New Limits on Gravitational Waves From the Big Bang

Article written: 19 Aug , 2009
Updated: 24 Dec , 2015
by

[/caption]
The only way to know what the Universe was like at the moment of the Big Bang requires analysis of gravitational waves created when the Universe began. Scientists working with the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) say their initial investigations of these gravitiation waves have turned up nothing. But that’s a good thing. Not detecting the waves provides constraints about the initial conditions of the universe, and narrows the field of where we actually do need to look in order to find them.

Much like it produced the cosmic microwave background, the Big Bang is believed to have created a flood of gravitational waves — ripples in the fabric of space and time. From our current understanding, gravitational waves are the only known form of information that can reach us undistorted from the beginnings of the Universe. They would be observed as a “stochastic” or random background, and would carry with them information about their violent origins and about the nature of gravity that cannot be obtained by conventional astronomical tools. The existence of the waves was predicted by Albert Einstein in 1916 in his general theory of relativity.

Analysis of data taken over a two-year period, from 2005 to 2007, yields that the stochastic background of gravitational waves has not yet been discovered. But the nondiscovery of the background, described in a new paper in the August 20 Nature, offers its own brand of insight into the universe’s earliest history.

“Since we have not observed the stochastic background, some of these early-universe models that predict a relatively large stochastic background have been ruled out,” said Vuk Mandic, assistant professor at the University of Minnesota and the head of the group that performed the analysis. “We now know a bit more about parameters that describe the evolution of the universe when it was less than one minute old.”

According to Mandic, the new findings constrains models of cosmic strings, objects that are proposed to have been left over from the beginning of the universe and subsequently stretched to enormous lengths by the universe’s expansion; the strings, some cosmologists say, can form loops that produce gravitational waves as they oscillate, decay, and eventually disappear.

“Since we have not observed the stochastic background, some of these early-universe models that predict a relatively large stochastic background have been ruled out,” said Mandic. “If cosmic strings or superstrings exist, their properties must conform with the measurements we made—that is, their properties, such as string tension, are more constrained than before.”

This is interesting, he says, “because such strings could also be so-called fundamental strings, appearing in string-theory models. So our measurement also offers a way of probing string-theory models, which is very rare today.”

The analysis used data collected from the LIGO interferometers in Hanford, Wash., and Livingston, La. Each of the L-shaped interferometers uses a laser split into two beams that travel back and forth down long interferometer arms. The two beams are used to monitor the difference between the two interferometer arm lengths.

The next phase of the project, called Advanced LIGO, will go online in 2014, and be 10 times more sensitive than the current instrument. It will allow scientists to detect cataclysmic events such as black-hole and neutron-star collisions at 10-times-greater distances.

The Nature paper is entitled “An Upper Limit on the Amplitude of Stochastic Gravitational-Wave Background of Cosmological Origin.”

Source: EurekAlert



58 Responses

  1. Member
    IVAN3MAN says

    [T]he strings, some cosmologists say, can form loops that produce gravitational waves as they oscillate, decay, and eventually disappear.

    That’s similar to Anaconda’s behaviour, who obfuscates, denies, and then eventually disappears.

    :mrgreen:

  2. ILOVETHESTAR says

    IVAN3MAN Says
    ‘obfuscates, denies, and then eventually disappears.’

    ROTFLMAO….. absolutely correct, however, the ‘snake’ may return to attempt chaos lol

  3. William928 says

    I’m waiting for the “snake’s” EU argument to begin.

  4. Astrofiend says

    Just go the whole hog and get LISA going I say.

  5. ElroyJetson says

    If they do not detect gravity waves, what then? Do we revise the theory of GR, or do we look for other answers?

    Since some of you have mentioned the electric universe thing quite often, I’ve been looking into it and it appears to be quite plausible. At least the plasma cosmology part. I really don’t get the vehement opposition to an idea that seems to be a credible alternative to GR. Perhaps it’s due to a layman’s (anaconda) attempts at explanations, but going past all that, there actually appears to be some credibility there. Or perhaps the opposition is simply from laypersons lack of knowledge in electric theory in general. Most people don’t have a clue about electricity beyond flipping a switch for lights.

    Regardless of the voracity of their claims, they do advocate lab experimentation and observation as superior to theoretical math, from what I can tell. Pretty good idea, imo.

    Actually, it was certain skeptical commenters that motivated me to look into the electric universe model. Based on the tone and mindset in their comments, I thought; “Me thinks thou dost protest too much.
    Just to let ya know, that was my motivation for taking the time to look into it.
    Thanks. 🙂

  6. ILOVETHESTAR says

    Pracrically all of Eisteins’ prediction has come true, but GW will prove to be something that may take better technology not now available,,perhaps in 50 or so years.Although my career did not have anything to do with Astronomy, I believe Betelgeuse , being relatively close,exploding as a type 2 supernova can be detected with our current most sensitive detectors. I’m trying to figure out how GW from the beginning of time can be detected from the Universes’ background , but this is beyond my knowledge!!

  7. Member
    IVAN3MAN says

    RE: ElroyJetson’s comment.

    *Facepalm*

  8. ElroyJetson says

    Pracrically all of Eisteins’ prediction has come true.

    Really? What is GW? General Wishativity? As in, “I wish Einsteins theory is correct, otherwise a whole bunch of us are gonna be pretty disappointed because we’re so attached to our hero”? kind of wishativity? LOL

    I originally came here out of a lifelong hobby in astronomy, but I have, unfortunately, discovered a very close minded and arrogant group, as far as I can tell.

  9. ElroyJetson says

    IVAN3MAN.
    What a joker you are. Or is fool a more appropriate label?
    I’m going with the latter.

    But hey, fools are cool. They keep the king distracted, at least. 😉

  10. Lawrence B. Crowell says

    The strings referred to here are not superstring of M-string theory. These are one dimensional regions where the vacuum state is that of the Lagrangian, in stead of with broken symmetry

    LC

  11. ND says

    ElroyJetson,

    Now you’re just trolling. Are you Oils by any chance?

    IVAN3MAN,

    That is just awesome! 🙂

  12. ILOVETHESTAR says

    My, the ‘snake’ hired a flunky err ‘proxy’ to do his talking.
    ElroyJetson , R U an Electrical Engineer or Scientist? At lease your hero, the ‘snake’ knows much about ‘lectricity’ although he is using his knowledge in the wrong field.
    I hate to see what U lack in knowledge of basic Astronomy!!!!

  13. Member
    IVAN3MAN says

    ElroyJetson, with your abstract reasoning, you must have gone to the same school as Calvin’s father: Click here.

  14. Member
    IVAN3MAN says

    @ ND,

    Thanks!

  15. ElroyJetson says

    I originally came here out of a lifelong hobby in astronomy, but I have, unfortunately, discovered a very close minded and arrogant group, as far as I can tell.

    Thanks for proving my point, ya’ll. 🙂

  16. ILOVETHESTAR says

    ElroyJetson-I retired as a Network Administor 3 years ago at a relatively young age-I also
    had a lifelong hobby in astronomy except for 20 years with wine,woman,marriage and kids.When I got back, I self taught myself about advanced astronomy and into basic astrophysucs and open to all astonomy possibilities., I question convention thinking and thought outside the box. I heard of EU years ago, however, when I kept looking into it, it failed the test on how the Universe is what it is.It is true objects like Comet Mcnaught , when I was visiting Perth Australia Jan07 IMHO was the brightest comet easily visible and the tail had some type of electrical field due to the super rapid brighening,fading of the tail-the solar wind could not do this. Saturn South Pole was photographed with a large Octogan pattern and dying stars can show what has to be some sort of electrical field to have straight then sharp angled nebulas, there are many examples, however, all of these event are transitory in nature and GRAVITY is the dominent entity of our Universe. I can’t see how any life, especially us ,can live in a EU

  17. Trippy says

    As far as gravity waves go, absence of proof is not neccessarily proof of absence.

    In fact, we havesome positive proof of the existence of gravity waves, for example, the orbit of the Taylor-huse binary pulsar decays in exactly the way that relativity predicts it should if it’s emitting gravity waves in the way that relativity predicts it should be.

  18. ILOVETHESTAR says

    Trippy, I glad you point out the proof of GW.
    I hope a close SN like Betelgeuse explodes in my lifetime. I was very conservative when I said the most sensitive detectors will note
    Betelgeuse event. I now believe even the old GW detectors can easily note the event as Betelgeuse is very close and hopefully not dangerous to our atmosphere but I believe the Astrophysics and Medical articals when their studies said 1% of the worlds population will quickly die of ‘unusual’ cancer from a blast of UHECR and dense neutrino stream, this is at least 6,500,000 people worldwide. More recent articles on the visible brilliance of Betelgeuse will make it several time brighter than the full Moon but still a point of light!!! Can you imagine the twinkling of mag -14 SN Betelgeuse low on the horizon with a kaleidoscope of color!!!!!?!!!
    It would be an awesome sight!!!!!

  19. ILOVETHESTAR says

    Sorry, I meant ~65,000,000 will die of ‘unusual’ cancer if Betelgeuse explodes. It is estimated 6,500,000 people worldwide die yearly from ‘unusual’ cancer that kills very quickly. There was no cancerous environment nor a family history going back quite a few generations.

  20. ILOVETHESTAR says

    I was wrong when I said UHECR will arrive at the same time as the dense stream of neutriinos from SN Betelgeuse-I believe they travel more slowly, however, when they eventually arrive, the cancer rate will increase again

  21. Lawrence B. Crowell says

    The existence of gravity waves can be argued for in the same way electromagnetic waves exist. The radial field of a charge must adjust itself if that charge is accelerated to another region. The radial lines do not adjust instantaneously through space, but adjust according to a changing electric and magnetic field pulse or wave which propagates away. In the same manner the adjustment of a local gravity field results in an oscillating wave of space or spacetime which must leave the region.

    If this does not happen then whole concepts of causality and symmetry come crashing down. Quite frankly we would be faced with the problem the universe no longer makes sense. Of course this could happen, though I doubt it will happen this way, and it would put physics back to nearly square one.

    What makes gravity wave detection so difficult is that the coupling constant betwen spacetime and mass-energy density is 8pi G/c^4 which is about 10^{-48}s^2/g-cm. This makes things very difficult to detect. Gravity is a very weak force in its classical limit.

    LC

  22. Jon Hanford says

    I second Astrofiend’s comments wrt LISA: Let’s git ‘er done 🙂

  23. Nereid says

    @ElroyJetson: you say “the plasma cosmology part” “appears to be quite plausible”; you also characterise it as “an idea that seems to be a credible alternative to GR”.

    Perhaps you and I can have the conversation which I was not able to have with Anaconda, a conversation about how one goes about testing ideas which purport to include the largest-scale structures, features, and events in their domains of applicability (i.e. cosmology). Are you OK with this?

  24. DrFlimmer says

    @ElroyJetson

    To give you at first my background: I am working on my master’s thesis in theoretical astrophysics right now! So much for it.

    Btw: Have you ever given a second thought how GPS works? It would not work without GR. That is a fact. Period.

    Regardless of the voracity of their claims, they do advocate lab experimentation and observation as superior to theoretical math, from what I can tell. Pretty good idea, imo.

    I think, you should take a look how physics is done. Theoretical physics is not “theoretical math”. It uses well known physical formulae in order to find something that could be detectable and can describe nature. To give you an example:
    I am calculating spectra of blazars, you might have heard of those objects. Such spectra can be measured by HESS, Fermi and other ‘scopes and then you can judge which mechanism is at work. Just by observation you cannot tell.

    And: GR has been shown to be very precise. Examples: GPS, Mercury, light bending of the sun, double pulsars (Hulse-Taylor-pulsar, shapiro delay).

    And what about the Sunyaev-Zel’dovich effect? PC cannot explain this. What about the CMB at all – where does it come from?

    I have discussed such topics for over 8 month by now – and I have never found a point which would make me say, well, PC/EU/PU scores here. That’s my opinion as a physicist – and trust me, we are not as close-minded as some guys want us to be!

  25. ND says

    Nereid, DrFlimmer,

    I think you guys are wasting time with Elroy. He’s not going to be swayed by critical arguments. He’s made it clear on the UFO thread and here. If after all the critical discussion with Anaconda and others on PC/EU he thinks people here are being close minded then he’s not going to listen to you.

    Negatively yours,

    ND

  26. Pvt.Pantzov says

    some of you guys just couldn’t let it rest with anaconda. instead of dismissing him and his EU belief, you baited him and trolled him; post after post, which he was only too happy to participate in. then you started complaining to the admins. entire article comment sections were hijacked and this forum began to look like most internet forums.

    as a result, we now have to register for what was once a free forum. we lost many posters the day that registration was enacted. i was p^ssed that day because you had succeeded in drawing every “member” of the forum, indirectly, into your conflict with anaconda.

    so please, just let it go. you should have just ignored it to begin with.

  27. Pvt.Pantzov says

    p.s. we still have most of our best posters, but nevertheless…

  28. Nereid says

    @ND (and, to some extent, Pvt.Pantzov): if ElroyJetson does not wish to engage in a civil, science-based discussion of ideas he is on record as saying he finds attractive (or similar), then I do hope he (“Elroy” is, AFAIK, a male given name) will have the integrity to say so (pace Anaconda).

  29. ElroyJetson says

    ND, critical arguments on the UFO article?
    I knew about the recent release of docs from Brazil, all I wanted to do was find a site in English that had a link to the actual files. That link happens to be a 360mb pdf, and I didn’t think it necessary to link the large pdf directly in my comment, so I just linked to the article page. In all innocence, it was just about the size of that pdf, plus the article explained what the docs were.
    Questioning ones integrity, basically, by pointing out a totally different article from the same site, a site that I’d never seen ’til that day, and even agreed that the article in question was pretty whack…that’s not a critical argument, that’s character assassination.
    Calling me and my list of astronaut statements a joke is another example of character assassination posing as critical argument. I never said that their statements were proof of UFO’s, just that experienced people like that have stories of their own. Some of them explained, like the urine floating by :)~ which is pretty funny actually, but many of them still unexplained. I also never said that UFO’s or alien craft exist one way or the other, I just provided some examples of reports from experienced folks, a balance to the article’s focus on sci-fi fans, yet I was ridiculed as if I had claimed a reptilian was in my kitchen, stopping by for biscuits and tea.
    I even tried to give info to help identify a siting as a possible SR71.
    But some of you all seemed to be trying to portray me as some kind of kook, or something.
    Similar here on this thread, no change in tone, just more of the same.
    Cartoons that are funny in and among themselves, are directed towards an individual as a form of insult. This is critical scientific argument, discussion or debate?

    It that’s you all’s version of “civil science-based discussion”, no thanks, not my style.
    Actual respectful critical discussion, of any sort, is more than welcome by me and would be a refreshing change from most exchanges with the “herd”.
    Seems that similar issues prompted changes in forum registration at some point, but has anything else changed?

  30. Nereid says

    @ElroyJetson: are you interested in having a civil, science-based conversation on what you state “appears [to you] to be quite plausible” (“the plasma cosmology part”); specifically, “an idea that seems to be a credible alternative to GR”?

    Specifically, a conversation about how one goes about testing ideas which purport to include the largest-scale structures, features, and events in their domains of applicability (i.e. cosmology).

    For avoidance of doubt, I am not asking you about your willingness (or otherwise) to engage in a conversation with anyone else; nor am I asking about conversations about any other topic.

  31. ND says

    Elroy you said: “Gee, ND, what else could Lovell have meant when he said there is a santa claus, after orbiting the moon? What besides an alien craft could he have seen? Note that he did not say bogey!”

    You never provided any evidence that NASA had established the use “santa claus” to mean alien craft. This appears to be speculation and assumption on your part. Did Lovell ever say he was referring to an alien craft? Yet you’re jumping to the conclusion that it is. This seems be how you look at this subject. So I find it a little hard to believe when you say “I also never said that UFO’s or alien craft exist one way or the other,”

    BTW, I found the Apollo 8 communication transcript where Lovell says santa claus.

    history.nasa.gov/ap08fj/16day4_final_orbit_tei.htm

  32. Hon. Salacious B. Crumb says

    Forget it.
    Anaconda is not the victim here. He has an specific agenda and is prepared to do anything and say anything regardless of the evidence.
    As for Pvt.Pantzov stating, …”instead of dismissing him and his EU belief, you baited him and trolled him.” Well EU should be based on scientific method and observation NOT speculation and the tenants of “faith” in belief.
    Anaconda is basically a cultist following a path of dubious and speculative nonsense. The fraudulent jackass had it coming to him!

    ElroyJetson here is just an Anaconda clone, and is acting like is just another ignorant jackass! You should have listen closer to your father George. Simply has brains for sprockets…

  33. Astrofiend says

    Pvt.Pantzov Says:
    August 20th, 2009 at 2:26 pm

    This forum is still free – you just have to type in a user name and password. Not exactly arduous. And seriously, you cannot have failed to notice how much the level of the discussion has picked up since this was enacted. It has had the sole effect of keeping the creeps on a leash.

    And cummon – ElroyJetson has to be either Anaconda or Oils. Notice just how many times he said in one post “well I wasn’t even interested in EU, until you all came along with your sensible arguments and debunked it, so then I got curious, researched it for five seconds and it sounds awesome so now I’m going to argue passionately for it on every thread from now on because Einstein was the real crank you cranks.”

    Yeah – we get it. You weren’t into crayon-physics before, but you’ve seen the light and now you think it’s the duck’s nuts. Good luck with challenging the oppressive mainstream. One day somebody will realise what a ‘reasonable theory’ EU actually is though. Maybe the best way for that to happen is to not put any substance behind the theory and instead argue passionately for it on internet forums, all the while decrying ‘mainstream science’, and how science ‘lost it’s way’ back during the time of Pythagoras. It’s proved to be a winning recipe on this site before.

  34. Excalibur says

    ElroyJetson reminds so much of solrey, perhaps they are brothers…or sisters… “Sheesh”, who knows… But solrey promised to not come back here, so obviously he would have to make another name.

    As for Anaconda being baited… baiting really is the EU way, they bait and troll forums and hope for controversy…. DRAMA… *popcorn* … and hope some readers will move with them back to Thunderbollocks forums and be treated ‘nicely’, and be given a “complete education” … Calling Anaconda a victim is similar to calling Adolf Hitler a victim.

  35. ND says

    Excalibur,

    solrey would throw out his past academic credentials in science and math but we never saw it demonstrated in any of his posts. I think the last time he was here Nereid had challenged him full out in science.

    oof. Nazi comparison wasn’t really that necessary.

  36. ElroyJetson says

    Nereid,

    then I do hope he (“Elroy” is, AFAIK, a male given name)

    She. Elroy is my 10yr. olds middle name, after his grandfather, and I loved the Jetsons as a kid.

    Ignorant jackass? Nazi comparisons? You people aren’t interested in civil discussion, you’re mostly just rude and paranoid. Step back and listen to yourselves sometime.

    Oh, well, have fun with your little clique.

  37. Nereid says

    @ ElroyJetson: apologies (and thanks for the info).

    I would like to know, for sure, whether you have turned down my offer (or not); your last comment is somewhat ambiguous.

    Here it is again:

    are you interested in having a civil, science-based conversation on what you state “appears [to you] to be quite plausible” (“the plasma cosmology part”); specifically, “an idea that seems to be a credible alternative to GR”?

    Specifically, a conversation about how one goes about testing ideas which purport to include the largest-scale structures, features, and events in their domains of applicability (i.e. cosmology).

    For avoidance of doubt, I am not asking you about your willingness (or otherwise) to engage in a conversation with anyone else; nor am I asking about conversations about any other topic.

  38. ND says

    Elroy,

    If you had paid attention to the discussions with Anaconda you referred to there was a deep and serious discussion on the science behind PC/EU. You seem to be ignoring this. There has been some nasty stuff thrown about too, no doubt but DrFlimmer, Nereid, Jon Hanford, Lawrence B. Crowell and others engaged or tried to engage Anaconda on the sicence behind PC/EU and the serious and real issue that they saw lacking.

    The fact that Anaconda completely lacks any understand of the science he thinks is going on in PC/EU (note he did not originate these ideas) and voracously attacking astronomers with no clue as to how how science is done did not help these discussions. And in several points he was, frankly, dishonest. He quite often demonstrated his ignorance of the science he was discussing. Anaconda was not innocent of throwing insults himself.

    You find PC/EU credible, care to explain? What’s your scientific background? You seem to be silent on this.

  39. DrFlimmer says

    I second ND’s last post. Good description of the situation!

    So, ElroyJetson. Would you mind telling us where you see advantages of PU/PC/EU over “mainstream” science? Maybe we can talk about that and then see where it leads?
    I belong to those who want to discuss the topics and discuss them resonable.

    Ignoring and insulting leads to nowhere. In either way it always seems that there are no arguments, which is obviously wrong.
    So come on, everybody, calm down – and those who want to debate (I hope Elroy, you want to, too!), let’s go.

  40. ILOVETHESTAR says

    Pvt.Pantzov
    I rarely if ever saw you post before-before you critisize people here, it would be nice if you had post much in the past. Remember the reason WHY registering is preferable than free posting-it keeps out most of the fakes and flakes and downright vandalizers and spammers!!!!
    To ALL the TRUE knowledgeable and intelligent posters who posts concerning the theme of this thread, ElroyJetson hopes this thread will fall off the site soon with newer threads. His sources of research concerning UFOs IMHO, shows me he is nothing but a flake!!!!!! Too much MIND-ALTERING-DRUGS hasaffected his reasoning and he can’t accept reality!!!!! Such a flake can’t be bargain with nor reasoned with and I will not waste my time with fools.!!!!!
    I thank the true knowledgeable and intelligent persons who posts on this site because I’ve learned alot and always learning more

  41. ElroyJetson says

    WTF did I do to deserve all the namecalling and accusations? I merely provided another side to the UFO reporting story and have explained why those “sources” were used. I even proposed the explanation of sunlight reflecting off an asteroid being the reason for Lovell’s santa claus transmission, answering my own question, “what else could he have seen besides an alien craft?’, while everyone else just hurled insults. I even tried to help another commenter decide if what they saw was an SR71. On the comet story I thought there might be a connection with what MESSENGER discovered on Mercury and raised that quesiton. Here, I’ve just asked what if LIGO doesn’t detect gravity waves, are there alternatives to relativity and are they viable? One of the scientists involved even said that if they don’t detect any gravity waves with the enhanced sensitivity it might be time to rethink General Relativity. I’m just curious what a viable alternative might be if that comes to pass. History, that’s my degree btw, has proven that when ideas, or those who even invoke their names, are attacked with such rage and hatred, that it’s usually a sign of defense to a perceived threat, the threat being to their worldview. So I’ve learned that those ideas are at least worth checking out.

    I’ve tried to be amicable and reasonable, but in just two days I’ve been called a fool, flake, druggie, joke, ignorant jackass, and now the “good cops” want to suck me into more abuse?

    Get bent.

  42. DrFlimmer says

    @ElroyJetson

    WTF did I do to deserve all the namecalling and accusations?

    You mentioned PC. And since we had some very upsetting debates with other people talking about that, many here get upset right when they see it. This name-calling is not specifically meant for you, everyone calling PC a viable alternative to GR will face such insults. That does not mean that I support such a behaviour – I think it’s bad and leads to nowhere.

    By now GR has passed all the tests without a flaw. Indeed, a non-detection of gravitational waves would be a major flaw and one would have to consider alternatives. But two things need to be taken into account here:

    1) Double-pulsars (I think the Hulse-Taylor-pulsar is one) do behave as if they were sending out gravitational waves. They circle each other just like GR predicts. This is, of course, only very indirect evidence for GW, but it is evidence nontheless.

    2) Viable alternatives to GR. I’m sorry. But everything I have seen of PC tells me that PC does not belong to such alternatives. Most things I have seen rely on outdated data and simulations (from 1995 or earlier). The WMAP data strongly supports “mainstream” cosmology. I don’t know how PC accounts for the CMB and its fluctuations. Everytime I asked about this topic I got strange answers like hydrogen in the Milky Way or even the Heliopause. Sorry, but this is ridiculous.
    There are other examples in PC/EU which are at least weired.
    There are, of course, other things where PC/EU-arguments seem to be reasonable. Sometimes it’s a tough task to actually find the problem, which can arouse in very different topics.
    The most fundamental thing that has never been answered by our “PC/EU-friends” is the simple questions of the power source. In order to keep a plasma running you need a power source. Otherwise it will cool off with the time and finally all the atoms will recombine and that’s it – no more plasma (that was happening when the CMB was created). They only came up with the counter-question “what powers the BigBang, something out of nothing” and similar things. The answer is simple: They normally had very few, if at all, grasps of quantum mechanics.
    For the very beginning of the universe we need a theory of quantum gravity, which science still lacks. This is also the reason why scientists know that GR is not the whole answer. GR is incompatible with quantum mechanics. That is a problem.
    So, yes, we need an “alternative” to GR, but it must be a quantum mechanical theory and not something like PC.

    This is my position after 4 years of studying physics and after 8 month of debating about PC/EU/PU.

  43. Hon. Salacious B. Crumb says

    @ElroyJetson

    WTF did I do to deserve all the namecalling and accusations?

    Anyone supporting plasma cosmology or radical electric universe mumbo-jumbo in any form is a total jackass.

    Clear enough?

  44. ElroyJetson says

    drflimmer, nereid thanks, but no thanks. This comment board has got serious issues that the mods or admins are obviously not aware of, willing to deal with, or even worse, they’re OK with it.
    My ten year is more mature than this entire group combined, btw.

    buhbye 🙁

  45. ND says

    ElroyJetson,

    Sorry to hear that but I think you would have found Nereid, DrFlimmer and a few others reasonable people to discuss science with.

  46. ND says

    If ElroyJetson is still reading this thread, I tried to post it earlier and it appears to not have gone through. Spamm filtering? 3rd attempt. I’m leaving out the URLs which I’ll post if this goes through.

    Regarding ElroyJetson’s comments in the UFO thread:
    “Schirra was the first to use the santa claus code, I believe, when he encountered more than one craft following along with his Mercury module while in orbit.”

    So I looked googled for “Schirra santa claus” and came up with the following page:

    link 1.

    Basically Schirra was playing a practical joke! He very seriously reported to Houston that he was seeing a large command module with eight smaller ones to get people’s attention. Well here’s what was said:

    ” “We have an object, looks like a satellite going from north to south, probably in polar orbit…. Looks like he might be going to re-enter soon…. You just might let me pick up that thing…. I see a command module and eight smaller modules in front. The pilot of the command module is wearing a red suit.”

    Then ground controllers heard the strains, both familiar and otherworldly, of “Jingle Bells,” played on a harmonica backed byâwhat else?âminiature sleigh bells.”

    He was on Gemini 6 on an in orbit rendevouz mission with Gemini 7. Guess who was on Gemini 7? Jim Lovell!

    So what’s more plausible, Lovell referring back to the Gemini mission when he was on Apollo 8, or alien spacecraft?

    Google++

    According to the following page, Schirra was quite the practical joker:

    link 2.

    Any thoughts on this ElroyJetson?

  47. Member
    IVAN3MAN says

    ND:

    I tried to post it earlier and it appears to not have gone through. Spamm filtering? 3rd attempt. I’m leaving out the URLs which I’ll post if this goes through.

    Try converting the ‘offending’ URL into a TinyURL version, then post that modified link.

    N.B. Post only one link at a time, otherwise it will get held up in “comment awaiting moderation” like, er… forever!

  48. ND says

    link 1: tinyurl.com/lhvdkd

  49. ND says

    link 2: tinyurl.com/3d76jc

  50. ND says

    Another thing about code words over voice communications, it’s silly. It would be much more secure to send a code through a data channel where it would be meaningless to anyone who catches such communications between spacecraft and Earth.

    “Gee what else could it have been” indeed.

  51. Jon Hanford says

    Thanks, ND, for sleuthing out that quote from Wally Schirra 🙂 . Certainly, members of the astronaut corps would try to inject some humor into their missions in an attempt to lighten up the situation. It’s rather easy to see how this exchange might be misconstrued after more than 40+ years. This practical joke morphed into a new (and entirely unintended) meaning. Sh*t happens, and this is not intended to be critically aimed at ElroyJetson. Hopefully, EJ might catch this latest development and learn something about the context of Wally Schirra’s comments (I know I did). Again, thanks ND for this interesting trivia from the heady days of the Gemini and Apollo programs.

    On a related note, recently PhysOrg.com reported on a new approach to quantum gravity, which included this interesting note: “Petr Ho?ava at Lawrence Berkeley Lab proposed …. a model for quantum gravity that has received widespread interest, in no small part because it is one of the few models that could be experimentally tested.” The article goes on to say: “Lu et al.’s paper is an important contribution to testing the Ho?ava model and shows that a good deal of work remains to understand its full implications.” The article itself (with a link to a free 4 page paper on the theory) can be found here: http://www.physorg.com/news170333445.html .

    I am curious how the more mathematically inclined readers here at UT think about this new(er) proposal and just how viable it may be 🙂

  52. Jon Hanford says

    @ ND and IVAN3MAN: I posted the first paragraph above (w-no links) earlier today (~7 hours ago) on this thread and it, too, disappeared. Possibly the problem is NOT related to including a URL in a post. Administrators?

  53. ND says

    IVAN3MAN,

    www facepalm org

  54. DrFlimmer says

    Thanks, Jon Hanford, for the paper. I am impressed that I would be able to actually understand the equations. But it would need a lot more than just reading it.
    I think, Lawrence B. Crowell is the one who can give us some helpful comments, is he not? 😉

    Btw: ND, nice story! It seems that flying through space is not just “do your job and shut up”. Sometimes it can be funny, too! 🙂

  55. Member
    IVAN3MAN says

    Jon Hanford:

    I posted the first paragraph above (w-no links) earlier today (~7 hours ago) on this thread and it, too, disappeared. Possibly the problem is NOT related to including a URL in a post.

    Possibly the problem was related to that word in the fifth line, of the first paragraph, with the omitted vowel. 😉

  56. Comment policy: Be nice and brief. Don’t advertise your stuff, or promote your personal theories. We’ll delete any comments that break these policies.

    What a joke the majority of posters here, regulars I might add, make of this policy.

    Y’all should be ashamed.

    Cheers, Dave Smith.

  57. ND says

    Dave Smith,

    Rally? Seriously?

    “Be nice and brief. Don’t advertise your stuff, or promote your personal theories.”
    That applied to Anaconda more than anyone else here.

    There was a lot rational discussion involving actual science and PC/EU ideas. How come we didn’t see you in those? Was it out of your league?

Comments are closed.