Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Scientists attempt to measure speed of gravity
spaceflightnow.com ^ | 5 SEP 02 | staff

Posted on 09/05/2002 9:08:22 AM PDT by RightWhale

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 121-134 next last
To: el_texicano
She sucks the life out of anything.

You could have stopped after two words.

Although Bill might disagree.

er - what was the topic of the thread again?

Shalom.

61 posted on 09/05/2002 1:09:07 PM PDT by ArGee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
Will gravity still work if I go take a shower right now?
62 posted on 09/05/2002 1:10:24 PM PDT by strela
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MeeknMing; Physicist
Smart guys?! I was asleep in GR class... Actually I never took general relativity. (Took Solid State! Anybody wanna know about recent observations in ion-bulk collisional nonresonant charge transfer effects? Nope, thought not...)

Physicist has some good things to add on this thread...

63 posted on 09/05/2002 1:17:24 PM PDT by maxwell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: mikegi
I'm still trying to get an answer from the auto repair place on why they charged my wife for a FULL bottle of turn-signal blinker fluid, when the diagnostic printout only showed the tank to be HALF empty!
64 posted on 09/05/2002 1:27:41 PM PDT by Elsie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
Hey, that primary quasar was named after me -- I have my documentation at the International Star Registry that I got for Christmas.

They better use my name.

65 posted on 09/05/2002 2:02:40 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Southack; Physicist
Southack's guess? Gravity bends light. Light doesn't bend gravity.

I once thought so too, but Physicist explained to me that light's apparent mass (from its energy content) has real gravity. Yes, a photon has a zero rest mass, but it's never at rest.

66 posted on 09/05/2002 2:07:19 PM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: MeeknMing; maxwell; Robert A. Cook, PE
Whoa, you're too kind, I'm not smart enough for these guys. I wouldn't have thought gravity had a speed, and the gravitational distortion of light would have depended on the mass of the object the light was passing near. Better include me out of the Einsteinian stuff.

Letter to the National Lampoon back in the 70's:

Dear Sirs:

If I'm so smart, how come I'm dead?

Sinerely,

Albert Einstein

67 posted on 09/05/2002 2:10:27 PM PDT by Argh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: MeeknMing
Actually, Einstein could probably spell "sincerely" better than I appear able to do!
68 posted on 09/05/2002 2:11:42 PM PDT by Argh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Argh
Bwahaha! Poor b@st@rd, Al...

Well like I said above I'm no gen-rel geek but I do believe one should, rather, discuss the speed of gravitational waves. LIGO's site (Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory) has a discussion about it--
"Gravitational waves are ripples in the fabric of space and time produced by violent events in the distant universe, for example by the collision of two black holes or by the cores of supernova explosions. Gravitational waves are emitted by accelerating masses much as electromagnetic waves are produced by accelerating charges. These ripples in the space-time fabric travel to Earth, bringing with them information about their violent origins and about the nature of gravity."

Well that was actually kind of lame. Lemme see if I can find anything better-- here's something written in '99--
"According to Newton's theory of gravitation, the binary period of two point masses (e.g., two stars) moving in a bound orbit is strictly a constant quantity. However, Einstein's general theory of relativity predicts that two stars revolving around each other in a bound orbit suffer accelerations, and, as a result, gravitational radiation is generated. Gravitational waves carry energy and momentum at the expense of the orbital decay of two stars, thereby causing the stars to gradually spiral towards each other and giving rise to shorter and shorter periods. This anticipated decrease in the orbital period of a binary pulsar was first observed in PSR 1913+16 by Taylor and Weisberg. The observation supported the idea of gravitational radiation first propounded in 1916 by Einstein... [who] showed that the first order contribution to the gravitational radiation must be quadrupolar in a particular coordinate system..."

The "quadrupole moment tensor of the energy density of the source", which is gotten to after you fix and gauge and pick a coordinate system and solve for Einstein's (linearized) equations Dal(h'_mu*nu) = -16PiGT^mu*nu (h' = trace-reversed perturbation, G = Einstein tensor, and I don't know what the hell T is... Tensor shorthand for something...) and fool around with a Fourier transform and take out the spatial part, is given on page 10 and has too many super/subscripts for me to put it here easily...

69 posted on 09/05/2002 2:39:40 PM PDT by maxwell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: maxwell
HOT DAMN I'm good...
70 posted on 09/05/2002 2:40:04 PM PDT by maxwell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: ArGee
Excellent point. Or better yet, we might want to place Hillary's butt on Pluto and see how long it takes for the Earth to be pulled out of its orbit.
71 posted on 09/05/2002 2:57:53 PM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: ArGee
"it's just that gravitons are much more massive than photons."

Photons only have percieved mass due to their speed. At rest, they would weigh nothing. Light has no mass, right?!

Likewise, gravitons have more mass than photons because gravitons travel CONSIDERABLY faster than photons.

Ergo, gravity is considerably faster than light.

You heard it here, first.

72 posted on 09/05/2002 3:16:32 PM PDT by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: maxwell
OK, the speed of gravitational radiation or waves would make sense. As much as I understand these things which is not bloody much. Thanks, Max!
73 posted on 09/05/2002 3:19:19 PM PDT by Argh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
http://www.ldolphin.org/vanFlandern/gravityspeed.html
74 posted on 09/05/2002 4:14:22 PM PDT by Styria
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Styria
Thanks for the link. Hopefully the experiment discussed in this thread can answer the question. However, there have been inconclusive experiments in the past, --such as the Michelson-Morley interferometer,-- that have had massive consequences.
75 posted on 09/05/2002 4:20:44 PM PDT by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Physicist; RightWhale; maxwell
Bump for Post #72.
76 posted on 09/05/2002 5:08:52 PM PDT by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest
Hey, this being Free Republic after all, I'm disappointed the thread has gone this far without some wag saying it, so I will: If, for example, Hillary's butt were placed in the middle of Times Square, the speed of gravity would permit us to calculate how long it would take for the gravitational rays to reach The Empire State building and cause it to lean, slightly but perceptibly, in her direction.

Oh, don't kid yourself. RightWhale had already considered that calculation, he was just too lazy to do the complex contravailing-factor mathematics involved.

Whaddya mean by that, you ask?

WELL, as is well known, Hillary! is a powerful locus of "dark energy", and therefore exerts a none-too-slight and all-too-perceptible repulsion amongst all right-thinking Life Forms -- thus contravailing the massive gravitational pull of the accumulated filth on Old Crusty.

Ergo, one has to divide the mass of right-thinking Life Forms present in the Empire State Building by the total mass thereof, etc., etc... the math ends up being mindbendingly annoying!! (which is another caused effect which has a powerful statistical correlation with Hillary! in all repeatable studies)

77 posted on 09/05/2002 5:28:41 PM PDT by OrthodoxPresbyterian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
How is this different than measuring the doppler shift?
78 posted on 09/05/2002 5:31:20 PM PDT by Liberal Classic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower
Sure, but what's the speed of dark?
79 posted on 09/05/2002 5:34:42 PM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Liberal Classic
Strangely, the colliding brane theory of cosmology can be tested by observing gravitational blue-shift. But you knew that.
80 posted on 09/05/2002 5:35:04 PM PDT by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 121-134 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson