Robittybob1

When I first read that page it can't have loaded properly. I now see there is a continuation from what I previously thought was the last sentence. How strange! When the page opens an ad appears just below that sentence maybe that was the reason I got confused. The author does give his reasons, and even though I call myself religious I might be rather idiosyncratic too. Either way I read the argument and nothing really upset me. I was just happy that Einstein appears to be somewhat of a believer and no one yet is claiming he was an atheist. But being a Jew and presumably Jewish faith he may not have recognized Jesus as his messiah. I personally have no complex theology, I just admire Jesus and treat him as a spiritual master, My Lord, as I say sometimes. So it is a personal relationship with the Lord but God seems like something vaster than the whole Universe with Nature as the designer (so maybe I have a type of Pantheism as well). So that allows for evolution to create and nature to mold the Universe. They say this of Einstein, a Pantheist and with no personal God, I can relate to that.

I have no issue with that except the conclusion for that is the opinion of the author: That sentence feels like a stab in the back. An attack with no reason given.

1 minor error which may have just been based on a rough estimate like 7 years is rounded up to 10. Was there anything else obviously wrong? I have no idea of the rest. It is like a foreign language to me except the words "Akashic records" for I have an inkling of a concept of them.

Mike I have the impression that orbiting binaries are very common but in general the amount of G-Rad being produced is relatively small so their lifetime is extremely long. Even the Hulse Taylor Binary is expected to decay for the next 100,000 years or more. If they can get the sensors to be more sensitive and find a way to undo the background (which will be a confusion of millions of overlapping G-Rad waves) then they will be able to see a merging event or at least the after effects for it is going to be difficult to tune in with a telescope just in the last 0.3 second final stage. They should be able to take out the waveform that was being produced by the BH merger prior to the final stages. Would this reveal another underneath this? Just to clarify the lifetime of an already infalling binary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSR_B1913%2B16#Star_system And they are relatively close together already. What is the ultimate fate of all this gravitational radiation? If it is energy where does it go? If we were to look at any 2 masses (microscopic BHs (MBH) weighing 1 kg) coming in from infinity and merging into a single BH is there the same amount of absolute energy and mass released/kg in that merger? No - the mass in the equation has the relationship being proportional to (m1*m2)*(m1+m2) so 2 larger mass will release proportionately more energy/kg and if the masses are of equal size the energy release is maximum eg 2 * 7kg MBH merging release more power (3.77 times more power) than a 1kg and a 13 kg MBH, which must imply the resulting MBH are of differing masses after the merger (even though m1 and m2 in both examples add to 14).

I'll have to look into that. News to me. [you are right it didn't catch on but 100 years later it is making a comeback "No moving parts is a real benefit because it can carry on going without maintenance." one site said. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/sep/21/scienceofclimatechange.climatechange ] idiosyncratic adjective relating to idiosyncrasy; peculiar or individual. "she emerged as one of the great, idiosyncratic talents of the nineties" synonyms: distinctive, individual, characteristic, distinct, distinguishing, peculiar, individualistic, different, typical, special, specific, representative, unique, personal, private, essential; Einstein may have been idiosyncratic regarding religion. What were his idiosyncrasies? [That word was monkeyed, I have never used that word before (thanks Strange for educating this monkey)] Einstein's religious idiosyncrasies may have a possible place in science. "Arguably, he used the word "religion" in a rather idiosyncratic way" Why did you say that Strange?

Have you looked into the definition of psychosomatic? It is different to psychiatric.

Well put it this way it sounded educated to me. If I wrote something like that the outcome would definitely be akin to the random chance of a monkey with a typewriter. (Even that was hard enough!)

Unless Albert explained it himself I guess we will be guessing too to some degree. I have seen this before one camp takes it to mean this and the others something else and we can never tell for sure, but nevertheless since you brought it up hazard a guess please? "Science without religion is lame" seems very much on topic "There is no place for religion in science". Well there is definitely a place for truth and truth and religion go hand in hand, well they should do even if they don't always. My vow to the Lord was to always tell the truth. Now there is a challenge for all scientists - to always tell the truth. I wonder if they do? No such thing as an inconvenient truth. Science would be lame if it hid the inconvenient truths.

In researching the topic of Einstein's view on religion I came across a post by a forum member which stated:http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/67876-truth-and-knowledge/page-2#entry693499 You can't write a paragraph like that without considerable study and what does he say "proofs of a universal mind and akashic record are ignored". Did he feel there was proof of the Akashic records? What are they?

Have you ever expounded your ideas about this on the forum? Like has this been discussed before elsewhere already? The thread may have been called ....? And then we might search for it via google site:scienceforums.net einstein "Science without religion is lame" PS: Unfortunately a member Pleiades seems to have had that phrase in his signature so it is coming up too frequent to be useful. Different search terms site:scienceforums.net ophiolite "Science without religion is lame" gave a good result: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/85626-evolution-and-creation-as-one/page-2#entry892357 Pymander also uses the phrase in response to HenryB http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/67876-truth-and-knowledge/page-2#entry693499 So it doesn't appear that you have discussed it fully as yet.

Einstein has been proven right about so many things it is uncanny. What happens when God and Nature are equated. [This is the Religion subforum so using that word is not taboo.] The argument around the laws of physics is an interesting one. Did they originate at the big bang? When did they originate?

Welcome back. I think you ought to ..... study a bit more. Do you have access to Google etc?

Thanks for I wasn't harping on about it at all but expressing the need to have a reference of evidence for and against for we often see statements negating the M-U experiment but when you try and find the references to the detractions they are hard to find, but if there was a library of references everyone could make a better judgement (well an opinion at the least). Where did those conditions occur? Somewhere in nature? The M-U experiment may now be irrelevant because it has been superseded and the idea of a library of references would assist in keep the ill informed better informed. Inow's post #13 had nothing to do with the ideas I expressed. I said nothing about God at all in #12.

I was going to write just that but would have added some more letters just for fun. Joking of course. Does there have to be an opposite for love? Detest comes close.

I suppose someone could point out that the Miller Urey experiment was done in a lab. It didn't happen on its own. I am tending to your view but I'm thinking about where this place was that was just right for the experiment to be 100% natural and with no need for Unicorns. As you say there are some doubts about the conditions of the Miller Urey experiment and I've read that from time to time too but those references can be hard to find when you need them. So if you see them again link them to a post in this thread please.

It is amazing what they can tell from the information. I can't wait to read more discussion on the mass loss calculations and the distance the waves have traveled. I suppose expanding space weakens the signal on Earth for they will be redshifted.

What was that image of? Was that supposed to be a BH? what is this?

I'm going to have to learn how to use the word inertia properly. Thanks for the lesson. Do we say "Inertial mass decreased as the BH's merged" or shall we just say the mass decreased? Do you accept that the G-Rad removes mass as in energy (E=mc^2) Does this radiation depend on the amount of matter at the EH? I've never heard of that if you think it does, so can you keep an eye out for information regarding this?

Pretty good. Thanks for the debate Mordred. I'm going to see if I can find by internet search where those 3 solar masses come from.

This was one of the questions I wanted answered. Have you seen that being discussed anywhere else yet? Where was that mass?

Very good, I forgot that even though the infalling BHs would have been gaining kinetic energy they would have been losing angular momentum. I think you possibly use the word inertia in the wrong way. Can you explain why you use "inertia" rather than "momentum" as in "The mass gain is due to mass gained via inertia"?

But all mass in a BH is at the singularity isn't it? The singularities aren't contacting to clash as in an asteroid strike. The other thing to remember is that these merging black holes are likely (based on other examples of binary orbiting bodies) have been in a decaying orbit and radiating G-Rad for a long time before it was ever picked up by LIGO it was not just in the last 0.3 seconds, but only the last 0.3 seconds gave a strong enough signal to be picked up over 1 billion light years away on Earth. Can you agree with that?

It has helped me too and I will never ask for proof that gravity acts at the speed of light ever again. Did you notice it implied that because the signal is "late" there is a dampening of the orbital motion (energy lost to G-Rad) but in the case of the Earth it is such a small and insignificant amount we don't think about it, but in cases of orbiting pulsars and black holes or stars close to and orbiting around black holes the loss of orbital energy is significant and the orbit decays. I would still like to know the physics of what is happening within matter itself to explain how the mismatch in the gravity signal initiates the loss of energy and that then results in a loss of mass. (in the case of the merging black holes 3 sun masses were converted to energy in just 0.3 seconds.) E = MC^2 applied means the gravitational radiation has come from matter but without fusion or fission so where is this reduction in mass coming from? This is a most interesting question. Do you see it?

The Arctic and Antarctic Circles would be smaller so the poles would not be as cold. (So I presume) And the opposite if the angle of tilt was increased.

I did a search for discussions on Carlin's paper and came across another explanation by Carlin without the math and it is just about comprehensible http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/grav_speed.html "Does Gravity Travel at the Speed of Light?" It is worth a read if you really want to understand the connection between the speed of gravity and the reason gravitational radiation. The argument is that G-Rad implies gravity operates at the speed of light for if it was instantaneous the G-Rad would not be needed. Only orbital decays were known to exist at the time.