Is there a simple way to detect gravitational waves?

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by jcc, Jun 10, 2015.

  1. jcc Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    412
    in vacuum chamber, 2 thin lines each hangs a bell. ring 1 bell, measure temperature of the 2 bells.

    if bell 1 keeps ringing, its temperature should be increasing, then stay at maximum.

    bell 2 should feel gravity wave produced by bell 1 and heat up, the closer the hotter. 1/r^2

    or you can say bell 1 gives heat radiation to bell 2 to heat it up?

    if both bells get hotter, that means gravitational wave is working?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    33,766
    There might be a small transfer of energy due to infra-red radiation, and there might be a small transfer of energy due to gravitational radiation. However, the gravitational effect would be unmeasurable and completely swamped by the transfer by IR radiation. The masses of the two bells are way too small to detect any effect of gravitational waves.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. jcc Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    412
    hot gasses on the sun are vibrating and producing gravitation waves, where that energy go? can we detect it?

    if sunlight is hot gasses emitted photons, what's the mechanism? electrons charge orbitals and emit photons?

    how many orbitals in an gas atom? why sunlight spectrum is continue?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    Heat and light

    light/photons are generally produced by electrons changing their orbits around atomic nuclei.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    It takes energy to move an electron away from a positively charged nucleus, to overcome the great electrostatic attraction between them. Similarly, moving an electron closer to a nucleus actually gives off energy. Light is just energy and thus light can be given off in this process. This process, by the way, is called radiation. It's not the same thing as the stuff that will kill you, but it's similar.
    http://newton.burney.ws/physics/lessons/light/light7.html


    http://angryastronomer.blogspot.com.au/2006/06/astronomical-data-part-1b-where-does.html
     
  8. jcc Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    412
    what's the mechanism?

    how electron changes orbital?

    how photon is produced?

    how many photons can an electron emit per second?

    what's difference between red and blue photon?

    photon has no mass no charge, how it carries energy?
     
  9. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    Already answered.
    Energising electrons.
    Depends on the energy imparted to the electron.
    Different energy levels.
    Light carries energy due to its momentum.
     
  10. jcc Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    412
    jokes right?

    light has no mass, what momentum?

    what is energy level?

    ????? thanks.
     
  11. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    Light has no rest mass, but it most certainly has momentum.
    and have you ever heard of E=Mc2?

    You are a total fraud. bye
     
    Last edited: Jun 10, 2015
  12. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,486
    When judging others as frauds, it pays to be sure one speaks from a position of real knowledge. E = mc^2 (not mc2) leaves you with nothing to work from in the case of a photon with m = 0. The appropriate general relation, applicable for both massive and massless particles, is given in the first boxed expression here:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy–momentum_relation
    And is applied to photons as given under 'Special Cases' example 1.

    Also, the cartoon depiction of atomic photon emission you lifted in #4 from http://newton.burney.ws/physics/lessons/light/light7.html
    apart from being poorly drawn, has no accompanying explanation it roughly depicts a way outdated early QM picture, in keeping with reference to electron orbits rather than orbitals. So a check and it has appropriately divided sections briefly covering both early and later QM, which is ok as such. But then a quick read of the early QM part at http://newton.burney.ws/physics/lessons/quantum/intro.html
    (bold emphasis added)
    Well if as is true it was an 'ultraviolet catastrophe', how come the problem was according to above at the IR end?! Author has it back to front. Maybe there are no other bloopers like that at the site - I won't spend time to find out, but do not recommend using it as a reliable resource. Someone who only knows up to early secondary-level maths & physics might be excused for copy-pasting from such a site.
     
  13. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    E=Mc2 instead of E=mc2 is what I should have had, your other triviality is unecessary .

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    The message conveyed is appropriate and your pedant nonsense again ignored

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    better luck next time on your inevitable grudge mission,

    Someone who professes to know enough about GR to claim it is rubbish, has about zero credibility in telling me anything, particularly when conveying the most basic stuff to a religious zealot.
    Perhaps you indentify with him?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Seeya around!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. jcc Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    412
    hahahaha, good science spirit!

    why not become a mod? ban every 1 when you cannot debunking his science.
     
  15. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,486
    Wrong. Use of upper case or lower case is the triviality, your basic ignorance of that mc2 rather than mc^2 is ab initio wrong, then further wrong even if applying the 'correct' term to photon case.
    You may wish to convince yourself, even equally uneducated others here, it's a 'grudge mission', but the truth is you simply need reigning in as someone who perennially muddies the waters very often with half-truths that can be worse than outright flagrant errors. Though you manage that too, and worse.
    Whoever the unnamed 'religious zealot' is has naught to do with your own exposed gaffes here. A pity your supposed 'lack of any ego' actually prevents you from having enough humility and honesty to candidly acknowledge such bloopers and only then move on with a clear conscience. Did I suggest you have a conscience? Hmm....given your strategy is 'always defend by way of attack', I take that back.
     
    danshawen likes this.
  16. jcc Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    412
    me2

    there is God!
     
  17. sweetpea Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,329
    jcc, do you like the 'modding' on this site? the moddies want you 4 a sunbeam.
    Why me not nicey? me read your 'poo poo' on other threads
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 10, 2015
  18. jcc Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    412
    i like to discuss science, nothing more.

    rant a little cus they banned me 4 times for fun. should ban those science attackers.
     
  19. sweetpea Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,329
    u Discuss??
    u 2 clever for these dumb dumbs with your very great logical comebacks to others posts, such as... to quote you
    'poop' and 'bs' very clever 'discuss' of yours.
     
  20. jcc Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    412
    photon? gravitron? god particle? flat earth?

    21st now, not 16.
     
  21. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,009
    Don't you think it makes sense to learn a little science first before attempting to discuss it?

    Again you seem to have difficulty with logic.

    You said - rant a little cus they banned me 4 times for fun.
    The truth is - they banned me 4 times for have fun ranting (trolling).
     
  22. jcc Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    412
    mind to discuss science only?
     
  23. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    Nup, it's obviously you who are wrong. E=Mc2 is the accepted way, and that is generally understood.

    I've stated the truth.......I could also go tell you to take a running jump, but your rather emotive reactions to me, evidenced in other threads, has me worried somewhat, so I'll just continue on as is.
    And I'll leave the "muddying of the waters" to you, as you are so apt at doing.
    The only things that are clear, is your silly pedant, your grudge mission, and your rather emotive over the top aggressive state, evident in most of your interactions with me.
    Perhaps you would like to make your position again clear on GR? You would need to do it far better than in the thread you had that was banished to the fringes.

    Overall you need to do better! take it easy old friend!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Jun 10, 2015

Share This Page