General Relativity: gravitational waves

bodinian Says:

Nov 20, 2009 - @jedisenior Imagine pushing down on a trampoline with your hand. It takes energy to hold it down. Anything bending space time is exhausting some energy maintaining its gravity.

bodinian Says:

Nov 20, 2009 - @jedisenior I'm sure there must be some point at which the object will no longer have a gravity signature. If it always did, no matter how small, eventually all particles n our universe would shrink over time. Or, worse yet, disappear altogether.

jedisenior Says:

Nov 20, 2009 - @bodinian So that means the force space/time is exerting on an object, causes it so lose some mass, simply to maintain its existance. Yeah maybe. It also fits into the whole energy cannot be created or destroy law.

bodinian Says:

Nov 20, 2009 - @jedisenior And it follows the law of Entropy, so it should happen spontaneously. There must be a point where it levels off. Otherwise, matter would not be stable.

jedisenior Says:

Nov 20, 2009 - @bodinian "Or, worse yet, disappear altogether." You're talking about entropy. Yeah a depressing end to things alright. You and I need not worry though. LOL

jedisenior Says:

Nov 20, 2009 - @bodinian We're getting our comments crossed buddy!

terreaterre13 Says:

Nov 21, 2009 - very thanks my friend ; ) again best information

jedisenior Says:

Nov 21, 2009 - @bodinian Just to run a quick one by you buddy,in QM it is plank's constant, h, times the frequency, f, divided by the speed of light. So P = hf/c, so therefore light can have momentum but not mass. What you think?

bodinian Says:

Nov 21, 2009 - I'm not sure which equation that is supposed to be. I know that the energy of a photon is plancks constant times frequency. Frequency is the speed of light divided by the wavelength, so it can also be written as hc/(wavelength) I dont know any equation that uses hv/c

bodinian Says:

Nov 21, 2009 - Oh yeah, I used v for frequency instead of f, just for clarity there

jedisenior Says:

Nov 21, 2009 - @bodinian LOL. Maybe not, but it works as far as I can tell. Ah not to worry, magnetic fields don't warp light and that's all that matters.

BigNewGames Says:

Nov 22, 2009 - Can anyone tell me why scientists add invisible stuff (dark matter/dark energy), things that cannot be proven or unknowns to their equations? Just to make them look better? Like i, the square root of -1, when asked what is i? He said we don't know it just makes the equation look better, John F. Clauser, "DeBroglie-WAVE Interference of Small Rocks and Live Viruses". Kinda scary if you ask me. Gravity moves towards mass not away, 2 simple, sorry, g wave can't be emanating outward as arrows show.

supergiuovane Says:

Nov 22, 2009 - There are evidences for what you call "invisible stuff", and many. And if you don't know the meaning and the power of the "i", you should study a bit, and the person you asked cannot possibly be a mathematician.

MeX2004 Says:

Nov 22, 2009 - If you are trying to detect ripples in space field by monitoring two neutron stars orbiting each other than it would most probably result in failure. The reason is that two orbiting neutron start would generate tsunamis not short ripples. Each peak and valley of the waveform would be hundreds of millions/billions of miles long stretching months apart. Picture yourself as a tiny dot riding on tsunami wave, you wont be able to tell the difference between peaks and valleys.

BigNewGames Says:

Nov 22, 2009 - @supergiuovane Please look up John F. Clauser before making claims.

manzilla86 Says:

Nov 22, 2009 - Do you know what Einstein won his Nobel Prize for? That was my trivia question of the day on my blog, do-it-yourself Einstein. Type diyeinstein into Google to find my blog and find my well written answer!

supergiuovane Says:

Nov 23, 2009 - First of all I did not make any claim. Evidences for dark matter come from a bunch of different fields in astronomy. And why cannot gravity move "away", as you say, from a mass? If that would not happen, how can gravity affect other bodies? And anyway, evidences for gravitational waves are now coming from close neutron stars binary systems.

BigNewGames Says:

Nov 23, 2009 - Yes, pulses are emanating from binary stars but saying they cause gravity waves, when the originating cause for gravity is not fully understood, is not proof of gravity waves. Sorry if I offend, not trying to do so, just not much typing space. Noting that gravity flows in an observable direction then if this was gravity waves they would not emanate outward like the video implies. Showing gravity flowing opposite to real observations is nothing more than illusion in my opinion. peace.

Piettube Says:

Nov 23, 2009 - nice if this 'fabric'-theory works for some people but nobody still knows exactly what gravitation force is.

itsacorporatething Says:

Nov 24, 2009 - wasn't it for discovering the photoelectric effect?

supergiuovane Says:

Nov 24, 2009 - it was for that!

supergiuovane Says:

Nov 24, 2009 - Actually, talking about binary systems, it was noticed that the changes in the orbit were those expected from general relativity if gravitational waves emission was accounted for. But the idea of gravity "moving outwards" (so to say..), it's not so strange if you think of it:take a mass,put it at a certain distance and then move it closer. It's gravity will be higher,so it's like gravity actually propagated from that mass.

manzilla86 Says:

Nov 24, 2009 - Yup! But you were supposed to check out my blog (it is a simple way I get some traffic from time to time) Just type diyeinstein into Google, it will be the first link.

dqds Says:

Nov 24, 2009 - I have a quistion about gravitiation. F=G.(m1.m2)/r² thats the formula, but it says nothing about density and volume i don't understand it. For example a black hole that has almost infinite density but low mass will have the same pulling force as the earth? Please help out. Thanks

nickharvey7 Says:

Nov 26, 2009 - Nice video! In my video Quantum Mechanics an artist view Time has the symmetry and geometry of spacetime. Could this give us General Relativity and explain entanglement?