Can We Generate Gravitational Wave And Convert It Into Useful Energy?

[Vmedvil]

Already did he cant stop laughing

1 minute more.

[Super Polymath]

 

 

E=ℏω

 

which explains the gravitational wave like light or an electron which it is not exactly the same but close enough. 

 

No I meant literally a frame-dragging gravity wave like the one the LIGO detected from the black hole merger, only rather than being several light years across, we're talking a warping distortion of a spacetime curve the size of a fraction of a planck length between masses within the mass of microversal bodies (objects smaller than a photon, that may compose a photon, but due to their size invisible to us which assumes even photons produce a curve in spacetime & have mass) within a pseudo-energy (energy's energy) of a wave function.

Edited December 20, 2017 by Super Polymath

[Shustaire]

30 seconds more roflmao

[Vmedvil]

30 seconds more roflmao

Well, then you are calling Schwarzchild,Hubble,Friedmann,Faddeev,Popov,Einstein,Watson,Higgs,Kerr, Schrodinger,Maxwell,Born,Planck, Brian Greene, Minokowski, Dr Michio Kaku, Dirac,Fermi, Anderson,Laplace and Steven Hawking along with Myself wrong go away.

 

5 Minutes late.

Edited December 20, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Shustaire]

You cant mix them like that idiot. Your using end up using the same differentials over and over again.

 

They all have common differentials fool.

Edited December 20, 2017 by Shustaire

[Vmedvil]

You cant mix them like that idiot. Your using end up using the same differentials over and over again.

 

They all have common differentials fool.

Go away, go read.

[Shustaire]

No your way too funny.

 

Tell me did you not at any time go. Hey isnt everything I have here. Have vectors involved?

Can I not make this make sense if I see How each defines the vector for hrtmm lets see oh momentum?

 

So if every equation above has those common terms.

 

Why pray tell didnt you factor out those common terms?

 

Did you forget that grade school lesson somewhere?

 

I mean it seriously how many times do you repeat the same expressions?.

 

You even have Newton mixed with GR mixed with QM.

 

You can't be serious this must be a joke as no one can be that stupid. Honey did you not know they can all be used to describe a falling rock on Earth equally well?

 

The only difference is their applicable degrees of accuracy? All three can describe the identical fields, just under different basis. They can all describe orbitting bodies or central potential forces.

 

Do why pray tell didnt you think of that? All three can handle charges . Ad thats just vector treatment.

 

Am I making you cry yet?

Edited December 20, 2017 by Shustaire

[Shustaire]

You want those common differentials ( google Calculus if variations) then pull those to the Hamiltons.

 

You dont integrate equations from the final forms you integrate them together from the bottom up approach not (top mix). That's taught in basic grade 4 algebra.

 

In other words equation integration by parts.

 

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.mathcentre.ac.uk/resources/uploaded/mc-ty-parts-2009-1.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwi32ufZ05fYAhUE92MKHTvUBEwQFggpMAI&usg=AOvVaw3gbL9euzOCJeMFDbs4NC28

Edited December 20, 2017 by Shustaire

[Super Polymath]

That was immediately obvious.

 

Anyways as pointed out a GW wave could never be used as an energy source the GW waves detected require detector arms 7 km in length to detect a frequency roughly 10^-21 hrtz if I recall.

You don't have to detect them to measure their effects on all matter & energy in what Einstein referred to as "our level of reality", we'd even have to predict what effects GW waves would have on what Einstein referred to as "another level of reality" based on those measurements; I'm talking about determining exactly where in the wavelength an electron or a photon will appear. That is, if rippling curves in spacetime (GW waves) are behind all of the fundamental interactions. No using QM for this, this idea applies only to classical mechanics.

 

http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/30701-can-someone-model-this-mathematically/

Edited December 20, 2017 by Super Polymath

[Vmedvil]

Well, it is right so it is never getting changed. Keep digging you will have to do better than that.

[Shustaire]

Here Follow the proper procedure if you dont want to be laughed at.

 

Equation integration by Parts.

 

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.mathcentre.ac.uk/resources/uploaded/mc-ty-parts-2009-1.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwi32ufZ05fYAhUE92MKHTvUBEwQFggpMAI&usg=AOvVaw3gbL9euzOCJeMFDbs4NC28

[Vmedvil]

Here Follow the proper procedure if you dont want to be laughed at.

 

Equation integration by Parts.

 

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.mathcentre.ac.uk/resources/uploaded/mc-ty-parts-2009-1.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwi32ufZ05fYAhUE92MKHTvUBEwQFggpMAI&usg=AOvVaw3gbL9euzOCJeMFDbs4NC28

 

Too low brow, it is integrated better than that.

[Shustaire]

You don't have to detect them to measure their effects on all matter & energy in what Einstein referred to as "our level of reality", we'd even have to predict what effects GW waves would have on what Einstein referred to as "another level of reality" based on those measurements; I'm talking about determining exactly where in the wavelength an electron or a photon will appear. That is, if rippling curves in spacetime (GW waves) are behind all of the fundamental interactions. No using QM for this, this idea applies only to classical mechanics.

 

http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/30701-can-someone-model-this-mathematically/

The anount of variation of motion to even run a generator is roughly 1 part in [math]10^-21 [/math] a piece of hair on your head would generate more unless your far closer than our Sun to a BH.

 

We cannot even detect the GW waves from our sun and it does generate them. The detector would need to be larger than our Solar system

[Shustaire]

Too low brow, it is integrated better than that.

Don't make me pee my pants again. I have enough laundry.

 

Every equation you have has the same parts factor them out.

The only expressions you should have remaining are those that cannot be factored out.

Edited December 20, 2017 by Shustaire

[Super Polymath]

The anount of variation of motion to even run a generator is roughly 1 part in [math]10^-21 [/math] a piece of hair on your head would generate more unless your far closer than our Sun to a BH.

 

We cannot even detect the GW waves from our sun and it does generate them. The detector would need to be larger than our Solar system

Assuming a photo-electron beam generates them to collapse the wave function of the proton beam in the double slit experiment, this new model could be used to determine when & where to observe particle states in a fusion reaction in order to sustain a muon-catalizing fusion reaction. Among other things.

Edited December 20, 2017 by Super Polymath

[Shustaire]

Um sorry that really doesn't make a lot of sense. Your better off using Helium 3 and lasers to make a fusion reactor. The energy is already confined in the atom of helium 3. While its not abundant on Earth there is plenty in our solar system including our moon.

 

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a27961/mit-nuclear-fusion-experiment-increases-efficiency/

 

Its something being developed as we speak.

 

As far as entangled particles well they don't generate more power than the particles themself. Antimatter is hard to contain.

Edited December 20, 2017 by Shustaire

[Vmedvil]

Laser Fusion...... I bet you are one of those that think Quantum loop gravity is right and String Theory is wrong too. Magnetic Confined. Deuterium + tritium.

 

 

 

Edited December 20, 2017 by Vmedvil