Gravitational waves announcement: Scientists confirm detection of ripples in spacetime

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

So if 2 Black holes are , billion of light years away how come the collision results were picked up instant on earth ?

Should it not take billion of years for the data to reach earth ?

I thought Einstine said nothing travels faster then speed of light and by that account the data should not have even reached earth for another billion years

And why is it that when International community was about to state Einstine was wrong this "group" came with a fool proof experiment which solidifies the "proposed" theory

Explaination for us less gifted in Physics

 

[500]

So if 2 Black holes are , billion of light years away how come the collision results were picked up instant on earth ?

More than billion years. Gravitational waves travel with speed of light.

 

[911]

Should it not take billion of years for the data to reach earth ?

It did take billion years.

 

[500]

How do you know all of that ?

I thought you were just a baker in the IDF Light Croissant Regiment ?

Just kidding, how have you been buddy ?

Tnx, just studied physics and very interested in cosmology. I visited many lectures and read a lot on it.

Our friend @jamahir thinks that scientists form some kind of conspiracy around theories. He does not understand hat scientists are very ambitional and actually always try to disprove theories and make their own. Many scientists did not like the idea that universe had a beginning. Even Einstein hated that idea and tried to modify his theory in order to make universe static.

Another great scientist Hoyle also did not like Big Bang and came with eternally expanding universe theory. Alas that theory failed.

USSR leaders as I noted, also believed in eternal universe according to their Marxist theories. Thats why USSR invested a lot in attempts to disprove Big Bang theory. And USSR that many great physicists. Best attempt was by Lifshitz and Khalantikov. But in the end they only strengthened Big Bang theory.

On the other hand Big Bang still not proved. Thats why no one got Nobel Prize on it. About a year ago scientific group BICEP claimed they found evidence for Inflation Big Bang theory. But then other scientists checked and disproved it. This again proves there is no any conspiracy supporting the Big Bang.

 

[Nilgiri]

you are banned but i must say this.

you must be a psycho to use those words with those you call friends.

if your friends are wrong ( i am talking about your situation ) you should be gentle and intellectual in explaining to them, taking time, and not attack them like a dog.

but i don't suppose your friends are gentle thinkers.

Calling a friend stupid is being a psycho? LOL.

Everyone in the world is stupid at different times and in different areas....for you its Science.

I give everyone a first chance with basic reasoning....if they are still ignorant....thats that....no point wasting more time.

Move on to another thread, this one is not your cup of tea.

 

[ayesha.a]

I was trying to convey a message to him that nothing is final in the world of science the earth was considered flat once now we know its not we cant just ditch scientific process cuz of this

Actually, the earth being flat was not a conclusion that was arrived at through the scientific process. It was a dogmatic belief of Europeans in the dark ages.

(By the way, people millenia before knew that the earth was round. Eratosthenes even measured the radius of curvature with a painstaking experiment, sometime in the 3rd century BC. Anybody who observes a ship sailing into the distance can understand that the earth is curved. And there was plenty of intercontinental sea trade millenia ago.)

Also, your statement that since science may have been wrong, it will keep changing is really a misunderstanding on your part about "wrong" and "right". True, Science keeps discovering more, and maybe even revising previously held beliefs. But that doesn't mean that the previous beliefs were WRONG, just that our understanding is getting more refined.

For example, Newton's laws of motion are right (more or less). But Einstein showed that it is right mostly in our experience, and that in different conditions, those laws would have to be modified. Scientists didn't replace the old theory with a new one, it just meant that a deeper understanding was arrived at.

You could say that "Einstein proved Newton wrong". But Newton's laws of motion are still used for most everyday phenomena. It is not wrong becoming right, but us getting a more refined understanding. As I mentioned before, once scientists thought that electricity and magnetism are different phenomena; by the 19th century, they were shown to be the same thing. That doesn't mean they were wrong per se, but just that they refined their knowledge of electromagnetism. The electrical and magnetic devices they invented previously, still functioned.

It is VERY RARE in the sciences, that something that was thought to be true through the scientific method is then shown to be WRONG. I can't think of any such instances. But theories do get refined and sharpened.

Maybe there are a few examples of scientifically determined knowledge being proved completely wrong. I can't think of any.


This is an essay by Asimov that should explain what I'm trying to say:

Asimov - The Relativity of Wrong

 

[iPhone]

So can these gravitational waves be of any use to us?In the interstellar movie,the actor is communicating with his past through the gravitational waves in the 5th dimensional space?is it possible?

These people (scientists) could one day, centuries from now, be the salvation of humankind. Just like in the movie interstellar it's emphasized that humankind must learn to think as a one specie rather different races and cultures.

You can bet that scientists at Cern, NASA and other big research institutes who come from different parts of the world perform their functions as one single unit and more importantly think as one single unit. They're beyond the average thinking of which country or culture they belong to.

And this evolution in the thought process is going to be the salvation of the human race when many centuries from now this world becomes entirely uninhabitable and would require us to find a new home in a different galaxy, perhaps.

 

[for truth]

To make a detectable gravitational waves, the mass has to be comparable to that of stars and black hole. And there's no other known way to increase the mass of the particle than accelerating near the speed of light. Which is again outside human ability at this moment.

Help me understand here, from my understanding I believe that any particle reaching the speed of light will eventually have no mass at all.

Light, the "absolute speed", or the photons as we know it, have no mass. And the particles that travel at comparable speeds, like electrons, have negligible mass, in that sense, the higher speeds you reach, the mass will eventually have to transform completely to energy, in our case, light. And no other particles, with heavy mass, travel at speeds which can even be remotely be compared to speed of light.

And the reason being not able to accelerate the particles (with mass) to close to speed of light is that energy required to accelerate will grow rapidly(exponentially?) with every slight increase in the speed of the particle. The energy required to accelerate the particle to speed of light will reach infinity, hence, no particle with mass will ever reach speed of light.

But you said something opposite--that to increase the mass, the particles will have to be accelerated to speed of light. Can you shed more light on this?

 

[Nilgiri]

But you said something opposite--that to increase the mass, the particles will have to be accelerated to speed of light. Can you shed more light on this?

Mass and energy are entirely equivalent.

Increasing one is increasing the other (specifically you increase the relativistic mass of any non-zero mass by imparting kinetic energy to it). This is what our friend Skull and Bones was describing.

You are talking about the lorentz factor, it only really increases in the last few percentages (and fractions of percentages...and then fractions of those etc..) of approaching c...and yes it does approach infinity the closer you get to c with any non-zero rest mass.

Have a look here to see what I mean:

Lorentz factor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To gain any appreciable mass increase, you need to hit really high c for non-zero masses because of the nature of the lorentz factor.

Why this (highly non-linear) nature exists, is complicated to explain in laymen terms....it has to do with the coordinate transformation involved in 3D space to a scalar quantity.

 

[for truth]

Mass and energy are entirely equivalent.

Increasing one is increasing the other (specifically you increase the relativistic mass of any non-zero mass by imparting kinetic energy to it). This is what our friend Skull and Bones was describing.

You are talking about the lorentz factor, it only really increases in the last few percentages (and fractions of percentages...and then fractions of those etc..) of approaching c...and yes it does approach infinity the closer you get to c with any non-zero rest mass.

Have a look here to see what I mean:

Lorentz factor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To gain any appreciable mass increase, you need to hit really high c for non-zero masses because of the nature of the lorentz factor.

Why this (highly non-linear) nature exists, is complicated to explain in laymen terms....it has to do with the coordinate transformation involved in 3D space to a scalar quantity.

You're right.

I had not considered the relativistic mass and instead had considered rest mass.

Thanks for the clarification.