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 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-16 20:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nrhm7b$75c$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #392610 |
"HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes: >On 16/09/16 13:58, Michael Moroney wrote: >> HGW <hw@....> writes: >> >> Don't change the subject, Henry. Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, you are back at taking the stupid pills again, Ralph. Ralph M. Rabbidge, do you need more punishment, 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 >That applies to transverse waves, idiot! Gravitational waves are >longitudinal. No, Ralph Rabbidge. Gravitational waves are transverse. But they are quadripole transverse waves, not dipole waves like light, Ralph. Mr. Rabbidge, if you imagine a gravitational wave traveling in the z direction, it will alternately squeeze and stretch in the x and y direction as it passes (squeezing in the x while stretching in the y then stretching in the x while squeezing in the y), Ralph. That is why the LIGO detectors are built in an L shape, Ralph.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-18 05:40 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nrk67l$1jc$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #392633 |
On 17/09/16 06:55, Michael Moroney wrote: > "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes: > >>> 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. But they > are quadripole transverse waves, not dipole waves like light, Henry. > Dr Wilson, if you imagine a gravitational wave traveling in the > z direction, it will alternately squeeze and stretch in the x and y > direction as it passes (squeezing in the x while stretching in the y > then stretching in the x while squeezing in the y), Henry. That is > why the LIGO detectors are built in an L shape, Henry. ...sound like all that alcohol has squeezed Moron-y's brain....
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-17 17:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ba78ae58-d43d-4167-8b46-f685feef0507@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #392738 |
On Saturday, September 17, 2016 at 12:40:41 PM UTC-7, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 17/09/16 06:55, Michael Moroney wrote: > > "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes: > > > > >>> 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. But they > > are quadripole transverse waves, not dipole waves like light, Henry. > > Dr Wilson, if you imagine a gravitational wave traveling in the > > z direction, it will alternately squeeze and stretch in the x and y > > direction as it passes (squeezing in the x while stretching in the y > > then stretching in the x while squeezing in the y), Henry. That is > > why the LIGO detectors are built in an L shape, Henry. > > ...sound like all that alcohol has squeezed Moron-y's brain.... Spectacular scientific rebuttal, Ralph. A little on the defensive, are we?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-18 03:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nrl12n$i7o$5@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #392738 |
"HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes: >On 17/09/16 06:55, Michael Moroney wrote: >> "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes: >>> That applies to transverse waves, idiot! Gravitational waves are >>> longitudinal. >> >> No, Gravitational waves are transverse. But they >> are quadripole transverse waves, not dipole waves like light, Henry. >> Dr Wilson, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, it appears it is time to start punishing you, Ralph. Ralph Rabbidge, please quit taking those stupid pills, Mr. Rabbidge. > if you imagine a gravitational wave traveling in the >> z direction, it will alternately squeeze and stretch in the x and y >> direction as it passes (squeezing in the x while stretching in the y >> then stretching in the x while squeezing in the y), Henry. That is >> why the LIGO detectors are built in an L shape, Henry. >...sound like all that alcohol has squeezed Moron-y's brain.... Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, perhaps a powerful gravity wave squeezed your (Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge's) brain first in the x then in the y directions, Ralph, and that is how you (Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge) managed to become too stupid to understand that you (Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge) shouldn't mess with what I wrote, Ralph.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-15 07:27 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nrdbfj$e31$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #392364 |
Dne 15/09/2016 v 00:04 Tom Roberts napsal(a): > 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. > If not waves, how would be called the periodic changes of gravity as above in sense of being dual periodicity phenomena, as gravity changes do not propagate at infinite speed ? As such "time-varying gravitational field", calls for a wave equation and a wave function the solution.. -- Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-15 17:50 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nrdjr9$1k2c$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #392410 |
On 15/09/16 15:27, Poutnik wrote: > Dne 15/09/2016 v 00:04 Tom Roberts napsal(a): >> 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. >> > > If not waves, how would be called the periodic changes of gravity as above > in sense of being dual periodicity phenomena, as gravity changes > do not propagate at infinite speed ? > > As such "time-varying gravitational field", > calls for a wave equation and a wave function the solution.. That's right. You tell him! Of course the device sends out a gravitational wave...and of the same type as that from cosmic sources. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-16 07:06 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nrfuju$1o2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #392422 |
Dne 15/09/2016 v 09:50 HGW napsal(a): > On 15/09/16 15:27, Poutnik wrote: >> >> If not waves, how would be called the periodic changes of gravity as above >> in sense of being dual periodicity phenomena, as gravity changes >> do not propagate at infinite speed ? >> >> As such "time-varying gravitational field", >> calls for a wave equation and a wave function the solution.. > > That's right. You tell him! > > Of course the device sends out a gravitational wave...and of the same > type as that from cosmic sources. > No, it is not the same. -- Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-16 00:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <483a1650-bee9-4b8b-b831-83f4be55b985@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #392422 |
On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 2:50:04 AM UTC-5, HGW wrote: > Of course the device sends out a gravitational wave...and of the same > type as that from cosmic sources. NO, NO, NO!!! I had asked you before to "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." ***Inductive forces*** should have been a big clue. 1) Connect an electromagnet to an alternating current source. 2) Measure the power consumed by the electromagnet. 3) Bring a helical coil of wire to the near vicinity of the electromagnet. 4) Measure the power consumed by the electromagnet. 5) Short the two ends of the helical coil of wire. 6) Measure the power consumed by the electromagnet. The power consumed by the electromagnet increases when you short the two ends of the helical coil of wire. That is because you have created a transformer. 7) Replace the helical coil of wire in the near field of the electromagnet with an infinite number of tuned antennas at a far distance. 8) Measure the power consumed by the electromagnet The power consumed by the electromagnet will be identical in cases (2) and (8) Far field absorption of radiation by a receiver does not affect the load on a transmitter. There are many other differences.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-30 09:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e9543767-4ba6-4028-addb-0dcf723b18ff@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #392561 |
On September 16, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > "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." > > ***Inductive forces*** should have been a big clue. > 1) Connect an electromagnet to an alternating current source. > 2) Measure the power consumed by the electromagnet. > 3) Bring a helical coil of wire to the near vicinity of the electromagnet. > 4) Measure the power consumed by the electromagnet. > 5) Short the two ends of the helical coil of wire. > 6) Measure the power consumed by the electromagnet. > > The power consumed by the electromagnet increases when you short > the two ends of the helical coil of wire. That is because you have > created a transformer. Pop quiz: Explain transformer action, as described above, in terms of the relativistic model of magnetism as the consequence of charges in relative motion. In particular, how does relativity explain how attaching a load to the secondary, affects the energy drawn from the source. Note the jargon: the source 'sees' the load - > 7) Replace the helical coil of wire in the near field of the electromagnet > with an infinite number of tuned antennas at a far distance. > 8) Measure the power consumed by the electromagnet > > The power consumed by the electromagnet will be identical in cases (2) and (8) > Far field absorption of radiation by a receiver does not affect the load on a > transmitter. Bonus question: consider that the energy absorbed by those far antennas is explained by the energy carried in the radiated wave; no mention of charges in relative motion between source and receiver locations, the source doesn't 'see' the load. Then consider the delivery to a transformer's load, explained by linked flux, or charges in relative motion. Same quantity of energy! How to explain this coincidence, where is the link? -- Rich
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-15 11:51 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <NsydnaJzkcYaTEfKnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #392410 |
On 9/15/16 9/15/16 - 12:27 AM, Poutnik wrote: > Dne 15/09/2016 v 00:04 Tom Roberts napsal(a): >> 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. > > If not waves, how would be called the periodic changes of gravity as above > in sense of being dual periodicity phenomena, as gravity changes > do not propagate at infinite speed ? It is a time-varying gravitational field, as I said. > As such "time-varying gravitational field", > calls for a wave equation and a wave function the solution.. No. Newtonian mechanics has no wave equation for gravitation, but can easily and accurately model this sort of experiment, using its instantaneous gravitational field. A wave equation will have a Green's function that involves retarded potentials expressed in terms of BOTH distance and time delay, as in electrodynamics (see "Lienard-Wiechert potentials" which are a Green's function for electrodynamics). The green's function for Newtonian gravity does not involve time at all, and there are no wavelike solutions. The difference between a time-varying field and a wave is that the wave is self-propagating over large distances but time-varying fields are tied to the (time-varying) source and are restricted to a region nearby. Light waves traverse the galaxy long after their source has been extinguished, but the E field from isolated charges does not leave the laboratory and vanishes when the charges are neutralized. As I said above, the SELF-PROPAGATING gravitational waves of GR are quite different. As in electrodynamics, there are near-field effects and far-field effects (these involve different approximations); gravitational waves are far-field only, but this experiment is near-field only (as is the Japanese experiment Wilson mentioned). Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-16 12:04 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nrfjva$16lt$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #392464 |
On 16/09/16 02:51, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 9/15/16 9/15/16 - 12:27 AM, Poutnik wrote: >> Dne 15/09/2016 v 00:04 Tom Roberts napsal(a): >>> 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. >> >> If not waves, how would be called the periodic changes of gravity as >> above >> in sense of being dual periodicity phenomena, as gravity changes >> do not propagate at infinite speed ? > > It is a time-varying gravitational field, as I said. > > >> As such "time-varying gravitational field", >> calls for a wave equation and a wave function the solution.. > > No. Newtonian mechanics has no wave equation for gravitation, but can > easily and accurately model this sort of experiment, using its > instantaneous gravitational field. I don't think Newton thought much about the speed of gravitational waves...but whether or not a static field acts instantly on a moving object is an interesting question. But I'm sure Newton's theory does predict that any disturbance in a field would produce a traveling wave. How would it not? > A wave equation will have a Green's function that involves > retarded potentials expressed in terms of BOTH distance and > time delay, as in electrodynamics (see "Lienard-Wiechert > potentials" which are a Green's function for electrodynamics). > The green's function for Newtonian gravity does not involve > time at all, and there are no wavelike solutions. They simply didn't consider the possibility. At that time, there was no known way that a gravity field could experience a sudden massive disturbance. > The difference between a time-varying field and a wave is that the wave > is self-propagating over large distances but time-varying fields are > tied to the (time-varying) source and are restricted to a region nearby. 'Nearby' is not a scientific term. The relevant law says there is no limit..The amplitude just approaches 1/infinity, in this case quite rapidly. > Light waves traverse the galaxy long after their source has been > extinguished, but the E field from isolated charges does not leave the > laboratory and vanishes when the charges are neutralized.- You are comparing static fields with alternating ones. If the charge oscillates backwards and forwards, its field will do the same and behave like a spherical traveling wave. That more or less how a broadcasting antenna operates. Consider what happens when a SN occurs. Beforehand, there was a static gravitional field. Mass suddenly disappears into radiation and the field collapses. I would be very surprised if such a disturbance would not result in massive traveling waves of broad spectrum in all directions. > As I said above, the SELF-PROPAGATING gravitational waves of GR are > quite different. As in electrodynamics, there are near-field effects and > far-field effects (these involve different approximations); > gravitational waves are far-field only, but this experiment is > near-field only (as is the Japanese experiment Wilson mentioned). Well, nobody wants to set of uranium bombs in their laboratory so it is pretty hard to experiment with 'far-field' effects. But I cannot see any real difference in the two principles or the two waves.. > Tom Roberts --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-16 22:17 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <xvudnZB4DZh8KEHKnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #392521 |
On 9/15/16 9/15/16 9:04 PM, HGW wrote: > On 16/09/16 02:51, Tom Roberts wrote: >> No. Newtonian mechanics has no wave equation for gravitation, but can >> easily and accurately model this sort of experiment, using its >> instantaneous gravitational field. > > I don't think Newton thought much about the speed of gravitational waves...but > whether or not a static field acts instantly on a moving object is an > interesting question. It's not "interesting" at all, because it would be impossible to tell -- a static field doesn't vary. To determine whether its action is instantaneous or not would require it to change so you can measure the delay from when it changes to when its action is apparent. > But I'm sure Newton's theory does predict that any disturbance in a field would > produce a traveling wave. How would it not? It would not, because it predicts that gravity acts instantaneously at any and every distance. A wave is a self-propagating disturbance that travels at finite speed, and Newtonian gravity's instantaneous action-at-any-distance simply cannot do that. I suppose this is a puzzle for people like you who think they can just "make it up as they go along", rather than actually STUDYING physics and UNDERSTANDING its concepts and mathematics. Your fantasies do NOT hold up, and actual observations in the real world show your notions to be WRONG. This is basic mathematical physics taught to every undergraduate physics major. Once again you display your colossal ignorance. >> A wave equation will have a Green's function that involves >> retarded potentials expressed in terms of BOTH distance and >> time delay, as in electrodynamics (see "Lienard-Wiechert >> potentials" which are a Green's function for electrodynamics). >> The green's function for Newtonian gravity does not involve >> time at all, and there are no wavelike solutions. > > They simply didn't consider the possibility. At that time, there was no known > way that a gravity field could experience a sudden massive disturbance. Doesn't matter. The mathematics of Newtonian gravity does not admit any sort of gravitational wave, (because the Green's function does not involve time). NG does support a time-varying gravitational field (one applies the Green's function at each time, independently), but there is no wave. If the entire surface of the ocean went up-and-down at the same time, there would be no ocean waves, just a time-varying surface. The ocean doesn't do that, but the Newtonian gravitational field DOES. > Gravitational waves are longitudinal. You repeatedly insist on demonstrating your comprehensive ignorance of basic physics. In GR, gravitational waves are transverse. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-18 06:27 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nrk8vn$6bp$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #392667 |
On 17/09/16 13:17, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 9/15/16 9/15/16 9:04 PM, HGW wrote: >> >> They simply didn't consider the possibility. At that time, there was >> no known >> way that a gravity field could experience a sudden massive disturbance. > > Doesn't matter. The mathematics of Newtonian gravity does not admit any > sort of gravitational wave, (because the Green's function does not > involve time). NG does support a time-varying gravitational field (one > applies the Green's function at each time, independently), but there is > no wave. > > If the entire surface of the ocean went up-and-down at the > same time, there would be no ocean waves, just a time-varying > surface. The ocean doesn't do that, but the Newtonian > gravitational field DOES. Tom, if the entire surface of the ocean went up OR down very suddenly, a broad spectrum vertical wave would occur in the atmosphere above it. That would be a longitudinal wave...but of course the atmosphere doesn't go on forever like the 'stuff that fields are made of' apparently does. > >> Gravitational waves are longitudinal. > > You repeatedly insist on demonstrating your comprehensive ignorance of > basic physics. In GR, gravitational waves are transverse. Tom, I seem to be a bit ahead of you here. You are confusing two different situations. The type of wave I am talking about and one which would be generated if a STATIC field were to suddenly change due to the sudden disappearance of whatever was causing that field. If that could be made to happen, one would expect a wave to radiate spherically and symmetrically outwards and therefore, without doubt, longitudinally....and that kind of 'square' change would generate a wide range of frequencies.. The difficult part is envisaging how mass or charge might be made to disappear at all so such a wave could be produced. A SN would certainly do it...and LIGO should detect SN gravitational waves...Newtonian of course. In fact, if such waves DO NOT accompany the visible observations, then that would suggest a wide range of wave speeds and prove Einstein wrong yet again. In the case of electric charge surrounded by a symmetrical static field, I doubt if there is any known way to cause a sudden disappearance. Introducing an opposite charge or moving or shielding it would inevitably create a transverse distortion. > > Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-20 19:47 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <Ip6dnYG9PJwnRXzKnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #392747 |
On 9/17/16 9/17/16 3:27 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 17/09/16 13:17, Tom Roberts wrote: >> If the entire surface of the ocean went up-and-down at the >> same time, there would be no ocean waves, just a time-varying >> surface. The ocean doesn't do that, but the Newtonian >> gravitational field DOES. > > Tom, if the entire surface of the ocean went up OR down very suddenly, a broad > spectrum vertical wave would occur in the atmosphere above it. That would be a > longitudinal wave... Again you attempt to divert the discussion from your ignorance. My analogy was about OCEAN WAVES (and the lack thereof), not atmospheric waves. >> In GR, gravitational waves are transverse. > > The type of wave I am talking about and one which would be generated if a STATIC > field were to suddenly change due to the sudden disappearance of whatever was > causing that field. Then it wouldn't be static, would it? You need to think more carefully about what you are "thinking". As I keep saying, you live in a fantasy world of your own making. In this case your fantasy is that neither conservation of energy nor conservation of momentum hold. They _DO_ hold in the world we inhabit, and I don't care what you dream about in your fantasy world. > The difficult part is envisaging how mass or charge might be made to disappear > at all so such a wave could be produced. So "difficult" that it is impossible (except in your fantasies). Because energy and momentum are conserved in the world we inhabit. > A SN would certainly do it. Only in your fantasy world. In the world we inhabit, a supernova can generate only very minor gravitational waves, because its explosion is approximately spherically symmetric. A perfectly spherically symmetric explosion generates no gravitational waves at all. Part of the reason there are no longitudinal gravitational waves in GR is that unlike your fantasies, GR obeys local energy and momentum conservation. > ..and LIGO > should detect SN gravitational waves...Newtonian of course. In fact, if such > waves DO NOT accompany the visible observations, then that would suggest a wide > range of wave speeds and prove Einstein wrong yet again. Only in your FANTASIES. Your basic problem is that you think your fantasies apply to the real world. There is a name for such psychological pathologies.... Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-21 19:48 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nrtl1b$cqi$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #393159 |
On 21/09/16 10:47, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 9/17/16 9/17/16 3:27 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >> On 17/09/16 13:17, Tom Roberts wrote: >>> If the entire surface of the ocean went up-and-down at the >>> same time, there would be no ocean waves, just a time-varying >>> surface. The ocean doesn't do that, but the Newtonian >>> gravitational field DOES. >> >> Tom, if the entire surface of the ocean went up OR down very suddenly, >> a broad >> spectrum vertical wave would occur in the atmosphere above it. That >> would be a >> longitudinal wave... > > Again you attempt to divert the discussion from your ignorance. My > analogy was about OCEAN WAVES (and the lack thereof), not atmospheric > waves. The up and down movement is longitudinal (in the vertical direction. Gawd, don't you know anything about physics?. No wonder you've been sucked in by Einstein's crap. > >>> In GR, gravitational waves are transverse. >> >> The type of wave I am talking about and one which would be generated >> if a STATIC >> field were to suddenly change due to the sudden disappearance of >> whatever was >> causing that field. > > Then it wouldn't be static, would it? You need to think more carefully > about what you are "thinking". > > As I keep saying, you live in a fantasy world of your own making. In > this case your fantasy is that neither conservation of energy nor > conservation of momentum hold. They _DO_ hold in the world we inhabit, > and I don't care what you dream about in your fantasy world. If a balloon goes POP! it send out a spherical LONGITUDINAL shock wave. If a black hole or SN goes POP, it sends out a longitudinal Gravitational wave in whatever the gravity field is made of. >> The difficult part is envisaging how mass or charge might be made to >> disappear >> at all so such a wave could be produced. > > So "difficult" that it is impossible (except in your fantasies). Because > energy and momentum are conserved in the world we inhabit. As far as we know, energy itself is not influenced by a gravity field. >> A SN would certainly do it. > > Only in your fantasy world. In the world we inhabit, a supernova can > generate only very minor gravitational waves, because its explosion is > approximately spherically symmetric. A perfectly spherically symmetric > explosion generates no gravitational waves at all Now that it quite ridiculous. The whole gravity field around the SN before its mass converts to energy will collapse. I can't imagine a field disappearing like that without some kind of ocsillatory side effect. Part of the reason there are no longitudinal gravitational waves in GR > is that unlike your fantasies, GR obeys local energy and momentum > conservation. Neither you nor anyone else knows anything about gravitational waves..they might not even exist... and there certainly isn't any experimental evidence to support any of your claims or those of anyone else. >> ..and LIGO >> should detect SN gravitational waves...Newtonian of course. In fact, >> if such >> waves DO NOT accompany the visible observations, then that would >> suggest a wide >> range of wave speeds and prove Einstein wrong yet again. > > Only in your FANTASIES. Your basic problem is that you think your > fantasies apply to the real world. There is a name for such > psychological pathologies.... There is a name for the psychosis of all Einstein worshippers. It is called chronic self delusion. > Tom Roberts --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-16 07:21 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nrfvg7$49e$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #392464 |
Dne 15/09/2016 v 18:51 Tom Roberts napsal(a): > No. Newtonian mechanics has no wave equation for gravitation, but can easily and > accurately model this sort of experiment, using its instantaneous gravitational > field. > > A wave equation will have a Green's function that involves > retarded potentials expressed in terms of BOTH distance and > time delay, as in electrodynamics (see "Lienard-Wiechert > potentials" which are a Green's function for electrodynamics). > The green's function for Newtonian gravity does not involve > time at all, and there are no wavelike solutions. I was not speaking about Newtonian mechanics, explicitly stating finite gravity speed. For Newtonian instant gravity it is obvious there are no wavelike solutions. The rest I get. -- Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jaymoseley@hotmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-22 01:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4f8503cf-35a3-4ced-9170-98133ed4bc5d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #392543 |
Poutnik .. > I was not speaking about Newtonian mechanics, explicitly stating finite gravity speed. For Newtonian instant gravity it is obvious there are no wavelike solutions. A lesagian model may get around the problems with any Newtonian gravitational calculations based on assuming a finite speed of gravity. Because it is a push or pressure based model, then any point in a gravitational field *already* has full gravitational pressure pushing towards the mass. Which means that even if the source of the gravitational push were a finite speed, c or otherwise, the effects at any point will be appear to be instantaneous. So for instance any point on the earths orbit *already* has a push force towards the sun. So the earth doesnt have to wait for the sun to send its " gravitational force" to its current spot at c, or whatever. The force is already there !
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-22 04:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <65e3ecd7-6f8c-4601-a498-5d8c5df8fafb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #393308 |
On Thursday, September 22, 2016 at 3:33:34 AM UTC-5, jaymo...@hotmail.com wrote: > Poutnik .. > > I was not speaking about Newtonian mechanics, explicitly stating finite gravity speed. For Newtonian instant gravity it is obvious there are no wavelike solutions. > > A lesagian model may get around the problems with any > Newtonian gravitational calculations based on assuming a finite > speed of gravity. > Because it is a push or pressure based model, then any point > in a gravitational field *already* has full gravitational pressure > pushing towards the mass. Which means that even if the source of > the gravitational push were a finite speed, c or otherwise, the effects > at any point will be appear to be instantaneous. > So for instance any point on the earths orbit *already* has a push > force towards the sun. So the earth doesnt have to wait for the > sun to send its " gravitational force" to its current spot at c, or > whatever. The force is already there ! Why bring up a nonviable model as possibly offering a solution to difficulties with Newtonian gravitation?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jaymoseley@hotmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-22 05:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <93297077-1887-4183-8732-d2079ea49eb0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #393322 |
Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog >>> Poutnik .. > > I was not speaking about Newtonian mechanics, explicitly stating finite gravity speed. For Newtonian instant gravity it is obvious there are no wavelike solutions. >> A lesagian model may get around the problems with any > Newtonian gravitational calculations based on assuming a finite > speed of gravity. > Because it is a push or pressure based model, then any point > in a gravitational field *already* has full gravitational pressure > pushing towards the mass. Which means that even if the source of > the gravitational push were a finite speed, c or otherwise, the effects > at any point will be appear to be instantaneous. > So for instance any point on the earths orbit *already* has a push > force towards the sun. So the earth doesnt have to wait for the > sun to send its " >>gravitational force" to its current spot at c, or > whatever. The force is already there ! >Why bring up a nonviable model as possibly offering a solution to difficulties with Newtonian gravitation? ? Lesage tried a particulate mechanism that fails some criticism. But had he tried a wave only model criticism would have been far more difficult. But that is irrelevent.Newton nor anyone else, have not explained exactly how a pull mechanism works either. Nor has SR offered any mechanism. Why should a push model be subject to special rules that all other theories are exempt? So you are incorrect to assume any push description is non viable. Various contributors have mentioned that newtonian gravity is instantaneous and therefore cannot model any such effects such as gravitational waves. I dont care about gravitational waves as I have definitively shown that LIGO has only measured random coincident events. But I think its important to point out that a finite speed of gravity CAN model an apparent instantaneous effect. Something I notice you were unable to refute.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-22 14:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8c1a9042-3086-4278-95e8-826feb3a926e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #393328 |
On Thursday, September 22, 2016 at 6:53:44 AM UTC-6, jaymo...@hotmail.com wrote: > > Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog > > > > jaymo wrote: > > > > > > A lesagian model may get around the problems with any Newtonian > > > gravitational calculations based on assuming a finite speed of > > > gravity. Because it is a push or pressure based model, then any > > > point in a gravitational field *already* has full gravitational > > > pressure pushing towards the mass. Which means that even if the > > > source of the gravitational push were a finite speed, c or otherwise, > > > the effects at any point will be appear to be instantaneous. Not really. Le Sage theory assumes a shadowing effect. The net push occurs because of less push in the direction of the shadowing object, and the shadow is delayed by the distance between pushed object and shadowing object divided by the speed of the waves (or particles). > > > So for instance any point on the earths orbit *already* has a push > > > force towards the sun. So the earth doesnt have to wait for the sun > > > to send its " >>gravitational force" to its current spot at c, or > > > whatever. The force is already there ! No, it's not. You are forgetting about the diminishing effect caused by shadowing. > > Why bring up a nonviable model as possibly offering a solution to > > difficulties with Newtonian gravitation? > > ? > Lesage tried a particulate mechanism that fails some criticism. But had he > tried a wave only model criticism would have been far more difficult. Nope. Waves and particles have speeds, and both of them transfer energy unless you can hypothesize total and complete reflection. > But that is irrelevent. Newton nor anyone else, have not explained exactly > how a pull mechanism works either. Not true. QED explains that charged bodies exert pulls and pushes by exchanging virtual photons. Quantum gravity theories make use of similar effects by exchanging gravitons. > Nor has SR offered any mechanism. Why should a push model be subject to > special rules that all other theories are exempt? No theory is "exempt." And Le Sage theory doesn't have a viable push mechanism. > So you are incorrect to assume any push description is non viable. No, he is correct. Le Sage theory actually needs a particle (or wave) that travels MUCH faster than light, besides the problem that the body will be heated by the absorption of the waves (or particles). > Various contributors have mentioned that newtonian gravity is instantaneous > and therefore cannot model any such effects such as gravitational waves. > I dont care about gravitational waves as I have definitively shown that > LIGO has only measured random coincident events. You will pardon me if I don't accept your assertion? :-) > But I think its important to point out that a finite speed of gravity CAN > model an apparent instantaneous effect. No, it can't unless the waves (or particles) travel at least 30 times the speed of light. > Something I notice you were unable to refute. Just because he didn't refute that doesn't mean that it's irrefutable, as I demonstrated. Furthermore, surely you're not unaware of the de Broglie equation which relates particulate behavior to wave behavior, so postulating waves over particles does not enhance your argument. Gary
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web