Astronomers Strike Gravitational Gold In Colliding Neutron Stars

a reply to: ErosA433

instead produces a spiral shape space time ripple (projecting a 4D vector into a 3D space, like the classic, spacetime as presented as a flat canvas with a dip in the middle from a star)

That was interesting. The 'well' shown in diagrams that makes an object speed up thru close passes isn't from 4D land. Thats a whole different ball park.

Okay forget that for now...

That is what the model suggests, the wave in this manner is only possible if gravity effects space-time, AT the speed of light. If Gravity was instantaneous at all points, producing the effect observed simply would be impossible as the spiral would not at all propagate.

The evidence here points at the passage of gravitational potential as travelling at the speed of light.

Or the model is wrong. What about the suggestion that , in an empty universe, two atoms placed at opposite ends of the universe, motionless relative to each other, will slowly begin to come together? Doesn't that suggest instant gravity at any range? How then can gravity move at the speed of light?

Or did i Misunderstand the question about two atoms?

a reply to: intrptr

What people either fail to realize, or simply aren't pointing out, is that if gravity is a transverse wave, traveling at the speed of light, then gravity is not gravity, its electromagnetic radiation. The speed of light is a rate of induction within a medium. I'm pretty sure that if electromagnetic radiation aka light had attractive properties, it would have been discovered decades ago in a laboratory.

I dont think LIGO and Virgo understand their own observations. Cuz their basically saying gravity is light and "gravitons" are photons.

a reply to: CreationBro

Thanks for the excellent synopsis.
You really consolidated the complexity of this down to something so many will now understand!

Here's another contradiction. The first detection of alleged gravity waves came from two colliding black holes. Black holes have gravitational fields so strong that not even light can escape (according to relativity).

So if gravity moves at the speed of light, how can it escape the event horizon of the merging black holes to be detected?

...

a reply to: intrptr

I am talking '4D' land and you throw it out without actually knowing what i meant (as evident by your response) I am talking 4D in terms of 3 Spacial dimensions, and the 1 dimension extra for the well potential. Im trying to get you to have a vision of it in your mind as a concept.


The thought experiment is a good one, but that too is impossible to prove and impossible to stipulate because...

1) The universe is not empty
2) Oposite ends... is sort of ambiguous, if you mean great separation, fine
3) The two atoms must pop into existence and not have existed before starting the operation.

So yeah hard to test.

Lets define the experiment better
-The 'atoms' are just as test masses with zero net charge.
-The 'Universe' is as our own, but it is static, that is, not expanding

The outcome of such a experiment would be one of two things
1) The two test mass would, at the moment of creation, begin to move toward each other, this would show that gravitation propagates in an instantaneous manner
2) The two test mass would not move until a time has passed that is equal to d/c where d is the separation of the masses and c is the speed of light.

It is a thought experiment with two outcomes that depend upon the property of gravity. What evidence suggests, is that gravity propagates at the speed of light...

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

if gravity is a transverse wave, traveling at the speed of light, then gravity is not gravity, its electromagnetic radiation.

Except how can it be classified as 'radiation' if it attracts objects? How do we classify magnetism or 'surface tension', like demonstrated aboard the ISS?

I'm pretty sure that if electromagnetic radiation aka light had attractive properties, it would have been discovered decades ago in a laboratory.

Agreed.

I dont think LIGO and Virgo understand their own observations. Cuz their basically saying gravity is light and "gravitons" are photons.

If it moves at the speed of light then yes, whatever they detected has to be some misunderstood phenom, in the "electromagnetic spectrum".

We misunderstand gravity and how it works because we can't classify it. We can utilize it, send probes to outer planets by gravity assist, but we don't understand it.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Light created outside of the event horizon, with a vector away from the event horizon will escape, the gravitational potential is a property of the space around the object, it is free to propagate away. There is no contradiction.

a reply to: ErosA433

I am talking 4D in terms of 3 Spacial dimensions, and the 1 dimension extra for the well potential. Im trying to get you to have a vision of it in your mind as a concept.

Then don't use the term fourth dimension. Although upon deeper consideration, 4D land is everywhere and every when at once. What are the effects of gravity, how far reaching is a massive black hole's 'reach' ? But forget that...

The two test mass would, at the moment of creation, begin to move toward each other, this would show that gravitation propagates in an instantaneous manner...

The Expanding Universe may condense again, due to this, theoretically speaking, right?

It is a thought experiment with two outcomes that depend upon the property of gravity. What evidence suggests, is that gravity propagates at the speed of light...

If gravity is 'instantaneous' then it behaves more like a field, no? Like the magnetic field around a motor or the earth?

Turn off the motor the field disappears, turn it on, its back. Since this field attracts matter to each other, then its hard to explain the propagation at light speed when we consider the number of stars in an average galaxy spinning about the core singularity. Doesn't make sense that the propagation outward of gravity (at the speed of light) is 'pulling' matter towards it.

Nothing else in the electromagnetic spectrum behaves this way.

Probably why Einstein tore his hair trying to 'see' a grand unified field theory. My only take on that is that the weak, strong, magnetic and gravimetric 'fields' are the same thing, just on different scales.


eeeehaw!

originally posted by: ErosA433
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Light created outside of the event horizon, with a vector away from the event horizon will escape, the gravitational potential is a property of the space around the object, it is free to propagate away. There is no contradiction.

Except the mass contained within the black hole is contained. How can its gravity have influence over a whole galaxy of stars if gravity behaves like light?

a reply to: intrptr

Gravity and light may propagate at the same speed but gravity has no relativistic mass so it can radiate unimpeded which goes against the notion of gravity being carried by any form of particle.

A question for the astro-physicists among us:
2 massive chunks of matter colliding violently would result in a lot of activity at the nuclear level. Would the detected 'wave' or fluctuation in detected gravity be related to the volume of matter instantly converted to energy? IE less mass = less gravity and the ejected matter is also dispersed adding to the change in the local gravity well, sufficient to be detected at a vast distance.

a reply to: Pilgrum

Gravity and light may propagate at the same speed but gravity has no relativistic mass so it can radiate unimpeded which goes against the notion of gravity being carried by any form of particle.

Then how can it travel in Waves? For instance, a tsunami moves thru the water column, it is energy transferred thru a media of particles. The wave itself we see is not the actual energy, it the effect of energy on the dense structure of water. A wave of energy can't rightly be a 'field' at the same time. A magnetic field has energy too, but is not (as far as we know) composed of particles. It doesn't travel at the sped of light, either.

All waves are comprised of particles, or energy moving thru a medium of particles.

EA: Also gravity is stronger at the source, whereas a photon of light is a photon, the same. These gravity waves should decline over distance, shouldn't they?

a reply to: intrptr

The 'wave' we're talking about here is a variation in strength of the detected force. Somewhat like the the way we employ radio waves (electromagnetic modulation) which do propagate at light speed.

If gravity is uniformly spherically radiated then the inverse square law applies. All we detected here was a tiny 'blip' in the intensity that would have gone unnoticed without extremely sensitive equipment but the mass orbiting those neutron stars was likely flung out of orbit by the local gravity glitch.

a reply to: Pilgrum

The 'wave' we're talking about here is a variation in strength of the detected force. Somewhat like the the way we employ radio waves (electromagnetic modulation) which do propagate at light speed.

"Somewhat" like particles then? "Like", photons or gravitons? Somewhat is open ended.

Still don't know if gravity 'waves' move thru a medium or are a wave of particles unto themselves.

As I understand the 'slight ripple' detected occurred in the earth, reducing the distance between the laser and the mirror, changing the return time slightly, just enough to measure by very precise laser interferometry instruments.

a reply to: intrptr

I just confronted LIGO with these questions on twitter. They say a moving dipole creates EM radiation, so they ASSume a moving quadrupolar mass creates gravitational waves. They're treating gravity as a form of radiation. It makes no sense, but I can see why they came to that conclusion. They think its logical symmetry.

But in reality, a dipole has an expanded magnetic field. A quadrupole, which has two canceling dipoles have a collapsed magnetic field (magnetic attraction is really destructive interference between poles). So if a moving dipole causes EM waves, then a moving quadrupole should produce anti-EM waves. We know that Photons are their own anti-particles, so anti-light is still light.

I maintain that LIGO is misinterpreting their own observations, else they would realize that their findings just unified Gravity with Electromagnetism.

a reply to: ErosA433

You're basically saying that gravity behaves like light when its convenient to do so. I don't think so.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

They say a moving dipole creates EM radiation, so they ASSume a moving quadrupolar mass creates gravitational waves.

Assume is right. I'm still wondering how they know it was two neutron stars colliding? Let alone how poles interact during a 'merger'. Unless they were predetermining 'results' that fit a model. A simulation model.

I maintain that LIGO is misinterpreting their own observations, else they would realize that their findings just unified Gravity with Electromagnetism.

Smart analysis.

a reply to: intrptr

I find it somewhat amusing that the two of you basically claim to know better than a whole team of scientists... and yet neither of you have demonstrated knowledge at the depth of what is required to even start criticizing their reasoning.

It really is quite strange... that or i guess business as usual from this kind of place where confidence in ignorance is more important than actual information... despite the motto being deny ignorance.

Neither of you, in your statements or replies to me have shown an ounce of knowledge more than what can be taken from a quick skim read of popular science.

So, if you guys maintain they are interpreting their observations, write a paper about it, tell them why.
My position is the following... "I don't understand it, it doesn't fit my world view, thus it is wrong"

a reply to: ErosA433

Glad dissenting opinions amuse you. It would be more constructive if you continued to address the apparent contradictions...since you are the one with the more formal education. Have you ever stopped to consider the possibility that maybe physics just isn't nearly as complicated as the Copenhagen Model makes it out to be? Maybe its you're perspective that's wrong.

Be amused all you want. I'll state my opinions as I see fit.

a reply to: ErosA433

It really is quite strange... that or i guess business as usual from this kind of place where confidence in ignorance is more important than actual information... despite the motto being deny ignorance.

Instead of scolding us teacher, direct your comments to showing our errors...

You may not realize this, but of the posters here, I know you are more qualified and knowledgeable to speak on it... just haven't shown my respect so far. I'm not kissing your butt either.

Besides that though, the big discoveries come from thinking outside accepted convention, usually by amateurs.

Back on topic, you have yet to address several question I have brought...?

How do they know it was two neutron stars?

How can gravity (if a field) travel in waves?

If part of the EM spectrum and behaving like light how can gravity, as an emission source, attract objects together?

Thanks by the way for addressing the thought experiment about two atoms connected by gravity so far apart. You didn't reach the same conclusion about that though.

a reply to: ErosA433

One last comment for your amusement. Oliver Heaviside taught himself everything he needed to know to make his achievements. He went against the standard model of his day, and proved some of it wrong. You may have the formal education, but we can still debate basic principles of field theory without the need for complicated math or your condescending attitude. The day that field theory cannot be broken down into basic principle is the day that we know we've got something wrong. I think that days is today.