Evidence for gravitational waves

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by eMTee

that was not a thread, but a truthfull statment. But I am thinking to start one...should I?

Tormod was suggesting that you start a thread in our Philosophy of Science forum if you want to discuss that statement further.

[Tormod]

Originally Posted by eMTee

that was not a thread, but a truthfull statment. But I am thinking to start one...should I?

It was a claim about Albert Einstein's religious faith, which is not the same as a fact, and completely unrelated to the topic. That's why you need to start a new thread if you want to discuss it.

And of course you are very welcome to do so!

[coldcreation]

For sure, we should continue looking for gravitational waves. The pulars may have another explanation. I'll read the article then discuss it. I read something in the 1980s about binary pulsars and proof of G waves. Nothing seemed conclusive then, nor does it now.

I would love for Eistein to be right about these predicted waves. He's been right on just about everything else, so I wouldn't be surized. But I'm not sure that gravitational waves actually exist.

It would be like saying that curved space (not to mention time) propagates. Shouldn't energy be the one propagating? Should't mass be moving with curvature hot on its trail?

I guess whether G waves exist of not depends of what gravity is. It depends on the mechanism involved in the gravitational interact. It depends on whether gravity is a force of attraction or curved spacetime.

Question: If a G wave can exist in nature, what is the role of time within the wave itself? anybody???


A.M. coldcreation

[Tormod]

Originally Posted by coldcreation

It would be like saying that curved space (not to mention time) propagates. Shouldn't energy be the one propagating? Should't mass be moving with curvature hot on its trail?

We know that gravity is an attractive force which binds structures together. Why should not this force create ripples in spacetime? Who says gravity is not a form of energy?

I guess whether G waves exist of not depends of what gravity is. It depends on the mechanism involved in the gravitational interact. It depends on whether gravity is a force of attraction or curved spacetime.

AFAIK special relativity says that it is both. The attraction is caused by curves in spacetime.

Question: If a G wave can exist in nature, what is the role of time within the wave itself? anybody???

I don't know, but I would assume it takes the same role there as anywhere else - ie, it is dependent on the relative motion of any given frame.

[coldcreation]

OK just chill out for a minute.

Newton said gravity was an attractive force without giving a cause for its action (actually, I believe Deity was the word he used as an attribution of its origin).

Einstein, in general relativity, not the special version, concludes gravity is a curved space-time phenomenon. Einstein's interpretation is more seductive.

By the way, from the point of view of an Earth dweller, gravity looks very attractive, as we stick to the Earth. But from the perspective of particle in space, say situated at the inner Lagrangian Point L1, sees gravity as a repuslive forve along the line connecting the two bodies at their center.

Yes, there is that third option (duality is a game of children): The Euclidean connection. He who free-falls in a gravitational field feels no force, no gravity, no acceleration.

Triality? Yes indeed.

Looking at gravity as solely an attractive force is to limit the discussion to 300 year old theory, to one perspective, yours...

[coldcreation]

Just to finish the sentence above,
Once the mechanism is found for the gravitational interaction, we will learn if it propagates or not. Not before. Observation of binary pulsars need to be properly interpreted before jumping to conclusions about the existance or not of G waves

[infamous]

Do I smell aether again?

[Tormod]

Originally Posted by coldcreation

OK just chill out for a minute.

What, are we 13 years old now?

Einstein, in general relativity, not the special version

Correct. My Bad.

But I still don't understand what you are trying to convey.

[BlameTheEx]

Nuton's laws of gravity worked within the limits of the observations of their day. Einstein's give, within the limits of observation, the same results. The difference is that Einstein's theories also work on later observations like these binary pulsars.

Any new theory that supersedes Einstein's will give the same results as Einstein's as discovered from these observations. It will only supersede relativity by agreeing with relativity where relativity has been proven correct, and disagreeing in some testable way where it succeeds and relativity fails. Failing that it can only stay in the running by disagreeing where the evidence is not yet in.

[coldcreation]

Gravitational wave, as we write are not a proven phenomenon.

Yes, a few observations agree with Einstein's prediction. That is no surprise.

What is a surprise is that gravitational wave detectors (similarly, neutrino detectors) have found no conclusive evidence beyond the margine of error.

I'm trying to say that gravity is not necessarily something that propagates like photons, of waves on the surface of the ocean. (Note that a graviton has never been observed)

If it is not something that propagates, then there is no such thing as G waves.