tech

Scientists glimpse Einstein's gravitational waves

43 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2016 AFP

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

43 Comments
Login to comment

There is no magic gravity sucking us on to earth. All things drop to earth because they are heavier than air. Gravity can't even hold a small helium filled balloon down and yet we are to believe that some force holds the massive weight of the oceans on to the sides of the earth without dripping off.

-28 ( +0 / -28 )

25yearsinJapan: So why don't we all just float off into space? Why does the air stay?

12 ( +12 / -0 )

There is no magic gravity sucking us on to earth. All things drop to earth because they are heavier than air. Gravity can't even hold a small helium filled balloon down and yet we are to believe that some force holds the massive weight of the oceans on to the sides of the earth without dripping off.

What?!?!

This must be one of the most foolish things I've ever read on this site. I don't even know where to begin. Newton is rolling in his grave.

16 ( +16 / -0 )

This must be one of the most foolish things I've ever read on this site. I don't even know where to begin. Newton is rolling in his grave.

I was certain they they were joking but I'm less sure, seeing that they said this on the preliminary news item last month:

Gravity is only a theory. It is supposed to hold the massive oceans on a ball without dripping off.

If serious, 25years obviously doesn't know what "theory" means in the context of science.

9 ( +9 / -0 )

perhaps people like 25 years japan might just float away one day and let the scientists do there work.

11 ( +12 / -1 )

@25years in Japan

I can honestly say I haven't come across anything as unscientific as that for as long as I can remember and I've been watching the GOP debates.

12 ( +12 / -0 )

Gravity is the due to the acceleration of our space fabric along a 4d sphere. We are laying on a surface of a sphere like a balloon which is expending at the speed of light because of the original big bang explosion and that expansion is what is causing the time effect and... the expansion of the universe as the surface of a sphere expand as its radius grows. Massive objects opposes and experience a dragging effect when pushed by the expansion causing time dilation difference. I won't be surprised we detect that gravitational waves are also carrying time dilation wave with peak and creak poking in the past and future.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

This is HUGE: a new way has opened for mankind to explore the universe. re: the first comment- So that's what 25 years of watching Japanese TV does to you.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Twenty five years on the planet still has a lot to learn, like the lightest element in the universe is hydrogen and the most abundant although Frank Zappa often reminded us that hydrogen was trumped by stupidity.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

smithinjapanFeb. 12, 2016 - 08:38AM JST 25yearsinJapan: So why don't we all just float off into space? Why does the air stay? ============================

As I said, all objects that have weight drop down to the ground. You don't float away because you weigh more than air. Just believe in your eyes and logic.Even in a vacuum, objects that have weight still drop. Why does the air stay ? no one knows, nor does any scientist know where the wind comes from. Everyone believes in the theory of gravity because they are told so.Newton saw an apple fall off a tree- what a revelation. I think millions of people before him noticed this strange phenomena as well.

Strangerland. Tell me how water can stay on the sides of the earth. How does water rise up by capillary action- why doesn't gravity hold it down if gravity force is so strong to hold the oceans on the earth sides and underneath.

I think all this hoo ha about gravitational waves is damage control because so many people are waking up to this THEORY of gravity and It's problems to explain many simple questions.

Everyone is taught that the earth is a globe spinning at 1000mph- no wait, Neil Grass Tyson says that it is wider at the equator, no wait, he now says it is pear shaped. There is not one single true photo of earth. All the pictures you see are computer generated by stitching many photos together or even an artist's rendering. The reason there is no actual photo is because you can't get high enough in space to take one. The Hubble telescope supposedly can take pictures of the universe millions of light years away but can not take one of the earth.

-19 ( +0 / -19 )

As I said, all objects that have weight drop down to the ground.

That's incorrect. Everything has weight and density. Everything shifts to the position where it's density is less than that which is below it.

Most things fall to the ground, because they have more density than air. Some things have less density than air at ground level, and will float up until they reach a point where their density matches the air around them.

Why does the air stay ? no one knows

Yes we do. It stays because of the gravity of the earth. Same as everything else on earth.

Tell me how water can stay on the sides of the earth. How does water rise up by capillary action- why doesn't gravity hold it down if gravity force is so strong to hold the oceans on the earth sides and underneath.

Like this:

Adhesion of water to the walls of a vessel will cause an upward force on the liquid at the edges and result in a meniscus which turns upward. The surface tension acts to hold the surface intact. Capillary action occurs when the adhesion to the walls is stronger than the cohesive forces between the liquid molecules.

Link: http://water.usgs.gov/edu/capillaryaction.html

It's time's like this when I hate the internet - it gives people who should be ignored a voice.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

Tell me how water can stay on the sides of the earth. How does water rise up by capillary action- why doesn't gravity hold it down if gravity force is so strong to hold the oceans on the earth sides and underneath.

There's water in the dirt under the oceans.

If nothing stops the water, like capillary action or bedrock or a clay layer or hot magma or whatever, it should go deeper. At some point you'd expect the greater heat as it gets nearer the magma to keep it from condensing.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131208085304.htm

Vast freshwater reserves found beneath the oceans - December 8, 2013 - Summary: Scientists have discovered huge reserves of freshwater beneath the oceans kilometers out to sea, providing new opportunities to stave off a looming global water crisis. A new study reveals that an estimated half a million cubic kilometers of low-salinity water are buried beneath the seabed on continental shelves around the world.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

"I think all this hoo ha about gravitational waves is damage control because so many people are waking up to this THEORY of gravity and It's problems to explain many simple questions."

Which people are waking up? I'm always ready to read new research which disproves or questions previously established ideas. I'm no expert in this particular area but studied this to some level at university. Could you cite the sources which are causing people to wake up?

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Silly guys. The reason we're not floating is because angels are holding us down, durr.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

As I said, all objects that have weight drop down to the ground. You don't float away because you weigh more than air.

Oh boy, you were serious.

Did you and B.o.B go to school together by any chance?

6 ( +6 / -0 )

I wonder if the lenses of the Hubble Space Telescope could take a full shot of the Earth and the proximity it's at, I doubt it though.

Really exciting this is though. The more we learn about space, the more we learn about ourselves.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Oh boy, you were serious.

Hard to believe right. It blows me away that we are arguing the reality of gravity.

9 ( +9 / -0 )

Everything has weight and density.

Not entirely true - everything has density, but weight is a consequence of gravity. That's why the ISS can maneuver multi-ton objects with its robot arm. It is also why you can never totally be free of gravity: by definition, if you are there, gravity manifests.

25years in Japan, there are four known forces: gravitational, electromagnetic, and weak and strong nuclear, from weakest to strongest. Their respective strengths at the scale of quarks are: 10⁻40, 10⁻4,1 and 60 (sorry - can't seem to get JT to accept superscript numerals). Gravity may be a very weak force, but its existence is pretty much a good thing for objects which desire to coalesce. Put it this way: a mouse might not have great strength, but if you harness a septillion mice, you'll get some oomph. Or, if you want to remain Luddite, continue to think "There is no gravity; the Earth sucks."

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Not entirely true - everything has density, but weight is a consequence of gravity.

You're right - I stand corrected. I was thinking in terms of within earth's gravitational pull, but of course the universe is a lot bigger than that.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

earth is a globe spinning at 1000mph- no wait, Neil Grass Tyson says that it is wider at the equator, no wait, he now says it is pear shaped.

The term you're looking for is "oblate spheroid".

There is not one single true photo of earth. All the pictures you see are computer generated by stitching many photos together or even an artist's rendering. The reason there is no actual photo is because you can't get high enough in space to take one.

I'm not sure what this has to do with the existence of gravity (or have you moved into flat-earther territory?) but this is patently false. There are plenty of them. Here are several: http://mentalfloss.com/article/30016/blue-marble-views-earth-far-away

I'm mildly interested in more of this so-called "logic" that leads one to the position that gravity doesn't exist.

If gravity doesn't exist, how did we use the Newtonian law of gravitation to mathematically predict the existence of Neptune before its discovery? How do stars form? How are comets pulled into the sun when they are not on a direct trajectory but come close? How does "believing in your eyes and logic" explain these things?

7 ( +7 / -0 )

25 years

Gravity can't even hold a small helium filled balloon down

Are you under the impression that a helium balloon continues rising forever and flies away into space? Of course gravity holds it down - just not below the air on the planet's surface, as it is less dense.

all objects that have weight drop down to the ground. You don't float away because you weigh more than air. Just believe in your eyes and logic. Even in a vacuum, objects that have weight still drop

Your statements are contradictory. You say we don't float away because we weigh more than air, but you also say that even in a vacuum we wouldn't float away. The second statement is correct; the first is not.

Why does the air stay ? no one knows

Everybody knows; it stays because it has mass, upon which gravity acts. Or to put it in your terms, it stays because it has weight and things that have weight drop.

nor does any scientist know where the wind comes from

It is common knowledge.

Tell me how water can stay on the sides of the earth

What on earth do you mean by "sides of the earth"? Water doesn't stay on the sides of the earth, it stays on the surface of the earth, like everything else here, due to the earth's gravity pulling it down towards the surface. The earth doesn't have sides or a top or a bottom; space doesn't have up and down. The earth is not flat.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

I must admit this is new to me. I've heard denials of evolution and the idea of a 6,000-year-old Earth but they have been largely religiously based. I know the idea of tides completely flummoxed a Fox News presenter but as far as I know, that was just rank ignorance and stupidity rather than outright denial of gravitational forces. Is there any religious reason to object to gravity? It's the only thing I can think of.

@25Years In Japan I've seen a photo of the Earth and Atlas looked absolutely shattered.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Brilliant, in the words of the immortal Ian Dury, "There en arf bin some clever barsterds". Well done, and the fact proven just as soon as they turn the detectors on. Very stylish.

25years in Japan, oh dear. You live and work, in practice accepting the long proven scientific concepts that enable you to do so. You can read and write so it's clear you went to school, what on earth went wrong?

5 ( +5 / -0 )

There is no magic gravity sucking us on to earth.

At that point, I thought 25years had an interesting point to make. It kind of went downhill from there.

there are four known forces: gravitational, electromagnetic, and weak and strong nuclear

There is a lot of discussion about whether gravity is a fundamental force in the same sense as the other three. Einstein described gravity as simply the shape of space and time. So nothing is 'pulling' us down to the ground. Rather, that is where our future lies unless something interferes (e.g. hitting the ground). Forces certainly apply when resisting gravity. (i.e. you don't feel any force when falling down an elevator shaft, but you certainly feel one when landing at the bottom)

Maybe a quibble, but wouldn't it have been a bigger scientific discovery if gravitational waves were found not to exist? I was thinking this was more of a technological achievement than a scientific one. Anyway, big news either way.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

There are turtles standing on each other's backs all the way down.

Well, 25 years in Japan does admit to weight causing things to fall. He's on to something.... But centuries late. But, me thinks he is trolling.

What causes the weight? Mass + Gravity = Weight

Gravity is one of the most proven sciences out there. It has been proven since Newton. All else has been refinement.

Similar to the world not being flat, then round, then oval, then bulging at the center. The fact is the earth is not flat and each change in science does not make the original correct observation/theory correct, the earth is round (and not flat).

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Interesting. Albaleo.

Einstein described gravity as simply the shape of space and time.

Ancient people conceived of a concept "ether," which was assumed to be a type of material that connected all space as they could not conceive of a vacuum. It makes sense: light and heat are transmitted from the sun to the Earth, and transmission requires a medium, doesn't it? (Turns out、not always.) But your remark about Einstein's conception - if I may rephrase it - that gravity is the fabric of space/time - is poetic and beautiful. One scientist compared the waves traveling through time and space to the music of the universe, because what is music if not waves.

If you'll excuse me now, I think I'll go smoke some marijuana and listen to whale songs.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

@25years: Do you where I can find bulk tin foil at reasonable prices? It's so expensive here in Japan, and i can hardly sleep at night with all the alien reality TV programs being beamed at me.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Awesome it was finally proven - without gravity waves, much of modern physics would crumble.

This a new way to observe the universe. Think about it this way: in the 16th C., Galileo observed the universe via light thru the telescope (visible waves). After WW2, we could observe the universe thru radio waves (invisible waves). With this, we can observe the universe thru yet another way - the gravity waves. Who knows what we may "see" thru this.

Good job Einstein and the scientists in the US.

There is no magic gravity sucking us on to earth. All things drop to earth because they are heavier than air. Gravity can't even hold a small helium filled balloon down and yet we are to believe that some force holds the massive weight of the oceans on to the sides of the earth without dripping off.

Gravity does not pull - it pushes. What's actually making you and things drop to earth is the curve in the fabric of space-time (caused by the mass of the Earth) pushing you into the Earth.

And gravity is actually one of the weaker forces, even weaker than the so-called "weak" van der Waals forces. And thank goodness for that - because if gravity is stronger, then the weak intermolecular forces keeping us on the surface of the Earth would no longer hold us and we would all break through the solid ground and fall ("get pushed") into the center of the Earth.

But just because gravity is one of the weaker forces does not mean it's not important. It just needs a lot of mass for good effect, and the universe consists of a lot of these massive objects.

Gravity is one of the most tested theories, and so far supported by evidence after evidence. So long as evidence keep supporting it, then we hold the theory to be true. When new evidence no longer support it, that's when we have to think of a new theory.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

"the very birth of the Universe some 13.8 billion years ago."

What was before the birth of the Universe 13.8 billion years ago? Nothing?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

"the very birth of the Universe some 13.8 billion years ago."

What was before the birth of the Universe 13.8 billion years ago? Nothing?

Nobody really knows yet. We haven't figured out a means of "seeing" beyond that point in time.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

What was before the birth of the Universe 13.8 billion years ago?

It's not even clear whether the concept of 'before' has any sense or meaning in this context. Our language is formed by our perceptions of reality. But as Einstein said, reality is an illusion. We have a lot to learn still.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

We know how to measure gravity and the effects of gravity. What we don't know is why objects are attracted to each other as a function of mass.

We understand how to use and make electricity, but we don't know a lot of fundamental things about it.

We understand that we should should buy chocolates for white day, but we don't understand a lot about why women are the way they are. We just know the effect.

Please read this post fast because it will be deleted soon. Humor is not allowed and the last line was humor.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

There is no magic gravity sucking us on to earth. All things drop to earth because they are heavier than air. Gravity can't even hold a small helium filled balloon down and yet we are to believe that some force holds the massive weight of the oceans on to the sides of the earth without dripping off.

Got to love these troll posts. Even elementary school kids are taught why oil floats on water (because it displaces more water weight than it weighs itself) and why helium balloons float up (because the space inside the balloon contains a gas lighter than an equivalent amount of the surrounding air mixture, and the surrounding air slides under the balloon, "pushing" the balloon up. This continues until an altitude is reached where an equivalent amount of the surrounding air mass has thinned enough to match the weight of the balloon)

Additionally, the troll claims there's no such thing as gravity, then immediately claims that things fall to earth because they are "heavier than air" - which is a true statement - but the concept of something being "heavy" is a function of gravity - which is a function of mass. The greater the mass, the stronger the gravitational pull.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What was before the birth of the Universe 13.8 billion years ago? Nothing?

There are many theories regarding that ranging from singularity to multidimensional leakage, but my favrite is explained about two minutes into this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4eS2SceeFk

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@Albaleo

There is a lot of discussion about whether gravity is a fundamental force in the same sense as the other three. Einstein described gravity as simply the shape of space and time.

Okay. but the shape of space and time is fundamental force itself, because it isn't constant. If it would be, we wouldn't have gravitational waves aka the fluctuations in the shape of space and time. We assume that the shape is constant and thats why we need dark energy and dark matter to explain it off, but if we just accept that the shape is fundamental force, we don't need that kind of nonsense.

IMHO. Our universe is slowing down and that's why time is slowing down. In other words time was faster in the early universe than it is now. Expanting space causes red shift to the light, slowing time causes blue shift. That's why we see far away objects closer than they really are. The same applies to gravitation. We feel stronger gravitation force from far away objects than closer ones, because time is slowing down.

“The waveform that we can calculate based on Einstein’s theory of 1916 matches exactly what we observed in 2015,” Shoemaker told AFP.

Of course if I would be right, the calculations wouln't match the theory, but it was fun thought experiment, wasn't it?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Our universe is slowing down and that's why time is slowing down. In other words time was faster in the early universe than it is now. Expanting space causes red shift to the light, slowing time causes blue shift.

Time is relative to mass.

Red shift is only a doppler effect causing light waves to lengthen relative to movement away from us. Red light has a longer wave length than blue. Can't think of a reason that has to do with time. Have never heard of a blue shift since everything on a cosmic scale is moving away from everything else, unless you are looking at something much closer like the planets in our solar system.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Interesting timing. The Japanese Kamioka gravity wave detector will start up next month, so I guess they figured they had to hurry to be first.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

@viking68

Time is relative to mass.

Time is relative to mass and space. Lets assume that we built a space ship and start travelling to another solar system. When the ship accelerates the crew notices that the light coming from the stars ahead of the ship have the blue shift and the stars behind have the red shift. There is another thing which the crew doesn't notice. Their time is slowing down. When they speak with Earth, Houston says that they have been travelling longer than the clock inside the ship shows. Both are right. Time is slower inside the ship than at Earth, but the crew can't know it, because they are inside the ship themselves.

Why is the time slower inside the ship and not at Earth? Who says that the ship is travelling from Earth and Earth isn't travelling from the ship? Why Earth is the reference point? It isn't. The reference point is the universe itself. The ship is travelling inside our universe.

The universe itself is expanding. There will be more, more and more space between galaxies when the time goes ahead and any volume of the space is expanding. One cubic meter becomes 2 cubic meters. 2 cubic meters become 4 cubic meters and so long. There is one problem. When the the time goes by, eventually the universe will be expanding faster than light. It has done so before just after the big bang. Physics can't explain it, because the universe would be going backwards in time and not forward like it is doing now. Was the universe a giant time machine going backwards in time? Going backwards relative to what? It doesn't make sense.

We measure distance with la supernovaes because they explode with the same amount of energy. When we measure the power and frequency of the light from la supernovaes, we know their distance from us and their speed relative to us. We discovered that far away supernovaes are bluer and nearby supernovars are redder than they should be. We made an assumption that the universe must be expanding faster now. The Nobel prize was given in 2011 for this discovery.

It makes the faster than light dilemma even worse. Is the universe breaking the law of physics? And from where all that extra energy comes from? All our physics has been created with assumption that you can't create or destroy energy. We had to add the mysterious dark energy to explain it off.

If we assume instead that the time isn't constant, but it gets slower with time (This sounds stupid, but there isn't any way in our language to explain this), we could explain it without breaking the laws of physics. La supernovaes had the same frequency in the early universe than they have now, but because our time is slower now it seems like early frequency is higher, because our second is longer than the second in the early universe. That's why early la supernovaes are bluer than they should be. That's why it seems like the early universe expanded faster than light. It didn't, but because our time is slower it seems like the early universe is super fast. And that's why the crew in our spaceship thinks that the outside world is super fast. But the crew can't tell the difference because they are inside their own space ship. And that's why we can't tell the difference between the speed of earlier time and the speed of recent time because we are inside our own universe.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

25years in Japan: "There is not one single true photo of earth. All the pictures you see are computer generated by stitching many photos together or even an artist's rendering. The reason there is no actual photo is because you can't get high enough in space to take one. The Hubble telescope supposedly can take pictures of the universe millions of light years away but can not take one of the earth."

I am at a loss for words here...

0 ( +1 / -1 )

25 years:

The concept of gravity is indeed a theory and one that explains observed physical phenomena. If you don't believe it is correct it is up to you to come up with a different theory that can explain the attractive force between two objects with mass.

As for there being no photos of the earth: there are many, including those taken by astronauts who landed on the moon. You know, the round thing in the sky that orbits the earth due to the gravitational force between the two bodies.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

hamln: to be clearer, time is a function of mass and speed.

Mass itself bends space and time. So, the further out in space you are, the further you are from a mass, and the slower time for the passengers of your space craft compared to someone on earth.

I could never get my head around how speed affects time, but the effects are so small and the energy so high to get to a speed where it would be noticeable, I never worried about it. Speed also affects mass, or momentum to be more precise. We don't really see any of these effects except probably in nuclear centrifuges that are very fast and increases in mass must be accounted for.

Mass and time, however, is more of a common issue. For example, satellites are far enough away from the mass of earth that their time runs slower than on earth. It is small, but the relativistic effects must be taken into account.

Needless to say, relativity (including time/space/mass) are heavily proven science. For that matter, so is quantum physics. Each new discovery is merely a refinement of already proven science.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

25 years in Japan... please tell me you are kidding. You really believe that the Earth is flat? Oh deary, deary me...

1 ( +1 / -0 )

the further you are from mass, and the faster time for the passengers of your space craft compared to someone on earth.

Just a small correction to what I wrote.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites