# Is there a simple way to detect gravitational waves?

#### jcc

Registered Senior Member
in vacuum chamber, 2 thin lines each hangs a bell. ring 1 bell, measure temperature of the 2 bells.

if bell 1 keeps ringing, its temperature should be increasing, then stay at maximum.

bell 2 should feel gravity wave produced by bell 1 and heat up, the closer the hotter. 1/r^2

or you can say bell 1 gives heat radiation to bell 2 to heat it up?

if both bells get hotter, that means gravitational wave is working?

There might be a small transfer of energy due to infra-red radiation, and there might be a small transfer of energy due to gravitational radiation. However, the gravitational effect would be unmeasurable and completely swamped by the transfer by IR radiation. The masses of the two bells are way too small to detect any effect of gravitational waves.

hot gasses on the sun are vibrating and producing gravitation waves, where that energy go? can we detect it?

if sunlight is hot gasses emitted photons, what's the mechanism? electrons charge orbitals and emit photons?

how many orbitals in an gas atom? why sunlight spectrum is continue?

hot gasses on the sun are vibrating and producing gravitation waves, where that energy go? can we detect it?
Heat and light

if sunlight is hot gasses emitted photons, what's the mechanism? electrons charge orbitals and emit photons?

how many orbitals in an gas atom? why sunlight spectrum is continue?
light/photons are generally produced by electrons changing their orbits around atomic nuclei.
It takes energy to move an electron away from a positively charged nucleus, to overcome the great electrostatic attraction between them. Similarly, moving an electron closer to a nucleus actually gives off energy. Light is just energy and thus light can be given off in this process. This process, by the way, is called radiation. It's not the same thing as the stuff that will kill you, but it's similar.
http://newton.burney.ws/physics/lessons/light/light7.html

http://angryastronomer.blogspot.com.au/2006/06/astronomical-data-part-1b-where-does.html

what's the mechanism?

how electron changes orbital?

how photon is produced?

how many photons can an electron emit per second?

what's difference between red and blue photon?

photon has no mass no charge, how it carries energy?

what's the mechanism?

how electron changes orbital?
how photon is produced?
Energising electrons.
how many photons can an electron emit per second?
Depends on the energy imparted to the electron.
what's difference between red and blue photon?
Different energy levels.
photon has no mass no charge, how it carries energy?
Light carries energy due to its momentum.

jokes right?

light has no mass, what momentum?

what is energy level?

hot gasses on the sun are vibrating and producing gravitation waves, where that energy go? can we detect it?

if sunlight is hot gasses emitted photons, what's the mechanism? electrons charge orbitals and emit photons?

how many orbitals in an gas atom? why sunlight spectrum is continue?

????? thanks.

jokes right?

light has no mass, what momentum?

what is energy level?

????? thanks.
Light has no rest mass, but it most certainly has momentum.
and have you ever heard of E=Mc2?

You are a total fraud. bye

Last edited:
Light has no rest mass, but it most certainly has momentum.
and have you ever heard of E=Mc2?

You are a total fraud. bye
When judging others as frauds, it pays to be sure one speaks from a position of real knowledge. E = mc^2 (not mc2) leaves you with nothing to work from in the case of a photon with m = 0. The appropriate general relation, applicable for both massive and massless particles, is given in the first boxed expression here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy–momentum_relation
And is applied to photons as given under 'Special Cases' example 1.

Also, the cartoon depiction of atomic photon emission you lifted in #4 from http://newton.burney.ws/physics/lessons/light/light7.html
apart from being poorly drawn, has no accompanying explanation it roughly depicts a way outdated early QM picture, in keeping with reference to electron orbits rather than orbitals. So a check and it has appropriately divided sections briefly covering both early and later QM, which is ok as such. But then a quick read of the early QM part at http://newton.burney.ws/physics/lessons/quantum/intro.html
The Ultraviolet Catastrophe
At the end of the 19th century, a purely classical and consistent law, termed the Rayleigh-Jeans law was developed to describe the emission of radiation from an opaque body. The Rayleigh-Jeans law gave splendid results for very high frequency radiation, but the results were nowhere near the empirical data for lower wavelengths. This was called the ultraviolet catastrophe, and it was the first sign that the classical theory might not be completely correct.
Well if as is true it was an 'ultraviolet catastrophe', how come the problem was according to above at the IR end?! Author has it back to front. Maybe there are no other bloopers like that at the site - I won't spend time to find out, but do not recommend using it as a reliable resource. Someone who only knows up to early secondary-level maths & physics might be excused for copy-pasting from such a site.

When judging others as frauds, it pays to be sure one speaks from a position of real knowledge. E = mc^2 (not mc2) leaves you with nothing to work from in the case of a photon with m = 0. The appropriate general relation, applicable for both massive and massless particles, is given in the first boxed expression here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy–momentum_relation
And is applied to photons as given under 'Special Cases' example 1.

Also, the cartoon depiction of atomic photon emission you lifted in #4 from http://newton.burney.ws/physics/lessons/light/light7.html
apart from being poorly drawn, has no accompanying explanation it roughly depicts a way outdated early QM picture, in keeping with reference to electron orbits rather than orbitals.
The message conveyed is appropriate and your pedant nonsense again ignored better luck next time on your inevitable grudge mission,

So a check and it has appropriately divided sections briefly covering both early and later QM, which is ok as such. But then a quick read of the early QM part at http://newton.burney.ws/physics/lessons/quantum/intro.html

Well if as is true it was an 'ultraviolet catastrophe', how come the problem was according to above at the IR end?! Author has it back to front. Maybe there are no other bloopers like that at the site - I won't spend time to find out, but do not recommend using it as a reliable resource. Someone who only knows up to early secondary-level maths & physics might be excused for copy-pasting from such a site.
Someone who professes to know enough about GR to claim it is rubbish, has about zero credibility in telling me anything, particularly when conveying the most basic stuff to a religious zealot.
Perhaps you indentify with him?
Seeya around!

hahahaha, good science spirit!

why not become a mod? ban every 1 when you cannot debunking his science.

Wrong. Use of upper case or lower case is the triviality, your basic ignorance of that mc2 rather than mc^2 is ab initio wrong, then further wrong even if applying the 'correct' term to photon case.
The message conveyed is appropriate and your pedant nonsense again ignored better luck next time on your inevitable grudge mission,
You may wish to convince yourself, even equally uneducated others here, it's a 'grudge mission', but the truth is you simply need reigning in as someone who perennially muddies the waters very often with half-truths that can be worse than outright flagrant errors. Though you manage that too, and worse.
Someone who professes to know enough about GR to claim it is rubbish, has about zero credibility in telling me anything, particularly when conveying the most basic stuff to a religious zealot.
Perhaps you indentify with him?
Seeya around!
Whoever the unnamed 'religious zealot' is has naught to do with your own exposed gaffes here. A pity your supposed 'lack of any ego' actually prevents you from having enough humility and honesty to candidly acknowledge such bloopers and only then move on with a clear conscience. Did I suggest you have a conscience? Hmm....given your strategy is 'always defend by way of attack', I take that back.

me2

there is God!

me2
there is God!
jcc, do you like the 'modding' on this site? the moddies want you 4 a sunbeam.

Last edited by a moderator:
i like to discuss science, nothing more.

rant a little cus they banned me 4 times for fun. should ban those science attackers.

i like to discuss science, nothing more.
u Discuss??
u 2 clever for these dumb dumbs with your very great logical comebacks to others posts, such as... to quote you
'poop' and 'bs' very clever 'discuss' of yours.

photon? gravitron? god particle? flat earth?

21st now, not 16.

i like to discuss science, nothing more.
Don't you think it makes sense to learn a little science first before attempting to discuss it?

rant a little cus they banned me 4 times for fun. should ban those science attackers.
Again you seem to have difficulty with logic.

You said - rant a little cus they banned me 4 times for fun.
The truth is - they banned me 4 times for have fun ranting (trolling).

mind to discuss science only?

Wrong. Use of upper case or lower case is the triviality, your basic ignorance of that mc2 rather than mc^2 is ab initio wrong, then further wrong even if applying the 'correct' term to photon case.
Nup, it's obviously you who are wrong. E=Mc2 is the accepted way, and that is generally understood.

You may wish to convince yourself, even equally uneducated others here, it's a 'grudge mission', but the truth is you simply need reigning in as someone who perennially muddies the waters very often with half-truths that can be worse than outright flagrant errors. Though you manage that too, and worse.
I've stated the truth.......I could also go tell you to take a running jump, but your rather emotive reactions to me, evidenced in other threads, has me worried somewhat, so I'll just continue on as is.
And I'll leave the "muddying of the waters" to you, as you are so apt at doing.
Whoever the unnamed 'religious zealot' is has naught to do with your own exposed gaffes here. A pity your supposed 'lack of any ego' actually prevents you from having enough humility and honesty to candidly acknowledge such bloopers and only then move on with a clear conscience. Did I suggest you have a conscience? Hmm....given your strategy is 'always defend by way of attack', I take that back.
The only things that are clear, is your silly pedant, your grudge mission, and your rather emotive over the top aggressive state, evident in most of your interactions with me.
Perhaps you would like to make your position again clear on GR? You would need to do it far better than in the thread you had that was banished to the fringes.

Overall you need to do better! take it easy old friend!

Last edited: