Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #392295 > unrolled thread
| Started by | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-09-14 18:01 +1000 |
| Last post | 2016-09-16 06:48 +1000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 97 — 14 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
AC Gravity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-14 18:01 +1000
Re: AC Gravity. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-14 17:04 -0500
Re: AC Gravity. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-14 15:22 -0700
Re: AC Gravity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-15 09:53 +1000
Re: AC Gravity. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-14 19:10 -0700
Re: AC Gravity. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-15 00:01 -0500
Re: AC Gravity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-15 17:47 +1000
Re: AC Gravity. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-15 15:27 +0000
Re: AC Gravity. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-16 06:44 +1000
Re: AC Gravity. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-15 17:16 -0500
Re: AC Gravity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-16 11:20 +1000
Re: AC Gravity. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-15 22:54 +0000
Re: AC Gravity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-16 11:27 +1000
Re: AC Gravity. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-16 03:58 +0000
Re: AC Gravity. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-17 04:58 +1000
Re: AC Gravity. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-16 12:18 -0700
Re: AC Gravity. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-18 05:42 +1000
Re: AC Gravity. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-17 21:08 -0700
Re: AC Gravity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-18 20:09 +1000
Re: AC Gravity. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-18 12:57 +0000
Re: AC Gravity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-19 15:11 +1000
Re: AC Gravity. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-19 14:37 +0000
Re: AC Gravity. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-20 04:44 +1000
Re: AC Gravity. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-19 21:47 +0000
Re: AC Gravity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-19 11:16 -0500
Re: AC Gravity. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-19 13:22 -0500
Re: AC Gravity. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-20 04:58 +1000
Re: AC Gravity. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-19 22:24 -0500
Re: AC Gravity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-21 20:04 +1000
Re: AC Gravity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-20 07:20 -0500
Re: AC Gravity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-21 20:10 +1000
Re: AC Gravity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-21 07:59 -0500
Re: AC Gravity. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-09-22 13:57 +0200
Re: AC Gravity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-19 09:51 -0500
Re: AC Gravity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-19 09:32 -0500
Re: AC Gravity. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-20 04:52 +1000
Re: AC Gravity. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-19 22:35 -0500
Re: AC Gravity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-21 20:08 +1000
Re: AC Gravity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-20 07:18 -0500
Re: AC Gravity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-16 14:22 -0500
Re: AC Gravity. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-16 20:55 +0000
Re: AC Gravity. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-18 05:40 +1000
Re: AC Gravity. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-09-17 17:59 -0700
Re: AC Gravity. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-18 03:18 +0000
Re: AC Gravity. Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-15 07:27 +0200
Re: AC Gravity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-15 17:50 +1000
Re: AC Gravity. Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-16 07:06 +0200
Re: AC Gravity. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-16 00:54 -0700
Re: AC Gravity. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-30 09:44 -0700
Re: AC Gravity. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-15 11:51 -0500
Re: AC Gravity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-16 12:04 +1000
Re: AC Gravity. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-16 22:17 -0500
Re: AC Gravity. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-18 06:27 +1000
Re: AC Gravity. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-20 19:47 -0500
Re: AC Gravity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-21 19:48 +1000
Re: AC Gravity. Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-16 07:21 +0200
Re: AC Gravity. jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-09-22 01:33 -0700
Re: AC Gravity. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-22 04:50 -0700
Re: AC Gravity. jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-09-22 05:53 -0700
Re: AC Gravity. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-22 14:43 -0700
Re: AC Gravity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-23 08:18 +1000
Re: AC Gravity. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-22 15:39 -0700
Re: AC Gravity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-23 07:01 -0500
Re: AC Gravity. jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-09-23 01:12 -0700
Re: AC Gravity. Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-23 09:46 +0000
Re: AC Gravity. jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-09-24 05:37 -0700
Re: AC Gravity. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-24 07:32 -0700
Re: AC Gravity. jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-09-25 06:35 -0700
Re: AC Gravity. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-25 10:58 -0700
Re: AC Gravity. jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-09-26 02:37 -0700
Re: AC Gravity. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-26 04:32 -0700
Re: AC Gravity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 13:05 -0500
Re: AC Gravity. jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-09-25 06:00 -0700
Re: AC Gravity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 17:15 -0500
Re: AC Gravity. jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-09-26 02:54 -0700
Re: AC Gravity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-26 08:29 -0500
Re: AC Gravity. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-23 05:34 -0700
Re: AC Gravity. jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-09-26 04:10 -0700
Re: AC Gravity. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-26 05:30 -0700
Re: AC Gravity. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-26 06:38 -0700
Re: AC Gravity. jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-09-27 05:11 -0700
Re: AC Gravity. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-27 08:47 -0700
Re: AC Gravity. jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-09-28 10:16 -0700
Re: AC Gravity. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-28 14:03 -0700
Re: AC Gravity. jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-09-30 05:33 -0700
Re: AC Gravity. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-30 06:41 -0700
Re: AC Gravity. jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-10-02 02:39 -0700
Re: AC Gravity. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-02 05:26 -0700
Re: AC Gravity. jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-10-05 04:54 -0700
Re: AC Gravity. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-06 06:59 -0700
Re: AC Gravity. jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-10-09 05:25 -0700
Re: AC Gravity. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-09 06:06 -0700
Re: AC Gravity. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-09 10:06 -0700
Re: AC Gravity. jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-10-12 08:28 -0700
Re: AC Gravity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-26 08:32 -0500
Re: AC Gravity. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-09-15 15:38 +0200
Re: AC Gravity. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-16 06:48 +1000
Page 1 of 5 [1] 2 3 4 5 Next page →
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-14 18:01 +1000 |
| Subject | AC Gravity. |
| Message-ID | <nrb055$11rl$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
I propose the following experiment to test for gravity waves. Attach two substantial masses on the ends of a rod and rotate the system about a central pivot. M <-. | | | o | | | M -> A object placed near the circumference should experience a periodic force as each mass goes past it. It should be possible to detect the existence of that force by attaching a small mass to the centre of a taught wire, tuned to twice the rotation frequency of the rod and locating that close to the spinning masses with isolation from vibration and air movements. This vibroscopic technique should also be capable of directly detecting the force exerted by a pulsed laser beam onto a small mirror, possibly using a tuned torsion arrangement....in vacuum of course.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-14 17:04 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <srSdnZ8ZZ9jPVETKnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #392295 |
On 9/14/16 9/14/16 - 3:01 AM, HGW wrote: > I propose the following experiment to test for gravity waves. > [...] What you propose merely generates a time-varying gravitational field; that's rather easy to detect. But it is NOT the self-propagating gravitational waves of GR, which are VASTLY more difficult to detect. BTW "gravity waves" are something completely different -- that is the term used for waves of matter driven by gravity; examples are waves on the surface of water, salinity waves in the ocean, etc. Your setup will indeed emit gravitational waves, albeit extremely weakly. To identify them as such the detector needs to be several wavelengths away from the source; for 10,000 RPM it would need to be millions of kilometers away. Hopeless. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-14 15:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <09d3c277-a433-42ec-a465-dd0e028a0ce3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #392364 |
On Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 5:04:08 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > On 9/14/16 9/14/16 - 3:01 AM, HGW wrote: > > I propose the following experiment to test for gravity waves. > > [...] > > What you propose merely generates a time-varying gravitational field; that's > rather easy to detect. Indeed. Tests for possible violations of the inverse-square law at short distances have relied on the relative ease of detecting and measuring such short-range variations. http://www.physics.uci.edu/~glab/papers/Bern2008.pdf https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0307284 http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2008/mar/05/gravity-test-constrains-new-forces http://cds.cern.ch/record/945938/files/cer-002612904.pdf > But it is NOT the self-propagating gravitational waves of > GR, which are VASTLY more difficult to detect.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-15 09:53 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nrcnu5$gl2$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #392365 |
On 15/09/16 08:22, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > On Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 5:04:08 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: >> On 9/14/16 9/14/16 - 3:01 AM, HGW wrote: >>> I propose the following experiment to test for gravity waves. >>> [...] >> >> What you propose merely generates a time-varying gravitational field; that's >> rather easy to detect. > > Indeed. Tests for possible violations of the inverse-square law at short > distances have relied on the relative ease of detecting and measuring such > short-range variations. > > http://www.physics.uci.edu/~glab/papers/Bern2008.pdf There is reference to my suggested experiment here. A Japanese researcher rotated a heavy steel bar at about 30hz and detected the gravity waves at up to 10 metres away using a resonance technique. Torsion balances were also used. What about measuring the pressure of light using mechanical resonance methods? The energy required to cause a fine wire to vibrate at its resonant frequency in vacuum is extremely small. Vibration of a flat ribbon bombarded with laser pulses might be detectable.. > https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0307284 > http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2008/mar/05/gravity-test-constrains-new-forces > http://cds.cern.ch/record/945938/files/cer-002612904.pdf > >> But it is NOT the self-propagating gravitational waves of >> GR, which are VASTLY more difficult to detect. I can't see much difference between the gravity waves from an oscillating mass and those of GR. The former will die out very quickly though because of the contribution of the inevitable balancing mass. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-14 19:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <870dd5d6-722f-42df-9de0-a776334a968d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #392383 |
On Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 6:53:46 PM UTC-5, HGW wrote: > I can't see much difference between the gravity waves from an > oscillating mass and those of GR. The former will die out very quickly > though because of the contribution of the inevitable balancing mass. There is rather a profound difference. Contrast the inductive forces in the near vicinity of an electromagnet versus the long range self-propagating magnetic and electric fields of a radio wave. As you yourself point out, the near field gravitational oscillations generated by the dipole masses of your contraption fall off at an inverse cube rate, while gravitational wave energy falls off at an inverse square rate. INCIDENTALLY... The LIGO interferometers are sensitive to the AMPLITUDE of incoming gravitational waves, rather than their energy. That means that their sensitivity falls off as the inverse first power of the distance. In other words, if you double the sensitivity of LIGO, you increase by eight-fold the volume of space the LIGO can monitor. If you increase the sensitivity of LIGO by ten-fold (which is the ultimate goal of the current Advanced LIGO upgrade) the volume of space monitored by LIGO goes up by a factor of 1000. The gravitational wave detections in 2015 were made with an instrument only four times more sensitive than initial LIGO, allowing this preliminary iteration of Advanced LIGO to monitor 64 times more volume than initial LIGO. Several more iterations of improvement will be necessary before Advanced LIGO meets its ultimate design sensitivity, some time around 2021.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-15 00:01 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <3cmdnbazaoWOtkfKnZ2dnUU7_81h4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #392383 |
On 9/14/16 9/14/16 6:53 PM, HGW wrote: > I can't see much difference between the gravity waves from an oscillating mass > and those of GR. That's because you deliberately keep yourself ignorant of modern physics. How sad. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-15 17:47 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nrdjm9$1k2c$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #392408 |
On 15/09/16 15:01, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 9/14/16 9/14/16 6:53 PM, HGW wrote: >> I can't see much difference between the gravity waves from an >> oscillating mass >> and those of GR. > > That's because you deliberately keep yourself ignorant of modern > physics. How sad. Tom, read your previous message again then read about how the Japanese guys have already performed my experiment at 30hz and up to 10 metres away. ...but we know you never were any good at experimental physics.....you're too much of an expert in that imaginary spacetime geometry.... > Tom Roberts > --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-15 15:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nreekn$etk$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #392383 |
HGW <hw@....> writes: >There is reference to my suggested experiment here. >A Japanese researcher rotated a heavy steel bar at about 30hz and >detected the gravity waves at up to 10 metres away using a resonance >technique. Torsion balances were also used. Ralph, 10 meters is not millions of kilometers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-16 06:44 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nrf17a$cc0$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #392459 |
On 16/09/16 01:27, Michael Moroney wrote: > HGW <hw@....> writes: > >> There is reference to my suggested experiment here. >> A Japanese researcher rotated a heavy steel bar at about 30hz and >> detected the gravity waves at up to 10 metres away using a resonance >> technique. Torsion balances were also used. > > Ralph, 10 meters is not millions of kilometers. No...but it is a lot further than Tom's 'few wavelengths'.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-15 17:16 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kvadnXMK-8xIgEbKnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #392483 |
On 9/15/16 9/15/16 - 3:44 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 16/09/16 01:27, Michael Moroney wrote: >> Ralph, 10 meters is not millions of kilometers. > > No...but it is a lot further than Tom's 'few wavelengths'. It's remarkable how frequently you display your total lack of understanding of basic physics. The wavelength of a gravitational wave is c/f when its frequency is f (here the rotation rate of your weights). You did not give f, so as an example I used an unreasonably large value, 10,000 RPM (much larger than the Japanese experiment). So 10 meters is NOT "a lot further than my 'few wavelengths'". Yes, I made a typo that nobody has mentioned yet. Can you find it? Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-16 11:20 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nrfhdm$13le$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #392499 |
On 16/09/16 08:16, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 9/15/16 9/15/16 - 3:44 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >> On 16/09/16 01:27, Michael Moroney wrote: >> No...but it is a lot further than Tom's 'few wavelengths'. > > It's remarkable how frequently you display your total lack of > understanding of basic physics. > > The wavelength of a gravitational wave is c/f when its frequency is f > (here the rotation rate of your weights). You did not give f, so as an > example I used an unreasonably large value, 10,000 RPM (much larger than > the Japanese experiment). > > So 10 meters is NOT "a lot further than my 'few wavelengths'". > > Yes, I made a typo that nobody has mentioned yet. Can you find it? Yes. > Tom Roberts --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-15 22:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nrf8qe$tk$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #392483 |
"HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes: >On 16/09/16 01:27, Michael Moroney wrote: >> HGW <hw@....> writes: >> >>> There is reference to my suggested experiment here. >>> A Japanese researcher rotated a heavy steel bar at about 30hz and >>> detected the gravity waves at up to 10 metres away using a resonance >>> technique. Torsion balances were also used. >> >> Ralph, 10 meters is not millions of kilometers. >No...but it is a lot further than Tom's 'few wavelengths'. Ralph, 1 wavelength at 30 Hz is about 10,000 kilometers. Do you really think a few 10,000 km wavelengths is less than 10 meters?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-16 11:27 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nrfhpv$1410$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #392507 |
On 16/09/16 08:54, Michael Moroney wrote: > "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes: >>> >>> Ralph, 10 meters is not millions of kilometers. > >> No...but it is a lot further than Tom's 'few wavelengths'. > > Ralph, 1 wavelength at 30 Hz is about 10,000 kilometers. > Do you really think a few 10,000 km wavelengths is less than > 10 meters? Tom said the wavelength at 20000 hz was 'millions of klometres'. He is not very good at arithmetic. You have assumed gravity moves at c and you also believe Tom's claim that the detector has to be within a few wavelengths. If that were true then the success of the Jap team proves that gravity does NOT move at c. But it is not right at all. The detector experiences an oscillating force at say 300 hz. If it is tuned to that frequency, it will vibrate. Wavelength is not a factor. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-16 03:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nrfqkv$5rq$10@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #392520 |
HGW <hw@....> writes: >On 16/09/16 08:54, Michael Moroney wrote: >> "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes: >>>> Ralph, 10 meters is not millions of kilometers. >> >>> No...but it is a lot further than Tom's 'few wavelengths'. >> >> Ralph, 1 wavelength at 30 Hz is about 10,000 kilometers. >> Do you really think a few 10,000 km wavelengths is less than >> 10 meters? >Tom said the wavelength at 20000 hz was 'millions of klometres'. He is >not very good at arithmetic. Don't change the subject, Ralph. Tom is much better at mathematic than you since you apparently believe a few times 10,000 km is smaller than 10 meters. >You have assumed gravity moves at c and you also believe Tom's claim >that the detector has to be within a few wavelengths. This is from the well-known near field and far field effects of a radiating object. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_and_far_field
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-17 04:58 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nrhfcp$21l$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #392536 |
On 16/09/16 13:58, Michael Moroney wrote: > HGW <hw@....> writes: > > Don't change the subject, Henry. Tom is much better at mathematic than > you since you apparently believe a few times 10,000 km is smaller than > 10 meters. > >> You have assumed gravity moves at c and you also believe Tom's claim >> that the detector has to be within a few wavelengths. > > This is from the well-known near field and far field effects of a > radiating object. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_and_far_field That applies to transverse waves, idiot! Gravitational waves are longitudinal.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-16 12:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7c3ae352-7a5d-4d48-88dc-6f9b35946416@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #392610 |
On Friday, September 16, 2016 at 1:58:37 PM UTC-5, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 16/09/16 13:58, Michael Moroney wrote: > > HGW <hw@....> writes: > > > > > Don't change the subject, Henry. Tom is much better at mathematic than > > you since you apparently believe a few times 10,000 km is smaller than > > 10 meters. > > > >> You have assumed gravity moves at c and you also believe Tom's claim > >> that the detector has to be within a few wavelengths. > > > > This is from the well-known near field and far field effects of a > > radiating object. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_and_far_field > > That applies to transverse waves, idiot! Gravitational waves are > longitudinal. No. Gravitational waves are transverse quadrupole waves. Electromagnetic waves are transverse dipole waves.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-18 05:42 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nrk6as$1jc$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #392611 |
On 17/09/16 05:18, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > On Friday, September 16, 2016 at 1:58:37 PM UTC-5, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>> >>> This is from the well-known near field and far field effects of a >>> radiating object. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_and_far_field >> >> That applies to transverse waves, idiot! Gravitational waves are >> longitudinal. > > No. > > Gravitational waves are transverse quadrupole waves. Who told you that? Gravitational waves must be spherical and longitudinal. > Electromagnetic waves are transverse dipole waves. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-17 21:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5ec2232b-2fdd-4a46-bdd0-54abaac26de8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #392739 |
On Saturday, September 17, 2016 at 2:42:24 PM UTC-5, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 17/09/16 05:18, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > On Friday, September 16, 2016 at 1:58:37 PM UTC-5, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > > >>> > >>> This is from the well-known near field and far field effects of a > >>> radiating object. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_and_far_field > >> > >> That applies to transverse waves, idiot! Gravitational waves are > >> longitudinal. > > > > No. > > > > Gravitational waves are transverse quadrupole waves. > > Who told you that? > Gravitational waves must be spherical and longitudinal. Your handwaving ***guesses*** have no value. > > Electromagnetic waves are transverse dipole waves. > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-18 20:09 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nrlp5f$3tv$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #392791 |
On 18/09/16 14:08, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > On Saturday, September 17, 2016 at 2:42:24 PM UTC-5, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>> >>> No. >>> >>> Gravitational waves are transverse quadrupole waves. >> >> Who told you that? >> Gravitational waves must be spherical and longitudinal. > > Your handwaving ***guesses*** have no value. Poor fellow! He has never heard a balloon pop.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-18 12:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nrm2ve$2h1$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #392812 |
HGW <hw@....> writes: >On 18/09/16 14:08, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: >> On Saturday, September 17, 2016 at 2:42:24 PM UTC-5, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>>> Gravitational waves are transverse quadrupole waves. >>> >>> Who told you that? >>> Gravitational waves must be spherical and longitudinal. >> >> Your handwaving ***guesses*** have no value. >Poor fellow! He has never heard a balloon pop. Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, a popping balloon does not generate gravity waves, Ralph.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 5 [1] 2 3 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web