Physicists make rapid progress in bounding the speed of gravity

November 1, 2017 by Lisa Zyga, Phys.org feature

Artist’s illustration of two merging neutron stars. Credit: NSF/LIGO/Sonoma State University/A. Simonnet
(Phys.org)—Recent gravitational wave detections have allowed physicists to confirm with greater and greater precision what Einstein predicted over 100 years ago in the theory of general relativity: that gravity does not act instantaneously as Newton thought, but instead propagates at the speed of light.

"The of gravity, like the speed of light, is one of the fundamental constants in the Universe," Neil Cornish, a physicist at Montana State University, told Phys.org. "Until the advent of gravitational wave astronomy, we had no way to directly measure the speed of gravity."

Over the past few months, physicists have made very rapid progress in bounding the speed of gravity using gravitational wave observations.

Initially, the first LIGO detections of gravitational waves constrained the speed of gravity to within 50% of the speed of light.

In a paper published last week in Physical Review Letters, Cornish and his coauthors Diego Blas at CERN and Germano Nardini at the University of Bern have combined the first three gravitational wave events reported by the LIGO and Virgo collaborations, allowing them to improve the original bounds to within roughly 45% of the speed of light.

Just two days later (and after the physicists mentioned above wrote their paper), another paper was published in The Astrophysical Journal Letters by the LIGO and Virgo collaborations, whose authors are affiliated with nearly 200 institutions around the world. By using data from the gravitational waves emitted by a binary neutron star merger detected in August, they were able to constrain the difference between the speed of gravity and the speed of light to between -3 x 10-15 and 7 x 10-16 times the speed of light.

The reason for the huge leap in precision is that the neutron star event did not emit only gravitational waves, but also electromagnetic radiation in the form of gamma rays. The simultaneous emission of both gravitational waves and light from the same source allowed the scientists to set bounds on the speed of gravity that is many orders of magnitude more stringent that what could be set using gravitational wave signals alone.

Depending on whether an astrophysical source emits both gravitational waves and light or only the former, scientists take different approaches to constraining the speed of gravity. When a source emits both gravitational waves and light, scientists can measure the difference (if any) in the arrival times of the two different types of signals at a single detector. In the AJL paper, the scientists measured an arrival delay of just a few seconds between signals that traveled a distance of more than one hundred million light years. Such a small delay across this distance is considered virtually nothing.

On the other hand, when a source emits only gravitational waves, scientists must detect the same signal in multiple Earth-based detectors and measure the (very slight) difference in arrival times. The scientists of the PRL paper did this by comparing signals detected by two LIGO detectors located 1800 miles apart: one in Hanford, Washington, and the other in Livingston, Louisiana.

As the physicists explain, it's possible to greatly improve the bounds on the speed of gravity using sources that emit only . For example, using four detectors located at different places on Earth, with five gravitational wave events for comparison, the constraints could improve to within 1% of the speed of light. But they could still not reach the degree of precision of experiments that have access to both gravity and light.

Overall, bounding the speed of light has many significant implications for fundamental physics and cosmology. One of the biggest implications is that the tight bounds provide a more precise test of general relativity and rule out proposed alternatives to .

"Many alternative theories of gravity, including some that have been invoked to explain the accelerated expansion of the Universe, predict that the speed of is different from the speed of ," Cornish said. "Several of those theories have now been ruled out, thereby restricting the ways in which Einstein's theory can sensibly be modified, and making dark energy a more likely explanation for the accelerated expansion."

Explore further: Stronger tests of Einstein's theory of general relativity with binary neutron stars

More information: Neil Cornish, Diego Blas, and Germano Nardini. "Bounding the Speed of Gravity with Gravitational Wave Observations." Physical Review Letters. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161102

B.P. Abbott, et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration, Fermi Gamma-ray Burst Monitor, and INTEGRAL.) "Gravitational Waves and Gamma-Rays from a Binary Neutron Star Merger: GW170817 and GRB 170817A." The Astrophysical Journal Letters. DOI: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa920c

Related Stories

Gravitational waves: Why the fuss?

October 16, 2017

Great excitement rippled through the physics world Monday at news of the first-ever detection of two ultra-dense neutron stars converging in a violent smashup.

New gravitational wave data analysis now underway

September 21, 2017

Penn State LIGO physicists are members of the LIGO-Virgo collaboration to detect and characterize gravitational waves. The collaboration now is completing a very exciting Second Observing Run that is drawing to a close on ...

Hints of extra dimensions in gravitational waves?

June 28, 2017

Researchers from the Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics (Albert Einstein Institute/AEI) in Potsdam found that hidden dimensions – as predicted by string theory – could influence gravitational waves. In a recently ...

Gravitational waves may oscillate, just like neutrinos

September 21, 2017

(Phys.org)—Using data from the first-ever gravitational waves detected last year, along with a theoretical analysis, physicists have shown that gravitational waves may oscillate between two different forms called "g" and ...

Recommended for you

Researchers investigate the peculiar radio source IC 1531

October 17, 2018

An international team of researchers has investigated a peculiar extragalactic radio source known as IC 1531. The new study analyzes the nature of IC 1531's high-energy emission, suggesting that the source is a radio galaxy. ...

Astronomers find a cosmic Titan in the early universe

October 17, 2018

An international team of astronomers has discovered a titanic structure in the early Universe, just two billion years after the Big Bang. This galaxy proto-supercluster, nicknamed Hyperion, is the largest and most massive ...

Magnetic fields may be the key to black hole activity

October 17, 2018

Collimated jets provide astronomers with some of the most powerful evidence that a supermassive black hole lurks in the heart of most galaxies. Some of these black holes appear to be active, gobbling up material from their ...

Double dust ring test could spot migrating planets

October 17, 2018

New research by a team led by an astrophysicist at the University of Warwick has a way of finally telling whether newly forming planets are migrating within the disc of dust and gas that typically surrounds stars or whether ...

148 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

sirdumpalot
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 01, 2017
Speed of information?
dirk_bruere
3 / 5 (20) Nov 01, 2017
Einstein the God of Physics triumphs again. A thousand cranks crash and burn.
Chris_Reeve
Nov 01, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Nov 01, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Nov 01, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Nov 01, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Nov 01, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Nov 01, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Nov 01, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Nov 01, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (12) Nov 01, 2017
(cont'd)

"... The effect on computed orbits is usually disastrous because conservation of angular momentum is destroyed. Expressed less technically by Sir Arthur Eddington, this means: 'If the Sun attracts Jupiter towards its present position S, and Jupiter attracts the Sun towards its present position J, ...............


In Eddington's book 2 , the very next sentence after Van Flandern's quote states that ''The argument is fallacious, because . . . '' and there follows some discussion and a reference to Note 6 in Eddington's Appendix.

http://www.scienc...99006751 (paywalled)
KBK
3.5 / 5 (14) Nov 01, 2017
Einstein the God of Physics triumphs again. A thousand cranks crash and burn.


Don't stray into dogma. Einstein would be the first to slap you down on this.

Thanks!
jonesdave
4.2 / 5 (21) Nov 01, 2017
A non-paywalled debunking of van Flandern's error is here:
https://arxiv.org...9087.pdf

Not to mention that the results from the article above completely refute his claims, so it's kind of irrelevant anyway.
KBK
1.5 / 5 (10) Nov 01, 2017
a clue is in the recent article of warm electron masses. Ie, planetary and solar cores, being as warm dense electron masses.

https://phys.org/...ons.html

Which requires quantum calculations and considerations to deal with.

Which is spooky action at a distance. Outside of time.

Space?

Space is charged sheets, ionic, etc. Thus, the same.

FYI, I'm not claiming anything, I'm just looking at the data and recent discoveries...
JongDan
4.2 / 5 (10) Nov 01, 2017
But if the Sun attracts Jupiter toward its previous position S', and Jupiter attracts the Sun towards its previous position J', when the force of attraction started out to cross the gulf, then the two forces give a couple. This couple will tend to increase the angular momentum of the system, and, acting cumulatively, will soon cause an appreciable change of period, disagreeing with observations if the speed is at all comparable with that of light.' (Eddington, 1920, p. 94) See Figure 1."

And this is exactly the process which causes the system to emit surplus angular momentum into the gravity field radiatively, or what we then detect as gravitational waves.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (15) Nov 01, 2017
Tom van Flandern was just wrong. I'm sure he did some good work when with the U.S. navy, but things when a bit haywire after that. When he died, somebody on Cosmoquest made the following accurate observation:

My condolences to his family. He did some fine work with the Navy, but seemed to drift into silliness in his later years.


That included his faster than light gravity, the face on Mars, an exploding planet being the source of the asteroid belt, and that Mars was a former moon of said planet.
An interesting article that covers his gravity nonsense here:
https://www.salon...instein/
eljo
1.9 / 5 (13) Nov 01, 2017
Well. We are invoking objects Einstein said could not exist. Einstein always claimed that black holes (objects with infinite density) were a physical impossibility. Gravitational accretion leads to an increase in spin. This spin becomes so rapid that gravitational objects stop accretion but create jets instead. I agree.
Besides that, Electromagnetic waves need a physical medium to propagate in, while Einsteins more abstract medium is not a physical reality but only a mathematical construct. Here I agree with maxwell. e.g. no aether, no waves. So physical reality does not tolerate Einsteinian mathematical relativeness.
Thirdly. The solar system needs faster than light communication of gravity, or it cannot be stable (except if gravity is an electromagnetic effect). Black matter cannot help, because it doesn't exist beyond mathematical projections.
I have no doubt that LIGO and sisters are measuring something, statistically. But I have serious doubts to what.
Chris_Reeve
Nov 01, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Nov 01, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Nov 01, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
baudrunner
1.9 / 5 (9) Nov 01, 2017
Again, the words "shock wave" are avoided like the plague.

How is it that this supposed "ripple" in space-time is observed by an instrument occupying the same space/time as the event and rippling right along with that so-called "gravitational wave"? How can this instrument possibly stand outside of space/time in order to detect it? It is an obvious conundrum that no-one seems to notice.

It's like all the conspiracy theories surrounding the Kennedy assassination. Every one of them implicates the mob but not one ever mentions the news-hour monopolizing "Congressional Hearings on Organized Crime" happening in the media at the time, which Johnson promptly dissolved on assuming the presidency. On the basis of that fact alone, then obviously there was another shooter.
ShotmanMaslo
4.6 / 5 (11) Nov 01, 2017
Thirdly. The solar system needs faster than light communication of gravity, or it cannot be stable (except if gravity is an electromagnetic effect).


Wrong, in general relativity you will have both gravity moving at the speed of light and stable orbits. See here:

https://en.wikipe...observer

There is still some residual instability which does result in certain decay of orbits and emission of gravitational waves. This is indeed what is observed with LIGO but also decaying pulsars.
stankerns
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 01, 2017
Now, how about the speed of transmission of pared interactions
Stan
Caliban
3.5 / 5 (11) Nov 01, 2017
Ambrose Bierce (1842-1914), The Devil's Dictionary, 1911

"PLEONASM, n, An army of words escorting a corporal of thought"
Chris_Reeve
Nov 01, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Nov 01, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Nov 01, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (15) Nov 01, 2017
Re: "In Eddington's book 2 , the very next sentence after Van Flandern's quote states that 'The argument is fallacious, because ... ' and there follows some discussion and a reference to Note 6 in Eddington's Appendix."

Okay, and why did you stop there? What is the part which convinced you that we should care?


The fact that the loon van Flandern didn't quote the whole sentence, you loon. Why would he cherry pick that part? Eejit.
Chris_Reeve
Nov 01, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jonesdave
3.6 / 5 (17) Nov 01, 2017
Is the idiot Reeve reading this? They have just measured the passing of a gravitational wave. They know where it came from. The light got here at the same time as the frigging wave. Game over for the woo merchants, yes?
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (15) Nov 01, 2017
The Wiki entry ends with:

"It is in fact not very easy to construct a self-consistent gravity theory in which gravitational interaction propagates at a speed other than the speed of light, which complicates discussion of this possibility.[17]"

Well, why would anybody even try if they have been convinced that they already understand it?


Eejit. He has just been shown to be wrong. Live with it.
Chris_Reeve
Nov 01, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Nov 01, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
cgsperling
4.3 / 5 (16) Nov 01, 2017
I find it interesting that some people spend so much time as "physics trolls". And many of them seem to have Einstein envy.

"Gravity does not exist. Einstein got it wrong!"
"Dark matter does not exist. Einstein got it wrong!"
"Zero-point energy can be harnessed. Einstein got it wrong!"
"That's not how science works !!! You've all got it wrong !!!"

And I suspect most of these geniuses work stocking shelves at Walmart.
Chris_Reeve
Nov 01, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Nov 01, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Nov 01, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Nov 02, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Nov 02, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Osiris1
1 / 5 (5) Nov 02, 2017
Scholasticists at work yet again! All the measuring equipment is based on electromagnetic waves which propagate at 'c', so naturally any wave faster than that will not be seen.......reallllly seen. Such is 'case one'! However, if the speed was even hinted at as 'faster', then such info would be highly 'classified'. The very idea that light may move at different speeds in different media was once highly classified too as the military wanted to use that info 'somehow'........case two!! The FACT is that we have craft visiting here and taking people aboard for 'study' by alien exobiologists, exomedical specialists, and possibly exo-bio-engineers/geneticists. Some of those captors leaked information, as some would in the work environment where those captors believe themselves not understood very well by their supposed 'study subjects' Villas Borros and others told of alien 'trade routes' and 'exploration missions'. They ARE going FTL in some way. WE can TOO someday.
Chris_Reeve
Nov 02, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
4.7 / 5 (15) Nov 02, 2017
Scholasticists at work yet again! All the measuring equipment is based on electromagnetic waves which propagate at 'c', so naturally any wave faster than that will not be seen.......reallllly seen

It would have been seen, because the thing that is measured is not dependent on the speed at which the gravitational wave traverses the apparatus.

The very idea that light may move at different speeds in different media was once highly classified too as the military...

Um..which military would that be? That the speed of light is different in different media is known since the experiments of Foucault - which he published in 1850.

And I am certain you will be able to provide unambiguous evidence that stands up to any kind of test for your following fact (or FACT...which is probably not the same as fact but some weird acronym? Because it sounds even more made up than your claim about the classification of the speed of light in a medium )
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (14) Nov 02, 2017
Re: "A non-paywalled debunking of van Flandern's error is here ..."

And what, in your own, words is this persuasive argument which has been put forward?


If you don't understand Carlip's paper, how about his quote from the Salon article I linked?
https://www.salon...instein/

As far as I can tell," he added, "Van Flandern simply doesn't understand the Einstein field equations.


In other words, he was out of his depth. Nobody took his nonsense seriously, and it is no surprise that he was wrong.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (14) Nov 02, 2017
Re: "A non-paywalled debunking of van Flandern's error is here ..."

And what, in your own, words is this persuasive argument which has been put forward?


Or you could try this:

In a recent paper in Physics LettersA [1], Van Flandern has argued that observations show that gravity propagates at a speed much greater than c. In the absence of direct measurements of propagation speed, Ref. [1] relies instead on directional information, in the form of observations of (the absence of) gravitational aberration. But the translation from a direction to a speed requires theoretical assumptions, and the implicit assumptions of Ref. [1]—in particular, that the interaction is purely central, with no velocity-dependent terms—do not hold for general relativity, or, for that matter, for Maxwell's electrodynamics.


Pretty explicit, I'd say.
Kron
4.3 / 5 (12) Nov 02, 2017
To anyone doubting the discoveries, please familiarize yourself with laser interferometry, familiarize yourself with LIGO and its design, and come up with an alternate explanation of the detected events. The August 17, 2017 event in particular, which we have visual evidence of to confirm the occurrence of a merger in the region (due to the event being produce by the merger of neutron stars as opposed to the previous detections of black hole mergers.

I'm only writing this to illustrate that the gravitational wave interpretation of this event is not some far fetched explanation but in fact the most probable and most intuitive deduction from the data collected. The results show differing travel times of laser light with respect to the orientation of LIGO arms and the observed event. By calculating the difference in travel times of the light within the 2 arms, we can pinpoint the direction the signal is coming from.

I would love to hear your alternate explanations of the event below.
katesisco
1 / 5 (10) Nov 02, 2017
Isnt this a round about way of getting to instantaneous transmission at the quantum level Walt Thornhill has proposed?
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (14) Nov 02, 2017
Isnt this a round about way of getting to instantaneous transmission at the quantum level Walt Thornhill has proposed?


Err no. Given that the results show that it isn't instantaneous. Thornhill thinks that comets are rocks, blasted off of rocky planets by giant lightning bolts in the recent past. I really wouldn't take anything he says seriously. He's a loon.
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (11) Nov 02, 2017

If you don't understand Carlip's paper, how about his quote from the Salon article I linked?
https://www.salon...instein/

A meaningless pop-sci-fi article out of magazine, it's not even as relevant as a press release.
And what, in your own, words is this persuasive argument which has been put forward?

jonesdumb is incapable of forming a thought with his brain cell, let alone a comprehensive idea.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (14) Nov 02, 2017
A meaningless pop-sci-fi article out of magazine, it's not even as relevant as a press release.


And featuring the quote made by the same Sterve Carlip whose paper I referenced. Obviously, in a scientific paper he isn't going to say "van Flandern hasn't got a clue." He can only show how TVF got it wrong. Outside of the scientific literature, however, he can be somewhat more descriptive. And was.
Chris_Reeve
Nov 02, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Nov 02, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Nov 02, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jonesdave
3.6 / 5 (14) Nov 02, 2017
Oh dear, more gish gallop from Reeve to gloss over the fact that his evidence-free belief has just been unambiguously falsified! Which just shows that the belief system of these neo-Velikovskians is essentially quasi-religious in nature. Very sad. I'll await the paper that describes how this detection doesn't confirm that the speed of gravity = c. I won't be holding my breath though. It'll never get beyond word salad on places like this, and crank sites like Thunderdolts. In other words, a total irrelevance.
Captain Stumpy
3.5 / 5 (8) Nov 02, 2017
@chris/hannes the pseudoscience eu cult idiot
https://youtu.be/..._I?t=300
1- youtube isn't equivalent to science

2- argument from verbosity isn't the same thing as argument from evidence

3- just because you believe it to be factual doesn't mean it is, nor does it mean it's even based in reality

4- the only way to promote science is to actually use the scientific method - repeatedly posing pseudoscience from an idiot site thunderdolts while arguing that science is wrong is stupidity (on a stick)

unless you have something other than your beliefs, you're doing nothing but preaching a religion
Chris_Reeve
Nov 02, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (13) Nov 02, 2017
Re: "the only way to promote science is to actually use the scientific method"

"'If astronomy were a science,' as a notorious competing astronomer once said, emphasis would be on testing the assumptions of alternative proposals against each other rather than on proclaiming self-congratulatory and sterile validations."

- Mel Acheson, Thunderblog, "Merger or Spin-off?"


So he quotes a woo merchant from Thunderdolts!

Claim: Gravity travels faster than light.

Various scientists: No, it doesn't.

Evidence: http://iopscience...1c9/meta

End of debate.
Chris_Reeve
Nov 02, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jonesdave
3.6 / 5 (14) Nov 02, 2017
The point made is simple enough to understand that a clown could say it in the street, and it would be no less valid. There are some claims for which we do not need to rely upon expert validation, for the simple reason that we can see that they are true with our own eyes.


And we did see it with our own eyes! According to TVF the waves should have got here before the light from the merger. It didn't. That is all the proof we need.
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (10) Nov 02, 2017
Oh dear, more gish gallop from Reeve to gloss over the fact that his evidence-free belief has just been unambiguously falsified!

No explanation how, certainly not in his own words. It would be too much for that brain cell to handle.
Chris_Reeve
Nov 02, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Nov 02, 2017
@chris/hannes the pseudoscience eu cult idiot
"'If astronomy were a science,' as a notorious competing astronomer once said, emphasis would be on testing the assumptions of alternative proposals against each other rather than on proclaiming self-congratulatory and sterile validations."

- Mel Acheson, Thunderblog, "Merger or Spin-off?"
you mean like this? http://www.everyt.../#safire

whopsie!
i guess you don't read actual scientific journals to keep up with what real science does...

that means, by definition, you don't know WTF is going on in modern astronomy and astrophysics

this also means that the entirety of your "knowledge" on the subject is whatever is told to you by your masters, who have been publicly proven to be complete idiots on astrophysics and debunked thoroughly

IOW - as noted already, that makes you a preacher of religious cult dogma, not science
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (10) Nov 02, 2017
And we did see it with our own eyes! According to TVF the waves should have got here before the light from the merger. It didn't. That is all the proof we need.

The circular reasoning rope-a-dope. Gravitational wave delusion is based on GR pseudoscience to which Van Flandern is making no claims. Regardless of that fact, gravity is but a local phenomena which would not be detected at the distances being claimed.
Chris_Reeve
Nov 02, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (9) Nov 02, 2017
@chris/hannes the pseudoscience eu cult idiot cont'd
For all of the huffing and puffing here about scientific method, it is plain to see that there is not much of it going on here.
we keep telling you that you should leave your cult so you can see what real science is....

so it doesn't make sense that you would complain about them not adhering to the scientific method publicly like that, especially since you're still defending them

tell ya what, you go out there and publish those scientific studies that debunk modern astrophysicists so that we can all learn just how "right" you and the cult members are, otherwise STFU
jonesdave
3.6 / 5 (14) Nov 02, 2017
Regardless of that fact, gravity is but a local phenomena which would not be detected at the distances being claimed.


Except that it was detected. And I've seen nobody claiming gravitational waves are not what they are claimed to be. If there are such claims, please point me to the papers.

Chris_Reeve
Nov 02, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (13) Nov 02, 2017
^^^^^^^........aaaaaaand another dodge!
Chris_Reeve
Nov 02, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Nov 02, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (13) Nov 02, 2017
..........aaaaaaaaaaaaaaand more hiding behind yet another irrelevant gish gallop. Yawn.
Chris_Reeve
Nov 02, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (13) Nov 02, 2017
It takes a real academic to completely ignore these specific critiques. They are providing you with a very specific answer to why you don't see these papers your simple narrative suggests should exist.


Rubbish. I've seen all sorts of stuff get past peer review that was controversial. Including van Flandern's misapprehensions. The reason that there is nothing out there, is because there is nobody, sufficiently qualified and knowledgeable, who is disputing it. There is only uninformed, scientifically illiterate word salad in places like this.
Chris_Reeve
Nov 02, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (13) Nov 02, 2017
Lol at all these gish gallop excuses! Admit it; there is no credible mechanism from the cranks. It would save a lot of time!
Chris_Reeve
Nov 02, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Nov 02, 2017
idiot eu cult members
It takes a real academic to completely ignore these specific critiques
so lets examine them: your first said
"'If peer review was a drug it would never be allowed onto the market,' says Drummond Rennie, deputy editor of the Journal Of the American Medical Association and intellectual father of the international congresses of peer review...
except that the FDA doesn't require a large impact for a drug to be labeled safe for use and sold on the market: see FDAAA 801 and 42 CFR Part 11

in point of fact, it requires very little
(though the larger the group the better the chances of approval, it doesn't require a large number of tested subjects at all, let alone a large impact in said tested groups)

whereas peer review requires the reviewer to be conversant in the subject (educated) and all negative review points to be based upon known established fact

enough to rule out your eu altogether as "science" though!
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (13) Nov 02, 2017
^^^^^^^^^^^^^Yet more avoidance as the fact that he has been terribly wrong for years slowly sinks into the dense core of Reeve's brain.
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (10) Nov 02, 2017
Rubbish. I've seen all sorts of stuff get past peer review that was controversial. Including van Flandern's misapprehensions.

Nice to see you acknowledge the double standard on display by you that peer-review is only relevant when it supports your beliefs.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (11) Nov 02, 2017
Rubbish. I've seen all sorts of stuff get past peer review that was controversial. Including van Flandern's misapprehensions.

Nice to see you acknowledge the double standard on display by you that peer-review is only relevant when it supports your beliefs.


Peer review is irrelevant here, as you don't have a scientific hypothesis that can be reviewed!
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 02, 2017
@cd the idiot pseudoscience cult acolyte
Nice to see you acknowledge the double standard on display by you that peer-review is only relevant when it supports your beliefs.
1- peer review isn't the "standard" of science, it's simply a means to insure blatantly false pseudoscience doesn't replace science.
it's proven to work pretty well, as it's shown that the eu cult, aether cult and other delusional beliefs are pseudoscience

2- before you can critique peer review you first have to comprehend the basics of science

3- peer review, though not perfect, is surprisingly effective
(again, the demonstration that the eu bullsh*t isn't producing peer reviewed journal studies is proof)

i noticed that neither of you can produce actual facts to support your claims... just other people's opinions and claims

that surely isn't science or evidence against science
that is called stupidity
cgsperling
3.7 / 5 (12) Nov 02, 2017
@Chris_Reeve. You cite work that supposedly was quashed by peer review, and yet went on to win Nobel Prizes. I don't know how much more self-contradictory you can get.
Chris_Reeve
Nov 02, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (13) Nov 02, 2017
Your group simply lacks the critical spirit to provide meaningful peer review on these topics, and the people who can provide it long ago gave up trying to publish it.


There is only one group; real science. Cranks don't count, and contribute nothing. I would suggest reading the history of neutron star theory. And its predictions. And how those predictions have been confirmed:
http://www.resear...ted.html

You have nothing. You can't even point to an alternate hypothesis.

Chris_Reeve
Nov 02, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jonesdave
3.6 / 5 (14) Nov 02, 2017
how complete is your set of alternate explanations?"


I'm not suggesting alternate explanations. You are, but refuse to tell us what they are. Due to them not existing.
Chris_Reeve
Nov 02, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (15) Nov 02, 2017
^^^^More irrelevant babbling. Here's the deal, Reeve - a scientific hypothesis is floated, based on sound theoretical concepts. In this case, that neutron stars are a real class of astronomical object. Based on the theory, predictions for what will be observed are made. People then search for these signals. And find them. Furthermore, it is posited what should happen if a pair of these stars should collide, or merge. Which is also borne out by the latest detections. You cannot get better science than that. It is precisely how science should work, and bears no resemblance whatsoever to the mythology inspired woo that you and others believe in. Which has nothing to do with science.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (14) Nov 02, 2017
Bruce G. Charlton.
From 2003 to 2010, Charlton was the solo-editor of the journal Medical Hypotheses, published by Elsevier.[4] After HIV/AIDS denier Peter Duesberg published a paper in Medical Hypothesis arguing that "there is as yet no proof that HIV causes AIDS", the journal came under fire for its lack of peer review. The paper was withdrawn from the journal citing concerns over the paper's quality and "that [it] could potentially be damaging to global public health." Elsevier consequently revamped the journal to introduce peer review, firing Charlton from his position as editor, due to his resistance of these changes.

https://en.wikipe...Charlton

And that's what happens when you publish crap that hasn't been peer reviewed!
Benni
1.6 / 5 (13) Nov 02, 2017
a scientific hypothesis is floated, based on sound theoretical concepts.


............yeah diminutive genius, like the existence of a finite stellar mass having inherent properties of infinite gravity & infinite density at it's surface. Where's the sound theoretical concept behind those concepts? Not found in either Special or General Relativity.

Such BH gigo bears no resemblance whatsoever to the mythology inspired woo that you and others believe in. Which has nothing to do with science.

jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (12) Nov 02, 2017
a scientific hypothesis is floated, based on sound theoretical concepts.


............yeah diminutive genius, like the existence of a finite stellar mass having inherent properties of infinite gravity & infinite density at it's surface. Where's the sound theoretical concept behind those concepts? Not found in either Special or General Relativity.

Such BH gigo bears no resemblance whatsoever to the mythology inspired woo that you and others believe in. Which has nothing to do with science.



So show me the paper that explains what is going on around Sgr A*. That doesn't involve a black hole. There must be something out there. I promise to read it/ them.
Benni
1.4 / 5 (11) Nov 02, 2017
a scientific hypothesis is floated, based on sound theoretical concepts


............yeah diminutive genius, like the existence of a finite stellar mass having inherent properties of infinite gravity & infinite density at it's surface. Where's the sound theoretical concept behind those concepts? Not found in either Special or General Relativity.

Such BH gigo bears no resemblance whatsoever to the mythology inspired woo that you and others believe in. Which has nothing to do with science.


So show me the paper that explains what is going on around Sgr A*. That doesn't involve a black hole. There must be something out there. I promise to read it them.
......can't do it. There are no fundamental Laws of Physics that permit infinite gravity & infinite density to exist on the surface of a finite stellar mass, not in SR & not in GR. Asstrophysicists love their pipedreams, you're just one of many suckers swallowing them.

Whydening Gyre
4.4 / 5 (13) Nov 02, 2017
a scientific hypothesis is floated, based on sound theoretical concepts.


............yeah diminutive genius, like the existence of a finite stellar mass having inherent properties of infinite gravity & infinite density at it's surface. Where's the sound theoretical concept behind those concepts? Not found in either Special or General Relativity.

Once again, Benni, I must remind you that YOU are the only one who says/believes that cosmologists believe in infinite gravity/density.
It's a reference point from which to calculate REAL values...
It would also be interesting to hear your explanation of where a BH's gravitational effects originate from...
Care to try?
Benni
1.4 / 5 (11) Nov 02, 2017
Care to try?
...........easy, it's called MASS & it is spelled as: m-a-s-s

Capiche? Probably not.
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (10) Nov 02, 2017
It would also be interesting to hear your explanation of where a BH's gravitational effects originate from...

The little pucker on the backside of a unicorn.
Quite frankly, being BH's are little more than the fanciful mathematical creations of rhe plasma ignoramuses it can be what ever you want it to be.
Benni
1.3 / 5 (12) Nov 02, 2017
Once again, Benni, I must remind you that YOU are the only one who says/believes that cosmologists believe in infinite gravity/density.
.......here you are WhyGuy, your favorite source:

"At the center of a black hole, as described by general relativity, lies a gravitational singularity, a region where the spacetime curvature becomes infinite. For a non-rotating black hole, this region takes the shape of a single point and for a rotating black hole, it is smeared out to form a ring singularity that lies in the plane of rotation.In both cases, the singular region has zero volume. It can also be shown that the singular region contains all the mass of the black hole solution.The singular region can thus be thought of as having infinite density." https://en.wikipe...ack_hole

Capiche? No, probably you don't.

Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (11) Nov 02, 2017
Care to try?
...........easy, it's called MASS & it is spelled as: m-a-s-s

Okay, good answer...
Now... how much?
Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (12) Nov 02, 2017

"At the center of a black hole, as described by general relativity, lies a gravitational singularity, a region where the spacetime curvature becomes infinite. ... It can also be shown that the singular region contains all the mass of the black hole solution.The singular region can thus be thought of as having infinite density." https://en.wikipe...ack_hole

That statement was pretty far down in the link. You must find Wiki a pretty good read, too.
Oh. Operative phrase - "can thus be thought of as having ", Not "is". It's an abstract reference point.
So, what's your explanation to gravitational effect produced by an area of space we can't see cuz light can't escape it..?
Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (12) Nov 02, 2017
It would also be interesting to hear your explanation of where a BH's gravitational effects originate from...

The little pucker on the backside of a unicorn.
Quite frankly, being BH's are little more than the fanciful mathematical creations of rhe plasma ignoramuses it can be what ever you want it to be.

Which, apparently, is what you have done...
Thusly making you an ignoramus, too...?
And, quite frankly, I'm a little surprised you chose an anus of an imaginary creature for your sample.
Got something against vaginas?
cantdrive85
1.9 / 5 (9) Nov 03, 2017
So, what's your explanation to gravitational effect produced by an area of space we can't see cuz light can't escape it..?

This is another imaginary contruct which has never been observed.
https://apod.nasa..._big.jpg
There is no object preventing any EM radiation from escaping from the galactic core. Unless of course you add in your artistic impressions...
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (10) Nov 03, 2017
So, what's your explanation to gravitational effect produced by an area of space we can't see cuz light can't escape it..?

This is another imaginary contruct which has never been observed.
https://apod.nasa..._big.jpg
There is no object preventing any EM radiation from escaping from the galactic core. Unless of course you add in your artistic impressions...

Sag A. that photo looks pretty "observed" to me...
cantdrive85
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 03, 2017
And it's awfully bright, no shortage of bright stuff at all.
Osiris1
not rated yet Nov 03, 2017
Time will prove to be three dimensional, introducing problems of spacetime motion where temporal partial differentials of the two of the three possible may be non zero with respect to gravitational forces which may also vary with respect to all the above. Mackita may be right even though a small clique does not appear to like him/her.
Benni
1 / 5 (7) Nov 03, 2017
Care to try?
...........easy, it's called MASS & it is spelled as: m-a-s-s

Okay, good answer...
Now... how much?
..........how much for what?
Benni
1 / 5 (10) Nov 03, 2017
So, what's your explanation to gravitational effect produced by an area of space we can't see cuz light can't escape it..?


WhyGuy, where have you observed anyplace in the Universe that light can't escape? I know light from a lot of galaxies is partially occluded & prevented from shining through due to dust lanes, but that's the ONLY place it has been OBSERVED.

Maybe you have pics of BHs preventing light from escaping the surface of such a stellar body? Please tell us where to find those pics.
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (11) Nov 04, 2017
So, what's your explanation to gravitational effect produced by an area of space we can't see cuz light can't escape it..?


WhyGuy, where have you observed anyplace in the Universe that light can't escape?

Personally, no. I have to rely on info from astronomers around the world who have little or no reason to create BS...
I know light from a lot of galaxies is partially occluded & prevented from shining through due to dust lanes, but that's the ONLY place it has been OBSERVED.

And... Cygnus X-1? V-404 Cygni in the Magellanic Cloud? You have another explanation?
Maybe you have pics of BHs preventing light from escaping the surface of such a stellar body? Please tell us where to find those pics.

Mine would just be artist conceptions anyway...
But maybe you should check with those astronomers who have participated in researching those 2 afore- mentioned systems...
Surely they would be happy to help out an amateur "Fellow astronomer"...
Da Schneib
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 04, 2017
@mac, we've detected gravitational waves. Not just once. Its about as often as we predicted. Furthermore we've now detected gravitational waves along with a gamma ray burst, and shown why we didn't see any GRB with the other detections.

This isn't theory. It's rock hard stone cold brute fact. It doesn't matter any more what Einstein, Eddington, LaPlace, or Newton said. You might as well be arguing there's no such thing as stars, or that the Earth is flat. Get over it.
humy
5 / 5 (5) Nov 04, 2017
Again, the words "shock wave" are avoided like the plague.

How is it that this supposed "ripple" in space-time is observed by an instrument occupying the same space/time as the event and rippling right along with that so-called "gravitational wave"? How can this instrument possibly stand outside of space/time in order to detect it?


You are talking nonsense here. Even if calling it a "shock wave" is 'correct' in every sense i.e. even if that is a 'perfect analogy', a 'shock wave' can be most definitely be detected by a 'detector' in spacetime as anyone (acting as the 'detector' itself ) that has been knocked down by one would confirm.
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (10) Nov 04, 2017
@humy, and that's ignoring that we can detect the distortion of spacetime by gravity with light. Eddington did it during a solar eclipse to provide evidence for GRT. If the argument were correct he couldn't have done that. His telescope wasn't outside spacetime, nor was it outside the gravitational field of the Sun.

As far as calling it a "shock wave," it's not. It simply doesn't meet the definition of a shock wave.
Da Schneib
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 04, 2017
There's theory, and then there's experiment and observation. Theory is not fact, and geocentrism was a theory. The outcomes of repeatable observations and experiments are not theory. They are facts.

So are gravitational waves.
Da Schneib
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 04, 2017
And BTW there is no "theory of dark matter waves." If you're just going to make stuff up you'll find that everyone here who is worth talking to will put you on ignore. I'm seriously considering it myself.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 04, 2017
It's not a "religious trait" to insist that theory is different from observed fact, and it's also not a religious trait to refuse to have anything to do with someone who makes up lies.

Good bye.
Benni
1 / 5 (11) Nov 04, 2017
mac, we've detected gravitational waves.
........Schneibo, when will you finally learn how an INTERFEROMETER works? Those laser beams detected nothing that has anything to do with gravity being a WAVE.

Those laser beams only recorded a brief distortion of change above background levels. If there had been an actual merger of two bodies the briefly recorded distortion in background level of noise would not have returned to null, the wave would have been continuous & the laser beams would lock, but they didn't.

As a Nuclear/Electrical Engineer, I know way more about how Interferometers work than any of those astronomers on the LIGO team. Hell's bells man, none of those guys can even explain to anybody how a transistor works, probably neither can you. At trade Shows & elsewhere I've actually met a few of the actual 2000 signatories who have signed onto this, & you can't talk about electronic circuit analyses with these guys, you & they don't comprehend it.

jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (12) Nov 04, 2017
^^^^^Showing his usual D-K traits, as well as a complete lack of understanding of the process. And is too thick to write up his fantasy in the scientific literature to challenge the findings! Still thinks that being a poseur on here is going to have any effect whatsoever on scientific consensus. I've already pointed out elsewhere that people on the author list of those papers know far more about interferometers than he does. But, cranks will be cranks, and if it makes his little fantasy world easier to bear, then I guess he can believe whatever helps him sleep better at night. Sad.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (11) Nov 04, 2017
IMO the laymen public should be informed, that despite the technological success and Nobel prizes suspiciously quickly awarded the nature of gravitational waves in general relativity remains controversial and if some similar effect has still been found, it could be attributed to conceptually different phenomena.


So write it up, and inform them. Within the scientific literature. Stop wasting pixels on here with unsubstantiated blathering.
Da Schneib
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 04, 2017
Just to put a final cap on it:

seismic waves
No. Seismic waves can't move between two different locations that quickly.

solar storms
Ummwut? This is silliness. Show a coincidence between solar storms and GW detections.

You're a troll.
Benni
1 / 5 (9) Nov 04, 2017
IMO the laymen public should be informed, that despite the technological success and Nobel prizes suspiciously quickly awarded the nature of gravitational waves in general relativity remains controversial and if some similar effect has still been found, it could be attributed to conceptually different phenomena.


So write it up, and inform them. Within the scientific literature. Stop wasting pixels on here with unsubstantiated blathering.


Jonsey babe:

Einstein and Gravitational Waves 1936-1938. Available from: https://www.resea...936-1938

Einstein already did write it up in the negative, maybe you should "write it up" why you, who can't even solve Differential Equations, could possibly imagine you're smarter than Einstein who did very good work with such math?

jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (11) Nov 04, 2017
As a Nuclear/Electrical Engineer, I know way more about how Interferometers work than any of those astronomers on the LIGO team.


Not only lying, but crap at research, not to mention a coward, hiding behind the anonymity of a comments section!

Take , for instance:
CO2 laser production of fused silica fibers for use in interferometric gravitational wave detector mirror suspensions
Hough, J.
http://eprints.gl...k/62361/

Stabilized lasers for advanced gravitational wave detectors
Willke, B. et al
http://pubman.mpd...4040.pdf

Five minutes looking around, that took. Now, see if anybody can find their names on this paper:

Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger
Abbott, B.P. et al
https://journals....6.061102

Errr, yes, would be the answer to that.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (11) Nov 04, 2017
Einstein already did write it up in the negative, maybe you should "write it up" why you, who can't even solve Differential Equations, could possibly imagine you're smarter than Einstein who did very good work with such math?


It's irrelevant what I can or cannot do - I didn't detect the waves, nor write up the papers. You're convincing no one here with your faux, D-K inspired claims. Those are the people you need to be addressing, and you're too much of a coward to do it.
Benni
1 / 5 (11) Nov 04, 2017
Errr, yes, would be the answer to that.


Hey, Cretinologist, there was no BH merger or the laser beams would have locked, whatever the bodies were, they simply passed one another causing the laser beams to return to null.

Hey, can you do a circuit analyses using Kirchoff's Circuit Laws? You won't need Differential Equations for that in case you were wondering if I was asking you a trick question.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) Nov 04, 2017
Errr, yes, would be the answer to that.


Hey, Cretinologist, there was no BH merger or the laser beams would have locked, whatever the bodies were, they simply passed one another causing the laser beams to return to null.

Hey, can you do a circuit analyses using Kirchoff's Circuit Laws? You won't need Differential Equations for that in case you were wondering if I was asking you a trick question.


Coward, and bullsh*tter. People who know far more than you ever will worked on that project, not only using the instruments, but designing and building them. So, unless you're going to write up your crap, may I suggest you STFU, because you are accomplishing nothing other than giving Messrs Dunning & Kruger a whole new bunch of material to study. You are, quite frankly, the worst case of D-K I think I have ever seen. With a possible dead heat with Wal Thornhill & Michael Mozina.
tl;dr? Write it up or STFU.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) Nov 04, 2017
At times, one really has to wonder about the psychological make up of some of the Walter Mitty types we get on here. Why do they do it? If they knew anything they'd be publishing their own work, and wouldn't need to come on here to attack people who are far better qualified than themselves. Is it an attention seeking thing? Or have they been conned by some other crank, and think that they are part of some under appreciated few, who share the true knowledge, that they need to pass on?
Very, very weird behaviour.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (11) Nov 04, 2017
Here's another paper from the people who don't understand interferometers as well as Benni the buffoon:

Achieving resonance in the Advanced LIGO gravitational-wave interferometer
Staley, A. et al.
http://iopscience...4/245010

37 authors, 35 of whom are co-authors on:
Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger
Abbott, B.P. et al
https://journals....6.061102

But Benni knows better than any of them! However, due to modesty reasons, he needs to tell us all this whilst being anonymous on a comments section of a sci-news site! Yeah, right.
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 04, 2017
So what do interferometers get used for in nuclear engineering? Not to mention what General Relativity Theory gets used for.

Just askin'.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (11) Nov 04, 2017
Here's someone else who is not as smart as Benni when it comes to interferometers:

The Advanced LIGO Gravitational Wave Detector
Waldman, S.J.
https://arxiv.org...2728.pdf

And here is Sam Waldman on LinkedIn:
https://www.linke...39214120

Harvard, Stanford, Caltech. MIT.
Ligo, SpaceX.
B.A. Physics. Ph. D Applied Physics.

"As a staff scientist at the Laser Interferometer for Gravitational waves Observatory (LIGO), I helped commission the original long-baseline detectors and design the next generation Advanced LIGO detector. "

And is a co-author on the BH GW detection paper.

Perhaps Benni would like to stack his education and qualifications up against just one of the people who designed these instruments? Thought not.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (7) Nov 04, 2017
Personally, no. I have to rely on info from astronomers around the world who have little or no reason to create BS...

LOL! Validation, self-worth, job security, any number of reasons being that these are but human beings with all the fallibility apparent with humans. It's this naivety that you display that allows the dark faerie tales to be perpetuated.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) Nov 04, 2017
^^^^^Talking of Walter Mitty!
jonesdave
3.8 / 5 (10) Nov 04, 2017
Of course, without constraints and peer review, one would be free to publish stuff like this:

https://www.thund...saur.htm

What a better place the world would be!
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (11) Nov 04, 2017
Personally, no. I have to rely on info from astronomers around the world who have little or no reason to create BS...

LOL! Validation, self-worth, job security, any number of reasons being that these are but human beings with all the fallibility apparent with humans. It's this naivety that you display that allows the dark faerie tales to be perpetuated.

Obviously, you have a problem with a little trust.
Always looking for the dark side of others is a strong indication that you are that same type of person you see in others...
Benni
1 / 5 (11) Nov 04, 2017
People who know far more than you ever will worked on that project, not only using the instruments, but designing and building them


No, the LIGO team did not design, nor did they build the INTERFEROMETER, astro-physicists do not know how to design electronic circuitry.......but I do, think Electrical Engineering.
Da Schneib
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 04, 2017
Still haven't heard how nuclear engineering uses interferometers.

Obviously it doesn't much except for metrology. Which is the answer you would have known if you were actually a nuke, @Lenni.

And you can guess at how I know that. Good luck with that.

You are so far out of your league it's hardly even funny. You are a nuclear technician at best. And by "technician" I mean you're the one who cleans the feces off the probes at a hospital.

Now you can try to tell us all how much you learned about lasers and general relativity cleaning up shit.
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (10) Nov 05, 2017
Still haven't heard how nuclear engineering uses interferometers.

Obviously it doesn't much except for metrology. Which is the answer you would have known if you were actually a nuke, @Lenni.

And you can guess at how I know that. Good luck with that.

You are so far out of your league it's hardly even funny. You are a nuclear technician at best. And by "technician" I mean you're the one who cleans the feces off the probes at a hospital.

Now you can try to tell us all how much you learned about lasers and general relativity cleaning up shit.

He'll prob'ly try and say neutron pre-emission measurement or something..
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Nov 05, 2017
Obviously, you have a problem with a little trust.
Always looking for the dark side of others is a strong indication that you are that same type of person you see in others...

There's that artistic impression getting the best of you. It's just apparent as these are the types of folks who actually make it through the theoretical science graduate programs these days. Yes men and individuals of questionable character are the only ones who can make it through whereas free thinkers and those who question the status quo are weeded out before completing the programs as has been shown repeatedly. It's one way the plasma ignoramuses keep their paradigm intact.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 05, 2017
Still haven't heard how nuclear engineering uses interferometers.

Obviously it doesn't much except for metrology. Which is the answer you would have known if you were actually a nuke, @Lenni.

And you can guess at how I know that. Good luck with that.

You are so far out of your league it's hardly even funny. You are a nuclear technician at best. And by "technician" I mean you're the one who cleans the feces off the probes at a hospital.

Now you can try to tell us all how much you learned about lasers and general relativity cleaning up shit.

He'll prob'ly try and say neutron pre-emission measurement or something..
About the only thing laser interferometers measure is distance. I've worked with systems that used them in the semiconductor sector. So making up stuff about them wouldn't work out well for @Lenni.
RogueParticle
3.8 / 5 (10) Nov 05, 2017
Proving Einstein is wrong? - https://xkcd.com/1206/
RogueParticle
4 / 5 (12) Nov 05, 2017
@CD
Yes men and individuals of questionable character are the only ones who can make it through whereas free thinkers and those who question the status quo are weeded out before completing the programs as has been shown repeatedly
What bollocks - you very evidently have not been through, let alone made it through, such a course.

If you had, you would realize there would have been many free thinkers around you, not only fellow students, but also lecturers and professors. All vying to convince others of their sometimes very radical views on the subject. Which subject? - astrophysics; and you can add physics and mathematics to that list.

You're arguing, as many here have often tried to tell you, from a perspective of sheer ignorance of the dynamics of academia, and of the subject, preferring instead to swallow the feel-good EU-sacred bullshit of your religion's leaders. FFS, actually learn something for once, and stop making such a fool of yourself.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (11) Nov 05, 2017
People who know far more than you ever will worked on that project, not only using the instruments, but designing and building them


No, the LIGO team did not design, nor did they build the INTERFEROMETER, astro-physicists do not know how to design electronic circuitry.......but I do, think Electrical Engineering.


Yes they did. As I have linked to numerous times. That is why they get their names on the papers. And why they would know if there were anything wrong with the interpretation of the results. I know of no papers suggesting these results were misinterpreted. If you know of any, please link to them.
Da Schneib
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 05, 2017
Here we go again.

Thought you were a nuclear engineer, @Lenni, not an EE. Looks like you're lying again.
Benni
1 / 5 (9) Nov 05, 2017


Thought you were a nuclear engineer, @Lenni, not an EE.


Schneibo, copied from above:

As a Nuclear/Electrical Engineer, I know way more about how Interferometers work than any of those astronomers on the LIGO team. Hell's bells man, none of those guys can even explain to anybody how a transistor works, probably neither can you. At trade Shows & elsewhere I've actually met a few of the actual signatories who have signed onto this, & you can't talk about electronic circuit analyses with these guys, you & they don't comprehend it.

And hey, Schneibo, how many times have I had to correct you on your claims that Einstein in GR laid forth the hypotheses for the formation of BHs? And finally you've knocked it off with those fairy tale narratives that Einstein ever postulated any such thing.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 05, 2017
^^^^More D-K rambling, along with lies and deceit about the instruments. Give it up.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (9) Nov 05, 2017
I've actually met a few of the actual signatories who have signed onto this, & you can't talk about electronic circuit analyses with these guys, you & they don't comprehend it.


Names, or that is an outright lie. I met Buzz Aldrin, and he said the Moon is made of cheese. Prove me wrong.

jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) Nov 05, 2017
Ronald Drever - another one of the LIGO designers who would be unfit to work alongside Benni & Homer at the nuclear plant!

https://en.wikipe...d_Drever
Benni
1 / 5 (9) Nov 05, 2017
Ronald Drever - another one of the LIGO designers who would be unfit to work alongside Benni & Homer at the nuclear plant!


Interferometers have been around for decades, Drever didn't invent a thing, he simply pulled existing hardware off a shelf & configured it to a special application.
jonesdave
3.8 / 5 (10) Nov 05, 2017
Ronald Drever - another one of the LIGO designers who would be unfit to work alongside Benni & Homer at the nuclear plant!


Interferometers have been around for decades, Drever didn't invent a thing, he simply pulled existing hardware off a shelf & configured it to a special application.


So, you're saying he didn't now what he was doing? Nice. So the only people that can possibly know about interferometers are the people who made the very first one. Everyone else has just been copying them, without understanding what they're doing.
Maybe you'll do something worthwhile one day, to merit a mention on Wikipedia!
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (6) Nov 05, 2017
Noticed I didn't get any answer on what interferometers are used for in nuclear engineering.

Also electrical engineering and electronics engineering are different, yet another one of those pesky fact things that has apparently eluded @Lenni's notice.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (9) Nov 05, 2017
Noticed I didn't get any answer on what interferometers are used for in nuclear engineering.

Also electrical engineering and electronics engineering are different, yet another one of those pesky fact things that has apparently eluded @Lenni's notice.


You never will get a response to this, DS. The bloke is a liar. And a complete coward. Still, why should we care? He'll keep making sh*t up on here, and every time he's challenged to produce evidence, he'll just lie again. Pointless.
Benni
1 / 5 (9) Nov 05, 2017
Still, why should we care?
........well then, stop making it a point to "care" so much about my personal life & spend more time tending to your own.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (8) Nov 05, 2017
Still, why should we care?
........well then, stop making it a point to "care" so much about my personal life & spend more time tending to your own.

That would be easier if we weren't bombed with this kind of stuff in every thread;
As a Nuclear/Electrical Engineer, I know way more ...
RogueParticle
3.9 / 5 (14) Nov 05, 2017
More D-K rambling, along with lies and deceit about the instruments
You never will get a response to this, DS. The bloke is a liar. And a complete coward
It seems to me that Benni's problem goes beyond D-K - he displays every classic symptom of Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) which it would be possible to discern through the medium of writing. So, we can't hear his voice, and we don't see how he comports himself in social contexts. But we do see these:
- has a grandiose sense of self-importance;
- has fantasies regarding his intelligence, talents and success;
- lacks empathy;
- has an insatiable appetite for the attention of others;
- responds to criticism with anger, and with humiliation and shame which are sublimated into furious denial of others' abilities and achievements;
- is controlling and exploitative (viz. his demands that DS owns up about infinite gravity wells);
- requires excessive admiration;
- is intensely envious of others.

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.