Is there a simple way to detect gravitational waves?
- Thread starter jcc
- Start date
danshawen
Valued Senior Member
Dissociation, actually. So be it.
danshawen
Valued Senior Member
That happened ten posts ago, so why are you still here? Go bother someone who cares if you do or something.
But why not electron fall proton? Any science minds answer? Why not light be is atoms gravity wave?
You're really not certain?
danshawen
Valued Senior Member
That kind of post happens all the time on physforum, Daecon. Usually, it's someone from the third world (Romania, Albania or Pakistan) whose command of English is not very good. It's no crime. Some of them have worthwhile things to say about the science they understand if you give them a chance. It improves their technical and scientific fluency and prepares them better for a career in spamming, data mining, phishing or whatever.
On the other hand, if you're paddoboy or brucep, both of whom hail from down under, not so much. You haven't noticed, they post a lot of science that is easy to find with search engines, but if you ask them a simple reading comprehension or science related question about any of the content they post, they are lost. You get responses like: you're a crank, you're illiterate, etc. They do it again and again, and not just in response to my posts. Google scholars, no doubt. No wonder they are so touchy about someone like Thorne. They probably aspire to be just like him some day. I wish them both the best of luck in that endeavor. Same as the future spammers of the internet.
On very rare occasions, their posts have been helpful to me, so I'm willing to extend to them the same benefit of the doubt. At least, I can usually tell one from the other. Even the Bogdanovich brothers were somewhat entertaining, featured in a P.T. Barnum prosthetic surrogate freakshow for instance. Most biological twins don't try to differentiate their appearances quite that much.
As far as I can tell, jcc is not the problem. A cyberbully always needs a victim, just like any other kind of dysfunctional relationship in life. jcc is just the victim du jour in the last few threads. My advice to him is not to worry too much about such responses, and mainly, don't feed the trolls or especially their oversized egos.
And the ranting continues. 
Again, What you believe is neither here nor there and makes no difference to me.
The quality of jcc's posts is of course supported by his continual banning and the democratic opinion all others here have of him, evidenced quite obviously by his own posts.
You failing to recognise that, again reflects only on you and your obsession with protecting the poor alternative underdog.
The reputable standing of Thorne in the community and his contribution to cosmology also reflects negatively on your opposing view, and your own rather
inconspicuous position in the same scientific community.
Perhaps now in retaliation you'll post another diatribe rant on the evils of Kip Thorne and the audacity he shows by commenting and proposing speculative scenarios on what the laws of physics and GR allow.
Seems my prediction in bold was spot on.
We may even get some more frothing at the mouth!
Again, What you believe is neither here nor there and makes no difference to me.
The quality of jcc's posts is of course supported by his continual banning and the democratic opinion all others here have of him, evidenced quite obviously by his own posts.
You failing to recognise that, again reflects only on you and your obsession with protecting the poor alternative underdog.
The reputable standing of Thorne in the community and his contribution to cosmology also reflects negatively on your opposing view, and your own rather
inconspicuous position in the same scientific community.
Perhaps now in retaliation you'll post another diatribe rant on the evils of Kip Thorne and the audacity he shows by commenting and proposing speculative scenarios on what the laws of physics and GR allow.
Seems my prediction in bold was spot on.
We may even get some more frothing at the mouth!
danshawen
Valued Senior Member
And we should care about your 'prediction' because...?And the ranting continues.
Again, What you believe is neither here nor there and makes no difference to me.
The quality of jcc's posts is of course supported by his continual banning and the democratic opinion all others here have of him, evidenced quite obviously by his own posts.
You failing to recognise that, again reflects only on you and your obsession with protecting the poor alternative underdog.
The reputable standing of Thorne in the community and his contribution to cosmology also reflects negatively on your opposing view, and your own rather
inconspicuous position in the same scientific community.
Perhaps now in retaliation you'll post another diatribe rant on the evils of Kip Thorne and the audacity he shows by commenting and proposing speculative scenarios on what the laws of physics and GR allow.
Seems my prediction in bold was spot on.
We may even get some more frothing at the mouth!
Your reputable status is not in danger here, because you don't have any.
And once again, you are off topic by a wide margin. Why do you not tire of this? Have you nothing original to offer about gravity waves? Post something by Thorne if you like. I'm done berating him.
Last edited:
I'm not making any predictions. I'm stating obvious and accepted fact re jcc and Kip Thorne.
I am well aware of my status, and have alluded to it many times.
Not at all. My post was a comment on your post.
I've said plenty about gravity waves and the pseudoscience expressed by jcc in confusing them with light.
Done berating Thorne? I'm sure now he'll breath a sigh of relief,
Hipparchia
Registered Senior Member
jcc:
Having said that, there is a LOT of science that we're very very confident about.
No. Scientific theories are always provisional. If new evidence comes to light, or a new theory that better fits the evidence, then science changes. Science is about what works best, not about being sure.
Having said that, there is a LOT of science that we're very very confident about.
Heat and light are electromagnetic waves, not gravitational waves. Gravitational waves are generally very weak. Efforts are currently underway to try to detect them, but the kinds of sources that are expected to be detected first are very large objects such as stars and black holes.
Mostly not. They just zip around a lot and collide with one another. Like I said, the sun doesn't have many atoms; it's mostly plasma.
Yes they do, but very weak ones.
I'm not sure, but I don't think so.
It spreads through space on the waves. To be detectable, some of it must be absorbed by a detector of some kind.
Yes, but a single atom's gravitational waves would carry so little energy we couldn't hope to detect them.
Approximately. That's Newton's law of gravity. Gravitational waves are an effect described by Einstein's theory of general relativity.
Yes.
Some of it passes by m2 and out into space. Some of it may be absorbed by m2 under appropriate conditions. Heat and light are not gravitational phenomena. Gravitational waves don't have anything to do with heat or light, although I suppose that in principle a gravitational wave could cause slight heating when it passes through an object. Energy is, indeed, conserved.
Yes. Didn't you ask that earlier? Why do you keep repeating yourself?
Not in general, not all the time, no.
What to girl when the get drunk?
James,
Thank you very much for the detailed answers.
1 atom's mass is small, but times 10^14, times the number of atoms on the sun, that energy is huge.
i find a way to prove gravitational radiation is em radiation, will start a new thread called double laser experiment.
please check it out.
Thank you very much for the detailed answers.
1 atom's mass is small, but times 10^14, times the number of atoms on the sun, that energy is huge.
i find a way to prove gravitational radiation is em radiation, will start a new thread called double laser experiment.
please check it out.
It was thought up by jcc so it goes without saying that it's nonsense.
what could those people find here? you should know better.