The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: How big are the distances to gravitational wave sources detected by LIGO?  (Read 2477 times)

Offline marzosia2

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 93
    • View Profile
During signal is going to sensor ,  sensor is changing position too .
Light need time T  for distance L 

please compare left and right situation it is very similar problem !!!

CW or CCW we have red or blue shift



Can You help me evaluate distance d for
LIGO ?  I'm not sure how works instrument in LIGO ?

it is SIMILAR  to above model ? ( I saw in TV intresting info that they confirmed Einstein's theory )  I hope that distance d They measured before test ?


ARE WE ABLE HERE FIND  EQUATIONS THAT WILL EXPLAIN
FAMOUS SPACE OSCYLATION  by DOPPLER ?


THEY HAVE TWO ARMS and TWO LAB ARE WE ABLE BUILD HERE MODEL  ( math )?


x---------------------Earth

X- some point in space
Earth is making rotation respect to x point
and respect to own Axis

X- Far Far point I don't know where this point is
IS Math able help ?  It would be big sucess to describe with huge precission space Oscylation or Doppler or ....?
« Last Edit: 17/03/2016 18:46:24 by chris »


 

Offline evan_au

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4120
  • Thanked: 245 times
    • View Profile
Re: How big d we have in LIGO ?
« Reply #1 on: 16/03/2016 20:42:56 »
Quote from: marzosia2
Can You help me evaluate distance d for LIGO ?
The paper describing the first detection of gravitational waves from LIGO did estimate the distance d to the source. It was around 1.3 billion light years.

They estimated the distance by the "luminosity", ie how much distortion of space you would expect from merging black holes, vs how much movement was detected in theLIGO mirrors on Earth.

They also estimated the degree of time dilation between the source and Earth, at z=0.09; this is a more flexible model than Doppler shift when high relative velocities are involved, such as in this case. They estimated this from the the orbital period as seen on Earth vs the orbital period expected for these masses.

Quote from: marzosia2
During signal is going to sensor,  sensor is changing position too
The whole detected signal lasted less than 10ms, during which time the sensor did not change position very much (not when compared to the black holes, which were orbiting at somewhere around half of the speed of light, just before they merged).

However, there was a second sensor on the other side of the USA which also registered the same pulse.

By recording the same pulse in two locations (or preferably 3), you can tell much more about the speed of the wave and the direction of its source.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_observation_of_gravitational_waves
 

Offline marzosia2

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 93
    • View Profile
Re: How big d we have in LIGO ?
« Reply #2 on: 17/03/2016 11:01:33 »
Sorry I must show here more  precission drawings







ARE WE ABLE MAKE PRECISSION calibration ?

ARE WE ABLE SEE ZERO on THE TABLE ?

What if exist doopler ?
Respect to what we  registering doppler ?

Light no need Aether to fly !
not exist C+V or C-V it is fact

Einstein told that there on the table  must be ZERO ?
Above table proved Einstein's theory ?
Above table proved what ?

History is making circle ?

Michelon Morley proved what ?
Ligo Team proved what ? 


Light , EM waves no need any Aether to Fly ! ( not Exist C+ V  or C-V )

Mathematica  is giving US Evidence that Exist Neutral  Natural Absolute  3D space - ( Absolute Doppler !)
3D space XYZ . 







« Last Edit: 17/03/2016 11:40:45 by marzosia2 »
 

Offline marzosia2

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 93
    • View Profile
Re: How big d we have in LIGO ?
« Reply #3 on: 17/03/2016 11:11:08 »
The whole detected signal lasted less than 10ms, during which time the sensor did not change position very much

In Einstein's THEORY we have ZERO ? if YES so it is wrong because Mathematica showing Doppler

WHAT THEY PROVED IN LIGO ?


EXIST MANY MANY FACTS  that right now = HUGE UNKNOW !
problem is not soo simple

HOW THEY SEPARATE THIS SIGNAL ?

I mean now THEY are sure that it is not reflection ?




« Last Edit: 17/03/2016 11:13:31 by marzosia2 »
 

Offline marzosia2

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 93
    • View Profile
Re: How big d we have in LIGO ?
« Reply #4 on: 17/03/2016 11:30:28 »
ZERO on Michelson Morley table ?
Yes it is possible we are able read ZERO on this table !!


 

Offline marzosia2

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 93
    • View Profile
Re: How big d we have in LIGO ?
« Reply #5 on: 17/03/2016 11:54:35 »
I'm sorry Mr Moderator That I showing My picture
I can not speak about physics without drawings !
on My blog I asking About money people who like my  drawings

TO CREATE PHYSICS YOU MUST EAT !
PEOPLE WHO SIT INSIDE UNIVERSITET ALSO MUST EAT !

You not like please not look on my drawing
but people schould have Own opinion about poblem
special if we speak about Young students !

TRUE ?

We have Doppler  = We are moving
We not have Doppler = We are not moving

We no need speak  about Mistake during TEST
  ( many instruments are able make different mistake )
We are able speak here About Mathematica  Queen !
Mathematica is Queen !

Fact A - We have Zero on Michelson Morley table
Fact B - we are not moving and not exist any rotation

If A TRUE  ===> B TRUE


FACT C We measured many times ZERO during Michelson Morley
FACT D We have zero ( because nobody in past measuresd  Doppler )
FACT E  We have Zero because we trust that Mr Einstein is more Inteligent than Marosz

C TRUE
D FALSE
E .... please use mathematica
 ( Marosz is better if we speak about drawings  I never studied in past math, physics
I'm machine engineer but I love TRUE  )


« Last Edit: 17/03/2016 12:05:19 by marzosia2 »
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1917
  • Thanked: 123 times
    • View Profile
Re: How big d we have in LIGO ?
« Reply #6 on: 17/03/2016 12:13:54 »
The problem with your posts is not the pictures but that there are too many of them.
The message you are trying to get across and the questions you are trying to ask are lost in the confusion.
Try asking one question rather than many all together.

 

Offline marzosia2

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 93
    • View Profile
Re: How big d we have in LIGO ?
« Reply #7 on: 17/03/2016 12:47:07 »
thank you
I have problem also in  Poland i using drawings i not like speak


 

Offline marzosia2

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 93
    • View Profile
Re: How big d we have in LIGO ?
« Reply #8 on: 17/03/2016 13:11:13 »
They also estimated the degree of time dilation between the source and Earth, at z=0.09; this is a more flexible model than Doppler shift when high relative velocities are involved, such as in this case.

more flexible model than Doppler ?????

ok I will ask Your very precission DO YOU HAVE ANY DOCUMENTS ( books )
that confirm Your opinion ?

Low speed = Doppler 
medium speed = Small Doppler but better not ?
 
Sorry Mathematic is  not  " flexible " mathematic is very very precission

In  my first post I asked about d
They  didn't evaluate d
Why ?

nobody in past ( I'm sure ) nobody confirmed ABSOLUTE SPEED
right now in physics everything is relative distance d  and doppler shift is not relative !

HOW  WE CAN SPEAK ABOUT WAVES WITHOUT ABSOLUTE MOTION ?
What is inside 1 cubic meter of space ? many many waves it
is huge problem to tell You this wave it is black hole ?





It was around 1.3 billion light years.
« Last Edit: 17/03/2016 13:21:08 by marzosia2 »
 

Offline marzosia2

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 93
    • View Profile
Re: How big d we have in LIGO ?
« Reply #9 on: 17/03/2016 13:26:38 »
I'm sorry
 many many times in TV and in books we saw ZERO inside  Michelson Morley test

I asking my self about each new information in TV...

What they are showing in LIGO  ? 

 They couldn't confirm Einstein's theory If they did this
they informing Us about Own Mistake !

Or not all facts are wrong inside Einstein's theory ?
« Last Edit: 17/03/2016 13:43:31 by marzosia2 »
 

Offline marzosia2

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 93
    • View Profile
Re: How big d we have in LIGO ?
« Reply #10 on: 17/03/2016 13:33:55 »
They also estimated the degree of time dilation between the source and Earth, at z=0.09

On Michelson Morley table we have Dilatation ?  or DOPPLER ?


TO EVALUATE d and   to solve problem
 What They ( sorry what we people )   did in Ligo we must use confirmed facts

Doppler it is mathematica . Time Dilatation what is this ? TRUE / FALSE ?


We should prepare some  exel's  table

............Einstein told ..............what it mean ...........TRUE/FASE ( we have Doppler on Michelon Morley )
Fact A


above Exel's table schould prepare some comission ? ( many many people not single person )
( single person = nothing )  I not trust my self ... We schould study all again


Who will do this ?
For example I found that on this table not exist ZERO ( this information is important ? )
Yes
Who and Haw I can inform ?

half year before  Ligo give  to TV NEWS about Black Hole
I informed Ligo about problems
I wrote posts ( not on this forum )

I informed LIGO ? ( who saw  my e- mail   TEAM?  or single person ? )

two weeks ago I wrote next e-mail with doppler to LIGO TEAM

Doppler = information about rotation
rotation it is very very usefull information for WORK / ENERGY

« Last Edit: 17/03/2016 14:14:54 by marzosia2 »
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1917
  • Thanked: 123 times
    • View Profile
Re: How big d we have in LIGO ?
« Reply #11 on: 17/03/2016 14:18:36 »

...doppler shift is not relative !

But it is, that's the whole point about Doppler shift, relative motion.
 

Offline evan_au

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4120
  • Thanked: 245 times
    • View Profile
Quote
I mean now THEY are sure that it is not reflection ?
In LIGO, they observe reflections of a very stable laser. The mirrors are very reflective - the power of the laser beam between the mirrors is far higher than the source laser beam(!) This is an effect of resonance, which allows us to store energy over time - see Q Factor. But they are using the laser beam to measure distances very precisely.

Quote
Amplitude=3a
If I read the diagram correctly, it suggests that a signal transmitted with amplitude "a" could be received with amplitude "3a" at a distant point? This implies the creation of energy, which contradicts the normal assumption of conservation of energy.
In fact, the distortion measured on Earth (10-21) was far less than the distortion near the source.
Other parts of this thread mention Doppler shift (or it's relativistic cousin). This changes the frequency of the wave, not its amplitude (ie horizontal, rather than vertical).
Quote
nobody in past ( I'm sure ) nobody confirmed ABSOLUTE SPEED
Michelson and Morley were trying to measure absolute speed (but even that was relative to the aether). They failed.
Einstein started with the assumption that there is no aether and no absolute speed; most physicists today accept this premise. Professional physicists today are not looking for absolute speed, only relative speed.
Quote
right now in physics everything is relative distance d  and doppler shift is not relative !
I agree that people are looking for relative distances, because Einstein said there is no absolute zero position.
I agree that people are looking for relative velocity, because Einstein said there is no absolute zero velocity.
But in your diagram, d is a relative distance.
And Doppler shift (or its relativistic cousin) represent a relative velocity.

Quote
ELECTRO MAGNETIC AETER
This died after Einstein published special relativity, about a century ago.
Quote
Inside one Qubic Meter we have infinity no. of waves!
There are some waves which cannot exist within a 1m reflective box, eg waves with a wavelength longer than a meter, or waves with a wavelength which is not a submultiple of the box dimensions. There is also an effective limit to the shortest wavelengths, due to the temperature of the box. (That still leaves a lot of waves!) See Casimir effect.
Quote
is huge problem to tell You this wave it is black hole ?
We know that an empty box does not form a black hole, because the waves don't have enough mass.
But there is an ongoing mystery here about vacuum energy - covered in the above URL on the Casimir effect.
Quote
Time Dilatation what is this ? TRUE / FALSE ?
Time Dilation has been proved on Earth, for moving objects and for objects in Earth's gravitational field. The GPS system that everyone seems to use today would be useless if it did not take both of these effects into account.
 
The following users thanked this post: marzosia2

Offline marzosia2

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 93
    • View Profile
WE MUST BACK TO HISTORY ?


"How big are the distances to gravitational wave sources detected by LIGO? "
DISTANCE IS RELATIVE or NOT ?
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1917
  • Thanked: 123 times
    • View Profile
"How big are the distances to gravitational wave sources detected by LIGO? "
DISTANCE IS RELATIVE or NOT ?
1.3 billlion light years relative to earth.
Yes, distance is relative
 

Offline marzosia2

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 93
    • View Profile
Quote from: marzosia2 on 17/03/2016 13:11:13


    ...doppler shift is not relative !

But it is, that's the whole point about Doppler shift, relative motio


hey plese study below example
PLEASE EVALUATE DISTANCE "d" for star
(Rmach and point a - exist rotation respect to far far point in space )



PLease mark distance "d" for source and for sensor ! (only in one arm and only for Earth's rotation 360 degree )

Even if Exist only Earth's rotation we will see Doppler not ZERO



Source and Sensor Are moving !

DARK BOX 100 %
---------------------
MM table

----------------------

ARE WE ABLE READ MOTION and USE DOPPLER ?
IN MICHELSON MORLEY WE HAVE ZERO  or NOT ?

WHAT MEAN THIS FACT FOR PHYSICS THAT WE NOT HAVE ZERO !?
 

Offline marzosia2

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 93
    • View Profile
    nobody in past ( I'm sure ) nobody confirmed ABSOLUTE SPEED

Michelson and Morley were trying to measure absolute speed (but even that was relative to the aether). They failed.
Einstein started with the assumption that there is no aether and no absolute speed; most physicists today accept this premise. Professional physicists today are not looking for absolute speed, only relative speed.

Ok I want speak more about

1861 J. C. Maxwell, published his theory of electromagnetic fields and radiation, which
shows that light has momentum and thus can exert pressure on objects.

1901  P. N. Lebedev
EXPERIMENTAL EXAMINATION OF LIGHT PRESSURE

 


Above I showed  preasure ( Pascal )
PLEASE NOTICE  m^3 cubic meter is giving Us ^3 it is very strong relation

I copied below paragraph from book / pdf in web
I marked important paragraph
 Galilean relativity ?*********************************************************
Imagine a person inside a ship which is sailing on a perfectly smooth lake at constant speed. This passeneger is in the ship's windowless hull and, despite it being a fine day, is engaged in doing mechanical experiments (such as studying the behavior of pendula and the trajectories of falling bodies). A simple question one can ask of this researcher is whether she can determine that the ship is moving (with respect to the lake shore) without going on deck or looking out a porthole.
Since the ship is moving at constant speed and direction she will not feel the motion of the ship. This is the same situation as when flying on a plane: one cannot tell, without looking out one of the windows, that the plane is moving once it reaches cruising altitutde (at which point the plane is flying at constant speed and direction). Still one might wonder whether the experiments being done in the ship's hull will give some indication of the its motion. Based on his experiments Galileo concluded that this is in fact impossible: all mechanical experiments done inside a ship moving at constant speed in a constant direction would give precisely the same results as similar experiments done on shore.
The conclusion is that one observer in a house by the shore and another in the ship will not be able to determine that the ship is moving by comparing the results of experiments done inside the house and ship. In order to determine motion these observers must look at each other. It is important important to note that this is true only if the ship is sailing at constant speed and direction, should it speed up, slow down or turn the researcher inside can tell that the ship is moving. For example, if the ship turns you can see all things hanging from the roof (such as a lamp) tilting with respect to the floor
Generalizing these observations Galileo postulated his relativity hypothesis:
???
any two observers moving at constant speed and direction with respect to one another will obtain the same results for all mechanical experiments   
???

(it is understood that the apparatuses they use for these experiments move with them).
In pursuing these ideas Galileo used the scientific method (Sec. 1.2.1): he derived consequences of this hypothesis and determined whether they agree with the predictions.
This idea has a very important consequence: velocity is not absolute. This means that velocity can only be measured in reference to some object(s), and that the result of this measurment changes if we decide to measure the velocity with respect to a diferent refernce point(s). Imagine an observer traveling inside a windowless spaceship moving away from the sun at constant velocity. Galileo asserted that there are no mechanical experiments that can be made inside the rocket that will tell the occupants that the rocket is moving . The question ``are we moving'' has no meaning unless we specify a reference frame (``are we moving with respect to that star'' is meaningful). This fact, formulated in the 1600's remains very true today and is one of the cornerstones of Einstein's theories of relativity.
***************************************************************

WE HAVE TWO SIMILAR AIRPLANES A/B
INSIDE airplanes we have two the same bulb and camera ?

HOW BIG FORCE WILL PUSH CAMERA ? A/B The same ? not the same ?





Gallileo 1600 !  Maxwell 1861 !!

Gallileo did understand that LIGHT = MECHANICAL EXPERIMENT !

1905 Einstein Copied GALLILEO to SRT


2012  I SHOWED MY TEST





WHAT YOU THINK  RELATIVITY is OK ? BAD?
 

Offline marzosia2

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 93
    • View Profile
    ELECTRO MAGNETIC AETER

This died after Einstein published special relativity, about a century ago.


NEW FACTS I SHOWED ABOVE 
LIGHT NO NEED AETHER TO FLY !  Aether = medium for energy

 ENERGY ALWAYS RISE 3D  c seed
AETHER = medium ( slower than C)
Air = medium ( slow)
Water = medium ( more slower )

copper = medium for Energy !


+......................10 meter wire ......................-   >>> 30km/s

elecric energy !
please measure resistance (+,- and -,+ ) direction ?!

medium is giving resistance to ENERGY !?
electric energy = energy
 

Offline marzosia2

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 93
    • View Profile
    right now in physics everything is relative distance d  and doppler shift is not relative !

I agree that people are looking for relative distances, because Einstein said there is no absolute zero position.
I agree that people are looking for relative velocity, because Einstein said there is no absolute zero velocity.
But in your diagram, d is a relative distance.
And Doppler shift (or its relativistic cousin) represent a relative velocity.


Respect to what we registering DOPPLER ?


IF EARTH WILL ABSLOUTE STOP  ( ZERO OWN  ROTATION )
YOU WILL SEE DOPPLER ? OR NOT ? !

IF EARTH  OWN ROTATION  10x more faster
 ( HOW BIG DOPPLER WILL BE ) more biger compare to 1x Earth own rotation ?
 

WHAT IS THE REASON THAT WE ARE ABLE MEASURE DOPPLER ?
cw or ccw it will be red or blue
DO YOU UNDERSTAND BELOW DRAWING MECHANISM ?

PLEASE EVALUATE DISTANCE "d" for star and for MM table (ZERO ? )

« Last Edit: 20/03/2016 16:00:35 by marzosia2 »
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1917
  • Thanked: 123 times
    • View Profile

NEW FACTS I SHOWED ABOVE 

LIGHT NO NEED AETHER TO FLY !  Aether = medium for energy

 ENERGY ALWAYS RISE 3D  c seed
AETHER = medium ( slower than C)
Air = medium ( slow)
Water = medium ( more slower )

copper = medium for Energy !


+......................10 meter wire ......................-   >>> 30km/s

elecric energy !
please measure resistance (+,- and -,+ ) direction ?!

medium is giving resistance to ENERGY !?
electric energy = energy
We already knew light didn't need aether
You haven't shown an aether exists
You haven't shown any of the other things you mention.
Not only are your pictures indecipherable by persons of any age, this is turning into a new theory.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length