Einstein's Theory of General Relativity

[the54thvoid]

I am the sentience that rises from what is eternal.. I am a wave and a particle.. I exist here and there while being bound to the physical... I observe and worlds change..

Take your pills and go to bed. Stop trolling with misguided musings.

 

[xfia]

Take your pills and go to bed. Stop trolling with misguided musings.

there is nothing false about it.. i just made it my own. what do you believe in the noodle that controls the universe too?
like honestly.. you say that to me and have nothing to say about noodles.
seriously cant make any of this dumb ass shit up.
edit-this is how i feel when i enrage the noodle heads

edit-had to find this one but it was work it.. 7min in you will learn that einstein was a lot like brian cox and explained often with visual representation.
they understand the mathematical constant that enables them to do so and thats all there is to it.

 

[CAPSLOCKSTUCK]

LIGO confirms gravitational waves

https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/

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



and involvement from the UK

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-35533167

 

[Drone]

^ Unbelievable

http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=137628

 

[Sasqui]

I'm bummed... was hoping to learn that gravitational waves break the cosmic speed limit of "c", but apparently not: http://www.universetoday.com/121284/how-fast-is-gravity/

 

[Drone]

Three other nice videos by Caltech and MIT

 

[dorsetknob]

 

[Drone]

Two interesting interviews with Stephen Hawking and Neil deGrasse Tyson on gravitational waves and LIGO

Neil deGrasse Tyson has a good explanation and Stephen Hawking provided really interesting facts about black holes. Media says that LIGO experiment confirmed Einstein's theory but it also confirmed Hawking's theory.

 

[Drone]

 

[Caring1]

I've got a feeling they missed something when the two black holes merged, there should have been something more than just gravitational waves when two very powerful forces combine.

 

[silkstone]

I've got a feeling they missed something when the two black holes merged, there should have been something more than just gravitational waves when two very powerful forces combine.

It really depends on how far away it happened and if we have something looking at it when it happened. I believe the detector for gravitational waves gives little indication of direction. It is a relatively small event and a very large sky.

The inverse square law is a real bitch when dealing with distances on the scale of the universe.

 

[Tatty_Two]

I saw this on the news, quite a detailed and thought provoking piece, my first thoughts were, and forgive me, this is NOT intended as a Troll but who cares? I do genuinely find it interesting but the Human race ploughs billions into research to trying to learn what goes on and is happening 6 million light years away whilst millions are dying in our own back yards either through hunger, disease or conflict, I appreciate that by a better understanding of the universe it may help sustain our planet and race for the future but surely if we don't get the "now" sorted then there is no future in any case?
Apologies #BackONtrackNow

 

[Drone]

two videos from World Science Festival

What will we learn from the detection of gravitational waves?

Brian Greene explains the discovery of gravitational waves

Lol almost everyone I know already explained that

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Gravity waves are nice and all but that still doesn't explain the motion of galaxies. The center of galaxies, whatever it is, causes not only a gravitational effect, but it causes the fabric of space-time to move as well. In that ESA video, imagine him rotating that aparatus while the marble is moving around the weight--that's the effect the center of galaxies has on everything that surrounds it. Whatever is capable of not only bending space-time, but also warping it (rotating, in the case of spiral galaxies), that's what piques my interest.

 

[Drone]

Back in the day scientists theorized that entire Universe (like you said space-time) rotates. Recently that theory was proved wrong. It doesn't rotate, though our galaxy and others do.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

The fabric of space-time on the universe-scale is stretching. If you go from the beginning of time to today, it looks like a logorithm

The rotation of space-time is centered around galaxies, or rather, the core of each one. In the context of the universe, it's localized. That is to say: galaxies are moving farther apart from each other at a rate that is logorithmically increasing. Each galaxy is rotating not only the fabric of space-time, but also due to gravity. Each star is trapped in the gravity well of the galaxy, planets are trapped in the gravity well of the stars, and moons are trapped in the gravity well of planets.

The key to faster than light travel may be in the mechanics of how galaxies tear (for lack of a better word) at the fabric of space-time.

 

[Drone]

Spinning Universe business is really fishy. Lots of speculations. Some say yes others say no.

http://news.discovery.com/space/do-we-live-in-a-spinning-universe-110708.htm
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2011/07/-is-the-universe-spinning-new-research-says-yes.html
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2011/jul/25/was-the-universe-born-spinning
http://ns.umich.edu/new/releases/84...to-new-findings-on-the-symmetry-of-the-cosmos
http://www.earlyuniverse.org/is-the-universe-rotating/

Here's the snippet from an article from University of Illinois

Q. Does our Universe spin/rotate?

A. As far as we know the answer is no. Astronomers have looked at the spin and rotation directions of a large number of galaxies but the net angular momentum is zero, within statistical uncertainties. You can always find a few local anomalies but, again, consistent with statistical fluctuations.


I have read somewhere that some experiment (WMAP or was it something else I don't remember so don't wanna lie) dismissed spinning universe idea.



The only thing is certain it's expanding due to Cosmological Constant; expansion is accelerating and that space-time is relatively flat and homogenous and isotropic with temperature 2.73 K.

 

[64K]

The only thing is certain it's expanding due to Cosmological Constant; expansion is accelerating and that space-time is relatively flat and homogenous and isotropic with temperature 2.73 K.

That's the thing that I can't wrap my head around. The expansion is thought to be accelerating. I see The Big Bang as an explosion where all the mass and energy in space came from. I can picture that it is still expanding but I don't understand how the expansion could be accelerating. It would seem to me that gravity would slow the expansion eventually and reverse back to a central point in space and perhaps cause another Big Bang.

I'm wondering if some force from outside the known universe is pulling us or some force withing the known universe is pushing on us and we don't know what that is. I just can't connect what I think of as gravity pulling objects together and somehow we are accelerating faster apart.

 

[Drone]

That's the thing that I can't wrap my head around. The expansion is thought to be accelerating. I see The Big Bang as an explosion where all the mass and energy in space came from. I can picture that it is still expanding but I don't understand how the expansion could be accelerating. It would seem to me that gravity would slow the expansion eventually and reverse back to a central point in space and perhaps cause another Big Bang.

I'm wondering if some force from outside the known universe is pulling us or some force withing the known universe is pushing on us and we don't know what that is. I just can't connect what I think of as gravity pulling objects together and somehow we are accelerating faster apart.

Big Bang wasn't an "actual explosion" (see this link). It was all because of inflation, btw some scientists even don't believe in inflation. What caused all that is a mystery even today. Some say it was neutrinos that messed up, others say like you said it was some other Universe pulling on ours, or maybe it was a big collapse of previous Universe (Big Crunch) which caused the creation of our Universe (cyclical cosmology and Big Bounce). Not all galaxies are running away from each other, it depends on a distance between them (Hubble's law). Lots of galaxies actually are colliding/merging, like Milky Way and Andromeda some billion years later.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Spinning Universe business is really fishy. Lots of speculations. Some say yes others say no.

I'm not talking about the universe spinning. I didn't even mean to suggest it. I've been talking about galaxies.

The only thing is certain it's expanding due to Cosmological Constant; expansion is accelerating and that space-time is relatively flat and homogenous and isotropic with temperature 2.73 K.

Yes, which is why I think logorithm is a really good explaination of this. When the big bang occured, the acceleration of space-time was extremly rapid but it then tapered off. It is still accelerating but the rate of acceleration is inccreasing ad infinitum. Logorithm never reaches 100%...it's always accelerating a fraction of a percent (99.9, 99.99, 99.999, 99.9999, and so on). The longer we go out, the flatter it gets, but the curve never goes completely flat.

Maybe I'm thinking expontential decay (where it never reaches 0) but the curve looks more like logorithm.


I don't think a "big crunch" will ever happen, especially if what I said above is true. The universe may never stop expanding. Even with the universe still expanding, gravity still is at play to bring galaxies together if their attractive force exceeds the rate the expanding universe is driving them apart.

 

[Caring1]

I'm wondering if some force from outside the known universe is pulling us or some force withing the known universe is pushing on us and we don't know what that is. I just can't connect what I think of as gravity pulling objects together and somehow we are accelerating faster apart.

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/gclusters/attractor.html
Perhaps this is a cause, for our section of the universe anyway.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

If you imagine a body that houses billions of galaxies...what would it behave like? Would it describe the "Great Attractor?"

There's a well observed relationship between moons, planets, and stars pretty easily explained by gravity.
There's also a well observed relationship between galaxies that is not unlike that of moons, planets, and stars but at a much grander scale (clusters).
Does it not stand to reason that clusters of galaxies could not have a similar relationship on an even grander scale with other clusters of galaxies (super clusters)?
Does this relationship of grander and even more grander ever end?

The "Great Attractor" may be composed of the same stuff Sagittarius A* is. Then again, it may not.

 

[Drone]

I'm not talking about the universe spinning. I didn't even mean to suggest it. I've been talking about galaxies.

The fact that galaxies are rotating is known since forever. Angular momentum and their shape show it perfectly.

I don't think a "big crunch" will ever happen, especially if what I said above is true. The universe may never stop expanding.

It can easily stop expanding. Neil Turok has a theorem about that (False Vacuum decay) and metastable Higgs bosons can wreck a havoc or two and cause Big Crunch according to Stephen Hawking.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

The fact that galaxies are rotating is known since forever. Angular momentum and their shape show it perfectly.

Angular momentum can describe stellar movements, not galactic. Here's an article:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-process-creates-and/

"The basic physics of why galaxies have spirals is known, but the details remain controversial, sometimes intensely so. Spirals exist only among flattened or 'disk' galaxies. These galaxies are differentially rotating--that is, the time to complete a full rotation increases with distance from the center. Differential rotation causes any disturbance in the disk to wind up into a spiral form. The trouble with this simple explanation is that the differential rotation would cause spiral features to wind up too quickly, so galaxies would not look like spirals for any appreciable length of time.

My explaination: space-time is rotating too. If you take into account angular-momentum and space-time rotation, you can consistently get the sprials that are observed.

Obviously there's a lot of theories out there that may explain it. Just food for thought.

 

[Drone]

Back to Albert.

Found interesting article:

Einstein Likely Never Said One of His Most Oft-Quoted Phrases
The great scientist certainly regretted introducing the "cosmological constant" into his equations, but calling it his "biggest blunder"? Not so much, it seems.

This meme comes to mind: