Are the speed of gravitational waves the same as light waves?

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by quantum_wave, Dec 5, 2014.

  1. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
    Don't worry too much about that QW, Farsight has stopped responding to many of my comments... However, the thread is still in Physics & Math, and there was no physics or math, in Farsight's comment I was commenting on.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,626
    Fine, I just didn't want the thread to become forty pages of personal off topic attacks. However, I can't do anything about it. Farsight, go ahead and respond if you want. I'll watch for any on-topic posts.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,626
    Thanks for the comments about photons to which I have responded with how they are addressed in the hypothesis, but the implication of the GWEDH is that gravitational wave energy density is the cause of clocks measuring different rates of time in different frames. Therefore, time doesn't pass more rapidly or more slowly in any frame, it is the energy density of the frame's environment that governs the rate that particles function. Accelerated clocks tick slower, and people age slower as the gravitational wave energy density increases. Instead of time being what clocks measure, time simply passes, and the rate that time passes on identical clocks is a measure of the energy density variance between frames.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    An interesting application of this is refrigeration. If we take two fish, one on the kitchen counter at room temperature and the other in the freezer at 0 degree F, the one in the freezer will maintain its integrity longer. One can do this with bacteria if you prefer to compare the aging of living things instead of dead things. The cold storage has lower energy density with particles moving slower. In the case of the fish, the lower energy also means less energy for entropy and change.

    Say we have a pendulum clock, the cold will cause the materials to contract. The mass of the pendulum does not change, but the length of the pendulum will shrink, causing the clock to speed up. If we heat the material, the materials will expand, thereby making the pendulum longer. This clock will slow down.

    Animals that hibernate use the slowing and speeding of time to adjust to impact of energy density (hot/cold) on the growth rates of plants and other food items; parallel time adjustments.
     
  8. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,626
    Interesting, but none of those examples are exactly about the effect that acceleration has on the gravitational wave energy density variance between frames.
     
  9. Motor Daddy ☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,105
    Placing a fish in the freezer and wishing it to cool on a prayer is useless. You can pray 'til the cows come home, if you place a fish in a room temperature freezer and pray it cools, without the freezer being plugged in, then you're a fool.

    Only a fool would hope that the fish will freeze with the freezer unplugged. Guess what? If you place a fish in a 70 degree freezer, and you actually plug it in, and it works as it's supposed to, then the freezer will consume energy to cool the fish.

    I'll say it again a little slower, the freezer caused entropy to INCREASE. It was not a lower energy with the freezer plugged in and running, it was more energy. Don't believe it? Then try shutting off the power to the freezer and put the fish in there. Keep it there for 2 weeks, and then go back and check on it. Make sure the freezer is in the same room as the fish on the counter, though. No cheating!
     
  10. Farsight

    Messages:
    3,492
    No problem.
    Here's an image for dual-slit electrons and photons from this website. Remember what I said: the photon goes through both slits, but when you detect it it's like an optical Fourier transform, and what you see is a dot. NB: maybe "protons" in the caption is a typo.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    No, but there's plenty of other places where you can read about spin ½ and spinors.

    Me too. I really dislike all that quantum mysticism.
     
  11. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    What hypothesis?

    This is similar to Farsight's faulty thinking about coordinate speed. It looks like an attempt to conflate real and apparent lengths and durations.

    You haven't established the magnitude of G waves. Where do they come from? How far away are the sources? What does that tell you about their amplitude? What directions do they come from? How do their phases and frequencies compare? What is the expected value of their combined effects (sum of the amplitudes)? What are their statistics?

    What evidence is there that such waves exist? How did the idea originate?

    How can the velocity ever develop an effect from G waves when that velocity can have an infinite range of directions?

    None of this matters, once you concede that it conflates real and apparent space & time like Farsight's coordinate speed fiction. But if you can answer these questions it will help readers understand your assumptions and from there we can work out which are valid and which are invalid.

    That final caveat is invalid.
    Invalid/nonsensical.

    Absurd on several fronts. Every reference frame sees one effect: the sum of all gravitational potentials relative to that frame. See superposition and wave interference. And concede that c is constant in all frames. Otherwise you are contradicting evidence.
    Absurd and mathematically incorrect. It implies an absurdity, such as "all G waves are emanating from the rest frame", which is nonsensical. Any mathematical relationship has to follow from observation. This alleged relationship is contrived.

    Incorrect. See above. This fallacy parallels the fallacy of an ether wind. Also, you are conflating gravity between two bodies with the gradient of the space between them, conflated with influence from afar. Again, you need to begin with empirical evidence and stick to the facts. So far this is pseudoscience.

    You need to define "gravitational wave" and apply superposition and wave interference, and explain the difference between static fields and waves.

    But first you need to address the magnitude of G waves and concede that they cannot possibly influence conditions afar except in infinitesimal amounts. And you need to concede that the obvious gravitational sources (Earth, the Sun and planets, the moons) exhibit gravity purely because gravity attends mass, and they have plenty of it. But the fields are static, not waves.

    That is, you are trying to contrive a cause for the static field from waves from afar by simply assuming your conclusion is true.

    But you have introduced an indefinitely huge number of g wave emitters from arbitrary directions, which negates any influence preferring one of the two over the other, which invalidates any explanation other than SR, which is grounded in evidence. And the waves you are concerned about are minuscule.

    Absurd. Waves add. And there is no basis for comparing the relative values for length (wavelength) and energy that correlates with the observed Lorentz factor, that equates with multiplication by a hypothetical factor. Nor is that factor defined, nor is there an accounting for direction of the motion ( red vs blue shift and equiv. variation in time warp) in what you said.


    There is no basis for believing that. In physics you don't invent relationships. You measure them. You seem to believe every reference frame is "at rest with all matter" which is absurd


    Incorrect, according to the premise. G wave amplitude increases with proximity to the emitter and its mass. And it has no preference for magnitude and direction of motion of two arbitrary frames.
    Before we get to the assumed hypotheticals, we can rule that out by solving for "energy density" by application of the Lorentz transform of each term ( energy and volume ). Try it and see how the results compare with your beliefs.
    That's contrived. The principle has to follow from the observation. The Lorentz transform follows from empirical evidence. What you are saying is contradicted on all fronts by evidence.
    The question of propagation speed is the only valid piece of this thread. The rest is all pseudoscience.
     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2014
  12. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    In favor of pseudoscience.
     
  13. Farsight

    Messages:
    3,492
    My thinking is exactly in line with Einstein's:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. Motor Daddy ☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,105
    LOL
     
  15. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,626
    Thanks. There are one or two members who I have given up on responding to also, since it never leads to communication, only rants.
    My depiction of the photon is that it is a wave-particle, i.e. both a particle with mass, and a wave emanating from the particle as out flowing gravitational wave energy. The particle follows a "straight" path, and the wave expands spherically. Additionally, in this hypothesis, all particles are wave particles, with inflowing and out flowing gravitational wave energy components. Only the photon travels at the speed of light, and therefore only the photon must get all of its inflowing wave energy from the direction of motion because no gravitational wave energy can catch it from behind, lol. I cover this is my threads, The Big Wait, and in other threads in the fringe. But this thread is introducing the hypothesis that the curvature of spacetime and the gravitational wave energy in the medium of space are explanations for the same observational phenomena. The difference being that the GWEDH is mechanistic, and GR/spacetime is not.
    Yes, lots of sources which I have given me an appreciation for the measurement of spin, and its role in quantum mechanics and various experimental set ups. Did you read the material in CptBork's thread on Bell's equations and non-locality, (actually too boring to read really, lol) because the experiments that he refers to, and failed to describe as he had promised to do, include measuring spin in some cases, and polarity in others. I am not ignoring spin, and I don't think that the specifics of the GWED hypothesis would be inconsistent with angular momentum. Spin measurements are observational and repeatable.
    In the CptBork thread I go on to explain my views about why I call QM incomplete, and like in the case of all theory or hypothesis, some things are not observational. We don't just shrug and say we don't know though, we theorize and hypothesize.

    No one is helping me learn by just telling me I am wrong. Referring me to the theory they say is right is wrong headed, and I probably know more things wrong with some of those theories than they do. I have fair and valid questions about their "right" theories that they should be sure they can answer before they make such claims. But you can't talk with some people :shrug:.
     
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2014
  16. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,626

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. Motor Daddy ☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,105
    That Aqueous character reminds me of AN. Walks in and shoots the place up and leaves blowing the smoke out of the barrel before he twirls the gun 13 times and flips it in his holster. Then tips his hat and rides off!
     
  18. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,626
    This looks like very good reading. I presume the link at Princeton.edu is the way to find it.

    This looks like the link: http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu
     
  19. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    Now explain what "real" and "apparent" mean, and tell us when Einstein was talking about which. Therein lies the rub. As long as you continue to put words in his mouth, your cites merely serve as fodder for perpetuating pseudoscience.

    Write one equation that states the relationship between real and apparent observation. Cite one of the early experiments which proved the constancy of c. Stop relying on your mangled out-of-context interpretations of prose to shore up your beliefs that science is fundamentally broken. Stop quote mining altogether. And never post any claim without either having the empirical evidence to support it (evidence from nature, not prose) or at least be able to refer to the experiment which supports your claim. But there are no such experiments, just the ones you have similarly mangled. Science relies entirely on those experiments. You are simply trying to reverse the correct principles arising from them, to replace them with your own fictions, in your pursuit of the denigration of science, for reasons you refuse to divulge, but which we are left to assume are grounded in a lifelong attempt to discredit radioisotope dating (hence the need to claim c is not invariant) ostensibly to shore up a Young Earth Creationist attack on science and academia.

    That's my diagnosis, based on the high correlation of your claims with other pseudoscience trolls who openly profess their religious motivations. Of course I may be wrong, but only if you were to demonstrate where I failed in my assessment. That would of course require a candid explanation from you about the origins of your cynical view that science is broken, with some rational reason why you arrived at that conclusion. Until then, you remain widely known as a troll, a crank, and, quite frankly, a fairly smart guy who is wasting enormous energy learning maneuvers, posting nonsense and lying, when really in all of these years you could have simply passed freshman Physics & Math, and at least earned the right to make claims that would tend to be based in fact rather than fantasy.
     
  20. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,626
    Farsight, please don't respond to those kinds of posts on my thread.
     
  21. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    You have given up responding to me because I typically demolish your faulty logic and bald, unfounded claims. This is the Math & Science forum, so you knew this going in, that you would be challenged for posting pseudoscience. Your coquettish dialogue with the known troll and crank, the previously banned member Farsight, reminds me of the Sock Puppet Army of Zealots (SPAZ) attacks, which were sometimes done with the troll having dialogue with his own sock puppet, as if to convey to the readers that he might be garnering support. But go look at all of Farsight's empty blogs and his unwanted "publications". There is no support. He's the Donald Trump of pseudoscience, simply trying to build some kind of credibility for himself. But he picked the wrong audience. Science-literate people can easily smell a crank right out of the box.

    Then you have massacred the definition of a gravitational wave. It's high time that you come out and define it.

    That's your fantasy, not anything that has any bearing on science. You need to begin with a summary of the centuries of discovery by the prodigies and savants who took the time to run experiments, collect data, and make assessments about what can be claimed with high certainty and what cannot. Otherwise you are stuck in a rut, fabricating your own universe out of pure fantasy.

    That's ridiculous. You should know by now that the photon is a manifestation of energy, energy which was yielded typically by the electron as it fell back to a stable orbital. You really need to grasp this idea and repeat it back as you discuss physics. Otherwise you are chasing rainbows.

    Does that mean you are ready to cite even on single experiment which has anything to do with you claims? Because the convention is to do that up front, in the opening post, the way any presenter would draw in an audience: first the evidence, then the assessments and conclusions. Never reverse the process. That's psuedoscience.

    That's meaningless. What you have is contrived ideas, forced to bend to your will, completely contradicted by scientific experiments.

    How about posting cites here instead of talking around them. Back up even one plank you are trying to present here.

    Presumably you mean CptBork, not Bell. Whatever that was about we would need to see the link. But I suspect it's way off topic. If you have questions about spin and polarity, this forum is certainly the place to bring them. But don't start telling people who studied the material, including those who specialized in it, that they wrong. That sounds just like Farsight.

    Nonsense. Your fantasy "hypothesis" doesn't have anything to do with spin, charge or any of most of the properties of matter. All it does is to contradict facts, evidence and first principles of math and science. For that, you have a much more basic hole to patch than the more esoteric matters like spin or polarity.

    Cite? Stop talking around the experiments. That's what Farsight does. Produce your evidence. You are talking to people with a reasonable amount of critical thinking skills. You need to let them reach their own conclusions using valid methods of logic, drawing from their own knowledge bases. All we need is evidence. The rest is styrofoam.
    That's a general denial of the evidence, after effectively refusing to produce any of your own. You score no points doing that.
    No. We separate fact from fantasy by relying entirely on evidence. The rest goes in the crapper.

    Evidently that's the lesson you are continually failing. But you are the claimant. You are prosecuting these charges. Go bring us the evidence. Opinions are useless. We need facts.

    That's Farsight's apologia. Just state your case. If you have none, why are you in court?

    Then ask them. But don't run away with your pants on fire just because you don't like the answers. Bring us the evidence. Why else are you here?

    You aren't asking questions, you are making bald, erroneous and highly absurd claims that, frankly, stink. So go clean up that mess and try to do this palatably. Get evidence. Post facts. Leave the wildass fantasies for your entertainment as you fall asleep.

    You just brushed of my analysis of your post, ignored all my calls for facts and evidence, and continued on, as if you are having a private conversation with yourself and/or Farsight (if indeed he is a separate person).

    So if you want to talk, talk. But the talk in this forum has to be evidence-based. Otherwise, take that crap to the lower forums.

    Problems with this thread which still remain challenged, admitted to be defective failing any attempt to substantiate them, or to correct the errors:

    (1) G waves from afar are among the weakest of perturbations conceivable. Therefore G waves cannot possibly have anything to do with static G fields, such as that of Earth.

    (2) G Waves are randomly interfering from countless sources in all directions. They therefore cancel, except for some extremely smaller noise signal.

    (3) Noise can not possibly explain gravity and the rest of what you believe. And it certainly has nothing whatsoever to do with spin or polarization.

    (4) The belief that random noise causes spacetime warp is completely an invention.

    (5) The belief that random noise prefers one frame over another, or shows a bias in one direction and not another, and magically accounts for the change of sign in red and blue shift, is complete fantasy.

    (6) The belief that since remote objects can infinitesimally perturb the local field, that they somehow become the source of the local field, is nothing but sheer fantasy.

    (7) A static field is an entirely different species than a wave.

    I could go on, but this pretty well demolishes your whole premise.

    But don't shoot the messenger. Just post science in the science forums.

    But why are you always attacking science? Why do you never have any interest in the facts and evidence, the experiments upon which science is built?
     
  22. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    So you really are rooting for Farsight. It's not your thread, bub. It's a public forum. Bullshit will be met with argument here.
     
  23. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    You should actually discover what GR predicts a gravitational wave is. You're just calling nonsense a gravitational wave. You don't get to call your bullshit a gravitational wave. The term is already taken by Einsteins theory of gravity. You should export this thread to pseudoscience where you can be comfortable in your ignorance.
     

Share This Page