0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
When do you guys admit that this 'new' information I've been discussing for almost 5 years is not the problem?
Quote from: trevorjohnson32 on 12/12/2020 18:48:09 I apologize if my 'new' information ...It's not "new information".It's tired old arguments that have been kicked out before.
I apologize if my 'new' information ...
fits the density of the universe theory.
Again it would be a first if you overcome the traditional Big Name beliefs and actually considered what it is I'm getting at.
Quote from: The Spoon on 12/12/2020 19:39:14Oh, and I am being quite restrained. If you find me pointing out that insulting members is both childish and unacceptable, perhaps the Internet is not the place for you..Yeah great intimidate me more see where that gets you. You know there are a few open minded people on the internet, not many and I've talked to thousands, who don't believe in hippocracy and this in your face attitude of I'm better then you or my beliefs are because I studied them. You guys would be better off studying old wives tails then the physics you've posted here. But again I'm sorry for disturbing the inertia of everyone swimming in the same direction if that's what you mean.
Oh, and I am being quite restrained. If you find me pointing out that insulting members is both childish and unacceptable, perhaps the Internet is not the place for you..
It would be a first if I spent my time considering, in any detail an idea which is known to be wrong because, for example glass and glycerine have essentially the same refractive index and that ethanol has a higher refractive index than water.No consideration that I, or anyone else, give it will stop it being wrong.
your obscure refence. How do you know you aren't being lied to?
Quote from: trevorjohnson32 on 12/12/2020 20:16:55 your obscure refence. How do you know you aren't being lied to?It is not "obscure".The problem is that you are ignorant of a well known fact.So well known that there are a stack of videos about it on YT etc.https://www.google.com/search?q=glycerine+glass+refraction+demonstration&sxsrf=ALeKk02-WVnPjzTFHPX3cdRvdjDLHBaosQ:1607805208799&source=lnms&tbm=vid&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjeldqSpcntAhVVilwKHQtMCbkQ_AUoA3oECBIQBQ&biw=1745&bih=852
Can you explain why these counter examples don't depend on density of the substance? In layman terms please?
So for the most part density of a material is influential on its refraction
except for the few counter examples you point out?
the few counter examples
the most part density of a material is influential on its refraction
I'm pretty sure you established that space-time is not a medium and has no properties.
So are these waves similar to other waves in that they spread through the medium as a density?
And again you deserve it for sitting around here like a vulture preying on young enthusiastic minds. You are more close minded then anyone I've ever known and it shows how pompous of a weasel you are!
The established beliefs won't win, it will just take time to overcome them. I apologize if my 'new' information I offer offends anyone's (except Bored Chemist) belief systems.
I consider myself more of a science fiction writer who 'gets it right' more then a physicist.
So why don't you leave mine alone!
Your facts and numbers could be completely made up as seems is the case about gravity waves.
You know there are a few open minded people on the internet, not many and I've talked to thousands, who don't believe in hippocracy and this in your face attitude of I'm better then you or my beliefs are because I studied them.
How do you know you aren't being lied to?
As I learned it refracction is like a ball rolling froma flat surface onto a carpet(and yes the angle does matter). When the ball hits the more dense carpet it pushes outward or sideways more because it has to travel against the density of the carpet vs the flat floor. I observe that happening everytime I try the experiment. Do you have some inertia in your belief systems that should say otherwise? Please stop BS'ing me that your obscure example is the evidence contrary.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 26/10/2020 18:58:46splease explain how and why YOU THINK the boat analogy is wrong.
s
You need to accelerate the charge to emit (electromagnetic) radiation.... It is not the same effect of a passing planet. You need accelerated masses to created gravitational waves, not just moving masses.
Quote from: Galileo1564You need to accelerate the charge to emit (electromagnetic) radiation.... It is not the same effect of a passing planet. You need accelerated masses to created gravitational waves, not just moving masses.When a planet passes a star, the gravitational force between the planet and the star accelerates the planet- The planet's straight-line path (in free space) is bent into an elliptical orbit around the star- If the planet is traveling too fast (faster than the star's escape velocity), the planet's straight-line path will still be bent, into a parabolic or hyperbolic path. - In all cases, this bending/acceleration of the planet's path is exactly what produces gravitational waves- But the amount of gravitational waves from a planet is very low (it is around 200 Watts for the Earth/Sun system).- The first-discovered merger of black holes led to a release of 3 solar masses in the form of gravitational waves - all in 100 milliseconds or so!- The reason is distance and mass - the Earth is 150 million km from the center of the Sun, and has a mass much smaller than the Sun. The first detected gravitational wave event was due to black holes of around 36 and 29 solar masses, approaching within 10km or so...See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_observation_of_gravitational_waves [nofollow]
I didn't understand what a quadrupole moment was
Quote from: Galileo1564 I didn't understand what a quadrupole moment wasMy primitive understanding is:- If you accelerate a dipole (+ & -) electrical charge backwards and forwards at a 1Hz rate, it will radiate electromagnetic waves at 1 Hz. Because the + & - are distinct, it takes one whole cycle to get back to the original position.- However, masses only attract (ie mass is only positive, as far as we know), so two masses of 1 solar mass are equivalent. - If you accelerate two bodies of 1 Solar mass backwards and forwards at a 1Hz rate, it will radiate gravitational waves at 2 Hz. Because the masses are equivalent, it only takes half a cycle to get back to the original situation.- There are twice as many polarity changes for a quadrupole compared to a dipole. I'm afraid I can't follow the mathematical derivation here, either:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadrupole#Gravitational_quadrupole [nofollow]