Strange

What do you mean by “official”? There are official definitions of words like “planet” or of the second and metre. I am not aware that “particle” has any such status. Can you provide a reference? Wrong. At the time they were called particles, they were really thought to be particles; this predates an understanding of quantum theory. The normal terminology would be "quanta". Why not use that?

Can you explain why it is important (or even interesting) whether the descent of species from a common origin has practical uses or not?

! Moderator Note We do not allow advertising of websites. If you wish to discuss something related to this, start another thread.

Can you show, mathematically, how much effect this would have? It has no effect at all on the MM experiment. Apart from the fact the effect is small, I am fairly sure it could not be measured by something rotating with the Earth However, a satellite was sent to space to measure the effect using high precision gyroscopes (Gravity Probe B). And frame dragging wasn't "discovered", it is a prediction from the theory of general relativity. This doesn't make much sense. ! Moderator Note Please don't hijack other people's threads with your own speculative ideas. If you want to discuss your own idea, start a new thread.

Why do you think it would cause it to lose mass? Anything that falls into the black hole adds to its mass. It doesn’t matter which particle falls in. In either case, the black hole has provided the energy to create a pair of particles and then gets half the energy back and loses half of it. That would have been big news. So I am assuming it didn’t happen.

You do talk nonsense sometimes. The force equation you are referring to is, I assume, [math]F = \frac{Q E}{2}[/math]. If so, this is an approximation that is only valid where the electric field is uniform. In other words when the gap is much smaller than the area of the plates. At large distances the plates could be modelled as point charges (meaning the force would have an inverse square relationship). This is also obviously nonsense. I have no idea where you got this idea from, but just the fact that it violates causality should show you it is wrong.

So you can’t provide any support for your claims. Shall we just close this thread.

Please provide some data or calculations to support that. Or evidence that it is relevant to the detection of gravitational waves.

I wanted to post this comic somewhere as it is insightful about both science communication and quantum theory. This thread will do! http://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/the-talk-3

In the case of gravitational waves there is no means for measuring the redshift due to the orbits. That is because the change in redshift happens at the same frequency as the gravitational waves. And the frequency is constantly changing. And the redshift due to the orbits would be immeasurably small. And ... stop just making stuff up. This is not how it works. I suppose the redshift caused by the orbits could produce a slight asymmetry in the waveform. But I have never seen any mention of this. Which isn’t surprising, it would be included (implicitly) in any simulation done to determine the expected waveform. So it wouldn’t provide any extra information.

I see someone there referred to Lorentz Ether Theory. That was Lorentz’s attempt to provide a mechanical explanation for SR. Basically, he throws out Occam’s razor and invents a magic undetectable material with physically impossible properties as the “explanation”. You will, inevitably, end up in the same position. You are wasting your time.

Sigh. The only way red-shift is relevant to gravitational waves is for determining the distance (from Hubble’s law).

That is not how gravitational waves are generated or detected. That is not how the mass is determined. Read the link I provided.

But what if they are rotating? And the axes are not aligned? This is also why precession cannot be reduced to 2 dimensions. Neither can accurately modelling planetary orbits. Still not sure what the point of this thread is?

The usual analogy (*) is that there is a sea of virtual particles in the space outside the event horizon (as there is everywhere). Occasionally, one of the pair will be pulled into the event horizon and the other will escape. Normally, virtual parties appear and disappear immediately so there is zero net energy. In the case of Hawking radiation, there needs to be a source of energy to convert the two virtual particles into "real" particles so they can be separated. This requires energy equivalent to the total mass of the two particles. This energy comes from the gravitational field of the black hole (when it pulls the particles apart). One of the particles falls into the black hole, returning half the energy. The other one escapes. So the black hole loses the energy of one particle. This happens more if space-time around the event horizon is more extremely curved and so the amount of radiation produced is greater. (*) The analogy is from Hawking himself. But I have seen others dispute how well it matches what the mathematics describes (the math is way over my head) - the trouble is they end up with a non-mathematical explanation that is pretty incomprehensible!

If there was no mass (or energy) anywhere then there would be no gravity. But the question was (as I understood it) about an area where there was a vacuum, within the universe. In that case, there would be gravity, even in the vacuum, because of the presence of mass elsewhere.

No, because everything we know about a black hole is "available" at the horizon. We can't know anything about the internal structure or mass distribution. And in the case of Hawking radiation that arises is an effect of the existence of the event horizon, not the singularity. It is created immediately outside the event horizon, which is why it can escape the black hole. Perhaps surprisingly, the radiated power and temperature of Hawking radiation is inversely proportional to mass (temperature goes as 1/M and radiated power as 1/M2). If you want to play around with the properties of different sized black holes, there is a neat interactive calculator here: http://xaonon.dyndns.org/hawking/ You can plug in any parameter (mass, radius, temperature, etc) and it will calculate all the others for you.

As much as anything else, I think it is because labelling laws require all foods to have either a "use by" or "best before" date. So they have to put something.

That does not mean they are wrong! This is explained by Feynman's path integral in quantum electrodynamics - this is mathematically more complicated than the wave equations you are struggling with, but conceptually simple. You can find his lectures on this online: http://www.feynman.com/science/qed-lectures-in-new-zealand/ (also available as a book).

That’s because they are in a cluster of galaxies held together by gravity.

! Moderator Note This sounds as if you have not read the linked articles. Soapboxing is a violation of rule 2.8. If you are not prepared to engage properly, this thread will be closed.

Red shift depends on distance, not mass. The characteristics of the “chirp” (frequency, shape of pulse, etc) indicate the mass. Ah, I see (sorry for being slow), you are making an analogy between the detection of black holes and exoplanets? They are completely different. In the case of exoplanets, we have continuous observations of a star and can look for small changes. (I don't think red-shift is used, but changes in brightness: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methods_of_detecting_exoplanets) In the case of black hole mergers, there is no signal until the last few seconds when gravity waves become large enough to be detected.

You can find a few examples here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html (section 5, but it is worth reading the sections that lead up to that, for context)

Not quite as good as not posting at all, but welcome back. That would make a pleasant change.

A lovely story. That is a version of Pascal's Wager that I am completely in favour of.