LIGO Gravity waves

[Strange]

7 minutes ago, reerer said:

There is absolutely nothing that I post that is unsupported.

You keep saying that gravitational waves are sound waves. That is unsupported.

Everything you post is nonsense. But I assume this is deliberate?

8 minutes ago, reerer said:

Please if you have nothing constructive to add

You have nothing constructive to say, so maybe you should take your own advise and stop posting. 

[swansont]

14 hours ago, reerer said:

'They may have frequencies which are within the audible range but they are not sound waves." Strange

"The frequency of a wave does not tell you the type of wave."  Swansont

"Frequency is not a physical quantity, and Hertz is not a unit, that is tied to sound (waves)" Lahn.

"You need to look up what a transducer is. Optical and electrical modulation happens at acoustic frequencies, too." Swansontian  

"Sound waves which are audible to us have frequencies from about 20-20,000 Hz, but other waves exist with these frequencies which are not sound waves. For example, EM waves at this frequency are used for communications." Drakkith
________________________________________________________________________

Dradkkith has not been informed of the eminent Swansonian transducer theory of celestial EM gravity waves.

Drakkith is agreeing with me, and everyone else in this thread.  But somehow you think s/he is not?

[Phi for All]

16 hours ago, reerer said:

There is absolutely nothing that I post that is unsupported.

!

Moderator Note

This isn't true, and it's been pointed out. If you're here to troll, nobody is interested. This is a science discussion forum, and the emphasis is on learning. 

Your behavior isn't consistent with constructive discussion. You need to remedy that or risk suspension or banning. 

 

[beecee]

22 hours ago, reerer said:

There is absolutely nothing that I post that is unsupported. Please if you have nothing constructive to add, you do not have to read my posts. Thank you.

 Actually I don't believe anything you have posted is supported in any way...particularly your nonsense re the universe being stationary. And of course it would be nice if you could acknowledge all the errors that you have made here and elsewhere. NB: I'll keep reading your posts as sometimes a laugh is good for one's constitution.   

[reerer]

Gravitational physics uses the gauge transformation of Maxwell's equations.

"The gauge transformation [3.49] for huv implies the gauge transformation" (Ohanian, p. 244).

"Associated with an electromagnetic disturbance is a mass, the gravitational attraction of which under appropriate circumstances is capable of holding the disturbance together for a time long in comparison with the characteristic periods of the system. Such gravitational-electromagnetic entities, or "geons"; are analyzed via classical relativity theory." (Wheeler, Abstract).

"In electrodynamics, 21 the wave equation describing electromagnetic waves in vacuum is, in the Lorentz gauge....................Similarly, in general relativity, in the weak field limit, the wave equation describing gravitational waves in vacuum is equation (2.10.11)...........A similar analogy is valid for the gravitomagnetic field. 9 In electrodynamics, 21 from the Maxwell equations (2.8.43) and (2.8.44) and in particular from magnetic monopoles, ∇ · B = 0, one can write B = ∇ x A, where A is the vector potential. From Ampere's law for a stationary current distribution: ∇ x B = (4π/c)j, where j is the current density, one has then:" (Ciufolini and Wheeler, p. 317).

"TABLE 21.2 Gauge Transformations in Linearized Gravity and Electromagnetic

 

 

A ---> A + ∇Λ........................Φ --> Φ - dΛ/dt".......................110a,b

 

 

(Hartle, p. 462). The gauge transformation is based on Maxwell's equations that are derived using Faraday's induction effect but induction is not a gravitational effect which proves gravitational physics is ineffectual.

 

 

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

 "TABLE 5.1 FREQUENCY BANDS FOR GRAVIATIONAL WAVES

 

Designation..............................................Frequency...............................Typical sources

Extremely low frequency.......................10^-7 to 10^-4 Hz..........................Slow binaries, black hole (>108 Mo)

Very low frequency................................10^-4 to 10-1 Hz.........................Fast binaries, black holes (<108 Mo), white-dwarf vibrations

Low frequency.......................................10^-1 to 10² Hz..........................Binary pulsars, black holes (<105 Mo)

Medium frequency.................................10² to 10⁵ Hz...........................Supernovas, pulsar vibrations

High frequency......................................10⁵ to 10⁸ Hz............................Man-made?

Very high frequency..............................10⁸ to 10¹¹ Hz..........................Blackbody, cosmological?" (Ohanian, p. 242).

 

"The most promising frequency band is that of medium frequency, from 10² to 10⁵ Hz. There are several probable sources of gravitational waves in this band and, fortunately, detectors that respond to waves in this band can be built. There is little doubt that gravitational waves are incident on the Earth; the question is, can we build a detector sufficiently sensitive to feel them?" (Ohanian, p. 242).

 

 

There seems to be an extremely broad range of the frequencies of stellar gravity waves. What is the wavelength of a 35Hz stellar gravity wave?

 

 

 

[swansont]

On October 28, 2017 at 5:43 PM, reerer said:

 There seems to be an extremely broad range of the frequencies of stellar gravity waves. What is the wavelength of a 35Hz stellar gravity wave?

wavelength * frequency = v (v for a gravitational wave is c)

30 Hz would be 3 1 x 10^7 meters

[reerer]

On ‎10‎/‎29‎/‎2017 at 4:41 AM, swansont said:

wavelength * frequency = v (v for a gravitational wave is c)

30 Hz would be 3 x 10^7 meters

To calculate the wavelength do you not have to have a wave structure? And a wavelength of 3 x 10^7 m would be larger than the diameter of the earth! Is that seem odd. Can you name an entity other than a gravity wave that has a wavelength close to 10^7 m?

[Strange]

6 minutes ago, reerer said:

To calculate the wavelength do you not have to have a wave structure?

But you asked about a wave structure: "What is the wavelength of a 35Hz stellar gravity wave?" (I assume you meant gravitational wave. You have been corrected on this multiple times. Why do you keep repeating the error?)

Quote

And a wavelength of 3 x 10^7 m would be larger than the diameter of the earth! Is that seem odd.

Why is that odd?

Quote

Can you name an entity other than a gravity wave that has a wavelength close to 10^7 m?

A 35 Hz radio wave.

Edited October 30, 2017 by Strange

[DrP]

14 hours ago, reerer said:

To calculate the wavelength do you not have to have a wave structure? And a wavelength of 3 x 10^7 m would be larger than the diameter of the earth! Is that seem odd. Can you name an entity other than a gravity wave that has a wavelength close to 10^7 m?

How many more times are you going to call them gravity waves when it has been pointed out over and over by several that they are called gravitational waves?  Also - what is the relevance of the wavelength? Why should we expect them to be larger or smaller than we measured them to be?   It isn't my field, so I can't tell you the exact details of how it was achieved, but why would we have any expectations about what the wavelengths will be seeing as we have never seen them before?

[geordief]

4 minutes ago, DrP said:

How many more times are you going to call them gravity waves when it has been pointed out over and over by several that they are called gravitational waves?  Also - what is the relevance of the wavelength? Why should we expect them to be larger or smaller than we measured them to be?   It isn't my field, so I can't tell you the exact details of how it was achieved, but why would we have any expectations about what the wavelengths will be seeing as we have never seen them before?

Does "gravity wave" actually mean anything in physics? (is there scope for confusion so that the use of that term might refer to a different phenomenon;or could it simply be an indication that the user of the term simply misunderstands what it does refer to?) 

[Strange]

5 minutes ago, geordief said:

Does "gravity wave" actually mean anything in physics? (is there scope for confusion so that the use of that term might refer to a different phenomenon;or could it simply be an indication that the user of the term simply misunderstands what it does refer to?) 

Yes, they are a phenomenon in fluid dynamics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_wave

Google makes it almost impossible to find anything about them because it assumes you mean gravitational waves! (One of the great strengths of Google when it first started was that it was very literal in its searches. If you searched for "wave" you wouldn't get results for "waves" and vice versa. But they abandoned that a long time ago. I wish they still had an "exact" mode.)

Bing makes an article on gravity waves the first result. I may start using it more often.

[geordief]

13 minutes ago, Strange said:

(One of the great strengths of Google when it first started was that it was very literal in its searches. If you searched for "wave" you wouldn't get results for "waves" and vice versa. But they abandoned that a long time ago. I wish they still had an "exact" mode.)

 

Yes ,I miss that too. I use lots of minuses ,pluses  and exact quotes when  I search.And try to second guess google sometimes. It also annoys me when geographically related searches come up first (I think Duckgogo works for that)

This sort of thing

 

https://www.google.ie/search?q="gravity+waves"+-"gravitational+waves"&oq="gravity+waves"+-"gravitational+waves"&aqs=chrome..69i57.22656j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Edited October 31, 2017 by geordief

[Strange]

I'm not sure + does what it used to. Sometimes it seems to make almost no difference. It used to be that it would guarantee results containing that search term (or not results at all). Now it seems to be taken as some sort of gentle hint or serving suggestion.

[geordief]

Yes,I noticed that too.

[Silvestru]

This thread is hilarious.

The title is : "Gravity waves"
The premise is: "How can a sound wave propagate in the near vacuum of celestial space?"

The OP was banned and you guys are reminiscing about the good old google times.

[DrP]

22 minutes ago, Silvestru said:

This thread is hilarious.

The title is : "Gravity waves"
The premise is: "How can a sound wave propagate in the near vacuum of celestial space?"

...and the ignorance of the question has been pointed out. The waves he means are gravitational waves, not gravity waves. Obviously sound waves do no travel through space....  and he knows this already but can't seem to accept that the LIGO detector measured gravitational waves...  he thinks it was vibration I suppose....  even though the exact same vibrations get detected thousands of miles away

 

22 minutes ago, Silvestru said:

The OP was banned and you guys are reminiscing about the good old google times.

...yea - I see he was banned now.  So what though? The whole thread is trash anyway seeing as the question was asked on a false premise that the waves detected must have been sound waves due to their frequency...  which clearly is not true as many told the guy, but he still harped on about them being sound waves and asking the same question repeatedly as to how they could travel across space.  He was a troll or an idiot obviously.... the OP was answered ages ago and is over.

Edited October 31, 2017 by DrP

[Eise]

Beautiful example of gravity waves:

 

[Silvestru]

6 minutes ago, DrP said:

..yea - I see he was banned now.  So what though? The whole thread is trash anyway seeing as the question was asked on a false premise that the waves detected must have been sound waves due to their frequency...  which clearly is not true as many told the guy, but he still harped on about them being sound waves and asking the same question repeatedly as to how they could travel across space.  He was a troll or an idiot obviously.... the OP was answered ages ago and is over.

Oh I know, I was following the thread closely. And I learned a lot from the replies of some members so it's never "trash".

And I love this forum because whenever a ignorant person says something well...ignorant, people keep their calm and try explaining to him in layman terms.

This might be obvious for you guys but I'm coming from another dark forum world where if someone thinks youre ignorant they will not bring arguments and data into discussion, they will bring up your mum. 

Edited October 31, 2017 by Silvestru
grammar

[DrP]

6 minutes ago, Silvestru said:

Oh I know, I was following the thread closely. And I learned a lot from the replies of some members so it's never "trash".

And I love this forum because whenever a ignorant person says something well...ignorant, people keep their calm and try explaining to him in layman terms.

This might be obvious for you guys but I'm coming from another dark forum world where if someone thinks youre ignorant they will not bring arguments and data into discussion, they will bring up your mum. 

   There is nothing wrong with being ignorant about something  -  that is why we ask questions. We are all ignorant of something or other....  the more I know the more I know that I don't know. The problem lies when someone with no experience in a particular fields tries knock down accepted 'facts' and theories because they don't fit with their own world views... they won't then accept facts at all as they contradict their own beliefs (beliefs based on hearsay, religious beliefs or whatever their friends or family have told them).

With regard to your mum though...  she could just rip them apart with her polar bear claws no?  

[Silvestru]

4 minutes ago, DrP said:

With regard to your mum though...  she could just rip them apart with her polar bear claws no?  

Haha if only her or me could travel through optic fiber. Would be better than Death Note.

[Strange]

36 minutes ago, Silvestru said:

And I learned a lot from the replies of some members so it's never "trash".

Yeah. You can learn a lot from other people's mistakes. Shame they don't!

36 minutes ago, Silvestru said:

This might be obvious for you guys but I'm coming from another dark forum world where if someone thinks youre ignorant they will not bring arguments and data into discussion, they will bring up your mum.

Your mum.