Discussion:
Gravitational waves leave a detectable mark, physicists say
Add Reply
s***@gmail.com
2019-05-13 11:47:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Gravitational waves leave a detectable mark, physicists say
https://phys.org/news/2019-05-gravitational-physicists.html

"Gravitational waves, first detected in 2016, offer a new window on the universe, with the potential to tell us about everything from the time following the Big Bang to more recent events in galaxy centers.

"And while the billion-dollar Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) detector watches 24/7 for gravitational waves to pass through the Earth, new research shows those waves leave behind plenty of "memories" that could help detect them even after they've passed.

""That gravitational waves can leave permanent changes to a detector after the gravitational waves have passed is one of the rather unusual predictions of general relativity," said doctoral candidate Alexander Grant, lead author of "Persistent Gravitational Wave Observables: General Framework," published April 26 in Physical Review D."

Cool.
benj
2019-05-13 12:22:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by s***@gmail.com
Gravitational waves leave a detectable mark, physicists say
https://phys.org/news/2019-05-gravitational-physicists.html
"Gravitational waves, first detected in 2016, offer a new window on the universe, with the potential to tell us about everything from the time following the Big Bang to more recent events in galaxy centers.
"And while the billion-dollar Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) detector watches 24/7 for gravitational waves to pass through the Earth, new research shows those waves leave behind plenty of "memories" that could help detect them even after they've passed.
""That gravitational waves can leave permanent changes to a detector after the gravitational waves have passed is one of the rather unusual predictions of general relativity," said doctoral candidate Alexander Grant, lead author of "Persistent Gravitational Wave Observables: General Framework," published April 26 in Physical Review D."
Cool.
Waves so tiny a mouse farting in China can make them?
What a scam!
sergIo
2019-05-13 13:50:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by s***@gmail.com
Gravitational waves leave a detectable mark, physicists say
https://phys.org/news/2019-05-gravitational-physicists.html
"Gravitational waves, first detected in 2016, offer a new window on the universe, with the potential to tell us about everything from the time following the Big Bang to more recent events in galaxy centers.
conjecture + guessing.
Post by s***@gmail.com
"And while the billion-dollar Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) detector watches 24/7 for gravitational waves to pass through the Earth, new research shows those waves leave behind plenty of "memories" that could help detect them even after they've passed.
show the evidence, don't believe that one.
Post by s***@gmail.com
""That gravitational waves can leave permanent changes to a detector after the gravitational waves have passed is one of the rather unusual predictions of general relativity," said doctoral candidate Alexander Grant, lead author of "Persistent Gravitational Wave Observables: General Framework," published April 26 in Physical Review D."
Cool.
p***@gmail.com
2019-05-15 00:06:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by s***@gmail.com
Gravitational waves leave a detectable mark, physicists say
https://phys.org/news/2019-05-gravitational-physicists.html
"Gravitational waves, first detected in 2016, offer a new window on the universe, with the potential to tell us about everything from the time following the Big Bang to more recent events in galaxy centers.
"And while the billion-dollar Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) detector watches 24/7 for gravitational waves to pass through the Earth, new research shows those waves leave behind plenty of "memories" that could help detect them even after they've passed.
""That gravitational waves can leave permanent changes to a detector after the gravitational waves have passed is one of the rather unusual predictions of general relativity," said doctoral candidate Alexander Grant, lead author of "Persistent Gravitational Wave Observables: General Framework," published April 26 in Physical Review D."
Cool.
========================
seems to as nonsense !
==================
Y.P
===============
john
2019-05-15 13:49:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Fantasy.
Time for a second opinion
Odd Bodkin
2019-05-15 15:05:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by john
Fantasy.
Time for a second opinion
Well there’s informed opinion and uninformed opinion. The latter is rarely
worth the airwaves.
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
john
2019-05-15 15:12:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Odd
“Well there’s informed opinion and uninformed opinion. The latter is rarely ”
I have trouble with your worn “informed”. It means “understanding of the facts”.
You see, there are things that your ‘science ‘ holds up as “facts” that don’t pass the smell test.
You in particular seem to have no sense of smell.
Odd Bodkin
2019-05-15 15:20:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by john
Odd
“Well there’s informed opinion and uninformed opinion. The latter is rarely ”
I have trouble with your worn “informed”. It means “understanding of the facts”.
You see, there are things that your ‘science ‘ holds up as “facts” that
don’t pass the smell test.
You in particular seem to have no sense of smell.
Your smell test is based on whether it agrees with your uninformed opinions
about how the world works.

You rely entirely too much on the validity of your instincts. Not a sound
approach.
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
john
2019-05-15 15:25:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Odd
“You rely entirely too much on the validity of your instincts. Not a sound
approach. ”
Mmm hmm.
And you believe people who tell you illogical things.
Just stupid
Odd Bodkin
2019-05-15 16:14:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by john
Odd
“You rely entirely too much on the validity of your instincts. Not a sound
approach. ”
Mmm hmm.
And you believe people who tell you illogical things.
Again, what YOU call “logical” is what agrees with your own personal
instincts.

EVERYTHING you say about “smell test” or “logical” or “makes sense” all
have to do with consistency with your internal instincts.

Just note that what YOU call logic is not what logicians or scientists or
mathematicians call logic. To them, intuition or world view is not at all
the basis for logic. This is a fine example of the sloppiness of colloquial
language.

I also want to point out that what YOU think is “normal thinking” because
it’s the way YOU think, is NOT the way a lot of smart people think. For
example, you think it is STUPID to ponder additional dimensions; you think
so because everything you see in everyday experience is three dimensions;
you further think that the default mode should be to assume that what is
observed in everyday experience is what is universally true, and that
anyone who does not take that default view is being STUPID.

It is highly egocentric to insist that the way you think is the only
sensible way to think, and that people who do not operate in the modes you
operate with are being lost or stupid or illogical.

So try lowering your egocentrism and consider the possibility that the way
you think about the world is not necessarily the best way to approach it.
Post by john
Just stupid
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
john
2019-05-15 16:17:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Odd
“try lowering your egocentrism and consider the possibility that the way
you think about the world is not necessarily the best way to approach it. ”
Uh huh.
Practice what you preach.
Oh.
Hmm.
What you preach is fantasy. Scratch that
Odd Bodkin
2019-05-15 16:23:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by john
Odd
“try lowering your egocentrism and consider the possibility that the way
you think about the world is not necessarily the best way to approach it. ”
Uh huh.
Practice what you preach.
Oh.
Hmm.
What you preach is fantasy. Scratch that
Ok so you’re not interested in changing your egocentric views. Noted.

You’re just going to keep hammering that the way you think is the best
possible way to think, and that scientists are lost because they don’t
think that way.

Noted.
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
john
2019-05-15 16:25:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Odd
“Ok so you’re not interested in changing your egocentric views. Noted. ”
And you are?
Exams all done, hey? Time on your hands
Odd Bodkin
2019-05-15 16:50:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by john
Odd
“Ok so you’re not interested in changing your egocentric views. Noted. ”
And you are?
Exams all done, hey? Time on your hands
Dude. I haven’t had to deal with exams in 15 years.

I’ll remind you that this is a group for fans of physics and how physicists
think. This is a group of people who generally approach the investigation
of the world the same way that scientists do.

You on the other hand do not think the way scientists think, you do not
read up on physics and have a general aversion to reading physics, you do
not know the languages of physics (either the jargon or the mathematics).
And somehow you think it is proper to come into this group and say that the
only proper way to think is NOT the way physicists think, and that they
better all come around to the way you do things or the world is lost.

Just ponder that for a bit.
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
john
2019-05-15 17:05:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Odd
“Just ponder that.”
Got it. It’s all settled Science to you. That hurts my brain. Yours must be numb
Odd Bodkin
2019-05-15 17:10:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by john
Odd
“Just ponder that.”
Got it. It’s all settled Science to you. That hurts my brain. Yours must be numb
Nobody said it was all settled. The alternative to “all settled” is not
“all wrong”. And the reason it’s not all settled isn’t because the way
scientists think is different than the way you think.
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
john
2019-05-15 17:18:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Odd
“Nobody said it was all settled”
Oh, so maybe there IS no DM?
Wouldn’t that mean gravity theory is wrong (backwards)?
Odd Bodkin
2019-05-15 17:41:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by john
Odd
“Nobody said it was all settled”
Oh, so maybe there IS no DM?
Yes, that’s possible. DM is a hypothesis being put to test.
Post by john
Wouldn’t that mean gravity theory is wrong (backwards)?
No. It would mean that either some other hypothesis about the source of
gravitation is true, or that there is a term missing in GR. It would not
mean that the whole thing is wrong and needs to be scrapped.

As a lesson in this, look at the Ideal Gas Law. Back a century or so ago,
Van der Waals noted that gases are in fact not ideal in the sense of the
assumptions made in the Ideal Gas Law. And so to correct that, Van der
Waals made a version of the Ideal Gas Law that had additional terms that
reflect the nonidealized reality of gases. It looks a lot like the Ideal
Gas Law, and the Ideal Gas Law is an excellent approximation as long as the
temperatures aren’t too low or the pressures too high. Did this realization
mean that the Ideal Gas Law was rejected as being flat wrong? No, not at
all. It is still taught in all beginning physics and chemistry classes, and
it is still completely valid over a wide domain of application.

This is an illustration of how out of touch you are about the way
scientists actually work.

You have an agenda. Your agenda is to have a voice in science, even though
you are uneducated in science, unread in science, and unskilled in science.
And so your approach is to loom for unsettled places and to use that as an
excuse to tear the whole shebang down. And when it’s all torn down so that
there is nothing of value left, then your uninformed ideas will be as
valuable as any other’s. It’s an old and tired tactic, utterly transparent
and ludicrous.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
john
2019-05-15 17:56:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Odd
“Yes, that’s possible. DM is a hypothesis being put to test.
Post by john
Wouldn’t that mean gravity theory is wrong (backwards)?
No.”

Why no? LeSage said backwards works just the same, mathematically.
“.Georges-Louis Le Sage (French: [lə saʒ]; 13 June 1724 – 9 November 1803) was a Genevan physicist and is most known for his theory of gravitation, for his invention of an electric telegraph and his anticipation of the kinetic theory of gases. Furthermore, he was a contributor to the Encyclopédie ou Dictionnaire raisonné des sciences, des arts et des métiers.”
You admire math. Have you looked at his stuff?

He basically stole it from Fatio, who also did some math:
(From Wikipedia) “Sir Isaac Newton FRS PRS was an English mathematician, physicist, astronomer, .... He was close to the Swiss mathematician Nicolas Fatio de Duillier.”
Gee, that crazy Fatio ALSO says gravity is backwards. He devoted his life to math. He hung out with Newton.

So why, Odd, do you act like it was drilled into you NEVER to consider their (and my) idea? (I add the identification of the source and nature of the ultra mundane particles- radiation from electrons)
Odd Bodkin
2019-05-15 18:01:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by john
Odd
“Yes, that’s possible. DM is a hypothesis being put to test.
Post by john
Wouldn’t that mean gravity theory is wrong (backwards)?
No.”
Why no? LeSage said backwards works just the same, mathematically.
See my other post on this topic.
Post by john
“.Georges-Louis Le Sage (French: [lə saʒ]; 13 June 1724 – 9 November
1803) was a Genevan physicist and is most known for his theory of
gravitation, for his invention of an electric telegraph and his
anticipation of the kinetic theory of gases. Furthermore, he was a
contributor to the Encyclopédie ou Dictionnaire raisonné des sciences,
des arts et des métiers.”
You admire math. Have you looked at his stuff?
Yes! And I’m aware of the math that shows the predictions of this theory
that are in conflict with experimental observation.

Note that you DO NOT know the math, can’t follow the math, and so you just
feel free to cherry pick what you like.

It WAS considered seriously and in depth. And ruled out for GOOD REASONS,
not because of politics, not because of conspiracy to suppress.

This you don’t want to hear.
Post by john
(From Wikipedia) “Sir Isaac Newton FRS PRS was an English mathematician,
physicist, astronomer, .... He was close to the Swiss mathematician
Nicolas Fatio de Duillier.”
Gee, that crazy Fatio ALSO says gravity is backwards. He devoted his life
to math. He hung out with Newton.
So why, Odd, do you act like it was drilled into you NEVER to consider
their (and my) idea? (I add the identification of the source and nature
of the ultra mundane particles- radiation from electrons)
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
john
2019-05-15 18:27:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Odd
“And I’m aware of the math that shows the predictions of this theory
that are in conflict with experimental observation.

It would be interesting to compare those conflicts with galactic rotation curves problems and dark matter. Which is the conflict worthy of the theory being discarded.
Also, knowing that the source of the ultra mundane particles is matter itself- the electron- that pushes on itself - the protons- changes a lot.
Which prediction are you speaking of?
Odd Bodkin
2019-05-15 19:18:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by john
Odd
“And I’m aware of the math that shows the predictions of this theory
that are in conflict with experimental observation.

It would be interesting to compare those conflicts with galactic rotation
curves problems and dark matter. Which is the conflict worthy of the
theory being discarded.
No, you didn’t listen. It isn’t the conflict that matters. It is whether
the theory can be modified with a new hypothesis to remove the conflict,
and the hypothesis is testable.

I mentioned to you the Ideal Gas Law. The conflicts at high pressure and
low temperature were resolved with the Van der Waals modification
hypothesis. The Ideal Gas Law was not discarded.

GR has the DM hypothesis that may, if verified, resolve the problems with
rotation curves and related mass distribution.

Compare this with LeSage gravity, where there are conflicts with experiment
that no one has been able to resolve with an additional modification
hypothesis. Not LeSage, not other physicists, and you certainly are not in
a position to do that because you just don’t know how.

Now, some hacks cry “Epicycles!” every damn time a theory gets a
modification hypothesis. This only reveals that these people don’t
understand epicycles and why they aren’t scientific. Modification
hypotheses are common in science and in fact the most common way science
advances. It’s only the “burn it all down and start over” nutjobs that
don’t know that.
Post by john
Also, knowing that the source of the ultra mundane particles is matter
itself- the electron- that pushes on itself - the protons- changes a lot.
Which prediction are you speaking of?
For someone who remembers PD comments years later, you don’t remember all
that’s been pointed out about this?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
sergIo
2019-05-15 19:57:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by john
Odd
“And I’m aware of the math that shows the predictions of this theory
that are in conflict with experimental observation.

It would be interesting to compare those conflicts with galactic rotation
curves problems and dark matter. Which is the conflict worthy of the
theory being discarded.
No, you didn’t listen. It isn’t the conflict that matters. It is whether
the theory can be modified with a new hypothesis to remove the conflict,
and the hypothesis is testable.
I mentioned to you the Ideal Gas Law. The conflicts at high pressure and
low temperature were resolved with the Van der Waals modification
hypothesis. The Ideal Gas Law was not discarded.
GR has the DM hypothesis that may, if verified, resolve the problems with
rotation curves and related mass distribution.
Compare this with LeSage gravity, where there are conflicts with experiment
that no one has been able to resolve with an additional modification
hypothesis. Not LeSage, not other physicists, and you certainly are not in
a position to do that because you just don’t know how.
Now, some hacks cry “Epicycles!” every damn time a theory gets a
modification hypothesis. This only reveals that these people don’t
understand epicycles and why they aren’t scientific. Modification
hypotheses are common in science and in fact the most common way science
advances. It’s only the “burn it all down and start over” nutjobs that
don’t know that.
quite true,

most physics equations are accurate over a 'region', and get less
accurate outside the region, as equations are simplifications, they are
math constructs to describe a physical situation.

Physics is a collection of equations, and most do not hold over large
changes of scale.

Some problems have 2 correct conflicting answers, and black holes are
caused by that pesky (-1)^2
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by john
Also, knowing that the source of the ultra mundane particles is matter
itself- the electron- that pushes on itself - the protons- changes a lot.
Which prediction are you speaking of?
For someone who remembers PD comments years later, you don’t remember all
that’s been pointed out about this?
john
2019-05-15 17:37:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Odd
“The alternative to “all settled” is not
“all wrong”.”
Of course not.
Fatio and LeSage both showed that the math is the same.
So, yes, we can shoot spaceships here and there etc.
But, with gravity by absorption you can only absorb all the energy and no more, so black holes are impossible, larger bodies will not ‘appear’ lighter than they actually are, Dark Matter is unnecessary.
I’ve never said, “all wrong”.

It’s just BACKWARDS (Planes, Trains, and Automobiles: “You’re going the wrong way” “How would he know where we’re going?”) :)
Odd Bodkin
2019-05-15 17:51:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by john
Odd
“The alternative to “all settled” is not
“all wrong”.”
Of course not.
Fatio and LeSage both showed that the math is the same.
No it is not the same. There are *some* places where the same results can
be obtained, eg the inverse square law. However, those theories also have
mathematically-derived implications which are both unavoidable and distinct
to those theories, and moreover those implications are counter to
experiment.

Now, if Lesage and company could find a way to tweak their models to remove
these discrepancies, then this might be worth looking at. But neither of
them could, and no one since has been able to, and you are certainly
incapable of doing that. So as it stands, these are models that are
incompatible with observation, and there is no additional testable
hypothesis added to them that solves the problem.
Post by john
So, yes, we can shoot spaceships here and there etc.
But, with gravity by absorption you can only absorb all the energy and no
more, so black holes are impossible, larger bodies will not ‘appear’
lighter than they actually are, Dark Matter is unnecessary.
I’ve never said, “all wrong”.
It’s just BACKWARDS (Planes, Trains, and Automobiles: “You’re going the
wrong way” “How would he know where we’re going?”) :)
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
whodat
2019-05-15 18:15:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 5/15/2019 11:14 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:

[...]
Post by Odd Bodkin
So try lowering your egocentrism and consider the possibility that the way
you think about the world is not necessarily the best way to approach it.
"Have you met yourself?"
Odd Bodkin
2019-05-15 18:48:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by whodat
[...]
Post by Odd Bodkin
So try lowering your egocentrism and consider the possibility that the way
you think about the world is not necessarily the best way to approach it.
"Have you met yourself?"
Again, I will remind you that this is a physics group, devoted to fans of
physics and the way physicists investigate the world.

Those people who come in, uneducated in the methods and skills in science,
unfamiliar with the experimental and observational evidence, and who also
have the notion that the scientific method is broken—you people have an
anti science outlook and agenda. Why you are populating a science group,
God only knows, except maybe to catcall.

I’m aware that there are a number of people here who are armchair
philosophers who have their own view of what science should do, how common
sense and intuition plays in that, and who believe that anything that does
not make immediate conceptual intuitive sense must be wrong. I assure you,
nobody cares.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
john
2019-05-15 18:50:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Odd
“Again, I will remind you that this is a physics group, devoted to fans of ”
I asked you which experimental evidence invalidates LeSage, in your view.
You don’t respond.
You just don’t want to discuss, you want to dismiss. Why?
Odd Bodkin
2019-05-15 19:28:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by john
Odd
“Again, I will remind you that this is a physics group, devoted to fans of ”
I asked you which experimental evidence invalidates LeSage, in your view.
You don’t respond.
You just don’t want to discuss, you want to dismiss. Why?
Sigh. Repeating:
1. Go to Wikipedia
2. Find the article on LeSage Theory of Gravitation
3. Scroll down to predictions and criticism

If you need to (because reading is hard), they can be gone through one by
one.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
john
2019-05-16 01:12:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Odd
“Go to Wikipedia
2. Find the article on LeSage Theory of Gravitation
3. Scroll down to predictions and criticism

If you need to (becau”

Which one, specifically, Odd?
Odd Bodkin
2019-05-16 01:43:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by john
Odd
“Go to Wikipedia
2. Find the article on LeSage Theory of Gravitation
3. Scroll down to predictions and criticism
If you need to (becau”
Which one, specifically, Odd?
All of them. All of the sections there point to problems with the theory.
Note there are quite a few.
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
john
2019-05-16 01:52:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Odd

All of them. All of the sections there point to problems with the theory.
Note there are quite a few. “
Well, let’s do them one at a time.
Which would you like to start with?
Odd Bodkin
2019-05-16 02:12:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Odd

All of them. All of the sections there point to problems with the theory.
Note there are quite a few. “
Well, let’s do them one at a time.
Which would you like to start with?
Fine. The shadowing problem.
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
john
2019-05-16 08:06:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Odd
“Fine. The shadowing problem. ”
Solution: the matter, itself, is radiating
Odd Bodkin
2019-05-16 11:55:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by john
Odd
“Fine. The shadowing problem. ”
Solution: the matter, itself, is radiating
So you are no longer talking about LeSage theory but a modified version.
Fine. Now do the mathematical development LeSage did to show this exactly
cancels out the percentage of shadowing, quantitatively.
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
john
2019-05-16 12:50:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Odd
“So you are no longer talking about LeSage theory but a modified version. ”
You knew that.
So quit saying my idea has been proven wrong- it hasn’t.
Odd Bodkin
2019-05-16 13:50:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by john
Odd
“So you are no longer talking about LeSage theory but a modified version. ”
You knew that.
Well in the present context, no, I didn’t. You were talking about LeSage’s
idea and why it had been rejected.

But ok, you want to add a DM-like additional hypothesis.
Post by john
So quit saying my idea has been proven wrong- it hasn’t.
Nor is your idea testable, because you haven’t shown quantitatively that it
resolves anything. Unlike the DM hypothesis.
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
whodat
2019-05-16 03:25:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by whodat
[...]
Post by Odd Bodkin
So try lowering your egocentrism and consider the possibility that the way
you think about the world is not necessarily the best way to approach it.
"Have you met yourself?"
Again, I will remind you that this is a physics group, devoted to fans of
physics and the way physicists investigate the world.
Those people who come in, uneducated in the methods and skills in science,
unfamiliar with the experimental and observational evidence, and who also
have the notion that the scientific method is broken—you people have an
anti science outlook and agenda. Why you are populating a science group,
God only knows, except maybe to catcall.
I’m aware that there are a number of people here who are armchair
philosophers who have their own view of what science should do, how common
sense and intuition plays in that, and who believe that anything that does
not make immediate conceptual intuitive sense must be wrong. I assure you,
nobody cares.
"Again, I will remind you that this is a physics group devoted to fans
of physics and the way physicists investigate the world."

On that basis, once again I ask the most obvious question, "Have you
met yourself?"
Mitch Raemsch
2019-05-17 00:53:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by s***@gmail.com
Gravitational waves leave a detectable mark, physicists say
https://phys.org/news/2019-05-gravitational-physicists.html
If gravity propagates to less strength all waves would similarly dissipate
at the speed of light... roaming the universe forever
Post by s***@gmail.com
"Gravitational waves, first detected in 2016, offer a new window on the universe, with the potential to tell us about everything from the time following the Big Bang to more recent events in galaxy centers.
Gravity waves are too dilute.

Mitchell Raemsch
Post by s***@gmail.com
"And while the billion-dollar Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) detector watches 24/7 for gravitational waves to pass through the Earth, new research shows those waves leave behind plenty of "memories" that could help detect them even after they've passed.
""That gravitational waves can leave permanent changes to a detector after the gravitational waves have passed is one of the rather unusual predictions of general relativity," said doctoral candidate Alexander Grant, lead author of "Persistent Gravitational Wave Observables: General Framework," published April 26 in Physical Review D."
Cool.
Loading...