Re: Do we have evidence that gravitation waves are faster than light ??

From	Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
Newsgroups	sci.physics
Subject	Re: Do we have evidence that gravitation waves are faster than light ??
Date	2018-08-17 17:01 +0000
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<pl6v22$155c$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	(1 earlier) <494cf0d2-555d-48be-9bde-1220761774e8@googlegroups.com> <pl6qgh$sul$1@gioia.aioe.org> <2fc975b4-f516-4e77-bae2-dbe495c4c759@googlegroups.com> <pl6rea$ukb$2@gioia.aioe.org> <8d021c6e-cc84-46e5-99ff-6b2231d64a51@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

<poraty149@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, August 17, 2018 at 7:00:15 PM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> <poraty149@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Friday, August 17, 2018 at 6:44:21 PM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> What is the medium that supports gravitational wave motion assuming such waves exist?
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> No need to assume. They ve been detected repeatedly. Anyone who dismisses a
>>>> confirmed observation as  impossible  is living in denial. 
> 
> =================there might be observations
> now the problem is in 
> interpretations of those !!
>>>> 
>>>> Spacetime is the medium. Please note that the analysis of the properties of
>>>> spacetime is what led to the prediction of gravitational waves in the first
> 
> there might  be situations 
> in which you make a wrong explantion
> to  facts that could have 
> a few interpretations !!!
> and accidentally you fit explanations to facts
> ina reverse process
> ie
> first you shoot and then move the target 
> to the hit point ...
> 
>>>> place. So when you have a theory that predicts the existence of a
>>>> phenomenon that wasn t previously expected, and then you go look for the
>>>> phenomenon, and it s in fact there in exactly the form predicted, then you
>>>> can be very confident that the concept that led to the prediction was
>>>> right.
> 
> --
> the f en curved space does not explain 
> how involved  masses is not depleted  !!!

They are. Catch up. 

A Nobel prize was awarded for measuring the depletion from gravitational
waves. 

It’s small, by the way. 

> 
> we are dealing for instance
> with  planets that are in mutual gravity
> 
> ALONG MANY BILLIONS !! OF YEARS !!
> AND NOT GETTING DEPLETED FROM   MASS 

Yes they are depleted. It’s a very small depletion, many orders of
magnitude less than the depletion from fusion reactions. The sun loses 5
million tons of mass PER SECOND due to fusion. And it’s been doing that for
billions of years. Do the math. 

> f en curved space  
> cannot explain 
> how the  involved masses 
> are not depeeted from  their masses 
>>>> 
>>>> -- 
>>>> Odd Bodkin   Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> =====i can understand why  you and other crocks  are so angry 
> just go on
> and sell your too  precious*** toys**!!  
> that make your and others  business people 
> too reach   

Too rich? You think doing physics is about money? Is that why you’re
interested in earning some notice for your “copyrights”? For the money??

> ================= 
>  
> TIA
> Y.Porat
> ===============>
>>> it has no physics tools for
>>> ACTION !!
>> 
>> What on earth do you mean by physics tools?
>> 
>>> space has no properties
>>> no physics tools - nothing !
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> it is all in mass *!!
>>> actually from mass to mass 
>>> must be
>>> 
>>> a recycling process can be
>>> only from mass t o   another mass !
>>> 
>>> OR ELSE
>>> THOSE MASSES WILL BE DEPLEATD   !
>>> =TIA
>>> Y.Porat
>>> ====================> > 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Odd Bodkin  Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> 
> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Thread

csiph-web