postulated. If you look at the map > > of plate borders, you could see, that subduction zones do not balance > > spreading zones. They are also in the wrong locations and the assumed > > mechanism doesn't work. > > > > Another problem to explain for plate tectonics is the fact, that former > > lakes or seas stay extremely levelled, even if continental plates have > > vanished underneath. > > > > This phenomenon is observable in deserts like the Atacama desert. > > > > There, high in the Andes is a salt plain, which is very horizontal, > > though rather old (about 15 million years). > > > > In the underground of that region is assumed to have vanished a large > > chunk of the Pacific's sea-floor. > > > > By pushing one large plate of rock under another one will not likely > > stay unnoticed on the surface. > > > >> > >> [Your fantasies and denials of reality are uninteresting. > >> Don't expect me to continue unless you come up with > >> something both sensible and new.] > >> > > Well, how about the former harbour of Rome. Now the harbour is behind > > the airport Fiomicino and 8m above sea-level. (today: Trajan's Lake) > > > > The hexagonal shape of the former harbour is easily visible. Also the > > waterline is visible and it's exact match to where the waterline was at > > the time of the Romans. > > > > But how happens, this waterlevel is 8m above the Mediterranean Sea? > > > > Well, if Italy was lifted by 8m, than the hight could be this way. But > > than the waterline would not be parallel to the former harbour (what it > > is). > > > > So there is only one possible explanation: sea-levels fall by a rate of > > about 4 meters per millennium. > > > > This was my assumption and this could be seen EVERYWHERE. > > > > E.g. Dover cliffs, atolls or sea-shells in mountains show all, these > > formations once where below water-level of former oceans. > > > > And this would be possible, if Earth would grow. (To explain these > > observations other wise would require a lot of questionable arguments.) > > > Who really worries me is this: > > this question (plate tectonics vs Growing Earth) is of tremendous > importance in theoretical physics. > > If the question is THAT important, then why is it almost impossible to > discuss this question? > > The relevance in other realms of physics (and real life) is the > question, whether or not mass is conserved. > > And if mass turns out to be not conserved, than physicists can through > away the greater part of their theories. > > In comparison most other problems in physics seem to be quite irrelevant > (like e.g. the Higgs boson). > > So why is this question only covered by a few outsiders (like e.g. Neal > Adams)? > > TH Because mass or mass/energy under equivalence (momentum) is conserved?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-02 07:36 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Subduction (was Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators) |
| Message-ID | <djnfutFn08jU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #377656 |
Am 02.03.2016 05:49, schrieb Ross A. Finlayson: >>> No. Subduction was not observed, but postulated. If you look at the map >>> of plate borders, you could see, that subduction zones do not balance >>> spreading zones. They are also in the wrong locations and the assumed >>> mechanism doesn't work. >>> >>> Another problem to explain for plate tectonics is the fact, that former >>> lakes or seas stay extremely levelled, even if continental plates have >>> vanished underneath. >>> >>> This phenomenon is observable in deserts like the Atacama desert. >>> >>> There, high in the Andes is a salt plain, which is very horizontal, >>> though rather old (about 15 million years). >>> >>> In the underground of that region is assumed to have vanished a large >>> chunk of the Pacific's sea-floor. >>> >>> By pushing one large plate of rock under another one will not likely >>> stay unnoticed on the surface. >>> >>>> >>>> [Your fantasies and denials of reality are uninteresting. >>>> Don't expect me to continue unless you come up with >>>> something both sensible and new.] >>>> >>> Well, how about the former harbour of Rome. Now the harbour is behind >>> the airport Fiomicino and 8m above sea-level. (today: Trajan's Lake) >>> >>> The hexagonal shape of the former harbour is easily visible. Also the >>> waterline is visible and it's exact match to where the waterline was at >>> the time of the Romans. >>> >>> But how happens, this waterlevel is 8m above the Mediterranean Sea? >>> >>> Well, if Italy was lifted by 8m, than the hight could be this way. But >>> than the waterline would not be parallel to the former harbour (what it >>> is). >>> >>> So there is only one possible explanation: sea-levels fall by a rate of >>> about 4 meters per millennium. >>> >>> This was my assumption and this could be seen EVERYWHERE. >>> >>> E.g. Dover cliffs, atolls or sea-shells in mountains show all, these >>> formations once where below water-level of former oceans. >>> >>> And this would be possible, if Earth would grow. (To explain these >>> observations other wise would require a lot of questionable arguments.) >> >> >> Who really worries me is this: >> >> this question (plate tectonics vs Growing Earth) is of tremendous >> importance in theoretical physics. >> >> If the question is THAT important, then why is it almost impossible to >> discuss this question? >> >> The relevance in other realms of physics (and real life) is the >> question, whether or not mass is conserved. >> >> And if mass turns out to be not conserved, than physicists can through >> away the greater part of their theories. >> >> In comparison most other problems in physics seem to be quite irrelevant >> (like e.g. the Higgs boson). >> >> So why is this question only covered by a few outsiders (like e.g. Neal >> Adams)? >> >> TH > > Because mass or mass/energy under > equivalence (momentum) is conserved? > > Here is one more problem: is 'E=m*c²' correct??? Answer: no, it isn't. Reason: the equation describes certain decays, where mass decreases and energy in form of waves is released. This would suggest, that mass goes down, if released energy is positive. But this is not, what the equation says. Correct would be, to introduce 'deltas' and have such an equation: delta m = - delta E/ c² But then goes another central support of modern physics out the window... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-01 22:44 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Subduction (was Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators) |
| Message-ID | <91e980b3-81ef-48ee-b906-8e502d7a518b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #377662 |
On Tuesday, March 1, 2016 at 10:36:17 PM UTC-8, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 02.03.2016 05:49, schrieb Ross A. Finlayson: > > >>> No. Subduction was not observed, but postulated. If you look at the map > >>> of plate borders, you could see, that subduction zones do not balance > >>> spreading zones. They are also in the wrong locations and the assumed > >>> mechanism doesn't work. > >>> > >>> Another problem to explain for plate tectonics is the fact, that former > >>> lakes or seas stay extremely levelled, even if continental plates have > >>> vanished underneath. > >>> > >>> This phenomenon is observable in deserts like the Atacama desert. > >>> > >>> There, high in the Andes is a salt plain, which is very horizontal, > >>> though rather old (about 15 million years). > >>> > >>> In the underground of that region is assumed to have vanished a large > >>> chunk of the Pacific's sea-floor. > >>> > >>> By pushing one large plate of rock under another one will not likely > >>> stay unnoticed on the surface. > >>> > >>>> > >>>> [Your fantasies and denials of reality are uninteresting. > >>>> Don't expect me to continue unless you come up with > >>>> something both sensible and new.] > >>>> > >>> Well, how about the former harbour of Rome. Now the harbour is behind > >>> the airport Fiomicino and 8m above sea-level. (today: Trajan's Lake) > >>> > >>> The hexagonal shape of the former harbour is easily visible. Also the > >>> waterline is visible and it's exact match to where the waterline was at > >>> the time of the Romans. > >>> > >>> But how happens, this waterlevel is 8m above the Mediterranean Sea? > >>> > >>> Well, if Italy was lifted by 8m, than the hight could be this way. But > >>> than the waterline would not be parallel to the former harbour (what it > >>> is). > >>> > >>> So there is only one possible explanation: sea-levels fall by a rate of > >>> about 4 meters per millennium. > >>> > >>> This was my assumption and this could be seen EVERYWHERE. > >>> > >>> E.g. Dover cliffs, atolls or sea-shells in mountains show all, these > >>> formations once where below water-level of former oceans. > >>> > >>> And this would be possible, if Earth would grow. (To explain these > >>> observations other wise would require a lot of questionable arguments.) > >> > >> > >> Who really worries me is this: > >> > >> this question (plate tectonics vs Growing Earth) is of tremendous > >> importance in theoretical physics. > >> > >> If the question is THAT important, then why is it almost impossible to > >> discuss this question? > >> > >> The relevance in other realms of physics (and real life) is the > >> question, whether or not mass is conserved. > >> > >> And if mass turns out to be not conserved, than physicists can through > >> away the greater part of their theories. > >> > >> In comparison most other problems in physics seem to be quite irrelevant > >> (like e.g. the Higgs boson). > >> > >> So why is this question only covered by a few outsiders (like e.g. Neal > >> Adams)? > >> > >> TH > > > > Because mass or mass/energy under > > equivalence (momentum) is conserved? > > > > > > Here is one more problem: is 'E=m*c²' correct??? > > Answer: no, it isn't. > > Reason: the equation describes certain decays, where mass decreases and > energy in form of waves is released. > > This would suggest, that mass goes down, if released energy is positive. > > But this is not, what the equation says. > > Correct would be, to introduce 'deltas' and have such an equation: > > delta m = - delta E/ c² > > > > But then goes another central support of modern physics out the window... > > > > TH You're just saying "there's no closed system" but there's no transport in or out of Earth. (In sufficient quantities to "raise continents" a la some leavening of bread of the crust, or hollowing out a core by a large wyrm. Actually those would be fantastical mechanisms having nothing to do with local energy conservation.) LIGO is a blip now, for the hyperbole of what could have caused it, and what it shows so far is that Earth-bound LIGOs are currently not economical for astronomy. It is rather neat then to consider how this gravity wave could even be so, when combining two masses leaves them a closed system.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-06 08:58 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Subduction (was Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators) |
| Message-ID | <dk268tFfcdnU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #377662 |
Am 02.03.2016 07:36, schrieb Thomas Heger: >>> >>> Who really worries me is this: >>> >>> this question (plate tectonics vs Growing Earth) is of tremendous >>> importance in theoretical physics. >>> >>> If the question is THAT important, then why is it almost impossible to >>> discuss this question? >>> >>> The relevance in other realms of physics (and real life) is the >>> question, whether or not mass is conserved. >>> >>> And if mass turns out to be not conserved, than physicists can through >>> away the greater part of their theories. >>> >>> In comparison most other problems in physics seem to be quite irrelevant >>> (like e.g. the Higgs boson). >>> >>> So why is this question only covered by a few outsiders (like e.g. Neal >>> Adams)? >>> >>> TH >> >> Because mass or mass/energy under >> equivalence (momentum) is conserved? >> >> > > Here is one more problem: is 'E=m*c²' correct??? > > Answer: no, it isn't. > > Reason: the equation describes certain decays, where mass decreases and > energy in form of waves is released. > > This would suggest, that mass goes down, if released energy is positive. > > But this is not, what the equation says. > > Correct would be, to introduce 'deltas' and have such an equation: > > delta m = - delta E/ c² The formula E=m*c² is based on a certain concept, which is hardwired in the human mind: what is had come out from somewhere must have been inside before. In case of the decay the (positive) energy is equal to the negative loss of mass, because it is assumed, the particle was inside the system, from which it emerged. This assumption is not justified by itself, but would need further investigation. If an atom sends out a photon and losses mass, was the photon previously inside the atom? Answer: no! If we ascribe mass to the atom and energy to the photon, the mass of the 'gap' in the atom equals the energy of the photon times c squared. Now E=m*c² confuses the signs and describes mass as form of energy. This is NOT true, since the main feature of mass is inertia. Since another feature of matter is also hardwired into our brains, we assume, that matter cannot composed from other stuff than matter (thou smaller particles). Since matter is 'stuff', energy is stuff as well. Only: this is not true, since matter is stuff and energy is not. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-02 08:30 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Subduction (was Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators) |
| Message-ID | <v5-dnbbpQoWGZEvLnZ2dnUU7_8xi4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #377649 |
On 3/1/16 3/1/16 8:04 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: > The relevance in other realms of physics (and real life) is the question, > whether or not mass is conserved. > And if mass turns out to be not conserved, than physicists can through away the > greater part of their theories. Nonsense. Again you merely display your personal ignorance. Mass is NOT conserved. There are literally zillions of observations of the non-conservation of mass. And the relevant theory, the standard model of particle physics, accommodates this quite well. A simple, basic demonstration of mass NON conservation is: e+ e- => gamma + gamma The initial state has a total mass of 1.022 MeV/c^2, while the final state has zero mass. Physicists have observed billions of such events; the tunnel in which the LHC now resides was originally built to hold a machine specifically designed to study these and related events. 4-momentum is conserved, but that is quite different. Later you ask: > Here is one more problem: is 'E=m*c²' correct??? And then go on to demonstrate that you do not have the foggiest idea of what this equation actually means or how it relates to the rest of modern physics. Essentially everything you write around here merely displays your personal ignorance. You asked why it is so difficult to discuss "growing earth" vs plate tectonics. The answer is OBVIOUS to everybody except you: there's no point in "discussing" physics with people like yourself who are completely ignorant of modern physics and its experiments, and who ignore actual observations of the world. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-28 21:39 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Subduction (was Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators) |
| Message-ID | <navluu$iu8$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #377416 |
On 28.02.2016 18:06, Emigdio Sophronius wrote: > [] It doesn't help to change your name, the trolling idiot is recognized anyway. One can but wonder what kind of mental disturbance make a person constantly change his name and write nonsense only. plonk -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-26 08:22 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <napn2u$1i7c$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #377156 |
On 2/25/2016 11:05 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 24.02.2016 15:30, schrieb Odd Bodkin: > >>> This type of 'proof' is unscientific. >> >> I disagree this is unscientific. >> If I were to take your stance, then evidence for dinosaurs in the form >> of fossilized bones, footprints, and eggs is not scientifically >> compelling, because you haven't ruled out the possibility that other >> processes could have produced those artifacts. > > Actually I have done that already and presented another process, which > could explain the found fossils: Growing Earth > > I had assumed, that in former times the animals and plants have been > much larger than today, since the Earth was much smaller. > > Humans could have been really tall (like 15 m high), too, and dinosaurs > in relation not very large. > >> What you are specifying are the things that would convince YOU >> personally that the signal was due to gravitational waves, and declaring >> that anything less than that level of evidence is unscientific. > > Personally I would say, that GR is mainly correct. So I have a tendency > towards the explanations based on GR. > > > So I would agree, that the observations do not violate the predictions > of GR. > > But that wouldn't mean much. Especially would opinion not be regarded as > proof. Let me underscore something here. Science does not ever PROVE a theory correct. Nor does it ever try to. That's not the aim of science and never has been. > > >> However, to *scientists*, if you have a prediction by a theory that >> specifies a particular form of a signal that can be measured, and for >> which no other theory provides a comparable prediction, and then you go >> and make a measurement and that *particular* form of signal is observed, >> then this constitutes strong experimental support for the theory. >> > > Well, no. > > In this particular case it is not known, whether or not the > interpretation 'gravitational wave' is correct. That doesn't MATTER in science. What matters is that the theory matches the observation, and therefore the observation SUPPORTS the theory. It does not have to PROVE the theory. > > Also the specific features of the observed phenomenon are unknown. > > So we would need observations of such waves before we could figure out, > how fast these waves distribute. I agree with you that other observations would be needed to determine if the waves traveled with speed c. There are already other observations that limit the speed of gravitational perturbations to less than 1.7c. There is nothing in this PARTICULAR observation that prevents the speed from being something smaller than c. However, the only CURRENT theory of gravity that matches these observations AT ALL is general relativity, and since these observations support general relativity and general relativity says the waves travel at c, then we have INCREASED CONFIDENCE (not proof! never proof!) that gravitational waves travel at c. > > Otherwise we would use a method, I would call "wishful thinking". This > means, we would search for evidence of an idea, we already try to prove > (GR in this case). If you are trying to PROVE any theory scientifically, then you have misunderstood what science does. > > Actually I had done similar, since I regard Growing Earth as true and > try to find evidence, which would rule out plate tectonics. > > But the difference is, that I'm a single person, who may rightfully > follow his own ideas, while 'science in total' is more bound to > scientific ethics. > > > TH -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-23 17:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nai4qb$5tn$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #376927 |
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> writes: >Am 23.02.2016 04:45, 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 They consider this and mention it would take an extraordinary amount of coincidences (same frequency, same pattern, etc,) for that to happen. They do give odds of it being statistical coincidence if you care to see how likely that could be. >the waves move faster than c They do consider that. If you read what you quoted from Steve: >> 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), a speed greater than c could happen but speeds greater than 1.7 c have been ruled out. And... >the waves move slower than c >> and the >> absence of gravitational Cherenkov radiation implies a >> lower bound very near c, Some other prediction, not the LIGO results, seem to rule out the speed being less than c, >> but it will take an observation >> with at least three detectors to get an accurate measurement. And they know their limitations and what they would need to do to get an accurate actual 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.) This is what has them excited. The results fit so well with their predictions of what would happen if gravitational waves move at c,
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-23 21:58 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <01dcd512-1e24-46ec-93a6-a46b0d8b633e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #376951 |
On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 9:27:57 AM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote: > Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> writes: > > >Am 23.02.2016 04:45, 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 > > They consider this and mention it would take an extraordinary amount of > coincidences (same frequency, same pattern, etc,) for that to happen. > They do give odds of it being statistical coincidence if you care to > see how likely that could be. > > >the waves move faster than c > > They do consider that. If you read what you quoted from Steve: > > >> 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), > > a speed greater than c could happen but speeds greater than 1.7 c > have been ruled out. > > And... > > >the waves move slower than c > > >> and the > >> absence of gravitational Cherenkov radiation implies a > >> lower bound very near c, > > Some other prediction, not the LIGO results, seem to rule out the > speed being less than c, > > >> but it will take an observation > >> with at least three detectors to get an accurate measurement. > > And they know their limitations and what they would need to do to get > an accurate actual 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.) > > This is what has them excited. The results fit so well with their > predictions of what would happen if gravitational waves move at c, Light's speed is a constant, a running constant, and, in some senses, it's the "infinity of light speed". In a similar sense, gravity's effect is instantaneous, the "infinity of gravity" as a velocity or speed of propagation, that is twice as much as light speed. Now, to say "light speed is infinite" and "gravity speed is twice light speed" doesn't add up too neatly or well except in this framework of running constants, that light's speed as a maximum, is the middle between that and gravity's reach. Thank you, that's quite clearly philosophical if not poetic. For the mathematical part of infinity, mathematics owes mathematical physics some facts about some real concrete infinity, for the sum of histories etcetera, about where gravity's speed is simply > c. Here, the two sites having ticks on their input ~7ms apart in time, when they are approximately 7 light-milliseconds apart in space, doesn't have so clearly why the observer effect of the detection of a gravitational wave ticks them off at lightspeed progression. Can or can not a LIGO detect a CME?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-24 20:17 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <nalo75$1csr$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #376878 |
On 2/22/2016 12:41 PM, 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? > They weren't. But gravitational waves are a specific prediction of general relativity, and so far it's the ONLY theory of gravity that predicts them. And so their recent discovery observationally lends credence to general relativity. Thus, indirectly, one has greater confidence that the OTHER predictions of general relativity are correct, including that the speed of gravitational waves is c. This is similar to a theory of dinosaurs that says that certain genuses (like Tyrannosaurus) were warm-blooded and had feathers. There is now observational evidence of the feathers. This gives credence to the theory and therefore gives additional support that they were also warm-blooded, even though the evidence of feathers is not the same as evidence of being warm-blooded. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jackpol11@hotmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 16:12 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <i1ahdbtgn933vnosdoueprj6kfn92pc5ks@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #376711 |
On Sat, 20 Feb 2016 19:12:48 -0600, Tom Roberts
<tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>On 2/20/16 2/20/16 2:22 PM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>> http://www.newkerala.com/news/2016/fullnews-23659.html "On September 14,
>> 2015, the LIGO (Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory) observed
>> Livingstone and Hanford at around 2,500 Km. Because this distance is
>> absolutely negligible compared with the distance to the origin of GW150914
>> (1.3 billion light years), both detectors should see the event almost
>> simultaneously. There should be a delay of a few microseconds at most if both
>> detectors received the signal from the sky above. However, the actual delay
>> of seven milliseconds was very much larger, and is possible only if the
>> source was almost perfectly aligned with a straight line joining Livingstone
>> and Hanford."
>
>It's remarkable how silly Valev can be, and how flagrantly he disregards simple
>facts. Apparently neither he nor Mitra can actually do arithmetic.
>
>Fact 1: the Hanford and Livingston detectors are 3002 km apart.
>
>Fact 2: in GR, gravitational waves travel with local speed c. This is not only
>in vacuum, but also inside normal matter.
>
>Fact 3: the source of a gravitational wave is not at all constrained to be "from
>the sky above" (as Mitra assumes) -- unlike light, gravitational waves pass
>right through the earth, and the source could be anywhere in the universe, in
>almost any direction from earth (their detectors do not have isotropic response).
>
>Fact 4: the flight time of a gravitational wave between Hanford and Livingston
>could be as small as zero (source located at the zenith), and as long as 10 ms
>(source located along the line between the detectors -- that's 3002 km / c).
>
>Fact 5: The actual delay was about 7 ms. Now look at the locus in the sky where
>they think it's most likely the source was located. It's not a point, nor a
>disk, it is part of an annulus (not the entire annulus because their detectors
>are not sensitive in some directions); the thickness of the annulus is related
>to their errorbars. That annulus is centered on the line between the detectors,
>and has radius such that the propagation time between the detectors is 7 ms
>within their errorbar (as observed). (Had the flight time been measured to be 10
>ms, the locus would have been a disk centered on that line, but their detectors
>are not very sensitive along that line.)
>
>
>It's remarkable how much time and effort Valev wastes in posting nonsense.
>
>Tom Roberts
Given that there was a time delay of 7 ms and a land separation of
10ms, even you should be able to construct a modus operandi. Once
again it appears that just your sarcasm is not enough . You appear to
have no idea where the wave originated. Try to follow this simple
diagram:
Draw a horizontal line from a to b, marked 10 ms.land separation.
Draw 2 parallel rays at some convenient angle, A,to the right, from
the horizontal, from a and from b marking the event's paths.
Erect a perpendicular from point b, cutting the first path.
Mark the opposite end of the new triangle as 7ms. time delay.
Now we can write
cos A = 7/10, from which
A = 45 deg
We conclude that the event came from an elevation angle of 45°. This
means also that its strength is .7 of the "full-on" value.
There doesn't seem to be any reason to the calculate arc and chord
lengths.
John Polasek
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 19:56 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <fd87c2f8-cd48-402a-b63b-2618cc23f174@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #377820 |
On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 1:13:07 PM UTC-8, Jack...@hotmail.com wrote: > On Sat, 20 Feb 2016 19:12:48 -0600, Tom Roberts > <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > >On 2/20/16 2/20/16 2:22 PM, Pentcho Valev wrote: > >> http://www.newkerala.com/news/2016/fullnews-23659.html "On September 14, > >> 2015, the LIGO (Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory) observed > > >> Livingstone and Hanford at around 2,500 Km. Because this distance is > >> absolutely negligible compared with the distance to the origin of GW150914 > >> (1.3 billion light years), both detectors should see the event almost > >> simultaneously. There should be a delay of a few microseconds at most if both > >> detectors received the signal from the sky above. However, the actual delay > >> of seven milliseconds was very much larger, and is possible only if the > >> source was almost perfectly aligned with a straight line joining Livingstone > >> and Hanford." > > > >It's remarkable how silly Valev can be, and how flagrantly he disregards simple > >facts. Apparently neither he nor Mitra can actually do arithmetic. > > > >Fact 1: the Hanford and Livingston detectors are 3002 km apart. > > > >Fact 2: in GR, gravitational waves travel with local speed c. This is not only > >in vacuum, but also inside normal matter. > > > >Fact 3: the source of a gravitational wave is not at all constrained to be "from > >the sky above" (as Mitra assumes) -- unlike light, gravitational waves pass > >right through the earth, and the source could be anywhere in the universe, in > >almost any direction from earth (their detectors do not have isotropic response). > > > >Fact 4: the flight time of a gravitational wave between Hanford and Livingston > >could be as small as zero (source located at the zenith), and as long as 10 ms > >(source located along the line between the detectors -- that's 3002 km / c). > > > >Fact 5: The actual delay was about 7 ms. Now look at the locus in the sky where > >they think it's most likely the source was located. It's not a point, nor a > >disk, it is part of an annulus (not the entire annulus because their detectors > >are not sensitive in some directions); the thickness of the annulus is related > >to their errorbars. That annulus is centered on the line between the detectors, > >and has radius such that the propagation time between the detectors is 7 ms > >within their errorbar (as observed). (Had the flight time been measured to be 10 > >ms, the locus would have been a disk centered on that line, but their detectors > >are not very sensitive along that line.) > > > > > >It's remarkable how much time and effort Valev wastes in posting nonsense. > > > >Tom Roberts > Given that there was a time delay of 7 ms and a land separation of > 10ms, even you should be able to construct a modus operandi. Once > again it appears that just your sarcasm is not enough . You appear to > have no idea where the wave originated. Try to follow this simple > diagram: > > Draw a horizontal line from a to b, marked 10 ms.land separation. > Draw 2 parallel rays at some convenient angle, A,to the right, from > the horizontal, from a and from b marking the event's paths. > Erect a perpendicular from point b, cutting the first path. > Mark the opposite end of the new triangle as 7ms. time delay. > Now we can write > cos A = 7/10, from which > A = 45 deg > We conclude that the event came from an elevation angle of 45°. This > means also that its strength is .7 of the "full-on" value. > There doesn't seem to be any reason to the calculate arc and chord > lengths. > John Polasek Why did they have different magnitudes, of the wave?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 22:32 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <deudndGJqbhUkkTLnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #377854 |
On 3/3/16 3/3/16 9:56 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > Why did they have different magnitudes, of the wave? Like any measurement instrument, the LIGO detectors can only measure the incoming wave projected onto the detector. Their two detectors are oriented differently (including an almost 180-degree rotation). As I said, the detector response and this difference in orientation permits them to exclude parts of the annulus one obtains from the time difference alone. Analogy: if you use two rulers to measure the width of a desk, one parallel to its front edge, and one inclined relative to that edge, you will get two different values for the width. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 21:10 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <eb066913-ebab-4049-9fd3-d0b3bbc42f8b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #377859 |
On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 8:32:11 PM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote: > On 3/3/16 3/3/16 9:56 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > Why did they have different magnitudes, of the wave? > > Like any measurement instrument, the LIGO detectors can only measure the > incoming wave projected onto the detector. Their two detectors are oriented > differently (including an almost 180-degree rotation). As I said, the detector > response and this difference in orientation permits them to exclude parts of the > annulus one obtains from the time difference alone. > > Analogy: if you use two rulers to measure the width of a desk, > one parallel to its front edge, and one inclined relative to > that edge, you will get two different values for the width. > > > Tom Roberts Its amplitude is the same though, right.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 22:11 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <878c72e0-178c-4eaa-aa51-d6db8484ca83@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #377860 |
On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 9:10:39 PM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 8:32:11 PM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote: > > On 3/3/16 3/3/16 9:56 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > > > Why did they have different magnitudes, of the wave? > > > > Like any measurement instrument, the LIGO detectors can only measure the > > incoming wave projected onto the detector. Their two detectors are oriented > > differently (including an almost 180-degree rotation). As I said, the detector > > response and this difference in orientation permits them to exclude parts of the > > annulus one obtains from the time difference alone. > > > > Analogy: if you use two rulers to measure the width of a desk, > > one parallel to its front edge, and one inclined relative to > > that edge, you will get two different values for the width. > > > > > > Tom Roberts > > Its amplitude is the same though, right. If the two LIGO arms of Hanford and LIGO of Livingston are in separate directions, which they are, then under a suitable transform in any impulse measured at each has the solution that the transform leaves the amplitude the same at each vector space basis, that orientation may help pick whether it's above or below the Earth, where it will be absolutely coinciding with the general direction so determined from light speed being a constant and its travel (the detection's travel) between the two sites.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 23:36 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <663e5707-53d2-4e2e-b892-c47938621e83@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #377862 |
On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 10:11:40 PM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 9:10:39 PM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 8:32:11 PM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote: > > > On 3/3/16 3/3/16 9:56 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > > > > > Why did they have different magnitudes, of the wave? > > > > > > Like any measurement instrument, the LIGO detectors can only measure the > > > incoming wave projected onto the detector. Their two detectors are oriented > > > differently (including an almost 180-degree rotation). As I said, the detector > > > response and this difference in orientation permits them to exclude parts of the > > > annulus one obtains from the time difference alone. > > > > > > Analogy: if you use two rulers to measure the width of a desk, > > > one parallel to its front edge, and one inclined relative to > > > that edge, you will get two different values for the width. > > > > > > > > > Tom Roberts > > > > Its amplitude is the same though, right. > > If the two LIGO arms of Hanford and > LIGO of Livingston are in separate > directions, which they are, then under > a suitable transform in any impulse > measured at each has the solution that > the transform leaves the amplitude the > same at each vector space basis, that > orientation may help pick whether it's > above or below the Earth, where it will > be absolutely coinciding with the general > direction so determined from light speed > being a constant and its travel (the > detection's travel) between the two sites. Obviously it won't have the precision of a 1km cubic array floating carefully basically at the periphery and drifting off of the solar system, then surely the professionals have quite well worked out already the transformation of basis co- ordinates that would see a gravitational wave passing at a given amplitude in its effect. I've seen trigonometry before and a variety of properties of orthogonal functions, I'm almost sure that the development well includes what transformation of coordinates would see the amplitude of the gravitational wave as from (x,y,z) in space. Surely one of these eminent physicists has written this out as part of their ticket they hope to redeem for the Nobel queue.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-05 06:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <djv8khFn827U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #377859 |
Am 04.03.2016 05:32, schrieb Tom Roberts: > On 3/3/16 3/3/16 9:56 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: >> >> Why did they have different magnitudes, of the wave? > > Like any measurement instrument, the LIGO detectors can only measure the > incoming wave projected onto the detector. Their two detectors are > oriented differently (including an almost 180-degree rotation). As I > said, the detector response and this difference in orientation permits > them to exclude parts of the annulus one obtains from the time > difference alone. > > Analogy: if you use two rulers to measure the width of a desk, > one parallel to its front edge, and one inclined relative to > that edge, you will get two different values for the width. > I would not agree to this use of the term 'measurement'. To measure something is not the same as reading some values from a display. Measurement of the width of a table requires definition of the term 'width of table', before the measuring device is set into operation. The device delivers some values, which could be read out from its display. But the value on the display is not the measurement, if that is not use according to the definition of the feature to measure. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-07 09:19 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <nbk658$1c6q$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #377926 |
On 3/4/2016 11:20 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 04.03.2016 05:32, schrieb Tom Roberts: >> On 3/3/16 3/3/16 9:56 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: >>> >>> Why did they have different magnitudes, of the wave? >> >> Like any measurement instrument, the LIGO detectors can only measure the >> incoming wave projected onto the detector. Their two detectors are >> oriented differently (including an almost 180-degree rotation). As I >> said, the detector response and this difference in orientation permits >> them to exclude parts of the annulus one obtains from the time >> difference alone. >> >> Analogy: if you use two rulers to measure the width of a desk, >> one parallel to its front edge, and one inclined relative to >> that edge, you will get two different values for the width. >> > > I would not agree to this use of the term 'measurement'. > > To measure something is not the same as reading some values from a display. > > Measurement of the width of a table requires definition of the term > 'width of table', before the measuring device is set into operation. > > The device delivers some values, which could be read out from its > display. But the value on the display is not the measurement, if that is > not use according to the definition of the feature to measure. > > > TH I beg your pardon?! By your rules, I would only be able to measure things that are big enough to see and small enough that I can span it with my measuring instruments. If I measure the width of a pulse on an oscilloscope, you're going to claim that's not a measurement of the duration of the pulse? If I measure the diffraction pattern on a screen and use that to find the value of the wavelength of the light, that isn't a measurement? If I use a crystalograph to determine the structure of DNA, that isn't a measurement? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web