11-year cosmic search leads to black hole rethink

September 24, 2015, CSIRO
A simulation of black holes merging. Credit: Michael Koppitz

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 of galaxies and black holes.

For scientists gravitational waves exert a powerful appeal, as it is believed they carry information allowing us to look back into the very beginnings of the Universe. Although there is strong circumstantial evidence for their existence, they have not yet been directly detected.

Using the high-precision Parkes telescope scientists spent 11 years looking for the existence of gravitational waves, but have detected nothing.

The work, led by Dr Ryan Shannon (of CSIRO and the International Centre for Radio Astronomy Research), is published today in the journal Science.

Using Parkes, the scientists expected to detect a background 'rumble' of the waves, coming from the merging galaxies throughout the Universe.

"But we heard nothing. Not even a whimper," Dr Shannon said.

"It seems to be all quiet on the cosmic front—at least for the kind of waves we are looking for."

Galaxies grow by merging and every large one is thought to have a at its heart. When two galaxies unite, the are drawn together and form an orbiting pair. At this point, Einstein's theory is expected to take hold, with the pair predicted to succumb to a death spiral, sending ripples known as gravitational waves through space-time, the very fabric of the Universe.

Although Einstein's general theory of relativity has withstood every test thrown at it by scientists, gravitational waves remain its only unconfirmed prediction.

Black holes merging and creating gravitational waves. Scientists using CSIRO's Parkes telescope have been looking for the effect of these waves on small stars called pulsars. Credit: John Rowe Animations / CSIRO

To look for the waves, Dr Shannon's team used the Parkes telescope to monitor a set of 'millisecond pulsars'. These small stars produce highly regular trains of radio pulses and act like clocks in space. The scientists recorded the arrival times of the pulsar signals to an accuracy of ten billionths of a second.

A gravitational wave passing between Earth and a millisecond pulsar squeezes and stretches space, changing the distance between them by about 10 metres—a tiny fraction of the pulsar's distance from Earth. This changes, very slightly, the time that the pulsar's signals arrive on Earth.

The scientists studied their pulsars for 11 years, which should have been long enough to reveal gravitational waves.

So why weren't they found? There could be a few reasons, but the scientists suspect it's because black holes merge very fast, spending little time spiralling together and generating gravitational waves.

"There could be gas surrounding the black holes that creates friction and carries away their energy, letting them come to the clinch quite quickly," said team member Dr Paul Lasky, a postdoctoral research fellow at Monash University.

Whatever the explanation, it means that if astronomers want to detect gravitational waves by timing pulsars they'll have to record them for many more years.

"There might also be an advantage in going to a higher frequency," said Dr Lindley Lentati of the University of Cambridge, UK, a member of the research team who specialises in pulsar-timing techniques. Astronomers will also gain an advantage with the highly sensitive Square Kilometre Array telescope, set to start construction in 2018.

Not finding gravitational waves through pulsar timing has no implications for ground-based gravitational wave detectors such as Advanced LIGO (the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory), which began its own observations of the Universe last week.

"Ground-based detectors are looking for higher-frequency generated by other sources, such as coalescing neutron stars," said Dr Vikram Ravi, a member of the research team from Swinburne University (now at Caltech, in Pasadena, California).

Explore further: Pairs of supermassive black holes in galaxies may be rarer than previously thought

More information: Gravitational waves from binary supermassive black holes missing in pulsar observations, Science, www.sciencemag.org/lookup/doi/ … 1126/science.aab1910

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 ...

Five myths about gravitational waves

September 7, 2015

The scientists behind the BICEP2 (Background Imaging of Cosmic Extragalactic Polarization) telescope, last year made an extraordinary claim that they had detected gravitational waves, which are ripples in space-time. Initially ...

Recommended for you

Lyman-alpha emission detected around quasar J1605-0112

February 20, 2018

Using the Multi Unit Spectroscopic Explorer (MUSE) instrument astronomers have discovered an extended and broad Lyman-alpha emission in the form of a nebula around the quasar J1605-0112. The finding is reported February 9 ...

'Ultramassive' black holes discovered in far-off galaxies

February 20, 2018

Thanks to data collected by NASA's Chandra X-ray telescope on galaxies up to 3.5 billion light years away from Earth, an international team of astrophysicists has detected what are likely to be the most massive black holes ...

137 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Tuxford
1.7 / 5 (27) Sep 24, 2015
"But we heard nothing. Not even a whimper," Dr Shannon said.


What a waste of precious research money, and careers. These guys deserve considerable embarrassment for falling for the temptress of GR. Seduced by math, for failing to ascribe adequate intellectual pragmatism to critique the model, and for failing to have engineers look at this problem instead. Engineers work only to a few significant digits for good reason. If math is your only tool, you fall in love with numbers. What a romance! Time for a breakup. Dear John...
bschott
2 / 5 (21) Sep 24, 2015
�"But we heard nothing. Not even a whimper," Dr Shannon said.


What a waste of precious research money, and careers. These guys deserve considerable embarrassment for falling for the temptress of GR. Seduced by math, for failing to ascribe adequate intellectual pragmatism to critique the model, and for failing to have engineers look at this problem instead. Engineers work only to a few significant digits for good reason. If math is your only tool, you fall in love with numbers. What a romance! Time for a breakup. Dear John...


What a story! I cried, I laughed....maybe they will wind up on Springer fighting over who's at fault.
Alexander_IK
1 / 5 (11) Sep 24, 2015
Gravitation field is potential and quasi-stationary. I suppose gravity waves are like electrical or magnetic ones. If you rotate a permanent magnet you would see only near- field waves. What is acceleration of free fall of these pulsars on our planet? I think it is negligible. So, its variation is also negligible.
It may be two ways to resolve the problem: go closer to any gravitation oscillator to detect its gravity waves or create the system consisting of supermassive rotating objects in a laboratory.
docile
Sep 24, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ogg_ogg
5 / 5 (12) Sep 24, 2015
Engineers work only to a few significant digits...


Yeah, like NASA. The engineers used π = 3.14 for their dynamics calculations, right?
BTW, that was sarcasm, in case you missed it.

I was wondering if there is an upper limit on gravity wave frequency (lower limit on wavelength)? Anybody know?
Hypothetically, if next generation GW detectors (2016-2020) fail to detect GWs, will that create a "crisis" in our understanding? If not, how about the second generation (~2025 - 2040) ? (Not that that's likely to matter to me..). If GWs aren't falsifiable, then what are they doing looking for them?
Whydening Gyre
4.4 / 5 (14) Sep 24, 2015

Black holes are not real physical objects. Wrong theory predict imaginary objects. Gravitational waves do not exist. Physical objects with diferent principle of action maintain integrity of large cosmic structures nd their movement in cosmic space.

Care to share more info on those physical objects with different principle of action? Or are you gonna pull a Realitycheck and worry about plagiarists stealing your ideas?
Bigbangcon
2 / 5 (16) Sep 24, 2015
"11-year cosmic search leads to black hole rethink."

And yet a Nobel Prize was awarded for "proving" GR; based on pulsar's motion! These scientists must be out of their mind (and must worry for their skins) to declare a negative result and their failure - it is not an option for official cosmology, which is sustained by mystical theories and ever better and continuing "proof" or "near proofs" of those theories.

There is no mystery in Nature and in the universe, if one looks at it from a dialectical perspective: http://www.amazon...0414445.
RobertKarlStonjek
1 / 5 (9) Sep 24, 2015
So why weren't they found? There could be a few reasons, but the scientists suspect it's because black holes merge very fast,


By the clock of a space observer, any event at the event horizon takes an infinite interval to occur. This has already been shown to be the case empirically as global positioning satellites around Earth need to have their clocks slowed to keep pace with gravitationally time dilated clocks on Earth.

With ever increasing mass-density, the gravitational time dilation increases. Using the empirically established math that accurately describes the time dilation between the Earth's surface and space, Black Holes are temporally frozen relative to a space observer although an infalling observer would fall through the event horizon in a finite proper interval.

Many Cosmologists don't like this prediction of General Relativity so they simply ignore it, but still call themselves 'scientists' (perhaps with tongue in cheek?)
DonGateley
5 / 5 (1) Sep 24, 2015
Ok, is this a check on whether gravity has a propagation rate or something else? Any field in which there is propagation rate will have a rate of change in both space and time when any object generating that field changes the parameters that define its field. That's the very definition of a wave. Why is gravity considered a special case?
shavera
5 / 5 (8) Sep 24, 2015
Don: most solutions we see in GR are static or quasi-static. But, in cases like orbiting bodies, some of the energy of their motion radiates away in wave-solutions to the GR equations. Those waves are expected to travel at precisely c. (equivalently, the wavelength times the frequency will be c)

One would observe this by length stretching in one direction, but not the other, then vice versa. wiki has some good animations of what to look for.

Vietvet
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 24, 2015
@Robert K

What makes you an authority?

You did tell the court you had no qualifications.

http://www.abc.ne.../5516398

http://www.examin...r-fined/
Steve 200mph Cruiz
4 / 5 (5) Sep 24, 2015
If I can be the crack pot for a change;

One idea I had a long time ago is that gravity isn't a classic atomic force.
I'm sure there is some big problems with this, but I had the thought that the time dilation that comes with an object having mass, increases the odds of a quantum particle appearing closer to it.
The force of gravity would be correlated to the statistical average of the amount of time going by. The denser the object, the harder it is to escape from its pull at its surface because the dice keep rolling and telling the particles that they want to be by the massive object simply because there are more rolls happening.
Egleton
5 / 5 (5) Sep 24, 2015
Yay!
It is exciting when the "correct" results aren't confirmed. Embrace the dark, yawning chasm of our ignorance.
How about emulating Einstein when faced with the (incorrect) null result of M/M? Attack the assumptions, no matter how sacred.
How about attacking the assumption that all energy was created by some miracle at the beginning of time?
"Grant us one miracle, and we can explain the rest."
What hubris, Ape!
So if energy can be created out of nothing, so can matter? Yes. And your point is?
antigoracle
3.3 / 5 (8) Sep 24, 2015
Perhaps it's time for a gravity rethink.
rossim22
2.8 / 5 (13) Sep 24, 2015
The problem doesn't lie in galaxies and black holes, it has everything to do with the interpretation of gravity and space-time.

Fix gravity and you fix the ad hoc hypotheses in dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, quasars, expanding universe, redshift, stellar formation, Galaxy formation, and many more.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (6) Sep 25, 2015
Well. If Dr E = True then our world is the perspective of a point, be a point in space; difficult to construct a y 4dimensional basic quality of with any shaping his .. dreams ... does not even cost. Maybe probably. Naaa
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (5) Sep 25, 2015
Logic,, math; he would be a point-charge; how ironic, the point charge. Any body ask for a physics review? Who's in charge? Oh, the reviewers. At least respect for Plato, logic, Euclid, basics, stick to basics. Definition phase. ...
Ultron
1 / 5 (2) Sep 25, 2015
And when in few years from now also LIGO will find nothing, will it be time to rethink GR?
Most physicist regard GR as incomplete, but nobody seems to know how to improve it and merge it with Quantum mechanics.
I dont think that GR is completely wrong, but I think we miss important parts of the puzzle.
docile
Sep 25, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (16) Sep 25, 2015
I dont think that GR is completely wrong

Given the myriad of tests it has passed successfully it would be pretty hard for it to be wrong. That it's incomplete (and/or QM is incomplete) is not indoubt - otherwise it would explain everything and fit neatly with QM.
The incompleteness is more likely on the order how Newton's laws are incomplete. they work very well over the overwhelming part of macroscopic use cases but get ever less accurate in the very special case of relativistic settings.
docile
Sep 25, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (15) Sep 25, 2015
The predictions of quantum mechanics and general relativity differ

That's why I said OTHERWISE it would fit neatly. Please note the 'otherwise'.

Reading seems to be a lost art, eh Zeph?
nikola_milovic_378
Sep 25, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
nikola_milovic_378
Sep 25, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Egleton
4.8 / 5 (10) Sep 25, 2015
I would love to know what you are trying to say Nicola, but I am afraid your translator is not good enough.
EnsignFlandry
5 / 5 (7) Sep 25, 2015
in whom we believe, because of this, many good profit, offering a stupid masses what the masses want to pay and are not aware that there is no truth.
We can say, who has had consciousness, he will conclude that the curvature of space-time, contamination of our consciousness, because that there is no confirmation of the laws of nature, nor is there a big bang as big and even bigger fool theory and all the stultifying as is related to that argument.
I advise those who believe in Einstein, the above claim, to go up at Einstein, that he was thus confirmed in writing. They can do so because, if they are able to come to the birthplace of BB and to return us persuade them to know everything about this monster BB. then they can more easily reach the current residence Einstein.


Right. Got it.
EnsignFlandry
4.9 / 5 (8) Sep 25, 2015
Perhaps it's time for a gravity rethink.


Physicist have been doing just that for a while now. So far no one has come up with a good solution. MOND was, and to some still is, an alternative. To me is sort of ad hoc.
I do not think a failure of one experiment is good enough reason to throw out GR. There could be several explanations for a null result. But definitely look at it(GR) carefully
Ultron
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 25, 2015

Given the myriad of tests it has passed successfully it would be pretty hard for it to be wrong.


Actually if there are billions tests of GR done in GPS satellites, this still counts as one type of test. And when we go into detail, actually there were around 10 types of GR tests done.
Personally I think, that some parts of GR are wrong, but not the equations. I think some interpretations are wrong. For example the mainstream interpretation of gravity time dilation equation is contraintuitively predicting that the time dilation is biggest in the center of the Earth. My interpretation is that the time dilation is biggest in the point where is biggest gravity acceleration, ie on surface. The quotation for calculation of time dilation is correct and all tests confirmed it. But there was never a test, which would confirm either the mainstream interpretation or my interpretation what happens below the surface.
swordsman
2 / 5 (4) Sep 25, 2015
Let us reflect in the solemnity of their admission of scientific ignorance!

Pray for their souls.

As Planck showed by his electronic model of the atom, the proper mathematical and physical model yields successful results, including the secret of gravity.

www.science-site.net
rossim22
1.4 / 5 (10) Sep 25, 2015
BTW the absence of gravitational waves doesn't imply the absence of black holes.


Of course not, and that is the very problem with the GR paradigm. None of its postulates are falsifiable, the foundation of warped space-time cannot be tested without making assumptions. If gravity is produced by the bending of a real space-time fabric, then objects moving on this fabric MUST produce waves. Without the gravitational waves, there's no reason to hold on to the first assumption of a space-time fabric... which then all of your black hole nonsense falls apart.

"Then why don't you publish your own theory if GR is wrong" is the popular retort to questioning this dogma. But science isn't supposed to work that way, GR should be compared to the null hypothesis. When the p-value is enormous, such as in galactic rotation, ad hoc hypotheses must be created, in this case dark matter. The math is beautiful, it just doesn't predict or describe reality.
sascoflame
4 / 5 (4) Sep 25, 2015

There are some real problems with gravitons. If they have mass they couldn't escape black holes. They would drain energy from every object that gives them off. They are't absorbed. If you attract iron with a magnet the more iron that the magnet pulls to it self the weaker the remaining magnetism. Gravity never gets weaker no matter how much it pulls. Gravity curves space which is fine but is also attracts. There has to be a reason like the bottom of the hole is in the past and we approach it..
Stevepidge
1 / 5 (7) Sep 25, 2015
Gravity is the perceived attraction result of being in the presence of the fire of prometheus. Intelligence is the coin of the realm. Since there is no measurable difference between abiotic elements and elements that constitute biotic organisms, the resulting difference only remains intelligence. This intelligence attracts matter as it is ultimately fire itself, a consuming furnace, raging life incarnate. It demands food, and food demands to be eaten. Gravity is a function of intelligence, more gravity, more intelligence.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (9) Sep 25, 2015
The core of GR theory - the consept unexplanable from scentific point of view reason that there is relativism in nature is wrong from the beginning. Just because it is impasible to define highly ordered physical reality or anything at all without absolutes.

Ren,
When are you going to give your ridiculous notions of an intelligent being controlling all?
Captain Stumpy
3.6 / 5 (10) Sep 26, 2015
Smart people want to obey living God
@ren
well then why don't you? JER 31:27-37

you've specifically violated a whole slew of your own deities commandments here on PO over the past...

you violated commandments (like honoring the sabbath) as well as old testament laws, therefore, by definition, you are not only a hypocrite, but you are also, in the words of your own faith, going to hell in a hand-basket at breakneck speed... so considering that, i guess that puts you "in the category of the most stupid" as well as "unintelligent" and "ridiculous indeed"

so, that means, by definition, that you do NOT obey your own god!

why should we consider your deity anything special when you obviously have nothing but contempt for it?
docile
Sep 26, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (12) Sep 26, 2015
There are some real problems with gravitons. If they have mass they couldn't escape black holes.

That's why gravity waves are postulated to move at the speed of light (i.e. that gravitons are massless).

I want to obey God. Therefore I obey God. Where you see the contradiction?

You don't obey god. You obey an idea of what you would a god to be like (i.e. someone who thinks like you). It's a self serving deluison that justifies just acting on your own whims.
richardwenzel987
4.3 / 5 (9) Sep 26, 2015
My God tells me every day to slaughter those who don't think like me-- "KILL THE INFIDELS!"
Fortunately for my neighbors, I don't do what he tells me to do. I just assume He's having a bad hair day. I'm just kidding, of course...
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (10) Sep 26, 2015
If we exclude intelligent being that controls everything in nature, then we must accept that highly ordered universe is created and controled by unintelligent pure chance. This is ridiculous indeed.

There is nothing more telling
of a person's fundamental lack of perspective and humility
than an insistence that if they cannot reconcile their beliefs with reality,
then reality itself must be wrong...
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (9) Sep 26, 2015
@Captain Stumpy

I want to obey God. Therefore I obey God. Where you see the contradiction?
Smart and honest people are observational and realists, and this is the reason to worship God. They have no need to invent their own comfortable reality without God.

I want to obey Salma Hayak. Therefore I obey her. No contradiction here...
In reality, it's the god(s) that has been invented...
richardwenzel987
3.3 / 5 (3) Sep 26, 2015
My turn to be a crockpot, er, crackpot-- I think you could explain the non-detection in terms of a threshold effect. The energy spectrum is so low, it falls below a quantum threshold. If you were unlucky enough to be very near merging black holes, yes you could detect gravity waves. The energies and displacements would be above the threshold set by a putative quantum gravity. A startling result of this idea: there is a distance at which gravitational effects vanish. The local universe is probably no longer under the gravitational influence of the very distant universe, although we still receive photons from the very distant universe. This kind of rules out the idea of a particulate carrier of gravitational force, and the quantization of gravity would follow rules distinctly different from the quantization scheme of the other forces. That might explain why it is so hard to get a theory of quantum gravity. OK, enough of that.
matt_s
5 / 5 (10) Sep 26, 2015
All these people who are saying "time to throw out GR", "gravitational waves don't exist", "black holes are myths" etc.... I have a few questions.

1.) If G-waves don't exist at some level, explain the Hulse-Taylor Binary results.
2.) If the escape velocity around an object exceeds the speed of light... what would you call such an object? We know the mass and the volume Saggitarius A* occupies, and we KNOW the escape velocity exceeds the speed of light. How else would you define such an object?
3.) In order to toss GR, you need a model with MORE explanatory power. You need to explain the infinities of GR, rotation curves, etc. along with everything GR does. It's easy to say "it's wrong.." but given all the tests (and confirmations we've done), it obviously has explanatory power. If anything, GR would get "tossed" in the same way Newton's gravity got "tossed."

Long story short, it's the best we have at the moment.
docile
Sep 26, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Sep 26, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Sep 26, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Tuxford
1 / 5 (8) Sep 26, 2015
Long story short, it's the best we have at the moment.


It is the best that you can understand at the moment. Your rationalization is a common excuse so often used to boost the intellectual ego and avoid seeking to understand something entirely new. Intellectual laziness is a common problem. You are not alone.
docile
Sep 26, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
AGreatWhopper
3 / 5 (4) Sep 26, 2015
In a country that's at war with most everyone on the planet, you'd think there'd be some nice American hotspot where the military are killing xtians. Why should all the xtian bigots get to kill so many Muslims in the name of "critical US interests"? Can't a good patriotic hired killer for the empire get an assignment that involves sending hellfire missiles up the arse of the likes of Ren82?
AGreatWhopper
3.3 / 5 (4) Sep 26, 2015
Ren82 spewed:
@Captain Stumpy

I want to obey God. Therefore I obey God. Where you see the contradiction?
Smart and honest people are observational and realists, and this is the reason to worship God. They have no need to invent their own comfortable reality without God.


You may be comfortable with being raped in the ass constantly but I'm not. I know your God better than you do and he doesn't care about you. His only concern is how to slip me his cocktail weenie peenie again. You idiots can be standing in the church praying your hearts out and he doesn't care enough about you to stop a stupid kid from blowing a dozen dumbfucks away.

But fine; you want to have your God take credit for everything? I've got some scores to settle with you and your God. Bring it. You like to bleat about persecution. Meet me and you'll see what it actually looks like. Blood Moon Sunday. No time like the present to begin.
JustAnotherGuy
5 / 5 (8) Sep 26, 2015
@matt_s
All these people who are saying "time to throw out GR", "gravitational waves don't exist", "black holes are myths" etc.... I have a few questions.
1.) If G-waves don't exist at some level, explain the Hulse-Taylor Binary results.
2.) If the escape velocity around an object exceeds the speed of light... what would you call such an object?......
3.) In order to toss GR, you need a model with MORE explanatory power. You need to explain the infinities of GR, rotation curves, etc. along with everything GR does.......

Good Post.
I suppose the alternative "thinkers"/"believers" can solely discredit the standard theories. They seem unable to mistrust their "perfect" explanations; no matter how many time these remain unproven, or proven to be wrong already.

Good to see that some researchers can cast doubts on its own theories. An example to follow. The rest just "believe".
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Sep 26, 2015
AGW...
A little over the top, don't you think?
Lighten up, it's just a blog....
Tri-ring
not rated yet Sep 26, 2015
I was think about how dark matter will react during two black holes were closing in for an encounter.
Since dark matter would be surrounding around the two black holes but would not have any viscosity it would act like a super liquid within the void of space surround the two.
Even if a gravity wave was to be generated the dark matter surround the two black holes should absorb the gravitational energy as it tries to propagate in space.
Zzzzzzzz
5 / 5 (10) Sep 26, 2015
A Great Whopper... I get irritated with delusional belief systems too...... don't let it eat you up
The nature of psychosis is that logic cannot touch it
matt_s
4.9 / 5 (11) Sep 27, 2015
@docile

Explain your theories in mathematical terms. Otherwise it's just hand waving. No matter how you try and justify it, there's no reason to even consider it.
matt_s
5 / 5 (9) Sep 27, 2015
Example. "In dense aether model the gravitational waves are routinely observed as a jets of pulsars - bunches of gravitons masked as a photons."

Calculate what percentage of the jet is photons, what percent is gravitons.... or even how to tell them apart. What would that ratio be a function of? Mass? Energy release? Make a testable prediction. Boom. Science.

TiagoTiago
not rated yet Sep 27, 2015
Hm, could it be that the changes gravitational waves do influence their own propagation, countering the effects we are trying to measure?
docile
Sep 27, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Sep 27, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
matt_s
5 / 5 (5) Sep 27, 2015
"Stringy theories are also hand waving, with math or without it" - Duh. Doesn't give you room to just make things up and hope they turn out. Quantify it. Prove it. Otherwise your posts are literally useless.

So use your theory that gravitational waves are quantum phenomena, not relativistic ones, calculate the energy loss from pulsars from photons and SHOW how it that would account for what was expected for gravitational waves. You could literally win a nobel if you could prove it.

If we have all the formulas (as you say).. Put it together. Stop wasting everyones time.

antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (9) Sep 27, 2015
Put it together. Stop wasting everyones time.

Good call - though it's not going to happen. Zeph has been called on this through all the years and all his incarnations on these comment sections...and he never has shown the slightest inclination - much less the ability - to back his loud mouth up with numbers.

He's a self delusional troll. Ignore him.
docile
Sep 27, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Sep 27, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Sep 27, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
leDendrite
1 / 5 (3) Sep 27, 2015
Check out my rabbit hole crackpottery!!

maybe a black hole is something like the center of an enormous magnetic field, and nothing to really fall into, not a hole anyway, so much as a point void of any emr and thus time. time being a physical process and emergent property of any measurement of emr, measurement including observation (double slit) or the collision with another emr is also measurement. non measurement is gravity, gravity is anti-matter...

comment limits are too short...
check out free ebook and youtube videos "uncovering the missing secrets of magnetism" by ken wheeler.
leDendrite
1 / 5 (3) Sep 27, 2015
balance of opposites. nothing without contrast.
space and counter space. clockwise and counterclockwise. measurement no measurement.

must see light from magnetism, and magnetism bending light. google image search ferrocell.
leDendrite
1 / 5 (3) Sep 27, 2015
i actually would like someone to help me explore some things mathematically. please msg me if you have the math talent and are objective enough to question everything. not observations just interpretations. i think i have a particle physics hypothesis of consciousness, and everything-ish, maybe. based on research of others research and my own extrapolations and deductions. i'm not married to anything, no beliefs, but would really like to explore some interesting ideas further....
Whydening Gyre
3 / 5 (1) Sep 27, 2015
i actually would like someone to help me explore some things mathematically. please msg me if you have the math talent and are objective enough to question everything. not observations just interpretations. i think i have a particle physics hypothesis of consciousness, and everything-ish, maybe. based on research of others research and my own extrapolations and deductions. i'm not married to anything, no beliefs, but would really like to explore some interesting ideas further....

Have ya taken any Acid, yet?
Whydening Gyre
1 / 5 (2) Sep 27, 2015
Wouldn't gravitational wave produce an oscillating time dilation? Whenever there is a deformation in spacetime, doesn't it also create a minute time dilation? So in a laser based detector, even if the distance between the objects change when a gravitational wave passes, doesn't the time dilation affect the time taken by the laser to travel between the objects and make it a constant?

This is actually a interesting poser...
Makes me imagine Time as BEING the gravitational wave...
Go ahead... Zing me with the "1"s, now...;-)
leDendrite
1 / 5 (3) Sep 27, 2015
@whydening gyre lol, actually part of the idea is that consciousness is the awareness, or the free will to make and break some connections to emr emanating from all things. and that our perception of those measurements is all basically the result of a psychedelic trip created by our metabolism and microbiome.
sorry it's difficult to convey properly in short explanations. i understand how crazy i could sound. lol
leDendrite
1 / 5 (1) Sep 27, 2015
time is the result of measurement. gravity is no measurement, dielectric voidance.
light is emr. what we see as visible light is tiny part of the emr spectrum.
light is what we call the part of a magnetic field that we can see. a photon is like one unit of oscillation on the emr spectrum, one quanta.
so a beam of light​ ​or a wire with "traveling current" or "electron flow"​ ​is "entanglement"​ ​which is just interacting magnetic fields.
leDendrite
1 / 5 (1) Sep 27, 2015
the magnetic force we feel as repulsion is measurement via the collision of opposing dielectric vortices. and gravity is cohesion/coalesce in dielectric voidance... so gravity is "anti-matter"....
bring on the one star ratings. but watch this video.
https://youtu.be/CUMP6-Gos2I
Whydening Gyre
not rated yet Sep 27, 2015
time is the result of measurement. gravity is no measurement, ...

Nope. Time is a measurable (quantifiable) result of gravitational effect on any elements in a given space. C is our observational speed limit of that.
matt_s
5 / 5 (1) Sep 27, 2015
@docile

Your first observation is interesting. Time to research
Whydening Gyre
not rated yet Sep 27, 2015
Waitaminit - what's wrong with this picture -
I give Zephyr (docile in this incarnation) props for asking a decent question, fully expecting derision from the majority -
and HE "1"s me?!?
Now THAT is a quantum phenomenon doing what it does best...:-)
leDendrite
1 / 5 (1) Sep 27, 2015
@whydening gyre yeah, because everything has emr being measured all the time by other emr. you could look at wave particle duality as a wave of potential collapsing into a point of measurement or information exchange. an electron is an illusion, is a measurement or the emr around the atom. gravity is intrinsic to mass as magnetism and dielectric/ electric interaction... mass is​ like​ ​the conductive​ ​or emf​ ​potential​ ​or capacity​ ​of something
(the conglomeration of entangled em fields that make up the object)
Whydening Gyre
not rated yet Sep 27, 2015
@whydening gyre yeah, because everything has emr being measured all the time by other emr.

measured? Or interacting? Isn't Time the enabler of that stream of interactions?
you could look at wave particle duality as a wave of potential collapsing into a point of measurement or information exchange.

It only "collapses" because the observer attempts to frame reference it.
an electron is an illusion, is a measurement or the emr around the atom.

Why does it have 1836th the mass of the proton?
gravity is intrinsic to mass as magnetism

I get that...
and dielectric/ electric interaction... mass is​ like​ ​the conductive​ ​or emf​ ​potential​ ​or capacity​ ​of something
(the conglomeration of entangled em fields that make up the object)

This is too jumbly.
If I say I get where you are going, does it make me sound crazy, too?
bluehigh
not rated yet Sep 27, 2015
WG, sure Time is measurable. That's because Time is a measurement, nothing more.

Do the trees talk back?
bluehigh
not rated yet Sep 27, 2015
Isn't Time the enabler of that stream of interactions?

> The stream of interactions enables Time.
Whydening Gyre
not rated yet Sep 27, 2015
WG, sure Time is measurable. That's because Time is a measurement, nothing more.

Do the trees talk back?

Time is an emergent, measurable property of existence.
Sometimes, but they usually whisper...
Whydening Gyre
not rated yet Sep 27, 2015
Isn't Time the enabler of that stream of interactions?

> The stream of interactions enables Time.

Chicken or egg....
leDendrite
not rated yet Sep 27, 2015
@whydening gyre.
measurement is interaction, time exists as an emergent property of emr. a vacuum can yield flashes of light and sonoluminescence producing cavitation could explain origin of time. emr is emergent property of termination of dielectric and electric fields, and resulting in magnetism. A magnet is a self terminating dipole electric object.
leDendrite
1 / 5 (1) Sep 27, 2015
@whydening gyre "It only "collapses" because..." good yes, i agree..
An atom is probably like the smallest unit of a magnet. Sub atom is all measurement feedback, and broken sh!*. I have a few ideas about sub atom mass. The act of measurement creates the force we feel as magnetic repulsion and we interpret it as mass. Maybe, i'm not saying i have all the answers.
Unjumbled.. mass is a bunch of entangled atomic buckyballs each with it's own emr and together an entangled emr.
leDendrite
not rated yet Sep 27, 2015
@whydening gyre you might really like that video i linked. might trip on it. lol
bluehigh
not rated yet Sep 27, 2015
Time is an emergent, measurable property of existence.

> Time is an emergent, measurable property (because) of consciousness. Time is a measurement used to quantify a rate of change. Only a conscious observer knows of change.

> My pet rock knows not of time. Some say photons know not of time. Maybe trees know time.

24volts
3 / 5 (2) Sep 27, 2015
Ok, it's time for a good laugh for all the experts here by some someone who definitely isn't an expert on astrophysics.
My definition of gravity is simple. It's the displacement of spacetime itself caused by the energy that creates matter. The more energy the more displacement or stronger gravity. It doesn't have any type of electrical field and there is not such thing as a graviton. I don't think scientist are ever going to be able to pick up any gravity waves unless they can pick up the ones from this planet, the moon or possibly the sun. A gravity wave isn't going to travel any farther than what is normally caused by whatever is creating it to begin with. Two black holes merging would have a big wobbly gravity field but I can see no logical reason why it should expand beyond what it would be whether they orbit each other or actually merge. The energy actually causing the gravity doesn't change there. The combined field would become more even but that's about all.
star messenger
2 / 5 (4) Sep 27, 2015
"...it is believed they carry information allowing us to look back into the very beginnings of the Universe".
oy vey! Beam me up Scotti. People, get a grip. Gravity won't bring you or, anyone back to the beginning of the Universe, or, anywhere else. Go back to Einstein's note book and erase the part about "Gravitational Waves". If you are looking for waves try "Jaws" at Maui, in the Hawaiian Islands.
docile
Sep 28, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Sep 28, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Sep 28, 2015
My definition of gravity is simple. it's the displacement of spacetime

That would place any matter displacing spacetime, OUTSIDE of spacetime... Therefore we wouldn't be here (although there is the whole "maybe we aren't really here" line of thought...)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Sep 28, 2015
Maybe trees know time.

"If they had a watch, they'd know it was night time. And night time ain't NO time to be in this here neighborhood..."
(Thanks to Cheech and Chong for that one...)
docile
Sep 28, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Sep 28, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
bschott
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 28, 2015
If G-waves don't exist at some level, explain the Hulse-Taylor Binary results.


I don't know...did they find GW's...if so why does the search continue?

If the escape velocity around an object exceeds the speed of light... what would you call such an object? We know the mass and the volume Saggitarius A* occupies, and we KNOW the escape velocity exceeds the speed of light. How else would you define such an object?


Theoretical...existing only in a gravity based equation

In order to toss GR, you need a model with MORE explanatory power


Or common sense works too.

You need to explain the infinities of GR


Math issues

If anything, GR would get "tossed" in the same way Newton's gravity got "tossed."


When it is realized that gravity isn't responsible for the structure of the universe, there will be tossing.

Long story short, it's the best we have at the moment.


When you say we, you mean you....sorry.
matt_s
5 / 5 (4) Sep 28, 2015
@bschott. That was literally the worst attempt at an answer I've ever seen.

Let me reiterate.
1.) Look up the Hulse-Taylor binary. EXPLAIN the results then.
2.) You didn't answer my question. A system has so much mass in a small enough volume the escape velocity exceeds the speed of light (such as the quantities we've measured for Sagittarius A*). How would you define that system? Simple saying it's a relic of a gravity based equation is completely and absolutely inadequate.
3.) Submit your better model then. Include the math. Make predictions. Give us some quantifiable, mathematical predictions that show it's better, otherwise GR is the best for you too. "Common sense?" Good joke.
bschott
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 28, 2015
@Matt_s:

In order to toss GR, you need a model with MORE explanatory power


The model was proposed a few years ago.

https://www.youtu...lyiW-xGI

Although there was no math to satisfy the likes of people who only get math, the descriptions regarding the model and it's predictability are plain to see. It explains everything GR and the SM can't. Once mainstream science has no choice but to severely modify it's theories due to lack of evidence that it is TANGIBLE ( not inferred and based the assumption that gravity drives structure ), then another couple of centuries pass, the "new" model will be far more robust than one currently employed.

In the meantime, now appearing at the Dark Matter comedy club....NOTHING.

Enjoy the show.
bschott
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 28, 2015
2.) You didn't answer my question. A system has so much mass in a small enough volume the escape velocity exceeds the speed of light (such as the quantities we've measured for Sagittarius A*). How would you define that system? Simple saying it's a relic of a gravity based equation is completely and absolutely inadequate.


Dude, your model needs 5 times more mass to function than can be found. That makes IT absolutely inadequate. I don't need to propose my own model to see the glaring problems with this one....just because math convinced you and the people who studied what you support that it is possible to have DM particles...it still isn't. I do not have to prove that it isn't....you have to find this missing matter to prove it is correct.

Hence my post above about the severe modification.
matt_s
5 / 5 (4) Sep 28, 2015
Regardless of GR. Characterize a system when the escape velocity exceeds the speed of light bschott. It's that simple. What do you get?

I made no comments on dark matter. Kind of a red herring.
matt_s
5 / 5 (4) Sep 28, 2015
I'm not even referencing GR in my comment there b. I'm saying.. we KNOW the mass and volume, and the escape velocity exceeds the speed of light. Is that not a black hole? Regardless of what model you're using/say is accurate?
bschott
2.4 / 5 (9) Sep 28, 2015
You are talking about the mathematical entity known as a black hole.

Every single calculation performed using GR is prefaced with the words "IF Gravity dictates motion and structure". You guys who study this never consider that it isn't....hence why I mentioned DM, and the need for a new model. Black holes are no more likely to exist as mathematically theorized than DM is as a particle. Infinite compression and particles which exist "outside" of the EM spectrum are products of math due to the nature of modeling everything as though it attracts via gravity.

I made no comments on dark matter. That's an issue unto itself, but still doesn't take away from the predictive power of GR...


Only if you live in the past....or the present and are holding on to hope that it is there. It's not until it is found.
matt_s
5 / 5 (4) Sep 28, 2015
No, I'm not talking about a mathematical entity. The orbits around Sagittarius A* give us a limit on it's volume and mass. The escape velocity exceeds the speed of light. What is it?

I'm NOT using GR here. We know the orbital parameters of the stars in its vicinity - that gives us a volume limit and mass.

bschott
2.4 / 5 (9) Sep 28, 2015
No, I'm not talking about a mathematical entity. The orbits around Sagittarius A* give us a limit on it's volume and mass. The escape velocity exceeds the speed of light. What is it?

I'm NOT using GR here. We know the orbital parameters of the stars in its vicinity - that gives us a volume limit and mass.



In the absence of DM, both attractive and repulsive forces are required to explain the observed stellar motion of our galaxy (even @ Sag. A). In the presence of these forces, your calculations which lead to your escape velocity are meaningless. As mentioned above and repeated now, these calculations begin with words "IF gravity dictates motion and structure". You have been taught and believe it does, I have been taught and believe that is incorrect. The missing 4/5 of the matter required for YOUR calculations to be correct has not been located. When it is found we can discuss how not even wrong I am. When it is not we can talk about the new model.
matt_s
5 / 5 (4) Sep 28, 2015
So Kepler's formulas are invalid?

And why do you keep on insisting on this 4/5ths of matter thing? There is no reason to make this assumption.
matt_s
5 / 5 (4) Sep 28, 2015
"The missing 4/5 of the matter required for YOUR calculations to be correct has not been located."

Using kepler's formulas. Not GR.
SnowballSolarSystem _SSS_
5 / 5 (1) Sep 28, 2015
Don't bet against Einstein!

An alternative ideology suggests that proto-spiral-galaxies and their supermassive black holes (SMBHs) formed by direct collapse (DC) in the epoch of big bang nucleosynthesis (BBN), when H fusion He fission were in thermal equilibrium. During BBN, positive baryon acoustic oscillation (BAO) compressions would have promoted nearly isothermal collapse, mediated by endothermic He fission.

The spherical symmetry of DC essentially precludes gravitational waves, which are created in (asymmetrical) quadrupole events, such as the binary spiral-in merger of smaller black holes, promoted by ΛCDM. And fractional condensation of spherically-symmetrical BAO compressions REQUIRES condensed (spiral) galaxies to have a typical specific angular momentum (Tully–Fisher relation), whereas ΛCDM struggles to explain it.

So the absence of gravitational wave detection may be telegraphing the formation of SMBHs by DC, casting doubt on ΛCDM rather than on Einstein.
bschott
2.3 / 5 (6) Sep 28, 2015
So Kepler's formulas are invalid?


No, they are not, the equations describe the motion. They do it well (for a solar system). Invalid is thinking the motion is due to gravity and velocity.
bschott
2 / 5 (4) Sep 28, 2015
"The missing 4/5 of the matter required for YOUR calculations to be correct has not been located."

Using kepler's formulas. Not GR.


Well if GR found it where's my sample?

And why do you keep on insisting on this 4/5ths of matter thing? There is no reason to make this assumption.


There is no reason to assume it is there....undetectable...one more time...unless you think gravity can do things that math claims it can but cannot verify. So before you go to lensing, I believe it is large scale magnetic field interaction that produces our observed effects on light, not gravity. Here on earth we can experiment with this....once again, gravity only has math.
matt_s
5 / 5 (5) Sep 28, 2015
You say they do it well. Well, those equations predict mass as well. Therefore we know the mass, know the volume.

Would you agree? We can calculate these properties if we know the orbit?

Why would I mention lensing? I am appyling Kepler's equations to an orbit. Using those equations to calculate mass and volume. Applying those two quantities to escape velocity. Simple as that.
bschott
1 / 5 (1) Sep 28, 2015
You say they do it well. Well, those equations predict mass as well. Therefore we know the mass, know the volume.


For a solar system, and I would point out they are not "bang on" even with todays computers.

Would you agree? We can calculate these properties if we know the orbit?


Based on the continuous need to correct probe trajectories leaving the earth system, I'd say it works on a certain level, but isn't concrete.

Why would I mention lensing? I am appyling Kepler's equations to an orbit. Using those equations to calculate mass and volume. Applying those two quantities to escape velocity. Simple as that.


Because lensing is invoked as inferred evidence for DM. Escape velocity is correct if the object you are trying to escape from exists as theorized. Hence why it works locally for anything WE launch into space. We can reference based on measurement. Not so at the center of a galaxy.
matt_s
5 / 5 (4) Sep 28, 2015
-I completely agree with your first two points, but that's because our models are basically assuming a basically perfect world. It's simply too hard to model all the external factors, spacecraft dynamics, etc. Course corrections are inevitable.

-I'm not invoking dark matter. I'm saying we have observed an orbit. We determined the orbital characteristics. From Kepler we determined the mass located at the focus of the orbit. Then applying the escape velocity equation results in a number >c. Is there a derivation / proof somewhere that says an object can't be dense enough that it's escape velocity exceeds c? Saying it's "theoretical" isn't accurate, because we just showed it exists. You need to prove an objects escape velocity can't escape c, because thats exactly what we observe. There's no reason to assume what you said is accurate...
kelman66
5 / 5 (5) Sep 28, 2015
Just because this one group didn't find anything proves nothing at all.

I would like to see some observations moving forward of the recently discovered close black hole binary. Potentially a good target and as we refine technology etc, this could be the one. Otherwise, it would be great to keep hoping to find a few more of those, particularly if they have background or foreground alignments that may help.

I thought one interesting comment in the article was the conjecture that perhaps this gravitational wave energy is being absorbed in the immediately vicinity by dust etc.
bschott
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 29, 2015
Matt- Kepler started with weight and motion. He began with the knowledge that mass attracts mass and assumed that the speed of the orbiting body is what prevents it from colliding with the central mass. It works on the solar system scale because most of the variables were either known or could be calculated with a reasonable degree of precision, but using these same equations to calculate the mass of the galaxy doesn't work observationally. At this point we have 2 options, mainstream theorists chose to assume there is more mass in the form of particles and began searching for it. Others, like my self said "hey, in free space, anything magnetized or emitting a magnetic field will lose or gain mass in relation to any other similar object in the same space depending on the orientation and structure of the field.

A lot more than 4 ounces of pressure is required to seperate 2 X 2 ounce magnets when they are "stuck" together. On the large scale, it's magnetism that "binds" everything.
bschott
3 / 5 (2) Sep 29, 2015
So to answer your question:

Is there a derivation / proof somewhere that says an object can't be dense enough that it's escape velocity exceeds c?


There is only math that says an object CAN be this dense. I have had the discussion regarding a photon at the event horizon and how it would behave right at the point of crossing here before. If gravity can effect light this way, it either goes in one "direction" or another at a "line" in space, the speed of light could not be a constant as every photon would be slowed when in close proximity to the star that produced it, and at a different rate for stars of different masses. We would see alot more evidence of "gravity" effecting light. If a BH swallows light, and the event horizon is a boundary as opposed to a solid surface, then you have light experiencing a force which alters it's trajectory...but not it's velocity?

The math of gravity is in discord with the actual physical properties observed in matter
and energy.

balslev
3 / 5 (2) Sep 29, 2015
General Relativity ought to be measured against how well it fits with the astronomical observations.

Since gravitation according to the general relativity is a result of the curvature of space-time, the Big Bang has to start as a singularity at time zero. It means that there wasn't any time before the Big Bang, so nobody knows what initiated the Big Bang, and where the energy came from. Since there wasn't any "old" matter at the time of Big Bang, the theory can't explain the fast evolution of stars, of black holes, galaxies, and quasars, and general relativity cannot explain the high metal content of the early stars, the presence of dark matter, and dark energy, and the B-mode polarization.

Besides, General Relativity cannot solve the Flatness Problem, and the Horizon Problem of the universe without adding the ad hoc theory called Inflation, and finally, General Relativity and the Quantum Field Theory are mutually incompatible - and it is General Relativity that is wrong.
matt_s
5 / 5 (3) Sep 29, 2015
" It works on the solar system scale because most of the variables were either known or could be calculated with a reasonable degree of precision, but using these same equations to calculate the mass of the galaxy doesn't work observationally."

We can apply the equations in the exact same way to the area around the Sagittarius A*. We know the orbits, periods, radial velocities, etc. of the objects *immediately* orbiting it. That's effectively a solar system. Applying orbital mechanics and the definition of escape velocity says the object's escape velocity > c. Therefore, you still haven't shown why this doesn't apply.

You say the objects mass/velocities were known to a reasonable degree of precision - the exact same as the area around Sag A*. We know the velocities and orbits to a high degree of precision. Why doesn't it work then?

" At this point we have 2 options."

Irrelevant. I'm applying 17th century math.
bschott
1 / 5 (2) Sep 29, 2015
Irrelevant. I'm applying 17th century math.


Not just math, you are applying 17th century physics as well.

We can apply the equations in the exact same way to the area around the Sagittarius A*. We know the orbits, periods, radial velocities, etc. of the objects *immediately* orbiting it. That's effectively a solar system. Applying orbital mechanics and the definition of escape velocity says the object's escape velocity > c. Therefore, you still haven't shown why this doesn't apply.


The Galaxy is the area around Sag.A and would be more representative of "the solar system". Not just the bodies right next to it. Therefore observations show why it doesn't apply, you need 5 X the matter for the math to work for the outer bodies.

Why doesn't it work then?


You are using the movement to calculate the masses and the mass to justify the movement. That it doesn't work for the whole system indicates the base premise is wrong.
JustAnotherGuy
5 / 5 (4) Sep 29, 2015
We can apply the equations in the exact same way to the area around the Sagittarius A*. We know the orbits, periods, radial velocities, etc. of the objects *immediately* orbiting it.

Seems to be no matter how you try to explain this, unrelated arguments keep popping. Maybe it's time for images, words are being twisted.

Six objects, orbiting a specific area: https://upload.wi....svg.png

Observations from these objects through years: https://en.wikipe...2_(star)

That specific area is a radio source: https://en.wikipe...arius_A*

Does somebody dislike the math or the model used for estimating masses and speeds? Irrelevant. The phenomena is still there. Six objects orbiting a radio source, in the same way a bunch of planets and thousands of smaller objects orbits the Sun. The question was: How you define such an object?
matt_s
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 29, 2015
"Not just math, you are applying 17th century physics as well."

You aren't applying physics whatsoever. Based on no physical principles, you assert an object cannot be dense enough for it's escape velocity to be >c.

"The Galaxy is the area around Sag.A and would be more representative of "the solar system"

I don't believe so. Consider the mass of the entire solar system relative to the sun. Then consider the mass of the rest of the entire galaxy relative to Saggitarius A*. The area immediately by Saggitarius A* would be dominated by A*'s gravity (and therefore allow an accurate measurement.)

"You are using the movement to calculate the masses and the mass to justify the movement. That it doesn't work for the whole system indicates the base premise is wrong."

In that case no measurement we've ever done on any system, ever, can hold up. You could throw out absolutely anything with that argument... making it useless.

bschott
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 29, 2015
In that case no measurement we've ever done on any system, ever, can hold up. You could throw out absolutely anything with that argument... making it useless.


Which is precisely what I have done. Based on the requirement for DM.

You aren't applying physics whatsoever. Based on no physical principles, you assert an object cannot be dense enough for it's escape velocity to be >c.


First, YOU are not applying physics. You are applying math to attempt to describe a physical state, which in this case is matter/energy existing or transforming into a state which it cannot. You are saying it does because of math telling you it can...not because we have ever OBSERVED it.

In no CERN experiment did a collision and the resultant compression of matter/energy cause an anomalous gravity spike. The density of matter at the instant of collision should have based on what your are saying. Physics says matter does not compress this way.
matt_s
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 29, 2015
" transforming into a state which it cannot"

You have yet to provide anything which even comes close to proving that.

You didn't respond to my comment on the scales involved in the solar system's being used and why it would be fallacious to use the entire galaxy as the "solar system" for A*.

Like I've said. We have OBSERVED the orbits. The criteria fits what's necessary to apply orbital mechanics. We get a result that the escape velocity >c. No physical law or principle of physics says this cannot be the case, therefore, it must be true, UNLESS FURTHER EVIDENCE SAYS OTHERWISE.
matt_s
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 29, 2015
"In no CERN experiment did a collision and the resultant compression of matter/energy cause an anomalous gravity spike. The density of matter at the instant of collision should have based on what your are saying."

I certainly made no such claim. I believe this is you misunderstanding.

bschott
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 29, 2015
Seems to be no matter how you try to explain this, unrelated arguments keep popping. Maybe it's time for images, words are being twisted.


Put simply: You are starting with the premise that gravity causes the orbital motion, AFTER which you are claiming a mass/density calculation based on orbital velocity and the assumption you have calculated the mass of the orbiting bodies correctly. Since I am not starting with the premise that gravity is responsible for orbital motion (because too much mass is missing on the galactic scale for this to be the case) I don't need a BH to explain this motion. All magnetic structures cause a super rotation of plasma over the equatorial plane of the structure. The center of the galaxy behaves exactly as the sun....exactly as we measure the earthbound plasma in the structure of the earths magnetic field. Plasma moves as magnetic fields direct it, not gravity.
bschott
3 / 5 (4) Sep 29, 2015
I certainly made no such claim. I believe this is you misunderstanding.


You claim the density of matter combined with the volume of space it occupies is directly related to it's gravitational attraction...sufficient density in small enough volume is >c right? When you accelerate matter to relativistic speeds and collide it with other matter, for a pico second the density regime is beyond anything else we have ever done....the "splay" shows no signs of a gravitational anomaly. None were measured. We can measure the magnetic field of an electron but the point source of gravity this collision should generate goes undetected?

What you are saying about matter density has to be applicable in all cases, this is the discord between QM and GR. If it doesn't happen on the quantum scale, to assume it does elsewhere without a mechanism is foolhardy. Let alone claiming the matter alone generates enough gravity to compress itself to a BH.
bschott
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 29, 2015
No physical law or principle of physics says this cannot be the case, therefore, it must be true, UNLESS FURTHER EVIDENCE SAYS OTHERWISE.


You just claimed that a force is strong enough to to be greater than speed C when that is the speed limit of the universe (and it is ASSUMED that this is the speed at which fields propagate as well). You claim that this force can act upon a photon and change it's direction. You have no evidence that this is actually happening or even possible (hence why I clarified my view on lensing earlier), other than the fact that you can make it work mathematically. Your evidence is scribbles on a paper that are no more valid than words on the internet. You don't seem to be able to apply physics across more than one situation at a time to test the validity of what your math says.

I don't mean to downplay the intelligence required to do this math, but you have to objectively look at what the end result is telling you compared against other math.
matt_s
5 / 5 (3) Sep 29, 2015
You realize you're trying to use a theory of quantum gravity (one we DON'T HAVE) to show black holes don't exist?

But by all means, tell me how gravity works at a quantum level so I can publish it and get a Nobel :)
matt_s
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 29, 2015
"You just claimed that a force is strong enough to to be greater than speed C when that is the speed limit of the universe (and it is ASSUMED that this is the speed at which fields propagate as well)."

Nothing says it can't. It's a force.

"You have no evidence that this is actually happening or even possible (hence why I clarified my view on lensing earlier), other than the fact that you can make it work mathematically."

If by work, you mean predict very accurately, then yea. Make a working, mathematical theory out of your view on lensing so we can test it then.

"Your evidence is scribbles on a paper that are no more valid than words on the internet"

Your evidence is absolutely nothing. You don't have any. Moreover, you have no model with any kind of meaningful predictive power to replace it.

matt_s
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 29, 2015
Anyways, I think I'm going to take my leave of this thread. Got a spacecraft dynamics class to work on.

We should know pretty soon what the truth is b.

https://en.wikipe...elescope

Thanks for the discussion, even if I don't agree with your conclusion.
bschott
3 / 5 (2) Sep 29, 2015
Anyways, I think I'm going to take my leave of this thread. Got a spacecraft dynamics class to work on.

We should know pretty soon what the truth is b.

https://en.wikipe...elescope

Thanks for the discussion, even if I don't agree with your conclusion.


Agreed. Thank you for the civility.
Returners
1 / 5 (3) Sep 29, 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 of galaxies and black holes.


I concluded that Gravitational Waves probably do not exist, even though the mathematics of General Relativity seems to work, the 'common sense explanation' of what is happening is found lacking.

I concluded that the energy of the orbiting systems is probably carried away by a degenerate form of very long-wave infrared radiation. You would likely need a detector the size of a planet...or even a star, in order to observe it directly because the wavelength may very well be as much as half the radius of the object (or system) that produced it.

So looking for a change in the arrival time of pulses of UV or Radio won't work, because the Gravitational Wave does not exist as a mechanical wave in space-time.
Returners
1 / 5 (3) Sep 29, 2015
Instead of being a mechanical wave in space-time, the "Gravitational Wave" described by the formula is actually a degenerate infra-red wave....almost literally black-shifted. You would need a very, very powerful hypothetical black hole related event in order to generate a wave which could be noticed by any existing technique.

My Infrared hypothesis arises from the notion that regardless of who's concept of the "material" of space and time is more correct, Newton, Einstein, or some as-yet undiscovered thinker, it would seem that this material which makes up so-called "empty space" would itself be subject to the laws of thermodynamics, and therefore must undergo friction, and therefore release the energy as "waste heat" in a very low grade, degenerate form.

the Telescopes are looking in the wrong place, and at the wrong frequency.

Instead, Look at the "empty space" beside the Pulsar or Binary Quasar and look for very long wave infrared rising out of the background media.
Returners
1 / 5 (3) Sep 29, 2015
There will perhaps be a "Halo" of such wavelengths of light arising not from the objects themselves, but from the "empty space" having "Internal friction" with itself and thereby releasing the mechanical energy in the form of infrared photons....in colossal amounts relative to the region of space they are contained in, but in tiny, almost insignificant amounts relative to our instruments here on Earth looking at an event "out there". The Gravitational Wave is insignificant compared to the luminosity of the Quasar or Pulsar.

Trying to time the difference of a mechanical gravitational wave won't work, because even if mechanical gravitational waves do exist they are quickly converted to degenerate infrared, in my hypothesis, and degenerate infrared would not warp space/time between the reference object and your telescope lens by enough to ever notice.

The James Webb might be powerful enough to detect this, if scientists had the same idea as me, but I doubt it...
Returners
1 / 5 (3) Sep 29, 2015
It is also possible that some objects currently believed to be "Black Holes" may in fact not be Black Holes, and may be some sort of structure operating on some unknown physics principle or an as-yet undescribed force or undescribed law of physics, which we just don't have the technology and philosophical framework to investigate in an intelligent manner at this point in our history..

My "information Harvesting" concept for a hypothetical Type 3 Civilization might one day be employed to ultimately answer the questions of so-called Gravitational waves, so-called "Super-massive black holes" and Galaxies, as some of these structures seem to form in environments which contradict the common sense notion of how they should have existed after any alleged big bang origin of the present aeon of the universe...or for that matter any finite origin of the universe I an conceive of.

Some of these objects are so large they should not have had time to grow in the age of the universe.
Mastoras
5 / 5 (1) Sep 30, 2015
It is rare to have many comments on an article. And it is also rare to have so many ratings with the lowest "1".

It seems that many ignorant youngsters (or maybe just one discussing with his many alliances), came here, confusing their ignorance with a legitimate desire to revolt. But you must have a reason to revolt. And revolt doesnt not mean rjecting everything established in internet fora.

I used these comments as a good chance to set to "ignore" many ignorant users. I suggest you do the same.

Please stop littering the comments by responding to ignorant trolls.
Mastoras
5 / 5 (2) Sep 30, 2015
Suggestions:

-- Set to "ignore" all ignorant users. There is no way to educate them here. Much more so because they have have a psychological need to attack things established.

-- Please stop littering the comments by responding to ignorant trolls.

And mainly:

-- Pys.org should take care of their discussion section, and make sure that everyone has only one account.
Benni
1 / 5 (2) Sep 30, 2015
It is rare to have many comments on an article. And it is also rare to have so many ratings with the lowest "1".
I used these comments as a good chance to set to "ignore" many ignorant users. I suggest you do the same.

Please stop littering the comments by responding to ignorant trolls.


Suggestions:

-- Set to "ignore" all ignorant users. There is no way to educate them here. Much more so because they have have a psychological need to attack things established.

-- Please stop littering the comments by responding to ignorant trolls.


OK, sounds like a great place to start. Of all the above posting Commentators, which are the ones who should be placed on the Ignore?

docile
Oct 04, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
dbsi
not rated yet Oct 05, 2015
@Benni

There is some help here: https://sciencex....omments/

Or in short: Stay on topic / No pointless verbiage / Be civil / Keep science / No political and religious posts
Whydening Gyre
not rated yet Oct 07, 2015
Look at the "empty space" beside the Pulsar or Binary Quasar and look for very long wave infrared rising out of the background media.

Actually, this isn't a bad suggestion.
At least, it would eliminate the speculation with little cost...
RobertKarlStonjek
1 / 5 (1) Nov 07, 2015
Why do people ignore the empirically verified gravitational time dilation that slows clocks down relative to a distant space observer?

Gravitational time dilation is given by gamma=(1-2GM/C^2r)^.5
A Schwarzschild Radius r=2GM/c^2 Substitute in and get gamma=0 or from the other observer gamma =infinity.

This is a well established formula and math found in all relativity text books. It is the reason why Black Holes are said to be 'frozen' as they are frozen in the frame of a space observer (not in the Black Hole's own frame eg at the event horizon).

So why do people get all upset when I repeat the established physics developed in 1915?? These aren't my personal ideas, they are straight from the text book.

People mark me down (9* 1/5) but can not fault my logic, math or science.

Why not face facts: you can't travel faster than light, black holes are frozen, spooky entanglement is a reality, the world is not clockwork Newtonian or flat Euclidean etc

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.