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?

From	Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
Newsgroups	sci.physics
Subject	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?
Date	2016-03-11 16:57 -0600
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<nbvifr$611$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	(8 earlier) <tmb4ebthuv14t8mm1gr65a503l6dmkk13t@4ax.com> <nbugd8$aei$1@gioia.aioe.org> <qqr5ebt06r9obrbdngln1mvru2ss62534a@4ax.com> <nbv0cc$158d$1@gioia.aioe.org> <4kd6ebh1vbd1et0s55eqcet3an0cqg6pv3@4ax.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On 3/11/2016 3:46 PM, Jackpol11@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 11:47:57 -0600, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 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?
 >>
> I think you're mistaking my volubility for fervor. I'm just looking
> for someone to explain the term frequency to the -11/3 power,
> augmented by 3/5  power, defining a unit of time, as the cofactor to
> c^3/G. But how do I know, out of 118 papers, that one of them will
> actually come across? I am not willing to gamble $35.

Then are you willing to invest the legwork, if you're not willing to pay 
for it?
This only means going to the library (which has a subscription) and 
sitting a while with the journals.

The reason I say that is that this is exactly what physicists do. They 
walk over to the library and they sit a while with the journals, 
reading. And if they don't find what they want with one article, they go 
to the next.

As for which article you should choose, you go to the article that is 
referenced at the point where your question is, which in this case was 
reference [11]. See how that works?

It sounds like you really don't want to either pay for it OR go to the 
library to read it. What you're hoping for is that, here where it is 
convenient, someone will take the trouble to elaborate on it to your 
satisfaction so that there's no work or investment required on your part.

> I evaluated the equation coming up with 620 µs for 32Msun. What does
> that time really represent?
> Let's hope they stay tuned for the next calamity.
> (Black holes seem to be a thriving industry).
> John Polasek
>>>
>>>>


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

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