0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
The calculations are all done by computer. But how accurate are these computer calculations, when does the computer decide that a signal isolated from the trillions and trillions of different signals, is the one signal denoting gravity? Surely the very noise generated inside the circuits of LIGo should swamp any credible signal? A very dodgy situation.
It isn't dodgy at all. The gravitational waves produced by a black hole merger event is predicted by general relativity to have a very distinct pattern to it. I have a book written long before the first gravitational wave detection that details this pattern. The fact that LIGO has two arms at right angles to each other is critical in detecting it because gravitational waves produce a contraction of space along one axis while producing a stretching along the other axis. As the wave passes, this stretching and contraction reverses and then cycles again and again.
Quote from: alancalverd on 27/03/2024 18:13:43Except it doesn't explain the interaction of light with materials. Photography, photoelectricity.....all require a particle model, Not necessarily. A modified wave model can do the same job.
Except it doesn't explain the interaction of light with materials. Photography, photoelectricity.....all require a particle model,
Quoteand at very low intensities you can even count the photons!You don't really count the photons. Only some activations of sensory equipment, which can also be activated by other stimulants, such as temperature and cosmic rays.
and at very low intensities you can even count the photons!
To detect differences of 10,000th the width of a proton in the presence of so much signal noise, is a bit of a stretch.
Please do Allow a few randomly absurd thoughts...
Can " Space " bend over itself?
Can ' Relativistic mass ' not produce a similar, but not the same, effect such as Gravity?
Could the ' Higgs field ' twist, tangle, entangle in on itself?
The official " Speed of Light " in a vacuum keeps changing every Century.Perhaps, a hundred years from now, it won't be what it is today.
However, it did seem to work. @Kryptid has already mentioned quite a lot about this. Moreover, I don't think we had any idea about how common black hole or neutron stars mergers actually are. The equipment probably is failing to detect a lot of them but it doesn't seem to matter - there are so many of them every year.
Surely, a defense of a result involving such numbers would be purely philosophical regardless of how sophisticated the computers that were used were?
Galileo summed up the argument very neatly: eppur si muove.
"In questions of science the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual."
Of course it is unbelievable. Like the heliocentric universe, and the idea that I can talk to anyone, anywhere in the world, by pushing a few buttons on a piece of plastic.
Quote from: Zer0 on 03/04/2024 19:59:08The official " Speed of Light " in a vacuum keeps changing every Century.Perhaps, a hundred years from now, it won't be what it is today.Since the end of the last century, the speed of light in a vacuum has been defined as constant, and everything else as potentially variable, so distance is "c x time" and so forth.
If somebody comes up with a better model than relativity, we might indeed have to base our physics on a new constant. No big deal, as long at it degenerates to the einsteinian or newtonian solution in appropriate circumstances and predicts what happens when those conditions are not met..
Under the expanding universe model, speed of light doesn't seem to be a constant, especially over a long distance.