The clocks are hypothetical. If not, then they have batteries.

And these batteries are, of course, hypothetical. 8)

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

sure, they could be plugged into the grid

And the grid could be hypothetical too!

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

His first argument for a still earth says it all
His first disproof of relativity is equally enlightening

__________________
There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand ternary, those who don't, and those waiting for a bus.
If logic doesn't work, then surely it does.

It sounds correct to me. ALLEGRO went after supernovae. Well, there weren't any (locally) during their operating period. They tried for asymmetric continous sources, binaries or individual neutron stars, but they are (as you've found) about a million times weaker and reward a broadband response, something that ALLEGRO (and other resonant mass detectors) do not have.

Where an event is a nearby core-collapse supernova. But we haven't seen one since 1987, and even that wasn't in the galaxy proper.

Yes. I agree that a core-collapse event should be detectable within this galaxy. But continous wave sources like rotating neutron stars are clearly much weaker than such events. That surely can't be a surprise given the sort of energy release involved in a supernova, and the processes at work.

I'd continue to say that we don't know whether they've hit it or not, yet.

That happens quite a lot in many experimental fields. But LIGO still had the broader bandwidth advantage over ALLEGRO, which was sensitive only to a relatively narrow range of frequencies, ones at which supernovae are expected to be bright.

I don't know anything about that.

Wow! If ignorance is bliss, this guy is one happy camper!!! #-o

__________________
. . . My moustache is touching my brain!!!!

I don't know about that Jer. Take a look at figure 18.1 in this link. It's a comparison of the observed periastron shift in the binary pulsar PSR 1913+16 and the prediction from GR based on gravitational radiation. Looks like the theory is pretty well on the money. It certainly was good enough for the 93 Nobel in Physics. Most physicists agree that results such as this, while indirect, are pretty compelling evidence for gravitational radiation. I, for one, am pretty confident LIGO, and other detectors like it, will find what they're looking for.

__________________
"I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind." - William Thompson, 1st Baron Lord Kelvin

"If it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be, but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic!" - Tweedledee

This isn't right. This isn't even wrong. - Wolfgang Pauli

You can include me. The relativistic mass losses in Neutron-Neutron star mergers and the frame dragging evidence pretty much prove gravity works as advertized in most dense electromagnetic environments. So we should be able to detect gravity waves. It would be optimistic to assume the current generation of gravity wave detectors could detect waves generated by binary systems.

However, we should be able to detect stars falling into the ‘black hole’ in our galactic core, and we should be able to detect neutron-star mergers anywhere in our galaxy as well. The number of detected neutron-neutron star pairs continues to increase, so the probability that pairs of these stars collapse within our galaxies on a regular basis has also increased exponentially. We should detect them so far, we have not.

Couple this with the fact we see electromagnetic forces everywhere we expect to see gravimetric waves of any kind. This electromagnetic radiation is at wavelengths that are proportional to the kinetic energy we expect to find as gravity waves: Radio waves on the edges of galaxies, X-rays when stars are falling into ‘black holes’ and cosmic rays when supernova collapse.

This makes a good case for the argument gravity waves are electromagnetic. I have hypothesized gravity and inertia are wave functions of an electromagnetic soliton: The further you get from the sun, the weaker the effect of both the gravity and the inertial field. As the Pioneer probes become more distant from the sun, the ‘inertial energy’ of the probes becomes greater than the inertial field capacity.

Counter-intuitively, this weakness increases the impedance of space, and the probe velocity away from the sun decreases. The loss in energy is transmitted into space as microwaves. It would be very interesting to duplicate the Pioneer probes, equipping them with the necessary gear to listen to each other and see if they broadcast radiowaves as they slow down.

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?

There is ferro magnatic stuff inside the earth. What u see as an electric signature, is EMF in nature not gravitational.

1. I suspect the "principle of equivalence" stated by Einstein in GR.
This equivalence is very local and limited to the elevator and it's surrounding.

2. as for gravitational waves, I dont expect to see them when a star explodes. By comparision with EM waves : an electron must be accelerated in a mag field to create an EM wave.

BUT, we should detect gravitaional waves in vacinity of a black hole, since BH attracts and acclelerate nearby stars. We have a mass acclelerated in a gravitational field, by analogy with EM wave: electron accelerated in a mag field.

This is a long forgotten thread, but most of what is written is still valid - Please read the lastest post on the Jerry's theory thread. I took the concepts from here, realized that if they are true, there must be inverse differentials in the apparent gravity fields of Mars and Venus. When I found the maps of these fields, and contrasted Mars with Venus, I found that the Bouguer anomalies clearly reveal the expected inverse differential!

I also stated that the gravitational assists must provide greater acceleration than expected on boosts, and less than expected when a planet is used to extract energy. Both of these predictions have proven to be correct.

This might explain some lightning, but not the gamma rays emitted by lightning nor the gamma ray potentials found in supernova explosions.

None of our gravity wave antenna have ever detected anything other than local seismic disturbances. I am of the opinion they never will.

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?

As Jerry indicates, there is a more recent ATM thread on his ideas - Jerry Jensen's ATM ideas. Please continue discussion of those ideas in that thread.

This thread is now closed.