Posted on 06/08/2015 12:09:44 PM PDT by BenLurkin
The idea is when mass moves or changes, Einstein said that there should be gravitational ripples produced in spacetime.
Our problem is that the size and effect of gravitational waves is incredibly small. We need to find the most catastrophic events in the Universe if we hope even detect them.
A supernova detonating asymmetrically, or two supermassive black holes orbiting each other, or a Galactus family reunion; are the magnitude of events we’re looking for.
The most serious attempt to detect gravitational waves is the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory, or LIGO detector, in the United States. It has two facilities separated by 3000 km. Each detector carefully watches for any gravitational waves passing through by the length of time it takes for laser pulses to bounce within a 4km long sealed vacuum.
If a gravitational wave is detected, the two observatories use triangulation to determine its magnitude and direction. At least, that was the plan from 2002 to 2010. The problem was, it didn’t detect any gravitational waves for its entire run.
...
By watching the extremely regular energy blasts coming from pulsars, astronomers track exactly how quickly they’re radiating their energy away due to gravitational waves. So far, all the observations perfectly match the predictions of relativity. We just haven’t detected those gravitational waves directly… yet.
(Excerpt) Read more at universetoday.com ...
Awesome
So far, not one of them has found a single signal. Not even a hint, a whiff, a ghost of a signal.
A whole bunch more money was just recently spent to upgrade the two US instruments so that their detection threshold is better by an order of magnitude.
I'm betting that the results are another big fat zero zilch nada, but I'd like to be wrong.
Sort of like “climate change”.
What about the gravitational effect on clocks? That’s been measured directly with ever greater precision.
Two words: Rosie. O'Donnell.
Two more: Michael. Moore.
And a final two: Hillary's. Butt.
What about the gravitational effect on clocks? That’s been measured directly with ever greater precision.
++++
I think that is true and certainly would help validate the Theory of General Relativity. I assume but do not know if that theory predicts the existence of gravity waves. But in any case I believe that we need to find these elusive waves if we are going to treat them as real. This means a direct measurement or something very close to it. IMHO you clock example doesn’t satisfy that criteria.
Please, Moriarty, none of these negative waves, man.
That would be Moochelle’s butt as she moves towards the gravy train.
But at least it was reduced by 40 pounds by liposuction.
Something that has always bothered me about astronomy is that scientists seems “so” confident that they are right. Spectrograph’s work great on things that aren’t millions/billions of light-years away behind billions of megatons of dust. Redshift and blue shift work great as well but who knows what kind of anomalies, dusts, even light and gravity are out there that distort our instruments.
In conclusion I hate that scientists aren’t more “skeptical” about the nature of reality. We can’t see past the star cluster in the middle of our own milky way, the opposite side could be completely voidless, it could have part of another galaxy sticking out the end. But the textbooks, theories, and general jargon come with a heavy dose of accuracy and confidence. Which is just BS.
“Sol and the planets move around the Earth” - The World.
“Nope” - Galileo.
“Burn him!” - Every other scientist.
Modern world:
“E=mc^2” - The World.
“Nope” - Fringe scientists.
“Silence him and make sure his voice is not heard” - Every other scientist.
Basically, they “know” they are right. But they cannot possibly even be 1% sure they are right. It’s ridiculous.
When you are so sure of your biased thoughts on science, its not science anymore is it? It’s politics.
There is a famous question: why is the sky dark?
One can do a fairly simple analysis using scaling laws for volume vs. distance, combined with the inverse square law and the hypothesis that the distribution of stars within the universe is approximately uniform, to demonstrate that the sky should be light, not dark.
You are not by any means the only person who has questioned the nature of reality. I think that many cosmologists and astrophysicists do this also, and others as well.
Scaling laws and volume vs. distance work, but on such a cosmically unfathomable level they fall short, one small mistake can be millions of light years off target.
and “the hypothesis”
Not very confident that any astronomical estimations beyond our solar system are anything BUT arbitrary.
Thanks BenLurkin.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.