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

Groups > sci.physics > #526659 > unrolled thread

Follow up on Dr Forards work on gravitational wave generation?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Follow up on Dr Forards work on gravitational wave generation? clifford wright <c.c.wright@clear.net.nz> - 2015-10-18 03:21 +0000
    Re: Follow up on Dr Forards work on gravitational wave generation? omnilobe@gmail.com - 2015-10-17 21:40 -0700
    Re: Follow up on Dr Forards work on gravitational wave generation? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-10-18 06:49 +0000
      Re: Follow up on Dr Forards work on gravitational wave generation? clifford wright <c.c.wright@clear.net.nz> - 2015-10-19 03:13 +0000
    Re: Follow up on Dr Forards work on gravitational wave generation? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 14:32 -0700
      Re: Follow up on Dr Forwards work on gravitational wave generation? clifford wright <c.c.wright@clear.net.nz> - 2015-10-23 21:55 +0000
        Re: Follow up on Dr Forwards work on gravitational wave generation? clifford wright <c.c.wright@clear.net.nz> - 2015-10-29 23:34 +0000

#526659 — Follow up on Dr Forards work on gravitational wave generation?

I just (finally) found some details of the late Dr Forward's "Gravitational 
wave " generator. It seems to consist of little more than a fairly massive 
metalic bar being rotated at roughly sychchronous speed with an electric 
motor. Curiouser and curiouser!!

IF gravitational waves are so easily generated the why isn't a few thousand 
dollars being spent to make a LIGO "signal generator" to check this vast 
and expensive apparatus for actual operation?
All sorts of questions are raised by this information-
Why haven't propagation speeds been actually measured, rather than derived 
from theory?
Why hasn't a lower frequency unit been built to calibrate LIGO?

But beneath all these questions rears the head of the biggie. Just how much
"gravitational radiation" would one get from a moving mass of a few 
kilograms? Given the tiny effects of gravity compared with 
electromagnetism.

 After all Hertz, Lodge and many others did all these measuremnts very 
early on in the history of Radio.
 
So far all I am getting is MORE questions and few answers.
Hope someone who worked on Forward's gear is still around to answer these
important questions.
Clifford Wright.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#526666

Gravity is so weak that it would take your metal bar two years to attract an object to move it a meter.

A mole of lithium has a gravity force like the electric force of a hundred pairs of electrons and protons.

The signal to noise level is a problem for detecting gravity in your bar experiment. The noise of the Moon, the Dust Lanes, the elevator motor magnets coupling inductively to any metal.

It is better to study Folmsbee Gravity Theory than to measure the waves of a ghost.

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

#526687

clifford wright <c.c.wright@clear.net.nz> wrote:
> I just (finally) found some details of the late Dr Forward's "Gravitational 
> wave " generator. It seems to consist of little more than a fairly massive 
> metalic bar being rotated at roughly sychchronous speed with an electric 
> motor. Curiouser and curiouser!!
> 
> IF gravitational waves are so easily generated the why isn't a few thousand 
> dollars being spent to make a LIGO "signal generator" to check this vast 
> and expensive apparatus for actual operation?
> All sorts of questions are raised by this information-

If you had taken, and stayed awake during, high school physics you 
would have learned how to calculate the gravitational force generated
by a given mass and could therefor calculate that the "massive metalic bar"
would have to have dimensions in many miles to have enough gravitational 
force to be detected by the most sensitive instruments in existance.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#526799

jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote in news:g1sbfc-2ja.ln1@mail.specsol.com:

> clifford wright <c.c.wright@clear.net.nz> wrote:
>> I just (finally) found some details of the late Dr Forward's
>> "Gravitational wave " generator. It seems to consist of little more
>> than a fairly massive metalic bar being rotated at roughly
>> sychchronous speed with an electric motor. Curiouser and curiouser!!
>> 
>> IF gravitational waves are so easily generated the why isn't a few
>> thousand dollars being spent to make a LIGO "signal generator" to
>> check this vast and expensive apparatus for actual operation?
>> All sorts of questions are raised by this information-
> 
> If you had taken, and stayed awake during, high school physics you 
> would have learned how to calculate the gravitational force generated
> by a given mass and could therefor calculate that the "massive metalic
> bar" would have to have dimensions in many miles to have enough
> gravitational force to be detected by the most sensitive instruments
> in existance. 
> 
> 

Well Jim it looks like I didn'e make myself very clear. That was JUST
what I was driving at. Dr Forward's system driven by a simple electric 
motor and with masses of a few tens of Kg (at most) would obviously 
generate a VERY minute amount of gravitational energy.
That is precisely why I found the paper very hard to accept.
Indeed, just as I said, if is was possible to generate "gravitational
radiation" so easily it would be a simple thing to calibrate and test
LIGO. Yet several people in this group seem to be implying that that
is what Dr Forwards apparatus was doing. BTW I seem to remember that the 
ratio of gravity to EM is about 10-34, I should look it up again.
Having spent over 45 years of my life involved in all sorts of practical
scientific research in fields ranging from semiconductor research to 
acoustics tends to keep one's feet quite firmly on the ground of basic 
physics. You would be amazed at some of the impractical ideas PhD's have 
come up with.
What a great pity Dr Forward is no longer with us! I am still hoping to 
hear from his students or technicians who were involved with this work.
It would be good to here "from the horse's mouth" what results were
obtained in practice.
Is anyone there?
Clifford Wright

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

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

#526942

On Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 8:21:28 PM UTC-7, clifford wright wrote:
> I just (finally) found some details of the late Dr Forward's "Gravitational 
> wave " generator. It seems to consist of little more than a fairly massive 
> metalic bar being rotated at roughly sychchronous speed with an electric 
> motor. Curiouser and curiouser!!
> 
> IF gravitational waves are so easily generated the why isn't a few thousand 
> dollars being spent to make a LIGO "signal generator" to check this vast 
> and expensive apparatus for actual operation?
> All sorts of questions are raised by this information-
> Why haven't propagation speeds been actually measured, rather than derived 
> from theory?
> Why hasn't a lower frequency unit been built to calibrate LIGO?
> 
> But beneath all these questions rears the head of the biggie. Just how much
> "gravitational radiation" would one get from a moving mass of a few 
> kilograms? Given the tiny effects of gravity compared with 
> electromagnetism.
> 
>  After all Hertz, Lodge and many others did all these measuremnts very 
> early on in the history of Radio.
>  
> So far all I am getting is MORE questions and few answers.
> Hope someone who worked on Forward's gear is still around to answer these
> important questions.
> Clifford Wright.
> 
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus

LIGO will prove its $$$$$$$$ all the way down. Even I would say gravity's force works by the use of waves if I could get a piece of the money GOP Mafia NASA is stealing  O Ya  TreBert

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

#527732 — Re: Follow up on Dr Forwards work on gravitational wave generation?

"reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1d397665-429f-4b5f-963b-9e6d07de7356@googlegroups.com: 

> On Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 8:21:28 PM UTC-7, clifford wright
> wrote: 
>> I just (finally) found some details of the late Dr Forward's
>> "Gravitational wave " generator. It seems to consist of little more
>> than a fairly massive metalic bar being rotated at roughly
>> sychchronous speed with an electric motor. Curiouser and curiouser!!
>> 
>> IF gravitational waves are so easily generated the why isn't a few
>> thousand dollars being spent to make a LIGO "signal generator" to
>> check this vast and expensive apparatus for actual operation?
>> All sorts of questions are raised by this information-
>> Why haven't propagation speeds been actually measured, rather than
>> derived from theory?
>> Why hasn't a lower frequency unit been built to calibrate LIGO?
>> 
>> But beneath all these questions rears the head of the biggie. Just
>> how much "gravitational radiation" would one get from a moving mass
>> of a few kilograms? Given the tiny effects of gravity compared with 
>> electromagnetism.
>> 
>>  After all Hertz, Lodge and many others did all these measuremnts
>>  very 
>> early on in the history of Radio.
>>  
>> So far all I am getting is MORE questions and few answers.
>> Hope someone who worked on Forward's gear is still around to answer
>> these important questions.
>> Clifford Wright.
>> 
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> 
> LIGO will prove its $$$$$$$$ all the way down. Even I would say
> gravity's force works by the use of waves if I could get a piece of
> the money GOP Mafia NASA is stealing  O Ya  TreBert 
> 

Just been doing some more reading on thi subject. Hopefully I can explain 
in a rather better fashion.
As the "rubber sheet" analogy requires a distortion in a third dimension,
gravity in a 3 dimesional space requires a distortion in a fourth 
dimension of space. In the modern forms of string and brane theory etc it 
is often postulated that there can be as many as 11 spatial dimensions.
If each combination of these 11 can present as a possible universe then 
several things follow. Firstly we have a good idea as to why gravity is 
such a weak force. Only that part of it in our own universe can have
an effect.
Secondly, how does this affect predictions based on a 3 space and 1 time
dimension universe which we observe on the macroscopic scale.
For example is there any valid reason to predict the speed of propagation 
to be identical in any other spatial dimension?
There also appears to be a lot of argument on the effects of attraction
between planets and the sun based on predicting the orbital effects if
in one case gravitational forces travel with a time delay caused by c
and in the other case practically instantaneously.Does any one know of 
some software that can model the cases based on these alternatives?
It would be very interesting to run a simulation!
Clifford Wright
 

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

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

#528995 — Re: Follow up on Dr Forwards work on gravitational wave generation?

clifford wright <c.c.wright@clear.net.nz> wrote in
news:XnsA53D6F2B8EB8Efimbultyr@176.124.71.34: 

> "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:1d397665-429f-4b5f-963b-9e6d07de7356@googlegroups.com: 
> 
>> On Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 8:21:28 PM UTC-7, clifford wright
>> wrote: 
>>> I just (finally) found some details of the late Dr Forward's
>>> "Gravitational wave " generator. It seems to consist of little more
>>> than a fairly massive metalic bar being rotated at roughly
>>> sychchronous speed with an electric motor. Curiouser and curiouser!!
>>> 
>>> IF gravitational waves are so easily generated the why isn't a few
>>> thousand dollars being spent to make a LIGO "signal generator" to
>>> check this vast and expensive apparatus for actual operation?
>>> All sorts of questions are raised by this information-
>>> Why haven't propagation speeds been actually measured, rather than
>>> derived from theory?
>>> Why hasn't a lower frequency unit been built to calibrate LIGO?
>>> 
>>> But beneath all these questions rears the head of the biggie. Just
>>> how much "gravitational radiation" would one get from a moving mass
>>> of a few kilograms? Given the tiny effects of gravity compared with 
>>> electromagnetism.
>>> 
>>>  After all Hertz, Lodge and many others did all these measuremnts
>>>  very 
>>> early on in the history of Radio.
>>>  
>>> So far all I am getting is MORE questions and few answers.
>>> Hope someone who worked on Forward's gear is still around to answer
>>> these important questions.
>>> Clifford Wright.
>>> 
>>> ---
>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>> 
>> LIGO will prove its $$$$$$$$ all the way down. Even I would say
>> gravity's force works by the use of waves if I could get a piece of
>> the money GOP Mafia NASA is stealing  O Ya  TreBert 
>> 
> 
> Just been doing some more reading on this subject. Hopefully I can
> explain in a rather better fashion.
> As the "rubber sheet" analogy requires a distortion in a third
> dimension, gravity in a 3 dimesional space requires a distortion in a
> fourth dimension of space. In the modern forms of string and brane
> theory etc it is often postulated that there can be as many as 11
> spatial dimensions. If each combination of these 11 can present as a
> possible universe then several things follow. Firstly we have a good
> idea as to why gravity is such a weak force. Only that part of it in
> our own universe can have an effect.
> Secondly, how does this affect predictions based on a 3 space and 1
> time dimension universe which we observe on the macroscopic scale.
> For example is there any valid reason to predict the speed of
> propagation to be identical in any other spatial dimension?
> There also appears to be a lot of argument on the effects of
> attraction between planets and the sun based on predicting the orbital
> effects if in one case gravitational forces travel with a time delay
> caused by c and in the other case practically instantaneously.Does any
> one know of some software that can model the cases based on these
> alternatives? It would be very interesting to run a simulation!
> Clifford Wright
>  
> 
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> 
> 

Well, I am very surprised!
If I am really wildly wrong on my analogy, then why hasn't anyone pointed 
this out. Also, I find it very hard to believe that noone has ever worked 
out the resultant of time delay on both Newtonian and Relativistic 
theories of gravity and orbital mechanics. After all Newton most 
definitely thought of gravity being transmitted instaneously.
Clifford Wright

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web