Is Space Zero Gravity (0 G)

[OceanBreeze]

I couldn't find any legit confirmation from the deep web on a documented observation of gravity waves emanating from black hole collisions or neutron stars. In fact the white hole mishap (white holes were a ludicrous theory btw) was figured to be the result of a collision of a black hole and a neutron star, and that didn't give us a hint of any elusive gravity waves. 

 

The white hole mishap?

 

Is this the one

 

 

Or did you have another one you wanted to tell us about?

[OceanBreeze]

Astronomy fascinates me.

 

Well, you version of it would.

[Super Polymath]

The white hole mishap?

 

Is this the one

 

 

Or did you have another one you wanted to tell us about?

pfft

[Super Polymath]

1. The neutron star black hole merger was too far away for gravity waves to be detected by the LIGO given G=C

2. Based on Newtonian expansion, gravity is a wave

3. Since gravity is a non-static wave given NE, it's just too faint or too illusive to be physically measured so we need a new fundamental force to help us understand it better, which would be some form of quantum gravity.

4. Whichever interpretation we choose based on conjecture alone will be a guess. We need to discover a new fundamental force that can account for the interaction of gravity with matter - probably using a New Particle Accelerator.

Any objections?

Edited May 7, 2017 by Super Polymath

[exchemist]

Being consistent with gravity waves doesn't mean anything at this point unless you can detect them. So either the upgraded LIGO isn't sensitive enough for the perfect black hole neutron star merger prolonged gamma ray burst, or gravity waves just weren't there. We've been going at this for decades.

 

Dare I say Einstein might have been wrong about certain aspects of gravity? He enriched our understanding of gravity, but he was

like the rest of us mortals.

 

They have to say that they saw consistent effects, it's their job. However, I'll tell you that a gravitational field just is a wave because it's never static because that would defy Newtonian expansion, but whatever.

I have to fight off the urge to say this sounds like rubbish, but, OK, it's your theory and I have some time on a Sunday night. 

 

The problems I have with a gravity field comprised of waves are:

 

- something should be oscillating to give rise to waves. What is it?

 

- waves carry energy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave  What evidence is there that energy is carried away from all massive objects?  

 

- Where does the energy go to,  bearing in mind that energy is conserved? 

 

- if all massive objects radiate waves towards one another, what is it that gives rise to attraction when these waves encounter one another?

Edited May 7, 2017 by exchemist

[OceanBreeze]

I have to fight off the urge to say this sounds like rubbish, but, OK, it's your theory and I have some time on a Sunday night. 

 

The problems I have with a gravity field comprised of waves are:

 

- something should be oscillating to give rise to waves. What is it?

 

- waves carry energy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave  What evidence is there that energy is carried away from all massive objects?  

 

- Where does the energy go to,  bearing in mind that energy is conserved? 

 

- if all massive objects radiate waves towards one another, what is it that gives rise to attraction when these waves encounter one another?

 

Why fight your instincts? What  super-p has posted in this thread is at least 90% rubbish.

 

We have already explained the field must be static. Theoretically the field extends to infinity, so if it consists of waves it would require infinite energy!

[OceanBreeze]

1. The neutron star black hole merger was too far away for gravity waves to be detected by the LIGO given G=C

 

2. Based on Newtonian expansion, gravity is a wave

 

3. Since gravity is a non-static wave given NE, it's just too faint or too illusive to be physically measured so we need a new fundamental force to help us understand it better, which would be some form of quantum gravity.

 

4. Whichever interpretation we choose based on conjecture alone will be a guess. We need to discover a new fundamental force that can account for the interaction of gravity with matter - probably using a New Particle Accelerator.

 

Any objections?

 Oh, I can think of a few objections!

 

1. The neutron star black hole merger was too far away for gravity waves to be detected by the LIGO given G=C

 

 

Which NS-BH merger are you talking about? You linked to a paper discussing two Gamma Ray Burst events, GRB060614 and GRB130603B. The nomenclature identifies the date these GRBs happened, that is June 14 2006 and June 3, 2013. The advanced LIGO detector was not in service until 2015, so naturally it could not have detected these events. Shortly after going into service, the advanced LIGO detector did detect two Gravity Wave events, GW150914 and GW151226.

Your statement that the NS-BH merger was too far away is just nonsense.

 

 2. Based on Newtonian expansion, gravity is a wave.

 

 

Wonderful! Can you clarify a bit? What exactly do you mean by “Newtonian expansion”? Are you talking about the mathematical approach to solutions to Einstein’s field equations, known as post Newtonian approximations? What do you think the PN expansions say about gravity waves? I can’t read you mind; if you have a point to make, you have not made it.

 

 3. Since gravity is a non-static wave given NE, it's just too faint or too illusive to be physically measured so we need a new fundamental force to help us understand it better, which would be some form of quantum gravity.

 

 

What are you talking about? Gravity waves are dynamic, as everyone here has been saying. It is the gravity field that is static. Gravity waves have already been detected, by LIGO, as you have been told. The two detection events are GW150914 and GW151226. There is no need to invent any other fundamental force, except perhaps in your imagination.

 

 

4. Whichever interpretation we choose based on conjecture alone will be a guess. We need to discover a new fundamental force that can account for the interaction of gravity with matter - probably using a New Particle Accelerator.

 

 

No. The interpretation of the data is not a guess, it is very strong scientific evidence that gravity waves do exist, that they travel at the speed of light, and they have been detected. The only one here making unsubstantiated unsupported conjectures is you.

[exchemist]

Why fight your instincts? What  super-p has posted in this thread is at least 90% rubbish.

 

We have already explained the field must be static. Theoretically the field extends to infinity, so if it consists of waves it would require infinite energy!

Im trying to ask questions about issues that should have occurred to Super-P if he is serious. Consider it part of a learning exercise, for one or both participants. :)

[Super Polymath]

I have to fight off the urge to say this sounds like rubbish, but, OK, it's your theory and I have some time on a Sunday night. 

 

The problems I have with a gravity field comprised of waves are:

 

- something should be oscillating to give rise to waves. What is it?

 

- waves carry energy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave  What evidence is there that energy is carried away from all massive objects?  

 

- Where does the energy go to,  bearing in mind that energy is conserved? 

 

- if all massive objects radiate waves towards one another, what is it that gives rise to attraction when these waves encounter one another?

1: That would be space-time. "Oscillation is the repetitive variation in frequency of some measure about a central value (I.E. a disturbance in equilibrium) between two or more different states." Spacetime is warped by mass.

2: That's because most waves (photons, electrons, protons, etc) have mass. Where did you read that gravitons had mass? What is the of gravitons?

3. How do gravitons have mass & potential energy again? Gravity is the neutralization of warping spacetime. 

4. Again, can you demonstrate that gravitons have mass? 

Edited May 7, 2017 by Super Polymath

[Super Polymath]

We have already explained the field must be static. Theoretically the field extends to infinity, so if it consists of waves it would require infinite energy!

No we haven't, you didn't even attempt to refute this. 

 

 

 

Which NS-BH merger are you talking about? You linked to a paper discussing two Gamma Ray Burst events, GRB060614 and GRB130603B.

 

The only legit explanation on this is an NS-BH merger, and the paper explains why. Look up GRB060614 and you'll see that there are no other explanations (that don't involve white holes) than NS-BH mergers.

 

 

 

The nomenclature identifies the date these GRBs happened, that is June 14 2006 and June 3, 2013.

 

Technically GRB060614 happened over a billion years ago, it is 1.6 billion light-years from earth

 

 

 

The advanced LIGO detector was not in service until 2015, so naturally it could not have detected these events.

 

GRB160614 was observed June 14th, 2016, and that is the event we're talking about. GRB130603B wasn't observed by the advanced LIGO according to that paper, only by the regular LIGO.

 

Shortly after going into service, the advanced LIGO detector did detect two Gravity Wave events, GW150914 and GW151226.

 

Now I see the problem, we were confusing the terms gravity wave and gravitational wave, and you don't understand what gravity waves are - and that gravitational waves remain theoretical.

 

Gravity waves and gravitational waves are not the same thing.

 

Edited May 7, 2017 by Super Polymath

[Super Polymath]

Wonderful! Can you clarify a bit? What exactly do you mean by “Newtonian expansion”? Are you talking about the mathematical approach to solutions to Einstein’s field equations, known as post Newtonian approximations? What do you think the PN expansions say about gravity waves? I can’t read you mind; if you have a point to make, you have not made it.

 

See free boundary problem, at what point does the static field become hydrodynamic? The aforementioned paper on Newtonian expansion asserts that it happens continuously, non-stop:

 

"In contrast to that, the well known geometric term with Aφ is positive 10, and the contribution Aφ r 2(1−δ) to the angular velocity is positive — it pushes a rotating fluid body forward. Thus the last two terms in [8] counteract."

 

 

 

What are you talking about? Gravity waves are dynamic, as everyone here has been saying. It is the gravity field that is static.

 

See free boundary problem, at what point does the static field become hydrodynamic? The aforementioned paper on Newtonian expansion asserts that it happens continuously, non-stop:

 

"In contrast to that, the well known geometric term with Aφ is positive 10, and the contribution Aφ r 2(1−δ) to the angular velocity is positive — it pushes a rotating fluid body forward. Thus the last two terms in [8] counteract."

 

 

 

No. The interpretation of the data is not a guess, it is very strong scientific evidence that gravity waves do exist, that they travel at the speed of light, and they have been detected. The only one here making unsubstantiated unsupported conjectures is you.

 

 

Gravitons have never been observed, so we have no idea what gravitons actually are. Similarly, photons have never been seen, subatomic particles are too small to actually observe. We've measured photons, not gravitons. We've measured gravity waves, you're right, that's how we know that they are non-static because gravity fields are never static, given that all matter is composed of moving atoms, there's always acceleration because the motion of planetary bodies cannot ever be uniform when the gravity field of a planetary body is perceived as the collective microgravity of a shooting gallery of atoms that create a constant and dynamically shifting non-uniform motion, the surface of planets is a constantly changing topographical map. Stars, even more so, and the outward gravity waves of planets merge with that of their star's. This is an infinitely complex system of mathematical chaos. 

 

 

So, basically, everyone KNOWS that gravity has velocity, and therefore can NEVER BE A STATIC FIELD, where we disagree is in HOW FAST GRAVITY IS.

Edited May 7, 2017 by Super Polymath

[billvon]

So, basically, everyone KNOWS that gravity has velocity, and therefore can NEVER BE A STATIC FIELD, where we disagree is in HOW FAST GRAVITY IS.

No, actually the opposite is true, and that's been explained to you a dozen times now.

 

I get the feeling that your ego is getting in the way of your learning.  With a name like "Super Polymath" you likely have an inflated view of your own expertise, and you may now be stuck feeling like you have to defend that imagined expertise in any way you can; nitpick, search the Internet for cranks who disagree with established theories, repeat disproved claims.  A suggestion - accept that you were wrong, learn from it and move on.

[exchemist]

1: That would be space-time. "Oscillation is the repetitive variation in frequency of some measure about a central value (I.E. a disturbance in equilibrium) between two or more different states." Spacetime is warped by mass.

2: That's because most waves (photons, electrons, protons, etc) have mass. Where did you read that gravitons had mass? What is the of gravitons?

3. How do gravitons have mass & potential energy again? Gravity is the neutralization of warping spacetime. 

4. Again, can you demonstrate that gravitons have mass? 

OK, now I know you are talking out of your ar5e.

 

"That's because most waves have mass", is a statement that nobody who knows any physics would ever make. To make matters worse, you think photons have mass. 

 

Further discussion will clearly involve stumbling around trying to correct more basic misconceptions of yours at every turn. I don't have the energy for that. You need to take a course in physics.  

 

I'm out. 

[Super Polymath]

OK, now I know you are talking out of your ar5e.

 

"That's because most waves have mass", is a statement that nobody who knows any physics would ever make. To make matters worse, you think photons have mass. 

I explained how they do earlier.

Edited May 8, 2017 by Super Polymath

[OceanBreeze]

 

GRB160614 was observed June 14th, 2016, and that is the event we're talking about. GRB130603B wasn't observed by the advanced LIGO according to that paper, only by the regular LIGO.

 

 

 

 

Hey troll, there is no GRB160614 and the link you posted goes to the page on GRB060614. It is impossible for anyone to be so confused to change the first digit of the number while linking to the original number. Only a very devious and dishonest troll could do that.

I don’t waste my time on trolls.

Edited May 8, 2017 by OceanBreeze

[Super Polymath]

Your concessions have been equitably accepted. 

[sanctus]

Just a little note:
arxiv is not peer-reviewed at all. How usually it works and I have done it for 5 articles I think, is you submit your article to arxiv and you sub,it your article to the journal of your choice for peer reviewing then when accepted you upload the accepted version to arxiv.

But you can as well just upload an article to arxiv and not do the journal part....