# DanMP

Senior Members

305

2. ## Shapiro (or Shapiro-like) delay of GW signals (split)

Here: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1511.01901.pdf I found this: and the 2 BHs that merged were much closer ... From here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_observation_of_gravitational_waves I found this: It's enough? Nice "gift" for my birthday. Thank you.
3. ## Shapiro (or Shapiro-like) delay of GW signals (split)

If light goes very close to a BH, it never gets out. When it passes far enough, there is no delay. So, from a certain distance, with a certain orientation (angle), the delay may be bigger than "the chirp". 150 degrees (as it probably was) may be good enough, see above.
4. ## Shapiro (or Shapiro-like) delay of GW signals (split)

If the information (about mass, gravitational field, etc.) from BH-1 propagates as light does in free space, with constant speed c, than, if light is Shapiro delayed near a BH, that information from BH-1 may also be Shapiro delayed when it passes near BH-2 (placed between BH-1 and the Earth). I don't know exactly (it depends on BH mass and how near it passes), but if the delay is bigger then the whole "chirp" (few seconds?), the information (gravity pull) from BH-1 when is behind BH-2 would arrive (long) after the chirp, giving the impression that BH-1 disappeared ... The same is valid with BH-2 pull when it gets behind BH-1. This is a good (extra) reason for a GW: By the way, if this Shapiro delay idea is not good/important, then we should have big enough GWs from there long before the chirp/merger, because the BHs are moving fast enough long before the "crush". Did they record them? My Shapiro delay idea has (maximum) effect only when the BHs are very close to each other, right before they merge, as it happened ... The angle of observation was also just right for such an effect ... Do you think that it was a coincidence?

6. ## Shapiro (or Shapiro-like) delay of GW signals (split)

Not a joke, just a misunderstanding. Read here where and how is the right answer. If the line of sight is perpendicular to the orbital plane (0o or 180o in the figure), the signal is 0 or close to 0. Close to 0 is also seen from the orbital plane (90o). "The best fit shows the angle between the line of sight and the angular momentum vector of the system is about 150 degrees". With this problem solved, I can finally reveal my simple, logical, intuitive explanation for GWs: Black holes (BHs) are surrounded by "gravity wells". If gravity "travels" with the speed of light, then close to a BH, we should have/see a delay, as in Shapiro time delay. If this delay is big enough (minutes, hours), in the final seconds before merging, the "gravity well" of the BH in the front appear to mask the gravity pull of the BH in the back. So we have/"see" M1+M2 when the BH's are side by side and M1 or M2 when they are one in front of the other. This alternance of apparent mass produces the waves, the signal we detected. This is in agreement with relativity (Shapiro delay is explained by GR). Also, it explains the frequency and the fact that on the perpendicular the signal is close to 0. The fact that in the orbital plane the signal is also close to 0 is due to the fact that there is a common "gravity well" that delays and distorts the signal. Why this is not happening in the line of sight (150 degree) it can be easily explain with my relativity (the delay & distortion is smaller above that line/angle). Robittybob1, are you satisfied with my logical explanation? mod edit (17Mar) ! Moderator Note This has been split from the main forum discussion on Gravitational waves http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/93472-gravitational-lens-and-gravitational-waves-question/
7. ## Gravitational lens and gravitational waves question

Another simulation. For some reason the distant observer position is always in (or close to) the orbital plane ...
8. ## Gravitational lens and gravitational waves question

So, the signal ("ripples") that can be detected in a place straight above/below the orbital plane of the merging black holes may be different than the signal that can be detected in a place situated at the same distance but close to the orbital plane? How different? Which one is bigger? How was Earth situated in relation with the orbital plane of the black holes in the actual/recorded case?
9. ## Gravitational lens and gravitational waves question

I can wait. Anyone else?
10. ## Classical explanation for Fizeau & Sagnac

English is not my first language. I meant "in a similar way as in #12", not identical. You will see.
11. ## Classical explanation for Fizeau & Sagnac

I don't need to. I calculate time intervals as in #12. You mean how "Sagnac in free space" is relevant for "a better understanding on how light travels through transparent materials"? Materials are made of atoms. The atomic nucleus is very very small compared to the size of the atom. The electrons in the atom are even smaller. So, it is plenty of "free space" inside an atom. Therefore, any material on Earth consists mainly on "free space" At least half of Sagnac in materials calculation is "Sagnac in free space" calculation. I will post it (+ Fizeau), but not today. I need some time to figure out how to insert it here (few pages with equations and images). I also have to make a "forum version" from my 2 versions. This may take some time, and I don't have very much for forum activities. Please be pacient.
12. ## Gravitational lens and gravitational waves question

Are you sure that we would get the same signal from the merging BH, no matter if we are in their orbital plane or perpendicular to it? How it was in the actual/recorded case?
13. ## Gravitational lens and gravitational waves question

As far as I understood, the gravitational waves detected were from 2 black holes that merged. My question is: the waves were emitted/detectable in all directions, including straight up/down from the orbital plane?
14. ## Classical explanation for Fizeau & Sagnac

Ok, it seems that we both misunderstood. I believed that you consider the Sagnac effect in vacuum explanation relativistic just because it relies on the fact that the speed of light in vacuum in the lab is c. [in fact you wrote (#27): "any calculation that relies on c being invariant is a relativistic calculation, as that is a postulate of special relativity".] That's why I tried to explain that the fact that the speed of light in vacuum in the lab is c, is not necessarily from relativity, not a relativistic calculation, but a result of experiments and of Maxwell equations, and that the explanation does not use the fact that c is constant in all inertial frames. You, on the other hand, believed that I rely on aether, although I wrote many times that I'm not, that I know that the speed of light in vacuum in the real lab is c due to relativity (that's why I proposed to use non-Lorentzian instead of non-relativistic). You seem to ignore that and for some reason wrote the stupid (sorry) conclusion below: So, again, forget aether! My point is that we can have good non-Lorentzian explanations for Fizeau and Sagnac. And if we can, we should be interested in such an explanation for a better understanding on how light travels through transparent materials. Do you understand/agree now?
15. ## Classical explanation for Fizeau & Sagnac

Non-Lorentzian means that it not uses Lorentz transformation, as in Sagnac effect in vacuum. Yes, but the water/cable moves. Mordred, to understand "my postulate" you have to go back in the linked thread, or to wait until I decide to post the full "story". I'm not sure that I will post it in "scienceforums.net", since I didn't get any positive feedback in a month, and in this thread I had to explain again and again the same thing and no one seem to understand, care or agree with anything.
16. ## Classical explanation for Fizeau & Sagnac

Ok, then again, non-Lorentzian, not non-relativistic, although the fact that the speed of light in vacuum in one frame is c, is not due to a relativistic calculation. If you want a calculation for it, then why not Maxwell calculation? And forget aether. It's not about aether vs.relativity. It's about the fact that a calculation is not relativistic only because it uses c as the speed of light in vacuum in the lab frame. It agrees with relativity but is not a relativistic calculation!
17. ## Classical explanation for Fizeau & Sagnac

If this is your answer, it's not very clear, that's why I asked again. Anyway, if you think it is possible, why are you not interested in such a theory? It may offer a better explanation on how light travels through transparent materials. Or it can test current theories (on how light travels through transparent materials) ... Who said I don't have experiments able to prove my theory? See here. There are more. Why exactly?
18. ## Classical explanation for Fizeau & Sagnac

So, instead of using QM/QPh or my simple explanation (see here), I may write a postulate stating something like that: "All our instruments are made of atoms, and they compensate any apparent change in light/interaction speed, giving the same result for the speed of light in vacuum: c ". This would cover also the other Einstein postulate, because all the atoms in the same frame are affected in the same way, so they will not notice any difference within the frame. Time dilation, length contraction, etc. affect all the atoms in the frame in the same way. (Now you have the reason why - and you can understand how - "time" affects everything in a frame, not only clocks, you can see beyond mathematics). And Mordred, my postulate being in agreement with Einstein's postulates, the maths may remain the same, giving the same validity to such a theory. Do you agree? So Swansont, after 37 posts, you agree at least that it is possible to have a non-relativistic explanation for Fizeau & Sagnac?
19. ## Classical explanation for Fizeau & Sagnac

I wrote from the very beginning (and repeated many many times): I also wrote: You never agreed. You said: I replied: You never answered. Please answer. I also need an answer to this:
20. ## Classical explanation for Fizeau & Sagnac

Ok, Fizeau in one frame was not posted (yet), so please refer to Sagnac explanation in vacuum posted by imatfaal.

22. ## Classical explanation for Fizeau & Sagnac

First, the invariance of c is not a product of relativity. It was postulated based on experimental results. Confirmed, yes, but not the result of a relativistic (or any) calculation. Lorentz transformations (used to explain Fizeau & Sagnac) are actively based on the above mentioned postulate, because 2 frames with the same speed for light in vacuum, c, are considered (in Fizeau exp.: the lab frame and the moving water frame). So here we do have a relativistic calculation. If we consider only the lab frame, we don't really use the postulate that claim: "The speed of light in free space has the same value c in all inertial frames of reference.". We use only the fact, proved experimentally, that in the lab frame the speed of light in vacuum is c, in all directions. The lab may be in a special/preferred frame. The result is the same. So, this is not a relativistic calculation. As I said, I know that the lab frame is not special, and the speed of light in free space has the same value c in all inertial frames of reference, but the explanation/calculation doesn't use/need that, so it is not a relativistic calculation. To be entirely correct we can call it non-Lorentzian, as I proposed above. By the way, how many theories based on postulates do we have? Are you happy with this kind of "solving" things?
23. ## Classical explanation for Fizeau & Sagnac

My claim is not arbitrarily. It is based on the fact that we don't know any exception (big differences for v<<c and no GR effects) and, more important, on the fact that we have an excellent non-relativistic explanation for Sagnac effect in vacuum. You really think that for n>1 everything changes and a non-relativistic (non-Lorentzian) explanation is impossible? This is a good point That's why I wrote "almost": On the other hand, the fact that the speed of light in vacuum is constant, c, in one place (the lab) is not exclusively from relativity. It may be true also for aether theories. So, a theory based only on that is not necessarily "a relativistic calculation". However, I know that the constancy of c in our real lab is due to relativity, so let's use non-Lorentzian instead of non-relativistic.
24. ## Classical explanation for Fizeau & Sagnac

I used underline and bold for you to see that basically you are saying the same as I said. Now you agree? Anybody else? Please help us here to get over it.
25. ## Classical explanation for Fizeau & Sagnac

For the car going 100km/h we do have a pretty good non-relativistic model/result. We need to get to page 3 until you admit it?
×