Thief
Rogue Theologian
you did?....oh yeah...so you did
looked like....lol
has anyone come out on top about gravity waves?
did I miss it?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Gravitational Waves. oh really?
- Thread starter Jonathan Ainsley Bain
- Start date
looked like....lol
has anyone come out on top about gravity waves?
did I miss it?
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Yeah, they were detected confirming Einsteins theory.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/02/12/science/ligo-gravitational-waves-black-holes-einstein.html?_r=0
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
That had nothing to do with the speed of light or SR or GR.
He referred to what we today call the cosmological constant. He removed it or added it (don't remember which) without any explanation because he didn't like it. It has to do with the expansion of the universe, not the speed of light. It was in relation to the work on the universe and it's geometrical shape and expansion. This had nothing at all to do with the constancy of speed of light.
But you should know that since you watched a TV show about it.
--edit
"Once Einstein knew the universe was expanding, he discarded the cosmological constant as an unnecessary fudge factor. He later called it the "biggest blunder of his life," according to his fellow physicist George Gamow. Today astronomers refer to one theory of dark energy as Einstein's cosmological constant."
Do you see? It's not about constancy of c.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
and all motion is relative......
Thief
Rogue Theologian
did you read the article.....?
as I read it.....some of the claims are a bit fantastic...
seems to me....detecting a disturbance as they detail the event.....
would be less than the beat of a butterflies wings at this distance
I don't believe in g'waves
it will take more than the article you posted to convince me
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
And? How does "motion is relative" lead to that "Einstein's biggest blunder regarding cosmological constant" would mean the same as "Einstein doubted the constancy of speed of light"?
It's a good thing that the Cosmos doesn't always follow man's mathematics.
Maybe the 'blunders' are the precedents of what's not known ?
Maybe so......why doesn't all matter and energy go in different directions while expanding ?
Why are there collisions among galaxies ?
Where is the true source of the supposed beginning ?
~
Still confused am I
~
'mud
Maybe the 'blunders' are the precedents of what's not known ?
Maybe so......why doesn't all matter and energy go in different directions while expanding ?
Why are there collisions among galaxies ?
Where is the true source of the supposed beginning ?
~
Still confused am I
~
'mud
leibowde84
Veteran Member
You are free to distrust the experts.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
So, what's your point?
Thief
Rogue Theologian
already did that....
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Thief
Rogue Theologian
VioletVortex
Well-Known Member
I think that gravity is a distortion in a field of gravitons. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Therefore, gravity would be an existing field that is attracted towards matter. Because planets have more mass than the objects on them do, the objects are pulled towards the planet. The gravitons are also being attracted to small objects, but these gravitons are in turn being attracted to larger objects such as planets, so the gravitons act like ropes.
Fascinating! I haven't been to this forum for a long time, so missed this completely.
Has anybody noticed that this is, in essence, the same argument made by Zeno of Elea for why things cannot move, or why Achilles can never win a race with the tortoise?
Thief
Rogue Theologian
would you like to start a topic thread on Zeno?
Actually, what he has written is a misunderstanding of relativity: there is no reference frame where an object moving at the speed of light is frozen in place (which would be a contradiction anyway, if it's moving at all then it obviously can't be frozen). He actually has it backwards: for an object moving at the speed of light, time would seem to be infinitely sped up such that all events in the universe happen simultaneously.
Jonathan Ainsley Bain
Logical Positivist
Great!
There is someone who gets it.
Solving Zeno's paradox is the first step to understanding how to unify quantum theory with relativity.
Start here:
http://www.flight-light-and-spin.com/zeno-and-planck.htm
Jonathan Ainsley Bain
Logical Positivist
No. Special Relativity absolutely claims that time slows down as the object approaches the velocity of light:
Where V is a proportion of the velocity of light,
such that as V gets to 1 (velocity of light),
the denominator becomes 0, so anything at the velocity of light
would have time take infinitely long.
Besides, its more commonly expressed
that travelling to Andromeda galaxy near the velocity of light
would make the traveler virtually ageless
compared to those who stayed at the low velocity of the Earth.