[Bored chemist]

When do you guys admit that this 'new' information I've been discussing for almost 5 years is not the problem?

I apologize if my 'new' information ...

It's not "new information".
It's tired old arguments that have been kicked out before.

fits the density of the universe theory.

It isn't a theory, precisely because the evidence contradicts it.

Again it would be a first if you overcome the traditional Big Name beliefs and actually considered what it is I'm getting at.

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.

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..

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.

"then" <> "than".
Also if you don't think that study makes your understanding better then, what do you think it's for?
BTW, in what way has anyone here sought to intimidate you?

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

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.

So write back on board with insulting my beliefs with your obscure refence. How do you know you aren't being lied to?

Anyways who knows why those different obscure references are supposedly counter evidence to refraction being caused by density of a material. 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.

So anyways Bored Chemist is once again continue swimming with the mainstream 'knowledge' that can be found out there. Which is exactly the opposite of what I was saying would be noble of one of you. Yeesh.

[Bored chemist]

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

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

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

So for the most part density of a material is influential on its refraction except for the few counter examples you point out? Can you explain why these counter examples don't depend on density of the substance? In layman terms please?

[Bored chemist]

Can you explain why these counter examples don't depend on density of the substance? In layman terms please?

Because the refraction of light depends on how strongly the electrons are attached to the molecules and the density depends on how tightly packed, and how heavy the nuclei are.

So for the most part density of a material is influential on its refraction

Not really.

except for the few counter examples you point out?

You are deluding yourself here.
There are plenty of counter-examples.
There is a correlation of sorts between density and refractive index, but they are independent quantities.

Why has it taken you so long, and so many people explaining why you are wrong, before you accept reality?

Why are you so unwilling to accept that you were wrong, even though the evidence proved it?
Even now you are still hedging your bets with things like "

the few counter examples

and

the most part density of a material is influential on its refraction

Those are not really true.

[Kryptid]

I'm pretty sure you established that space-time is not a medium and has no properties.

Please quote me on when I ever stated this.

So are these waves similar to other waves in that they spread through the medium as a density?

What does "spread through the medium as a density" mean?

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!

There is a difference between being closed-minded and correcting people.

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.

Belief systems have no place in science. Models supported by observational evidence are where it's at.

I consider myself more of a science fiction writer who 'gets it right' more then a physicist.

How would you know that you've "gotten it right" when you haven't performed experiments to test your ideas?

So why don't you leave mine alone!

No scientific idea should be immune to criticism (assuming that your idea is scientific).

Your facts and numbers could be completely made up as seems is the case about gravity waves.

If you're going to propose that the discoveries by LIGO are VIRGO are part of some kind of conspiracy, then please provide the evidence for it.

When do you guys admit that this 'new' information I've been discussing for almost 5 years is not the problem?

You're right. The problem is your attitude. You are not open to criticism. When we try to correct your misconceptions, you act as though we are attacking you personally. Then you turn nasty. You need to learn better.

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.

Please point out how any of us have been either closed-minded or hypocritical.

How do you know you aren't being lied to?

Again, if you are going to promote conspiracy theories, please pony up the evidence for their existence.

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.

You need to stop thinking of analogies as absolute (like you have done when equating gravitational waves with water waves). All analogies have short-comings.

except for the few counter examples you point out?

There are a lot of counterexamples. Here are some (followed by comparative densities and indices of refraction):

Water vs. ethanol (1.00 vs 0.79 g/cc) (1.333 vs 1.36)
Corundum vs diamond vs moissanite (4.00 vs 3.52 vs. 3.22 g/cc) (1.77 vs. 2.42 vs. 2.65)
Helium vs. hydrogen (0.17 g/L vs 0.07 g/L) (1.000036 vs. 1.00132)
Benzene vs. acrylic (0.87 vs 1.18 g/cc) (1.50 vs. 1.49)
Fused silica vs. sodium chloride (2.20 vs. 2.17 g/cc) (1.46 vs. 1.54)
Silicon vs cubic zirconia (2.33 vs. 5.50 g/cc) (3.42 vs. 2.18)

[Galileo1564]

s

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

A moving planet will continue to move forever until acted on by an external force as per Newton's first law of motion. Yes, there will be a gravitational effect of the passing planet that will look like the wave of the boat. That is the same as if you move a charge the charge will attract something that it passes.

However, that is not electromagnetic radiation. You need to accelerate the charge to emit radiation, so the passing charge effect is different from electromagnetic radiation. The same is true with gravitational waves. It is not the same effect of a passing planet. You need accelerated masses to created gravitational waves, not just moving masses.

[evan_au]

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.

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

[Galileo1564]

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.

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]

Thank you for clarifying, and my apologies to the OP if I have given incorrect information. I had actually asked this question on another forum a long time ago and they never validated my inquiry regarding gravitational wave effect for passing planets, and I got the impression that "real" gravitational waves were only due to a derivative of a quadrupole moment, but I didn't understand what a quadrupole moment was (still don't so need to study that a bit).

From Wikipedia
"More technically, the second time derivative of the quadrupole moment (or the l-th time derivative of the l-th multipole moment) of an isolated system's stress–energy tensor must be non-zero in order for it to emit gravitational radiation. This is analogous to the changing dipole moment of charge or current that is necessary for the emission of electromagnetic radiation."

[evan_au]

I didn't understand what a quadrupole moment was

My 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

[Galileo1564]

I didn't understand what a quadrupole moment was

My 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]

Thank you! That actually clears up the quadrupole mystery for me.

Related question: Does this have anything to do with why a graviton, if it exists, would be "spin 2", or is that a separate issue?