Jump to content

DanMP

Senior Members
  • Posts

    305
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by DanMP

  1. so the "GW signal" is from the BBH as a whole. Where you, swansont, considered a Shapiro delay than? I remind you for the last time: I was talking about how gravitational information / pull is Shapiro delayed, creating gravitational fluctuations (waves) in LIGO observers: Why 100ms and not 300ms, or even 10s? Let's consider t = the time needed for gravitational information from BH1 and BH2, when side by side, to reach the Earth observer (EO), and T = the orbital period for the last orbit before BH1 and BH2 merged. 1. At aprox. t + T/4 , gravitational information from BH1 is received by EO, while the one from BH2 (behind BH1) is Shapiro delayed with more than T, so it's on its way towards EO. 2. At t +T/2 we receive gravitational information from BH1 and BH2 (again side by side). The one from BH2 in step 1 is still on its way. 3. At aprox. t + 3T/4 , gravitational information from BH2 (now in front of BH1) is received by EO, while the one from BH1 (now behind BH2) is Shapiro delayed with more than T. 4. At t + T the merge is complete and the gravitational information from BH2 in step 1 and BH1 in step 3 are still on their way to EO. Of course, things are not that simple (we still need GR for the full solution), but it is a good way to see how gravitational information (and gravitational pull) fluctuate at EO with 2 times the orbital frequency, due to Shapiro delay.
  2. I sent you to the post on purpose, because I'm tired to write again and again the same things just because you (almost all of you) choose to ignore/forget them. And wouldn't it have been easier to just search "10 times" in the thread? I even mentioned wikipedia and dark mater and you answered: "Where is Wikipedia wrong? And I wouldn't tell them (whoever "they" are) I would correct it." ... And about supporting the claim, I also wrote: (this implies that DM is very important for GR, in any amount) and There you'll see that around BHs is always a lot of DM. So, if you really want answers from me, don't make me re-post again and again what I wrote, just because you are to lazy to search (or think?). Wait for the theory. I can understand and accept hostility, as long as you are correct, but here you are not. "Shapiro (or Shapiro-like) delay of GW signals" implies that it's about the delay of the GW signal from BBH by a third massive object. I never discussed such an idea because is irelevant. If you add incorrectness to hostility and laziness I may decide to end my dialog with you.
  3. I was talking about how gravitational information / pull is Shapiro delayed, creating gravitational fluctuations (waves) in LIGO observers: Why 100ms and not 300ms, or even 10s? Let's consider t = the time needed for gravitational information from BH1 and BH2, when side by side, to reach the Earth observer (EO), and T = the orbital period for the last orbit before BH1 and BH2 merged. 1. At aprox. t + T/4 , gravitational information from BH1 is received by EO, while the one from BH2 (behind BH1) is Shapiro delayed with more than T, so it's on its way towards EO. 2. At t +T/2 we receive gravitational information from BH1 and BH2 (again side by side). The one from BH2 in step 1 is still on its way. 3. At aprox. t + 3T/4 , gravitational information from BH2 (now in front of BH1) is received by EO, while the one from BH1 (now behind BH2) is Shapiro delayed with more than T. 4. At t + T the merge is complete and the gravitational information from BH2 in step 1 and BH1 in step 3 are still on their way to EO. Of course, things are not that simple (we still need GR for the full solution), but it is a good way to see how gravitational information (and gravitational pull) fluctuate at EO with 2 times the orbital frequency, due to Shapiro delay.
  4. Read again here: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/93995-shapiro-or-shapiro-like-delay-of-gw-signals-split/page-6#entry912343
  5. I said gravity, not GWs. Than relax and wait for my "nonsense".
  6. It is in Speculations forum, under my name. Please change it. I was never talking about "Shapiro (or Shapiro-like) delay of GW signals", so it is wrong. Why are you so afraid of "alternative" physics?
  7. Quote from your link: It is similar to what I wrote. You keep hand-waving Anyway, I'll keep my promise and show you how exactly the postulates included DM/E. By the way if one can explain the "things" in the postulates instead of just ... postulate them, the math would be the same, that's why I always offered GR as my calculations. In order to understand that, consider the tax you pay in one year. In situation A, you are informed that you have to pay $1000, without any explanations (as in a postulate). In B, you receive a calculation for it, but the amount is the same. In both cases you pay $1000, so your budget, your live is the same. The only difference is that in B you understand things and may act to reduce the tax for the next year. The same is valid for relativity, the explanation of what was postulated will not change the subsequent math. Only the understanding is changed. I said enough for this thread. I'm out. Please change the title: because the thread was opened in my behalf ... and the title does not reflect what I meant.
  8. Do you have reasons to believe that the BHs in BBH formed/existed outside a galaxy? Or that DM density is constant throughout the halo?!? DM density may be small in comparison with BH density, but its total mass in BBH region may be few times greater than baryonic matter mass, as it is in a galaxy. So you cannot rule it out from your calculations. Remember, DM is gravitationaly attracted ... It not compresses as much as baryonic matter does, but still can increase in density near the BHs.
  9. Sorry, I posed the questions to all of you, not just you swansont. More from the same source: So, DM seems to react to gravity and form a halo around big masses. BBH has a great mass, is within our DM/E dominated Universe, so it is very unlikely to be DE free and without a considerable amount of DM. By the way, the Earth and LIGO are in the Milky Way and, according to the last quote, there is a lot of DM here ... How/where your calculations included this DM ?!? And I'm not talking about Shapiro delay, it's about your GR calculations for what happened at LIGO observers. Show me DM in your math please!
  10. Of course it would be different. That's the reason for my "?!?". And you just confirmed (the obvious) that mass is not the only thing that matters in BBH calculations. You also can't deny that it was a lot of DM there. If you cannot show how GR calculation included DM (and DE), you have a problem, like swansont had with his idea that "we don't care about the composition". Indirectly I have it, but please tell me more about it, if you know.
  11. If instead of 2 BHs we would have 2 stars, with the respective masses, we would receive the same "chirp"? The inspiral would be exactly the same?!? DM is different than normal matter, so it is important to consider it at such when you calculate the inspiral, etc.. Did you? I'm still waiting for your response to my (prior) question: Until now you offered misinterpretations: hand-waves: (Dark matter is gravitationaly attracted, so near BBH it should be a lot) or, instead of answering my (prior) question, you ask me imperatively to answer another: disregarding this: To show you how exactly the postulates included DM/E, I have to open a new thread, "Dark ... relativity". Until than I have to post my Fizeau & Sagnac explanation. I have to insist with this: because the thread was opened in my behalf ... and the title does not reflect what I meant. And how do you know DM density? It can compress? How much?
  12. I can and will show you that "dark matter and/or dark energy" were already included in GR. Where? In the postulates. So GR is based on "them". That's why GR calculations & solutions are OK. Only the understanding (ripples in spacetime) is horribly wrong. All I wanted in this topic was to be the first to mention the Shapiro delay idea. I admit that it is incomplete and that I cannot do better for now, so you may close the thread if you want. P.S. Please change the title from "Shapiro (or Shapiro-like) delay of GW signals" to "Shapiro (or Shapiro-like) delay explanation for GW150914".
  13. This is a good question. You'll see the correct answer in my relativity. Angular speed. "the presence of dark matter and/or dark energy is significant" if you want to understand things: From here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime To consider "ripples in the fabric of space-time" is as stupid as considering ripples in a number or in an equation.
  14. Did anyone answer this question? In swansont's link you can see: Why 100ms and not 300ms, or even 10s? Let's consider t = the time needed for gravitational information from BH1 and BH2, when side by side, to reach the Earth observer (EO), and T = the orbital period for the last orbit before BH1 and BH2 merged. 1. At aprox. t + T/4 , gravitational information from BH1 is received by EO, while the one from BH2 (behind BH1) is Shapiro delayed with more than T, so it's on its way towards EO. 2. At t +T/2 we receive gravitational information from BH1 and BH2 (again side by side). The one from BH2 in step 1 is still on its way. 3. At aprox. t + 3T/4 , gravitational information from BH2 (now in front of BH1) is received by EO, while the one from BH1 (now behind BH2) is Shapiro delayed with more than T. 4. At t + T the merge is complete and the gravitational information from BH2 in step 1 and BH1 in step 3 are still on their way to EO. Of course, things are not that simple (we still need GR for the full solution), but it is a good way to see how gravitational information (and gravitational pull) fluctuate at EO with 2 times the orbital frequency, due to Shapiro delay. Not with Shapiro delay but with GR calculation (I asked: How you included dark energy, dark matter and Higgs field in your equations?). You think that the BBH region was DM/E free? Why?
  15. So, part of the gravity from the BH behind, gets to Earth passing just outside the EH of the BH in front, with a Shapiro-like time delay. The delay can be bigger than the whole "chirp", so it's like a big "chunk" of mass (many time the solar mass) disappeared and reappeared twice per orbit, during the chirp. As far as I understand, the frequency of the one and only signal we received (GW150914) was twice the orbital one. You can call it irelevant but I don't. It is a big variation in gravitational pull, so it can be called gravitational wave. How this relates with GR calculations for the GWs in this BBH, I don't know. Maybe it was included. Or maybe there are different things but with the same frequency, twice the orbital frequency. Let's wait for other, better signals to find the truth. I don't have all the answers, sorry. Do you? How you included dark energy, dark matter and Higgs field in your equations? According to wikipedia
  16. The mass of an object is not "gravitational information"? If, let's say, a new particle appears in a place, or a star collide with an antimatter star, how the information about the new/missing mass/gravitational pull travels, faster than light would travel?
  17. The delay must be more than the length of the chirp (0.2s). That's all it takes for part of the mass to disappear from the chirp. As the separation between BHs diminishes, more mass seems to disappear, increasing the strength of the signal. The frequency "continues to increase in frequency in a smooth fashion" because the orbital frequency does.
  18. I explained GWs (specifically the one and only signal we received), not the whole thing, not the calculation of BBH. Of course GR is needed to identify and describe how BBH was, but from there on GWs can be explained as I did. My explanation is not an alternative to GR, but a way to understand what GR produced. What you are asking is like "show me how you calculate, using rubber sheet analogy for gravitational wells, the orbit of Mercury". You use GR to calculate. A simple explanation is just a (possible) way to present GR effects to non-physicists or physicists not involved in GR. Maybe after we'll receive more signals, my explanation will fail. But maybe not. Let's wait for more facts.
  19. Chirp mass? Of course both masses are included ... when you calculate orbital frequency. And chirp frequency is twice the orbital frequency, because: There are two maxima (M1+M2) and two minima (M1 or M2) per orbit. First, it was you who noticed: Second, when BHs are very close, as they were during last 2-4 orbits (the chirp), we still have Shapiro delay even when they are not exactly "side on". It's not the BH that "masks", is its "gravitational well" or "EH", and they are bigger then the BH ... You can see that the signal increases towards the end, probably because the masking effect is bigger when very close. Shapiro delay is part of mainstream relativity, so yes, the GR prediction probably included it. But with my Shapiro delay idea you don't have to explain someone the whole math behind "hours of supercomputer time". It is simple, logical, intuitive and in agreement with GR.
  20. Not waves but gravitational pull. See here: http://www.physics.usu.edu/Wheeler/GenRel2013/Notes/GravitationalWaves.pdf
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.