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

Groups > sci.physics > #529202 > unrolled thread

Gravitational waves and where to find them

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Gravitational waves and where to find them Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 15:24 -0500
    Re: Gravitational waves and where to find them jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-10-30 20:43 +0000
    Re: Gravitational waves and where to find them "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 15:03 -0700
      Re: Gravitational waves and where to find them john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 16:46 -0700
      Re: Gravitational waves and where to find them Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2015-11-01 13:29 -0800
        Re: Gravitational waves and where to find them Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 19:31 -0600
        Re: Gravitational waves and where to find them Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 08:53 -0600
          Re: Gravitational waves and where to find them john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 07:09 -0800
            Re: Gravitational waves and where to find them Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 09:49 -0600
              Re: Gravitational waves and where to find them Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 07:58 -0800
    Re: Gravitational waves and where to find them gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-10-30 21:05 -0500
    Re: Gravitational waves and where to find them "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 13:25 -0700
      Re: Gravitational waves and where to find them benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 17:41 -0400
        Re: Gravitational waves and where to find them john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 15:57 -0700
          Re: Gravitational waves and where to find them moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-11-01 04:34 +0000
            Re: Gravitational waves and where to find them "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 21:44 -0700
            Re: Gravitational waves and where to find them "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-11-01 07:29 -0600
              Re: Gravitational waves and where to find them moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-11-02 20:09 +0000
                Re: Gravitational waves and where to find them "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 12:27 -0800
                Re: Gravitational waves and where to find them "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-11-02 14:29 -0600

#529202 — Gravitational waves and where to find them

Gravitational waves and where to find them
> http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/gravitational-waves-and-where-to-find-them

> For thousands of years, astronomy was the province of visible light,
> that narrow band of colors the human eye can see.
>
> In the 20th century, astronomers pushed into other kinds of light,
> from radio waves to infrared light to gamma rays. Researchers built
> neutrino detectors and cosmic ray observatories to study the universe
> using particles instead. Most recently, another branch of lightless
> astronomy has been making strides: gravitational wave astronomy.
>
> It’s easy to make gravitational waves: Just flap your arms. Earth’s
> orbit produces more powerful gravitational waves, but even these are
> too small to have a measurable effect. This is a good thing:
> Gravitational waves carry energy, and losing too much energy would
> cause Earth to spiral into the sun.
>
> Gravitational waves are an important prediction of Einstein’s general
> theory of relativity. According to that theory, a variety of
> astronomical objects—such as supernova explosions, pairs of black
> holes and other mutually orbiting objects with strong gravity—give
> off energy as disturbances in the structure of space-time that
> propagate outward at the speed of light.
>
> Even though these waves are ubiquitous and often carry enormous
> amounts of energy, gravity is so weak that they barely nudge other
> objects as they pass.

-- 

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

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#529222

Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
> Gravitational waves and where to find them
>> http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/gravitational-waves-and-where-to-find-them
> 
>> For thousands of years, astronomy was the province of visible light,
>> that narrow band of colors the human eye can see.
>>
>> In the 20th century, astronomers pushed into other kinds of light,
>> from radio waves to infrared light to gamma rays. Researchers built
>> neutrino detectors and cosmic ray observatories to study the universe
>> using particles instead. Most recently, another branch of lightless
>> astronomy has been making strides: gravitational wave astronomy.
>>
>> It?s easy to make gravitational waves: Just flap your arms. Earth?s
>> orbit produces more powerful gravitational waves, but even these are
>> too small to have a measurable effect. This is a good thing:
>> Gravitational waves carry energy, and losing too much energy would
>> cause Earth to spiral into the sun.
>>
>> Gravitational waves are an important prediction of Einstein?s general
>> theory of relativity. According to that theory, a variety of
>> astronomical objects?such as supernova explosions, pairs of black
>> holes and other mutually orbiting objects with strong gravity?give
>> off energy as disturbances in the structure of space-time that
>> propagate outward at the speed of light.
>>
>> Even though these waves are ubiquitous and often carry enormous
>> amounts of energy, gravity is so weak that they barely nudge other
>> objects as they pass.
> 

As this site provides email and RSS feeds, your cut and paste is
worthless, spamming shit head.

As for the content of the article, isn't there a big ass experiment
running, which has been in all the media and many of your worthless
cut and pastes, just to look for gravitational waves, spamming shit head?


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#529261

On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 1:24:24 PM UTC-7, Sam Wormley wrote:
> Gravitational waves and where to find them
> > http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/gravitational-waves-and-where-to-find-them
> 
> > For thousands of years, astronomy was the province of visible light,
> > that narrow band of colors the human eye can see.
> >
> > In the 20th century, astronomers pushed into other kinds of light,
> > from radio waves to infrared light to gamma rays. Researchers built
> > neutrino detectors and cosmic ray observatories to study the universe
> > using particles instead. Most recently, another branch of lightless
> > astronomy has been making strides: gravitational wave astronomy.
> >
> > It's easy to make gravitational waves: Just flap your arms. Earth's
> > orbit produces more powerful gravitational waves, but even these are
> > too small to have a measurable effect. This is a good thing:
> > Gravitational waves carry energy, and losing too much energy would
> > cause Earth to spiral into the sun.
> >
> > Gravitational waves are an important prediction of Einstein's general
> > theory of relativity. According to that theory, a variety of
> > astronomical objects--such as supernova explosions, pairs of black
> > holes and other mutually orbiting objects with strong gravity--give
> > off energy as disturbances in the structure of space-time that
> > propagate outward at the speed of light.
> >
> > Even though these waves are ubiquitous and often carry enormous
> > amounts of energy, gravity is so weak that they barely nudge other
> > objects as they pass.
> 
> -- 
> 
> sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
> to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
> community, and physics-related social issues.

Einstein NEVER SAID ONE WORD ON GRAVITY WAVES.Its not part of GR.I have studied GR it uses CURVED SPACE. A great enough curve its a black hole. Why is Sam putting words in Einstein's mouth when he does not have a brain that can think.Einstein had inertia and gravity as the same. His math. did not give any wave to create the force of gravity. If gravity used waves to attract stuff at a distance it would have been detected 100 years ago. Trebert

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

#529290

No such thing, girls

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

#529773

On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 3:03:36 PM UTC-7, reber g=emc^2 wrote:
> On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 1:24:24 PM UTC-7, Sam Wormley wrote:
> > Gravitational waves and where to find them
> > > http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/gravitational-waves-and-where-to-find-them
> > 
> > > For thousands of years, astronomy was the province of visible light,
> > > that narrow band of colors the human eye can see.
> > >
> > > In the 20th century, astronomers pushed into other kinds of light,
> > > from radio waves to infrared light to gamma rays. Researchers built
> > > neutrino detectors and cosmic ray observatories to study the universe
> > > using particles instead. Most recently, another branch of lightless
> > > astronomy has been making strides: gravitational wave astronomy.
> > >
> > > It's easy to make gravitational waves: Just flap your arms. Earth's
> > > orbit produces more powerful gravitational waves, but even these are
> > > too small to have a measurable effect. This is a good thing:
> > > Gravitational waves carry energy, and losing too much energy would
> > > cause Earth to spiral into the sun.
> > >
> > > Gravitational waves are an important prediction of Einstein's general
> > > theory of relativity. According to that theory, a variety of
> > > astronomical objects--such as supernova explosions, pairs of black
> > > holes and other mutually orbiting objects with strong gravity--give
> > > off energy as disturbances in the structure of space-time that
> > > propagate outward at the speed of light.
> > >
> > > Even though these waves are ubiquitous and often carry enormous
> > > amounts of energy, gravity is so weak that they barely nudge other
> > > objects as they pass.
> > 
> > -- 
> > 
> > sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
> > to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
> > community, and physics-related social issues.
> 
> Einstein NEVER SAID ONE WORD ON GRAVITY WAVES.Its not part of GR.I have studied GR it uses CURVED SPACE. A great enough curve its a black hole. Why is Sam putting words in Einstein's mouth when he does not have a brain that can think.Einstein had inertia and gravity as the same. His math. did not give any wave to create the force of gravity. If gravity used waves to attract stuff at a distance it would have been detected 100 years ago. Trebert


Einstein was too smart to make any predictions of something so unlikely as gravity waves.

Double-A

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

#529826

On 11/1/15 3:29 PM, Double-A wrote:
> Einstein was too smart to make any predictions of something so unlikely as gravity waves.
>
> Double-A

   General Relativity, not Einstein make the prediction of gravitational
   waves. Look up Hulse and Taylor's Nobel Prize.



-- 

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]

#529906

On 11/1/2015 3:29 PM, Double-A wrote:
> Einstein was too smart to make any predictions of something so unlikely as gravity waves.
>
> Double-A

I think you'd better check the literature. His paper on gravitational 
waves in (I believe) 1918, was the very first one on the subject.

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

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

#529914

What's waving, Odd?

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

#529925

On 11/2/2015 9:09 AM, john wrote:
> What's waving, Odd?
>

Spacetime. Didn't I say that just a few days ago?

What makes you think that spacetime cannot possibly wave?

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

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

#529927

On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 10:49:22 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 11/2/2015 9:09 AM, john wrote:
> > What's waving, Odd?
> >
> Spacetime. Didn't I say that just a few days ago?
> 
> What makes you think that spacetime cannot possibly wave?

Scientifically, you Odd should prove that it does, as you say, wave.
Asking john or anyone else to prove a negative is rather tiresome.

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

-- Mahipal "When do you Odd get time to make any toys?"

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

#529332

On 10/30/2015 3:24 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> Gravitational waves and where to find them
>> http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/gravitational-waves-and-where-to-find-them
>>
>
>> For thousands of years, astronomy was the province of visible light,
>> that narrow band of colors the human eye can see.
>>
>> In the 20th century, astronomers pushed into other kinds of light,
>> from radio waves to infrared light to gamma rays. Researchers built
>> neutrino detectors and cosmic ray observatories to study the universe
>> using particles instead. Most recently, another branch of lightless
>> astronomy has been making strides: gravitational wave astronomy.
>>
>> It’s easy to make gravitational waves: Just flap your arms. Earth’s
>> orbit produces more powerful gravitational waves, but even these are
>> too small to have a measurable effect.

Wrong, that is conjecture.

No one has measured any "gravity waves", they are theory, not observed 
fact.

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

#529509

On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 1:24:24 PM UTC-7, Sam Wormley wrote:
> Gravitational waves and where to find them
> > http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/gravitational-waves-and-where-to-find-them
> 
> > For thousands of years, astronomy was the province of visible light,
> > that narrow band of colors the human eye can see.
> >
> > In the 20th century, astronomers pushed into other kinds of light,
> > from radio waves to infrared light to gamma rays. Researchers built
> > neutrino detectors and cosmic ray observatories to study the universe
> > using particles instead. Most recently, another branch of lightless
> > astronomy has been making strides: gravitational wave astronomy.
> >
> > It's easy to make gravitational waves: Just flap your arms. Earth's
> > orbit produces more powerful gravitational waves, but even these are
> > too small to have a measurable effect. This is a good thing:
> > Gravitational waves carry energy, and losing too much energy would
> > cause Earth to spiral into the sun.
> >
> > Gravitational waves are an important prediction of Einstein's general
> > theory of relativity. According to that theory, a variety of
> > astronomical objects--such as supernova explosions, pairs of black
> > holes and other mutually orbiting objects with strong gravity--give
> > off energy as disturbances in the structure of space-time that
> > propagate outward at the speed of light.
> >
> > Even though these waves are ubiquitous and often carry enormous
> > amounts of energy, gravity is so weak that they barely nudge other
> > objects as they pass.
> 
> -- 
> 
> sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
> to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
> community, and physics-related social issues.

Force of gravity is measured by weight.Stuff weighs half of 1% more at the N.pole than the equator.Every thing has weight.TreBert

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

#529539

On 10/31/2015 04:25 PM, reber g=emc^2 wrote:
> On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 1:24:24 PM UTC-7, Sam Wormley wrote:
>> Gravitational waves and where to find them
>>> http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/gravitational-waves-and-where-to-find-them
>>
>>> For thousands of years, astronomy was the province of visible light,
>>> that narrow band of colors the human eye can see.
>>>
>>> In the 20th century, astronomers pushed into other kinds of light,
>>> from radio waves to infrared light to gamma rays. Researchers built
>>> neutrino detectors and cosmic ray observatories to study the universe
>>> using particles instead. Most recently, another branch of lightless
>>> astronomy has been making strides: gravitational wave astronomy.
>>>
>>> It's easy to make gravitational waves: Just flap your arms. Earth's
>>> orbit produces more powerful gravitational waves, but even these are
>>> too small to have a measurable effect. This is a good thing:
>>> Gravitational waves carry energy, and losing too much energy would
>>> cause Earth to spiral into the sun.
>>>
>>> Gravitational waves are an important prediction of Einstein's general
>>> theory of relativity. According to that theory, a variety of
>>> astronomical objects--such as supernova explosions, pairs of black
>>> holes and other mutually orbiting objects with strong gravity--give
>>> off energy as disturbances in the structure of space-time that
>>> propagate outward at the speed of light.
>>>
>>> Even though these waves are ubiquitous and often carry enormous
>>> amounts of energy, gravity is so weak that they barely nudge other
>>> objects as they pass.
>>
>> --
>>
>> sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
>> to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
>> community, and physics-related social issues.
>
> Force of gravity is measured by weight.Stuff weighs half of 1% more at the N.pole than the equator.Every thing has weight.TreBert
>
Old man, you are senile. Anything at the right spot between the earth 
and moon has no weight! Go build a patio.

-- 

       ___           ___           ___            ___
      /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
     /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
    /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
   /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
  /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
  \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
   \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
    \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
     \::/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
      ~~            \/__/         \/__/

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

#529549

Everything is constantly giving off energy,
so the Universe is full of neutrinos on
down. Meanwhile, everything is constantly
absorbing; galactic centers absorb
neutrinos, protons absorb what electrons 
give off- yes, electrons constantly radiate,
besides changing levels when photons
are released. They radiate not by
using OUR photons
but in an emr spectrum 10^31 times
higher in frequency. It is this higher-
frequency photon that interacts with
protons-with matter- and this stuff is
coming from everywhere there are
electrons. It is the gravitational/inertial 
sea.
( Galaxy Model for the Atom)
Benzene GIF:
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/BenzeneE.GIF

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

#529627

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>Everything is constantly giving off energy,
>so the Universe is full of neutrinos on
>down. Meanwhile, everything is constantly
>absorbing; galactic centers absorb
>neutrinos, protons absorb what electrons 
>give off- yes, electrons constantly radiate,
>besides changing levels when photons
>are released. They radiate not by
>using OUR photons
>but in an emr spectrum 10^31 times
>higher in frequency. It is this higher-
>frequency photon that interacts with
>protons-with matter- and this stuff is
>coming from everywhere there are
>electrons. It is the gravitational/inertial 
>sea.

The babbling of an 8 month old baby makes a hell of a lot more sense than
this.

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

#529632

On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 9:34:26 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> >Everything is constantly giving off energy,
> >so the Universe is full of neutrinos on
> >down. Meanwhile, everything is constantly
> >absorbing; galactic centers absorb
> >neutrinos, protons absorb what electrons 
> >give off- yes, electrons constantly radiate,
> >besides changing levels when photons
> >are released. They radiate not by
> >using OUR photons
> >but in an emr spectrum 10^31 times
> >higher in frequency. It is this higher-
> >frequency photon that interacts with
> >protons-with matter- and this stuff is
> >coming from everywhere there are
> >electrons. It is the gravitational/inertial 
> >sea.
> 
> The babbling of an 8 month old baby makes a hell of a lot more sense than
> this.

That is one genius baby!

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

#529675

"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
news:n144of$7o3$1@pcls7.std.com...
> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>Everything is constantly giving off energy,
>>so the Universe is full of neutrinos on
>>down. Meanwhile, everything is constantly
>>absorbing; galactic centers absorb
>>neutrinos, protons absorb what electrons
>>give off- yes, electrons constantly radiate,
>>besides changing levels when photons
>>are released. They radiate not by
>>using OUR photons
>>but in an emr spectrum 10^31 times
>>higher in frequency. It is this higher-
>>frequency photon that interacts with
>>protons-with matter- and this stuff is
>>coming from everywhere there are
>>electrons. It is the gravitational/inertial
>>sea.
>
> The babbling of an 8 month old baby makes a hell of a lot more sense than
> this.

Michael, you actually posted without using the word kook?  Too bad you had 
to resort to another comparison instead.

Michael, it is clear that your whole world revolves around using 
generalities to place people below you.  So that is your trick so you don't 
have to think anymore.

Do not forget about that statement "out of the mouths of babes" because you 
overlook a lot of things that could make you a lot smarter.  But then again 
being smarter than the idiot you are is pretty simple.
 http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/Out+of+the+mouths+of+babes

Rocky

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

#529991

"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:

>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
>news:n144of$7o3$1@pcls7.std.com...

>> The babbling of an 8 month old baby makes a hell of a lot more sense than
>> this.

>Michael, you actually posted without using the word kook?  Too bad you had 
>to resort to another comparison instead.

Your babble is a little more coherent than John's, but it's still babble.
You both have in common that your beliefs require enormous violations of
the laws of physics in order for them to be real.

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

#529998

On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 12:09:19 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:
> 
> >"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
> >news:n144of$7o3$1@pcls7.std.com...
> 
> >> The babbling of an 8 month old baby makes a hell of a lot more sense than
> >> this.
> 
> >Michael, you actually posted without using the word kook?  Too bad you had 
> >to resort to another comparison instead.
> 
> Your babble is a little more coherent than John's, but it's still babble.
> You both have in common that your beliefs require enormous violations of
> the laws of physics in order for them to be real.

100 years and not a wave to be detected.WOW  It makes more sense that gravity is a particle force all the way to Earth's center.TreBert

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

#530000

"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
news:n18ftc$knr$1@pcls7.std.com...
> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:
>
>>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
>>news:n144of$7o3$1@pcls7.std.com...
>
>>> The babbling of an 8 month old baby makes a hell of a lot more sense 
>>> than
>>> this.
>
>>Michael, you actually posted without using the word kook?  Too bad you had
>>to resort to another comparison instead.
>
> Your babble is a little more coherent than John's, but it's still babble.
> You both have in common that your beliefs require enormous violations of
> the laws of physics in order for them to be real.

ROTFLMAO when it is you that thinks jets should fly into buildings without 
loosing parts or slowing down.  Just watch the alleged crashes in slow 
motion and sadly enough if they had a video of Flight 93 it would just 
disappear into a pile of dirt never to be found again.

But look at what you did.  You let a website tell you they found Flight 93 
without any proof whatsoever.  <G>

And it is you who thinks collapsing buildings should leave the very bottom 
of the building standing instead of being crushed by the 100 floors above 
it.
 http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg

Get real Michael because your own logic proves you are either a liar or that 
you don't care the media has lied to you about 9/11 or both.

And if you really want to get technical we might as well rename the USA the 
SOB for the United States of Our Bankers.

Rocky 

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web