Robittybob1

You've had the training so you know the terms, I just call it autism. I could research it too and then I wouldn't have been able to say "I haven't heard of it", but that was my truthful response, as good as it gets with a memory like mine. So can it be fixed or do I just have to live with it?

I'm more interested in science topics, than finance. I just read the forum rules and they had some rules about using abbreviations, so I personally write the word in full with the abbreviation in brackets first and then use the abbreviation after that. You certainly seem to be very aware of what is going on #6. Have you thought of getting involved with politics?

I'm not that far behind the times! I'm 62 so don't you think it would have been picked up by now? I've just watch 2 short videos on autism and I wouldn't say I have all of those symptoms.

I've never heard of it. Is that the same as autism?

A dumbbell shaped mass spinning end for end will also create gravitational waves, you could keep the masses the same distance apart, so if that was spinning in space without air resistance, I presume it would slow down its rotation as it radiated gravitational energy. Would LIGO placed at the point of rotation be able to detect this sort of situation even if the forces were calculated using Newton's gravitational force equation? I think it would for the test masses would be pulled outward and then relaxed in a quadrupolar like fashion. So when arm1 was inline the test masses will be recording maximum pressure on the ends, whereas in arm2 the test masses would not be pushing on the ends for they are orthogonal to the radius in this phase This pressure would result in a separation of the masses and this can be recorded as a positive shift in the interference pattern inside the interferometer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave So when arm2 was inline the test masses will be recording maximum pressure on the ends, whereas in arm1 the test masses would not be pushing on the ends for they are orthogonal to the radius in this phase This pressure would result in a separation of the masses and this can be recorded as a negative shift in the interference pattern inside the interferometer. This pattern seems to be producing 2 positive peaks per orbit and 2 negative peaks per orbit, which is similar to gravitational waves of two waves per orbit, 2 positive crests and 2 negative crests.

IM apps - instant messenger applications GFC - Global financial crisis Show that I'm behind with progress as I had to Google both those acronyms.

Is that what it means. It feels like I'm flogging a dead horse with this one. It's already dead. Bye Bye.

It didn't say you were only allowed to direct questions to the OP. You are allowed to ask questions (to anyone on the forum discussion I presume) to help clarify the proposal. It is possible for a moderator to not see the immediate relevance of the question to the proposal, but that question is still within the rules.

If you just had coordinates and no gravitational mass then you would be just left with how they "move under the influence of their own gravity". Post #50. If there were just coordinates I wasn't sure how or why you would call any of them up or down. I suppose you could say "above or below the x axis" but this is a bit different than talking about gravity on the surface of a larger body. e.g. the hammer and the feather fall (down) the same rate on the Moon. If there were 2 particles in deep space attracted or repulsed by self gravity I wouldn't call that movement up or down.

I think in New Zealand we might say "flogging a dead horse". I was surprised how often this topic comes up. What the hell did iNow mean? Here's a little demo of how it is done!

It wasn't clear from your post what in actual fact you were referring to. With these hydrogen antihydrogen interactions they are looking how they move in the Earth's gravitational field aren't they? Not looking at the amount of gravity between them. Conservation of energy - I'll keep that in mind as I study EFE. Just from this abstract it looks like it would an interesting read. CPT symmetry and antimatter gravity in general relativity http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1209/0295-5075/94/20001/fulltext/ CPT symmetry? Wikipedia link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CPT_symmetry .

That was a pretty dramatic example. Thanks. "Dead horse continues to get beaten even worse." that is a rather unusual saying! from #12 I am trying to compare what you say in #12 to the rules. Asking questions to clarify the proposal is allowed. Questions of that type are therefore not "independent questions". .

Could you please give me an example of adverse effect on moral fortitude?

ALPHA is doing an experiment. http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v4/n4/fig_tab/ncomms2787_F2.html The graph of the average location of annihilation seems to be dropping with time. Wouldn't that suggest they do fall on average? Yet they don't come to that conclusion. Do you understand what that falling average line means? I'm thinking the annihilation must occur where the matter and antimatter is so if on average that location is lower wouldn't that imply they are falling down rather than falling up?

Did you mean off topic? "a good question of topic will get split" or "a good question off topic will get split"?? I wouldn't dare ask an off topic question.

That was the specific rule I wanted you to define. It is not banning the asking of any questions assisting to understand the topic, is it? So what does "independent questions" really mean? Define an independent question please. Like if we are allowed to ask a question, how can we tell if it crosses the boundary and becomes an independent question?

The thread is about "What is the smallest mass proven to have gravity?" Try to bring it back to the topic please. Why did you think it was unlikely? Isn't that just antimatter curving spacetime in the opposite direction?

I was trying to understand where upwards finished. For downwards terminates in the "local gravitational centre of mass", but where does upwards finish? Is it just being forever repelled rather than "falling upward" toward anything? Upwards begins where downwards ends. Downwards begins where upwards ends so they are symmetric.

Do we then put a set of coordinates on an antimatter particle and one on a matter particle and see in which direction they move under the influence of their own gravity? If they move away from each other they fall upwards. That would work in deep space but all experiments are done under Earth's gravity which is going to define "down". So is "up" just the opposite to our down? http://www.nutriculamagazine.com/a-new-approach-of-gravity-effect-on-antimatter-cern/ article describing an actual experiment.

What does fall upwards mean? Fall down seems to have a destination it will end up colliding with something, and we call that down from the perspective of an observer there but where does upward terminate? [i'm asking this is a general sense not specifically as occurred in their experiment.]

On another thread Strange linked to this article and it also should be linked here. ALPHA Probes Antimatter Gravity http://alpha.web.cern.ch/node/248 So does that mean it could still fall upwards?

@swansont - I have read the "Guidelines for Participating in Speculations Discussions" and the associated discussion thread. Looking specifically at the guidelines particularly to the section: Are these the rules as such or are there others?

In the thought experiment we would be using interference of lasers light to measure the difference in length of the two arms at right angles to each other. We would expect so much greater movement closer to the binary so we will have to count the whole wavelength changes as well as the fractional ones.

Where do the rates of "fall off" come from? What does purely transverse mean? Quote http://www.tapir.caltech.edu/~teviet/Waves/gwave.htm Does gravity ever fall off at [latex]\frac{1}{r^3}[/latex] ? .

I'll check it out then. I'll try and understand the subtleties of what constitutes a change in topic and hopefully we can continue having these challenging conversations on science rather than on moderation. Thanks.