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.

 

Astronomers Strike Gravitational Gold In Colliding Neutron Stars

page: 6
26
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 1 2017 @ 12:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: ErosA433

We'll just have to agree to disagree here. Science is intuitive.


Like hell it is! Progress in physics throughout centuries has been about rationality, numbingly difficult work, insight of a few geniuses, combined with striking experimental evidence, showing how completely wrong is the typical intuition of the good folk of that day and place.




posted on Nov, 1 2017 @ 07:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: greenreflections

The speed of light makes sense. Its a rate of induction, specific to a medium.


Yes, I agree. The problem is to find logical source of 'c' rate limit...which process in nature can logically put a limit to the speed of light?

What seems most perplexing to you in nature?

To me, it's the fact that I can witness motion.
edit on 1-11-2017 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-11-2017 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2017 @ 07:34 PM
link   
a reply to: greenreflections

Light is a wave, so think of sound waves as an analogy to light. Sound has a set speed in our atmosphere, but the speed of sound is really dependent on the stiffness-to-density ratio of its associated medium. Water has a different ratio than air, so sound travels through water much faster in than air, never the less, sound moving through water at sea level will only move at one constant speed (never faster or slower). So it makes sense for light to have a fixed constant speed as well, as it is a rate of induction.

Now, my problem is that most physicists will tell you that sound is a mechanical wave which needs a medium for propagation, but that light is non-mechanical, and therefore does not need a medium, but can propagate through empty space. If so, then why is there even a constant for light? I think light has to be mechanical. We know that space really is not empty. There is no such thing as a "true vacuum", so fill in the gap....

It is more likely that light is traveling through a medium (often called "space-time), which has a specific stiffness-to-density ratio. If "gravity waves" also travel exactly at light speed then it is either traveling through the same medium in the exact same way as light, or there is another medium with an identical stiffness to density ratio as that of the "vacuum".

This is but one reason why I think LIGO is detecting an electromagnetic shock wave put out by a collapsing incoherent magnetic field.

Can there be faster than light travel? Sure, but its probably in another medium, occupying another dimension.
edit on 1-11-2017 by BELIEVERpriest because: typos



posted on Nov, 1 2017 @ 07:46 PM
link   
a reply to: greenreflections

I think the most perplexing thing about nature is the quantization of energy. The energy spectrum is not a smooth taper. It looks more like a stair case. I know that without the quanization of energy, nothing could exist. Matter would have no magnitude, but why does it happen? How does something come from nothing? How can mass/energy have no Alpha or Omega?



posted on Nov, 1 2017 @ 07:55 PM
link   
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest


..most physicists will tell you that sound is a mechanical wave which needs a medium for propagation, but that light is non-mechanical, and therefore does not need a medium, but can propagate through empty space. If so, then why is there even a constant for light? I think light has to be mechanical. We know that space really is not empty. There is no such thing as a "true vacuum", so fill in the gap....

I would agree its mechanical in a way that space-time's geometry is a subject to coordinate metric stretch in a gradient manner toward source of gravity.

Space-time has physical properties as GR/SR said.



posted on Nov, 1 2017 @ 09:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: greenreflections

I think the most perplexing thing about nature is the quantization of energy. The energy spectrum is not a smooth taper. It looks more like a stair case. I know that without the quanization of energy, nothing could exist. Matter would have no magnitude, but why does it happen? How does something come from nothing? How can mass/energy have no Alpha or Omega?


Yes, there is no study of the forces within space. Anyone game?



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 07:04 PM
link   
Actually, gravitational wave only proves space-time is not rigid (LEGO experiment)..
Which should correspond to Einstein's GR model where stress tensor increases the 'curve' toward gravity source, 'stretching' spatial coordinate metric. With solid structure of space-time gravity would not be possible in principle.

cheers



edit on 7-11-2017 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-11-2017 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2017 @ 06:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: greenreflections
Actually, gravitational wave only proves space-time is not rigid (LEGO experiment)..
Which should correspond to Einstein's GR model where stress tensor increases the 'curve' toward gravity source, 'stretching' spatial coordinate metric. With solid structure of space-time gravity would not be possible in principle.

cheers




So, just to add...to see if I get it right....Gravitational wave in essence travels as ghost physical body with hypothetical 'mass' that was shed into space during BH merge?

I mean, if only mass can bend space-time, then it is safe to assume that some sort of energy-mass was released and spreading outward carrying space-time distortion along?


edit on 11-11-2017 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-11-2017 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2017 @ 08:41 PM
link   
a reply to: greenreflections

What is "mass"?

Where does it begin and end?

Is there really a difference between relative mass and rest mass?

What if mass can only bend mass?

I know what the Standard Model says about these things. I'm asking rhetorically.


edit on 11-11-2017 by BELIEVERpriest because: typo



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join