It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

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

 

Gravity wave announcement live now.

page: 9
60
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 08:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Einstein probably did say that, but only because he thought our technology would never get sensitive enough, not because gravitational waves don't exist. He also predicted that we would never observe gravitational lensing, he was wrong about that too.
edit on 13/2/2016 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 09:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Nochzwei
negative. einsteins equations are not used in any space flights
a reply to: dragonridr



You obviously never used einstiens equations have you?
and for which practical application have you used them? lets hear it
on another note haven't you noticed yet, that 2 black holes can merge in 0.2 secs is a nail in GR's coffin? go figure


Why would you think the actual merger would take longer. The detection was the moment they merged. Its like two cars colliding how long do you think a crash should take?? Once they colide what we see is the snap much like a rubber band snapping back as a new event horizon is created. If it occurred slowly we wouldnt detect it motion and extreme velocity is th reason we saw it.See once again you show your clueless in order to claim something is wrong you at least have to understand the subject. To be useful to see more we will need to increase sensitivity even more.

Now as to Einstine saying we couldn't detect it he did he didn't say we would never detect it. Though I believe he suspected we coulsnt . I don't think Einstine realized that someday we could measure things on small enough scale. The measurement was incredibly small. To give everyone an idea measurement that was measured was about a thousandth the diameter of a proton. This is an incredibly small scale to measure. And it took 100 years for technology to catch up. And this is the reason it coat so much to build.



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 09:56 PM
link   

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
a reply to: ErosA433



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.😀



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 12:07 AM
link   

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
a reply to: ErosA433



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.😀
negating time negates gravity owing to the equation e = mc2, so GR ought to be wrong. go figure



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 12:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: imitator


That would also prove Einstein wrong, as he said you can't detect gravitational waves because they are to weak
Source?


www.ligo.caltech.edu...

Bruce Allen, managing director of the Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics (Albert Einstein Institute), adds, “Einstein thought gravitational waves were too weak to detect, and didn’t believe in black holes. But I don’t think he’d have minded being wrong!”



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 12:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Box of Rain

What source of earthly noise would be picked up (almost) simultaneously in both Washington State and Louisiana?


I'll go with electromagnetic interference, EMI can travel at the same speed as gravitaional waves (speed of light)... it can leak into test equipment thousands of miles apart.

UFO's.... electronic warfare..... lot's of things.



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 03:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Nochzwei

The problem is defining a merge.

What is observed is a certain phase during the merge, when gravitational radiation is at maximum. At this moment the black holes are still somewhat apart, not actually merged (whatever that means).

See: w.astro.berkeley.edu...



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 04:30 AM
link   

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
a reply to: ErosA433



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.😀
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.
edit on 2/14/16 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 04:32 AM
link   
NVM
edit on 14-2-2016 by TaleDawn because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 04:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: TaleDawn
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Einstein biggest mistake was the creation of the Atomic Energy. Whatever he was wrong or right about observe gravitational lensing doesn't matter compared to the Atomic Energy.


Einstein did not create atomic energy.



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 07:23 AM
link   

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
a reply to: ErosA433



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.😀
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...



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 07:47 AM
link   
a reply to: bobs_uruncle


After all look at the tool that won a Nobel Prize, obama lol. Or Mandela and de klerk for that matter, a terrorist and a traitor. The Nobel Prize has no credibility after those three lol.

Apart from revealing your rather extreme political views, what exactly is the point of this? We are not talking about the Nobel Peace Prize, we are talking about the Nobel Prize for Physics.


When you find the time (or someone pays you, like Lil 'ole me) to design/build interferometers, perform BEC research using adiabatic reactors, maybe make an accelerator, ring laser or two, let me know, I've been doing it for 40 years. Until then, your opinion is simply an opinion...

You could have built the International Space Station for all I care, you still don’t seem to understand E = mc^2.



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 10:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

I agree - seems to be lots of tall tails and a weird lack of understanding of science and engineering for someone who makes all those claims

So an international team builds probably the most sensitive laser interferometer in the world and your first response is "They are dumb and don't know what they are doing" sorry but it just smacks of ignorance and arrogance. same for the Nobel comments, the peace prize is highly political sure, but its not the Nobel prize for physics... I guess you think the neutrino prize last year was the same waste of time...

The measurement is quite amazing and all the nay sayers in this thread have thus far not presented any good rebuttals at all other than...."They dont know because i say so" well done
definitely convinced



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 10:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: bobs_uruncle


After all look at the tool that won a Nobel Prize, obama lol. Or Mandela and de klerk for that matter, a terrorist and a traitor. The Nobel Prize has no credibility after those three lol.

Apart from revealing your rather extreme political views, what exactly is the point of this? We are not talking about the Nobel Peace Prize, we are talking about the Nobel Prize for Physics.


When you find the time (or someone pays you, like Lil 'ole me) to design/build interferometers, perform BEC research using adiabatic reactors, maybe make an accelerator, ring laser or two, let me know, I've been doing it for 40 years. Until then, your opinion is simply an opinion...

You could have built the International Space Station for all I care, you still don’t seem to understand E = mc^2.


Dream on, when you have an understanding of gravity waves, let me know.

Cheers - Dave



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 02:40 PM
link   

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).


edit on 2/14/2016 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 02:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Despite the thread title ...
it really doesn't matter, he might as well been talking about gravity waves, nothing in his comment says otherwise.



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 03:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: intergalactic fire
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Despite the thread title ...
it really doesn't matter, he might as well been talking about gravity waves, nothing in his comment says otherwise.

I looked at his last three posts on this thread, and very little of what he said had much to do about gravitational waves, either.

The closest he got was when he was talking about how he has been building interferometers for 40 years. Maybe he said something more relevant to gravitational waves prior to that, but I plead my ignorance as to being too lazy to read all of his posts in this thread.

EDIT TO ADD:
OK, I see now that he made a few "wave-of-his-hand dismissals" of the amount of energy in the collision that LIGO claimed to detect. However, besides saying "I think not", he gave no good reason for why he "thinks not".


edit on 2/14/2016 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 03:11 PM
link   
Gravitational wave discovery announcement, at this precise moment? Does it have a secondary political meaning? Is it a manipulation? ...



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 03:11 PM
link   
Gravitational wave discovery announcement, at this precise moment? Does it have a secondary political meaning? Is it a manipulation? ...



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 04:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Not defending or supporting anyone, but 99% of the people commenting here didn't even know there was a difference between the 2 or even there was something called gravity waves, until mentioned.
Damn even news journals are making the same mistake.
Even Stephen Hawking said so!

Stephen Hawking: Gravity waves discovery could "revolutionize astronomy"
edit on 14-2-2016 by intergalactic fire because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
60
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join