Mordred

That part of the thread was great. Someone presenting we are all wrong with zero zip mathematical detail. Well let's just say it irritated me lol.

Present the math not your screaming attitude. I happen to have a few degrees in physics. These degrees include relativity as a first year lesson.

Good point

Now why is this the case? No matter how rigid the rod is the laws of conservation of angular momentum and rate of exchange of interactions still apply The rod is made up of individuals particles. Momentum must be exchanged via particle to particle interactions. This takes times. Time dependant upon the medium the influence is acting through.... The one light year length rod will take a minimal light year to respond to change in a perfect medium (which doesn't exist, so it will take longer) It is you that has no clue learn the math behind relativity. Instead of resorting to insults on a member who has numerous peer reviewed papers on arxiv. ! Moderator Note point being the rigid rod conjecture is a fundamental lesson on relativity, if you wish to provide details to the contrary. You will need to present the math not insults to respected forum members simply because they don't agree with you PS BOTH Ajb and I can move or lock this thread. So show the math

The thing do you truly understand the rigid rod conjecture? Let's start at the beginning. Man a swings a rod one light year in length. It will take one light year before the opposite end moves in response. If you say otherwise it is you that doesn't understand relativity This statement is correct

Not really we often observe events in the past. The sheer amount of energy released and the proper distance which most articles don't mention .. most articles don't specify the proper distance the event occurred from the time of occurance. I need clarification clarification on the redshift value to give better numbers

Give me a few I'll tell you. After I look at the Cosmo calc in my signature lol.

(Are these results absolute proof definitely not. The data needs study from independent examiners. Give it 6 months or so. Bicep2 is a good lesson on that aspect,) Good point, time will tell one event only tells us were on the right track. Now we need repeatability

In this case sheer coincidence in so far as the two BH colliding and the gravity waves the waves are a result of the collision. In so far as looking, well LIGO has been looking 24/7. For years to record the event. Problem being the sensitivity. They probably were not expecting results as soon as they did after upgrade. However this can often happen, New improvements can often yield results on a faster time scale. The gravity waves themself wouldn't occur without the merger event. Only certain events can lead to gravity waves. Keep in mind BH mergers can vary in time, depending on orbits (If I understand your questions correct is why can we measure this now as opposed to before). The main problem has been in filtering interference and separation distance of the waves gravity being such a weak force it's extremely difficulty to isolate from background influences such as noise

Man your questions can be hard to fathom. For one Chandra telescopes has the ability. BH,S not being the only objects that can produce jets. Pulsars can as well. There are numerous events to describe the rest. I am having tough time describing the direction of your last post to clarify a direction of interest. (No insult intended reads as a scattering of observer based results/ adjustments) A BH jet can last as long as it takes to .. Say for example absorb a star. Length of time depending on mass and proximity of the star

We account for measurement via factors such as redshift. Understand this detail. We don't always use visual telescopes. More often we use radio telescopes, infrared, etc but seldom visual. This being the case we must account for observer influence ie redshift as one example Accretion jets luckily happen over a decent time period, depending on availability of material

Those jets I should specify are artist renditions. Those renditions are based upon the mathematics within the article. Too lengthy to do justice on a forum. What it boils down to is a BH cannot gobble all the available matter there is a limit, the leftover is emitted via the jets. The article covers the details. PS there are images of jets exitting a galaxy such is the energy levels of the jets. Good self research is always a plus. Provided the sources are good. It's always better to trust resources that apply the actual math. (I hate pop media style articles) in my collection of over 300gb of pdf not a single reference or article is pop media related. Granted you need math to fully appreciate them.

The accretion disk itself for starters. "Material, such as gas, dust and other stellar debris that has come close to a black hole but not quite fallen into it, forms a flattened band of spinning matter around the event horizon called the accretion disk (or disc). Although no-one has ever actually seen a black hole or even its event horizon, this accretion disk can be seen, because the spinning particles are accelerated to tremendous speeds by the huge gravity of the black hole, releasing heat and powerful x-rays and gamma rays out into the universe as they smash into each other" http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_blackholes_event.html The accretion disk itself has mass. Then you also have the photon sphere. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_sphere. like I said most of the mass is the singularity but not all of the mass. The sheer energy levels in the accretion disk and accretion jets are huge. A good detail is this paper. http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.5499:''Black hole Accretion Disk'' Without going into the Einstein field equations let's look at an example. The mass of the Earth is 5.9722±0.0006)×10^24 kg. However the average mass density increases from the average mass density of the galactic medium as you approach Earth. When we set the mass upon an objection in space we need to define a cutoff point. For a galaxy that cutoff point is 100* the energy density compared to the critical density. For a BH and I can be corrected on this point it's the radius of the Schwartzchild metric. This simply means the mass of the singularity within the EH. Not the mass surrounding the EH. PS although great enthusiasm in learning the standard models in regards to mass loss it's appropriate to include the relation covered in your other thread ( through mod action). [latex]e^2=pc^2+(m_o^2)^2[/latex] Further discussion here for readers. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/93487-split-from-gravitational-waves-discovered/page-1 ! Moderator Note the split of threads is justified, appropriate to discretion of moderator

Definition of inertia. "Inertia is the resistance of any physical object to any change in its state of motion (this includes changes to its speed, direction or state of rest). It is the tendency of objects to keep moving in a straight line at constant velocity." Momentum is the quantity of motion of a moving body, measured as a product of its mass and velocity. Inertial mass is a mass parameter giving the inertial resistance to acceleration of the body when responding to all types of force. Mass. In physics, the property of matter that measures its resistance to acceleration. Changes in velocity and/or direction is acceleration. The formula above only concerns itself with momentum p not acceleration. Oops had to correct the typo in the formula

Who says all the mass is at the singularity? That is certainly the highest concentration but there is a buttload of energy surrounding the EH and acceleration disk.

Start with the full formula [latex]e^2=pc^2+(m_o^2)^2[/latex] P being momentum, m_O being rest mass Then think about how mass is defined but more importantly what type of mass. (Rest or inertial mass). Mass and energy are in essence two sides of the same coin. Both are properties both depend upon the other. Rest mass, can be contributed via the strong force, the electromagnetic (electromagnetic mass)force and atomic force. (Atomic mass) Though most commonly the strong force. Then on top of this you have mass gained via inertia. See above equation. Rest mass tells us the mass of an object as though it was at rest. However you need the above equation to describe the total energy an object has. Here is a good example particle accelerators collide two protons at 0.99 c. Rest mass of a single proton is 938.272046 MeV. Yet the collision can produce 123 Gev particles. (Higgs Boson). The mass gain is due to mass gained via inertia

Blackholes have a lot of mass, the mergers are also incredibly violent. Take a look at their mass and acceleration. How much energy is released in asteroids striking Earth? The mass and velocity these two BH's collide at makes the asteroid example a joke in terms of energy release. As the numbers above show the extreme violence of the mergers cause a loss in the total mass of the BH's

Too broad a subject without a specific direction. First off you mentioned videos. Can you specify what laws those videos state they violate?

Not a bad read, better than my oversimplification.

Well the simplest way to explain the paper is to distinquish what is meant by instantaneous and retarded position. So to do so we will set an example scenario. For simplicity we will use signals. Exact nature of the signal is not important, but the signal propogates at the speed of light. Take a stationary measuring a good visualizer is one with a direct arrow. That direction arrow pointing in the direction it receives the signal from. Now take the emitter and move the emitter at relativistic speed. This emitter sends a series of signals via the shortest path to the receiver. In Euclidean flat space the shortest path being a straight line, but in relativity it is determined by its worldline. Which for massless particles is the null geodesic. Now the instantaneous position is basically the 3d case . The retarded position is the 4d case where we add the time coordinate. So starting with known positions, the emitter starts transmitting. After establishing its coordinates to the receiver. We move the emitter. In the instantaneous case the arrow would point to the new position. However the receiver hasn't recieved the new position yet, it's still pointing to the retarded position ( position where it last received a signal). Essentially this is what the math breaks down to. What it is stating that information concerning an event follows the worldline that worldline determined by spacetime curvature. If we did receive the signal faster than the speed of light this would be a causality violation. According to GR. Reason being time is defined as ct. To fully appreciate the paper study the geodesic equation, lightcones and worldlines.

Definetely you have several types of redshift. Gravitational, Doppler and Cosmological. However these can be corrected

Well if the observer understands relativity and he's in a gravity well. Then most likely he will adjust the redshift data correction to his environment. Now assuming he's using the same metrics as us he will establish a Cosmic time. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_time Redshift is also temperature related via Wein's displacement law. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wien%27s_displacement_law As far as a moving observer let's look at our own planet and data. Earth moves, so does our solar system and galaxy. This causes an anisotropy dipole in temperature measurements. "CMBR dipole anisotropy Edit From the CMB data it is seen that the Local Group (the galaxy group that includes the Milky Way galaxy) appears to be moving at 627±22 km/s relative to the reference frame of the CMB (also called the CMB rest frame, or the frame of reference in which there is no motion through the CMB) in the direction of galactic longitude l = 276°±3°, b = 30°±3°." Note we established the CMB as a reference frame...Rather convenient as it's as close to a perfect blackbody as your likely to get. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background. you can see that we must always account for observer influence. This is an integral aspect in any cosmological measurement. Now let's step back to the observer in the gravity well. First off in research lets assume he's studied spectography of various elements in particular hydrogen. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_spectrum Which he lab tests. When he looks out and measures hydrogen in the universe he will notice that redshift is altering his data. So he can then apply the correction and determine the gravitational redshift influence

Google baryon accoustic oscillations. "Imagine an overdense region of the primordial plasma. While this region of overdensity gravitationally attracts matter towards it, the heat of photon-matter interactions creates a large amount of outward pressure. These counteracting forces of gravity and pressure created oscillations, analogous to sound waves created in air by pressure differences" I should have clarified the speed of sound bit, as referring to the pressure oscillations not sound itself. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baryon_acoustic_oscillations

Well for starters I read a buttload of articles and textbooks. In CMB measurements the speed of interactions is particularly stressed. This includes the speed of gravity. You'll often hear this expressed as sound waves. The speed of sound being the speed of light in a vacuum. It's of fundamental importance in Cosmology applications. Any papers I've ever read apply the speed of gravity=c in the medium they are examining in CMB measurements. Connect the dots,, gravity affects mass density. Density affects temperature... by looking at temperature anisotropy rate of change we are

Consider this argument. We have now measured a gravity wave. Ask yourself the following question. If gravity was instantaneous, and you have a uniform distribution of mass. Could you have a gravity wave? Logically the answer would be no you couldn't. If gravity was instantaneous all mass would be affected at the same exact instant. I'll let you think about that statement.