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

Groups > sci.physics > #558969 > unrolled thread

Re: Does General Relativity Predict Gravitational Waves?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Does General Relativity Predict Gravitational Waves? Helénē Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-03 19:29 +0000
    Re: Does General Relativity Predict Gravitational Waves? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-05 12:35 +0100
      Re: Does General Relativity Predict Gravitational Waves? jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-03-05 05:25 -0800
        Re: Does General Relativity Predict Gravitational Waves? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 08:08 -0600
        Re: Does General Relativity Predict Gravitational Waves? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-05 17:42 +0100
          Re: Does General Relativity Predict Gravitational Waves? jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-03-05 12:19 -0800
            Re: Does General Relativity Predict Gravitational Waves? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 14:21 -0600
            Re: Does General Relativity Predict Gravitational Waves? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-05 22:01 +0100
              Re: Does General Relativity Predict Gravitational Waves? jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-03-05 14:14 -0800
                Re: Does General Relativity Predict Gravitational Waves? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-06 16:24 +0100
                  Re: Does General Relativity Predict Gravitational Waves? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-03-06 08:22 -0800
                  Re: Does General Relativity Predict Gravitational Waves? jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-03-07 00:44 -0800
                    Re: Does General Relativity Predict Gravitational Waves? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-07 20:52 +0100
                      Re: Does General Relativity Predict Gravitational Waves? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-03-07 12:54 -0800
        Re: Does General Relativity Predict Gravitational Waves? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 09:09 -0600

#558969 — Re: Does General Relativity Predict Gravitational Waves?

JanPB wrote:

> On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 9:10:14 AM UTC-8, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>> 
>> Since general relativity is an empirical model, it can predict anything
>> - e.g. both existence and non-existence of gravitational waves. Or both
>> static and expanding universe. Or both constant and variable speed of
>> light. Anything!
> 
> Not even wrong. Simply N/A.

You not, of course. Pentcho is 100% consistent. Relativity is been 
invented BEFORE the discovery of an Universe being in expanding mode. And 
Relativity remained valid. It does not really mater whether the Universe 
is expanding or not, or, whether the misunderstood Gravity Waves are real 
and detectable or not. Relativity will still be valid. Nor whether the 
Speed of Gravity (SoG) coincide with the Speed of Light (SoL). Relativity 
will still be valid. You don't know your own theory. Moreover, SR will 
still be valid, GR or not, at ANY value of c, be that whatever. That's why 
is been said that SR is a stronger and more fundamental theory than GR. GR 
is based only on suppositions and postulates. SR is not. SR is clean.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#559528

Helénē Swanhild wrote:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Obnoxious liar.

> JanPB wrote:
>> On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 9:10:14 AM UTC-8, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>>> Since general relativity is an empirical model, it can predict anything
>>> - e.g. both existence and non-existence of gravitational waves. Or both
>>> static and expanding universe. Or both constant and variable speed of
>>> light. Anything!
>> 
>> Not even wrong. Simply N/A.
> 
> You not, of course.

Gibberish.

> Pentcho is 100% consistent.

The gibbering, ’nym-shifting troll still does not know the difference 
between “consistent” and “correct”.

> Relativity is been invented

Relativity is not an invention.

> BEFORE the discovery of an Universe being in expanding mode.

Instead, general relativity (1915) suggested to Lemaître in 1927 that it 
could be a correct description of reality even in an expanding universe, and 
Hubble showed the expansion of our universe in 1929 as a side-effect of his 
astronomical observations.

> And Relativity remained valid.

Relativity as it is commonly understood nowadays includes two theories, the 
special theory of relativity (special relativity, less commonly abbreviated 
“SR”), and the general theory of relativity (general relativity, commonly 
abbreviated “GR”).

Theories are not considered “valid” at any point in their existence.  The 
’nym-shifting troll still has not understood that theories come along with 
uncertainties.  However, those theories have been experimentally confirmed 
many times.  No modern device would work if they were fundamentally flawed 
as no microchip would work as designed then.

> It does not really mater whether the Universe is expanding or not, or,
> whether the misunderstood Gravity Waves are real and detectable or not.

Once again, gravity waves are not gravitational waves.

Gravity waves can be observed daily on Terra with the naked eye, in the 
oceans and the clouds.

Gravitational waves have been detected by LIGO recently with a statistical 
significance of 2σ, i.e. a probability of 95.4499736 %.  Future detections 
by LIGO and similar experiments on Terra and in outer space are expected.

The one who has misunderstood everything is, once again, only the ’nym-
shifting troll.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_wave>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave>

> Relativity will still be valid. Nor whether the Speed of Gravity (SoG)
> coincide with the Speed of Light (SoL). Relativity will still be valid.
> You don't know your own theory. Moreover, SR will still be valid, GR or
> not, at ANY value of c, be that whatever. That's why is been said

Rather vomited into science newsgroups by nobody but the ’nym-shifting 
troll.

> that SR is a stronger and more fundamental theory than GR. GR
> is based only on suppositions and postulates. SR is not. SR is clean.

Not even wrong.

*PLONK*


PointedEars
-- 
Q: Who's on the case when the electricity goes out?  
A: Sherlock Ohms.

(from: WolframAlpha)

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

#559533

Tom...
> Once again, gravity waves are not gravitational waves.

>Gravity waves can be observed daily on Terra with the naked eye, in the oceans and the clouds.

Under GR the books are cooked so any LIGO observation can only be spuriously
attributed to GR. 
But if you wish to distinguish the LIGO observations from tides, you would
be making an erroneous claim. LIGO observed a distortion in distance in
the setup. A*classical * effect called strain . Not a relativistic effect. 
It is only an assumption that it was caused by GR magic, as it (LIGO anomaly)
can just as easily be modeled classically.

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

#559546

On 3/5/16 7:25 AM, jay moseley wrote:
> Under GR the books are cooked so any LIGO observation can only be spuriously
> attributed to GR.


   Perfect example of an uneducated poster who can't understand the
   basics of relativity disparaging scientific observation. Suggest
   read paper:

   Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger
 > 
http://physics.aps.org/featured-article-pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102



-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

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

#559583

jay moseley wrote:

> Tom...

Not even close friends call me “Tom”.  Learn to quote instead.

>> Once again, gravity waves are not gravitational waves.
>> 
>> Gravity waves can be observed daily on Terra with the naked eye, in the
>> oceans and the clouds.
> 
> Under GR the books are cooked

What is that supposed to mean?

> so any LIGO observation can only be spuriously attributed to GR.

The predictions that GR makes and that can be derived from GR have been 
confirmed in numerous other experiments in the 100 years before this one.  
If the attribution of the LIGO observations to GR is “spurious”, then all 
those other experiments are as well.  The chances of that are zero.

> But if you wish to distinguish the LIGO observations from tides,
> you would be making an erroneous claim.

You are the one making erroneous claims here.

> LIGO observed a distortion in distance in the setup.

Yes.  Precisely, a propagating distortion of spacetime.

> A*classical * effect called strain .
> Not a relativistic effect.

Incorrect.  The observed kind of strain is precisely what was predicted by 
Einstein 100 years before.  Non-relativistic strain can been excluded 
because of the precautions taken in the experiment.

> It is only an assumption that it was caused by GR magic,

There is no magic in GR.

> as it (LIGO anomaly) can just as easily be modeled classically.

Not in the observed way, and not under these conditions.


PointedEars
-- 
Q: Who's on the case when the electricity goes out?  
A: Sherlock Ohms.

(from: WolframAlpha)

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

#559642

>Incorrect. The observed kind of strain is precisely what was predicted by Einstein 100 years before. Non-relativistic strain can been excluded because of the precautions taken in the experiment.

When is strain not strain? When a relativist cant admit that strain 
is strain. 
When is an object orbiting another object not an object orbitting
another object? When a relativist cant admit that a gravitational 
wave is also a classical phenomena,  measured and understood long 
before Einstein ever got around to trying to appropriate the 
phenomena to his ridiculous relativistic fantasy.

>> It is only an assumption that it was caused by GR magic,

>There is no magic in GR.

>> as it (LIGO anomaly) can just as easily be modeled classically.

>Not in the observed way, and not under these conditions.

As usual there is no evidence to back up this spurious claim.
Which is why you nor Sam nor the hacks at LIGO have offered any.

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

#559643

On 3/5/16 2:19 PM, jay moseley wrote:
> Which is why you nor Sam nor the hacks at LIGO have offered any.


   You should read this paper, Jay:

   Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger
 > 
http://physics.aps.org/featured-article-pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102

   Is there some reason you won't read it?



-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

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

#559649

jay moseley wrote:

[Repaired quotation; please do not remove attribution lines, but trim them 
if necessary.]

> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> […] The observed kind of strain is precisely what was predicted by
>> Einstein 100 years before. Non-relativistic strain can been excluded
>> because of the precautions taken in the experiment.
> 
> When is strain not strain?

Your fallacy here is: Straw man.  Nobody has claimed that ”strain [would not 
be] strain”. 

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies#Red_herring_fallacies>

I have said that there are different kinds of strain.  The one that you are 
referring to (classical, non-relativistic) was _not_ observed at the LIGO 
detectors; the one I referred to (relativistic) was.

>> Not in the observed way, and not under these conditions.
> 
> As usual there is no evidence to back up this spurious claim.

Yes, there is.  Go to the LIGO website [1] and watch the videos explaining 
the method of detection of GW150914 (e.g., [2]), their article on it, and/or 
their paper referred there [3], and do not post about this again until you 
did your homework.

[1] <http://www.ligo.org/>
[2] <https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/detection>
[3] <https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/news/ligo20160211>

> Which is why you nor Sam nor the hacks at LIGO have offered any.

Your fallacies here are:

  · /Argumentum ex silentio/
  · Shifting the burden of proof.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies#Informal_fallacies>


PointedEars
-- 
Q: What did the nuclear physicist order for lunch?  
A: Fission chips.

(from: WolframAlpha)

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

#559660

Thomas Lahn wrote...
>> Your fallacy here is: Straw man. Nobody has claimed that "strain [would not be] strain".

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies#Red_herring_fallacies>

>I have said that there are different kinds of strain. The one that you are referring to (classical, non-relativistic) was _not_ observed at the LIGO detectors; the >one I referred to (relativistic) was.

Reminds me of the line. All men are equal but some are more equal than others.

You seem to not understand something about what LIGO observed.
They did not observe "relativistic" waves. What happened was the two arms
of the interferometer physically contracted/expanded. Hence the path
lengths differed over time. That is not a relativistic phenomena. That
is and is admitted so much so on relativistic propaganda pages like,
for instance wiki,... a classical effect. 
It is only *assumption* to attribute this classical effect to GR. 
One could just as easily attribute it to a classical effect like classical 
gravitational waves caused by inspiral two body system of two neutron 
stars merging. 
And the lie that neutron stars cannot produce the observed results is a
spurious assumption based on calculations fabricated by desperate
relativists.

It is pseudoscience to say that under relativistic rules, no other models 
except relativity can explain the LIGO anomaly.
And then say look! the proof is that we have observed something at 
LIGO that can only be explained by GR. 
Thats called a fixed match.

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

#559762

jay moseley wrote:

> Thomas Lahn wrote...
>>> Your fallacy here is: Straw man. Nobody has claimed that "strain [would
>>> not be] strain".
> 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies#Red_herring_fallacies>

You have misquoted this.  I referred you to that list instead, so that you 
can read there what a straw man fallacy is, and why you committed it there.
 
>>I have said that there are different kinds of strain. The one that you are
>>referring to (classical, non-relativistic) was _not_ observed at the LIGO
>>detectors; the >one I referred to (relativistic) was.
> 
> Reminds me of the line. All men are equal but some are more equal than
> others.

What you do not realize is that strain can be caused by different phenomena, 
and so there are different kinds of strain.  And the simple truth of the 
matter is that, AISB, the kind of strain that you referred to (classical, 
non-relativistic) was _not_ observed; the kind of strain that I referred to 
(relativistic) *was* observed.
 
> You seem to not understand something about what LIGO observed.

No, *you* do not understand it *at all*.  Finally get yourself *informed*.

> They did not observe "relativistic" waves.

With a probability of more than 95 %, the LIGO team did observe 
_gravitational_ waves.

> What happened was the two arms of the interferometer physically 
> contracted/expanded.

Correct.  There is no contradiction.  You must realize that those arms exist 
in our universe, and are therefore a part of spacetime.  Loosely speaking, 
if spacetime expands, the arm expands; if spacetime contracts, the arm 
contracts.  That is, we *measure* it to be longer or shorter than before 
because it took *light* less or more time to travel the distance.  Because 
the speed of light is constant and the same in all frames of reference, 
measuring the travel time of light is an excellent way to measure distance.  
(In the case of LIGO, however, the fact that light can behave like a wave 
was used; when waves interfere, the interference can be constructive or 
destructive or something in-between.)

> Hence the path lengths differed over time.

In fact, they not just differed arbitrarily over time, but they 
*oscillated*.  They oscillated precisely in the way predicted by Einstein in 
1916: one of the arms was shortened *by the same ratio* that the other arm’s 
length increased *at the same time*.  Hence the characteristically 
*oscillating* *interference pattern* in the detector of the (Michelson) 
*interferometers* that the LIGO experiments essentially are.

Computer models of the experiment when measuring gravitational waves had 
been created before, based on the Einstein field equations.  The 
observations matched those models almost *precisely*.

The observations matched those models almost precisely *two times*, *in two 
different places* in the United States (Livingston, LA; and Hanford, WA).  

The oscillations had been observed in the second place *exactly as in the 
first place* at *exactly the time they should have been observed* if a 
phenomenon traveled from the first place to the second one *at the speed of 
light* (which only light and gravitational waves can do, and it was not 
light this time).

Meticulous preparations and precautions made sure that no other known 
phenomenon could be responsible for those oscillations at either site.  
Hence, there is no reasonable doubt that what has been observed were 
gravitational waves that had been produced by the merger of two black holes 
with the masses that have been reported, at the distance from Earth that has 
been reported, and in the region of space that has been reported.

> That is not a relativistic phenomena.

Incorrect.

Since you appear to have problems finding the relevant statements in the 
references that I gave you, here is the reference to the part in the press 
conference video where the explanations of what happened and how it was 
measured begin:

<https://youtu.be/aEPIwEJmZyE?t=265>

If you still cannot understand it after watching the video from that time 
index (0:04:25) to ca. 0:29:45 (but feel free to watch beyond), you can 
watch Brian Greene explaining it for laymen in about 8.5 minutes in “The
Late Show”:

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajZojAwfEbs>

If it is still unclear, you can ask a *smart* question in 
<news:sci.physics.relativity> where this is on-topic instead, and I (or if 
someone else is faster than me, someone else) will explain it to you. 

<http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.html>

I am even willing and prepared then to give you an analogy for gravitational 
waves for laymen that hopefully you can understand.

However, if you still just continue to plainly deny what has happened 
*despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary* (and without 
substantiating your rather outlandish claims yourself), I will add you to my 
killfile, as such behavior by you would show that you have disconnected 
yourself from both reality and reason, and that further communicating with 
you is a waste of time.  You have been warned.


PointedEars
-- 
I heard that entropy isn't what it used to be.

(from: WolframAlpha)

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

#559768

<PointedEars@web.de> "Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn" is not
only a brainwashed parrot, but he's an Einstein Dingleberry 
that religiously worships Albert's Sphincter. 
To boot, **Lahn hat Groessenwahn** as seen 
in his posts that are lahm like Lahn. <snip> 
Lamebrain-Lahn is funny though... 
Thanks for the laughs, Du Trottel....ahahahaha... ROTFMAO

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

#559933

Thomas Lahn wrote..
>gibberish

You are uunable to understand that the interferometer was distorted due to
a classical effect called strain. There is no such thing as relativistic strain.
You can only assume the distortion was caused by a an imaginary
"relativistic wave". But you forget that a gravitational wave is also a classical
effect that can be caused by neutron stars,moon orbitting earth etc.

You also are under the delusion that this particular chirp could not have
been caused by anything except a BH. This is pseudoscience. Neutron
stars have only been ruled out under *relativistic* theoretical assumptions.
But a theory like GR that makes up rules to exclude all other possibilities
except relativistic possibilties, like imaginary black holes, is a pseudoscience.
Like the church used to rule out anything but an earth centered universe.

The fact is;  inspiral oscillation templates for neutron stars are essentially
the same as tbose for Black holes. Neutron pairs are known to oscillate
at about 40 hz as did this chirp before it merged. And whereas neutron 
star pairs have been observed elsewhere. So far no confirmed black hole 
has ever been observed. In fact no phenomena ever observed that has been
attributed to relativity cannot also be consistent with a classical
explanation. Whereas many that are consistent with a classical model
cannot be explained by GR or SR. Like for instance... Sagnac or MMX

Remember the famous fireworks predicted for your imaginary black hole at the 
Center of the miilky way? That was total failure for relativity. Another imaginary
black hole ruled out.

So please put me in your plonk file. Im not interested in discussing a wacko
religious unverifiable cult like GR. Except to respond and expose unverifiable,
pseudoscientific claims that people like yourself fabricate.

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

#560083

jay moseley wrote:

> Thomas Lahn wrote..
>>gibberish
> 
> You are uunable to understand that the interferometer was distorted due to
> a classical effect called strain. There is no such thing as relativistic
> strain.  […]

*PLONK*

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#560111

> "jay moseley" said that "Volksverhetzer Thomas Lahn" wrote..
>>>gibberish
> *PLONK* PointedEars
> 
> Twitter: @PointedEars2
> Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
>
----- [[[ Mosley   1   -:-  Lahn    0, zero, null, nichts  ]]] -----
>
because:
<PointedEars@web.de> "Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn" is not
only a brainwashed parrot, but he's an Einstein Dingleberry 
that religiously worships Albert's Sphincter. To boot, 
**Lahn hat Groessenwahn**,  which rhymes, as seen 
in his posts that are lahm like Lahn. <snip> 
Lamebrain-Lahn is funny though... 
Thanks for the laughs, Du Trottel....ahahahaha... ROTFMAO

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

#559964

On 3/5/2016 7:25 AM, jay moseley wrote:
> Tom...
>> Once again, gravity waves are not gravitational waves.
>
>> Gravity waves can be observed daily on Terra with the naked eye, in the oceans and the clouds.
>
> Under GR the books are cooked so any LIGO observation can only be spuriously
> attributed to GR.
> But if you wish to distinguish the LIGO observations from tides, you would
> be making an erroneous claim. LIGO observed a distortion in distance in
> the setup. A*classical * effect called strain . Not a relativistic effect.
> It is only an assumption that it was caused by GR magic, as it (LIGO anomaly)
> can just as easily be modeled classically.
>

I think it's bogus to say that *any strain* that would change the length 
of an apparatus is automatically to be called classical. It's not. A 
classical treatment would be identifying the mechanical source of the 
strain.

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

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web