Do we know the speed of gravitational waves

[search]

<font color="yellow">"Gravity Probe "B" and numerous other *verified* experiments and observations.".... are based entirely upon assumptions that relativistic effects are due to "relativity" as explained in GT and STR --both of which are erroneous theories not based in real events that happen in outer space. <br /><br />if you want to believe relativistic effects are corroborations of relativity theory, then that is a personal matter. you may pray quietly, then.</font><br /><br />Just curious. Which theory do you support or think should be used to discuss lets say "gravity"?

 

[kyle_baron]

<font color="yellow"><br />One further problem is, that because gravity would seem to be propagated at cee, light speed, then how does it get outside of a black hole? Gravity effects are detected all around the BH, and this seems to contradict the hypothesis that gravitons and gravity waves must get out. But the physics precludes this. <br /><br />If nothing can be propagated OUTSIDE of a black hole due to the immense gravitational field, then how do gravitons and gravity waves get out, when light and matter cannot? This puts gravity into a peculiar position with respect to the rest of physics, meaning, it may be an animal of an entirely different kind. </font><br /><br />Excellent points. We know how gravity acts, we just don't know what it is. We suspect it's in the form of waves. IIRC Newtonian had mentioned, that in the Bible, "the earth (gravitational field) is hung up on NOTHING". That means no gravitational waves, particles, or gravitons. The speed of light is just that, a speed limit for the universe, and nothing more. Astronomers therefore conclude that the speed of light (waves) and gravity waves are somehow related. I don't believe they are related to each other (in wave form). However, each is related to space (nothing). I'd hate to see the bill for LIGO, when it's much easier, and less expensive to just believe God's word. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[search]

<font color="yellow">If nothing can be propagated OUTSIDE of a black hole due to the immense gravitational field, then how do gravitons and gravity waves get out, when light and matter cannot? This puts gravity into a peculiar position with respect to the rest of physics, meaning, it may be an animal of an entirely different kind.</font><br /><br />Gravitons is so far just an hypotetical elementary particle believed to mediate the gravity force in QM, however if it existes it must be massless since gravity force as unlimited range.<br /><br />What you (Bonzelitte) are saying is that strong gravitational fields would trap itself (they trap matter and light but not gravity which is the trapping force so to speak) but the study of the PSR B1913+16 since 1974 as been showing that the orbit has evolved in precise agreement with the loss of energy due to gravitational waves predicted by Einstein's General Theory of Relativity.

 

[SpeedFreek]

I feel the same way you do, Kyle. By that, I mean that I suspect that gravity is related to space and time rather than related to matter, exotic matter, other 'particles' or 'waves'.<br /><br />If mass causes a 'curve' (gravity) in the 'fabric of space' that alters the path (distance and direction over time) of all particles (including light) passing it, then is it not possible that whilst we can examine the nature of that mass and those particles, we cannot examine the nature of space, time and gravity? We can only measure their effects (distance, duration and acceleration).<br /><br />As for the bill for LIGO, well maybe it's a price worth paying. If only God had left us the definitive equations or blueprints of this thing! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[Mee_n_Mac]

<font color="yellow"><i>"Just curious. Which theory do you support or think should be used to discuss lets say "gravity"? "</i></font><br /><br />While you're waiting for bonzelite to answer you may want to look over this thread. I think I queried bonzelite well enough therein to understand his theory of "gravity". <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-----------------------------------------------------</p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,</font></p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, <strong>STOP</strong> !</font></p> </div>

 

[R1]

quantum entanglement has been thought to possibly explain 'mass' in the past<br /><br />http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6558<br /><br /><br />I think mass is not quantized, if it is it would be at a higher level, so mass is more like a high level language.<br />I'm trying to word my thoughts better. Maybe after a while of thinking some more. <br />mass is not really there at the sub- quantum levels of fundamental operations and processes.<br /><br />for example I send you one full sine wave, just one. But halfway in the middle you stop and complain that<br />you only got the top half .<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[yevaud]

<i>"Gravity Probe "B" and numerous other *verified* experiments and observations.".... are based entirely upon assumptions that relativistic effects are due to "relativity" as explained in GT and STR --both of which are erroneous theories not based in real events that happen in outer space.</i><br /><br />???<br /><br /><i>if you want to believe relativistic effects are corroborations of relativity theory, then that is a personal matter. you may pray quietly, then.</i><br /><br />??????<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

not only is GR unproven, it is false. <br /><br />

 

[search]

<font color="yellow">While you're waiting for bonzelite to answer you may want to look over this thread. I think I queried bonzelite well enough therein to understand his theory of "gravity".</font><br />Thanks. Now I know that Earth is some 60 million light years distant from the Big Bang Epicenter and that the Big Bang took place some 30 billion years ago due to the "expansion theory" which is obviously the most well proven theory there is. How do we know all this: For a theory to be correct the others must be wrong so Expansion Theory simply declares that all other theories are wrong.<img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[search]

<font color="yellow">not only is GR unproven, it is false.</font><br /><br />Sure...<img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />

 

[bonzelite]

not all of them, but very major ones. particularly most of GR and STR. but i will remind those reading that despite my beliefs and theories, there are standard theorists who as well do not believe one iota in gravity waves nor gravitons. this would be tantamount to the elusive "spacetime particles" that must, then, comprise the "fabric" that is "stretching and accelerating." <br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />

 

[search]

Ok Bonzelite. No joking now. I am curious to know which theory you support and what are the main paramenters of that theory and based on which experiments and observations. <br /><br />Here are my questions (a bit like the 12 tasks of Hercules <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />) and if you could provide some back up (links, explanations, etc...) to your answers I would appreciate but I will try to understand them anyway if you do not back them up:<br /><br />According to your Theory:<br /><br />1. What is the name of the main author of your supporting theory?<br /><br />2. What is the origin of the universe?<br /><br />3. What is CMBR?<br /><br />4. How did the universe evolved?<br /><br />5. Is the universe expanding?<br /><br />6. Is the universe accelerating?<br /><br />7. What drives this expansion? <br /><br />8. What drives the acceleration?<br /><br />9. Which are the fundamental forces of the universe?<br /><br />10. Which are the fundamental particles of the universe?<br /><br />11. Which are the fundamental constants of the universe?<br /> <br />12. What is gravity?

 

[chesh]

"Gravity waves" is perfectly acceptable in physics and used all the time. Semantical nitpicking does not advance the discussion with substance.<br /><br />"Although gravitational radiation has not yet been directly detected, it has been indirectly shown to exist." <br /><br />There was NO detection of gravity waves. Hulse and Taylor found events in the binary NS and star system which were consistent with Relativity. THAT's why they got the Nobel as it showed that, for the first time, Relativity also applied to high gravity, binary NS systems. It was a clear, further demonstration that Relativity successfully described our universe, and precisely, as well.<br /><br />NO gravity waves were detected, either directly or indirectly. Neither were <b>Gravitons</b> detected. Simply because events were found consistent with, viz. followed the rules of Relativity, and that might, MIGHT imply gravity waves, does not mean that gravity waves were detected indirectly or directly. Point of fact.<br /><br />Gravity waves (GW's) have NOT been detected. If & ONLY if they are detected, clearly and duplicatable AND such waves are found at this pulsar binary, Then and THEN only can one say with any reasonable scientific assurances, there was evidence GW's were detected indirectly.<br /><br />Then when astronomers observe similar systems, If and ONLY if such is evidence for GW's, will that be indirect and solid evidence for GW's. Note the careful provisos and conditions, please.<br /><br />For now, gravity waves & gravitons are theoretical entities which are NOT known to be real. Point of fact. VERY FEW physicists are willing to stick their necks out at this point and state that gravity waves or gravitons are real or not, even 30 years after Hulse and Taylor's article. & their Nobel.<br /><br />Schrodinger did the major work on the QM wave equations. It's true that he drew from others. But history does NOT attribute original and significant work to one's teachers or colleagues, & does

 

[chesh]

"not only is GR unproven, it is false." <br /><br />Some need to take a physics course. Not only is relativity true, but it also is true for all times and spaces over the last 10+ billions years, as shown by Einstein crosses, which could NOT be the case if Einstein's Relativity were wrong.<br /><br />It is true that Relativity is not complete, but that is true for most (if not all) scientific models and simply means not everything is known, to which statement any reasonable persons, scientists included, would readily agree. Being incomplete does not make it wrong. Contrary evidence, clear, plain and simply invalidates a theory.<br /><br />Since your post states that relativity is wrong, then show us where it's wrong? HMMMM? Where is the contradictory evidence? <br /><br />This is p-ss or get off the pot time. If yer axe grinding it will become obvious to all by your response or lack of it.<br /><br />WHERE is relativity wrong? Last time any physicists checked it was quite clearly correct, as Hulse' and Taylor's article showed.<br /><br />Relativity in fact is vastly confirmed, as this APOD figure shows. <br /><br />antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap050327.html<br /><br />AND this!!<br />antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap950711.html<br /><br />And this one on gravitational lensing:<br /><br />http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap040807.html<br /><br />Please don't contradict standard physics unless your posts hold clear, decisive evidence of such. Writing an unsupported, off the wall sentence looks very silly and your posts do not look believable. That is not good.

 

[bonzelite]

taking physics class will render incorrect/inaccurate views of the universe. relativity is not true. i have talked about this in other threads. <br /><br />there is no stretching fabric of spacetime, time dilation, energy-to-mass conversions. all of this is fantasy. relativistic effects do not confirm relativity to be true whatsoever.

 

[SpeedFreek]

You say there is no time-dilation, and that relativistic effects do not confirm relativity.<br /><br />But we have confirmed time dilation, a relativistic effect.<br /><br />So are you saying the adjustments we <i> have </i> to make to the clocks on GPS satellites to keep then synchronised with clocks on Earth is due to something other than relativity? Why does time run slower for objects that have accelerated, relative to objects that have not? (According to General Relativity, gravitational time dilation is copresent with the existence of an accelerated reference frame.) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

time dialtion contradicts the theory that it derives from. there is no distinction between the slower or faster clock in relativity after an initial acceleration ceases. once something has attained a fraction of light speed [or any speed], then coasts, one clock could just as well be the other. any time differences, which are minute at best, are not due to time dilation. there is no <i>absolute</i> time dilation in nature. <br /><br />any adjustments made to GPS systems for sake of time dilation are more than likely not adjusting for the reasons assumed, as time dilation is a fictional idea.<br />

 

[robnissen]

First, welcome to SDC. I have enjoyed your first few posts, but I also have some comments on them.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">NO gravity waves were detected, either directly or indirectly. </font> <br /><br />Perhaps, but for now, the best explanation for the pulsars' change in speed is gravitational waves. Indeed, the press release from the Nobel Prize committed stated that they had indirectly proven the existence of gravitational waves. <br /><br /><br /><font color="yellow"> Schrodinger did the major work on the QM wave equations. It's true that he drew from others. But history does NOT attribute original and significant work to one's teachers or colleagues. </font><br /><br />You complained about Search being nit-picky, this seems awfully nit-picky to me. I don't believe Search was listing names that he thought deserved equal credit, he was just listing names of people who had made serious contributions to QM. Even if was wrong, it seens awfully nit-picky to argue this point.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">String theory has led to nothing. It's been around for at least 10 years. When 10 years rolled around after both QM and Relativity, the effects on physics were marked and clear. Einstein and QM were BOTH on to something deep and fundamental, and had already started to make an impact in physics. <br /><br />By contrast, String theory has not added a single jot, no new phenomena or predictions to Physics. As a theory, it's sterile as a mule. </font><br /><br />ABSOFRICKENLUTELY. I could not agree more. String theory is NOT a theory, it is BARELY a hypothesis. It explains nothing, can't be tested and will probably be looked at as the aeither theory of its time.<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> Substantial issues were raised by my post regarding the nature of mass, gravity and such. </font><br /><br />Agreed. You raised some very interesting questions.<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> Since your post states that relativity is</font>

 

[alokmohan]

I agree.Time dilation occurs depening of location of the place.On event horizon time freezes.

 

[search]

Definitions DO matter in physics. They do not matter in laymans physics forums.<br /><br />This all started by someone asking if gravitational waves speed have ever been measured?<br /><br />First the person question shows more knowledge than SOME posters here since it shows to know the correct semantic.<br /><br />Second to answer plain and simple to the question: <br /><br />If gravitational waves exist the speed should be c (if unaffected). <br /><br />Now the existance of gravitational wave dependes on the model used. <br /><br />According to GR it should exist and that "should" has been indirectly proven by the discovery of Hulse and Taylor and subsequent study throughout the years. <br /><br />Again and as I mentioned before it all depends on which theory you support or from which perpective you are looking. <br /><br /><font color="yellow">That's the substance of my post. It very clearly pointed out what THE major problems in physics currently are regarding mass/gravity. </font><br /><br />The major problem is conciliation between the forces speacially between gravity and the others. The problem is that while the other forces seem to work well with particle and wave physics gravity does not. It is there but no one knows how it is propagated. As you well say mass is also a problem since particles have mass and light does not and apparently gravitational waves propagate at the seed of ligh. So is it massless? If it is not it should slow down. But light which is massless bends due to gravity so why all this is happening? Spacetime fabric, geodesics, warped space?<br /><br />If GR is right or wrong I really DO NOT KNOW and so don't you or any other soul in this forum although there may be other clever minds closer to the thruth than some will ever be. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[bonzelite]

gravitational waves also have mysterious implications that are seldom discussed. if such waves exist, then what is the medium? spacetime? and if so, what material is being "waved?" spacetime particles? gravitons? lucky charms? cheerios? death star tractor beam bites? <br /><br />there is no spacetime, nor a mythical fabric that is bending or warping and stretching. show me the spacetime pieces and bits that strech and warp ---where are they? where are the leprechauns with their lucky charms? where is humpty dumpty? <br /><br />there is nothing to prove that spacetime exists as an actual material medium for gravity waves to propagate. and because relativity theory contradicts it's own premise for existing, anything considered to be indirect evidence based upon those theories is false.

 

[alokmohan]

Gravitational wave propagation near a black hole – the silent signals from chilled universe to provide structural design for the universe.<br /><br />The wave-propagation effects allow the determination of the large-scale structure of the Universe. The measurement of gravitational waves reveals how Waves propagate in the strongly curved space-time of a Black hole. The existence of event horizons are directly be probed. <br /><br />Scientists are convinced that the gravitational wave propagation is a form of silent signal from the chilled universe to structural design for the universe. <br /><br /><br />--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />TECHNOLOGY ARTICLES <br /> Gravitational wave propagation near a black hole – the silent signals from chilled universe http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/15791.asp<br />

 

[search]

<font color="yellow">there is nothing to prove that spacetime exists as an actual material medium for gravity waves to propagate. and because relativity theory contradicts it's own premise for existing, anything considered to be indirect evidence based upon those theories is false.</font><br /><br />Come on bonzelite give us a break here. <br /><br />The spacetime fabric is the GR conception to explain gravity. Now it may be wrong but so far 99.9% of most predictions have been matching experiments. The problem with other theories which may also be correct is that some have not been as accurate and others (like Strings) cannot be experimented.<br /><br />The experiments regarding the spacetime fabric have been tested, retested and are still being tested as we speak and the only thing they have come up so far is that the theory is more and more accurate than ever.<br /><br />Probe B results will come in April and try to read them.<br /><br />Some Q&A<br />http://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/qanda.html<br />Space/Space-Time<br />http://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/a11134.html <br /><br />The only reason I am still wasting time answering you is that I am sure you have not been reading the books and many people can be smart but few will be smarter unless they read the books.