Robittybob1

It is not a bad thing! "'herd mentality' and follow the ideologies of their leaders blindly without much thought" That doesn't sound so good to me.

I was going to see if a similar method would work for other frames but just picked on the multiple clocks in the same frame situation first. Janus had 3 clocks on the craft, and multiple on the exterior, that were synchronized but I can't recall him saying how they were synchronised or calibrated. Would this method be suitable? #71 "How to synchronize their clocks. Return time = time period between start of outgoing signal from A and the reflected return signal. 1. If two IFoR/clocks are moving at the same rate (in the same frame) and light reflected off one clock will return in the same time period to the sender/central clock. step 1. send a signal with the time plus half the return time, and get second person (B) to set clock to this time." This maybe so, but sometimes this can't be done. This would depend on how the thought experiment was designed.

That would only make sense if the clocks were synchronized to begin with and that they had the same tick rate (calibrated at least).

Did you look at the video? So was that teacher actually wrong too? The above method was just for frames going the same velocity. But you were definitely right that the place where the light reflected from and the clock receiving the signal needed to be in the same location. I was trying to comprehend Janus's example, and I am looking at how each frame would synchronize their clocks. Can you synchronize clocks in the same frame without bringing them together? Relative to each other. All motion is relative to the sender frame, so if a signal returns at same interval the two IFoR are going at the same relative velocity. If the time period is shorter the distance between them is getting shorter or longer the frames are not going the same velocity. I'm surprised that you question this?

Do these bacteria affect the fungi mycelium in any way? What is the problem with bacterial contaminants?

IFoR = inertial frames of reference. Situation 1. If two IFoR are moving at the same rate light reflected off one will return in the same time period to the sender. Situation 2 If one IFoR is moving away slower the light reflected off one will return in shorter time period to the sender. Situation 3 If one IFoR is moving away faster the light reflected off one will return in a longer time period to the sender. How to synchronize their clocks. Return time = time period between start of outgoing signal from A and the reflected return signal. Situation 1. If two IFoR are moving at the same rate light reflected off one will return in the same time period to the sender. step 1. send a signal with the time plus half the return time, and get second person (B) to set clock to this time.

I whipped it up with 3-D modeling program. Note the original question in the OP had been answered and I accept the answer was "no". I now accept that the barycenter is not the deepest part of the gravity well, even though it is sometimes called the center of mass. "Here the barycenter is halfway between the masses and is on the "saddle" between the dips." That bit is a little wrong especially if the mass at the rear is more massive. Like the Earth-Sun barycenter is definitely inside the Sun's mass. Note that I said "here", as in in this particular instance where the masses were equal. I also went on to say that this would not be the case if the masses were not equal. So there was nothing "wrong" with the statement when taken in context. Sorry, I might have misunderstood you as I thought you were referring to the picture which seems to suggest that the mass at the rear is larger. But yes if the masses were equal the barycenter would be in the center of the saddle. My mistake.

@Janus - Where did you get that neat picture from? It is amazing thanks. Note the original question in the OP had been answered and I accept the answer was "no". I now accept that the barycenter is not the deepest part of the gravity well, even though it is sometimes called the center of mass. "Here the barycenter is halfway between the masses and is on the "saddle" between the dips." That bit is a little wrong especially if the mass at the rear is more massive. Like the Earth-Sun barycenter is definitely inside the Sun's mass. But the rest sounds very correct. If those two masses were orbiting could you show that each followed a geodesic? I'm not saying they made a terrible mistake or something like that. If you say "the amount of curvature of space-time is related to the mass-energy at that point, not somewhere else" that is fair enough but does that not also imply the introduction of another mass nearby will influence the amount of curvature of space-time for the mass-energy at that point has changed? No it doesn't

The idealised spacetime curvature is drawn as if the body is in deep space. When it is in a binary orbit I imagine the curvature is a combination of the two. If there were n-bodies it is very complex. So I don't have a problem with that idea ("whole continuum of possible curvatures of the spacetime") but don't ask me to draw it. Read #14 as it was edited.

I went past my original question once Swansont pointed out the error, but I came up with the final version later. I hope you were not stuck with the original idea which was patently wrong. I'm not claiming this as my new law or anything, it might be old as the hills as Swansont implies. You've nearly got it! Orbiting their barycenter, falling along their curved spacetime geodesics and radiating GE all at the same time. All in the one image. I didn't like the animation in the video in the OP because the BHs were centered on their own gravity wells but they ought to be on the curved spacetime surface formed by the binary and itself. That means they should have been further out and not above their own gravity wells. Even that may be wrong. It could be a type of rotation i.e like the gravity wells having their deepest parts pointing somewhat toward the barycenter. It is hard to describe. But it could be something like the cups on a centrifuge rotating outward as the speed increases, but in the opposite direction. With BH mergers the gravity wells maybe be pointing increasingly inward (not outward) as the speed increases. Now that is definitely a new idea. For what I have been trying to find is the connection between Einstein's prediction of gravitational radiation and the reason he predicted gravitational radiation. If you ever see the reason he predicted it please let me know.

True, but it is so difficult to get a scientific statement with the words barycenter, warped spacetime and orbit in it. It is an "old observation" an old idea that has never been written. Does that mean you see what I'm trying to say? Whereas Strange is keeping on saying I'm wrong without providing a reason. A series of stills would suffice. When you ask "It may not show what you are trying to say because what you are trying to say is wrong" are you saying it maybe wrong which allows it maybe right as the alternative? I could be right or I could be wrong! Why would it be wrong? Binaries orbit their barycenter, orbiting bodies follow their geodesics through curved spacetime. Implies there is some connection between the curved spacetime and the barycenter. With GE being lost they are descending into their curved spacetime wells (falling and losing the PE) continuously and increasingly but at the same time orbiting their barycenter. It is a more complex animation but not one that would be impossible to represent.

Interesting animations but didn't show what I am trying to say here. I need an animation where the curvature and the BH are in contact. It is just too complex and I can't do the animations myself.

I'm working my way through Google search at this stage. So far no luck at page 4. Only one site began to discuss it but the site was titled "Einstein was wrong". I've given up with Google search. I've already checked Google Scholar but I was using a different set of words. spacetime + curvature + barycenter the words "general relativity" would produce just too many results. spacetime + curvature + barycenter + geodesic no good results after the first 10 pages. @Strange - That link is still not working could you give me the title or 10 words in the article and I'll find it through Google. Thanks.

It is confusing to say the least how all three clocks on the craft can be synchronized and all three clocks on the exterior can be synchronized yet when you compare them 1:1 they are reading different times. You have covered this before but I may not have got my head around it yet. I'll work on it. Method to overcome Relativity of simultaneity. Each frame of reference synchronize their clocks using the (2 way time) of travel method. as used in this video: using light beams and spacetime diagrams. When the frames of reference pass each other a laser fires when the center clocks align. One half of the beam is split again and half goes along the craft in both directions. The return time is compared and the average is used to synchronize the distant clocks. The other half of the original beam is sent to the platform and there split again and half goes along the platform in both directions. The return time is compared and the average is used to synchronize all the many distant clocks along the platform. Will the amount of time that the various clocks are out on the second attempt to synchronize them inform us which way (direction) and how much the relative motion has changed?

Google "The Schwarzschild radius (sometimes historically referred to as the gravitational radius) is the radius of a sphere such that, if all the mass of an object were to be compressed within that sphere, the escape velocity from the surface of the sphere would equal the speed of light." Rs = 2GM/(c^2) Schwarzschild radius is directly proportional to the mass. So we can add the Rs of the smaller BHs multiplied by the factor 62/65 (3 solar masses lost) because of the mass reduction due to GE.

That was sloppy speech, I meant "orbit along a geodesic", not "orbit a geodesic". Thanks for correcting that. I would have liked to check your link but it doesn't work. Well early days yet. There are no scientific papers or Youtube videos detailing how the barycenter of orbiting bodies relates to the spacetime curvature. Is this a new law? "Bodies in orbit travel along a geodesic of the gravity well of the combined mass orbiting around the barycenter. This shape overall still has two or more deep impressions (spacetime curvatures associated with the mass of the bodies, but the bodies are orbiting along the geodesics of the combined spacetime curvature (which is not strictly centered on its own gravity well)". Edit: Not centered on the barycenter for the barycenter is not the center but the point of rotation.

That is a point, but how do they orbit along a geodesic if it doesn't? [error corrected] It has me baffled ATM. Struggling to find anything that covers it, but I'm thinking could the two gravity wells merge at the outer edges where the orbiting bodies each orbit along a geodesic partly formed by the other body??? In this view a body's own mass does not drastically change the shape of the gravity well formed by the body it is orbiting. Could this be the answer? But when they look at the Solar System Barycenter everything is orbiting that point so the shape of the geodesic is definitely reshaped by a body's own mass too. So instead of drawing the BHs in the center of their gravity wells (prior to their merger) they are really traveling along the wall (the geodesic) of the reshaped gravity well of the combined mass. This shape still has two deep impressions but the bodies are on the sides of the combined impression (not strictly centered on it own gravity well). I wonder if we can find a paper that backs this idea up? [if that is too speculative please move the thread to speculations.]

Found it! at 36:32 there is a graph showing the separations against time. The scale for the separation is measured in Rs so which Rs is that? You might be able to pick up on it. Speaker says "Rs of the final merged BH, I think". He said that at 36:28 Funny that he said he thinks! Are they useful figures? did you have the reference link. Swansont has probably got it already. What time (in seconds before the merger) was this frequency for the frequency is changing all the time.

I was looking at the way they draw BHs merging and I think are they drawing it wrong. If things orbit along a geodesic how can they draw the spacetime curvature as two pits. Do the BHs have a common center of mass (the barycenter) and shouldn't that point be the deepest part of the warp?

I have seen estimates of the distances, so it is just a matter of finding them. If Caltech has drawn their animation to scale we could get estimates from there 0:23 secs in give a picture of the distances at 0.32 sec.To get the scale they have drawn the EH of both BHs.

Well at least the PE is more than the 3 solar masses, so we are looking at least 3 solar masses being lost as GE and 3 as KE. I think your calculation allows for that, in fact we seem to need even more mass loss than that. But there is definitely more than enough energy in the changes of orbit to allow for GE release to be occurring for ages before the final 0.3 sec. Just in the last 0.3 sec you get that final 3 solar mass loss, but what about before that? At the beginning of that 0.3 sec period how far apart were they? Is there enough PE in that last stage to supply at least 3 solar masses of energy? (). Can you look at that last 0.3 sec period please?

OK as I was saying before if we calculated the amount of PE (that was available from infinity) and halved it does that work out to be 3 solar masses of energy for those two black holes of the masses that they have calculated. Was it 29 and 36 to start with and ended up 62 and 3 were lost as energy. (I say halved it because some of the energy is going to be in kinetic motion of the BHs.)

I thought I was replying to Mordred sorry. Janus I'll read it again in light of what you've just told me. You confirm the laser fires when the center clock reads 0:00 and at no other time. You also confirm it only fires once. On what basis does this happen "the external observer says that it is the events of the rear clock reading -0.25, the middle clock reading 0 and the front clock reading 0.25 that are simultaneous"? Is that from evidence or just from his calculations? Or was it from his own synchronised clocks at those positions? I feel for you. Don't over do it.

You might understand this. I'm here to solve science issues as my first priority but friends are good too.

You need to relate it to the situation in the video. It might be wrong but it was what Mordred who was saying this and I rewrote his post since he had made so many mistakes. I was looking into how the relativistic Doppler should be handed. And I think you have handled it correctly. Cheers.