beecee

? The gravitational wave is simply a result of ripples in the geometry of spacetime caused by different interactions of massive objects such as colliding BHs and Neutron stars. Reading through your posts, and as an amateur I find them rather confusing to say the least. eg; Your remark thus, "For gravity I agree that it is the geometry of space time... or is the geometry of space time gravity?" This seems just a play on words. Plus the faorce lines you mention are simply illustrations of the model as an aid to explanation. When I mentioned about the nonlinearity of gravity/space/time and gravity making gravity, I see it as an explanation to the often raised question of how gravity gets out of a BH, along of course with the fact that any BH gravitational field is just a fossil field from the object from whence it arose. In any respect mass is needed. Every object has its gravity well and a gravity well may be a part of some larger gravity well. eg Earth/Moon...Earth/Moon/Sun...Earth/Moon/Sun/Galaxy etc. DM is evidenced by the bullet cluster observation, and other examples of gravitational lensing, or light simply following geodesics in curved spacetime, created by both baryonic and DM. DE whatever it maybe, is evident in the accelerated expansion of spacetime that we observe. Again, the picture you seem to paint, is one of confusion, (at least to me) and unnecessary, unevidenced complicated scenarios.

Interesting detailed summary...as I'm past my bed time I'll check your links in the morning.

I'm not Mordred, just a interesting lay person who has decided to "pop in" for a moment after watching some football, and before retiring....But are you referring to the fact that gravity makes gravity? Commonly known as the nonlinearity of gravity/space/time. I also don't believe that "mass" exists in any gravitational wave, and imo see gravity more a property of the geometry of spacetime rather then any property of mass.

Interesting...one could not be blamed for thinking this is one of those common garden variety, anti science trolls. Nice summary. I'm pretty sure most people, even lay people would realize that when speaking of large cosmic distances millions and billions of L/years, that large error bars would accompany those. I also remember reading a report re "superluminous" Type 1a, but havn't heard much since. The DE component certainly is still being debated, particularly as to its nature, but to my lay person's mind, it seems a rather reasonable process, and the interesting point that the acceleration stage started around 5 billion years ago.

Yep, OK, but I would imagine as distances get further, other methodologies are more preferred? As is evident in a couple of threads started by the same person.

And neither is posting unsupported gobblydook and nonsense in a science forum...not that I saw any name calling anyway.

Good work! The Parallax or triangulation method though is limited to around stellar objects with about 500 L/years. Beyond that cosmologists/astronomers use various other methods. [1] Colour and apparent magnitude or brightness. See the "Hertzsprung- Russell diagram" for more information, if you are really interested. (2) Cepheid Variables: These are stars that brighten and dim periodically: The brighter they are, the longer the period to dimming and then brightening again. Thus their brightness can be reasonably accurately inferred. Again if you are truly interested in this fascinating methodology see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cepheid_variable (3) Type 1a Supernova: These are White Dwarfs in binary systems. Briefly a White Dwarf has a set mass and when and if it sucks off mass from its companion star, will go supernova, and based on the set mass, and magnitude of the supernova, can be used as standard candles. Again if your interest is genuine then see...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_Ia_supernovaIn It must be remembered though that distances between objects in the universe are constantly changing, due to the expansion of the universe as evidenced with cosmological redshift. The following is informative in that regard.....http://www.astro.ufl.edu/~guzman/ast7939/projects/project01.html I hope that helps.

If the process is reversed, we find everywhere we are able to observe, packed within a much tinier region, to as far back as that volume defined by Planck units. So yes that would be a local event and logically from the one BB. The BB was the evolution of the observable universe/space/time ( as we know them) from a hotter, denser state, from t+10-43 seconds. The rest is speculation at this time.

The amount of gravitational lensing that is observed, also accounts for "invisible matter" which cosmologists have dubbed DM, along with the lensing effects that just baryonic matter would produce. Again, the Bullet Cluster observation is a significant piece of evidence for DM.

http://chandra.harvard.edu/press/06_releases/press_082106.html Science is not a matter of belief: Science and scientific theories are modeled according to observational and experimental evidence that supports them. Other then the link, other evidence for DM has been gravitational lensing. GR of course is overwhelmingly supported and its predictions, particularly 5 now detections of gravitational waves are indications of its power. But if you chose ghosts and goblins, over DM and GR then OK, have fun.

I'm fairly sure that you are not interested in scientific answers, and probably have an agenda of some sort. But anyway for others out there that may not recognise the ignorance you are posting, they are gravitational waves, not gravity waves as you have already been told. And stars are certainly in motion, as will be evidenced in a few thousand years when Barnard's Star takes the title of closet star to Earth, displacing Proxima Centauri. And of course galaxies are also revolving around a central mass that is most likely a BH, which also most likely revolve and are called Kerr BHs. And in case you are a Earth centered universe soul, our solar system is situated in the outskirts of one of the spiral arms around 23,000 L/years from the center of the Milky way. In other words just a hum drum solar system with 8/9 planets orbiting an average hum drum yellow dwarf star. The nucleosynthesis of elements that take place in stars are spread throughout the universe and comprise of all that goes to make up planets, and you and I. Simply put, besides orbiting an average hum drum star in the outskirts of a average spiral galaxy, we are also nothing more then regurgitated star stuff.

Not sure who you are trying to convince, other then yourself. The only real effect you are having on normal intelligent people is a giggle or belly laugh at how inanely stupid your fabricated nonsense is. Or is this just some sort of childish immature game that you are conducting to get a raise out of people?

Space and time, (spacetime) as we know them certainly evolved at the BB.....Most scientists agree that the BB evolution of the universe/spacetime is supported by the evidence and aligns with the four prime pillars of observational astronomy....(1) observed expansion, (2) CMBR, (3) Abundance of the lighter elements, and (4) The large scale structure and galactic formation. Let me say again that the BB was the evolution of space and time, (spacetime) "as we know them". The rest of your ramblings about space and time, I'm sorry to say, to me at least, is nothing but philosophical claptrap.

Ignoring the rest of your obvious fairy tale rhetoric, the above needs commenting on. The Apollo Astronauts are highly trained individuals, that have been trained in most any possible situation that could have arisen. The Apollo XIII Astronauts for example handled there own "life and death"experience with calmness and thought....Armstrong handled at least two other "life threatening" scenarios with the same calmness and thought, one being Gemini VIII when the capsule was undergoing an uncontrollable yaw and pitching upon docking, and eventually brought under control by use of the thrusters,and ended with the mission being cancelled. Armstrong was also involved in another incident with what was known as the flying bedstead, (or lunar landing craft) and was forced to parachute with seconds to spare. Your obvious ignorance also extends to the fact that the Apollo XI had also a possible "life and death" situation when the Eagle was trying to touch down in a safe, relatively smooth area, and with only seconds of fuel left. Finally no matter how many times you chose to spread your nonsense re this supposed conspiracy, it will never change the truth, that we certainly did make six successful landings on the Moon. You really need to live with that fact and the fact that all the fabricated false reasons you and others like giving to suggest any conspiracy has been all explained away .

I recently found this old tune from 1955, and damn! now I can't stop humming and singing it... Rusty Draper - The Shifting, Whispering Sands I know we have heard it all before, but really, they don't make-em like this anymore!

Your rather pessimistic attitude is just rhetoric. We have not yet measured any atmospheric content in the many Earth like planets already found as far as I know. In any case oxygen and water could be produced by some future colony on another planet. You are aware are you not, that the elements that we find in our region of the galaxy/universe, are the same elements generally found in any other region of the universe/galaxy? As you say, we are not sure whether they could or could not support life, except that some are within the Goldilocks zone where liquid water can exist. We may not as yet no if they can support life as we know it, but we also do not know that they can't. Your major point is wrong, and the fact that the universe both in extent and content is rather big, along with the evidence of Earth like planets already found, makes you final claim that we may never find any Earth like planet more empty rhetoric at worst or just plain sad pessimism at best. It's a big big universe out there, with the stuff of life being everywhere we look. While we certainly as yet have no empirical evidence of ETL, the likelyhood of that would indeed be strange and raise many more questions then when we do finally find life.

The Apollo landings, all six of them were not faked. This among other conspiracies are ideas dreamed up by morons and nuts, that have an inane image of government cover ups and conspiracies. Not one iota of the fabricated/imagined proofs that these conspiracy nuts offer as evidence will stand up to any scientific scrutiny.

Gravitational waves, not gravity waves, are ripples/undulations in spacetime just as predicted by GR.

I believe you both have shown maturity, dignity and earned much respect after some initial regrettable comments in the heat of the moment.

It seems Moontanman has shown the misinformation in your post quite nicely. Let me just say that discovering extra solar planets was always going to and always will, find the gas giants and larger planets first, and particularly when close/er to their star. They of course have the greatest gravitational effect on the star (one of the discovery methods) It was only as precision and advanced technological methods improved that we were able to discover more Earth like planets, and that refinement is being updated and improved all the time. You are correct in your assumption that we do not as yet no if ETL does exist or not, but for the reasons I have given, most scientists certainly think it does. In fact many now believe some confirmation of ETL will be forthcoming within the next decade or two.

If by the only act in town you mean in our region, say within a 1000 or so L/years, then yes we probably are it. But the universe is a big place, perhaps infinite (or at least near infinite ) and the numbers of stars and potential planets also "near infinite", and with the "stuff of life" found everywhere, I'm pretty certain life has, will and is flourishing elsewhere at various levels of evolution. Time and distance though, as I have said before, are the two great barriers to interplanetary contact, at least for now. By the way, if we were truly "it" then it would raise far many more questions then any confirmation of ETL.

You have done a poor job in not responding to me! My apologies for having trod on your toes, but I'm sure it hasn't actually insulted all philosophers, and of course whether Mencken was a racist or not is of no consequence: I was giving his quote on philosophy which aligns somewhat with Professor's Hawking and Krauss. And perhaps in the pain of me treading on your toes, you failed to see the humour and smiling emoji in my posts. Here are a couple more quotes that may affect you less...... "Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds". Richard Feynman: "Scientists are explorers. Philosophers are tourists". Richard Feynman:

BHs don't really explode: And I can't really picture Hawking Radiation as being the cause as this process would take the lifetime of the universe itself. If I may hazard a guess, perhaps the rest of the so far uncertain origin of some of the elements, may be caused by collisions of Pulsars spinning at very high rates.

Great news indeed! My tip is the merger/collision has resulted in a BH.....Should further observations be able to verify this? And will we ever reach sensitivities to detect gravitational waves from the BB itself?

Your first faux pas is that the universe is around 13.83 billion years old. Secondly everyone's time, everywhere, moves at 1 second per second: It is only when we in our frame, view another person's frame that is moving relative to us that we notice there time as dilated, just as they notice our's as dilated. DM is certainly needed to explain the rotation curves of galaxies, and while originally a fudge factor, has much supporting evidence now, including the http://chandra.harvard.edu/press/06_releases/press_082106.html and gravitational lensing.