Robittybob1

Well I have been thinking, and not yet done any reading. The strain (dimensionless) is the measured amplitude of the GWs. That still makes me query the concept sorry. The amplitude of the strain "is related to the energy being radiated, which is related to the distance, masses, orbital speeds, and angular momentum of the pair". That seems to make sense. Displacement of the Mirrors/masses in the LIGO, is that what you mean? Otherwise displacement of what? I'm about to look up Google scholar to see if someone has discussed this.

I had already understood that but what is the connection between the amplitude of the strain and the amplitude of the G-Wave produced by the binary? I have no problem with the frequency bit, so the wavelength will be speed of light divided by frequency, but as the binary masses infall their separation is getting less so the amplitude, if based on dimensions of the binary, should be getting smaller yet the chirp amplitude is getting larger. I'll read up on this a bit more, as you say.

Who have I been criticising? Swansont and I are just trying to establish facts. I can't recall that many conversations between you and myself over the years, but Swansont and I seem to discuss similar topics, so we have had many discussions. You just would not know the amount of respect I give him, but that does not mean I won't question him, we question each other. In my recall it was only the question about the mass that I really wanted to know the answer to, was it like Dan's idea in the binary or like Strange, somewhere else in between the binary and the Earth. From the viewpoint of Dan and myself when whole papers and book references are thrown into the conversation that also feels like changing the topic. I'll read the 2nd split off thread and see if I can recall the issues and take in the advice you have given me.

It seemed to me that the split occurred after I was given my first bit of punishment, I woke up and found I could read the forum but could not post anything, and the split off thread was there. I have just gone through Dan's thread and it was Strange who first introduced the idea of the third mass idea, "some other BH", that the G-wave could have gone past on the way to LIGO. I'll have to read the other thread as well but it is late here. Good night all. They were all points that Mordred had made in the thread itself. Are we not allowed to question points made previously in the thread? Read also #21 please.

It was a messy thread to say the least and when I went back through it and checked everyone's statements I found I was questioning some of the claims made by Mordred. They may have seemed out of line for that thread but they were prior claims made in it, so I was seeking clarification of those points. When we were asked to come up with a model I asked, or proposed a way of modeling it, that seemed a bit a sideline but it was in response to Swansont asking us to model it. As far as staying on topic: When a whole document is introduced to backup an argument is that whole document then part of the discussion? Wouldn't it need to be specified as to the relevant parts only?

I'm replying to points made by Swansont, so just let us sort this out please. @Strange - Can you point out where in that split off thread I hijacked the thread? http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/93995-shapiro-or-shapiro-like-delay-of-gw-signals-split/

As I remember the issue was your statement "you need mass". So I asked you where does that mass have to be? Then you did nothing to clarify your own statement. Why did you skip that simple question?

I have never abused anyone. What trouble have I caused? All I have been doing here is to learn and to discuss science.

This site gives me some math to work on. http://www.tapir.caltech.edu/~teviet/Waves/gwave.html "Gravitational waves" And it talks about what you are saying in #27 Mordred Thanks. The GW has an amplitude which is related to the dimensions of the system (first animation). The amplitude of the LIGO recording is not obvious (to me) how it relates to the amplitude of the GW. They call it "Dimensionless amplitude". What is your way of connecting amplitude in the animation to the Dimensionless amplitude? In the above article they use a similar approach to the problem as I am doing here: So it is a valid approach to move the LIGO to the same spot as they talk about "in the immediate vicinity of black holes". .

That is your argument. I read it and think you still didn't realise I had a misunderstanding about the nature of Shapiro delay which was the question being discussed in Dan's thread. I read your issues but I still didn't know what you meant. So I repeated my question. Even the rules say I can "ask questions to clarify the proposal," and that is what I was doing in fact even if I was asking the wrong question due to my misunderstanding. PM abuse claim is wrong too for I was just making a justifiable complaint.

I for one don't understand that sort of language, sorry. I'll repeat my concern about the rules on hijacking. "There needs to some allowance for a genuine misunderstanding in the rules." Not every stray question or comment is hijacking. There is such a thing as a misunderstanding. That is completely different to an insertion of a pet theory into a thread.

I am not aware that the amount of energy carried by the wave is related to the amplitude. Are there any other formulas or information on the amplitude of the GW?

Not really when you read the last post in the thread "Banned/Suspended Users" The topic feels very personal to me. I was misunderstanding what Shapiro time delay was about, and from that I was blocked from posting, so I made a complaint, and then my status was upgraded to full suspension. All for a misunderstanding. There needs to some allowance for a genuine misunderstanding in the rules.

Is this the equation you are referring to? Kinetic Energy ~ MR^2/t^2 ~ Potential Energy ~ GM^2/R : (42) on page 9. I can't see the connection sorry.

What time is stamped on the posts? Is that USA time? or is it my NZT? #6 shows me it was "Posted Today, 11:08 AM" so I have feeling all the times will displayed to different people according to their local time. I'm sure I was misunderstanding Shapiro Time Delay and that was the root cause of the issue. That STD was the topic of discussion along with other related topics, so did no one realise I was mistaken? Shapiro Time Delay is definitely not a pet theory of mine.

If you see a reference to that please let the forum know. That could be true if the force decreases by the inverse square law, that would mean force is affected by area and area is the multiplication of the x and y dimensions of that area. Amplitude could be measurement in the x or y dimension. What is the equivalent to amplitude in Newtonian gravity? In terms of GW what do you think the amplitude is measuring? Is it the way the the ring of test particles move? Is it they move less hence less amplitude? I have no problem with wave frequency as there are two wavefronts passing a point per orbit, and the wavelength is the speed of light divided by frequency, but what is the amplitude? I think I see it now: a fluctuating force will have an amplitude and frequency. In terms of GW what do you think the amplitude is measuring? In post #18 The thought experiment is to see how far we can look at the situation using Newtonian or Newtonian type concepts. I have been surprised how often the LIGO team used Newtonian type math to assist in their calculations. I really want to know the connection of strain to the alignment of the binary bodies. Even using LIGO as it was designed if LIGO was right beside or inside the binary when does it register the maximum strain? At what position were the BH masses when the strain is maximum?

If the rules say "Posting pet "theories" in mainstream science forums is considered thread hijacking." then introducing a new idea is not hijacking either then unless it can be determined to be a "pet theory". I can see the value of the "pet theory rule" but just a new idea/question or misunderstanding about the topic being discussed is hardly a pet theory. It is a bit hard to do a post mortem on that particular thread as it was split and then the split was split again so we lose the order of events. But once the OP had signed off in #4 does the thread then become open for related discussion? What and who then determines what other related topic questions can be asked?

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/93472-gravitational-lens-and-gravitational-waves-question/ Who hijacked this thread and when did it happen? Was it Dan's question in #5 when he asked another question that was not in the OP? Everyone joins in the new discussion on the new topic not covered in the OP.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1601.05438.pdf original paper "EVIDENCE FOR A DISTANT GIANT PLANET IN THE SOLAR SYSTEM" Konstantin Batygin & Michael E. Brown

OK I'll just use the inverse square law, i.e. at twice the distance the force will be a quarter of the strength.

OK I agree. Even if the two LIGO recorders are 2000 km apart the path of the wave past the Sun, both fronts would have the same or nearly the same time delay such that the difference would not be noticed, an "immeasurable difference".

I wanted to understand the spread throughout space. Like if they are plane fronted waves at any distant point that suggests to me shell like structure going outward at the speed of light. But each shell is connected to the one following with a spiral action. What shape are pp-waves? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pp-wave_spacetime#Physical_interpretation .So that sounds like spheres within spheres with the plane fronts moving outward at the speed of light. Small sections of the surface at any point all the radiation is traveling in "same direction".

"gravitational spiral wave" put those words into Google search and look at the many images of gravitational waves. Which one gives the best description and why? I'm thinking the two masses orbiting each other for a billion plus years has produced 2 waves that have traveled like 2 spirals if looked at on a plane extending from the orbital plane. Or a sinusoidal line if you look at the effect at a point. What is the shape in the 3D space? http://www.dam.brown.edu/people/sandsted/APMA1940R.php The middle picture is a single spiral wave looked at from a plane and a line but I couldn't find a 3D image that I could relate to. Does anyone have an idea of the description of a 3D gravitational wave at a distance from the binary? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plane_wave#/media/File:Plane_wave_wavefronts_3D.svg https://books.google.co.nz/books?id=Tna0Va-iRygC&pg=PA447&lpg=PA447&dq=h%2B+and+hx+polarization&source=bl&ots=FvhUfLtR0U&sig=mhJIIuVgdZsH1MSsClk8t6Zuess&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjV2Myt6NPLAhXk4KYKHeDBDHIQ6AEIJTAE#v=onepage&q=h%2B%20and%20hx%20polarization&f=false Says the waves are "plane fronted waves" so that is like the wave fronts in the first link. So my thought they are like a section of onion. Shells make the onion spherical but if you cut an onion into slices and the cut the slices into strips you could get pieces that are like plane fronted waves.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapiro_delay#Time_delay_due_to_light_traveling_around_a_single_mass Could the same sort of thing happen to a GW passing another mass other than the ones that caused the wave? That was my question. The Sun could slow the wave to one of the LIGO recorders but not the others, that could delay the wave by 100 microseconds (half of the two way delay). A delay as small as this would hardly be noticeable. The signal from GW150914 had a delay of 7 milliseconds which they used to determine the direction of space the signal came from. 7 millisecs is 7000 microseconds so an increase to 7100 microseconds would be noticed. They would then need to check if the wave could have passed the Sun on the way to the recorder if the Sun was in that general area as well. They would affect each other's orbital characteristics but how would you relate that back to Shapiro time delay?

This is the type of wave pattern that is coming from the binary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_polarization#/media/File:Circular.Polarization.Circularly.Polarized.Light_Right.Handed.Animation.305x190.255Colors.gif but there will be two of these per orbit. I must admit I can't quite make a mental image of the gravitational wave surrounding a BBH. Do you have a mental image? Is it more like shells around an onion (spherical waves of polarized gravitational changes??) For to think of it as tubes of circularized polarization is alright in a small region but how do you get to fill the entire universe from those? I'm looking for details on the way the gravitational wave spreads out from the binary source. All I know at present is that it is linearly polarized with the orbital plane and circularly polarized above and below the orbital plane. It might be safest to think it spreads the effects throughout the universe in an inverse square relationship, even though Katie Mack did tweet that the strength is greatest perpendicular to the orbital plane (so it varies in different directions).