Mordred

Correct but the more curvature you get due to relativitistic effects the more Newtonian gravity becomes inaccurate. Newtonian gravity uses Euclidean (flat geometry)

You want math so be it. Lets define length contraction and time dilation for starters. Yes I am cheating on using prior posts.(simply because your not worth the bother of a detailed post) Lorentz transformation. First two postulates. 1) the results of movement in different frames must be identical 2) light travels by a constant speed c in a vacuum in all frames. Consider 2 linear axes x (moving with constant velocity and [latex]\acute{x}[/latex] (at rest) with x moving in constant velocity v in the positive [latex]\acute{x}[/latex] direction. Time increments measured as a coordinate as dt and [latex]d\acute{t}[/latex] using two identical clocks. Neither [latex]dt,d\acute{t}[/latex] or [latex]dx,d\acute{x}[/latex] are invariant. They do not obey postulate 1. A linear transformation between primed and unprimed coordinates above in space time ds between two events is [latex]ds^2=c^2t^2=c^2dt-dx^2=c^2\acute{t}^2-d\acute{x}^2[/latex] Invoking speed of light postulate 2. [latex]d\acute{x}=\gamma(dx-vdt), cd\acute{t}=\gamma cdt-\frac{dx}{c}[/latex] Where [latex]\gamma=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-(\frac{v}{c})^2}}[/latex] Time dilation dt=proper time ds=line element since [latex]d\acute{t}^2=dt^2[/latex] is invariant. an observer at rest records consecutive clock ticks seperated by space time interval [latex]dt=d\acute{t}[/latex] she receives clock ticks from the x direction separated by the time interval dt and the space interval dx=vdt. [latex]dt=d\acute{t}^2=\sqrt{dt^2-\frac{dx^2}{c^2}}=\sqrt{1-(\frac{v}{c})^2}dt[/latex] so the two inertial coordinate systems are related by the lorentz transformation [latex]dt=\frac{d\acute{t}}{\sqrt{1-(\frac{v}{c})^2}}=\gamma d\acute{t}[/latex] So the time interval dt is longer than interval [latex]d\acute{t}[/latex] If your not using Lorentz then you need to define the coordinate transformation rules. Here is relativity of simultaneaty coordinate transformation in Lorentz. [latex]\acute{t}=\frac{t-vx/c^2}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}[/latex] [latex]\acute{x}=\frac{x-vt}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}[/latex] [latex]\acute{y}=y[/latex] [latex]\acute{z}=z[/latex] Now if you truly understand the above you would realize it works for particle to particle interactions via a medium If you doubt me Google baryon acoustic oscillations for detail This principle applies to particle to particle interactions within your rigid rod..... common sense can tell you that.. The speed limit of c is not just the speed of light it is also the speed limit of interactions and information exchange. Don't believe me look at the the laws of causality compared to wordlines. No interaction can occur faster than c. A rigid rod is made up of particles... unless it's some mythical substance that doesn't exist...... Therefore information exchange of its momentum can only occur via exchange of that momentum via particle to particle I interactions. Where no particle can travel faster than c. Get the point

I'm done I'm recommending a thread lock to the moderators. Take your attitude elsewhere we have no place for it here.

I'm done I'm recommending a thread lock to the moderators. Take your attitude elsewhere we have no place for it here.

Correct redshift will be an effect, probably already compensated for.

This is the kind of attitude of a petulant child. I am asking for your idea on relativity you reply with attitude and show lack of math.

Do you honestly believe we don't understand how gps works with relativity? Come on man calm down, formulate your thoughts and present them in a more appropriate manner. First let's start with the rigid rod. Observation and theoretical data within relativity shows us that any propogation of information exchange or interaction is limitted by c . This including the recent gravity wave detection. It's also a key aspect in baryon acvoustic oscillations on CMB anisotropy. Now if you wish to counter this statement you are free to do so via the math

That part of the thread was great. Someone presenting we are all wrong with zero zip mathematical detail. Well let's just say it irritated me lol.

Present the math not your screaming attitude. I happen to have a few degrees in physics. These degrees include relativity as a first year lesson.

Good point

Now why is this the case? No matter how rigid the rod is the laws of conservation of angular momentum and rate of exchange of interactions still apply The rod is made up of individuals particles. Momentum must be exchanged via particle to particle interactions. This takes times. Time dependant upon the medium the influence is acting through.... The one light year length rod will take a minimal light year to respond to change in a perfect medium (which doesn't exist, so it will take longer) It is you that has no clue learn the math behind relativity. Instead of resorting to insults on a member who has numerous peer reviewed papers on arxiv. ! Moderator Note point being the rigid rod conjecture is a fundamental lesson on relativity, if you wish to provide details to the contrary. You will need to present the math not insults to respected forum members simply because they don't agree with you PS BOTH Ajb and I can move or lock this thread. So show the math

The thing do you truly understand the rigid rod conjecture? Let's start at the beginning. Man a swings a rod one light year in length. It will take one light year before the opposite end moves in response. If you say otherwise it is you that doesn't understand relativity This statement is correct

Not really we often observe events in the past. The sheer amount of energy released and the proper distance which most articles don't mention .. most articles don't specify the proper distance the event occurred from the time of occurance. I need clarification clarification on the redshift value to give better numbers

Give me a few I'll tell you. After I look at the Cosmo calc in my signature lol.

(Are these results absolute proof definitely not. The data needs study from independent examiners. Give it 6 months or so. Bicep2 is a good lesson on that aspect,) Good point, time will tell one event only tells us were on the right track. Now we need repeatability

In this case sheer coincidence in so far as the two BH colliding and the gravity waves the waves are a result of the collision. In so far as looking, well LIGO has been looking 24/7. For years to record the event. Problem being the sensitivity. They probably were not expecting results as soon as they did after upgrade. However this can often happen, New improvements can often yield results on a faster time scale. The gravity waves themself wouldn't occur without the merger event. Only certain events can lead to gravity waves. Keep in mind BH mergers can vary in time, depending on orbits (If I understand your questions correct is why can we measure this now as opposed to before). The main problem has been in filtering interference and separation distance of the waves gravity being such a weak force it's extremely difficulty to isolate from background influences such as noise

Man your questions can be hard to fathom. For one Chandra telescopes has the ability. BH,S not being the only objects that can produce jets. Pulsars can as well. There are numerous events to describe the rest. I am having tough time describing the direction of your last post to clarify a direction of interest. (No insult intended reads as a scattering of observer based results/ adjustments) A BH jet can last as long as it takes to .. Say for example absorb a star. Length of time depending on mass and proximity of the star

We account for measurement via factors such as redshift. Understand this detail. We don't always use visual telescopes. More often we use radio telescopes, infrared, etc but seldom visual. This being the case we must account for observer influence ie redshift as one example Accretion jets luckily happen over a decent time period, depending on availability of material

Those jets I should specify are artist renditions. Those renditions are based upon the mathematics within the article. Too lengthy to do justice on a forum. What it boils down to is a BH cannot gobble all the available matter there is a limit, the leftover is emitted via the jets. The article covers the details. PS there are images of jets exitting a galaxy such is the energy levels of the jets. Good self research is always a plus. Provided the sources are good. It's always better to trust resources that apply the actual math. (I hate pop media style articles) in my collection of over 300gb of pdf not a single reference or article is pop media related. Granted you need math to fully appreciate them.

The accretion disk itself for starters. "Material, such as gas, dust and other stellar debris that has come close to a black hole but not quite fallen into it, forms a flattened band of spinning matter around the event horizon called the accretion disk (or disc). Although no-one has ever actually seen a black hole or even its event horizon, this accretion disk can be seen, because the spinning particles are accelerated to tremendous speeds by the huge gravity of the black hole, releasing heat and powerful x-rays and gamma rays out into the universe as they smash into each other" http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_blackholes_event.html The accretion disk itself has mass. Then you also have the photon sphere. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_sphere. like I said most of the mass is the singularity but not all of the mass. The sheer energy levels in the accretion disk and accretion jets are huge. A good detail is this paper. http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.5499:''Black hole Accretion Disk'' Without going into the Einstein field equations let's look at an example. The mass of the Earth is 5.9722±0.0006)×10^24 kg. However the average mass density increases from the average mass density of the galactic medium as you approach Earth. When we set the mass upon an objection in space we need to define a cutoff point. For a galaxy that cutoff point is 100* the energy density compared to the critical density. For a BH and I can be corrected on this point it's the radius of the Schwartzchild metric. This simply means the mass of the singularity within the EH. Not the mass surrounding the EH. PS although great enthusiasm in learning the standard models in regards to mass loss it's appropriate to include the relation covered in your other thread ( through mod action). [latex]e^2=pc^2+(m_o^2)^2[/latex] Further discussion here for readers. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/93487-split-from-gravitational-waves-discovered/page-1 ! Moderator Note the split of threads is justified, appropriate to discretion of moderator

Definition of inertia. "Inertia is the resistance of any physical object to any change in its state of motion (this includes changes to its speed, direction or state of rest). It is the tendency of objects to keep moving in a straight line at constant velocity." Momentum is the quantity of motion of a moving body, measured as a product of its mass and velocity. Inertial mass is a mass parameter giving the inertial resistance to acceleration of the body when responding to all types of force. Mass. In physics, the property of matter that measures its resistance to acceleration. Changes in velocity and/or direction is acceleration. The formula above only concerns itself with momentum p not acceleration. Oops had to correct the typo in the formula

Who says all the mass is at the singularity? That is certainly the highest concentration but there is a buttload of energy surrounding the EH and acceleration disk.

Start with the full formula [latex]e^2=pc^2+(m_o^2)^2[/latex] P being momentum, m_O being rest mass Then think about how mass is defined but more importantly what type of mass. (Rest or inertial mass). Mass and energy are in essence two sides of the same coin. Both are properties both depend upon the other. Rest mass, can be contributed via the strong force, the electromagnetic (electromagnetic mass)force and atomic force. (Atomic mass) Though most commonly the strong force. Then on top of this you have mass gained via inertia. See above equation. Rest mass tells us the mass of an object as though it was at rest. However you need the above equation to describe the total energy an object has. Here is a good example particle accelerators collide two protons at 0.99 c. Rest mass of a single proton is 938.272046 MeV. Yet the collision can produce 123 Gev particles. (Higgs Boson). The mass gain is due to mass gained via inertia

Blackholes have a lot of mass, the mergers are also incredibly violent. Take a look at their mass and acceleration. How much energy is released in asteroids striking Earth? The mass and velocity these two BH's collide at makes the asteroid example a joke in terms of energy release. As the numbers above show the extreme violence of the mergers cause a loss in the total mass of the BH's

Too broad a subject without a specific direction. First off you mentioned videos. Can you specify what laws those videos state they violate?