Scientists detect Einstein gravitational waves for a third time

[ddavidovsky]

Keep at it folks, you're not even warm.

 

Consider this: science has filled in many of the blanks in our knowledge by now - a tremendous amount has been learned by meticulous examination and experimentation - and we still haven't any inkling what the universe is all about. It's a fair bet that when all the (observable/demonstrable/knowable) facts are known about how the universe works, we still won't understand it. Science ignores the logical impasse in ultimate causation because it hasn't got a clue how to deal with it.

It's therefore logical to assume that you can cut out all the science and take the logical impasse as the starting point...

 

I'm dropping clues here, but you won't get it, and I don't want you to get it.

If I had explained it to Einstein,  I fancy he might tell me that it had already occurred to him at a young age.
"So you disproved it?"
"No, it may very well be true."
"Then why not tell everyone?"
"Because I chose not to believe it."
"Why?"
"Because there would have been nothing left for me to do, nothing left for humans to do. It would have been the end of the game."
"So all you that did in your life, and all that mankind has done since then, pondering every detail of the universe from quantum mechanics to black holes, was just for the hell of it?"
"No, for the fun of it."

Edited June 3, 2017 by ddavidovsky

[rockingrobin]

4 hours ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

A theory that could unify Newtonian physics and Quantum Mechanic and at the same time explain dark mass and energy would truly be beautiful.

 

Newtonian physics works great for large objects with a big mass. Quantum Mechanics is very good at describing the realm of the microscopic with atomic size mass. 

The problem with black holes is that they are the size of an atom but have the mass of stars. We have no theory to describe that.

I thought that Heavy dense objects were explained by Einsteins theory of relativity (not his special theory), and that the race to connect everything together is currently between string theory and quantum loop gravity

[Andaman Al]

37 minutes ago, ddavidovsky said:

Keep at it folks, you're not even warm.

 

Consider this: science has filled in many of the blanks in our knowledge by now - a tremendous amount has been learned by meticulous examination and experimentation - and we still haven't any inkling what the universe is all about. It's a fair bet that when all the (observable/demonstrable/knowable) facts are known about how the universe works, we still won't understand it. Science ignores the logical impasse in ultimate causation because it hasn't got a clue how to deal with it.

It's therefore logical to assume that you can cut out all the science and take the logical impasse as the starting point...

 

I'm dropping clues here, but you won't get it, and I don't want you to get it.

If I had explained it to Einstein,  I fancy he might tell me that it had already occurred to him at a young age.
"So you disproved it?"
"No, it may very well be true."
"Then why not tell everyone?"
"Because I chose not to believe it."
"Why?"
"Because there would have been nothing left for me to do, nothing left for humans to do. It would have been the end of the game."
"So all you that did in your life, and all that mankind has done since then, pondering every detail of the universe from quantum mechanics to black holes, was just for the hell of it?"
"No, for the fun of it."

Well to start at the beginning it is hardly surprising that nobody is close because reviewing the thread nobody has offered any thoughts on the creation of the Universe and 'what it is all about' because the thread was about two colliding black holes. When I did show genuine interest and replied to you, you replied that you are not going to give your thoughts, so that kind of kills the conversation/discussion. That is why nobody has even considered answering the issue you raised.

 

So where should we start with the complexities of your Universe. Are we a mathematical/computer program The Sims version 1000001?, Parallel infinite universes, the complexity of the holographic universe, or are you religious and believe that everything just is because an omnipotent God made it that way? Are quantum fluctuations that potentially caused the creation of our universe, happening all the time and creating other big bangs in the infinity of what we understand is space, so far away it is impossible to observe them?  Is the universe, internal and nothing exists until we observe it, is the answer all within, not external? Where is your start point?

 

 How can anyone with the genuine thought processes to consider the enormity of our existence say "I'm dropping clues here, but you won't get it, and I don't want you to get it.". Why wouldn't you want people to get it, why wouldn't you want to share your experience and knowledge to open up some form of meaningful discussion? That's the bit I don't get.

Edited June 3, 2017 by Andaman Al

[tomacht8]

I love quantum mechanics.
Are there any scientific findings about the moisture content in black holes?

Please do not beat me for this unscientific contribution.

[boomerangutang]

7 hours ago, ddavidovsky said:

Keep at it folks, you're not even warm.

 

Consider this: science has filled in many of the blanks in our knowledge by now - a tremendous amount has been learned by meticulous examination and experimentation - and we still haven't any inkling what the universe is all about. It's a fair bet that when all the (observable/demonstrable/knowable) facts are known about how the universe works, we still won't understand it. Science ignores the logical impasse in ultimate causation because it hasn't got a clue how to deal with it.

It's therefore logical to assume that you can cut out all the science and take the logical impasse as the starting point...

I'm dropping clues here, but you won't get it, and I don't want you to get it.

If I had explained it to Einstein,  I fancy he might tell me that it had already occurred to him at a young age.
"So you disproved it?"
"No, it may very well be true."
"Then why not tell everyone?"
"Because I chose not to believe it."
"Why?"
"Because there would have been nothing left for me to do, nothing left for humans to do. It would have been the end of the game."
"So all you that did in your life, and all that mankind has done since then, pondering every detail of the universe from quantum mechanics to black holes, was just for the hell of it?"
"No, for the fun of it."

                                You don't endear yourself or impress anyone when you write in such condescending terms.  It's like a 2nd grade teacher telling her students; "You are just little kids. You don't know much.  You'll never know as much as me, because I'm an adult.  I'll give you a few hints, but don't fool yourselves into thinking you'll ever have as much insight as me."

 

                         If you want to get a point across; endeavor to make the point.   As Einstein said, "If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself."    To put it another way; 'often the greatest concepts can be explained in simple terms.'

 

                         In an earlier post, I put forward a brief outline of a theory of how the universe began, including how the 'Big Bang' theory doesn't hold water.   It could be wrong or it could be right.  Same with the Big Bang theory.   I don't feel right about a theory which has 3 factors which appear impossible:

 

>>>  time did not exist prior to 13.4 billion years ago

>>>  nothing existed prior to that time, not even Higgs Bosons or quarks, and....

>>>  matter traveled faster than the speed of light for millions of years

 

 

 

 

 

 

[soalbundy]

18 hours ago, ddavidovsky said:

I know the secret of the universe. No one else, as far as I can see, has hit on it, but it's the only theory that works both in logic and practical physics and it's a lot simpler than anyone has supposed.

 

I'm not going to reveal it because it will strip all meaning out of existence, as the knowledge has stripped all the meaning out of my own. I'm too sentimental about life to want spoil the party for everyone else. Carry on with the illusion, folks, and enjoy the fun, and if we continue to squabble over trivial details, if the whole planet goes up in flames that way, so be it. The secret of the universe is safe with me.

Matrix

[aussie11950]

The sound of the gravity wave is just an amplified audio representation of the gravity wave.

Audio cannot travel in a vacuum as there is no matter or molecules to vibrate and carry the sound waves.

How do radio frequency electrical waves propagate in a vacuum? 

And how do light waves travel in the vacuum ? 

How do gravity waves travel in a vacuum?

 

 

 

Edited June 4, 2017 by aussie11950
clarified details

[boomerangutang]

20 minutes ago, aussie11950 said:

The sound of the gravity wave is just an amplified audio representation of the gravity wave.

Audio cannot travel in a vacuum as there is no matter or molecules to vibrate and carry the sound waves.

How do radio frequency electrical waves propagate in a vacuum? 

And how do light waves travel in the vacuum ? 

How do gravity waves travel in a vacuum?

                             True.  But it's still a gas to hear a facsimile of a sound generated 5 billion years ago.  

I guess we could also get into the physics of how we hear sound, via the mechanics of ear-drum mechanics, connected to nerves, then transmitting impulses to brains, and then interpreting those impulses, etc.   

 

                             I heard mention that the sound of a super nova is a shade above middle C. ....but you'd need an ear as big as the solar system to hear it.  

 

                        I often visit a Burmese border town.  One thing I like to do there, is visit a wat which has a large gong, over 4 ft. in diameter.  I bang it, then put my head close to it.  The tones reverberate for over a minute.  I get high.  Better than pot or beer.

 

                               Speaking of gongs, I knew a guy who played cornet and gong.  He would sit cross-legged on a pillow with a 2.5 ft gong alongside.  He would play some free form notes on the horn, then bang the gong one time.   Rinse and repeat.

[Zyxel]

4 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

                                You don't endear yourself or impress anyone when you write in such condescending terms.  It's like a 2nd grade teacher telling her students; "You are just little kids. You don't know much.  You'll never know as much as me, because I'm an adult.  I'll give you a few hints, but don't fool yourselves into thinking you'll ever have as much insight as me."

 

                         If you want to get a point across; endeavor to make the point.   As Einstein said, "If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself."    To put it another way; 'often the greatest concepts can be explained in simple terms.'

 

                         In an earlier post, I put forward a brief outline of a theory of how the universe began, including how the 'Big Bang' theory doesn't hold water.   It could be wrong or it could be right.  Same with the Big Bang theory.   I don't feel right about a theory which has 3 factors which appear impossible:

 

>>>  time did not exist prior to 13.4 billion years ago

>>>  nothing existed prior to that time, not even Higgs Bosons or quarks, and....

>>>  matter traveled faster than the speed of light for millions of years

 

 

 

 

 

 

time did not exist prior to 13.4 billion years ago: The short answer is we don't know.  One theory that explains this is a theory that says our universe is a bubble that separated from another universe.  If that is true - then time did exist before our universe and exists outside our universe, but there might be a discontinuity between the time in our universe and the time in our parent univers.

 

nothing existed prior to that time, not even Higgs Bosons or quarks, and....: At the very beginning, there was an immense amount of energy in the form of radiation. The fundamental particles were born out of this energy. The quarks and leptons were amongst the first particles to appear. The first atoms (H) were formed about 380 000 years after the big bang.

 

matter traveled faster than the speed of light for millions of years: in the early phase of the universe, it went through a phase called inflation, during which period, the universe expanded by a factor of more than 10⁵⁰ in a time-scale of less than 10^-30 seconds. So, there is some evidence that the universe DID undergo a period of expansion faster than the speed of light. Even now the universe expends faster than the speed of light. The universe is not expanding out from a centre into space; rather, the whole universe is expanding and it is doing so equally at all places, as far as we can tell.

[ilostmypassword]

4 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

                                You don't endear yourself or impress anyone when you write in such condescending terms.  It's like a 2nd grade teacher telling her students; "You are just little kids. You don't know much.  You'll never know as much as me, because I'm an adult.  I'll give you a few hints, but don't fool yourselves into thinking you'll ever have as much insight as me."

 

                         If you want to get a point across; endeavor to make the point.   As Einstein said, "If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself."    To put it another way; 'often the greatest concepts can be explained in simple terms.'

 

                         In an earlier post, I put forward a brief outline of a theory of how the universe began, including how the 'Big Bang' theory doesn't hold water.   It could be wrong or it could be right.  Same with the Big Bang theory.   I don't feel right about a theory which has 3 factors which appear impossible:

 

>>>  time did not exist prior to 13.4 billion years ago

>>>  nothing existed prior to that time, not even Higgs Bosons or quarks, and....

>>>  matter traveled faster than the speed of light for millions of years

 

 

 

 

 

 

You're not the only one who had problems with the improbable implications of physics theories. Einstein couldn't accept the fact that his general theory of relativity implied that there were black holes.  Another was his dismissal of his own creation the cosmological constant. Which seems to have turned out to be true. I believe it was J.B.S. Haldane who once wrote something like this "Not only is the Universe queerer than we suppose, it's queerer than we can suppose."

[ddavidovsky]

27 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

I believe it was J.B.S. Haldane who once wrote something like this "Not only is the Universe queerer than we suppose, it's queerer than we can suppose."

I love that quote and it was indeed my starting point in looking for a counterintuitive explanation, but he wasn't quite right.

Edited June 4, 2017 by ddavidovsky

[ddavidovsky]

5 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

                                You don't endear yourself or impress anyone when you write in such condescending terms.  It's like a 2nd grade teacher telling her students; "You are just little kids. You don't know much.  You'll never know as much as me, because I'm an adult.  I'll give you a few hints, but don't fool yourselves into thinking you'll ever have as much insight as me."

 

                         If you want to get a point across; endeavor to make the point.   As Einstein said, "If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself."    To put it another way; 'often the greatest concepts can be explained in simple terms.'

 

                         In an earlier post, I put forward a brief outline of a theory of how the universe began, including how the 'Big Bang' theory doesn't hold water.   It could be wrong or it could be right.  Same with the Big Bang theory.   I don't feel right about a theory which has 3 factors which appear impossible:

 

>>>  time did not exist prior to 13.4 billion years ago

>>>  nothing existed prior to that time, not even Higgs Bosons or quarks, and....

>>>  matter traveled faster than the speed of light for millions of years

 

 

I imagine Einstein would smile at the quest, rather than be embittered by not knowing.

If I'm teasing you, it's out of sentimentality, because the game is still on - in fact, the game is all we have left.

 

There are lots of theories, but the mechanics of the universe, on any level, is not the problem. The only problem is the logical impasse of ultimate causation. There is only one theory that unlocks that, and it came to me at an ordinary moment.

 

Take my word for it that the world is better off not knowing. As an emotionally detached scientist (or philosopher) it won't affect your life in any way, in any case. The layman will probably be a bit depressed but will shrug and carry on as usual (as I do). If the whole world latches onto it though, the effect could be catastrophic. It would be the death of religion for one thing, and while many people would simple choose not to believe it. I imagine there could be widespread loss of belief and purpose - and anarchy.

[Andaman Al]

3 hours ago, ddavidovsky said:

 

I imagine Einstein would smile at the quest, rather than be embittered by not knowing.

If I'm teasing you, it's out of sentimentality, because the game is still on - in fact, the game is all we have left.

 

There are lots of theories, but the mechanics of the universe, on any level, is not the problem. The only problem is the logical impasse of ultimate causation. There is only one theory that unlocks that, and it came to me at an ordinary moment.

 

Take my word for it that the world is better off not knowing. As an emotionally detached scientist (or philosopher) it won't affect your life in any way, in any case. The layman will probably be a bit depressed but will shrug and carry on as usual (as I do). If the whole world latches onto it though, the effect could be catastrophic. It would be the death of religion for one thing, and while many people would simple choose not to believe it. I imagine there could be widespread loss of belief and purpose - and anarchy.

I think you give people too much credit, the only thing that would happen is that they would scream nut job and tell you to wear a tin foil hat. THAT is what people do when they do not understand or do not WANT to understand. So please try us, I want to know what you have figured out that will make Hawkins look like he has the mind of a 3 year old, as what you describe was far from an ordinary moment, in the entire history of mankind out of the entire human population that has ever lived, it is by definition a quite extraordinary moment, so prove it. If what you say is true you would go down in history, nobel prizes hanging out of your pockets, you would be seen as the one that was able to stop the destructive force called religion and give people a sense of peace and a motivation to simply enjoy their lives rather than what occurs now. Here we have you on Thai Visa, so what is the ddavidovsky theory to life and the universe, we wait with baited breath. Are you going to enlighten us or will it be just the usual disappointment?

[ExpatOilWorker]

20 hours ago, ballpoint said:

Getting a bit old now, but still well worth watching.  And a good introduction to Lawrence Krauss if you haven't heard/seen him before:

 

 

 

Nice informative presentation. Richard Dawkins is a bit of a nutter. He is more fanatic than the religious fanatics he is trying to disprove.

I think he has totally missed the point that religion to many just is a social "feel good" thing they enjoy while singing a few songs together with other people. 

[Skywalker69]

On 2017-06-02 at 11:19 AM, soalbundy said:

Hi Donald, was probably just one of your brain waves passing through

It was just his avatar talking.

[Skywalker69]

On 2017-06-02 at 10:03 AM, sevenhills said:

Total nonsense. 

Provide proof for you´r statement,please.

[Skywalker69]

On 2017-06-03 at 4:17 AM, CaptHaddock said:

Audio?  How can sound waves be transmitted through the vacuum of space?

Sound can leap across a vacuum after all

 

IN SPACE, no one can hear you scream. That’s according to physics textbooks and the tagline of the movie Alien. But it seems that in some circumstances, sound can jump between objects in a vacuum after all.

Sound waves are travelling vibrations of particles in media such as air, water or metal. So it stands to reason that they cannot travel through empty space, where there are no atoms or molecules to vibrate.

 

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20827804-600-sound-can-leap-across-a-vacuum-after-all/

[ilostmypassword]

On 6/2/2017 at 9:50 AM, MaxYakov said:

"A collision with a black hole can spoil your entire day." - Albert Einstein

Especially for Einstein who didn't believe that they existed.

[ddavidovsky]

6 hours ago, Andaman Al said:

I think you give people too much credit, the only thing that would happen is that they would scream nut job and tell you to wear a tin foil hat. THAT is what people do when they do not understand or do not WANT to understand. So please try us, I want to know what you have figured out that will make Hawkins look like he has the mind of a 3 year old, as what you describe was far from an ordinary moment, in the entire history of mankind out of the entire human population that has ever lived, it is by definition a quite extraordinary moment, so prove it. If what you say is true you would go down in history, nobel prizes hanging out of your pockets, you would be seen as the one that was able to stop the destructive force called religion and give people a sense of peace and a motivation to simply enjoy their lives rather than what occurs now. Here we have you on Thai Visa, so what is the ddavidovsky theory to life and the universe, we wait with baited breath. Are you going to enlighten us or will it be just the usual disappointment?

I can't account for the fact that Hawking or even some sci-fi writer haven't come up with a workable theory - maybe they have but it's gone under the radar - probably it's just a matter of time. It does seem that humans are embedded into a certain notion of reality, though I see much wilder ideas held in all seriousness by some scientists, such as that there are an infinite number of simultaneous universes. My idea is infinitely simpler. For example, it predicts that quantum physics is entirely logical (the Schroedinger's cat paradox has always seemed to me a crude fallacy), nor does it worry about what black holes get up to.

 

Enlightenment isn't really the word. And I think religion is necessary for the masses - without it there would be far more carnage than it causes. People need meaning and purpose, even if it's fantasy; and biology requires both cohesion and competition, which religion serves. Anything that erodes that suddenly could be highly disruptive, to say the least.

Personally, I am happy in reclusion and don't crave attention. It's fun to ponder the universe, and that's the only reason I mentioned it. I hope that's sufficient explanation.

 

 

[ilostmypassword]

7 hours ago, ddavidovsky said:

I can't account for the fact that Hawking or even some sci-fi writer haven't come up with a workable theory - maybe they have but it's gone under the radar - probably it's just a matter of time. It does seem that humans are embedded into a certain notion of reality, though I see much wilder ideas held in all seriousness by some scientists, such as that there are an infinite number of simultaneous universes. My idea is infinitely simpler. For example, it predicts that quantum physics is entirely logical (the Schroedinger's cat paradox has always seemed to me a crude fallacy), nor does it worry about what black holes get up to.

 

Enlightenment isn't really the word. And I think religion is necessary for the masses - without it there would be far more carnage than it causes. People need meaning and purpose, even if it's fantasy; and biology requires both cohesion and competition, which religion serves. Anything that erodes that suddenly could be highly disruptive, to say the least.

Personally, I am happy in reclusion and don't crave attention. It's fun to ponder the universe, and that's the only reason I mentioned it. I hope that's sufficient explanation.

 

 

No. You don't crave attention but you announce that you've solved the biggest scientific question there is but refuse to release the results. If you didn't crave attention you'd have kept any intimation of it to yourself. However, if you suffered from Narcissistic Personality Disorder, you probably would do just what you have done.

[CaptHaddock]

6 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

No. You don't crave attention but you announce that you've solved the biggest scientific question there is but refuse to release the results. If you didn't crave attention you'd have kept any intimation of it to yourself. However, if you suffered from Narcissistic Personality Disorder, you probably would do just what you have done.

To say nothing of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

[Andaman Al]

39 minutes ago, CaptHaddock said:

To say nothing of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Summed it up in 8 words. Very clever.

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, CaptHaddock said:

To say nothing of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

I wish I had thought of that.

"In the field of psychology, the Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias, wherein persons of low ability suffer from illusory superiority when they mistakenly assess their cognitive ability as greater than it is. The cognitive bias of illusory superiority derives from the metacognitive inability of low-ability persons to recognize their own ineptitude. Without the self-awareness of metacognition, low-ability people cannot objectively evaluate their actual competence or incompetence."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

[ballpoint]

1 hour ago, ilostmypassword said:

I wish I had thought of that.'""

"In the field of psychology, the Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias, wherein persons of low ability suffer from illusory superiority when they mistakenly assess their cognitive ability as greater than it is. The cognitive bias of illusory superiority derives from the metacognitive inability of low-ability persons to recognize their own ineptitude. Without the self-awareness of metacognition, low-ability people cannot objectively evaluate their actual competence or incompetence."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

Summed up by John Cleese: "...if you are absolutely no good at something at all, then you lack exactly the skills you need to know that you are absolutely no good at it." 

 

http://www.openculture.com/2014/12/john-cleese-on-stupidity-and-a-cornell-study.html

 

 

[ExpatOilWorker]

"The Higgs Boson and Beyond" from The Teaching Company is really an eye opener. It is available on the usual sites.

 

https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/the-higgs-boson-and-beyond

[soalbundy]

On 6/4/2017 at 6:16 PM, Skywalker69 said:

Sound can leap across a vacuum after all

 

IN SPACE, no one can hear you scream. That’s according to physics textbooks and the tagline of the movie Alien. But it seems that in some circumstances, sound can jump between objects in a vacuum after all.

Sound waves are travelling vibrations of particles in media such as air, water or metal. So it stands to reason that they cannot travel through empty space, where there are no atoms or molecules to vibrate.

 

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20827804-600-sound-can-leap-across-a-vacuum-after-all/

apparently it can as sound disturbs radiation according to a theoretical physicist I saw on youtube recently although the 'sound' as such would have to be interpreted. 

[Scott]

An off-topic post has been removed.

 

[PhuketSarah]

On 6/3/2017 at 0:14 PM, selftaopath said:

Would you go into outer space if you could Boomer.....? Not me.... scares the hell outta me; just like the deep dark ocean. YIKES.... Oh and I think it would be wise for our civilization to STOP looking for other life forms in outer space. Reason being what will happen if/when we find some. Oh myyyyyyyyyyyyy.... Boy I sound a bit paranoid. lol lol 

Distances are just too fantastical.  I rather think we've more to fear from future earthlings traveling back in time.  Or past ones traveling forward? Earth is old,  who knows what was going on a billion years ago.  Maybe we are already... past the future.  

A  book written for the general public  I've read,  Antimatter has theorized on " gravitons" .

I frustrated  high school physics teachers no end with insistent question regarding  how  exactly  gravity works.  

 

[PhuketSarah]

On 6/4/2017 at 6:16 PM, Skywalker69 said:

Sound can leap across a vacuum after all

 

IN SPACE, no one can hear you scream. That’s according to physics textbooks and the tagline of the movie Alien. But it seems that in some circumstances, sound can jump between objects in a vacuum after all.

Sound waves are travelling vibrations of particles in media such as air, water or metal. So it stands to reason that they cannot travel through empty space, where there are no atoms or molecules to vibrate.

 

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20827804-600-sound-can-leap-across-a-vacuum-after-all/

 Dark matter  is the latest theory of "space", not vacuum.

[Skywalker69]

1 hour ago, PhuketSarah said:

 Dark matter  is the latest theory of "space", not vacuum.

There is also string teories, interesting!