Turn Off Ads?
Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Gravitational waves

  1. #1
    Member Beltway's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    613

    Gravitational waves

    They've finally been confirmed. This is huge, so huge that I don't think we are even capable of understanding the magnitude of its significance.

    https://www.theguardian.com/science/...of-the-century

  2. Likes:

    wolfboy (02-17-2016)

  3. Turn Off Ads?
  4. #2
    Member Will M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    4,523

    Re: Gravitational waves

    one problem I have with discoveries like these is this:

    less than a thousand, maybe less than a hundred, maybe less than ten PhD physicists understand/understand to some degree/think they understand some concept.
    less than a hundred, likely less than ten really study this.
    data is found via a complicated experiment/telescope findings from far far away/etc.
    the ten guys in the world who study this decide what this data means. rarely do you see someone come public then have his/her peers publicly question his/her findings.
    a group think decides what the data means before the scientists come public.
    the public is then told "we found X".
    what we really found is some kind of data that 10 PhDs all agree is X. for example the data can be blips on a computer printout that "prove" the Higgs-Boson particle exists.
    we don't see gravitational waves like I see my cat. nor do we hold subatomic particle like I hold my cat.

    this professor explains it well in one of the Great Courses (http://www.thegreatcourses.com/cours...y-know-it.html)
    The hard sciences split from philosophy when the sciences became dominated by pure physicalists (better known as materialists) and no longer felt the need to study what the ancient Greeks, Kant, DeCartes, etc had to say. Questions like "how do we know what we know?" became irrelevant to scientists.

    another thing to remember is that "science" is not Truth. a better way to look at it is that we have a certain paradigm that is our best explanation of things. all paradigms eventually get replaced by something better when the evidence for the new paradigm can't be ignored any longer. The Big Bang theory isn't Truth, its a paradigm to explain the origin of the universe. it also has more holes than swiss cheese. however, no viable alternative paradigm has emerged to take its place. eventually one will & the big bang theory will be a quaint notion our ancestors once had.

    so IMO you should always be a bit skeptical when these types of discoveries are announced. I'm always a bit skeptical when people say we found "X" or we now know "Y".

    in lots and lots of fields the discoveries are made by people working on the fringes or even amateurs. unfortunately in astrophysics or particle physics this is just not possible due to the cost of building the equipment needed. so the group think, inside the box, orthodox guys dominate the field even more than in other fields
    .

  5. Likes:

    Cooper (07-14-2017),Kingspoint (07-10-2017)

  6. #3
    Member Beltway's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    613

    Re: Gravitational waves

    The concept of gravitational waves is not difficult to comprehend. They are just very difficult to detect, impossible to detect before our technology had reached this point. I think the comparison to the Higgs-Boson is a poor one. This isn't quantum mechanics, which is probabilistic and non-intuitive. This is further confirmation of Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, which has been confirmed multiple times in the past (gravitational lensing and time dilation).
    Last edited by Beltway; 02-11-2016 at 04:24 PM.

  7. Likes:

    oneupper (02-21-2016)

  8. #4
    Member Will M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    4,523

    Re: Gravitational waves

    from the article: "first they calculated what they should be able to detect, then decided what the evidence should look like, and then devised the experiment that clinched the matter." so they decided what the evidence should look like then devised an experiment that gave them that evidence. when they had the evidence, viola!
    the evidence of course is lots and lots of computer data that they claim proves the existence of gravitational waves.

    "it took just 20 milliseconds to catch the merger of two black holes, at a distance of 1.3 billion light years, somewhere beyond the Large Magellanic Cloud in the southern hemisphere sky, but it then took months of meticulous checking of the signal against all the complex computer simulations of black hole collision to make sure the evidence matched the theoretical temp". so after months of running the data through the computer simulations we wrote, the data tells us what we wanted to find. viola!

    I'm not anti science.
    in fact I was a physics major at MIT before deciding to go to Med School.
    I am however highly suspicious of modern science due to several issues.
    one is certain assumptions built into science that are simply that, assumptions.
    some examples are...
    1) the "laws of physics" are fixed
    2) your consciousness comes from brain activity
    3) your memories are stored in your brain
    4) mind = brain
    5) quantum effects are only at the subatomic level and are meaningless in the big picture (ie we can safely stay in 19th century Newtonian mechanics)
    6) time is linear only
    there are many more. what is actually scientism is passed off as science/Truth.

    another is the way in which science is conducted. having read the article I think the analogy to the Higgs-Boson particle is still valid. a few guys who limit themselves to a tiny field of study design an complicated experiment on some very expensive equipment then all decide that their computer data means "X" after running it through their computer simulations. we all experience gravity. there are theories on what exactly gravity is. but I am skeptical that their results obtained the experiment they designed to get these results, actually means what they say it means.

    Rupert Sheldrake's book "Science Set Free" explains in greater detail (and better than me) some of these issues with scientism. Even if you don't "buy it" or "drink the Kool Aid" you'll have some aha moments & some things to ponder.
    .

  9. Likes:

    Cooper (07-14-2017),Kingspoint (07-10-2017),TRF (02-12-2016)

  10. #5
    Titanic Struggles Caveat Emperor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    The 513
    Posts
    13,446

    Re: Gravitational waves

    Quote Originally Posted by Beltway View Post
    They've finally been confirmed. This is huge, so huge that I don't think we are even capable of understanding the magnitude of its significance.

    https://www.theguardian.com/science/...of-the-century
    It's interesting, but I've still yet to hear how we're going to really benefit scientifically -- if for no other reason than these things are so damned hard to detect.
    Cincinnati Here We Go.
    26 Years and Counting...

  11. #6
    Member Beltway's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    613

    Re: Gravitational waves

    I'm well aware of the issue of bias in science. The scientific method is the only reliable method we have of correcting for bias. I am confident that, if these findings are false, that will eventually be learned.

    As for your list of assumptions that can't be proven, it is impossible to construct any logical proposition without making some assumptions.

    If you think the scientific method can be improved upon or replaced, let's hear your proposal...just post it in another thread because this thread isn't about how science sucks. It's about gravitational waves.

  12. #7
    Overton Window Breaker WrongVerb's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    American Canyon, CA
    Posts
    12,119

    Re: Gravitational waves

    Quote Originally Posted by Will M View Post
    one problem I have with discoveries like these is this:

    less than a thousand, maybe less than a hundred, maybe less than ten PhD physicists understand/understand to some degree/think they understand some concept.
    less than a hundred, likely less than ten really study this.
    data is found via a complicated experiment/telescope findings from far far away/etc.
    the ten guys in the world who study this decide what this data means. rarely do you see someone come public then have his/her peers publicly question his/her findings.
    a group think decides what the data means before the scientists come public.
    the public is then told "we found X".
    what we really found is some kind of data that 10 PhDs all agree is X. for example the data can be blips on a computer printout that "prove" the Higgs-Boson particle exists.
    we don't see gravitational waves like I see my cat. nor do we hold subatomic particle like I hold my cat.

    this professor explains it well in one of the Great Courses (http://www.thegreatcourses.com/cours...y-know-it.html)
    The hard sciences split from philosophy when the sciences became dominated by pure physicalists (better known as materialists) and no longer felt the need to study what the ancient Greeks, Kant, DeCartes, etc had to say. Questions like "how do we know what we know?" became irrelevant to scientists.

    another thing to remember is that "science" is not Truth. a better way to look at it is that we have a certain paradigm that is our best explanation of things. all paradigms eventually get replaced by something better when the evidence for the new paradigm can't be ignored any longer. The Big Bang theory isn't Truth, its a paradigm to explain the origin of the universe. it also has more holes than swiss cheese. however, no viable alternative paradigm has emerged to take its place. eventually one will & the big bang theory will be a quaint notion our ancestors once had.

    so IMO you should always be a bit skeptical when these types of discoveries are announced. I'm always a bit skeptical when people say we found "X" or we now know "Y".

    in lots and lots of fields the discoveries are made by people working on the fringes or even amateurs. unfortunately in astrophysics or particle physics this is just not possible due to the cost of building the equipment needed. so the group think, inside the box, orthodox guys dominate the field even more than in other fields
    Interesting point of view. I'd suggest starting a thread in the P&R forum rather than discuss here. I'd like to comment but this probably isn't the best thread to do that.
    Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes. -- Mahatma Gandhi

  13. #8
    Member kpresidente's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,974

    Re: Gravitational waves

    Does this mean I should stop watching all those youtube videos on the electric universe I've been hooked on recently?

  14. Likes:

    Cooper (07-14-2017)

  15. #9
    Member marcshoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Worlds best left undiscovered.
    Posts
    8,798

    Re: Gravitational waves

    There's been proof of gravitational waves for years.

    “It is quite possible--overwhelmingly probable, one might guess--that we will always learn more about human life and personality from novels than from scientific psychology” ― Noam Chomsky

    “Reading is the sole means by which we slip, involuntarily, often helplessly, into another’s skin.” -- Joyce Carol Oates

  16. Likes:

    Raisor (02-18-2016)

  17. #10
    Member marcshoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Worlds best left undiscovered.
    Posts
    8,798

    Re: Gravitational waves

    Quote Originally Posted by Will M View Post
    we don't see gravitational waves like I see my cat. nor do we hold subatomic particle like I hold my cat.



    Yes, but do we hold them like Schroedinger held his cat?

    I apologize.
    “It is quite possible--overwhelmingly probable, one might guess--that we will always learn more about human life and personality from novels than from scientific psychology” ― Noam Chomsky

    “Reading is the sole means by which we slip, involuntarily, often helplessly, into another’s skin.” -- Joyce Carol Oates

  18. Likes:

    RFS62 (02-18-2016),WrongVerb (02-16-2016)

  19. #11
    Overton Window Breaker WrongVerb's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    American Canyon, CA
    Posts
    12,119

    Re: Gravitational waves

    The Scientific Method working in the excellent way it always does, this potentially time calling into question the discovery of these gravitational waves:

    Now a team of independent physicists has sifted through this data, only to find what they describe as strange correlations that shouldn’t be there. The team, led by Andrew Jackson, a physicist at the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen, claims that the troublesome signal could be significant enough to call the entire discovery into question. The potential effects of the unexplained correlations “could range from a minor modification of the extracted wave form to a total rejection of LIGO’s claimed [gravitational wave] discovery,” wrote Jackson in an email to Quanta. LIGO representatives say there may well be some unexplained correlations, but that they should not affect the team’s conclusions.
    Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes. -- Mahatma Gandhi

  20. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    All around
    Posts
    8,979

    Re: Gravitational waves

    There's not only lot's of bias in Science, there's flat out lying done by 1000's and 1000's of scientists and doctors who sell their "expertise" to the highest bidder.

    Back to the article. I was surprised to see that the article is at least 17 months old, as it states that is when the title was amended. If it took them such a short time (20 days, was it?) to discover the waves, what about the other data that they said was collected during that time they mentioned also needed to be analyzed? Any updates on that?

    I believe the article was probably correct (I always need to read the study myself before I believe anything claimed by a Scientist or Doctor. More than 60% of every study I've read, and I've read 1000's, was manipulated in some form), but where are the duplicate tests? It has always been obvious to me that there are gravitational waves (it's not magic that pulls us towards the Center of the Earth even though we are spinning around at 25,000 miles per day, as gravity works on most of the elements found on the Earth). Measuring them and proving their existence through a test is different. Have they repeated the test and got the same results? Before anything is ever concluded, and publicly proclaimed, the test is usually repeated at least once. I did not see this reported, so I assume it wasn't done. Why not? If they waited 50 years for this, and they said they expected to get the results they wanted immediately, then why not immediately repeat the test for two more 20-day periods? They could have waited to do upgrades on the instrument for that.

    How can it benefit mankind?

    Before X-rays could be used to see tumors, for example, X-rays first had to be proved to exist themselves. Gravitational waves may eventually be used to unlock the evidence about how other things effect us negatively or positively. I would personally like to know what the negative effects of AC and DC waves and microwaves, and at what Hrz and cycles, have on our health.
    Last edited by Kingspoint; 07-10-2017 at 01:23 AM.
    "One problem with people who have no vices is that they're pretty sure to have some annoying virtues."

  21. Likes:

    Cooper (07-14-2017)

  22. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    All around
    Posts
    8,979

    Re: Gravitational waves

    I didn't see that this first post was from Feb., 2016.
    "One problem with people who have no vices is that they're pretty sure to have some annoying virtues."


Turn Off Ads?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please.

Thank you, and most importantly, enjoy yourselves!


RedsZone.com is a privately owned website and is not affiliated with the Cincinnati Reds or Major League Baseball


Contact us: Boss | GIK | cumberlandreds | Gallen5862 | JaxRed | Plus Plus | Powel Crosley | RedlegJake | RedsfaninMT | The Operator