Modulation of Gravity

[1bobwhite]

In the search for the proposed gravity waves, I have not come across anything to date of any repeatable evidence from any source to indicate their existence.

 

What I am proposing here is an attempt to induce waves upon this gravity field.

 

It has been demonstrated that the sensitivities of present gravimeters can detect the change of the gravity field when a person gets under the unit when it is mounted upon a stand.

 

That being the case, what if:

 

1: A rotating eccentric mass is placed near a stationary mass in such a way so that their mass centers periodically "center", thereby creating a greater common mass at that instant.

 

2: A mass supported as a pendulum that swings between two other masses so that when it is centered between the other two, a common greater mass center is formed.

 

3: Many other possible setups, with already existing oscillating or repetitive moving masses.

 

Now if the gravimeters can detect and record the action of these masses when they become greater masses, then at what levels are these signals?

 

If the gravimeters output can be shown to indicate the test pattern induced gravity change, then the gravimeters themselves are useable as the detectors, and their outputs can be amplified to any degree to recover the data "transmitted".

 

These gravimeters are already in place around the world just waiting for these "signals". Their reception at these distant locations would "prove" the concept.

 

This test pattern should be detectable at any distance, and be recognized as the induced source pattern. The signal levels may be way down in the "grass" of the noise but if they are there, they may be recoverable.

 

I feel it is very important to use materials that show absolutely no electromagnetic, electrostatic, activity if thats possible, that might introduce error into the data, and to show that it is strictly gravity effects.

 

The outputs may be electronically manipulated after reception to any degree.

 

The implications of possibilities if successful, are staggering.

My humble opinion, Bob.

[swansont]

The signals that gravity wave detectors are seeking are much, much smaller than what can be measured by a gravimeter.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave_detector

[StringJunky]

Probably a daft idea but could we detonate a hydrogen bomb of sufficient magnitude at a suitable distance in space... could that create a detectable wave? I thought of this because supernovae might be a source that scientists are looking at.

 

How big would it have to be to work and how far away to have a measurable effect if spacetime can ripple?

[swansont]

Probably a daft idea but could we detonate a hydrogen bomb of sufficient magnitude at a suitable distance in space... could that create a detectable wave? I thought of this because supernovae might be a source that scientists are looking at.

 

How big would it have to be to work and how far away to have a measurable effect if spacetime can ripple?

 

I suspect it has more chance of freeing General Zod and friends. Why would you get detectable gravity waves?

[StringJunky]

Why does a supernova cause them then...if it does?

[insane_alien]

the thing with supernovas is that they have quite a bit of mass. several times that of our sun if not more.

 

nukes while powerful on our scale, are so incredibly non-massive.

 

you'd get more of a signal dropping an ant near the detector.

[StringJunky]

Is it the sudden change in the mass of a supernova that causes the ripple....a hydrogen bomb is obviously too small?

[swansont]

To the best of my knowledge it is the acceleration of mass that causes the waves, much like the rapid change in motion of an object in water will send out ripples. Unlike that analogy, however, linear motion of massive object has no gravitational "wake" (or similar effect), i.e. you need motion beyond what you see by changing inertial reference frames.

[StringJunky]

Thanks for that. I was, obviously naively, thinking that perhaps the necessary natural phenomena that are likely to cause modulation are too far away and we might try to simulate it artificially and much closer to home to try and get a discernible measurement.

 

Do you think modulations will be detected eventually? What's your hunch?

[1bobwhite]

By inducing waves upon this carrier of gravity, and tuning in to this induced wave frequency, information can then be transmitted faster than light.

 

Bob.

[insane_alien]

gravity propagates at c. it is not instantaneous.

[vordhosbn]

If we have the technology to modulate supernova-like explosions, our last concern will be FTL communications. :-D

[1bobwhite]

It is possible that gravity waves are at this time beyond our detectable range and will involve developing technology sufficiently sensitive to detect signals with frequencies with atto-second peak to peak periods. Laser technology is right now approaching this threshold of development.

 

The learning curve for learning how to induce waves upon the gravity carrier will depend on discovering the primary and harmonic frequencies if they exist.

 

Do you suppose these gravity waves that everyone is trying to detect just maybe have not been detected because we haven't dialed in the right frequency to tune into?

 

They may have such a narrow bandwidth that we need to be dead on in order to notice them, similar to too rapidly rotating the dial on the radio and not noticing the stations that have the newer narrow bandwidths.

 

Possibly we may have already discovered a harmonic of the main frequency but not recognized that fact.

 

Anti-gravity effects have already been demonstrated with the levitating frogs using intense magnetic fields.

 

It is possible that gravity waves are already changing magnetic fields in a detectable way and by using these intense magnetic fields as the detector, its a matter of tuning in to the right gravity wave frequency.

 

Just some thoughts,

Bob

[insane_alien]

Do you suppose these gravity waves that everyone is trying to detect just maybe have not been detected because we haven't dialed in the right frequency to tune into?

 

the methods being used just now are frequency agnostic. just as with radio waves, it is possible to determine whether any signal at all regardless of frequency is picked up without tuing into anything.

 

Anti-gravity effects have already been demonstrated with the levitating frogs using intense magnetic fields.

 

if you count that as antigravity then me lifting up a frog with my hands is anti-gravity as it is repelled by the electric field of the electrons in my hand.

 

It is possible that gravity waves are already changing magnetic fields in a detectable way and by using these intense magnetic fields as the detector, its a matter of tuning in to the right gravity wave frequency.

 

no.

[1bobwhite]

insane_alien,

 

The propagation speed of gravity is still an ongoing debate.

 

See http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/590/2/683/fulltext

 

Bob.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

insane_alien,

 

If gravity waves exist, wouldn't they be part of the electro-magnetic spectrum?

 

And if not, then by what means can they be detected?

 

Bob.

[insane_alien]

insane_alien,

 

The propagation speed of gravity is still an ongoing debate.

 

See http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/590/2/683/fulltext

 

Bob.

 

ongoing yes, but theory says it is c and this is within the error range of experiments. it is likely to be c and until an experiment shows otherwise it should be taken as c.

 

insane_alien,

 

If gravity waves exist, wouldn't they be part of the electro-magnetic spectrum?

 

And if not, then by what means can they be detected?

 

Bob.

 

no, gravity is not caused by photons. why would it appear on the electromagnetic spectrum when it is clearly not electromagnetic in nature?

 

we can detect them by detecting distortions in space. this is why we use laser interferometery. if a wave passes through the detector the laser point on the detector will wiggle about a bitcreating an interference pattern. look up LIGO

[swansont]

 

If gravity waves exist, wouldn't they be part of the electro-magnetic spectrum?

 

By definition, the answer is "no."

[1bobwhite]

insane_alien,

I've perused through the LIGO, and find it very interesting and may be usefull when tied in with other possible experimental approaches. I don't believe LIGO alone is going to it.

 

For instance, We now have gravimeters that are extremely sensitive to gravitational changes. If these are combined with the laser interferometry and arranged in such a way and positioned to precisely aim (source to the gravity center of the earth) at rotating eclipsing binaries, for instance, and compare the signal if present, to the light signal to confirm the alignment, then we just might have a system that detects observable gravity information from that source.

 

These binary rotating stars are essentially modulating gravity (opinion), but the detection of that modulation is the test that hasn't been passed yet.

 

Bob.

Edited May 17, 2010 by 1bobwhite
correcting a term

[insane_alien]

insane_alien,

I've perused through the LIGO, and find it very interesting and may be usefull when tied in with other possible experimental approaches. I don't believe LIGO alone is going to it.

 

thats why they're making a version 3 million kilometers to a side. called LISA i think.

 

For instance, We now have gravimeters that are extremely sensitive to gravitational changes.

 

not that sensitive and they don't detect oscilations unless they are very big and low frequency. LIGO LISA and the like are purpose built to detect gravitational waves.

 

These binary rotating stars are essentially modulating gravity (opinion), but the detection of that modulation is the test that hasn't been passed yet.

 

this is because the predicted signal is so weak even for large events that are quite obvious in the electromagnetic spectrum. it is also why we have purpose built experiments to detect oscillations.

[1bobwhite]

insane_alien,

I guess I should have stipulated better the conditions of the experiment that I feel could be beneficial to the experiment.

 

The layout on the ground may be 90 deg (possibly on the null plane) to the incoming signals.

 

If one of these legs was pointing vertically at the source (eclipsing binaries), then the detecting elements would be in alignment with the incoming signals. Possibly by using the LIGO laser systems aboard geosynchronous orbitals.

 

By using laser interferometry to sense the action of the gravimeter, the detection systems capabilities of both would be enhanced by their combined sensitivities, thereby providing the necessary levels of sensitivity for the experiment.

 

Further thoughts,

Bob.

[swansont]

When you say gravimeter you are implying a certain class of apparatus, which AFAICT is many orders of magnitude short of the sensitivity necessary to do any sort of gravity wave measurement. It's a non-starter. You are doing the equivalent of proposing to measure the mass of a small collection of atoms using a bathroom scale.

[1bobwhite]

swansont,

 

For a synopsis of gravimeters, refer to:

 

http://geology.about.com/library/weekly/aa050999.htm

 

A Project of Constant Improvement

Fantastically sensitive gravity meters gather data now for science tomorrow

 

Since gravity waves are still just a theory at this point, by what method did you determine the magnitude of sensitivity that is necessary for the gravity detectors?

 

It may be possible that the detection of these waves will require a different approach for their discovery. Maybe just a different arrangement or combination of instrumentation.

 

Constant improvements in equipment and methods for experimentation into everything conceivable concerning gravity waves will eventually turn up something, either proving or disproving the present theories. Some of this experimentation is within the reach of amateurs like us around the world.

 

Bob.

[swansont]

I Googled and found the sensitivity of the LIGO and LISA experiments, which are about a part in 10^20.

[insane_alien]

normal gravimeter types, even the extremely sensitive ones, can only reach on in 10^-12.

 

and again, gravimeters are not designed to pick up modulations in a gravitational field. they'd only be able to reliably pick up a massive slow oscillation. LIGO and LISA have been SPECIFICALLY designed to detect weak oscillations of any frequency. why you think that this makes them less likely to pick up something is beyond me really.

 

to demonstrate this, say we wanted to measure the distance to the moon, a scientist proposes using a laser ranging device to get the distance and you go, "no! we should use a meter stick!"

 

while meter sticks can be used to measure stuff, compared to the method we're using they're rubbish.

[1bobwhite]

insane-alein, swansont,

 

You are both right on the sensitivities of the different systems. If the period of the gravity waves frequency is very long, then the slower gravimeter system may be the way to go, but if they are extremely short, then they fall within the range of the laser systems extreme sensitivity.

Isn't the suns gravity detectable as a "wave" with a period of 24 hours? Or the moon with a period of 28 days?

 

What I feel is missing and I don't see in LIGO, is the vertical component that is in line with the earths gravity. With the earth gravity as the bias reference, incoming signals from gravity sources then add to or subtract from this vertical component. As they are now, only the horizontal arms of LIGO are used, and they are on the tangent of the earths gravity centerline.

 

Perhaps a vertical shaft boring located at the apex of the other two arms, with suitable beam splitters and support equipment for the experiment could add that missing component.

At any rate, gravity waves have yet to be detected by any of the current methods.

See: http://www.wired.com/science/space/news/2007/10/gravitational_waves

 

Can anyone explain the gravimeter signal variations (noise) that seems to come from directly overhead, and seems to correspond with the positions of celestial systems directly overhead? These signals can be verified, but separating noise from noise may be too tedious and unproductive. But, if they have direct correlation with directly overhead systems, then detecting the "waves" is a matter of fine tuning the system to eliminate the other noise.

 

Granted it is amateur and with some far out speculation, but check it out anyway as this noise shows up on even the best instruments;

 

http://www.rexresearch.com/hodorhys/smplgm/smplgm.htm

 

Or; http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=detecting-extraterrestria&page=3

Bob.