Gravitational Waves. oh really?

[`mud]

What initializes inertia ?
What is the life expectancy of momentum ?
Of course I mean in space with no gravity !
~
Just thought I'd ask !
~
'mud

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

What initializes inertia ?
What is the life expenditure of momentum ?
Of course I mean in space with no gravity !
~
Just thought I'd ask !
~
'mud

Changes in Inertia are the result of energy transfer.
If you exclude gravity, then physically it would be electromagnetic.
But why does gravity not suck everything into one giant 'black hole'.

 

[`mud]

"initializes"

I'm still asking,
Newton and Einstein didn't know either !
~
'mud

 

[Thief]

To anyone not on the train, the frequency has changed, yes, but not the speed.

the speed of sound is not a constant and it does change

just a day ago, I saw a documentary (yr2000) about a 'new' idea....
Einstein was wrong
light may have moved at a greater speed in the primordial creation

I say as did Albert......all motion is relative

two items moving head on will collide at twice the speed of light

 

[freethinker44]

two items moving head on will collide at twice the speed of light

Still not true.
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/momentum/Lesson-2/Momentum-Conservation-Principle

 

[Thief]

Still not true.
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/momentum/Lesson-2/Momentum-Conservation-Principle

and I don't believe it.

light may have it's constant.....but ALL MOTION is relative

and I think it was here in this thread.....
imagine you are beside me and we move parallel at the C
you look my direction.....
can you see me?

and yes I looked at your reference....a poor misgiving at best
equating motion to money?......really?

better to have said conservation of energy

but even that is on the table for review
it seems there are studies of thought that light has not always been what we see now

 

[Ouroboros]

the speed of sound is not a constant and it does change

Yes. I changes depending on gas, density, temperature, and such, but it doesn't change by velocity up the transmitter. Light works the same way. It changes speed depending on medium, but not depending on the velocity of the transmitter.

just a day ago, I saw a documentary (yr2000) about a 'new' idea....
Einstein was wrong
light may have moved at a greater speed in the primordial creation

Light speed can change, but it's constant in a given medium. For instance, it's slower in glass.

And when it comes to the Big Bang and speed of light, according to the things I've read over the years, the theory is that space expanded in a speed far greater than the speed of light.

I say as did Albert......all motion is relative

two items moving head on will collide at twice the speed of light

You mention Albert (Einstein) and some sort of agreement with him and then go on and contradict what his theory says. Two items moving head on will not collide at twice the speed of light. A collision doesn't have a velocity, it has energy, and some of that energy is represented as velocity. Mass does play a big part in the equation.

 

[Thief]

Yes. I changes depending on gas, density, temperature, and such, but it doesn't change by velocity up the transmitter. Light works the same way. It changes speed depending on medium, but not depending on the velocity of the transmitter.


Light speed can change, but it's constant in a given medium. For instance, it's slower in glass.

And when it comes to the Big Bang and speed of light, according to the things I've read over the years, the theory is that space expanded in a speed far greater than the speed of light.


You mention Albert (Einstein) and some sort of agreement with him and then go on and contradict what his theory says. Two items moving head on will not collide at twice the speed of light. A collision doesn't have a velocity, it has energy, and some of that energy is represented as velocity. Mass does play a big part in the equation.

I see confusion.....

ALL MOTION is relative......head on at C is C.....doubled

you won't see it coming

btw...Albert had doubts

 

[freethinker44]

I see confusion.....

ALL MOTION is relative......head on at C is C.....doubled

you won't see it coming

btw...Albert had doubts

Still not true.
You can't just add their speeds together like that.
Two objects colliding head on at speed of light do not collide at double the speed of light. They collide at the speed of light.
If their velocity and mass are the same it wouldn't be like colliding at twice the velocity, it would be like colliding with a wall.
This is basic physics that can be easily demonstrated empirically and mathematically.

 

[Ouroboros]

I see confusion.....

ALL MOTION is relative......head on at C is C.....doubled

No. Nothing in special or general relativity agrees with that.

you won't see it coming

If the speed of light was variable in a uniform medium, we actually would have serious problems. Light is the ultimate means of communication of information in our world. If it had different speeds in the same medium, it would mean we'd get information at different times of a single event.

Example: Event A sends out light beam. Light can vary from 1 mph to 10^100 mph in the same medium, and we can't really know when or how, which means that light from event A will reach the receiver at different times, without any changes of the system. You could potentially see a train arriving the station before it leaves the previous, just because light would travel in different speed. But we know that this is not how the world work.

Besides, we also know that when the energy is changed in light, its frequency and wavelength changes, but not its speed. We can use the constant speed of light, with the changing frequency/wavelength when we look at binary stars and even events on the sun. Red and blue shifts are real. The speed being constant is also real, or the red/blue shifts wouldn't be possible.

btw...Albert had doubts

About what? Quotes or references please.

 

[Thief]

Still not true.
You can't just add their speeds together like that.
Two objects colliding head on at speed of light do not collide at double the speed of light. They collide at the speed of light.
If their velocity and mass are the same it wouldn't be like colliding at twice the velocity, it would be like colliding with a wall.
This is basic physics that can be easily demonstrated empirically and mathematically.

ok...you're stuck.....

I can't help you

 

[Thief]

No. Nothing in special or general relativity agrees with that.


If the speed of light was variable in a uniform medium, we actually would have serious problems. Light is the ultimate means of communication of information in our world. If it had different speeds in the same medium, it would mean we'd get information at different times of a single event.

Example: Event A sends out light beam. Light can vary from 1 mph to 10^100 mph in the same medium, and we can't really know when or how, which means that light from event A will reach the receiver at different times, without any changes of the system. You could potentially see a train arriving the station before it leaves the previous, just because light would travel in different speed. But we know that this is not how the world work.

Besides, we also know that when the energy is changed in light, its frequency and wavelength changes, but not its speed. We can use the constant speed of light, with the changing frequency/wavelength when we look at binary stars and even events on the sun. Red and blue shifts are real. The speed being constant is also real, or the red/blue shifts wouldn't be possible.


About what? Quotes or references please.

a recent science documentary about two guys building on Albert's work....
turns out....Albert referred to his own effort as.....
his greatest blunder

but you should know that......

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

a recent science documentary about two guys building on Albert's work....
turns out....Albert referred to his own effort as.....
his greatest blunder

but you should know that......

1) can you provide us with a name of the documentary, its producer, date, etc.?
2) Do you believe everything in every documentary you see? If so, why? I ask because you keep saying that you saw it in a documentary sometime (on a number of different topics), as if being stated in a documentary makes it TRUE.
3) Even if you don't believe everything you see in a documentary, what basis is there for accepting those things that you do? After all, even "Chariots of the Gods" and "UFO Files" are documentaries...

 

[Thief]

1) can you provide us with a name of the documentary, its producer, date, etc.?
2) Do you believe everything in every documentary you see? If so, why? I ask because you keep saying that you saw it in a documentary sometime (on a number of different topics), as if being stated in a documentary makes it TRUE.
3) Even if you don't believe everything you see in a documentary, what basis is there for accepting those things that you do? After all, even "Chariots of the Gods" and "UFO Files" are documentaries...

well....I'm not good about remembering names.....
but the two guys filmed are way out in front and might be set for a Nobel

math geeks extreme....

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

well....I'm not good about remembering names.....
but the two guys filmed are way out in front and might be set for a Nobel

math geeks extreme....

okay, you do realize that just because a documentary says that someone is "way out in front," gonna win the Nobel, etc., doesn't make it true.

Do you remember anything else that might be useful--if not their names, something else distinctive that might let an interested person figure out what it is you're talking about? It's not that I don't trust you, but if you're attributing your knowledge to vague, unnamed, untitled documentaries...well, that isn't enough for me.

Einstein is known to have referred to his effort to support an eternal universe by inserting a cosmological constant into his equations as his "greatest blunder." It turns out, based on the discovery of dark energy, that even when he thought he was wrong, he was right: dark energy is what he was describing, although at the time it didn't fit even in the then just-developing idea of the Big Bang.

He also recognized that he was wrong about quantum mechanics, after spending years trying to undermine the theory (which, by the way, was still the basis for the photoelectric effect, another of his successful ideas...and the one for which he won his Nobel).

 

[Thief]

okay, you do realize that just because a documentary says that someone is "way out in front," gonna win the Nobel, etc., doesn't make it true.

Do you remember anything else that might be useful--if not their names, something else distinctive that might let an interested person figure out what it is you're talking about? It's not that I don't trust you, but if you're attributing your knowledge to vague, unnamed, untitled documentaries...well, that isn't enough for me.

Einstein is known to have referred to his effort to support an eternal universe by inserting a cosmological constant into his equations as his "greatest blunder." It turns out, based on the discovery of dark energy, that even when he thought he was wrong, he was right: dark energy is what he was describing, although at the time it didn't fit even in the then just-developing idea of the Big Bang.

He also recognized that he was wrong about quantum mechanics, after spending years trying to undermine the theory (which, by the way, was still the basis for the photoelectric effect, another of his successful ideas...and the one for which he won his Nobel).

I thought his Noble was for economics

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I thought his Noble was for economics

lol

 

[leibowde84]

I don't think so.
According to special relativity, anything that moves at the velocity of light would be frozen
in its own local time. So it could not actually be moving at all from its own perspective.
Motion requires time to move.

So time for the gravity wave would stop. So the gravity wave could not move.

Of course, light could not move at all either in relativity, which is one basic reason
why special relativity makes no logical sense at all. (There are many such reasons).

So if gravitational waves were detected, this would actually refute relativity.
Of course, anything moving at the velocity of light refutes relativity.

What I would like to know, however, is do the gravity wave theorists follow Einstein's lead
and bluntly attempt to refute the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen experiments which claimed
to actually disprove Einstein's philosophical assumption that nothing can move faster than
the velocity of light?

And if so, then its just a case of which esoteric experiment is the real one?
Or perhaps,
Is Schrodinger's cat moving at the velocity of light, or can it teleport instantly?
(I hope the above question is not too subtle)

Another question springs to mind:
Are gravitational waves subject to gravitational lensing like photons are?

Special relativity does not claim that anything traveling at the speed of light has its local time stand still. Time for that object is actually normal. It is time for other objects that differ relatively.

There is no issue with gravitational waves as you claim.

 

[Thief]

lol

actually it was something about photo electrics

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

actually it was something about photo electrics

which is what I said...