Skip to comments.
Gravity waves analysis opens 'completely new sense'
spaceref.com ^
| 29 Oct 02
| Washington Univ
Posted on 10/29/2002 10:42:41 AM PST by RightWhale
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120, 121-132 next last
To: Barry Goldwater
I'd really like to see where the Lorentz contraction was measured. If it can be measured, one can go back and properly redo Michelson-Morley and measure the anisotropy of c. Michelson-Morely is how we can measure Lorentz contraction. Three things have to come into play to produce a null result in that experiment: the finite speed of light, time dilation, and Lorentz contraction. Now that we can independently measure the first two to a high degree of accuracy, we can take the MM experiment as a test of Lorentz contraction. As predicted by relativity, it is exactly as much as it needs to be to cancel the influence of the first two effects on the interferometer.
To: Barry Goldwater
Take two lead spheres, each on the end of a single rod. Rotate radially about the center of mass, just like two equal mass planets orbiting about each other (kind of like a Woodward governor). The scale is smaller than planets but the rotation rate is much higher. The gravity signal would be of a frequency much higher than the background noise. To show it is a gravity wave, measure signal intensity as a function of distance.Pick a reasonable mass, a radius and a frequency. Also describe your detector. I'll calculate a signal strength for you.
To: Barry Goldwater
I said:
Pick a reasonable mass, a radius and a frequency. Also describe your detector. I'll calculate a signal strength for you.I couldn't resist. Assume a bar of mass 1000 kg, one meter in length, rotating at 1000 Hz. An order-of-magnitude calculation for the gravitational radiation power output is 10-19 erg/s. I don't care what kind of detector you have, you won't measure it. An electron volt is of order 10-12 erg.
To: Sloth
As the probability that Rosie O'Donnell will board a given flight moves from 0 to 1, the energy needs of that flight move from x to ininity.
To: Physicist
Michelson-Morely is how we can measure Lorentz contraction. That was good. Very good.
To: Physicist
Gauss's law looks at E perpindicular to the surface. The wire, or ion beam has an equal, but opposite E on both ends of the cylinder so it cancels in the integral. The E field that is responsible for the charge movement (whether it causes the charge to move or it is a result of it) exists in addition to the E of the charge and does not affect Gauss's law. You said it does. Please demonstrate.
To: RightWhale
All your gravity waves are belong to us.
To: Physicist
The MM experiment was performed in an accelerated reference frame, on the surface of the rotating earth. If the velocity of light is known to a high degree, how come east-west and west-east transit times over the same path (but opposite directions) are not equal?
To: Physicist
Thanks for the calculation, can you explain how you did it? If it is that low detection is improbable.
To: Physicist
My apologies. Your comment about Gauss's law being invalid in the presence of moving charge had me suspect. If I take a tennis ball put lots of charge on it and throw it will a stationary observer see only the static field of a collection of charge pass by? Will the charged tennis ball have any additional inertia due to the charge? Assume the charge has zero mass.
More importantly:
If I take a plastic torus that has charge fixed on the surface and spin it about its center axis will I see an E field due to this current/charge movement? (will it be in the direction of the current/ moving charge?) If so, this E field exists as a result of charge movement and no E field caused the charge to move,as no E field was ever applied, it was purely mechanical rotation. Will I see a magnetic field corresponding to this ring of current (revolving ring of charge)despite no applied electric field?
So I ask again, does moving charge create an additional E field?
To: Barry Goldwater
The E field that is responsible for the charge movement (whether it causes the charge to move or it is a result of it) exists in addition to the E of the charge and does not affect Gauss's law. You said it does.Please review our exchange. You are the one who said that Gauss's law doesn't apply. All I've ever said is that Gauss's law does indeed apply, and is universal.
Before I correct you any further, perhaps you can tell me where you're going with all this? If you cut to the chase we can both save some time.
So what's your pleasure? Luminiferous Ether? Ritz emission theory? Electric universe? Autodynamics? C-decay?
To: Physicist
Here's the original:
I said:
"When an electron has velocity the total electric field increases over that of a stationary electron."
You said:
"No, it doesn't. That would violate Gauss's Law."
I showed it doesn't. When a voltage is applied to a wire the electrons move to counter the applied electric field. It is the electric field of the motion of the electrons that counters the applied field of the battery to drive the net internal field of the wire to zero. The is the same mechanism that drives the tangential E field on the surface of a conductor to zero for wave reflection calculations. I stand by what I said, the motion of charge creates an E field in addition to the static E field of a charge. This E field is in the direction of the charge and has a divergence of zero, unlike static charge. You had said I was wrong here. I don't believe so.
The mechanically rotating ring of charge, with the charge statically fixed to the ring also shows this. The movement of charge here is driven mechanically and an additional E field results in the direction of the charge motion. Faraday demonstrated this with moving polarized dielectrics. If you disagree, fine. It would be very helpful to show me where I'm wrong.
I'd like to learn more about the calculation and mechanism of the generation of gravitational waves. You seem quite knowledgeable on this subject and I'd like to rely on your expertise for references and help on this subject. I'd like to learn how you calculated the field of a propagating gravitational wave. Is it a shear wave, a longitudinal wave or something else? I
Wasn't the ether proven not to exist?
To: Barry Goldwater; All
To: Physicist
Mystery? Yes, I wrote that.
It was definitely a faux paus on my part to assert that Gauss's law is not invariant. It is, I was wrong to say that it did not apply to moving charge.
Are you going to admit that there is the additional E field of a moving charge?
You might be interested in terrestrial Thirring-Lense experiments. The experimental results make me question your gravitational energy calculations.
To: Barry Goldwater
Thirring-Lense experimentsAha! You're one of those Tom Van Flandern (speed-of-gravity-is-infinite) proponents, right?
To: RightWhale
Bump
To: Physicist
No! Please, have a little respect for me. :)
Hint:
Have you ever heard of someone named Roland Dishington?
To: Barry Goldwater
No.
To: Barry Goldwater; Physicist
I think he's one of those anti-gravity guys.
To: PatrickHenry
An obscure critic of orthodoxy.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120, 121-132 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson