|
Ligo.
Nov 26, 2018 0:05:25 GMT
Post by HAL on Nov 26, 2018 0:05:25 GMT
|
|
|
Ligo.
Nov 26, 2018 17:22:46 GMT
Post by bonehead on Nov 26, 2018 17:22:46 GMT
Hey Hal,
I remember when the claim for detecting "gravitational waves" was first made. I saw some critiques back then that pointed out that the measured factors were so extremely small that small differences in the geological activity from one place to another would be more than enough to account for the statistical differences. In other words, somebody jumping up and down on the ground near one of these sensitive instruments could easily account for the mathematical "anomalies" measured. "Let's call that gravity!".
I also asked back then why they were being called "gravitational" waves. I never found a satisfactory answer for that. But that is "science" for you....
Bonehead
|
|
|
Post by HAL on Nov 27, 2018 18:02:38 GMT
Way back in the , I think, late sixties, When Webber was trying to use large aluminium cylinders to detect gravitational waves, I felt that it would be impractical due to the myriad of other possible sources for apparent changes.
Seems like nothing much has changed.
As for calling them 'gravitational waves' I can only assume that it is related to the change in mass that would occur if some super massive object was to suddenly change form. But as space is essentially a vacuum, I don't see how it could be a compression wave event. Nothing to compress.
HAL.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Ligo.
Dec 11, 2018 20:48:39 GMT
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2018 20:48:39 GMT
|
|
|
Ligo.
Dec 11, 2018 23:21:26 GMT
Post by HAL on Dec 11, 2018 23:21:26 GMT
Cliff,
The above seems to be suggesting that gravitational waves travel at the speed of light; or very close to it.
I'm trying to imagine a wave passing through the Universe at the speed of light.
HAL
|
|