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

Groups > sci.physics > #561593

Re: why did LIGO turn off their machine Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame with wrong ideas rather than no fame but the truth?

Show all headers | View raw

On 3/11/2016 11:18 AM, Jackpol11@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 07:15:19 -0600, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 3/10/2016 9:21 PM, Jackpol11@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> For reference see:
>>> http://physics.aps.org/featured-article-pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102
>>> I didn't say it was difficult-I said it was unspeakable. I worked out
>>> the units myself as you saw in the previous note so that's behind us.
>>> A bastard term like frequency to the -11/3 power needs someone to
>>> explain its relevance and its origin.
>>
>> The derivation of that equation can be found in the article referenced
>> in this paper. If you would bother to look that up, you might have your
>> questions answered.
>> L. Blanchet, T. Damour, B. R. Iyer, C. M. Will, and A. G.
>> Wiseman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 3515 (1995)
>> This is the reason the reference is listed, so that you not think it was
>> made up from thin air.
> It's unavailable without a subscription.

Whose problem is that supposed to be?
You have options:
1. You purchase the article.
2. You visit a university library that has purchased a subscription.

One involves money, one involves legwork. Which of these are you willing 
to invest?

>
>>
>>> Or at least give it units so
>>> that it should be understood. for
>>>    Let L = wavelength or m/cycle = 1/F. Then we have
>>>        f^-11/3 = L^11/3 = cube root of (meters^11/cycle^11)
>>
>> I really don't think that's necessary. You're asking scientists to
>> explain the units in a way that is understandable TO YOU.
> No I am not. The units are where the physics is. Just making equations
> balance is not physics, if the equations are not the logical result of
> quantizing some physical sequence. f to the -11/3 is an example
> Of the 118 references in the paper, #11 was not available without a
> subscription.

I don't think physicists owe laypeople an explanation in their papers 
how to understand the physics of those equations in terms of dimensions. 
That's where you're expected to do the background reading, and that's 
why they include references. Scientific papers are NOT SELF-CONTAINED, 
where everything you'd want to know about the subject is wholly 
contained in the paper.

>
>>> Things don't really improve by taking the 3/5 power of all that.
>>
>> I don't know what you mean by "improve". The theory is the theory.
>
> I don't see a theory, I see an assertion. I see a believer, or no, a
> person who is unwilling to doubt.

Sorry, but to believe, you really need to read the references too.

> There is another paper that gives a lot more information to the inside
> workings:
> http://arxiv.org/pdf/1602.03840v1.pdf
> It's hard to see how they identified the 2 masses as 30 and 32 solar
> masses, when the 1st notification was on earth at the time of the
> collision 1.3 Byrs later and had no idea in what direction to look
> (for 2 black holes).

How they derived the two masses is explained in the paper. It's solving 
for M1 and M2 from the equations given. They DO NOT NEED to show you all 
the steps.

> This is much like supernovae with a life several weeks, which appear
> at random, the best of which are identified as "no more than 5 days
> after the peak." Not one has been tracked from start to finish, so
> there is no functional form to describe the "light curve". it is
> necessary to "back-engineer" to the assumed peak.
> (But easier than tracking those 2 black holes after they are
> demolished).
>
> John Polasek
>


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

Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

why did LIGO turn off their machine Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame with wrong ideas rather than no fame but the truth? Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 13:03 -0800
  Re: why did LIGO turn off their machine Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame with wrong ideas rather than no fame but the truth? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 16:03 -0600
    Re: why did LIGO turn off their machine Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame with wrong ideas rather than no fame but the truth? Jackpol11@hotmail.com - 2016-03-09 22:00 -0500
      Re: why did LIGO turn off their machine Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame with wrong ideas rather than no fame but the truth? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 21:49 -0600
        Re: why did LIGO turn off their machine Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame with wrong ideas rather than no fame but the truth? Jackpol11@hotmail.com - 2016-03-10 09:41 -0500
          Re: why did LIGO turn off their machine Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame with wrong ideas rather than no fame but the truth? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 08:52 -0600
            Re: why did LIGO turn off their machine Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame with wrong ideas rather than no fame but the truth? Jackpol11@hotmail.com - 2016-03-10 10:26 -0500
              Re: why did LIGO turn off their machine Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame with wrong ideas rather than no fame but the truth? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 09:57 -0600
                Re: why did LIGO turn off their machine Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame with wrong ideas rather than no fame but the truth? Jackpol11@hotmail.com - 2016-03-10 16:42 -0500
                Re: why did LIGO turn off their machine Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame with wrong ideas rather than no fame but the truth? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 16:12 -0600
                Re: why did LIGO turn off their machine Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame with wrong ideas rather than no fame but the truth? Jackpol11@hotmail.com - 2016-03-10 22:21 -0500
                Re: why did LIGO turn off their machine Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame with wrong ideas rather than no fame but the truth? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 07:15 -0600
                Re: why did LIGO turn off their machine Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame with wrong ideas rather than no fame but the truth? Jackpol11@hotmail.com - 2016-03-11 12:18 -0500
                Re: why did LIGO turn off their machine Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame with wrong ideas rather than no fame but the truth? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 11:47 -0600
                Re: why did LIGO turn off their machine Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame with wrong ideas rather than no fame but the truth? Jackpol11@hotmail.com - 2016-03-11 16:46 -0500
                Re: why did LIGO turn off their machine Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame with wrong ideas rather than no fame but the truth? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 16:57 -0600
                was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame with wrong ideas rather than no fame but the truth? Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 11:08 -0800
                Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame with wrong ideas rather than no fame but the truth? Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-12 16:10 -0800

csiph-web