Speed of Gravity

[J.C.MacSwell]

 

 

Indeed. And there is presumed to be a neutrino background, equivalent to the cosmic microwave background but earlier. However we can only detect neutrinos with a high energy so, for the time being, that is not testable. (Because they have so little mass, the tiniest amount of kinetic energy means they are moving at near c.)

Thanks strange. So at anything but very close to c, they drop below a detectable level.

[Strange]

Thanks strange. So at anything but very close to c, they drop below a detectable level.

 

 

That is my understanding. Maybe a future technology...

[swansont]

swansont.

Re How would u get the quadrupole radiation of GWs from mass conversion?.

I suppose that a quadrupole GW is a pulse, lots of single pulses (not really a common wave). Spreading in all directions, but moreso in one direction (lighthouse effect).

And if a bit of mass suddenly appears somewhere, then we have a sudden single pulse (attraction). And if a bit of mass suddenly disappears somewhere then we have a sudden lessening of gravity (a single negative pulse). Spreading equally in all directions.

So its the same thing only different. If indeed there is such a thing as creation & annihilation of mass nowadays.

 

 

 

Spreading equally in all directions means it's not a quadrupole.

[madmac]

swansont in post#17 said....

When a mass undergoes acceleration (of certain types), it causes gravity to change. These changes propagate at c.

 

I would like to add. We mostly talk of macro-mass -- but i daresay that it is actually the smallest particles having mass (micro-mass) that do the trick, & the contribution of each micro-field adds (or negates) to give a nett-field (which we attribute to macro-mass). And the smallest particles might be photons or quarks or muons or something (not important here). This is my idea of mainstream theory.

 

So, we come to acceleration. The acceleration of micro-mass creates a micro-field (gravity)(bending or unbending of space-time).

Micro-mass doesn't know whether it is contributing or negating when it radiates (due to acceleration). Hencely, a quadrupolar gravitational wave is just the nett effect. Hencely a spinning non-quadrupolar body radiates no less than a spinning or orbiting quadrupolar body, but has zero nett effect on gravity (at least at large distance). Hencely a spinning sphere (say) must lose mass etc too, even though it doesn't affect nett-gravity (ie makes no nett gravitational wave). This is my idea of mainstream theory. Am i wrong??

 

Re acceleration of certain types. When a micro-mass is accelerating it doesn't know whether it is linear or centrifugal. And all such acceleration of all micro-mass all causes gravity to change all the time (propagating at c), & if there is a nett overall change then we have a change in gravity, called a gravitational wave. And, it isn't a wave, it is a pulse (made of lots of micro-pulses). This is my idea of mainstream theory.

Edited February 24, 2017 by madmac

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

madmac - stop posting made-up guesswork in the main fora; including the phrase "this is my idea of mainstream theory" does not stop it being guesswork.

 

keep on topic and stop introducing your ill-conceived musings into the main fora. if you have an actual question (ie not an excuse to wildly speculate) then ask it in the main fora. however, if you wish to speculate, iff you can do so within the constraints of the speculations forum, then open a thread there. moreover, if all you want to do is write stuff with buzz words, little to no rigour, and only pretentions to real science then do so in a blog or elsewhere. this is a moderated science forum and we insist on rigour, logic, and scientific reasoning.

 

do not respond to this moderation within the thread. you will not be warned about hijacking again - sanctions will follow your next hijacking