Missing gravitational waves lead to black hole rethink

October 21, 2015 by Chris Marr, Sciencenetwork Wa
Missing gravitational waves lead to black hole rethink

Human understanding of galaxies and black holes is being called into question after an 11-year search for mysterious gravitational waves—famously predicted by Albert Einstein 100 years ago—failed to find anything.

Australian researchers have spent more than a decade trying to detect a background 'rumble' from the by using CSIRO's Parkes telescope to observe a particular kind of neutron star known as a 'millisecond pulsar'.

A pulsar is a very small, dense, fast-spinning star that emits highly regular trains of radio pulses and acts like a clock in space.

The waves should come from the process of merging galaxies, during which the thought to be at the centre of large galaxies are drawn together to form an orbiting pair.

At this point, Einstein's general theory of relativity is expected to take hold, predicting the pair start a death spiral, sending ripples known as gravitational waves through space-time, the very fabric of the universe.

The fact that the search failed to locate any background 'rumble' from the waves is calling into question scientist's understanding of galaxy merges and black holes.

CSIRO and International Centre for Radio Astronomy Research scientist Dr Ryan Shannon says one possibility for the missing waves is that the two black holes never get close enough to create the waves, and never merge.

Another alternative is the opposite situation, whereby the two black holes may merge much faster than originally thought.

Missing gravitational waves lead to black hole rethink
CSIRO's parkes telescope. Credit: Tam

This could occur if there is gas surrounding them, creating friction and carrying away their energy quickly, leaving little time to create gravitational waves.

The scientists recorded the arrival times of the pulsar's signal to an accuracy of ten billionths of a second—100,000 times faster than the blink of an eye.

A gravitational wave passing between Earth and the pulsar known as J1909-3744 should squeeze and stretch space, changing the distance between them by about 10m.

This may be a tiny fraction of the pulsar's distance, but is enough to change the timing of the signals.

"Searching for gravitational waves is pushing the limits of our technology, and like the development of wi-fi was the response to the search for evaporating , who knows what new developments this research may lead to," Dr Shannon says.

This pulsar timing research is separate to work involving the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (Advanced LIGO) which searches for higher-frequency gravitational waves generated by other sources.

Explore further: Gravitational waves help understand black hole weight gain

Related Stories

Black holes don't make a big splash

November 7, 2013

(Phys.org) —Throughout our universe, tucked inside galaxies far, far away, giant black holes are pairing up and merging. As the massive bodies dance around each other in close embraces, they send out gravitational waves ...

Dense star clusters shown to be binary black hole factories

July 29, 2015

The coalescence of two black holes—a very violent and exotic event—is one of the most sought-after observations of modern astronomy. But, as these mergers emit no light of any kind, finding such elusive events has been ...

11-year cosmic search leads to black hole rethink

September 24, 2015

One hundred years since Einstein proposed gravitational waves as part of his general theory of relativity, an 11-year search performed with CSIRO's Parkes telescope has failed to detect them, casting doubt on our understanding ...

When black holes collide

September 29, 2015

Picture the scene: two gigantic black holes, each one a good fraction of the size of our Solar System spiralling around each other. Closer and closer they draw until they touch and merge into a single, even more gigantic ...

Recommended for you

China unveils 2020 Mars rover concept: report

August 24, 2016

China has unveiled illustrations of a Mars probe and rover it aims to send to the Red Planet at the end of the decade in a mission that faces "unprecedented" challenges, state media said on Wednesday.

Fossilized rivers suggest warm, wet ancient Mars

August 23, 2016

Extensive systems of fossilised riverbeds have been discovered on an ancient region of the Martian surface, supporting the idea that the now cold and dry Red Planet had a warm and wet climate about 4 billion years ago, according ...

Image: Planck's flame-filled view of the Polaris Flare

August 23, 2016

This image from ESA's Planck satellite appears to show something quite ethereal and fantastical: a sprite-like figure emerging from scorching flames and walking towards the left of the frame, its silhouette a blaze of warm-hued ...

122 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

indio007
2.9 / 5 (17) Oct 21, 2015
Up next "dark" gravity waves
Eikka
4.4 / 5 (17) Oct 21, 2015
"and like the development of wi-fi was the response to the search for evaporating black holes"


What?
bschott
2.6 / 5 (18) Oct 21, 2015
one possibility for the missing waves is that the two black holes never get close enough to create the waves, and never merge


The most "gravitationally attractive" bodies (according to mainstream theory) never get close enough to merge....why?

Another alternative is the opposite situation, whereby the two black holes may merge much faster than originally thought.


Yeah...there'd be no sign of this from the surrounding matter.....

Option #3 - there are no black holes as defined by current parameters and space is not a fabric as theorized but is a 3D volume as observed.

As a result, a 'force' which causes mass to be drawn to mass cannot manifest as anything which propagates outward. Or is this just too simple to be correct...despite observations?
axemaster
3.5 / 5 (14) Oct 21, 2015
What?


I think he was referencing the discovery of the cosmic microwave background, which was first detected by some guys testing a radio dish. But yeah, confusingly worded.

It will be a truly bizarre situation if we can't detect gravitational waves. They're a very fundamental prediction: we know that gravity spreads at the speed of light from various observations, such as the precession of Mercury. You get gravity waves simply by waving some matter back and forth. For them not to exist would be pretty much inconceivable.
docile
Oct 21, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
arom
2 / 5 (12) Oct 21, 2015
At this point, Einstein's general theory of relativity is expected to take hold, predicting the pair start a death spiral, sending ripples known as gravitational waves through space-time, the very fabric of the universe.


By the way it is quite difficult to visualize how gravitational waves could propagate through EMPTY space-time; maybe this mechanism could help to get it …
http://www.vacuum...=7〈=en
docile
Oct 21, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
SuperThunder
2.5 / 5 (13) Oct 21, 2015
Maybe something is sinking the waves, or maybe the instruments just aren't up to the task. Reminds me of the search for the Higgs Boson, if it's there they'll find it eventually, assuming civilization doesn't collapse first.

docile
Oct 21, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Oct 21, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
indio007
2.1 / 5 (15) Oct 21, 2015
we know that gravity spreads at the speed of light

Uhm we know the gravity's influence is at least 50 times the speed of light.
There are no retarded gravity calculations like there are for EM.
antialias_physorg
3.9 / 5 (15) Oct 21, 2015
It will be a truly bizarre situation if we can't detect gravitational waves. They're a very fundamental prediction: we know that gravity spreads at the speed of light from various observations, such as the precession of Mercury.


Maybe something is sinking the waves, or maybe the instruments just aren't up to the task.

That would be equivalent. Something 'sinking' the waves would mean another (inverse) warping of spacetime. Some symmetric effect that results in our apparatus being equally affected everywhere (i.e. no differential measurement shows up).

But from current theory I'd still bet on eventually finding gravity waves.
docile
Oct 21, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
eachus
1 / 5 (2) Oct 21, 2015
I keep wondering if the universe is on a (4d) brane and gravitational waves are not restricted to the brane. It would explain why the search for actual gravitational waves has come up empty, while it is possible to show that certain systems are radiating gravitational energy. (If GW propagated via an inverse cube law, or even higher power, detecting them would be much harder.)

docile
Oct 21, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Tuxford
1.9 / 5 (20) Oct 21, 2015
Missing gravitational waves lead to black hole rethink


Say it ain't so! Patch! Quick, we need another patch! Anybody??

Just for few more $Billion in the search is all we need..... We need a bigger hammer. That square peg is sure to fit, eventually!

Yea, ignore the observations and just keep pounding away. SQK has had the ready answer, for decades. And SQK is inline with observations for decades. But the fantasy lives on anyway.
docile
Oct 21, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
katesisco
2.1 / 5 (9) Oct 21, 2015
Our astronomical discoveries cover 90% of universe time and find that bh are the same size as now. That implies that the 10% we dont see is when they merge. Difficult to imagine and probably why we are indulging in rethink, Magnetic solitons are another story however. One suspects they are undergoing a morphing into gravity.
docile
Oct 21, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
bschott
2.4 / 5 (21) Oct 21, 2015
We need a bigger hammer. That square peg is sure to fit, eventually!

Yea, ignore the observations and just keep pounding away


My mental picture of the ending of this scenario is an army of completely exhausted people laying beside the hammer....with the peg laying beside it.

My hope is they wake up and realize it will NEVER fit.
docile
Oct 21, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Oct 21, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Oct 21, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Oct 21, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
axemaster
3.9 / 5 (24) Oct 21, 2015
Docile... no. First of all, Newtonian gravity has been known to be wrong for over a century now. There are many ways to tell that the speed of gravity is finite (the speed of light). Feel free to look up any of these:
- precession of Mercury
- spin down of pulsars, magnetars, other massive objects
- Gravity Probe B

All of these are direct tests of General Relativity, and they wouldn't work if the speed of gravity was infinite.

There is no delay hardwired - or the equation of this law would be much more complex immediately.

You're right, it is!

Newtonian mechanics (and Kepler's law) are at the low-speed, low-energy LIMIT of relativity. So they do ok in "our world". But they only work in a narrow range of cases - fundamentally, they are WRONG.
docile
Oct 21, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Oct 21, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Oct 21, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
my2cts
3.4 / 5 (10) Oct 21, 2015
@docile No data contradicts GRT so far. GRT predict gravitational waves with the speed of light in vacuum. I do not know of a theory that predicts a different speed or the absence of such waves, that is also in complete agreement with experiment. If you know such a theory please provide a link to a peer reviewed paper on this. A paper written by a lone genius of Einstein calibre will also do.
Ultron
3 / 5 (2) Oct 21, 2015
Some people here are not aware, that GR experiments are in line with two possibilities: Either there is almost instantaneous speed of gravity or the speed of gravity is the same as speed of light, but the objects with mass which are accelerating somehow miraculously know, where they will be in future and are attracting other objects to this future position, not the real time "retarded" position. This miraculous future knowledge is actually the current mainstream theory, despite nobody really knows how the object with mass is knowing his future "instantaneous" position, but it was never confirmed experimentally. It is rather a math trick to "avoid the horrors" of easier solutions which include faster than light speed of gravity and which were never ever experimentally excluded.
Recommended reading:
http://arxiv.org/...87v2.pdf
Manfred Particleboard
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 21, 2015
Just thought. But the problem lies within the Space Time curvature, literally. Gravity waves being generated at the bottom of the gravity well are subject to time contraction relative to a distant observer. Any wave that can make it out of the S T curvature will have it's amplitude and frequency diminished as it propagates. Like stirring dough, the immediate effects are pronounced but diminish rapidly.
docile
Oct 21, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Oct 21, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
axemaster
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 21, 2015
@docile
I suggest you do some reading before you claim that those experiments/observations were about the speed of light rather than gravity. Blindly sticking to your guns impresses nobody, especially here.

@Ultron
I am aware of the various pet models that reproduce general relativity while postulating weird stuff, like instantaneous gravity. Let me point out a few things:

1. It's always possible to conjure up a more complex model that behaves like a simpler model.

2. Theories that require knowledge of future events are automatically EXTREMELY dubious. In fact, it would take quite a while to lay out all the problems with this.

3. The Liénard–Wiechert potential, which your paper is based on, is valid only when some very specific and problematic boundary conditions are fulfilled.

4. Non-GR versions of gravity are NOT mainstream, not even close. They are interesting math problems, and can help in finding solutions - but they are not considered valid physical models.
docile
Oct 21, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Urgelt
2 / 5 (8) Oct 21, 2015
Problems like this make me want to put on my 'crank' hat. It's difficult to tolerate uncertainty over such a fundamental prediction by Einstein.

The first crank idea that comes to mind (for me, anyway) is that space somehow attenuates gravity waves traveling through it, for some unknown reason. But this unformed idea isn't only insufficient for lacking an explanation as to how gravity waves attenuate over distance. If gravity waves are generated and then attenuated by more than the inverse cube law, it would not explain our failure to see its purely local effects in light from pulsars, effects generated *before* attenuation.

eachus' suggestion that gravity waves emit in more than the three physical dimensions and therefore attenuate more rapidly suffers from the same problem - local pulsar light should show us influences from gravity waves *before* they attenuate. We aren't seeing it.

There's more going on with gravity than we have yet figured out, apparently.
axemaster
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 21, 2015
Problems like this make me want to put on my 'crank' hat. It's difficult to tolerate uncertainty over such a fundamental prediction by Einstein.

The first crank idea that comes to mind (for me, anyway) is that space somehow attenuates gravity waves traveling through it, for some unknown reason.

Frankly I agree with you. I still think gravity waves will be found and there'll be some annoying but in hindsight obvious explanation for all this. But if it really isn't there, I'd look in the direction of:

- Perhaps dark energy / dark matter are involved somehow? Dark energy is a negative gravity... thing. Perhaps it can produce shielding effects similar to those seen in E&M?
- Perhaps gravity waves produce a vacuum polarization effect, along the same lines as Hawking radiation? Though it's hard to imagine, given the extremely low energy density...
- Perhaps space somehow generates a sort of low pass filtering effect?

Perhaps perhaps perhaps...
axemaster
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 21, 2015
Another possibility that just occurred to me... perhaps the gravitational radiation is somehow being spread out over a wide band of frequencies. That way the total energy losses would be the same, but it would be basically undetectable, because there wouldn't be any sharp spectral peak to observe anymore.
docile
Oct 22, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Oct 22, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
NIPSZX
not rated yet Oct 22, 2015
About time
Ultron
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 22, 2015

@Ultron
2. Theories that require knowledge of future events are automatically EXTREMELY dubious. In fact, it would take quite a while to lay out all the problems with this.


It seems, that you dont understand the linked article. I completely agree, that theories that require knowledge of future events are automatically EXTREMELY dubious, but exactly this is implemented in mainstream interpretation of GR. If there would be only gravity with speed of light, it would not work due to the aberration, orbitals of planets and stars could not be stable. So it is solved with this "instantaneous" position prediction, which is mathematically perfect, but it was never confirmed by experiment.

Text from the linked article:
We have seen that the observed lack of aberration in gravitational interactions need not
imply an infinite propagation speed, but can be explained as the effect of velocity-dependent
terms in the interaction.
http://arxiv.org/...87v2.pdf
Urgelt
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 22, 2015
axemaster, no. You're doing the same thing that eachus and I did - trying to cook up ideas about gravity wave attenuation greater than the inverse cube law over distance, when clever astronomers are looking for evidence of gravity waves in electromagnetic radiation that we *know* obeys the inverse cube law. Think: if gravity waves are emanating from pulsars, then they should be affecting radio emissions that pass through that disturbed space close to the pulsar, before gravity waves can attenuate much. If Einstein was correct, we should be seeing it with the instrumental sensitivities we've achieved.

Even a crank like me (when my crank hat is on) can see that mumbling 'dark energy or something' and mystically waving our hands is no answer.

For Einstein to be wrong is not unprecedented. He warned us not to take entanglement seriously, but it's a very serious phenomenon. There are also aspects of Einstein's theories that have not been rigorously tested.
Urgelt
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 22, 2015
With my crank hat firmly in place, I'll suggest:

- SR's reciprocal time dilation, an important assumption which is ground into every observation of distant light, has not been demonstrated experimentally. Kipreos points out that if SR's time dilation should be directional, it's a do-over for all cosmological measurements. All of them. His back-of-the-envelope calculations of that do-over with respect to a sampling of Type 1a supernovae yields Einstein's Cosmological Constant, not an accelerating expanding universe. The only refutations of Kipreos from the physics community are irate assertions of dogma. The hole in experimental evidence remains.

- Einstein disallows a universal frame. But the universe has no difficulty keeping track of its many moving parts; it does not suffer from locational confusion. There *must* be a universal frame, a coordinate system that places all objects relative to all other objects.

I know, that's very damn cranky. I warned you.
viko_mx
2.7 / 5 (7) Oct 22, 2015
It is good that they were not looking for several decades to find forest fairies at the expense of state funding. There is progress indeed. Philosophers invent some imaginary phenomenon and then are searching for it existence in physical reality for decades to find it. And they are always a step away from the success. This is the way to maintain the spirit of discovery;) Sweet occupation for idlers.
Urgelt
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 22, 2015
And finally, gravity is mysterious. Einstein characterized it as warping spacetime, which entangles gravity with time, which is even more mysterious..

How does gravity bend light? I don't think this is a trivial question.

Here's an extra-cranky idea: gravity waves are time gradients. Basing our expectations on the idea that gravity waves are spatial gradients, we're looking for effects that aren't there.

That idea leads us to the equally-cranky idea that the reason light does not escape a black hole is time distortion.

Which doesn't explain gravitational lenses...

[Whips off his crank hat]

Crankery is like a hall of mirrors leading nowhere, heh.
viko_mx
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 22, 2015
The fundamental error in physics is accepted hypotesis that the properties of the vacuum of space are the same anywhere in the universe. But this is only a hypothesis that can not be verified. And therefore can not be true knowledge. This is the reason why the observations of astrophysicists are often at odds with the predictions made according to their theories.
antialias_physorg
3.4 / 5 (10) Oct 22, 2015
How does gravity bend light? I don't think this is a trivial question.

Gravity doesn't bend light. That's the whole point of Relativity. Einstein argues that the speed of light is constant (no matter the reference frame). A direct result of this is that light moves in a straight line. Always. And that if you see a 'curved ray of light' (without a medium change) then you are looking at warped spacetime.

(If a ray of light were bent by gravity in vacuum it would have to radiate stuff away as this would inidcate a change in the momentum (which is a vector quantity) - and by conservation of momentum something would have to give)
docile
Oct 22, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Oct 22, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Urgelt
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 22, 2015
Auntie wrote, "Einstein argues that the speed of light is constant (no matter the reference frame)."

In a vacuum, Auntie. What enables constancy in light's speed regardless of relative motion of emitter and observer is time dilation. What's interesting to me is that if you presume a universal frame (a dangerous heresy!), time dilation alone is enough to account for the speed of light's constancy. You don't need relativity's two-body frames at all.

"A direct result of this is that light moves in a straight line. Always."

I'm certainly not challenging *that.* Eh, when I use phrases like 'bend light,' I'm speaking as a grumpy layman who sometimes puts on a crank hat, not an expert who carefully choses his words. Sorry.

Gravitation lensing is real. Warped space-time is real. But we don't really understand what's going on. Warping 3 dimensions plus time requires more dimensions, doesn't it? Which raises all sorts of unanswered questions.
antialias_physorg
3.5 / 5 (11) Oct 22, 2015
In a vacuum, Auntie.

You're right. All what I wrote goes for 'no medium' (i.e. vacuum). I tried to get at that with the part of "no medium change" but forgot to stipulate that spacetime curvature is something Einstein argued for in a space without medium.

Warping 3 dimensions plus time requires more dimensions, doesn't it?

Not really. When we talk about an n-dimensional space we always put in the unspoken proviso that it's a flat/homogeneous space. But that isn't something that is required (it just makes any math you do in that space a lot easier).
You can do math/physics in logarithmic space which is a warped space without the need for any extra dimensions (and in some applications in EE you actually do).
Urgelt
1 / 5 (6) Oct 22, 2015
Auntie wrote, "You can do math/physics in logarithmic space which is a warped space without the need for any extra dimensions (and in some applications in EE you actually do)."

You can. But can you describe an unwarped spacetime and warped spacetime together without resorting to extra dimensions?

Honest question. Math, alas, and to my lasting shame, was never my strong suit.
docile
Oct 22, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
axemaster
3.4 / 5 (10) Oct 22, 2015
(If a ray of light were bent by gravity in vacuum it would have to radiate stuff away as this would inidcate a change in the momentum (which is a vector quantity) - and by conservation of momentum something would have to give)

Interesting, I hadn't thought about it in those terms before.

if the light is passing through a multiple slabs of different refraction index, it's energy also remains unchanged.

Yesss... but the vector returns to the original angle upon leaving the refractive material. So if you do something like space-alteredspace-space it'll just be returned to the way it started. It's sort of like setting up a thermocouple, if you've ever done that (weird analogy I know).

Also, docile is using sockpuppets to upvote himself. The accounts are named:
lajib
hewewa

Both accounts created 1 minute apart in June, both have no comments of their own, both heavily upvoting docile... *sigh* Reminds me of busting students for cheating at MIT, but dumber.
docile
Oct 22, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
axemaster
3.5 / 5 (11) Oct 22, 2015
So I think, these accounts are the same proponents of alternative physics, like another people here are supporters of school book physics.

Who both joined within 1 minute of each other, have never written any comments of their own, and always upvote you together, not one or the other. How stupid do you think we are?

These accounts can be also sockupuppets of my haters, who struggle to create an evasion for my banning from here. Did you never realize it?

Yeah, because you're so famous that people are creating alts just for you, and their plan is to upvote you... and then get you banned? Again, how stupid do you think we are?

Hey, does anyone know how to PM the moderator? I was amused at first, but frankly I'm now insulted. Maybe by banning this one we can reduce the tidal wave of BS on this forum a bit.
docile
Oct 22, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Oct 22, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Vietvet
3.9 / 5 (11) Oct 22, 2015


Hey, does anyone know how to PM the moderator? I was amused at first, but frankly I'm now insulted. Maybe by banning this one we can reduce the tidal wave of BS on this forum a bit.


Click on "Contact" at the bottom of the page.
axemaster
3.7 / 5 (12) Oct 22, 2015
OK, he's been reported. Thanks Vietvet!

God, did you realize, 43% of the comments on this article were from docile? Talk about quantity over quality. We'll need a fire hose to wash this place off once he's gone.
Captain Stumpy
3.8 / 5 (10) Oct 22, 2015
These accounts can be also sockupuppets of my haters
@zephirTROLL
problems:
1- then why have you repeatedly started posting from known sock puppets that you've historically denied were you, and were used to "up-rate" you and "down-rate" others? Docile is one of them, and you've posted from others outed in links i left earlier
- that is the stupidity of zeph and pseudoscience: you think no one is looking or that the internet forgets

2- you have a history of lying, delusional posting, non-evidence based argument and pseudoscience - that is not patient nor matter of fact explanation.
that is a religious fanaticism and delusional behaviour of narcissistic sociopaths

3- of the socks i have stored, most have been verified (either directly by you or by other means)

Captain Stumpy
3.8 / 5 (10) Oct 22, 2015
OK, he's been reported. Thanks Vietvet!
@Axe
1- i was told to always use the "site problems" as well as "feedback" (send twice) by a former MOD here in my PM, when it was active

2- if you contact me PM (sciforums.com or sapo's joint) i can provide you the latest list of socks

3- it is a temporary fix at best, as PO doesn't block anonymizers from logging in here: thus zeph will simply re-spawn and come back like the scourge she is (kinda like herpes, except you at least get to have a little fun when you contract herpes. with zeph, all you get is the BS and stupidity)

4- the mods don't seem to care because it feeds the ratings or pads the numbers allowing them to look more important to the advertisers paying the site, IMHO

antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (12) Oct 22, 2015
Again, how stupid do you think we are?

He thinks we're more stupid than he is. Which is a pretty good trick.

(yeah, I reported his 1-minute sockpuppets already, since he reactivated them a couple days ago for ballot stuffing. As well as two others that fit the pattern. I guess we should just hit report every time he posts - see if that at least will get a reaction. It contravenes the pseudoscience guidelines in any case when he posts, so a reports would be legit.)
antialias_physorg
3.9 / 5 (11) Oct 22, 2015
But can you describe an unwarped spacetime and warped spacetime together without resorting to extra dimensions?

Well, from imaging I know you can do nonrigid piecewise registration (which is a non-uniform transformation from on n-dimensional space to another n-dimensional space without resorting to extra dimensions.
If I think about holographic projections then it's possible to even reduce dimensions without losing content - so even if you would need one more dimension for the transform you could first go for a holographic reperesentation (using n-1 dimensions), then do the transform (using n-1+1 dimensions) and then retransform from holographic to n-dimensional space
antialias_physorg
3.9 / 5 (11) Oct 22, 2015
Oops..add "nielregen" to the bunch. The guy doesn't even know how deep the hole is he's diggin'

c'mon Zeph..let's flush 'em all out so all your sockpuppets can get banned at once.
Urgelt
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 22, 2015
Auntie, you're resorting to more than 3 physical dimensions + time, mathematically. It's slightly disingenuous to pretend that n-dimensional math is 3+1 dimensional math, isn't it?

3D holography projections from 2D spaces can't be described with 2D math.
axemaster
3.7 / 5 (12) Oct 22, 2015
And another one reveals itself... dqm

So now we have:
nielregen
dqm
lajib
hewewa

Wow. Who puts in so much effort to something so meaningless?
Benni
2.7 / 5 (12) Oct 22, 2015
Wow. Who puts in so much effort to something so meaningless?


Stumpy
SuperThunder
1.7 / 5 (9) Oct 22, 2015
Something 'sinking' the waves would mean another (inverse) warping of spacetime. Some symmetric effect that results in our apparatus being equally affected everywhere (i.e. no differential measurement shows up).


You're right, I spoke too hastily. What seemed at the time like a simple possibly, I now realize, shoves a whole new set of physics in the hole to try and explain it. Just promise if I ever go full on moon-howler, you'll have me put down humanely.
antialias_physorg
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 23, 2015
3D holography projections from 2D spaces can't be described with 2D math.

You could also look to CT reconstruction. The full information in a 3D volume is available in a set of 2D projections (which maps 3D onto 2D + series. I.e. it's a nonlinear 3D-3D projection if you take the distortion matrices into account...which are 3D matrices as well)

So I think you can do nonrigid transformations without resorting to extra dimensions. (And the double logarithmic paper used in EE is also a non-rigid transformation of a 2D space onto a 2D space)

Just promise if I ever go full on moon-howler, you'll have me put down humanely.

Well, the idea wasn't half bad. And there are just such ideas out there that are being seriously contemplated (google for "gravity wave brane" and you'll find a bunch of articles posted in serious journals that have models for missing (or at least different) gravity wave expectations)
Benni
2.5 / 5 (11) Oct 23, 2015
And another one reveals itself dqm
So now we have:
nielregen
dqm
lajib
hewewa
Wow. Who puts in so much effort to something so meaningless?


Axe, your sole complaint is that the upvotes by those about whom you are whining do not go to you. Never once have you voiced even a hint of displeasure with the name calling & generally foul mouthed content in the postings of the Stumpies, VietVets, etc. In fact you approve of them so long as you get their 5 Star.

What you are really complaining about is EVERYONE posting to Commentary at this site who do not give you their 5 Star. You post nothing that is any different than your twin ant_ phy, also someone who is nothing less than a pop-science poster seeking the #1 spot in the running of a Popularity Contest for the greatest number of Followers.

If you really are sincere in aiding the beneficial readership at this site, start complaining about those who are the most profuse with the name calling & foul mouthed profanity.
docile
Oct 23, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
3.8 / 5 (10) Oct 23, 2015
In dense aether model
@zephir et al
PSEUDOSCIENCE
debunked here: http://exphy.uni-...2009.pdf

.

Axe, your sole complaint is that the upvotes by those about whom you are whining do not go to you
@old windbagBenjiTROLL
no, he isn't.
he is complaining about trolls and their overwhelming narcissistic need for self validation because they can't actually produce any evidence for their claims (like you)

you tend to vilify anyone who posts simply because you assume intelligence of self that is NOT demonstrated (Dunning-Kruger effect)

why should anyone listen to you when you can't even prove you are proficient in the ODE's and PDE's you like to spout off about? this is called mental illness

http://www.dpa.st...h17.html
docile
Oct 23, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Oct 23, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
3.8 / 5 (10) Oct 23, 2015
@Stumpy:
@zephir and all your sock puppets
trying to justify a belief that is falsified is like trying to make [anyone] believe it is raining because you urinated into a fan and got yourself wet

we really can see you, and just because you are wet doesn't mean it is raining
read this link, specifically definition 4
to show or prove to be false; disprove: to falsify a theory
http://dictionary...alsified

you promote aw/daw
aw/daw is falsified here: http://exphy.uni-...2009.pdf

i follow the evidence
evidence demonstrates you promote a falsified belief, not evidence based science
thus, by logical extrapolation, you are promoting pseudoscience in a fanatical religious manner
http://www.dpa.st...h17.html
Benni
2.4 / 5 (14) Oct 23, 2015
@Axemaster, Re;Stumpy

So, tell us you are proud to have the above consistently giving you 5 Stars. Not one word of science content from him, but all the while complaining about others who fail to do the same.
zaxxon451
5 / 5 (3) Oct 24, 2015
"And even when the apparatus exists, novelty ordinarily emerges only for the man who, knowing with precision what he should expect, is able to recognize that something has gone wrong."
― T. Kuhn

Perhaps underlying assumptions need to be reevaluated? A new paradigm awaits.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (14) Oct 24, 2015
@Axemaster,
@Axemaster, Re;Stumpy

So, tell us you are proud to have the above consistently giving you 5 Stars. Not one word of science content from him, but all the while complaining about others who fail to do the same.


I noted your 1 Star vote against my proposal for the cleanup of the name calling & the foul mouthed vulgarities of your loyal 5 Star entourage. It seems to explain why you would pick a sign-on handle of "Axemaster".

Let's examine this & compare "Axemaster" to "Docile".

axe: a formidable device used to inflict devastating unalterable damage to the target.
master: expert use of whatever is implied within the context of the object.

docile: pliant, dutiful, deferential, unassertive, cooperative, amenable, accommodating, biddable, malleable.

Comparing the sign-on handles to one another, it is readily apparent why you do not object to the incessant name calling & foul mouthed vulgarities of your Followers. It's the dark world you live in.

docile
Oct 24, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (12) Oct 24, 2015
pliant, dutiful, deferential, unassertive, cooperative, amenable, accommodating, biddable, malleable
Huh? I'm just Illuminati snake planning world-wide aether based ideology and hard-line single-man government. Axemaster/Stumpy are in aggressively-defensive position, because they're desperately trying to save the human civilization. Against it.


........exactly right docile. All I'm intending to do is compare your demeanor to that of those posting among us who are the most hateful & foul mouthed as evidenced by their language skills versus their "comprehension" of science & math. I probably disagree with 75% of the material you post, but I don't hold that against your demeanor & character, I respect that.

my2cts
3.8 / 5 (10) Oct 24, 2015
@Banny
Stumpy is usual freloader of the system. Thats why his high rating is garateed. If it shows a finger as argument, again will have a higher rating than you. Just a ansient Roman system. In this vain system, the less you think, the higher the rating you have in the name of political correctness .But do not worry. The truth is not determined by consensus. Let them to feed ego. You feed your soul from the spring of the living water.


So you two are now soul mates. Indeed you have a lot in common: both of you produce a tsunami of meaningless dribble.
axemaster
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 24, 2015
OK, now the list of identified alts (found involved in this thread alone) has grown to:

nielregen
DQM
lajib
hewewa
tooty
pluton
bizovuw

However, it seems that the real number of docile/zephyr alts is actually far higher, as evidenced from looking at the activity in some other threads. So high, in fact, that it's probably unmanagable. I'll ask the mods if an IP ban is possible.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (12) Oct 24, 2015
OK, now the list of identified alts (found involved in this thread alone) has grown to:

nielregen
DQM
lajib
hewewa
tooty
pluton
bizovuw

However, it seems that the real number of docile/zephyr alts is actually far higher, as evidenced from looking at the activity in some other threads. So high, in fact, that it's probably unmanagable. I'll ask the mods if an IP ban is possible.


.........next you can get started on your following of the name calling & vulgar foul mouthed indigents who consistently upvote you. You make it so obvious, the quality of the science content here is not what you seek, you seek only a personal selfish egotistical agenda simply because you want this site to be a popularity contest for your own self interests.
my2cts
3.4 / 5 (10) Oct 24, 2015
@ren82
It is a social not a personal thing.
You are part of a community of that all parrot the same quatsch.
"maybe ..." Are you insulting me, ren? Jesus hates it when you do that! You'll go straight to hell.
"Where there are strong emotions, the reason is deficit."
You are a bad psychologist. Concentrate on what you are good at. What is that, ren?
Benni
2.6 / 5 (10) Oct 24, 2015
@Axe,

Something that dawned on me when you mentioned a few posts above about having "students at MIT". I remembered who you were from the time I checked you out at MIT & discovered you were a non-tenured physics instructor teaching a 1st semester Physics course, a glorified Kinematics course as far as Physics goes.

So now it appears now you are seeking to extend your captive audience beyond your former classroom to phy.org.......... Are you really so cheap that you can't just start up a blog or website of your own to get a new captive audience? Do that & you won't find it so necessary to endure the arduous effort to cleanse somebody else's website to the liking of the foulmouthed Stumpy crowd that lives here.

Returners
2 / 5 (4) Oct 24, 2015
@docile No data contradicts GRT so far. GRT predict gravitational waves with the speed of light in vacuum. I do not know of a theory that predicts a different speed or the absence of such waves, that is also in complete agreement with experiment. If you know such a theory please provide a link to a peer reviewed paper on this. A paper written by a lone genius of Einstein calibre will also do.


fool.

If Einstein was wrong, then he wasn't a genius.

he was just an idiot crank.
my2cts
3.8 / 5 (10) Oct 24, 2015
Thе science is not your strong side. It would be nice to learn to respect different opinion. So make mighty people. Accept the facts as they are, even when they do not like this facts. Nobility is the mark of a free man and a strong character. The real man. It is not inherited. It is build. You can work on it.

What are you talking about ?
Returners
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 24, 2015
Nobody gives a damn about "peer review" in this hostile environment.

Majority review from morons* who automatically reject anything challenging the prevailing theory is useless, after all.

*such as the physics professors who host physics web sites.

I've literally proven that the Lorentz transformation cannot be correct for the high end of the curve, which is hilarious because that's exactly what it's supposed to be predicting.

I have offered at least 3 irrefutable proofs that both SR and GR are definitely wrong, and for that I get banned from physics sites.

The Prism example proves that SR cannot, under any circumstances, be correct.

it's just flat out wrong, and isn't even close to being correct, and since GR uses mostly the same math and postulates...it has to be wrong too.
Returners
2 / 5 (4) Oct 24, 2015
It's worse than you think though.

If there is even the slightest thing wrong with GR (and there definitely is,) then Everything, EVERYTHING they think they are measuring past at most a few thousand light years is WRONG, and they can't even grasp that FACT. That's a FACT.

Why?

Because astronomy currently relies on multiple self-referential axioms and postulates related to and derived from SR and GR.

they can't wipe their own ass if there's anything wrong with SR and GR, and we KNOW there definitely is something wrong with it.

The only people who refuse to admit that are astronomers and idiots like you who believe everything you read in a book.
my2cts
3.7 / 5 (9) Oct 24, 2015
Thе science is not your strong side. It would be nice to learn to respect different opinion. So make mighty people. Accept the facts as they are, even when they do not like this facts. Nobility is the mark of a free man and a strong character. The real man. It is not inherited. It is build. You can work on it.

Boring. Transparent. Go away.
Returners
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 24, 2015
Let's pretend, PRETEND GR was true for a half-moment.

They don't even get the fact "stellar-mass" binary black hole systems would be extremely unlikely to form; which ever star turns into a black hole first is going to destabilize the other star's orbit during the first Supernova...

The two most likely outcomes are:

Second star gains or loses mass, and gets nailed by a couple stellar masses worth of ejecta moving ~1500km/s....this will cause the second star to be PUSHED AWAY FROM THE BLACK HOLE, and moreover the first star originally had more mass than the black hole has after the SN, meaning the gravity of the black hole is actually much lower than the parent star. Therefore the second star is now moving to fast to be held by gravity, and will escape on a hyperbolic orbit to infinity.

In the rare case where the above does not happen, the most likely result is a highly elliptical orbit and the black hole gradually eats the other star's atmosphere on close approaches.
Returners
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 24, 2015
cont...

As the black hole eats the atmosphere of the 2nd star, their angular momenta is exchanged, which causes them to orbit closer and closer, but there is no "black hole merger". The black hole simply eats the entire mass of the other star faster and faster, but still "gradually" in terms of any observable event-like time, and continually, as they draw closer together.

Returners
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 24, 2015
The sad ting is the GR theorists do not even understand their own damned theory.

I have explained this shit to people countless times and they still don't get it, and it's pretty damn simple to understand.

A black hole is ALWAYS much less massive than the parent star that created it.

This means that it's binary companion almost always escapes during the explosion.

It's not a difficult concept to understand.

If the Sun's mass suddenly dropped to about 1/3rd, another 1/3rd "disappeared" as radiation, and another 1/3rd blew away from the star at 1500km/s, it would blow the planets out of orbit....even if the core somehow instantly became a black hole.

Even if you ignore the 2/3rd's of the mass (the explosion) and just look at the 1/3rd remaining,....the force of gravity is reduced to 1/3rd and all the planets go flying away on hyperbolic orbits....yay....so easy.
Returners
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 24, 2015
1 / 5 (1)


Exactly.

Stay in darkness, idiots.

I hope to God you fools never figure this out.

It would serve you right.
Returners
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 24, 2015
How Astrophysicists think about black hole mergers:

"Let's put two black holes really, really close to one another in a computer simulation and see what happens." - Leading Ph.D. physicist.

How realists think about black hole non-mergers:

"Let's put two ~30M stars, one slightly more massive than the other, in a super computer simulation and watch one of them blow up and turn into a black hole and see what happens, and whether the other one escapes orbit, or whether it magically turns into a black hole and magically falls into the much less massive other star, against inertia without sufficient gravity, etc..." - Me, Wade Smith, 39331 Rosaryville Rd. Ponchatoula, La 70454.

Give me my damn Nobel NOW fools.

You idiots owe me at least 2 or 3 of them by now anyway.
Returners
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 24, 2015
Now here's he kicker.

You're wrong anyway, cuz in "galaxy" mergers it must be happening anyway and there still aren't any gravitational waves being detected by you loons.

Revoke Einstein's Nobel, and give it to me. I clearly deserve it more than him.

I was way, way ahead of you blokes on this. I've been explaining this stuff to people since before your little experiment even started, and it took all this time for you guys to finally even catch on.

So sad.

Ya'll are wrong on BOTH counts.

Ya'll can't even get it half-right, and that's all you get paid to do.

That's pathetic.
24volts
5 / 5 (2) Oct 24, 2015
I don't think scientists are ever going to be able to measure a gravity wave until we can get within a light year or less of something massive happening. I still think gravity is nothing more than the displacement stress on space time caused by the energy that makes up matter. The more matter/energy the greater the displacement and so the greater the gravity. I don't think scientist are going to be able to measure it because it's not a force like electricity or light. It doesn't travel through space, it IS space and so like in any other medium any disturbance is eventually absorbed by the fabric/fluid what ever you want to call it that actually makes up space itself. OK, you can all laugh now but my explanation makes as much sense as most others I've seen.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (6) Oct 24, 2015
However, it seems that the real number of docile/zephyr alts is actually far higher,

Yeah. CaptainStumpy has a complete(r) list. It's ridiculously huge (about 100 names, and some of the ones I suspect aren't even on there. ).
my2cts
3.2 / 5 (9) Oct 24, 2015
I don't think scientists are ever going to be able to measure a gravity wave

Then how do you explain that we can measure quasi static gravity at all ?
According to SR nothing travels faster than light, so SR already implies gravitational waves.
These should be detectible just like quasi static gravity is.
my2cts
3.2 / 5 (9) Oct 24, 2015
@Returners
You have a full blown psychiatric disorder, like I have told you before. You are a patient.
Returners
1.8 / 5 (6) Oct 24, 2015
@Returners
You have a full blown psychiatric disorder, like I have told you before. You are a patient.


"Poisoning the Well" is a logical fallacy.

Depression, anxiety and a little OCD (possibly) doesn't change the fact that I have absolutely disproven SR and GR.

Yall don't even know what to look for.

24volts, the crank above, is actually closer to the truth than the cranks who are currently looking for Gravitational waves.

As I have said in the past, even if the waves did exist, they would deplete into infrared via heat waste from internal friction of the background media of space-time (assuming space-time is in fact a fabric as the crank Einstein alleged).

So even if they did exist, none of you people are even remotely looking for them in the right way.

Even if they did exist, the only thing that's going to be observable from Earth is going to be some IR radiation, which will be an insignificant fraction of the total energy of the system.
Returners
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 24, 2015
I even explained how to look for the IR radiation...but you cranks didn't believe me.

It will be emanating from empty space itself surrounding the extreme object in question, if the gravitational waves exist at all. If the gravitational waves do not exist, you'll observe nothing either way...

You'll most likely need a telescope a lot stronger than the planned James Webb telescope though, because you need EXTREMELY high resolution and precision to sort out this diffuse IR radiation from the other forms of IR radiation coming from the system and surrounding dust, etc.

But you cranks couldn't figure that out, and can't possibly fathom that someone on the other side of the internet understands this better than you or your false idol Einstein.
Manfred Particleboard
2 / 5 (3) Oct 24, 2015
@24V That's pretty much my take on it too. See above in prior post.
It doesn't need exotic physics explanations like brane space or symmetry breaking; it may be as simple as gravity damps gravity waves. And besides, EM waves will travel through the distortions of space time, speeding up and slowing down through the 'waves', but will overall, take the same amount of time as traveling across 'flat' spacetime. The wavelength of the waves would be far too long for anything we can build to detect variations in the local ST. Fly some entangled particles out to the edge of the solar system and see if we can do something to them to make the waves show up?
vidyunmaya
1 / 5 (4) Oct 24, 2015
sub; Turn-around- Think-tanks- Wisdom
The concepts are obviously wrong.
plasma Regulated Electro-magnetic phenomena in magnetic field Environment- Inputs to milky-Way galactic frame- Space Cosmology Vedas interlinks help in time
http://archive.or...osmology
https://www.scrib...-NANDURI
http://www.lulu.c...039.html
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Oct 24, 2015
@sorry everyone, i just gotta do it!

Hey @ returners
Give me my damn Nobel NOW fools.
Revoke Einstein's Nobel, and give it to me. I clearly deserve it more than him
there is no "nobel" in the special Olympics
however, if you are willing to get out and run, we could ask nicely at the next events if you can participate. i feel we can justify your involvement by simply linking your posts from PO... and everyone there gets a big HUG and medal for every event!

anyone else care to help get wade "returners" smith in the next Special Olympics?
check the list below and see!
http://www.dpa.st...h17.html

Hey wade... did you get a job yet? i did call and ask them to do a health and welfare check on you when you went off the deep end last time... do i need to do it again?

let us know, man!
we worry when you rant like that
especially considering your history
AZWarrior
2.5 / 5 (2) Oct 24, 2015
Been following the unproductive hunt for gravity waves for a while and although I don't have the theoretical and mathematical abilities to pursue it, I can't help but wonder if the gravitational effects of the wave would not also cause time compression/dilation which might cancel the measurement change as the measurement is essentially motion over time.
TopCat22
not rated yet Oct 25, 2015
CSIRO and International Centre for Radio Astronomy Research scientist Dr Ryan Shannon says one possibility for the missing waves is that the two black holes never get close enough to create the waves, and never merge.

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp

Of course not! It's because of Time Dilation....

The two black holes don't speed up relative to us as they get closer in the orbits. Because of time dilation we see them slowing down as they get closer together till as some point we would see them freezing in time.

As far as the black holes are concerned they do speed up relative to each other and make gravitational waves but we would never see that in our time line and their gravitational waves would probably stay inside the event horizon and never get out.

Reg Mundy
3 / 5 (6) Oct 25, 2015
@Returners
I was way, way ahead of you blokes on this. I've been explaining this stuff to people since before your little experiment even started, and it took all this time for you guys to finally even catch on.

Yeah, right| I was there before you were born, smartass!
There ain't no gravity, therefore NO gravity waves, dark matter, dark energy, etc.
It's all subjective due to universal expansion. I've been explaining this for many years with irrefutable logic, and NO ONE has been able to fault my argument.
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Oct 25, 2015
Sounds much like expected results if you are sane!
Tri-ring
not rated yet Oct 26, 2015
I believe dark matter which is attracted to gravity is absorbing the gravitational fluctuation. It's like a water tank filled with light styrol beads and water. Water is the three spacial dimensions and the styrol beads are dark matter. With too much styrol within the tank no matter how hard you try you can't create a wave since the styrol is in the way for the water to flow freely to create a wave.
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 26, 2015
I believe dark matter which is attracted to gravity is absorbing the gravitational fluctuation.

If it did it wouldn't lens. Lensing is observed.
Ultron
4 / 5 (4) Oct 26, 2015
Some posts are focusing on Zephir. He is really dedicated and he is trolling various physics forums for years.
Some discussion about him:
https://www.reddi..._zephir/
Here you can see his photo, not sure if its real:
http://petrik.big...rie.html
docile
Oct 26, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Oct 26, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Oct 26, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
encoded
1 / 5 (1) Oct 26, 2015
Re: Big Bang What would be the universe's schwarzschild radius ? Wouldn't this be the smallest possible size of the Universe, instead of an Infinitely small singularity?
docile
Oct 26, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Oct 26, 2015
I've been explaining this for many years with irrefutable logic, and NO ONE has been able to fault my argument
@reg
1- you wrote a book because you couldn't pass peer review or get published in a reputable journal

2- you have a delusional hypothesis that is based upon your belief, not physical or other evidence

3- almost everyone has refuted your argument using basic physics: see this thread for just one of the many debunkings of your "book"/beliefs
http://phys.org/n...ong.html

and what to typical physicists think of your "book"?
Mundy retreated into philosophical drivel
At that point, it is best to establish the incompetence of the individual and let that speak for itself.
or
no peer review,maths and no reality = PSEUDOSCIENCE
or
there was nothing with any substance that was plausible, so there was nothing to refute because there was word salad and whiny life story followed by graphs that explained nothing
2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Oct 26, 2015
@reg cont'd
due to universal expansion
first off, your expansion is also mass based, per your own words (see above link) and secondly: this is debunked with simple observation, as noted here
he has never been able to explain orbits, fusion, the mass-centric expansion which would show a proportional difference within our scope of observation proving or disproving his philosophy, or a myriad of other things.
Ask him if he can provide anything other than "read my book" or "I can't post graphs here" (which only reinforces that he does NOT know what he is talking about)
you've had plenty of time to get those graphs on-line and water-mark/add copyright info to it.

where is that?
as formerly noted: your book contains a whiny life story and doesn't explain anything

continuing to promote a falsified belief is signs of delusion or fanatical religious belief in something, in this case, your book/idea

in short: you have no reputable evidence at all
Mike_Massen
2.7 / 5 (7) Oct 26, 2015
Reg Mundy claims
There ain't no gravity, therefore NO gravity waves, dark matter, dark energy, etc.
It's all subjective due to universal expansion
Prove it !

Gravity easily measured. Besides you have never explained your interpretation of "universal expansion" & especially how any mass brought to any other mass can & does result in change in momentum Eg as all spacecraft have proven Eg Orbit, change of trajectory etc

Eg "universal expansion" essentials ?

You haven't explained ANY detail Eg How it accommodates attractive force only when mass brought together - NO maths !

You haven't got a grip of calculus & limits to understand escape velocity *doesnt* mean masses will come back in an infinite time, limits are high school stuff !

Reg Mundy claims
I've been explaining this for many years with irrefutable logic..
No !

Your 'logic' is mere rationalisation/claim. You have NO maths, I & others reminded you OFTEN !

Learn Maths & especially so. Limits !

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.