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 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-19 15:11 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nrns1u$1a2c$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #392816 |
On 18/09/16 22:57, Michael Moroney wrote: > HGW <hw@....> writes: > >> On 18/09/16 14:08, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: >>> On Saturday, September 17, 2016 at 2:42:24 PM UTC-5, HGWilson, >>> DSc. wrote: > >>>>> Gravitational waves are transverse quadrupole waves. >>>> >>>> Who told you that? Gravitational waves must be spherical and >>>> longitudinal. >>> >>> Your handwaving ***guesses*** have no value. > >> Poor fellow! He has never heard a balloon pop. > > Henry George Wilson DSc., a popping balloon does not generate > gravity waves, Henry. Gee you seem extra bright today. A popping balloon sends out a spherical longitudinal sound wave. In fact all spherical waves of that nature must be longitudinal. When mass disappears, a longitudinal spherical wave is projected through whatever gravity fields are made of. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-19 14:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nrot7o$p6k$5@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #392905 |
HGW <hw@....> writes: >On 18/09/16 22:57, Michael Moroney wrote: >> 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. >> >> Henry George Wilson DSc., a popping balloon does not generate >> gravity waves, Henry. >Gee you seem extra bright today. >A popping balloon sends out a spherical longitudinal sound wave. >In fact all spherical waves of that nature must be longitudinal. When >mass disappears, a longitudinal spherical wave is projected through >whatever gravity fields are made of. Ralph Malcolm Rabbbidge, don't avoid the issue, Ralph. Ralph M. Rabbidge, we were discussing the fact that gravitational waves are transverse, Ralph, not whether a popping balloon produces longitudinal pressure waves, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge. Ralph Rabbidge, everyone knows sound waves are longitudinal, Ralph. Ralph, once again, lay off the stupid pills, Ralph.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-20 04:44 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nrpblt$8jg$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #392945 |
On 20/09/16 00:37, Michael Moron-y wrote: > HGW <hw@....> writes: > >> On 18/09/16 22:57, Michael Moroney wrote: >> Gee you seem extra bright today. > >> A popping balloon sends out a spherical longitudinal sound wave. > >> In fact all spherical waves of that nature must be longitudinal. When >> mass disappears, a longitudinal spherical wave is projected through >> whatever gravity fields are made of. > > Henry George Wilson DSc., don't avoid the issue, ....... I am not avoiding the main issue...which is your complete ignorance of basic physics....
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-19 21:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nrpmed$pu8$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #392982 |
"HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes: >On 20/09/16 00:37, Michael Moron-y wrote: >> HGW <hw@....> writes: >> >>> On 18/09/16 22:57, Michael Moroney wrote: >>> A popping balloon sends out a spherical longitudinal sound wave. >>> In fact all spherical waves of that nature must be longitudinal. When >>> mass disappears, a longitudinal spherical wave is projected through >>> whatever gravity fields are made of. >> >> Henry George Wilson DSc., don't avoid the issue, ....... >I am not avoiding the main issue...which is your complete ignorance of >basic physics.... Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, no, Ralph. Ralph Rabbidge, we were discussing whether gravitational waves were transverse or longitudinal, Ralph. Mr. Rabbidge, when several people pointed out that they were transverse, Ralph, that's when you changed the subject to balloons and then personal attacks, Ralph M. Rabbidge. Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, to remind you, I'll include the previous post to show everyone else how you changed the subject to a balloon and sound waves, Ralph, to avoid the transverse/longitudinal question, Ralph Rabbidge. ---------------------------------------------------------------- >On 18/09/16 22:57, Michael Moroney wrote: >> 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. >> >> Henry George Wilson DSc., a popping balloon does not generate >> gravity waves, Henry. >Gee you seem extra bright today. >A popping balloon sends out a spherical longitudinal sound wave. >In fact all spherical waves of that nature must be longitudinal. When >mass disappears, a longitudinal spherical wave is projected through >whatever gravity fields are made of. Ralph Malcolm Rabbbidge, don't avoid the issue, Ralph. Ralph M. Rabbidge, we were discussing the fact that gravitational waves are transverse, Ralph, not whether a popping balloon produces longitudinal pressure waves, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge. Ralph Rabbidge, everyone knows sound waves are longitudinal, Ralph. Ralph, once again, lay off the stupid pills, Ralph.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-19 11:16 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nrp305$1l01$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #392905 |
On 9/19/2016 12:11 AM, HGW wrote: > Gee you seem extra bright today. > > A popping balloon sends out a spherical longitudinal sound wave. > > In fact all spherical waves of that nature must be longitudinal. When > mass disappears, a longitudinal spherical wave is projected through > whatever gravity fields are made of. Perhaps you could also try to explain that spherical electromagnetic waves are also longitudinal because they must be. This should be fun. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-19 13:22 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <A6GdnZi7U5JnsX3KnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #392964 |
On 9/19/16 9/19/16 - 11:16 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 9/19/2016 12:11 AM, HGW wrote: >> Gee you seem extra bright today. >> >> A popping balloon sends out a spherical longitudinal sound wave. >> >> In fact all spherical waves of that nature must be longitudinal. When >> mass disappears, a longitudinal spherical wave is projected through >> whatever gravity fields are made of. > > Perhaps you could also try to explain that spherical electromagnetic waves are > also longitudinal because they must be. This should be fun. It will be even more fun to see if he knows that there are no spherical E&M waves. Hint: look up the "hairy ball theorem". Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-20 04:58 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nrpcgn$9pe$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #392964 |
On 20/09/16 02:16, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 9/19/2016 12:11 AM, HGW wrote: >> Gee you seem extra bright today. >> >> A popping balloon sends out a spherical longitudinal sound wave. >> >> In fact all spherical waves of that nature must be longitudinal. When >> mass disappears, a longitudinal spherical wave is projected through >> whatever gravity fields are made of. > > Perhaps you could also try to explain that spherical electromagnetic > waves are also longitudinal because they must be. This should be fun. I can....but I will first draw your attention to the fact that my statement deliberately included the phrase 'of that nature'. The closest we can get to a spherical EM wave might come from a spark discharge.... But EM is initially particulate...and it is the oscillation of each particle (photon) that is transverse and responsible for the polarization of the outgoing radiation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-19 22:24 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ffGdnYxn3794Nn3KnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #392986 |
On 9/19/16 9/19/16 1:58 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > The closest we can get to a spherical EM wave might come from a spark > discharge. It's remarkable how frequently you display your complete lack of understanding of basic physics. Or rather, it's sad. There _ARE_ no spherical EM waves. The lowest possible spherical harmonic is a dipole. The simplest way to see this is to remember that EM waves have transverse E and B fields, which are (of course) vectors. The "hairy ball theorem" states that for any vector field on the surface of a sphere there is at least one zero, somewhere. So an EM wave cannot possibly have constant intensity in all directions (which is what "spherical" means), because its intensity must be zero in some direction. > But EM is initially particulate...and it is the oscillation of each particle > (photon) that is transverse and responsible for the polarization of the > outgoing radiation. But the polarization of photons is NOT transverse. A photon can have only two polarization states: helicity +1 and -1 (i.e. spin aligned and anti-aligned with its momentum; a spin-1 particle would normally have transverse polarizations too, but because the photon is massless it doesn't; BTW this is a direct consequence of Lorentz invariance and is supported solidly by experiments). A light BEAM can have a transverse linear polarization, because it can consist of an appropriate superposition of photons with helicities +1 and -1. As usual, you just make stuff up and pretend it is true. How silly. And sad. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-21 20:04 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nrtlv2$ej3$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #393048 |
On 20/09/16 13:24, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 9/19/16 9/19/16 1:58 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >> The closest we can get to a spherical EM wave might come from a >> spark discharge. > > It's remarkable how frequently you display your complete lack of > understanding of basic physics. Or rather, it's sad. > > There _ARE_ no spherical EM waves. The lowest possible spherical > harmonic is a dipole. I said the closest we could get. A spark emits EM in almost a solid 360 degrees. But it emits particles called photons which are individual entities at that stage of their lives. > > The simplest way to see this is to remember that EM waves have > transverse E and B fields, which are (of course) vectors. The "hairy > ball theorem" states that for any vector field on the surface of a > sphere there is at least one zero, somewhere. So an EM wave cannot > possibly have constant intensity in all directions (which is what > "spherical" means), because its intensity must be zero in some > direction. > > >> But EM is initially particulate...and it is the oscillation of each >> particle (photon) that is transverse and responsible for the >> polarization of the outgoing radiation. > > But the polarization of photons is NOT transverse. A photon can have > only two polarization states: helicity +1 and -1 (i.e. spin aligned > and anti-aligned with its momentum; a spin-1 particle would normally > have transverse polarizations too, but because the photon is massless > it doesn't; BTW this is a direct consequence of Lorentz invariance > and is supported solidly by experiments). You're talking about circular polarization. Haven't you heard of linear polarization? That is transverse and determined by an alignment of the electric field of all the photons in the beam. Of course BaTh says that photon merge into a kind of medium that they carry along with them and form into broader wavefronts in that medium...but it can still be transversely polarized...not sure about circularly though. > A light BEAM can have a transverse linear polarization, because it > can consist of an appropriate superposition of photons with > helicities +1 and -1. No you are very confused about this. > As usual, you just make stuff up and pretend it is true. How silly. > And sad. > > > Tom Roberts --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-20 07:20 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nrr9hf$skr$8@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #392986 |
On 9/19/2016 1:58 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 20/09/16 02:16, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 9/19/2016 12:11 AM, HGW wrote: >>> Gee you seem extra bright today. >>> >>> A popping balloon sends out a spherical longitudinal sound wave. >>> >>> In fact all spherical waves of that nature must be longitudinal. When >>> mass disappears, a longitudinal spherical wave is projected through >>> whatever gravity fields are made of. >> >> Perhaps you could also try to explain that spherical electromagnetic >> waves are also longitudinal because they must be. This should be fun. > > I can....but I will first draw your attention to the fact that my > statement deliberately included the phrase 'of that nature'. Oh, I'm fully aware of your carefully pondered semantic dodge. It's the only effort you put into any of your posts. "How can I say something that sounds wrong but is defensibly true?" > > The closest we can get to a spherical EM wave might come from a spark > discharge.... But EM is initially particulate...and it is the > oscillation of each particle (photon) that is transverse and responsible > for the polarization of the outgoing radiation. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-21 20:10 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nrtmbc$f0d$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #393076 |
On 20/09/16 22:20, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 9/19/2016 1:58 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>>> A popping balloon sends out a spherical longitudinal sound wave. >>>> >>>> In fact all spherical waves of that nature must be longitudinal. When >>>> mass disappears, a longitudinal spherical wave is projected through >>>> whatever gravity fields are made of. >>> >>> Perhaps you could also try to explain that spherical electromagnetic >>> waves are also longitudinal because they must be. This should be fun. >> >> I can....but I will first draw your attention to the fact that my >> statement deliberately included the phrase 'of that nature'. > > Oh, I'm fully aware of your carefully pondered semantic dodge. It's the > only effort you put into any of your posts. "How can I say something > that sounds wrong but is defensibly true?" Bodkin, why do I feel so smug just because I keep winning debates against you? --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-21 07:59 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nru088$10d1$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #393200 |
On 9/21/2016 5:10 AM, HGW wrote: > On 20/09/16 22:20, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 9/19/2016 1:58 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > >>>>> A popping balloon sends out a spherical longitudinal sound wave. >>>>> >>>>> In fact all spherical waves of that nature must be longitudinal. When >>>>> mass disappears, a longitudinal spherical wave is projected through >>>>> whatever gravity fields are made of. >>>> >>>> Perhaps you could also try to explain that spherical electromagnetic >>>> waves are also longitudinal because they must be. This should be fun. >>> >>> I can....but I will first draw your attention to the fact that my >>> statement deliberately included the phrase 'of that nature'. >> >> Oh, I'm fully aware of your carefully pondered semantic dodge. It's the >> only effort you put into any of your posts. "How can I say something >> that sounds wrong but is defensibly true?" > > Bodkin, why do I feel so smug just because I keep winning debates > against you? In whose estimation? Look at yourself in the mirror and pat yourself on the back that you are the only true scientist in existence. Tell yourself that you are important. Tell yourself that Archimedes Plutonium is fooling himself when he looks in the mirror and says the same things to himself. Then look at yourself in the mirror some more. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-22 13:57 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ns0gvq$36s$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #393200 |
On 21.09.2016 12:10, HGW wrote: > > Bodkin, why do I feel so smug just because I keep winning debates > against you? > Could it be because you are a victim of your own self-conceit? -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-19 09:51 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nrou27$17o2$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #392812 |
On 9/18/2016 5:09 AM, HGW wrote: > 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. > > > Henry applies the principle "Sound waves exist and are longitudinal. Therefore any waves are also longitudinal." -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-19 09:32 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nrosts$13ar$7@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #392739 |
On 9/17/2016 2:42 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 17/09/16 05:18, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: >> >> Gravitational waves are transverse quadrupole waves. > > Who told you that? > Gravitational waves must be spherical and longitudinal. Who told you that? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-20 04:52 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nrpc5g$9c0$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #392941 |
On 20/09/16 00:32, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 9/17/2016 2:42 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >> On 17/09/16 05:18, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > >>> >>> Gravitational waves are transverse quadrupole waves. >> >> Who told you that? Gravitational waves must be spherical and >> longitudinal. > > Who told you that? Who told you they are not? Since gravitational waves have only been hypothesized and the recent claimed observation of one didn't reveal anything about it, neither you nor anyone else is in a position to comment on whether it is longitudinal or transverse.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-19 22:35 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <wIqdnRyPXqT-M33KnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #392985 |
On 9/19/16 9/19/16 1:52 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > Since gravitational waves have only been hypothesized and > the recent claimed observation of one didn't reveal anything about it, neither > you nor anyone else is in a position to comment on whether it is longitudinal or > transverse. NONSENSE! You only display your personal ignorance of what science is and how it operates, and also your ignorance of what the LIGO team actually did. The only theory we have that includes gravitational waves is GR, and in GR they are self-propagating transverse disturbances in the metric. Unlike E&M, in which waves can have any multipole >= dipole, the gravitational waves of GR can only have multipoles >= quadrupole. In short, monopole and dipole gravitational waves are prohibited by momentum conservation in the source. Similarly in E&M, monopole waves are prohibited by charge conservation in the source. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-21 20:08 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nrtm6k$f0d$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #393049 |
On 20/09/16 13:35, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 9/19/16 9/19/16 1:52 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >> Since gravitational waves have only been hypothesized and the >> recent claimed observation of one didn't reveal anything about it, >> neither you nor anyone else is in a position to comment on whether >> it is longitudinal or transverse. > > NONSENSE! You only display your personal ignorance of what science is > and how it operates, and also your ignorance of what the LIGO team > actually did. > > The only theory we have that includes gravitational waves is GR, and > in GR they are self-propagating transverse disturbances in the > metric. Unlike E&M, in which waves can have any multipole >= dipole, > the gravitational waves of GR can only have multipoles >= > quadrupole. Well GR is all based on the fallacy that light speed is constant so we don't have to believe any of that. > In short, monopole and dipole gravitational waves are prohibited by > momentum conservation in the source. Similarly in E&M, monopole waves > are prohibited by charge conservation in the source. A mass in space has no velocity or momentum. If it suddenly disappears there is no momentum that needs to be conserved. > Tom Roberts > --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-20 07:18 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nrr9eq$skr$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #392985 |
On 9/19/2016 1:52 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 20/09/16 00:32, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 9/17/2016 2:42 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>> On 17/09/16 05:18, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: >> >>>> >>>> Gravitational waves are transverse quadrupole waves. >>> >>> Who told you that? Gravitational waves must be spherical and >>> longitudinal. >> >> Who told you that? > > Who told you they are not? > Since gravitational waves have only been hypothesized and > the recent claimed observation of one didn't reveal anything about it, > neither you nor anyone else is in a position to comment on whether it is > longitudinal or transverse. > LOL. So you believe you are free to claim that it is certain that is the way you say it is, because it is uncertain. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-16 14:22 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nrhgqb$48i$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #392610 |
On 9/16/2016 1:58 PM, 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 sir. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web