It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


stupid questions about gravity and lasers

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Sep, 4 2019 @ 08:57 AM

originally posted by: ManFromEurope

originally posted by: moebius
a reply to: ManFromEurope

It is not anti-gravity, but a rapid change in gravity caused by some huge masses undergoing extreme accelerations. As Phage said, there is no "pushing" involved. It is a changing "pulling" from those masses.

That is what I thought initially to this thread, too.

But then I looked at the LIGO's graphics of the Strain and there are definitive negative and positive absolute values on the amount of strain, and I think that they are measured in centimeters. I might be wrong about the scala, and that would explain a lot to me, but I cannot find better data right now.

If there is a shortening and a lengthing of the LIGO's leg, that would mean that the distance were at one time shorter and at another longer than the normal length.
It's more like shorter in one arm and longer in another arm, but the length difference is not centimeters, the difference in length according to this video is on the order of 1 ten thousandth the width of a proton, which he compares to trying to measure a change in length the thickness of a human hair when measuring the distance to a nearby star. It's an almost impossibly small amount to measure.

The Absurdity of Detecting Gravitational Waves

So the origin of what the graph shows I think is something like this:

10^-21 m/ 1m, the length units of meters cancel out and you have a unitless measure of strain saying the length of arm A got one part in 10^21 longer than the length of arm B, then when the sign reverses, it means that the length of arm B got one part in 10^21 longer than the length of arm A, but the average length of the arms should stay about the same, but one part in 10^21 difference means the lengths never changed much anyway. That's a tiny number.

posted on Sep, 4 2019 @ 09:44 AM
Well, I get to agree with Phage this time.

Gravitational waves are quite similar to water waves in a rushing river. Gravity is the current; gravitational waves are the ripples on the surface. One cannot reverse the current by increasing the size of the waves, nor can one harness the current to amplify the waves. The waves may be riding atop the current, but they do not affect the current. At best, they (slightly) affect the motion of individual particles of water when observed from the bank.

The measurements detected are indicative of gravitational waves, but are so tiny as to be moot for any purpose other than theoretical. This despite the fact that they were caused by the merger of two of the most massive objects in the universe. That is a testament to how tiny gravitational waves truly are.

I think people get confused by the purpose behind experiments such as this. Scientists do not develop new technologies. Scientists study phenomena and attempt to quantitatively describe them. Engineers, specifically research engineers, design and build applications of these quantified phenomena. As of yet, no one has found a use for gravitational waves; they are simply a tool for understanding other phenomena, a minor term in a much larger equation.


posted on Sep, 4 2019 @ 10:19 AM
a reply to: TheRedneck

i understand what interferometry is but a wave is still a wave.

look at the double slit experiment, if we could see the path of the light past the slit it would look exactly like the top of the pond where waves were created and cancel each other out.

i guess my question is. is there a true gravity wave in some sort of force/em spectrum? or are the waves created when they two BH's collided just a perturbation of spacetime? and that's why LIGO was able to detect them because it wasn't gravity stretching spacetime but rather just the perturbations of it(like a flag in the wind)

i could see 2 stellar objects spinning so fast and close that if gravity waves were a thing it might act like an accelerator for said waves and that's why we could pick up the distant wave distoons caused by the exclorated waves rippling spacetime. because the waves are acting on the fabric of spacetime not space time bouncing around from 2 heavy thing spinning and colliding

posted on Sep, 4 2019 @ 10:21 AM

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

A GAZER -gravity amplification.

You mean GASER?
Gamma Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation?

That is a really scary concept.

ask the contractors who died when we test fired something like that.(hell ufo people got a pic of it happening and it even fogged their 35mm film from a few miles and set their detectors off and even got a slight(very) case of rad poisoning

posted on Sep, 4 2019 @ 10:48 AM

originally posted by: penroc3
a reply to: TheRedneck

i understand what interferometry is but a wave is still a wave.

look at the double slit experiment, if we could see the path of the light past the slit it would look exactly like the top of the pond where waves were created and cancel each other out.

In that experiment what you see is lack of detection of water waves where the water waves cancel each other out.

Theoretically you could get a similar lack of detection of gravitational waves if multiple gravitational waves cancel each other out in an interference pattern.

But cancellation of gravitational waves is not cancellation of gravity, as suggested in your original question in the opening post. So gravity would still be there even in places where gravitational waves cancel. Gravitational waves are not gravity and gravity is not gravitational waves, something Bob Lazar doesn't seem to understand, as Phage mentioned.

posted on Sep, 4 2019 @ 12:03 PM

originally posted by: penroc3

A wave is a wave no?

The wave that LIGO measured was not gravity itself, but a disturbance of gravity. A wave/ripple in a pool of water is not the water itself, but a disturbance in that water.

Canceling out ripples of water only makes the ripples disappear -- not the water. The water is still there, but would be smooth and undisturbed (its normal state) where the ripples were canceled out.

Similarly, canceling out the disturbance that is the gravitational wave only cancels out the disturbance, not gravity itself. Gravity would still be there, but it would be smooth and undisturbed, its normal state.

posted on Sep, 4 2019 @ 05:26 PM
a reply to: penroc3

As Arbitrageur already stated, cancellation of the waves as in the double slit experiment would cancel the waves, not the gravity itself. With light waves, one is looking at a wave which is essentially centered at zero (darkness). If the wave cancels itself out, the result is zero, except the cancelled areas are not even totally dark; they still are still illuminated by any ambient light. With water waves, if they cancel each other out, the result is not zero... it is the surface of the water, which is the center of the waves.

So it is with gravity. The gravitational waves might cancel, but the overall gravity would still exist, just like when water waves cancel, the water under them still exists.


posted on Sep, 4 2019 @ 09:12 PM
I like me the idea!

“Bose gravity cancelling headphones” so to speak.

As pointed out, the “waves” might be cancelled but the attraction between masses is still there.

The thought might wander to another view of gravity: all particles interacting with all other particles.

That view is like atmospheric pressure in that it always there. But we can create artificial vacuum some even less denser than deep space. So, could an “particle pressure field shield” be created? That is the thought of a couple different ideas at overcoming gravity (as a force).

Unfortunately, you get all kinds of ideas on how to do that.

The latest is the “quanta vacuum” from the Navy patents guy. The same kind of idea is behind “swirling liquid mercury” around you, therefore delaying or deflecting “graviton” interaction. The Podelentkov (?? Sp) effect is kinda of the same but involves magnetism.

Seems “rotation” looks like a favorite line of investigation.

I think “field negation”, like your gravity Bose headphones, is more realistic.

Funny that gravity is measured as inverse distance but is keeping us firmly on the ground!

Keep these ideas/questions coming! It is fun to think a bit! Even if the consensus is not along your original line of thought!

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in