What about Gravitational waves that ripples in the curvature of spacetime actually is an effect of lens distortion from massive fluids?

PhotonX

2016-10-18 03:46:22 UTC

You were wondering elsewhere why people don't answer your questions. No offense, but you make highly implausible suggestions about how you think nature might work without having even a basic understanding of it. We know for a fact that there aren't unknown elements. They're all accounted for. We know you can't make new elements by mixing together other ones, or with other compounds--that's called chemistry, and has nothing to do with the way atoms (elements) are produced. Nor would it have any relevance to gravitational waves--you're not talking about the way water ripples on a lake.

.

The point being that what you ask quickly becomes gobbledygook, and it's impossible to explain for you to understand arcane topics such as gravitational waves if you don't grasp first principles. I understand you're trying to learn and that's admirable, but learn to walk before you try to run.

.

.

2016-10-18 05:08:37 UTC

Produce evidence of these fluids. You keep going on about them but you have absolutely no evidence, and now you are trying to presume some chemical element or compound that we don't know about and cannot detect. Not only is your main hypothesis improbable, you defy Occam's Razor in adding another improbable hypothesis of an unknown substance to "lend support". You don't realise that you are making your ideas even more improbable every time you bring in something for which there is no evidence whatsoever.

You do not make elements by combination of hydrogen and some mysterious other compound, which you neither name nor do you describe any properties. Science has seen that sort of thing before and the idea was dumped about 230 years ago. Perhaps you had better start by learning the difference between elements and compounds, something that has also been understood for over 200 years.

All you have is some ill-digested ideas from dumbed-down secondary or tertiary sources, apparently combined with poor knowledge of nuclear physics, chemistry, astronomy and any other branch of science which is relevant.

Before you waste any more time on this I suggest you read very carefully about the phlogiston "theory". In that an hypothetical and never detected substance with very unusual properties was proposed, also in defiance of Occam's Razor. And guess what, it didn't exist.

Occam's (or Ockham's) razor is a principle attributed to the 14th century logician and Franciscan friar William of Ockham. Ockham was the village in the English county of Surrey where he was born. The principle states that "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily."

injanier

2016-10-18 12:20:06 UTC

The LIGO instruments directly measure the distortion of spacetime from passing gravity waves. There are two observatories, in Hanford Washington and Livingston Louisiana, in order to eliminate local disturbances. Laser interferometers at these observatories detect the momentary stretching of space. Your imaginary fluid would have no effect on those measurements. That gif you linked to is simply an attempt to visualize the situation that is thought to give rise to the waves -- two black holes spiraling toward a merger.

digquickly

2016-10-18 06:04:07 UTC

Well, ..., Gravitational waves are detected with Laser Interferometry. The LIGO (Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatories) bounce dual laser beams over long distances and at 90 degrees to each other. Since we already know (form Einstein's famous 1919 eclipse experiment) that gravity warps light then if one of the beams comes back shifted we have encountered a gravity wave. Depending on shift we can determine amplitude of the wave.

See the link below:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIGO

quantumclaustrophobe

2016-10-18 09:12:28 UTC

>>Hi guys, i just want to know how exactly scientists observe gravitational waves?

Gravitational waves stretch and compress space/time; and, they're *very* small - on the order of the width of atom nuclei. There are two efforts (that I'm aware of) trying to detect them - LIGO, and GEO600. These are L-shaped detectors, shooting a laser beam down a long tunnel to a mirror, and looking for any interference within the beam; interference means that space/time is stretching a tiny bit - by gravitational waves. Each leg of LIGO is something like a kilometer long; there's a proposal to send up 3 spacecraft in solar orbit up to 500 km away from each other, but it's only a proposal at this point.

>>is they observe it using spectroscopy that showing to us the ripples of light of two or more galaxies that they assumpt inside there has massive blackhole and they would be collide and produce ripples effect of light of that galaxies?

Well, nothing so grandiose; They *are* looking for black holes (stellar-size) colliding - as prior to their 'colliding' they would spiral around each other, faster and faster, creating a great source of gravitational waves; There *was* an explosion of sorts detected back in the 70's, very far away, that *might* have been the collision of two black holes, but neither LIGO or GEO600 had been built when that occurred.

>>if yes, what about if that ripples effect or distortion of light of that galaxies actually caused by lens distortion effect from massive fluids that orbiting or rotating in space due to gravity, just like what i suggest before in my previous question, but they are still liquid in near absolute zero temperature?

Liquid or not, it's the motion of *mass* that causes the gravitational waves. And there would be no 'distortion of light', as the waves we detect aren't in the wavelength of light.

>>what about there's an element that we don't know yet made by mixture of hydrogen abd another compounds that produce transparent liquid elements just like waters that didn't frozen in near absolute zero temperature?

Again, regardless of the material, it's the motion of *mass* that causes the waves; and, the more compact the mass, the more intense the waves will be; a cloud of hydrogen won't move as a single entity, whereas a black hole or a neutron star will.

>>we know that hydrogen is a primary elements of our universe, and we know our waters made by hydrogen and oxygen. what about if there's a massive fluids made by hydrogen just like stars reacted as nuclear fusion that become plasma, but instead become plasma, their chemical reaction become massive transparent fluids, and become what scientist today call it dark matter?

I'm going to say that hydrogen - the lightest element there is - doesn't have the properties needed to be included in the realm of Dark Matter; regardless of what it's combined with, and - as far as we know, it will only combine with other atoms - it's size and density would mean that it's clearly not part of being Dark Matter.

>>i think it's possible guys, what do you think?

I don't think so...

Iridflare

2016-10-18 00:50:48 UTC

Gravitational waves are detected using interferometry, not spectroscopy. There are no mysterious elements (I think you meant compounds) involved - the experimental results are a very precise match with the theoretical predictions of general relativity.

"i think it's possible guys, what do you think? "

It's not!

As an aside, interferometry was used to disprove the idea of "the luminiferous aether", another mysterious fluid.

Lodar of the Hill People

2016-10-18 00:01:44 UTC

Gravitational waves aren't something you can "see", like waves through water. They are the stretching and squeezing of space-time as explained by general relativity. A fluid can't stretch and squeeze space-time.

?

2016-10-18 05:48:39 UTC

Since the material you propose does not have the slightest observational evidence including other "side effect" results, building an hypothesis on it is pretty pointless - go gather data.