michel123456

"It looks different on-axis vs in the plane of the orbit.". OK that I can understand. Many galaxies are like this. Sorry for being obtuse but: - from your link- When does that happen? I don't understand. How can a gravitational tidal field change over time? By a rotating source? That doesn't make sense to me. In your link, it is shown as if only one of the red dots was emitting the wave, while in fact the second dot plays also a role. In such a system, I thought that what is important is the center of mass, not especially the one or the other dot. And the center of mass does not go back and forth between the dots. Or am I completely wrong? Please split from the main thread if you want to.

If it is gravity all the way down then it is hard for me to understand the asymmetry. A pair of orbiting black holes would be like any other orbital system with a center of mass somewhere between them. where would the gravitational wave come from?

Mass increase for an object B traveling at near SOL is a phenomenon that is observed by an observer A which is traveling relative to the object. There is also the phenomenon of length contraction. I don't know if both would produce an observational increase in density of B as observed by A.

What are the laws that govern their movements in the first place? I mean, their movement is also governed by gravity. Or are there other forces that play a role in their movement and thus provoke gravitational waves?

I was impressed by the statement that a chemical process can "oppose the thermodynamic preference of the system."

?? In chemistry?

It looks as a regular pentagon. Is it comfortable at hand when you rotate it in the 5 positions? If yes then it may likely to be a tool. ------------------ As what its origin there is no mystery: it comes from a box in your attic. Before that it was a finding from a boy most likely in the Adirondacks of New York state or in central coastal New Jersey.

I don't understand your answer. Newton gravity is not of another nature, it is the same gravity as that of spacetime bending.

The idea comes from this: You are observer A here on Earth observing B getting away at near C velocity. Following Relativity: you are observing B being time dilated and length contracted and you observe B getting more and more massive. However B observes nothing unusual in his own situation. Reversely he observes A getting time dilated length contracted and A getting more and more massive. And A observes nothing unusual in his own situation. That is what relativity says. Observer A observes the same thing with observer B. However, that is not what one should expect: simple logic would be to say that indeed observer gets more massive and thus looking back B observes A getting less and less massive. This last is wrong. The correct is that A and B observe the same effects. In our case, the result of data combined with relativity is the BB theory. That is what A observes. But does that mean that an object B that is 13 billion years from us must obligatory observes a universe denser and hotter? Because the hotter and denser universe is what WE observe. Doesn't the logic of relativity say that both observers A and B are observing the same thing?

I know a scientist somewhere on BX442 galaxy but my question to him is still on the road. Who do you know? Do you have (a single) evidence that any other random observer will observe something different than what we observe? So you say another observer would collect a different data than what we do? A different redshift for example?

Talking about the "varying temperature by way of volume", how do we know for sure that the measurement would be different for another observer in the universe? I mean, this other random observer would also observe the constancy of C and use a same theory of relativity. What thing would he measure differently from us? --------------- For example, this other random observer would measure another value for the CMB that does not relate exactly to a black body radiation?

Isn't theory about relativity? Doesn't evidence confirm relativity?

That was not what I meant by relative. I meant relative to the observer in the sense that every observer would measure the same temperatures (the same radiations) no matter his position in the universe and no matter his time frame. Your explanation is that of an absolute universe where each time frame is linked to a specific temperature. My concept is that of a relative universe where each observer will measure the same thing.

Sorry for the late reply So you say that the temperature of the universe is measured through radiation. And I am pretty sure you could add that the experimental result is matching extremely well theory. from http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/research/gr/public/cmbr_temp.html IOW you are saying that the temperature predicted by Relativity matches exactly the measured one. Doesn't that mean that the temperature is relative?

How do we measure the temperature of the universe?

why?

Yes. The question can be summed up like you are stating. It is whether 2 observers at different places (and at different time frames) would observe the same thing. Both observers use Relativity and measure the same thing, they will conclude the same thing: the universe is 13.799±0.021 billion years. Or the above is wrong and it goes like this: both observers at different places (and at different time frames) use Relativity and measure different things and thus conclude that the universe has a different age.

Evidence is observation, and observation is ruled by Relativity. I say that Relativity teaches that things are relative. IOW that we are observing a universe that cooling, that we are measuring a universe that is cooling. And that Relativity says that any random observer must observes that. That is for another thread: to be invariant is perfectly compatible with relative, invariant does not necessarily mean not-relative (absolute)

Cross posting. The BB model should say that a random observer observes a universe that is expanding and cooling. And I think the BB model actually says that. The second part of your statement is not a direct implication of the first (mine).

At least you agree that the BB model is based on Relativity. The first question is what Relativity says. The BB model should say that a random observer observes a universe that is expanding and cooling. And I think the BB model actually says that. The second part of your statement is not a direct implication of the first (mine).

The theory says about what a random observer observes.

I would think that because the Theory on which the model is based is called Relativity.

Question: If the model of the universe is based on Relativity, doesn't it follow that the model is relative? IOW that the Big Bang and expansion is a relative observation and not an absolute model: that any observer in the universe, be it today here or there or 10 billion years in the future and the past, will observe the universe having an age of 13.799±0.021 billion years?

I've seen that before (many times) http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/73305-help-grade-7-insulation-project/?hl=insulation#entry732518

At the end it may be much more terrifying to realize that we are alone.