Observation Of Gravity Waves

[Cascabel]

Interesting article:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/jun/15/gravitational-waves-detected-from-collision-of-second-set-of-black-holes-ligo

[GAHD]

... so it radiated negative energy? i need to ponder this.

[sanctus]

Where did you see anything about negative energy?

[GAHD]

Where did you see anything about negative energy?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe

(I really should reference a better page than wiki, but lunch break is only so long)

[Cascabel]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe

(I really should reference a better page than wiki, but lunch break is only so long)

That comes with a health warning.....

[GAHD]

That comes with a health warning.....

Unsure what you mean, your tongue's too far in your cheek.

 

I'm going to assume that's a crack at how wiki is misleading at times, so I'll point you to a PHD on the subject.

http://krauss.faculty.asu.edu/

I'm fairly certain you can use a search engine to find and read up more on "flat universe" (NOT flat earth!!). The education will "stick" better if you find it yourself ;)

[Cascabel]

Unsure what you mean, your tongue's too far in your cheek.

 

I'm going to assume that's a crack at how wiki is misleading at times, so I'll point you to a PHD on the subject.

http://krauss.faculty.asu.edu/

I'm fairly certain you can use a search engine to find and read up more on "flat universe" (NOT flat earth!!). The education will "stick" better if you find it yourself ;)

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages)

A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. (November 2012) This article needs attention from an expert on the subject. (November 2012)

This article relies too much on references to primary sources. (November 2012)

 

I really hope this 'education' won't stick....

Edited July 9, 2016 by Cascabel

[GAHD]

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages)

A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. (November 2012) This article needs attention from an expert on the subject. (November 2012)

This article relies too much on references to primary sources. (November 2012)

 

I really hope this 'education' won't stick....

Ahh, you're one of those. So your issue is that wiki has a "warning close connection" and "needs an expert". Fairly certain I just pointed you to a better source(expert, Phd), who lists verifiable data points. 

 

Let me know when you have more to contribute than snide derision without some form reasoning to back it up. 'Till then you "win" because I'm done with you. :)

[sanctus]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe

(I really should reference a better page than wiki, but lunch break is only so long)

Interesting indeed, but then zero energy is a postulate only, no? I mean can't you just say a body had potential energy transformed into kinetic?

[exchemist]

Interesting indeed, but then zero energy is a postulate only, no? I mean can't you just say a body had potential energy transformed into kinetic?

 

Quite so. 

 

As I understand the idea, one can (rather arbitrarily) set the gravitational potential energy of gravitating bodies to zero at infinite separation, just as one commonly does for electrostatic potential. If one does so then the potential energy they have as they approach one another is of course lower and thus takes on an increasingly negative value, relative to this arbitrary zero. However this is not at all the same thing as radiating "negative energy", as was mentioned earlier in this thread. Any energy transfers in this situation involve energy with a +ve value., in other words, normal energy. There is no such thing as anti-energy.     

Edited July 13, 2016 by exchemist

[GAHD]

From the way I read you, that's just you being petulant about the connotations of the word "negative". Consider gravity wells themselves, and do it realizing that they can't be accurately described with simple Euclidean geometry. My reference to "radiating negative energy" Is referring to how gravity removes (potential) energy from objects by reducing them to gound-state potential of the well. That's why apples hit curly guys on the head, and why bath water falls out of a full tub when you get in it. It's also how bubble -levels, and the tides of the ocean work.

Negative and positive, are indeed clumbsy words, just look at the 2 competing views of electronics: the circuit can be calculated either via electron flow, or positron flow, and both work even though we know nuclei(+) don't move through a circuit anywhere near as fast as electrons(-). (if yer gonna raise a finger here about nuclei and motion, i'll cut you off at the pass and say go learn about electroplating and CVD industrial processes. Also brush up on what redox actually is. :)) When you're talking about vector changes, how do you define which vector is "positive" ? That's the arbitrary nature of vectors, but a Field has well-defined "ends."  and weather you value the center as negative or positive doesn't matter, as long as you carry the -1 over to the rest of the equation too.

From what i've gathered about LIGO's data measurement methods They're showing a series of reductions in ground state as these waves pass over. The well of space got deeper, more negative, with a fixed and recognizable pattern. That's cool, And I do have to ponder it. :)

I'll admit i haven't spent more than 45 minutes reviewing the data sets, do feel free to point out where I'm reading it wrong if you have superior insight.

 

[exchemist]

From the way I read you, that's just you being petulant about the connotations of the word "negative". Consider gravity wells themselves, and do it realizing that they can't be accurately described with simple Euclidean geometry. My reference to "radiating negative energy" Is referring to how gravity removes (potential) energy from objects by reducing them to gound-state potential of the well. That's why apples hit curly guys on the head, and why bath water falls out of a full tub when you get in it. It's also how bubble -levels, and the tides of the ocean work.

 

Negative and positive, are indeed clumbsy words, just look at the 2 competing views of electronics: the circuit can be calculated either via electron flow, or positron flow, and both work even though we know nuclei(+) don't move through a circuit anywhere near as fast as electrons(-). (if yer gonna raise a finger here about nuclei and motion, i'll cut you off at the pass and say go learn about electroplating and CVD industrial processes. Also brush up on what redox actually is. :)) When you're talking about vector changes, how do you define which vector is "positive" ? That's the arbitrary nature of vectors, but a Field has well-defined "ends."  and weather you value the center as negative or positive doesn't matter, as long as you carry the -1 over to the rest of the equation too.

 

From what i've gathered about LIGO's data measurement methods They're showing a series of reductions in ground state as these waves pass over. The well of space got deeper, more negative, with a fixed and recognizable pattern. That's cool, And I do have to ponder it. :)

 

I'll admit i haven't spent more than 45 minutes reviewing the data sets, do feel free to point out where I'm reading it wrong if you have superior insight.

 

 

Yes I do think you are reading a few things wrong, starting with statements like "gravity removes (potential) energy from objects by reducing them to gound-state potential of the well".  If you mean "ground state", this is a term from QM and has no applicability to gravitational potential. 

[GAHD]

Yes I do think you are reading a few things wrong, starting with statements like "gravity removes (potential) energy from objects by reducing them to gound-state potential of the well".  If you mean "ground state", this is a term from QM and has no applicability to gravitational potential. 

Ground state is a term from multiple disciplines and schools of thought. Again, petulance And wordplay rather than insight or hyperlinks. Not very convincing outside of elementary school. https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9701130

Ground state is a broad terminology, and while yes we can sit here and play a semantic game of "ground state only refers to electron shells!" or "ground state is the lowest version of all energy, not just potential energy" That's mincing words that don't need to be minced.

 

You dislike my description of a bowling ball on the shelf falling on your toe as "removing [the] potential energy" [it had sitting on the shelf]. Ok, Now step-up and say why you're so right.

[GAHD]

Interesting indeed, but then zero energy is a postulate only, no? I mean can't you just say a body had potential energy transformed into kinetic?

I suppose you could, and then that the kinetic is disperced as ambient heat throughout whatever it "hits" (assuming we're taking the bowling ball off a shelf example). At the same time, relativity Seems to indicate kinetic energy is just another form of mass energy, and that the gravitational potential of that mass energy balances out by being "negative". Try balancing a gravity slingshot with gravity as a negative value. :) ,

[exchemist]

Ground state is a term from multiple disciplines and schools of thought. Again, petulance And wordplay rather than insight or hyperlinks. Not very convincing outside of elementary school. https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9701130

Ground state is a broad terminology, and while yes we can sit here and play a semantic game of "ground state only refers to electron shells!" or "ground state is the lowest version of all energy, not just potential energy" That's mincing words that don't need to be minced.

 

You dislike my description of a bowling ball on the shelf falling on your toe as "removing [the] potential energy" [it had sitting on the shelf]. Ok, Now step-up and say why you're so right.

OK, I have a suggestion: why not engage xyz in discussion? I am sure you two would get along famously. :)

[GAHD]

Error 404, reasoned argument not found

Ahh, it seems my call was corrrect. You are indeed all bark and no backing. :) toodles.

Edited July 16, 2016 by GAHD

[exchemist]

Ahh, it seems my call was corrrect. You are indeed all bark and no backing. :) toodles.

Yes I'll leave the barking to you.