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

Groups > sci.physics > #524106 > unrolled thread

LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Kent Beeler <kenbee@jefffast.au> - 2015-10-01 19:18 +0000
    Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-01 22:00 +0200
      Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-02 05:58 +0200
        Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2015-10-02 13:41 -0700
          Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 15:56 -0700
        Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-03 07:10 +0200
          Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Kent Beeler <kenbee@jefffast.au> - 2015-10-03 15:00 +0000
            Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-03 21:31 +0200
              Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Kent Beeler <kenbee@jefffast.au> - 2015-10-03 21:20 +0000
                Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-04 05:30 +0200
                  Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-10-03 22:08 -0700
                  Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-10-04 06:14 +0000
                  Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Kent Beeler <kenbee@jefffast.au> - 2015-10-04 17:07 +0000
                    Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-04 22:32 +0200
                      Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Kent Beeler <kenbee@jefffast.au> - 2015-10-04 20:51 +0000
                      Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-10-04 16:39 -0500
                        Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Natalina Nazvarova <natana42@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-10 11:42 +0000
                      Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-04 18:50 -0400
                        Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-10-05 16:16 -0700
                Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-10-03 21:55 -0700
                  Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2015-10-05 17:32 -0700
                    Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-10-05 18:10 -0700
                      Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2015-10-05 18:32 -0700
                        Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-10-06 01:43 -0700
                          Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-24 21:36 -0700
                            Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 13:08 -0700
    Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-10-08 15:23 -0700
      Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-10-10 12:01 -0700
        Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-10-12 16:01 -0700
          Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-10-24 13:18 -0700
    Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Erebus Xanthopoulos <elefxa@spacepark.au> - 2015-10-24 11:13 +0000
      Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-25 05:29 +0100

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#524106 — LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves?

On 25 September, a sensational rumour appeared on Twitter: 
Lawrence Krauss, a cosmologist, reported hearing that the
world’s largest gravitational-wave observatory had seen a 
signal, barely a week after its official re-opening.

http://www.nature.com/news/has-giant-ligo-experiment-seen-gravitational-waves-1.18449?WT.mc_id=SFB_NNEWS_1508_RHBox

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#524112

Am 01.10.2015 21:18, schrieb Kent Beeler:
> On 25 September, a sensational rumour appeared on Twitter:
> Lawrence Krauss, a cosmologist, reported hearing that the
> world’s largest gravitational-wave observatory had seen a
> signal, barely a week after its official re-opening.
>
> http://www.nature.com/news/has-giant-ligo-experiment-seen-gravitational-waves-1.18449?WT.mc_id=SFB_NNEWS_1508_RHBox


Isn't Earth gravity caused by the Earth?

So: what exactly does LIGO measure and what is a 'gravitational wave'?

If something happens with our homeplanet or if the Earth is 'catching' 
some sort of remote influences, this could eventually cause such a wave.

But somehow I thought they wanted to measure remote galaxies, merging of 
black holes or the remains of the big-bang (or something like that).

But I don't think, this could work, since the Earth is much closer than 
such galaxies.


TH

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

#524201

Am 01.10.2015 22:00, schrieb Thomas Heger:
> Am 01.10.2015 21:18, schrieb Kent Beeler:
>> On 25 September, a sensational rumour appeared on Twitter:
>> Lawrence Krauss, a cosmologist, reported hearing that the
>> world’s largest gravitational-wave observatory had seen a
>> signal, barely a week after its official re-opening.
>>
>> http://www.nature.com/news/has-giant-ligo-experiment-seen-gravitational-waves-1.18449?WT.mc_id=SFB_NNEWS_1508_RHBox
>>
>
>
> Isn't Earth gravity caused by the Earth?
>
> So: what exactly does LIGO measure and what is a 'gravitational wave'?
>
> If something happens with our homeplanet or if the Earth is 'catching'
> some sort of remote influences, this could eventually cause such a wave.
>
> But somehow I thought they wanted to measure remote galaxies, merging of
> black holes or the remains of the big-bang (or something like that).
>
> But I don't think, this could work, since the Earth is much closer than
> such galaxies.
>

The distance plays a mayor role in gravity, since gravity follows an 
inverse square law.

The LIGO experiment has a distance to Earth surface of zero and we find 
usual Earth gravity there.

The influence of gravity from nearest galaxies is quite small, since the 
nearest galaxy outside the milky way is

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canis_Major_Overdensity

and that 28,000 lightyears away.

The nearest mayor galaxy is Andromeda and that 2.5 million lightyears 
away. This is certainly far enough to leave little traces of its gravity 
measurable here on Earth.

But actually not gravity should be measured by LIGO, but ripples within.

I don't think it's possible, but imagine the Andromeda galaxy could 
switch its own gravity on and off once a minute. We then would have a 
gravity square-wave of 1/60 Hz.

This would be a tremendous wave, since gravity of a galaxy is rather huge.

But this wave gets weaker by an inverse square law. And distance to 
Andromeda is a fantastically large number (in meters). Now this number 
needs to be squared and by this number, the wave gets smaller.


TH

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

#524288

On Thursday, October 1, 2015 at 8:58:56 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 01.10.2015 22:00, schrieb Thomas Heger:
> > Am 01.10.2015 21:18, schrieb Kent Beeler:
> >> On 25 September, a sensational rumour appeared on Twitter:
> >> Lawrence Krauss, a cosmologist, reported hearing that the
> >> world's largest gravitational-wave observatory had seen a
> >> signal, barely a week after its official re-opening.
> >>
> >> http://www.nature.com/news/has-giant-ligo-experiment-seen-gravitational-waves-1.18449?WT.mc_id=SFB_NNEWS_1508_RHBox
> >>
> >
> >
> > Isn't Earth gravity caused by the Earth?
> >
> > So: what exactly does LIGO measure and what is a 'gravitational wave'?
> >
> > If something happens with our homeplanet or if the Earth is 'catching'
> > some sort of remote influences, this could eventually cause such a wave.
> >
> > But somehow I thought they wanted to measure remote galaxies, merging of
> > black holes or the remains of the big-bang (or something like that).
> >
> > But I don't think, this could work, since the Earth is much closer than
> > such galaxies.
> >
> 
> The distance plays a mayor role in gravity, since gravity follows an 
> inverse square law.
> 
> The LIGO experiment has a distance to Earth surface of zero and we find 
> usual Earth gravity there.
> 
> The influence of gravity from nearest galaxies is quite small, since the 
> nearest galaxy outside the milky way is
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canis_Major_Overdensity
> 
> and that 28,000 lightyears away.
> 
> The nearest mayor galaxy is Andromeda and that 2.5 million lightyears 
> away. This is certainly far enough to leave little traces of its gravity 
> measurable here on Earth.
> 
> But actually not gravity should be measured by LIGO, but ripples within.
> 
> I don't think it's possible, but imagine the Andromeda galaxy could 
> switch its own gravity on and off once a minute. We then would have a 
> gravity square-wave of 1/60 Hz.
> 
> This would be a tremendous wave, since gravity of a galaxy is rather huge.
> 
> But this wave gets weaker by an inverse square law. And distance to 
> Andromeda is a fantastically large number (in meters). Now this number 
> needs to be squared and by this number, the wave gets smaller.
> 
> 
> TH


But doesn't the fact that we know that it would be impossible for Andromeda to switch its gravity off and on clue you into something?

Double-A

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

#524319

On Friday, October 2, 2015 at 1:41:15 PM UTC-7, Double-A wrote:
> On Thursday, October 1, 2015 at 8:58:56 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> > Am 01.10.2015 22:00, schrieb Thomas Heger:
> > > Am 01.10.2015 21:18, schrieb Kent Beeler:
> > >> On 25 September, a sensational rumour appeared on Twitter:
> > >> Lawrence Krauss, a cosmologist, reported hearing that the
> > >> world's largest gravitational-wave observatory had seen a
> > >> signal, barely a week after its official re-opening.
> > >>
> > >> http://www.nature.com/news/has-giant-ligo-experiment-seen-gravitational-waves-1.18449?WT.mc_id=SFB_NNEWS_1508_RHBox
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > Isn't Earth gravity caused by the Earth?
> > >
> > > So: what exactly does LIGO measure and what is a 'gravitational wave'?
> > >
> > > If something happens with our homeplanet or if the Earth is 'catching'
> > > some sort of remote influences, this could eventually cause such a wave.
> > >
> > > But somehow I thought they wanted to measure remote galaxies, merging of
> > > black holes or the remains of the big-bang (or something like that).
> > >
> > > But I don't think, this could work, since the Earth is much closer than
> > > such galaxies.
> > >
> > 
> > The distance plays a mayor role in gravity, since gravity follows an 
> > inverse square law.
> > 
> > The LIGO experiment has a distance to Earth surface of zero and we find 
> > usual Earth gravity there.
> > 
> > The influence of gravity from nearest galaxies is quite small, since the 
> > nearest galaxy outside the milky way is
> > 
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canis_Major_Overdensity
> > 
> > and that 28,000 lightyears away.
> > 
> > The nearest mayor galaxy is Andromeda and that 2.5 million lightyears 
> > away. This is certainly far enough to leave little traces of its gravity 
> > measurable here on Earth.
> > 
> > But actually not gravity should be measured by LIGO, but ripples within.
> > 
> > I don't think it's possible, but imagine the Andromeda galaxy could 
> > switch its own gravity on and off once a minute. We then would have a 
> > gravity square-wave of 1/60 Hz.
> > 
> > This would be a tremendous wave, since gravity of a galaxy is rather huge.
> > 
> > But this wave gets weaker by an inverse square law. And distance to 
> > Andromeda is a fantastically large number (in meters). Now this number 
> > needs to be squared and by this number, the wave gets smaller.
> > 
> > 
> > TH
> 
> 
> But doesn't the fact that we know that it would be impossible for Andromeda to switch its gravity off and on clue you into something?
> 
> Double-A

AA You think good.A bottom fish Even named Einstein does not think of pressure.Water weight causes pressure.Constant pressure your born into you are not aware of.TreBert

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

#524348

Am 02.10.2015 05:58, schrieb Thomas Heger:
> Am 01.10.2015 22:00, schrieb Thomas Heger:
>> Am 01.10.2015 21:18, schrieb Kent Beeler:
>>> On 25 September, a sensational rumour appeared on Twitter:
>>> Lawrence Krauss, a cosmologist, reported hearing that the
>>> world’s largest gravitational-wave observatory had seen a
>>> signal, barely a week after its official re-opening.
>>>
>>> http://www.nature.com/news/has-giant-ligo-experiment-seen-gravitational-waves-1.18449?WT.mc_id=SFB_NNEWS_1508_RHBox
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Isn't Earth gravity caused by the Earth?
>>
>> So: what exactly does LIGO measure and what is a 'gravitational wave'?
>>
>> If something happens with our homeplanet or if the Earth is 'catching'
>> some sort of remote influences, this could eventually cause such a wave.
>>
>> But somehow I thought they wanted to measure remote galaxies, merging of
>> black holes or the remains of the big-bang (or something like that).
>>
>> But I don't think, this could work, since the Earth is much closer than
>> such galaxies.
>>
>
> The distance plays a mayor role in gravity, since gravity follows an
> inverse square law.
>
> The LIGO experiment has a distance to Earth surface of zero and we find
> usual Earth gravity there.
>
> The influence of gravity from nearest galaxies is quite small, since the
> nearest galaxy outside the milky way is
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canis_Major_Overdensity
>
> and that 28,000 lightyears away.
>
> The nearest mayor galaxy is Andromeda and that 2.5 million lightyears
> away. This is certainly far enough to leave little traces of its gravity
> measurable here on Earth.
>
> But actually not gravity should be measured by LIGO, but ripples within.
>
> I don't think it's possible, but imagine the Andromeda galaxy could
> switch its own gravity on and off once a minute. We then would have a
> gravity square-wave of 1/60 Hz.
>
> This would be a tremendous wave, since gravity of a galaxy is rather huge.
>
> But this wave gets weaker by an inverse square law. And distance to
> Andromeda is a fantastically large number (in meters). Now this number
> needs to be squared and by this number, the wave gets smaller.
>

I haven't figured that out, but actually there 'gravitational waves' on 
Earth:

a truck passes by on the street, than we are attracted by the moving 
mass of the truck.

Only the force is VERY small. But a very sensitive detector of gravity 
waves could eventually detect such an influence (bird flying by, bee 
sitting on the detector, wind against the building or similar).

Now such unwanted disturbance should be compared to the effect a device 
tries to measure.

The effect should then be a few orders of magnitude larger than 
unavoidable 'noise', since otherwise the measurement will not work.

Now I assume, that gravity waves caused by remote galaxies are smaller 
than the effect of fly poo.


TH

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

#524381

Thomas Heger wrote:

>>> Isn't Earth gravity caused by the Earth?

That's considered to be constant, not waving.

>>> If something happens with our homeplanet or if the Earth is 'catching'
>>> some sort of remote influences, this could eventually cause such a
>>> wave.

That wave amplitude would be magnitude insignificant compared to that of 
Earth. However, in principle that wave could be filtered out by a proper LP 
filter applied numerically to the received data.

>>> But somehow I thought they wanted to measure remote galaxies, merging
>>> of black holes or the remains of the big-bang (or something like
>>> that).But I don't think, this could work, since the Earth is much
>>> closer than such galaxies.

Does not matter, you lack experience in physics and mathematics. Reread 
what I wrote.

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

#524405

Am 03.10.2015 17:00, schrieb Kent Beeler:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>
>>>> Isn't Earth gravity caused by the Earth?
>
> That's considered to be constant, not waving.
>

Why?

E.g. we have several events, that could possibly have an effect on gravity:

volcano eruptions, earthquakes or movements of plates.

Possibly there are other influences, like changes in the sun or in the 
connection of Sun to Earth.

>>>> If something happens with our homeplanet or if the Earth is 'catching'
>>>> some sort of remote influences, this could eventually cause such a
>>>> wave.
>
> That wave amplitude would be magnitude insignificant compared to that of
> Earth. However, in principle that wave could be filtered out by a proper LP
> filter applied numerically to the received data.

If waves are filtered out, than what waves could the device actually 
measure?

It is certainly possible to filter out certain waves (and keep the 
rest). But what would you like to filter out and what would you like to 
keep?

TH

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

#524433

Thomas Heger wrote:

>> That wave amplitude would be magnitude insignificant compared to that
>> of Earth. However, in principle that wave could be filtered out by a
>> proper LP filter applied numerically to the received data.
> 
> If waves are filtered out, than what waves could the device actually
> measure

Well, I meant taking out the Earth's offset, since the frequency of that 
wave must be in the Lower region. Sort of taking the DC out, or moving the 
zero axis up to the necessary level. Is done in software anyway.

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

#524467

Am 03.10.2015 23:20, schrieb Kent Beeler:

>>> That wave amplitude would be magnitude insignificant compared to that
>>> of Earth. However, in principle that wave could be filtered out by a
>>> proper LP filter applied numerically to the received data.
>>
>> If waves are filtered out, than what waves could the device actually
>> measure
>
> Well, I meant taking out the Earth's offset, since the frequency of that
> wave must be in the Lower region. Sort of taking the DC out, or moving the
> zero axis up to the necessary level. Is done in software anyway.


The LIGO experiment is based on a certain idea about how gravity 
actually functions, which I think is wrong.

This would make me a little sceptic about the theoretical foundations of 
this experiment.

The experiment can detect something and filter out another something.

Finally they can measure something. But actually what?


TH

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

#524474

Yay TH

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

#524476

Thomas Heger wrote:

> The LIGO experiment is based on a certain idea about how gravity 
> actually functions, which I think is wrong.

Gravitational waves are an unambiguous prediction of general
relativity, which you repeatedly say "is true". So it's obvious
that you either have no idea what you think or have very little
idea about how general relativity actually works. Likely both.

> Finally they can measure something. But actually what?

This may be too radical an idea for someone who rejects every
aspect of modern science and detests all its practitioners, but you
could go study the subject instead of writing uninformed bullshit.
There's a huge amount of information available from which to learn.


         ---Tim Shuba---

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

#524523

Thomas Heger wrote:

> Am 03.10.2015 23:20, schrieb Kent Beeler:
> 
>>>> That wave amplitude would be magnitude insignificant compared to that
>>>> of Earth. However, in principle that wave could be filtered out by a
>>>> proper LP filter applied numerically to the received data.
>>>
>>> If waves are filtered out, than what waves could the device actually
>>> measure
>>
>> Well, I meant taking out the Earth's offset, since the frequency of
>> that wave must be in the Lower region. Sort of taking the DC out, or
>> moving the zero axis up to the necessary level. Is done in software
>> anyway.
> 
> The LIGO experiment is based on a certain idea about how gravity
> actually functions, which I think is wrong.

We disagree. To me gravity is not something that function, but something 
that just is. I am unaware about how they do it by LIGO, I suppose they 
are using their brain.

> This would make me a little sceptic about the theoretical foundations of
> this experiment. The experiment can detect something and filter out 
> another something. Finally they can measure something. But actually what?

They may only discard the offset, noise/transients and whatever unrelated 
perturbation. Never the signal detected. Everything ELSE, but not the 
received data through that channel or channels. (I assume they are 
listening to many channels/frequencies).

In principle that thing must be sort of Gravity Telescope.

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

#524554

Am 04.10.2015 19:07, schrieb Kent Beeler:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>
>> Am 03.10.2015 23:20, schrieb Kent Beeler:
>>
>>>>> That wave amplitude would be magnitude insignificant compared to that
>>>>> of Earth. However, in principle that wave could be filtered out by a
>>>>> proper LP filter applied numerically to the received data.
>>>>
>>>> If waves are filtered out, than what waves could the device actually
>>>> measure
>>>
>>> Well, I meant taking out the Earth's offset, since the frequency of
>>> that wave must be in the Lower region. Sort of taking the DC out, or
>>> moving the zero axis up to the necessary level. Is done in software
>>> anyway.
>>
>> The LIGO experiment is based on a certain idea about how gravity
>> actually functions, which I think is wrong.
>
> We disagree. To me gravity is not something that function, but something
> that just is. I am unaware about how they do it by LIGO, I suppose they
> are using their brain.


No, we do not disagree, since you certainly assume, that gravity is an 
effect, that occurs in nature.

We can see this effect, we can measure it and even feel it. So there is 
some aspect of nature, we call 'gravity'.

This is an effect, that has some kind of reason and this is, what I call 
'function'.

What I want to say is, that gravity has a physical reason and is not 
just there.


We know, that gravity makes thing drop and follows an inverse square law 
(diminishes with distance squared).


Now my problem:

LIGO is directly on the surface of planet Earth and Andromeda a few 
million light-years away.

This distance squared gives a fantastically large number, hence the 
effect of gravity caused by remote galaxies should be incredibly small.

And this makes me wonder, what actually the LIGO experiment tries to 
measure.


TH

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

#524557

Thomas Heger wrote:

> This distance squared gives a fantastically large number, hence the
> effect of gravity caused by remote galaxies should be incredibly small. 
> And this makes me wonder, what actually the LIGO experiment tries to
> measure.

It must be about large wavelengths, hence the need of large distances 
among the involved detectors. The distance to the source is not really a 
problem, after a while the amplitude settles to an almost constant value.

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

#524564

On 10/4/2015 3:32 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 04.10.2015 19:07, schrieb Kent Beeler:
>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>

>>> The LIGO experiment is based on a certain idea about how gravity
>>> actually functions, which I think is wrong.
>>
>
> We know, that gravity makes thing drop and follows an inverse square law
> (diminishes with distance squared).
>
>
> Now my problem:
>
> LIGO is directly on the surface of planet Earth and Andromeda a few
> million light-years away.
>
> This distance squared gives a fantastically large number, hence the
> effect of gravity caused by remote galaxies should be incredibly small.
>
> And this makes me wonder, what actually the LIGO experiment tries to
> measure.
>
>
> TH


somewhere there is a calculation and they are trying to measure the 
lenght of 1/5 of a proton at some frequency 100 hz?

another problem is that the gravity wave effects what is measured the 
same as the measuring device....

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

#525584

John Gogo wrote:

>> We agree. See chemtrails and understand something. In the past you had
>> clean sunshine. Now what you have is a Global Dimming. 100% for
>> certain.
>> I believe you just learned something.
> 
> Our planet can handle much more that 8 billion.  My question to you
> based on present day technology- how many can exist before the earth
> says too much?

To answer your little question you must first make sure you know and 
understand what humans are (I assume your 8 billions are all about humans).

Those 8 billion are NOT living on Earth, as the so many vociferously are 
proclaiming. But those 8 billions ARE Earth, according to Modern Science 
and everything else. Now go figure whether the Earth can possibly get in 
trouble.

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

#524571

On Sun, 04 Oct 2015 22:32:46 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:

>Am 04.10.2015 19:07, schrieb Kent Beeler:
>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>
>>> Am 03.10.2015 23:20, schrieb Kent Beeler:
>>>
>>>>>> That wave amplitude would be magnitude insignificant compared to that
>>>>>> of Earth. However, in principle that wave could be filtered out by a
>>>>>> proper LP filter applied numerically to the received data.
>>>>>
>>>>> If waves are filtered out, than what waves could the device actually
>>>>> measure
>>>>
>>>> Well, I meant taking out the Earth's offset, since the frequency of
>>>> that wave must be in the Lower region. Sort of taking the DC out, or
>>>> moving the zero axis up to the necessary level. Is done in software
>>>> anyway.
>>>
>>> The LIGO experiment is based on a certain idea about how gravity
>>> actually functions, which I think is wrong.
>>
>> We disagree. To me gravity is not something that function, but something
>> that just is. I am unaware about how they do it by LIGO, I suppose they
>> are using their brain.
>
>
>No, we do not disagree, since you certainly assume, that gravity is an 
>effect, that occurs in nature.
>
>We can see this effect, we can measure it and even feel it. So there is 
>some aspect of nature, we call 'gravity'.
>
>This is an effect, that has some kind of reason and this is, what I call 
>'function'.
>
>What I want to say is, that gravity has a physical reason and is not 
>just there.
>
>
>We know, that gravity makes thing drop and follows an inverse square law 
>(diminishes with distance squared).

        No, gravity does not make things drop.
Study General Relativity.

        Gravity is like acceleration, freefall is inertial motion,
what does that suggest?     The reason that gravity is like
acceleration is because gravity is acceleration, of the
surface, upward. 


>Now my problem:
>
>LIGO is directly on the surface of planet Earth and Andromeda a few 
>million light-years away.
>
>This distance squared gives a fantastically large number, hence the 
>effect of gravity caused by remote galaxies should be incredibly small.
>
>And this makes me wonder, what actually the LIGO experiment tries to 
>measure.
>
>TH

          Changes in gravity is all that can result, 
but there really is no reason to think there would be
changes in gravity just because two objects collide.

          I read the a translation of the class notes Einstein 
wrote on the subject, but haven't studied the second
half of the paper he wrote in 1916.

          It could be that the idea of field theory was
so strong in the early 20th century that he thought
there should be reverberations in the field if
massive objects did anything that made the
center of mass change position rapidly.

        But objects that are not fastened down
can rotate without any vibration at all, it is
motors that are fastened down that vibrate
violently if off balance.

       So, it will just be a matter of time until
the large detectors see a signal, or not.

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

#524784

On Sunday, October 4, 2015 at 3:50:31 PM UTC-7, kefischer wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Oct 2015 22:32:46 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
> 
> >Am 04.10.2015 19:07, schrieb Kent Beeler:
> >> Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>
> >>> Am 03.10.2015 23:20, schrieb Kent Beeler:
> >>>
> >>>>>> That wave amplitude would be magnitude insignificant compared to that
> >>>>>> of Earth. However, in principle that wave could be filtered out by a
> >>>>>> proper LP filter applied numerically to the received data.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If waves are filtered out, than what waves could the device actually
> >>>>> measure
> >>>>
> >>>> Well, I meant taking out the Earth's offset, since the frequency of
> >>>> that wave must be in the Lower region. Sort of taking the DC out, or
> >>>> moving the zero axis up to the necessary level. Is done in software
> >>>> anyway.
> >>>
> >>> The LIGO experiment is based on a certain idea about how gravity
> >>> actually functions, which I think is wrong.
> >>
> >> We disagree. To me gravity is not something that function, but something
> >> that just is. I am unaware about how they do it by LIGO, I suppose they
> >> are using their brain.
> >
> >
> >No, we do not disagree, since you certainly assume, that gravity is an 
> >effect, that occurs in nature.
> >
> >We can see this effect, we can measure it and even feel it. So there is 
> >some aspect of nature, we call 'gravity'.
> >
> >This is an effect, that has some kind of reason and this is, what I call 
> >'function'.
> >
> >What I want to say is, that gravity has a physical reason and is not 
> >just there.
> >
> >
> >We know, that gravity makes thing drop and follows an inverse square law 
> >(diminishes with distance squared).
> 
>         No, gravity does not make things drop.
> Study General Relativity.
> 
>         Gravity is like acceleration, freefall is inertial motion,
> what does that suggest?     The reason that gravity is like
> acceleration is because gravity is acceleration, of the
> surface, upward. 
> 
> 
> >Now my problem:
> >
> >LIGO is directly on the surface of planet Earth and Andromeda a few 
> >million light-years away.
> >
> >This distance squared gives a fantastically large number, hence the 
> >effect of gravity caused by remote galaxies should be incredibly small.
> >
> >And this makes me wonder, what actually the LIGO experiment tries to 
> >measure.
> >
> >TH
> 
>           Changes in gravity is all that can result, 
> but there really is no reason to think there would be
> changes in gravity just because two objects collide.
> 
>           I read the a translation of the class notes Einstein 
> wrote on the subject, but haven't studied the second
> half of the paper he wrote in 1916.
> 
>           It could be that the idea of field theory was
> so strong in the early 20th century that he thought
> there should be reverberations in the field if
> massive objects did anything that made the
> center of mass change position rapidly.
> 
>         But objects that are not fastened down
> can rotate without any vibration at all, it is
> motors that are fastened down that vibrate
> violently if off balance.
> 
>        So, it will just be a matter of time until
> the large detectors see a signal, or not.

Gravity and inertia is the same thing.Einstein told me that in 1952.He never said gravity worked with waves like a magnet.Never did Einstein go with waves.LIGO is Rube Goldberg.Ask to see its cost and you will die like JFK.Coning and stealing billions is all LIGO is good for. TreBert

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

#524472

On Sunday, October 4, 2015 at 12:20:35 AM UTC+3, Kent Beeler wrote:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
> 
> >> That wave amplitude would be magnitude insignificant compared to that
> >> of Earth. However, in principle that wave could be filtered out by a
> >> proper LP filter applied numerically to the received data.
> > 
> > If waves are filtered out, than what waves could the device actually
> > measure
> 
> Well, I meant taking out the Earth's offset, since the frequency of that 
> wave must be in the Lower region. Sort of taking the DC out, or moving the 
> zero axis up to the necessary level. Is done in software anyway.

==========================
i offered long ago
to make an experiment to find out if

THERE IS SOME NOTICEABLE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 
g  AT NIGHT AND AT DAY!!...--
---at the same spot  on earth !!! 
(even a long statistical experiment might be 
relevant !!!

TIA
Y.Porat
=======================

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web