[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

If a moving object created a wave in space behind it then the energy of its velocity would convert into the wave and the object would slow down like turning the engine off on a boat. As we all know objects moving through space continue on trajectory unless acted on by an outside force, not a gravity wave. And if for example two binary black holes did create such a wave it would push them apart not draw them together which is total GR fantasm.

[Bored chemist]

If a moving object created a wave in space behind it then the energy of its velocity would convert into the wave and the object would slow down

And they do.
", the rate of decrease of orbital period is 76.5 microseconds per year, "
From
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hulse%E2%80%93Taylor_binary#Use_as_a_test_of_General_Relativity

What was your point?

And if for example two binary black holes did create such a wave it would push them apart

No, gravity never really pushes.

it would push them apart

No, that's just a fantasy of yours.

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

And they do.
", the rate of decrease of orbital period is 76.5 microseconds per year, "
From
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hulse%E2%80%93Taylor_binary#Use_as_a_test_of_General_Relativity

Then the object moving would slow down and stop. Do I have to remind you that meteor's don't have rocket engine's?

[Bored chemist]

Then the object moving would slow down and stop

And they do.
But what you seem to be ignoring is when gravity waves are produced.

Do I have to remind you that meteor's don't have rocket engine's?

That's largely why they don't produce gravity waves.

Without an engine they travel through space at a constant velocity.
Their acceleration is zero and so their emission of gravity waves is zero.

But a rotating body is constantly accelerating and thus emits gravity waves.

Did you consider actually finding out about gravity waves before making a fool of yourself?
Even reading the first line of the wiki page would have stopped you looking dumb.
"Gravitational waves are disturbances in the curvature of spacetime, generated by accelerated masses"

On a related note, misusing apostrophes also makes you look dim.

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

Then the object moving would slow down and stop

And they do.
But what you seem to be ignoring is when gravity waves are produced.

Do I have to remind you that meteor's don't have rocket engine's?

That's largely why they don't produce gravity waves.

Without an engine they travel through space at a constant velocity.
Their acceleration is zero and so their emission of gravity waves is zero.

But a rotating body is constantly accelerating and thus emits gravity waves.

Did you consider actually finding out about gravity waves before making a fool of yourself?
Even reading the first line of the wiki page would have stopped you looking dumb.
"Gravitational waves are disturbances in the curvature of spacetime, generated by accelerated masses"

On a related note, misusing apostrophes also makes you look dim.

Well I'm going to have to ask you to step outside the box of pompous asses who believe in relativity and answer me how do two orbiting objects create an engine to fuel their acceleration? That sounds totally ridiculous. Your dealing with constant speeds of things not a magic engine where you see convenient.

It all comes down to the movement of weight through the universe, if weight circulating creates a gravity wave why wouldn't objects at super high speeds? If you break gravity down to individual particles of matter, what does it matter if an object is rotating or moving mono directional?

[evan_au]

If a moving accelerating object created a wave in space behind it then the energy of its velocity would convert into the wave and the object would slow down like turning the engine off on a boat

Objects in orbital motion around each other are always being accelerated towards their center of mass.
- That is the recipe for emitting gravitational waves
- An object moving through space at a uniform velocity is not being accelerated by gravity, and will not emit gravitational waves. Its kinetic energy will not be converted to gravitational waves, and it will not slow down.
- As per Einstein's theory of relativity, all motion is relative; there is no absolute "stationary" frame of reference in the universe towards which an object could "slow down".

Let's take as an example GW170817, an event where two neutron stars collided, leaving a visible remnant in gamma rays, visible light and infra-red.
- The detected frequency started off about 40 Hz, and increased to around 300Hz over 30 seconds before the gravitational waves stopped, and the gamma ray burst was received, indicating that the two objects had a messy merger.
- This does not represent a conversion of kinetic energy into gravitational waves. If so, the objects would slow down.
- Instead, it represents conversion of gravitational potential energy into kinetic energy + gravitational waves.
- As the two orbiting neutron stars get closer, their orbital speed increases, as shown by the increasing frequency of the gravitational waves (ie their kinetic energy increases, when measured in the frame of their center of mass)
- Eventually, the two neutron stars are traveling at a significant fraction of the speed of light when they splat into each other, spraying highly radioactive neutronium into space; this was then detected by gamma ray (and other) telescopes.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GW170817

how do two orbiting objects create an engine to fuel their acceleration?

It is fueled by gravitational potential energy.

Two objects separated at a distance in a gravitational field have gravitational potential energy which can be converted to increased velocity as the two objects get closer.

Do I have to remind you that meteor's don't have rocket engine's?

Meteors accelerate as they approach the Earth, because they are accelerated by Earth's gravitational field. This can add up to 11km/s onto their original speed as they orbited the Sun.

This was particularly spectacular in the case of comet Shoemaker-Levy 9, where Jupiter's gravity accelerated the fragments up to about 60 km/s, one of them creating an explosion the diameter of the Earth...

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_Shoemaker%E2%80%93Levy_9

PS: Overlap with  trevorjohnson32...

[Bored chemist]

answer me how do two orbiting objects create an engine to fuel their acceleration? That sounds totally ridiculous.

They don't.
It's something you invented.
You are right about it being ridiculous.

Why did you make up that ridiculous idea?

Your dealing with constant speeds of things not a magic engine where you see convenient.

*you're*

And the magic engine is your idea; not ours.
You are strawmanning and it won't work.

why wouldn't objects at super high speeds?

Among the answers to that is that velocity - the "super high speed" you talk of is relative, but acceleration is absolute.
From the perspective of another "super high speed" thing travelling alongside, your " super high speed" is stationary.
Did you not learn any physics?

If you break gravity down to individual particles of matter, what does it matter if an object is rotating or moving mono directional?

Simplistic idea is centripetal force.
They really are different things.

[Bored chemist]

create an engine to fuel their acceleration

Engines don't fuel things, BTW.
Saying stuff like that just makes you look dim.

[Kryptid]

If a moving object created a wave in space behind it then the energy of its velocity would convert into the wave and the object would slow down like turning the engine off on a boat.

Yes, but objects moving at constant velocity through space don't generate gravitational waves. So your initial premise is flawed. This is a straw-man argument.

And if for example two binary black holes did create such a wave it would push them apart not draw them together which is total GR fantasm.

Not according to conservation of energy, it won't. Gravitational waves carry away energy, which means that the system must have less energy after emitting gravitational waves than it did beforehand. Pushing black holes apart, however, requires energy input because you are raising both of them against a gravitational potential. So this is another incorrect analysis.

Then the object moving would slow down and stop.

Nope.

Well I'm going to have to ask you to step outside the box of pompous asses who believe in relativity

"Believe in relativity" is a very poor phrase to use for this. "Accepting the reality of relativity" is a much better phrase. Relativity has passed every test put to it to date. It is exceptionally well supported by the evidence. Those who deny it often do so because they hold misconceptions about how it actually works (such as your misconception that a non-accelerating, moving object should release gravitational waves. That, in itself, would contradict the principle of relativity because such an object is in an inertial reference frame).

Besides, this whole thing is moot because we have actually detected gravitational waves many times and they have the properties that relativity predicts that they should have.

answer me how do two orbiting objects create an engine to fuel their acceleration?

The transformation of gravitational potential energy into kinetic energy is what causes orbiting objects to accelerate as their orbital distance decreases. As has already been pointed out, the Hulse-Taylor binary is an empirical observation of this fact. The fact that the planets' orbital speed increases as their distance from the Sun decreases is another such such supporting observation.

That sounds totally ridiculous.

And yet it's true. When one's reasoning clashes with observed reality, then one should reassess their reasoning.

Your dealing with constant speeds of things not a magic engine where you see convenient.

Objects in orbit are experiencing angular acceleration.

It all comes down to the movement of weight through the universe, if weight circulating creates a gravity wave why wouldn't objects at super high speeds? If you break gravity down to individual particles of matter, what does it matter if an object is rotating or moving mono directional?

Because acceleration and constant speed have different consequences. Acceleration is necessary for the emission of gravitational waves: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave#Sources This is analogous to the emission of electromagnetic waves. An electrically-charged object moving with a constant velocity with not emit electromagnetic waves, whereas an accelerating, electrically-charged object will.

[Bored chemist]

If a moving object created a wave in space behind it then the energy of its velocity would convert into the wave and the object would slow down like turning the engine off on a boat. As we all know objects moving through space continue on trajectory unless acted on by an outside force, not a gravity wave. And if for example two binary black holes did create such a wave it would push them apart not draw them together which is total GR fantasm.

Can we clarify something?
When you say "Gravity Waves more GR Fantasy", are you talking about your fantasy?
Because it seems to be a fantasy of yours that fast moving things create gravity waves, and another fantasy that acceleration is comparable with velocity?

Nobody else is saying stuff like that.

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

So a boat doing a circle in the water creates a wave vs a boat that goes straight which would create no wave?

It isn't hard to detect that you need long confusing explanations to describe something that its probably flawed and you don't want to admit it. Whatever you think you've learned it sounds like fantasy based on the uncertain results of a 133 year old experiment that was flawed in the first place.

Sorry my answers are concise without confusion of math's. I just point out the obvious quicker and don't need long winded answers.

[Kryptid]

So a boat doing a circle in the water creates a wave vs a boat that goes straight which would create no wave?

False analogy: space is not water and does not behave like water.

It isn't hard to detect that you need long confusing explanations to describe something that its probably flawed and you don't want to admit it.

Please provide evidence that it is "probably flawed".

Whatever you think you've learned it sounds like fantasy

Argument from incredulity fallacy.

based on the uncertain results of a 133 year old experiment that was flawed in the first place.

LIGO and VIRGO aren't 133 years old...

Sorry my answers are concise without confusion of math's.

But it does have the confusion of being wrong. You have demonstrated misconceptions about how relativity works because you claim that a non-accelerating object should emit gravitational waves.

I just point out the obvious quicker and don't need long winded answers.

It's "obvious" that the Earth is flat.
It's "obvious" that the Sun moves around the Earth.

You'd be doing yourself a favor by doing the prerequisite research before you made claims that go against the observational evidence. Please try that next time.

[Bored chemist]

So a boat doing a circle in the water creates a wave vs a boat that goes straight which would create no wave?

We can add that one to this list of things that only you believe- your fantasies..

When you say "Gravity Waves more GR Fantasy", are you talking about your fantasy?
Because it seems to be a fantasy of yours that fast moving things create gravity waves, and another fantasy that acceleration is comparable with velocity?

Whatever you think you've learned it sounds like fantasy based on the uncertain results of a 133 year old experiment that was flawed in the first place.

This graph shows not only the data , but also the dates when that data was collected- from 1975 to 2005.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hulse%E2%80%93Taylor_binary#/media/File:PSR_B1913+16_period_shift_graph.svg

Sorry my answers are concise without confusion of math's.

I feel that calling  observations taken over the period 1970 to 2005 "a 133 year old experiment " is very clearly confusion of maths. You should probably also sort out your confusion of apostrophes.

I just point out the obvious quicker and don't need long winded answers.

You can do it quickly- or you can do it well.
You chose the wrong option.

[puppypower]

Velocity is d/t, while acceleration is d/t/t. Acceleration is to two parts time ad one part distance while velocity has one part time and one part distance. The "gravity wave" due to acceleration is connected to the extra time associated with acceleration, and is really not a gravity wave.

The anomaly as a whole is  local space-time being tweak in time, not mass, with space then following the lead expected by the mass. The perturbation is what we call a gravity wave, since it appears connected to the final output in space-time=gravity.

However, the wave-particle nature of matter and energy has never coughed up a graviton along with the "gravity waves", Therefore this is not directly connected to gravity, but to the acceleration or extra time potential.

I take a different view of the universe. I use the speed of light as the ground state or the state of lowest potential. In the lab matter only form at highest energy as particle pairs. Mass, gravity and space-time are at higher potential that the ground state at c.  The goal of all the forces and all the phenomena of nature is to lower inertial potentials back toward the ground state. The Forces of nature give off energy at the speed of light to reflect lowering of potential with the ground state. Energy is bridge state to the ground state.

At the speed of light reference, space and time are not connected, so each; time and space, can act by itself. The gravity wave, due to acceleration, is one such phenomena in time. Special Relativity shows mathematical discontinuities in space, time and mass at the speed of light. These three are all connected, but in inertial only. Therefore, we interpret the output, using an inertial reference bias, but we do try to not measure the time potential the drives the final affect.

When two large masses collide in space, and space-time contracts, both masses gain potential in inertial time since time slows for both. This adds potential in time relative to the ground state. Something has to give, so potential can lower again; burst of energy and gravity waves to increase entropy.

[Bored chemist]

The "gravity wave" ... is really not a gravity wave.

Yes it is.

Having listed a few of the OP's fantasies, I might as well do the same for PuppyPower.
His usual fantasy takes the form that phrases are meaningful when they are not- for example:

ocal space-time being tweak in time,

pace then following the lead expected by the mass.

I use the speed of light as the ground state or the state of lowest potential.

At the speed of light reference,

masses gain potential in inertial time

there are probably others.
It's the sort of thing to expect from someone who believes in homoeopathy.

[Colin2B]

However, the wave-particle nature of matter and energy has never coughed up a graviton along with the "gravity waves", Therefore this is not directly connected to gravity, but to the acceleration or extra time potential.

I think you and the OP mean gravitational waves. Gravity waves are those where the restoring force is due to gravity eg ocean waves, sub-surface waves, atmospheric waves etc.
Helps if you learn the correct terminology.

[Bored chemist]

However, the wave-particle nature of matter and energy has never coughed up a graviton along with the "gravity waves", Therefore this is not directly connected to gravity, but to the acceleration or extra time potential.

I think you and the OP mean gravitational waves. Gravity waves are those where the restoring force is due to gravity eg ocean waves, sub-surface waves, atmospheric waves etc.
Helps if you learn the correct terminology.

Oops!
Fortunately, if both sides make the same mistake it doesn't detract from the matter.

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

I'll be damned if I ever call them gravitational waves vs gravity waves. Nothing really comes to mind when I read any of your responses because it's all arrogant rubbish that would take years of studying or rather brain washing to understand.

As for the boat analogy it still stands that an object creating a wave behind it slows down, end of discussion!

Quiet sick of arguing this with the internet, Doesn't seem to get anything done. It's probably why fusion reactors and lasers don't have a chance in hell in working because all the 'professional genius's' are gathered around with telescopes to see if the reactor wilol create a gravity wave! Three simple words 'Twin clock paradox'.

[Bored chemist]

Nothing really comes to mind when I read any of your responses because it's all arrogant rubbish that would take years of studying

You have finally got to the root of the problem.
You never did your homework.

Quiet sick of arguing this with the internet

Then stop.

Apart from anything else, if you really think that modern physics is wrong, and you want to rpove it, you will need to understand it first.
Otherwise you just look stupid (see above).
So, rather than pointlessly shouting nonsense, why not go and study it?
Or are you just too lazy?

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

s

please explain how and why YOU THINK the boat analogy is wrong.