It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

Help ATS via PayPal:

# Gravity wave announcement live now.

page: 10
60
share:

posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 05:02 PM

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Nochzwei
the merger ought to have taken many years to complete, so time ought to run incredibly fast in a black hole imo

If you understood relativity you could do the calculations instead of guess or give us your opinion. Time in a black hole wouldn't seem different than anywhere else in the universe. What you need to do is start by deciding where you were going to observe the event from. Then from there you can do the math. Send it to me when your done I'll be happy to show you any mistakes.đ
negating time negates gravity owing to the equation e = mc2, so GR ought to be wrong. go figure

In relativity you can never negate time time always exists. Again their is your problem you don't understand GR. And I'm not sure how you believe the equivalancy principle shows time stops? This just shows us energy wrong equation. In GR time is relative to the observer hence the name.
dissect papers on www.scribd.com...

You sent me to a persons personal papers that after scanning are a joke. See in the paper he wants to claim that man created time by creating a way to measure it. That's like saying we created light because we van measure it. Or we created energy because again we can measure it that has to be the dumbest argument I've ever heard. We created a way to measure something that already existed. We chose to create hour minutes and seconds to mark the passage of time. That doesn't mean if we didn't time wouldn't exist. If a student ever put a paper like this across my desk I would have to have a serious talk with them about changing majors.

posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 05:05 PM

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
Dream on, when you have an understanding of gravity waves, let me know.

Cheers - Dave

You mean gravitational waves, don't you? Or are you talking about gravity waves?

If you really mean gravity waves, then you are in the wrong thread (despite the thread title, which is inaccurate).

You forgot to mention gravity waves are very well understood and used when we calculate high tide. Wow really

posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 05:38 PM
You didn't understand nothin about nothin, did you? I feel sorry for your students

posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 06:59 PM

originally posted by: Nochzwei
You didn't understand nothin about nothin, did you? I feel sorry for your students

This from a person who sends me to two papers written by a high school kid with no understanding in physics. Who believed the brightness of fireworks can be contributed to a decrease in gravity. Never mind other factors such as the amount of gunpowder wind conditions and even weather. BT somehow he deduces the increase he see yes sees somehow proves anything. The next paper he argues humans made up time again with a start like that no need to read on further. Hopefully when he gets to college a professor can deal with him or if we're lucky he can become an art major.

posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 08:41 PM
like I said I feel sorry for your students.
a completely new branch of science is beyond you, looks like

posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 09:00 PM

originally posted by: Nochzwei

like I said I feel sorry for your students.
a completely new branch of science is beyond you, looks like

Yes it appears a whole branch of science is beyond you its called physics. You can't just make things up that contradict observations any theory must match observations for example we know gravity effects time to ignore this is an immediate failure.

posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 11:50 PM
A point would be in this argument as to who exactly made the satellites that measured this event. Some may consider that there individual application does demonstrate an expression of the scientific method. While others may consider that such evidence would be better received if it was developed independent of such an authority.

posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 11:54 PM

originally posted by: Phage
Albert was right.

Again.

He wasn't sure of it first though. This is such a great discovery.

posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 12:17 AM

originally posted by: Kashai
A point would be in this argument as to who exactly made the satellites that measured this event. Some may consider that there individual application does demonstrate an expression of the scientific method. While others may consider that such evidence would be better received if it was developed independent of such an authority.

Sattelites have nothing to do with it this is a straw man argument there has been multiple tests of gravitational time delay. Yes GPS has to take it into account to work however that's not proof that's appication. The first test was done on the 50s using two atomic clocks it was called the HafeleâKeating experiment another using the viking probe then of course their was pound rebka experiment. Test done in particle accelerators. Here's confirmation using lasersphysicsworld.com...

To deny that gravity doesn't effect time is just silly in light of all the experiments done. You can't say you don't like the way the universe works and ignore data you get because it doesn't fit your theory. Some people here want to argue against science having no clue what science is. You can't throw out data or pretend it doesn't exist any theory needs to hold up and be consistent with observations made. Its like someone telling you there is no such thing as sand and your in the middle of a desert. You can't ignore the obvious.

posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 12:52 AM

I have no problem with what you are saying but Albert Einstein never really thought that the idea of a gravitational wave was actually observable.

Your frame of mind implies to me that time delay is an expression of gravitation as a force in nature and I personally am fine with that. There is nonetheless the apparent conflict where Einstein cites gravitational waves cannot be observed but ignores that time delay is a factor when addressing gravity.

I feel that in this case Albert Einstein was correct though, he lacked the comprehension needed to take his conclusion to the "next level".

posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 07:57 AM
yes gravity makes time run faster, not slower. e =mc2 proves that
I think physics is beyond you but nvm

posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 12:15 PM

originally posted by: Kashai

I have no problem with what you are saying but Albert Einstein never really thought that the idea of a gravitational wave was actually observable.

Your frame of mind implies to me that time delay is an expression of gravitation as a force in nature and I personally am fine with that. There is nonetheless the apparent conflict where Einstein cites gravitational waves cannot be observed but ignores that time delay is a factor when addressing gravity.

I feel that in this case Albert Einstein was correct though, he lacked the comprehension needed to take his conclusion to the "next level".

Einstine could not have believed the abilities we have today with equipment. I'm not sure he actually said this other than in passing. But from his point of view to detect a movement of space time thousands of times smaller than a proton would seem impossible. Of he a tually made the statement it wouldn't surprise me. Not believing it could be detected and believing it isn't there are two different things

posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 12:21 PM

originally posted by: Nochzwei
yes gravity makes time run faster, not slower. e =mc2 proves that
I think physics is beyond you but nvm

Do you even understand the equation E=MC2 ?? This is the basis for an energy momentum tensor. Basically this part if the equation tells us that energy is a combination of mass and speed. In Newtonian physics momemntum isn't considered.

So once again you accuse me if not understanding yet you post something irrelevant. Here's a hint the equation your looking for is in special relativity.

posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 12:24 PM
Lol wt a load of sheites, mass and gravity are always linked fyi

posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 12:57 PM

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Lol wt a load of sheites, mass and gravity are always linked fyi

Yes they are I see why you have problems you have reading comprehension difficulties. I guess English is not your first language or have poor reading comprehension but either way you continue to argue that which you have no understanding of. It's almost comical.

posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 06:57 PM
and you have the understanding is equally comical

posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 07:06 PM

Seriously, for you not to understand that the box thing you keep bringing up as a defence in all of your threads does nothing more than make the sheet metal hot and flex under a very well known physical effect known as thermal expansion, and is not causing a candle to burn brighter, and the camera used to record it is simply experiencing a well known CCD artifact... then claim instead that it is all proof of time dilation... is just... well it is evidence of your blindness to actual science and a want to so desperately live outside of the box that you are so far outside of the box you forgot where the box is...

I am not sure you are the best person to be making comments about gravitational waves.

If the gravitational wave measurement is correct, it proves that GR works fine... no its not the end of the story, but it should be a signal to you to actually open your eyes... at least a tiny crack to let some reality in. If you could do that for us, it would be fantastic.

posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 11:52 PM
Lol nice one.
gravitational waves are also created by anti gravity machines.
the present observation in question, can be explained by rapidly fluctuating time compression curves while the black holes merge. no need for bunk GR

posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 02:52 AM

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Lol nice one.
gravitational waves are also created by anti gravity machines.
the present observation in question, can be explained by rapidly fluctuating time compression curves while the black holes merge. no need for bunk GR

The only way in the universe you could get time compression would be to go somewhere in the universe with no gravity and even then I doubt it . Because there would be no where in the univerae without gravity. We could fool a clock into showing fake time compression if wr got it moving near thr speed of light in a circle. Every refrence frame it looked at would mive slower.This would simulate time compressuon.The only other method even possible would be some sort of exotic matter that instead of creating gravity wells creates gravity hills in space time. This matter would have to have properties that would make it unstable in the first place. You can't have time compression you can have one reference frame moving faster or slower than another. But this isn't time compression that's relativity.

So even if you somehow violated the laws of the universe you wouldn't be able to tell in any reference frame. Just as if I was watching something move at the speed of light there is no way to show my clock moves faster. The fact you believe time compression is possible contradicts every thing observed in the universe we would literaly have a black hole for example get younger. So it would go from being a black hole to being a star again. Think we would notice something like that. And if a black hole merged with another time compression would be impossible but would love to see the math on that one.
edit on 2/16/16 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 07:53 AM
math , e = mc2 read and dissect papers again on www.scribd.com... 84

new topics

60