Robittybob1

I thought I understood Shapiro Time delay (STD) but I'm no longer certain. One article I read said once the light has been time delayed (slowed down) it doesn't ever regain its light speed after that. So what happens when light is time delayed? Could gravity be time delayed as well? Could gravity waves (GW) be time delayed by the masses that produced them in the first place? Which part of the chirp wave would be affected if the GW was time delayed How much time delay would a 30 solar mass BH produce? How much time delay would 2 * 30 solar mass binary BHs (BBH) produce? (As a ratio to the orbital separation.) Is gravitational time delay the same as Shapiro time delay? Any question, any insight on STD welcome.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model Not an easy topic to tackle.

it is hard to imagine that being a winner. it looks more like "I'm looking for an expensive process to synthesize a sturdy material from animals, bacteria, plants or fungi". One of the toughest and most wasted proteins is in blood. Fibrin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fibrin That and even blood itself (when it is dried on a surface it becomes a very insoluble material). I couldn't find anyone using it as a surface coating.

I've had this as well, I rediscovered Fermat's factorization. He only beat me by 350 years It is teamwork. If you have an idea and try and get it past brilliant minds as they are here, it is really challenging. Silly ideas are screened out rather quickly.

But I would simply ask you where does all the chocolate come from? It has the potential to be written up as a paper. I have not claimed it is written up. Don't make it too complicated please. Well would you like to do that to that speculation thread please? http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/94060-what-is-the-best-3d-description-of-gravitational-waves/

I am needing that advance (a minor change of paradigm) to go to the next level of my understanding of the physics. For these threads and there has been many of them, each has been a result of being stuck on a problem, so I start another thread, but we never get anywhere for we just seem to be going deeper and deeper into a pile of threads. I think this was my reluctance that caused my issue the other week, for when I was asked to start another thread, my mind just resisted, and said "no, not another thread". It would have been so easy to do that, for I'm really proficient at starting threads, but we can't rewind time and do it another way.

I don't take big bites at any paradigm. I'm not tackling the big one e.g "the expansion of the universe" but just a minor idea like "the 3D structure of a Gravitational Wave". I notice in "Speculations" generally they are the big ticket items, for instance "the Theory of Everything" as the extreme example, but with "my training" (day after day of science learning and discussion) I might look at something rather small in comparison.

It felt a bit like the peer review process at its beginning. I would imagine most scientists are working in a team, someone has an idea they discuss it and if the speculation can't be disproven they might examine it in greater depth. To the point where a paper is written and published. Then the whole scientific community can either cite that paper or write another disagreeing with the concept. On it goes. I view the forum like the initial team of scientists. I would like to think we can make scientific progress after all the effort we put in. On this forum if someone agrees with a speculation they are just going to say nothing. If they disagree but can't disprove it they will just say nothing. So when a speculation is no longer being pulled to bits I was trying to understand whether it is accepted or not. I suppose no one likes to step out into the unknown but the whole process is one of doing that, when someone cites my speculation or when I use it myself in another thread then that will reveal whether it has gained acceptance on the level of the forum at least. Something Strange wrote in another active thread seemed relevant to this discussion: WE could take that further, "there is no "proof" of the speculation. There is no proof of anything in science". So the premise of the speculation is valid until proven wrong or falsified.

Does a speculation if proven become accepted science? I am having a debate over the 3D structure of a gravitational wave and I feel the speculation is proven. Can I then use that result in another thread as science fact?

Do fungi produce either of those two molecules?

It never loses its significance as once the orbital distance decreases the frequency increases so at the very time it should be insignificant because of overall distance (1.3 billion ly) the GW effects are maximized (GW150914). Never will they become concentric spheres. For how to you get from one sphere to the next? You can't with continuous GW production, so it is always a spiral, a 3D spiral.

From a point source it might, so that all distances (radii) were the same, but here we have a turning source that has an orbital plane. @Strange - How do you get successive wave fronts from your sphere concept? OK you make an initial sphere. How do you get another, to get the wave fronts?

Serial wavefronts within a sphere? I don't accept that image as then there had to be moments when the GW stops and restarts, like the wavefront of a pulsing light. To me it is more like a garden sprinkler but the water drops never falling, but in 3D as well. Here is a possible image a 3D rotating water sprinkler in space. So the fronts aren't shells but growing spirals. The whole GW structure is one wave with many wavefronts when looked at locally, but to imagine the whole structure is what we are trying to do here.

"Z is the direction of propagation" of a local wavefront (a small section of the total structure). You said "4D spacetime", which is time as well as the 3 space coordinates in #9. We do need to think how it grows in time but is that the same as "4D spacetime"? Our kids are 3 dimensional structure growing in time but that is not thinking in terms of "4D spacetime" surely? I definitely want to picture the 3D gravity wave growing with time.

No one can think in 4D spacetime, so I've been told, so stick to the 3D image first please. So what happens in z dimension? The 3D image is going to use all the dimensions x,y,and z. You must be looking at a local wavefront. Can we leave that aspect to another thread please, another discussion. As I said, let's leave that till later. It is the 3D image we are trying to build here. We can pick up GWs from all directions in space so there must be the 3D structure. Is it like what I have proposed, a 3D spiral? It took me a while to see how the whole wave grows with time, so I don't really know if that is seeing the 4th dimension, but it would be more like seeing a car go down the road with time, which is more like seeing it move in a space coordinate at different times. If you have objects traveling in all 3 space coordinates at different speeds can you then introduce time? You can in the GW case as the wavefronts are moving away at the speed of light, they are all traveling at the same speed. Maybe that is the "z axis" Strange mentioned, the local "z" is always moving at the speed of light.

It cancelled the incorrect post, but neither helped the proposal (A) nor rebutted it ( C ).

As long as you can think of it in 3D. It is the 3D nature of the GW I trying comprehend in this thread. There are animations showing ripples in ponds and others with tubes and others with wavy lines. But I want to develop how to think of the total effect radiating out from the source in a 3D fashion so we can understand how we can detect the wave wherever you are. Case: ripples in ponds - you would have to on that surface and others with tubes - you would have to be in the region and others with wavy lines - you would have to be on that line. 3D wave - anywhere in space you can detect the GW

It happened the other day, when someone thought they were "posting accepted physics to disprove the proposal" but that in itself was wrong and was corrected by another person other than the OP. So that correcting action is not covered by your 3 categories.

You are right when there is an obvious error in the speculation and it is handled by an expert. The topic under consideration could be one where there is no known answer. So there is no expert, the participants are debating based on other examples of science to speculate what could be happening somewhere else. The real question then is whether all views can be questioned? The OP has made a speculation, there are responses from other members, can they both be asked by a third party to clarify their points? Do the questions just have to be directed to the OP? I feel for a proper discussion everyone contributing needs to be able to answer questions clarifying their view.

Well, what about this in the above example, if someone replies to the OP and says "no the Sun uses fusion", can another person if that person thinks that is wrong (by some possible misunderstanding) ask a question of the member "what type of fusion do you think is happening?" So that is clarifying the topic under discussion. The "dumb person" is trying to decide who's argument is right.

This article starts to explain in terms I'm more familiar with: Could Gravitational Waves Ever Be Strong Enough To Feel? http://www.forbes.com/sites/briankoberlein/2016/02/13/could-gravitational-waves-ever-be-strong-enough-to-feel/#16d47c14aac3 Energy falls off by the inverse square relationship, but the amplitude by the inverse relationship. The wavelength and frequency is determined by the orbital parameters, but as the wave travels those two components do not vary, but the energy and amplitude decline with distance as per the discussed relationships.

I have watched a couple of interviews with the brilliant mathematician/theoretical physicist Paul Dirac and he like to think of "mathematical beauty". Which is some ways is like Ockham's Razor going for simplicity. Graham Farmelo on Paul Dirac and Mathematical Beauty YT

If anyone sees information on this could they post it on the forum please.

I wouldn't be surprised if you are right.

Do you mean taking pills? What is the name of a drug used and I'll look it up?