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.

 

The Absurdity of Detecting Gravitational Waves

page: 7
13
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 07:22 PM
link   
Yes ad hom is the usual track on here, followed by manners voiloation etc.

You implied the videos were public on youtube, therefore were not private but now you are saying because he shared them with a few others they aren't private. I'm sure these videos are marked private in youtube so I wouldn't say he was having us on, And yes off topic so last on the subject from me too.




posted on Jan, 23 2017 @ 02:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: playswithmachines

Yeah, like I'm going to accept the word of some random person with a YouTube channel lol.

Just because you've got a machine that YOU say works (like we've never heard that before [ Brilliant Light Power, for example ]), doesn't mean people are just going to accept what you say.


They don't have to accept it, mainstream science still won't despite it being proven in 1938.
Unlike BLP i have never asked for a single cent, i have no sponsors, and everything i show has been scientifically proven, but you won't find it in college textbooks. Some things are being kept from you.

Now you're going to tell me i'm wasting my money, well it's mine to waste however i see fit.



posted on Jan, 23 2017 @ 02:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Yes, Heaviside mangled Maxwell's equations so badly that we missed a whole dimension in the theory.
Lorentz made it worse (well actually i believe he made it worse before Heaviside did)

Look up Poynting vector, look up Dollard's use of the steinmetz method to restore some balance by making the equations much more like the original quatranes.
And yes on that point Tesla was wrong: he didn't think that mankind could be so stupid for the next100 years after him, he thought EM technology would progress. It didn't.

Even our most advanced (publicly in use) nuclear reactors boil water to run steam turbines.
We haven't left the Victorian age yet.



posted on Jan, 23 2017 @ 03:06 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

Well as for my video's, i'm by no means an actor or director, LOL

They are unlisted, that means you can only see them when i post the link, and to be honest, they were originally meant to share among the inventors group.
The group is still around, but we don't make video's anymore, and we don't do forums either.
Been there done that.

I only post here in a light hearted attempt to put the record straight. Yes theres loads of bunk pseudo-science out there & some of it is highly imaginative & amusing even, except when peeps get ripped off of course.
But then a fool & his money are soon parted, right?

Whatever i might be, i am honest. Hell i could put on a great dog & pony show with some of the stuff i have, and maybe earn a few mill, but what's the point?

I am planning to sell some inventions, we have plenty to choose from!

But the gravity stuff is free.
I have posted names, dates, diagrams, pictures and a video. And a thread.
Go make one & try it out..........
ETA; forget the silicates, tantalum can be replaced with tungsten or bismuth, iron oxide & wax is enough to prove the concept but you need heavy composite dielectrics, they are 10,000-20,000 times stronger than that 50 gram lump of wax in the video. Lead 2 oxide & glycerine works also.
edit on 23-1-2017 by playswithmachines because: Update



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 04:30 PM
link   
I have to go for a while, bye.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 03:29 PM
link   
LIGO is just picking up light. It's measuring light or electromagnetic waves. It's not picking up gravity distortions. They are seeing differences in different light waves and concluding this must be caused by gravity.. And again in the experiment if they are getting a stretch in the light it's just the light they're detecting. They aren't measuring a tangible gravity wave. They are detecting a change in the light. It doesn't prove gravity. They could just as easily be proving the Ether. Saganac's experiment proved the Ether by moving his table. T

at 19:21 of the video of their press conference they show the two waves at different locations and they aren't the same. They said they would show 2 identical distortions at 2 places to show it was gravity. You can look at the 2 waves and see they are different on the graphs.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 03:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: BrainActivity00
LIGO is just picking up light. It's measuring light or electromagnetic waves. It's not picking up gravity distortions. They are seeing differences in different light waves and concluding this must be caused by gravity.. And again in the experiment if they are getting a stretch in the light it's just the light they're detecting. They aren't measuring a tangible gravity wave. They are detecting a change in the light. It doesn't prove gravity. They could just as easily be proving the Ether. Saganac's experiment proved the Ether by moving his table. T

at 19:21 of the video of their press conference they show the two waves at different locations and they aren't the same. They said they would show 2 identical distortions at 2 places to show it was gravity. You can look at the 2 waves and see they are different on the graphs.



Please stop pretending that you know what you're talking about. It's not working.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 05:48 PM
link   
seconded... you are grasping at straws so small that it shows how foolish you are to be reaching out to them. Not only do you not understand the basic concept of the experiment, but even how experiments work. You went from saying "Oh they only saw it in one location, it could be noise! maybe if they saw a signal at two locations" to saying that the data looks a bit different...

sorry but, no, the basic shape of the data is the most important aspect and they are extremely similar, sorry, you fail at science, comprehension and basic logical deduction.

Signal was observed at two locations showing variance in only the noise. Time of arrival gives a rough direction, and the form of the signal gives you a vector pointing back at the object too...

The experiment is still running and now has more sites taking data. You are also late for the party since Ligo has already observed multiple events

www.ligo.caltech.edu...



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 12:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: playswithmachines
a reply to: intrptr


What other 'undisclosed' purpose does this contraption have? I bore in on this because to me its seems such a delicate passage of such distant gravity waves would be out shined[/]i by the close source of gravity, our own sun. No...?

It also seems continuous firing of a mw laser is expensive, in the hopes of catching such rare events.


Yes, i think you are right. And yes it's an enormous amount of power.
My detector uses less than 1 watt, the transmitter 12-16 watts.

And it's portable, that thing sure isn't, LOL

Been interesting reading your input here, thanks for bringing me back to the thread.

Unlike waves of sound, wind, water, light, gravity and magnets attract with fields I think. The gravity field like a magnetic field extends from a source , not as particles or waves of particles but a field, so they must be off describing gravity 'waves' detected by their bent laser beam.

Energy transmitted thru the 'medium' of space as 'waves' can't be gravity, imo.

Like the video I showed of the Japan Tsunmai, the wave of energy travels thru the ocean of water molecules. It is not a field (like gravity).



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 08:06 PM
link   
a reply to: playswithmachines

Why do you think that has anything to do with gravitation instead of being more like a condenser microphone?



posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 12:59 AM
link   
All they have is a bleep noise lmao. How is that a gravity wave? Literally it's a NOISE. Not a measurable gravity wave... I don't know what so hard to understand that all of their results is simply conjecture. Their test is supposed to detect a stretching of the light.. but all they show is a SOUND! Seriously people stop being so supportive because they are "scientists" and ask your own questions.



posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 03:17 AM
link   
a reply to: BrainActivity00

Their test is supposed to detect a stretching of the light..
No. They measured a change in the distance between mirrors.



but all they show is a SOUND!

No. But how does one show a sound?

edit on 2/2/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 09:43 AM
link   
a reply to: BrainActivity00
a reply to: Phage
In the presentation eros posted the link for on page 5 they say the frequency of the waveform is within the range of human hearing. Then they convert it to sound with an undisclosed frequency shift (at around 18 minutes into the video), which doesn't do much for me but you can hear there's noise, followed by something that's clearly not the same noise. (sounds like a drip from a faucet to me, she calls it a "chirp").

Personally I can see the increasing frequency of the waveforms better by looking at the plot of the waveforms, and this is critical to the claim that it's created by a black hole collision because such a collision would increase in frequency like that.


originally posted by: BrainActivity00
Seriously people stop being so supportive because they are "scientists" and ask your own questions.
I usually do that and the only question I'm coming up with right now is why don't you understand what's been explained? You seem to be taking the explanations and grossly distorting them but let's clear up that the sound is just an alternative method of presenting the data, and not too helpful in this case for me; I could have lived without that but at least I understood what was clearly explained that it's NOT a sound but a frequency that was CONVERTED to sound.

The so-called "Sounds of Jupiter" aren't really sounds either, but at least I can hear a little bit more when those EM frequencies are "converted" to something audible as an alternate means of presenting the data.

edit on 201722 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 05:14 PM
link   
LOL i'm not a scientist, as in the usually accepted term, i'm an engineer, as in the person who gets aked the question 'how can we build this?' The scientists in general don't have a clue, why ask them?
I give up on the whole idea. Just recently yet another thread posted on a new theory of gravity using floating magnets, electrons etc you name it.

I thought that i have made it clear by now, how all this sh*t works.

Just read my posts.
Oh wait, you want pics or it didn't happen! Well i posted those and more!.
Again, read my posts, and join in those discussions, as opposed to creating new ones, which only leads to more confusion.
The PTB want it that way, and they are soo good at it....
That is why you peeps crop up every few weeks with so-called 'new ideas' that are not so new.
Stay Informed,
-PWM--



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 08:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: playswithmachines
Oh wait, you want pics or it didn't happen!


Well yeah, because you have a habit of making ridiculous claims not supported by even a shred of evidence.

But of course, it's "TPTB"'s fault, right?



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 08:55 AM
link   
a reply to: playswithmachines

to say scientists dont have a clue how to build anything is rather an ignorant, and an arrogant statement.

Dont sound like any engineer i know or have worked with... much like many threads you post on, mostly it sounds like stories told in the school playground... tall tails that you never backup



posted on Feb, 8 2017 @ 05:03 PM
link   
a reply to: ErosA433

Dude, i have to answer to 'engineers' who have to remove their shoes if they have to count more than 10.
It's actually amazing that these peeps can walk and chew gum at the same time

And they earn twice my salary.
Don't get me started!
Bye.....



posted on Feb, 8 2017 @ 06:43 PM
link   
Ah. A technician. We had a crop of them once that thought they could do 'better than engineers', so one day I sat a couple of them down at the CAD station and said "Ok, it's your turn to shine. Design me something basic. A network card will do"

After a few hours, they slunk out. It's all fun and games until it's time to put up or shut up.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join