Black Hole Merger Model

Here's an update on the Black Hole Merger modelling:

www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060418_bhole_merger.html

By the way I don't agree with the idea of gravitational waves or particles, they have not been found because they don't exist. Gravity is merely a distortion of spacetime caused by matter, it is not a force in the true sense. I may have to eat these words, but I think I'll be waiting some time.

Here's an update on the Black Hole Merger modelling:

www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060418_bhole_merger.html

By the way I don't agree with the idea of gravitational waves or particles, they have not been found because they don't exist. Gravity is merely a distortion of spacetime caused by matter, it is not a force in the true sense. I may have to eat these words, but I think I'll be waiting some time.

I'm afraid you'll have to eat those words. Although there are no DIRECT observations of gravitationsal waves there is direct evidence of gravitational energy being radiated away. That radiation is by definition a gravitational wave and as we all know from QM waves can be considered particles and vica-versa.

You said that Gravity is a distortion of spacetime, that is according to Einstein, hence you are saying you believe in relativity. Are you aware that according to relativiy gravitational waves HAVE to exist? Your view is not consistent as far as I can see. If we stick with Einstein's view of the universe then gravity waves are ripples in spacetime eminating from moving spacetime distortions caused by massive objects. The classic example is blackholes orbiting each other, they are very ,assive so they make a huge distortion in spacetime and as they move they send ripples out through spacetime, those are Gravitational waves.

Basiclly, if you believe Einstein you have to belive in Gravity waves and if you look at the results from current research the evidence is very strongly in favour of Einstein and gravity waves.

Bart.

Here's an update on the Black Hole Merger modelling:

www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060418_bhole_merger.html

By the way I don't agree with the idea of gravitational waves or particles, they have not been found because they don't exist. Gravity is merely a distortion of spacetime caused by matter, it is not a force in the true sense. I may have to eat these words, but I think I'll be waiting some time.

I'm afraid you'll have to eat those words. Although there are no DIRECT observations of gravitationsal waves there is direct evidence of gravitational energy being radiated away. That radiation is by definition a gravitational wave and as we all know from QM waves can be considered particles and vica-versa.

You said that Gravity is a distortion of spacetime, that is according to Einstein, hence you are saying you believe in relativity. Are you aware that according to relativiy gravitational waves HAVE to exist? Your view is not consistent as far as I can see. If we stick with Einstein's view of the universe then gravity waves are ripples in spacetime eminating from moving spacetime distortions caused by massive objects. The classic example is blackholes orbiting each other, they are very ,assive so they make a huge distortion in spacetime and as they move they send ripples out through spacetime, those are Gravitational waves.

Basiclly, if you believe Einstein you have to belive in Gravity waves and if you look at the results from current research the evidence is very strongly in favour of Einstein and gravity waves.

Bart.

what no crystaline spheres? .
stephen.

By the way I don't agree with the idea of gravitational waves or particles, they have not been found because they don't exist. Gravity is merely a distortion of spacetime caused by matter, it is not a force in the true sense. I may have to eat these words, but I think I'll be waiting some time.

I'll agree with you about it not being a force.

I guess you mean gravity waves dont exist in the same way that say electromagnetic waves do. But I think what people are trying to detect as gravity waves are ripples in spacetime. Consider a binary star. As these stars rotate around each other their distortion on spacetime moves, and in effect creates a little ripple. Such a ripple should be detectable. It may be helpful to think of this as two posts rotating around each other on a pond; or the more conventional spacetime example of two balls rotating around each other on a rubber sheet.

As for the graviton, I dont think it exists either. The only people who seem to be convinced that it does exist are the string theorists. In fact one of the reasons that there is a graviton hunt at all is that the standard model doesnt need it but string theory predicts it. Which is rare case of string theory actually predicting something different to other theories that is testable. If you dont use string theory you don't need the graviton. The standard model is happy to see gravity as a feature of spacetime so no particle required.

Cheers,
~Al

Albert,

Couldn't have put it better myself. It's all in the mind, for too long classical physics mentality has ruled leading to misconceptions like these. I hate it when the term gravity is used. There is no such thing as gravity.
'Spacetime waves' or ripples would be a more correct term to use instead of gravity waves. Even then, I'm not sure how wavelike, these 'waves' would be, or if they would even propogate. Certainly two objects rotating about each other will cause variable distortions in spacetime in their vicinity, but does the distortion propogate like a wave? I don't think so. I believe that if spacetime waves are eventually monitored we will see that they are localised, and do not propogate beyond a sphere of influence - a kind of standing wave, for want of a better term.
Anyway it's time that physics classes in school started teaching basic relativity. Once the classical idea of gravity has set in it can be too late to really understand what Einstein was on about. I'm sure he'd turn in his grave if he knew that gravity myths were still being perpetrated by leading physicists.

Bart, sorry I didn't explain myself better first time - chew chew chew - nope still don't like it.

OK, I'm still confused here. Gravity IS a force. It can do work, hence it is, by definition, a force. The fact that this force is a result of space-time curvature does not chance the fact that it is a force!

There is nothing wrong with the classical representation of gravity. Clasical physics says nothing about the cause of gravity, just about the effect of gravity. Namely that the force of gravity follows and inverse square law and that is correct.

Classical physics describes what gravity does, Einstein gave us an insight into how it does it, there is no conflict here.

As for whetehr or not gravity waves propagate, I'm not qualified to give a proffesional opinion on the matter but I have to wonder why they would not. The effects of gravity are not local, they are massively non-local working on the giga-parsec scale and above so why should the ripples be local? I may be wrong but I'm pretty sure Einstein believed in gravity waves because they do seem to be a direct prediction of his theories. Those theories have stood up well to verification so far so why assume it will be different for gravitational waves?

Anyhow, we are a lucky generation, there is every chance that we will find out one way or another within the next two decates whether or not there are space-time ripples passing through us on a regular basis. There are very sensative instruments in the making now and if, 20 years from now, those instruments have not found the gravity waves theorists are expecting then science will have a major question to ask if itself, if they are detected then we will know they are real. Either way, should be fun!

Bart.