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

Groups > sci.physics > #585175 > unrolled thread

Second Gravitational Wave event confirmed!

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Second Gravitational Wave event confirmed! Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2016-06-16 15:43 -0400
    Re: Second Gravitational Wave event confirmed! willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) - 2016-06-17 21:22 +0000
      Re: Second Gravitational Wave event confirmed! Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-06-18 00:01 +0200
        Re: Second Gravitational Wave event confirmed! "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-06-18 09:05 -0700
        Re: Second Gravitational Wave event confirmed! Dr J R Stockton <reply1600@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2016-06-18 14:49 +0100
          Re: Second Gravitational Wave event confirmed! Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-06-19 07:47 +0200
      Re: Second Gravitational Wave event confirmed! Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2016-06-17 20:45 -0400
        Re: Second Gravitational Wave event confirmed! Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-06-18 05:12 +0200
          Re: Second Gravitational Wave event confirmed! moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-18 04:59 +0000
        Re: Second Gravitational Wave event confirmed! willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) - 2016-06-30 18:40 +0000
    Re: Second Gravitational Wave event confirmed! "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-06-17 23:10 -0700
      Re: Second Gravitational Wave event confirmed! john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-18 06:44 -0700
        Re: Second Gravitational Wave event confirmed! Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-06-18 15:59 +0200
        Re: Second Gravitational Wave event confirmed! moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-18 15:05 +0000
          Re: Second Gravitational Wave event confirmed! john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-18 08:46 -0700
            Re: Second Gravitational Wave event confirmed! moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-18 16:04 +0000
              Re: Second Gravitational Wave event confirmed! "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-06-18 12:09 -0700
        Re: Second Gravitational Wave event confirmed! HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-18 08:44 -0700
          Re: Second Gravitational Wave event confirmed! john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-18 08:50 -0700
          Re: Second Gravitational Wave event confirmed! moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-18 15:52 +0000
            Re: Second Gravitational Wave event confirmed! john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-18 09:01 -0700
              Re: Second Gravitational Wave event confirmed! moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-18 16:06 +0000
                Re: Second Gravitational Wave event confirmed! john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-18 09:17 -0700
                  Re: Second Gravitational Wave event confirmed! moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-18 19:20 +0000
                    Re: Second Gravitational Wave event confirmed! john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-18 12:27 -0700
                      Re: Second Gravitational Wave event confirmed! moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-18 19:38 +0000
                        Re: Second Gravitational Wave event confirmed! john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-18 15:58 -0700
                          Re: Second Gravitational Wave event confirmed! moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-18 23:37 +0000

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#585175 — Second Gravitational Wave event confirmed!

Why gravitational wave astronomy has physicists so damn excited - Vox
http://www.vox.com/2016/6/15/11932502/gravitational-wave-astronomy-physicists-excited

> This past Christmas, that wave of gravity finally reached Earth. In its travels it grew very quiet: If you measured its amplitude — the distance from the top to the bottom — it would measure much less than the width of an atom. Until recently, we had no capability to record waves this faint. But this Christmas, we had just the right "microphone" up and running.
>
> Today, scientists announced that they have — for the second time — observed the gravitational waves produced by orbiting black holes with the help of the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO). The results appear in the journal Physical Review Letters.
>
> As with the first detection, which was confirmed back in February, the latest gravitational waves were produced by the collision of two black holes. That’s cool.

There's a video in this article comparing the two detection events with 
each other. The first event seemed to happen quicker, while the second 
one seems more drawn out. I wonder if this tells us something about the 
masses of the two new blackholes? Specifically will the fact that it 
happened much slower for the second set of black holes, would that mean 
that they were smaller black holes than the first set from the September 
detection/February announcement?

	Yousuf Khan

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#585334

In article <bcSdnZxR3qj2nP7KnZ2dnUU7-LHNnZ2d@giganews.com>,
 Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> writes:
>  The first event seemed to happen quicker, while the second one
> seems more drawn out. I wonder if this tells us something about the
> masses of the two new blackholes? Specifically will the fact that
> it happened much slower for the second set of black holes, would
> that mean that they were smaller black holes than the first set
> from the September detection/February announcement?

Yes.  See item 2 in the press release at
https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/news/ligo20160615

-- 
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner            Phone 617-495-7123     swillner@cfa.harvard.edu
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA                 

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

#585338

Steve Willner wrote:

> In article <bcSdnZxR3qj2nP7KnZ2dnUU7-LHNnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>  Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> writes:

Attribution line, not attribution novel.

>>  The first event seemed to happen quicker, while the second one
>> seems more drawn out. I wonder if this tells us something about the
>> masses of the two new blackholes? Specifically will the fact that
>> it happened much slower for the second set of black holes, would
>> that mean that they were smaller black holes than the first set
>> from the September detection/February announcement?
> 
> Yes.  See item 2 in the press release at
> https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/news/ligo20160615

IIUC, the event was that two black holes merged.  If that is so, it cannot 
“happen quicker” or be “drawn out” or “happen slower”.  The article says 
that the *signal* was *detected* earlier which would be a different fact.

Second, why is it a valid conclusion that because the bodies’ orbital speeds 
were faster they *have to be* smaller i.e. for black holes that they have to 
have smaller masses?  (I realize that was so in this case.)

F'up2 sci.astro

-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#585461

On Friday, June 17, 2016 at 3:01:27 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Steve Willner wrote:
> 
> > In article <bcSdnZxR3qj2nP7KnZ2dnUU7-LHNnZ2d@giganews.com>,
> >  Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> writes:
> 
> Attribution line, not attribution novel.
> 
> >>  The first event seemed to happen quicker, while the second one
> >> seems more drawn out. I wonder if this tells us something about the
> >> masses of the two new blackholes? Specifically will the fact that
> >> it happened much slower for the second set of black holes, would
> >> that mean that they were smaller black holes than the first set
> >> from the September detection/February announcement?
> > 
> > Yes.  See item 2 in the press release at
> > https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/news/ligo20160615
> 
> IIUC, the event was that two black holes merged.  If that is so, it cannot 
> “happen quicker” or be “drawn out” or “happen slower”.  The article says 
> that the *signal* was *detected* earlier which would be a different fact.
> 
> Second, why is it a valid conclusion that because the bodies’ orbital speeds 
> were faster they *have to be* smaller i.e. for black holes that they have to 
> have smaller masses?  (I realize that was so in this case.)
> 
> F'up2 sci.astro
> 
> -- 
> PointedEars
> 
> Twitter: @PointedEars2
> Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

I sure would like to sell LIGO "GLASS WAX"  TreBert

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

#585562

In sci.astro message <2066804.5Uk8zMqNDF@PointedEars.de>, Sat, 18 Jun
2016 00:01:22, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> posted:

>Steve Willner wrote:
>
>> In article <bcSdnZxR3qj2nP7KnZ2dnUU7-LHNnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>>  Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> writes:
>
>Attribution line, not attribution novel.
>
>>>  The first event seemed to happen quicker, while the second one
>>> seems more drawn out. I wonder if this tells us something about the
>>> masses of the two new blackholes? Specifically will the fact that
>>> it happened much slower for the second set of black holes, would
>>> that mean that they were smaller black holes than the first set
>>> from the September detection/February announcement?
>>
>> Yes.  See item 2 in the press release at
>> https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/news/ligo20160615
>
>IIUC, the event was that two black holes merged.  If that is so, it cannot
>“happen quicker” or be “drawn out” or “happen slower”.  The article
>says
>that the *signal* was *detected* earlier which would be a different fact.
>
>Second, why is it a valid conclusion that because the bodies’ orbital speeds
>were faster they *have to be* smaller i.e. for black holes that they have to
>have smaller masses?  (I realize that was so in this case.)

Perhaps you should learn some physics.  But learn to be human first.


-- 
 (c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK.  ¬@merlyn.demon.co.uk   Turnpike v6.05   MIME.
 Merlyn Web Site <                       > - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.

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

#585634

Dne 18/06/2016 v 15:49 Dr J R Stockton napsal(a):
> In sci.astro message <2066804.5Uk8zMqNDF@PointedEars.de>, Sat, 18 Jun
> 2016 00:01:22, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> posted:
> 
>> Steve Willner wrote:
>>

>>>
>>> Yes.  See item 2 in the press release at
>>> https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/news/ligo20160615
>>
>> IIUC, the event was that two black holes merged.  If that is so, it cannot
>> “happen quicker” or be “drawn out” or “happen slower”.  The article
>> says
>> that the *signal* was *detected* earlier which would be a different fact.
>>
>> Second, why is it a valid conclusion that because the bodies’ orbital speeds
>> were faster they *have to be* smaller i.e. for black holes that they have to
>> have smaller masses?  (I realize that was so in this case.)
> 
> Perhaps you should learn some physics.  But learn to be human first.
> 

To Thomas defence, his knowledge of physics is very good,
and he is right at this point. But I do not say
the same about his social skills ( neither of my English ).

Shorter orbital speeds = lower masses is not generally true,
as there are 3 players in the games - distance, period and masses,

The former 2 cannot be reduced to the speed,
having different power degrees in the equation.

-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

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

#585355

On 17/06/2016 5:22 PM, Steve Willner wrote:
> In article <bcSdnZxR3qj2nP7KnZ2dnUU7-LHNnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>   Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> writes:
>>   The first event seemed to happen quicker, while the second one
>> seems more drawn out. I wonder if this tells us something about the
>> masses of the two new blackholes? Specifically will the fact that
>> it happened much slower for the second set of black holes, would
>> that mean that they were smaller black holes than the first set
>> from the September detection/February announcement?
>
> Yes.  See item 2 in the press release at
> https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/news/ligo20160615

Great, now I wonder how much of their energy was turned into gravity 
waves? In the first event, a 29 and a 36 solar mass black holes turned 
into 5 solar masses of gravity waves, and 60 solar mass of newly formed 
black hole.

Going proportionally, the secondary black holes are 8 & 14, so I would 
guess that would result in 2 solar masses of gravity waves, and 20 solar 
masses of new black hole.

	Yousuf Khan

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

#585377

Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sammy’s got a new pseudonym but no e-mail address?

> […] I wonder how much of their energy was turned into gravity
                                                        ^^^^^^^
> waves? In the first event, a 29 and a 36 solar mass black holes turned
  ^^^^^
> into 5 solar masses of gravity waves, and 60 solar mass of newly formed
                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^      ^^
> black hole.

“In the source frame, the initial black hole masses are 36⁺⁵₋₄ M⊙ and 
29⁺⁴₋₄ M⊙, and the final black hole mass is /62⁺⁴₋₄ M⊙/, with 
/3.0^{+0.5}_{−0.5} M⊙ c²/ radiated in /gravitational/ waves [0].” [1]

(emphasis and reference mine)

> Going proportionally, the secondary black holes are 8 & 14, so I would
> guess that would result in 2 solar masses of gravity waves, and 20 solar
> masses of new black hole.

Not quite.  If you read the paper at PRL (which you can for free again, 
thank you LSC and VC), you will realize that naive arithmetics does not work 
because mass–energy is only one component of a body’s energy:

“The inferred source-frame initial black hole masses are 
14.2^{+8.3}_{−3.7} M⊙ and 7.5^{+2.3}_{−2.3} M⊙, and the final black hole 
mass is 20.8^{+6.1}_{−1.7} M⊙.” [2] 

F'up2 sci.physics

___________
[0] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_wave>
    vs. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave>
[1] B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo 
    Collaboration). Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 061102.
    <http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102>
[2] B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo 
    Collaboration). Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 241103.
    <http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.241103>
-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#585387

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> writes:

>> Going proportionally, the secondary black holes are 8 & 14, so I would
>> guess that would result in 2 solar masses of gravity waves, and 20 solar
>> masses of new black hole.

>Not quite.  If you read the paper at PRL (which you can for free again, 
>thank you LSC and VC), you will realize that naive arithmetics does not work 
>because mass–energy is only one component of a body’s energy:

In the online story I read, the black hole masses were 14.2 and 7.5 solar
masses and the resulting final black hole was about 20.8 solar masses,
producing 0.9 solar masses of gravitational radiation.  But the
uncertainties in all figures was rather large.

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

#587374

In article <0oWdnWV6evFfBPnKnZ2dnUU7-UXNnZ2d@giganews.com>,
 Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> writes:
> Great, now I wonder how much of their energy was turned into gravity 
> waves?

I'm coming back to this late, but the answer is in the paper draft at
https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-P1600088/main/public

Table 1 shows total initial mass 21.8 Msun and final mass 20.8 Msun,
but both have uncertainties of more than 1 Msun.  However, the
radiated energy is given as 1.0(+0.1/-0.2) Msun, so it seems
reasonably well determined.

By the way, the correct term for what LIGO is looking for is
"gravitational waves."  Ordinary water waves on a lake or ocean are
examples of "gravity waves."  That name distinguishes them from
"pressure waves" such as sound.

-- 
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner            Phone 617-495-7123     swillner@cfa.harvard.edu
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA                 

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

#585392

On Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 10:43:46 PM UTC+3, Yousuf Khan wrote:
> Why gravitational wave astronomy has physicists so damn excited - Vox
> http://www.vox.com/2016/6/15/11932502/gravitational-wave-astronomy-physicists-excited
> 
> > This past Christmas, that wave of gravity finally reached Earth. In its travels it grew very quiet: If you measured its amplitude — the distance from the top to the bottom — it would measure much less than the width of an atom. Until recently, we had no capability to record waves this faint. But this Christmas, we had just the right "microphone" up and running.
> >
> > Today, scientists announced that they have — for the second time — observed the gravitational waves produced by orbiting black holes with the help of the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO). The results appear in the journal Physical Review Letters.
> >
> > As with the first detection, which was confirmed back in February, the latest gravitational waves were produced by the collision of two black holes. That’s cool.
> 
> There's a video in this article comparing the two detection events with 
> each other. The first event seemed to happen quicker, while the second 
> one seems more drawn out. I wonder if this tells us something about the 
> masses of the two new blackholes? Specifically will the fact that it 
> happened much slower for the second set of black holes, would that mean 
> that they were smaller black holes than the first set from the September 
> detection/February announcement?
> 
> 	Yousuf Khan

===================================
see Google:
''The Y Circlon mechanism ''
ATB
Y.Porat
========================================

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

#585432

So- matter LOSES gravitational energy when ____
But- matter gravitates forever WITHOUT losing
gravitational energy when ____

Fill in the blanks, you schizoids, I dare you

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

#585437

Dne 18/06/2016 v 15:44 john napsal(a):
> So- matter LOSES gravitational energy when ____
> But- matter gravitates forever WITHOUT losing
> gravitational energy when ____
> 
> Fill in the blanks, you schizoids, I dare you
> 

Calling names
does not work well with asking for something....

-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

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

#585448

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>So- matter LOSES gravitational energy when ____
>But- matter gravitates forever WITHOUT losing
>gravitational energy when ____

>Fill in the blanks, you schizoids, I dare you

Learn some science for once.

Gravity is a force. It is not energy.

If you move something through gravity, energy is involved (transferred).
If you pick up a rock, chemical energy of your muscles get transferred to
the gravitational potential energy of the rock's new position. Energy
doesn't get used up, just moved around.

Similarly, no energy is needed for a rock sitting on the ground to stay
sitting there, even if earth's gravity has acted on it for billions of
years.  Don't confuse force with energy.

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

#585453

Answer the question, confused fool:
you have two masses interacting
gravitationally and LOSING MASS?
WHY, in your silly system, don't
OTHER interactions then lose mass?
Schizoid to the max

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

#585460

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>Answer the question, confused fool:
>you have two masses interacting
>gravitationally and LOSING MASS?
>WHY, in your silly system, don't
>OTHER interactions then lose mass?
>Schizoid to the max

They do; the earth-sun system radiates gravitational waves at something
like a few thousand watts.  The effect is so small that it is impossible
to detect except for extreme situations like two black holes merging.
Don't forget that binary neutron star system which offered indirect
evidence of gravity waves.

Your homework: If the earth-sun radiates gravitationally at 5000 watts,
calculate how much closer the earth gets to the sun on each orbit, from
just that effect.

I'm being generous; I previously assigned to you a very similar assignment,
which you never turned in.

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

#585506

On Saturday, June 18, 2016 at 9:05:32 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> >Answer the question, confused fool:
> >you have two masses interacting
> >gravitationally and LOSING MASS?
> >WHY, in your silly system, don't
> >OTHER interactions then lose mass?
> >Schizoid to the max
> 
> They do; the earth-sun system radiates gravitational waves at something
> like a few thousand watts.  The effect is so small that it is impossible
> to detect except for extreme situations like two black holes merging.
> Don't forget that binary neutron star system which offered indirect
> evidence of gravity waves.
> 
> Your homework: If the earth-sun radiates gravitationally at 5000 watts,
> calculate how much closer the earth gets to the sun on each orbit, from
> just that effect.
> 
> I'm being generous; I previously assigned to you a very similar assignment,
> which you never turned in.

Confirmed by the same crooks O ya  No Nobels ever

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

#585452

john
So- matter LOSES gravitational energy when ____ 
But- matter gravitates forever WITHOUT losing 
gravitational energy when ____ 

Fill in the blanks, you schizoids, I dare you 
--------

I'll fill in the blanks. You're a retard who's mind has been blown away by drugs.

Have a nice day!

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

#585456

HVAC

FOAD

Of course, as you do, you'll realize
that you fucked up there, as well.
Oh well, we all make bad choices.
Too bad so sad

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

#585457

HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> writes:

>john
>So- matter LOSES gravitational energy when ____ 
>But- matter gravitates forever WITHOUT losing 
>gravitational energy when ____ 

>Fill in the blanks, you schizoids, I dare you 
>--------

>I'll fill in the blanks. You're a retard who's mind has been blown away by drugs.

>Have a nice day!

Little Pharma!!!

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web