Gravitational Wave Explained by Brian Green (simple and interesting way)

Liveleak ^ | 2/12/16 | Brian Green

[teeman8r]

Ether there is, or ether there isn’t.

[RavenLooneyToon]

I have also found this of interest:

In 1920, lecturing at the University of Leiden, on the topic ‘Ether and the Theory of Relativity’, Einstein stated outright that the ether did exist, that is was necessary as a medium of transfer because light also had wave-like properties. He even wrote Lorentz to clarify this point.

[ETL]

Weeellll, there is another way to explain the results. The Earth doesn't rotate, everything rotates around the Earth. I actually have a very detailed thesis from someone which explains in detail how the experiment can be used to prove the geocentric theorem.

Is this an attempt to mock something I said? If so, what?

[maddog55]

Excellent, thanks for posting !

[ops33]

So are gravity waves produced by any object that has mass or just really large objects with lots of mass? Is it the movement of these objects through space that causes gravity waves?

[Svartalfiar]

Old news.

http://schlockmercenary.wikia.com/wiki/Gravy

[Svartalfiar]

Is it the movement of these objects through space that causes gravity waves?

Yes. If you watch the video, he gives a short explanation of a possible cause. TRT is only 3min, so it's not bad at all.

[ops33]

I did watch the video but it left lots of questions. For instance, if gravity waves are caused by an object moving through space how is it that the gravity wave will attract an object? Wouldn’t the wave be attracted to the object that caused the wave? Are objects being pulled into the gravity wave or pushed along by the gravity wave?

[SunkenCiv]

Hey, everybody, Brian Green! Thanks Rebelbase.

---

· String Theory Ping List ·

---

---

· Join · Bookmark · Topics · Google ·
· View or Post in 'blog · post a topic · subscribe ·

---

[wbarmy]

No, it wasn’t. There are some actual books on the subject which try to create plausible mathematical models on a geocentric universe with the Michelson-Morley experiments as evidence.

[Moonman62]

I have also found this of interest:

In 1920, lecturing at the University of Leiden, on the topic Ether and the Theory of Relativity, Einstein stated outright that the ether did exist, that is was necessary as a medium of transfer because light also had wave-like properties. He even wrote Lorentz to clarify this point.

...

I did find that lecture interesting. Thanks for pointing it out. However, Einstein was 1920 referring to the space-time ether of General Relativity.

The translated lecture is here:

http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/Extras/Einstein_ether.html

And here is an excerpt I found of Einstein’s letter to Lorentz:

I agree with you that the general relativity theory admits
of an ether hypothesis as does the special relativity
theory. But this new ether theory would not violate the
principle of relativity. The reason is that the state
[...metric tensor] = Aether is not that of a rigid body in an independent state of motion, but a state of motion which is a function of position determined through the metrical phenomena.

[ETL]

I thought for a moment you might have thought that what I said about alternatively considering yourself at rest and the distance you’re yet to travel moving towards you was a bit off.

In any case, it is true for systems in a state of uniform/constant motion (inertial reference frames), that one cannot tell the difference (in a sealed environment) whether they are at rest or moving at a constant rate of speed and a constant direction.

[wbarmy]

Isn’t the problem in any of these discussions that there really isn’t a sealed system in existence?

Gravitational pull works on any size object, and the universe as a whole affects every part. The observer would have to be in a system outside of the universe, but there are more universes which would exert their own force on the system.

[ETL]

Isn't the problem in any of these discussions that there really isn't a sealed system in existence?

That is just a way of simplifying the situation to demonstrate that the math would be the same in either case.

But imagine being inside a sealed container floating in space. As long as you were moving at a constant rate of speed in the same straight line direction, ie, in a state of inertial motion, you wouldn't be able to tell if you were in fact moving at all. It's only when an outside force is introduced (energy is applied) that you would be able to detect a change in your situation. Even then, you wouldn't necessarily know if the container was being drawn to some planet gravitationally or if there were some force pushing the container in a particular direction causing you to accelerate.

Similarly, if some outside force caused you to change direction, you would detect that as well, via the centrifugal force. ie, your weight would shift to one side.

[RavenLooneyToon]

“The translated lecture is here:”

Yes, I remember reading that some years ago.
The older I get, the more aware I am of what I don’t know.
I have spent a number of years working with Anti-magnetism,
and have formed a few opinions from my observations.
I suspect magnetic force is a function of time, where as gravity is a function of comparative velocities.

[wbarmy]

But energy is always being applied. Every single body in space produces a gravitational wave, imparting some kind of pull on you and the container. If the container is a different mass than you, you will be able to measure the difference in the force exerted on the container and the force exerted on yourself. Floating in the center of the container, movement would occur as you saw the container react to the forces applied to it and to you.