« Last post by chiralSPO on 13/02/2016 21:59:06 »
Welcome to the forum, Donovan!
An interesting idea, but I'm pretty sure it is not correct.
It's true that all objects with mass distort spacetime, and as they move will create some gravity waves. But I don't think that stars exploding will have any significant effect on our orbit (even the closest star outside our solar system is more than 4000000000000 km away). Also, I am unaware of any evidence that our orbit around the sun has changed substantially in the last 100 million years, and certainly not in the last century...
« Last post by Donovan Rama on 13/02/2016 21:21:46 »
What I am about to say is just my thought and I could be wrong. BUT I recently read that space can be warped with the more objects in it thus creating gravitational waves IF that is true and considering earth is close to the sun than most other planets and starts and also considering that Stars eventually do explode or disappear or evaporate what ever fancies your vocab then when a few of those stars "explode" that would mean that there is less gravitational wave pull on earth and eventually would earth not to soon get closer and close to the sun ? And if that is true then would that mean that the theory of global warming is incorrect and In fact it is because of gravitational wave pull on earth that takes it closer to the sun that is the cause of increasing heat instead? Just a thought or a theory but it is something that's tickles my brain
« Last post by chiralSPO on 13/02/2016 20:59:08 »
We know that can't be. If light were accelerating at the same rate that the universe was expanding, the redshift would not be observed.
There is another problem with assuming that light is stationary: we can see stars from multiple directions (all around us!) If light were stationary, and we were moving such that we only happened to see the light we passed through, then we would only see light from one direction (exactly opposite the direction we were moving).
« Last post by chiralSPO on 13/02/2016 20:50:30 »
The power radiated in Gravitational waves for two orbiting bodies is:
Won't it have a period of 1 year (frequency of ~3e–8 Hz)? Unless I'm mistaken, that would be hard to detect even if the power were through the roof!
« Last post by syhprum on 13/02/2016 19:58:54 »
You are going to find it rather exhausting constructing the LIGO type receiver by yourself but the best of luck
Please quote the URL of the article I seem to have missed it.
« Last post by Matthew Malley on 13/02/2016 19:44:15 »
True Spring Theory but what if, in the distant future, we discover that the speed of light increases in conjunction with the increase of speed in the expansion of the universe?
« Last post by timey on 13/02/2016 18:41:48 »
>No one has yet detected those gravitational waves.
I guess this is now obsolete
« Last post by Ethos_ on 13/02/2016 18:11:06 »
But of course...........I fall for these trick questions every time.
I am trying to compile a list of substances that are solid under normal conditions (some flexibility here, but essentially 1 atm and 20 °C) that react chemically to form exclusively products that are liquid under the same conditions (no gaseous or solid coproducts).
C(s) + 2 S(s) → CS2 (l)
Na(s) + K(s) → NaK(l)
Ti(s) + 2 HgCl2 (s) → TiCl4 (l) + 2 Hg(l)
For the moment I am ignoring eutectic mixtures of molecular species that don't involve an actual chemical reaction, like: urea + choline chloride (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_eutectic_solvent)
SMFAds for Free Forums
© 2000–2016 - The Naked Scientists®
The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks. Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators, sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.