# Thread: how to create gravitational waves?

1. found such a wave instruction, is it correct? Can I use this instruction to create gravitational waves at home?
it would seem that energy should help attract objects. but this is not the case. energy can only push and not attract. energy counteracts gravity. but, the less energy the body contains, the more they attract. this means that cold bodies create a much larger gravitational field than hot bodies. heating and cooling of bodies can cause any event, which means the gravitational field changes every second. each wave has the possibility of resonance. this means that by cooling and heating the body with a certain frequency, we can create a resonance. and so we can see it.impulse force must be such that the wave does not have time to extinguish other waves that are in space. for this you need to use strong impulses. ideal electromagnetic waves. they, having a greater frequency, are able to warm up any objects on their way in space. moreover, the greater the frequency, the more they warm up the objects. perhaps a laser would be suitable for this purpose, but it is not capable of operating at a regulated frequency. Only a high frequency transmitter is suitable for this purpose. even if the resonance frequency is 1kHz, the transmitter should operate in a pulsed mode at a frequency of 100 GHz, with interruptions of 1 kHz, otherwise it will not work to warm up objects. If powerful pulses are used, if the resonant frequency is small, a small source should suffice.
to create a gravitational field we need a laboratory

2.

3. The quoted "information" is incorrect.

4. Originally Posted by scvitserdyak
found such a wave instruction, is it correct? Can I use this instruction to create gravitational waves at home?
I don't know where you copied that from, but it is nonsense. (You shouldn't really copy and paste copyrighted text without providing the source.)

If you want to generate gravitational waves, just spin two masses around one another.

5. I thought of it myself. I'm sure the method is working.
The fact is that gravitational waves, passing through space, cause a change in the distances between objects in it. Similarly, a change in the distance between objects should cause waves. It is proved that one body, attracting another body, bends space. If you take a non-massive body, it will also generate waves.
This is from the category "iron does not evaporate, but we smell it." Or "water can not be compressed but it is compressed."
Remember the lessons of physics. Solar systems are formed from dust. The dust particles are not massive bodies at all. But they eventually attract one body. Although, they are at a decent distance from each other.
This means that any bodies, even very small ones, exhibit an interaction.
During the rotation of black holes in the wave waves enter. But there is one trick. There are no reference points for rotation - there is no such thing that a gravitational wave is emitted strictly after each revolution. The gravitational wave arises from the movement. Thus, if the black holes did not rotate at all, and one of them would have flown past the second, the same wave would have arisen.
Thus, if the dust particles fly by, they generate the same wave, but very small. If they did not generate any waves, solar systems would not be created.

6. Moved to Personal Theories.
Originally Posted by scvitserdyak
I thought of it myself.
It's still wrong.

7. Originally Posted by scvitserdyak
it would seem that energy should help attract objects. but this is not the case.
No. It is the case. Energy causes the curvature of spacetime that we perceive as the force of gravity.

energy can only push and not attract.
No. Gravity can can only attract, not push.

energy counteracts gravity
No. Energy "causes" gravity.

but, the less energy the body contains, the more they attract.
No. If you increase the energy content of a body then you increase the effective mass and hence the gravitational force.

this means that cold bodies create a much larger gravitational field than hot bodies.
No. Exactly the other way round.

heating and cooling of bodies can cause any event, which means the gravitational field changes every second.
Amazingly, this is correct. Despite every other statement so far sing wrong.

However, this will not create gravitational waves. You need very specific types of asymmetry to generate gravitational waves.

8. Originally Posted by scvitserdyak
I thought of it myself. I'm sure the method is working.
As you have demonstrated an impressive near-zero knowledge of physics, I don't why you would think that something you made up would work.

The fact is that gravitational waves, passing through space, cause a change in the distances between objects in it.
The changes are very specific, because of the quadrupole nature of the waves.

Similarly, a change in the distance between objects should cause waves.
You might think that but, again, because of the quadrupole nature of the waves, only specific types of changes (such as two massive bodies orbiting one another) will generate gravitational waves.

If you take a non-massive body, it will also generate waves.
Citation needed. (Or, to put it another way: no.)

This is from the category "iron does not evaporate, but we smell it." Or "water can not be compressed but it is compressed."
Is this the same category as "I made some shit up so it must be right"?

Remember the lessons of physics.
Did you ever have any lessons?

The dust particles are not massive bodies at all.
Er, yes they are. Massive = having mass. Dust particles have mass.

This means that any bodies, even very small ones, exhibit an interaction.
Obviously. But it is hard to see how this is relevant.

During the rotation of black holes in the wave waves enter.
What??

But there is one trick. There are no reference points for rotation
Yes, there is. They are orbiting their common centre of mass.

Thus, if the black holes did not rotate at all, and one of them would have flown past the second, the same wave would have arisen.
Nope.

Thus, if the dust particles fly by, they generate the same wave, but very small. If they did not generate any waves, solar systems would not be created.
Nope.

I think you should go and study some physics (and remember the lessons) instead of making stuff up.

9. As I recall, Gravity waves and The science of Physics don't get along that well. All that is really known about Gravitation is that it is mass dependent ,inverse proportional and is the result of curved spacetime. Studies indicate that the wave may be transverse. There are experiments done by John K. Huchison using high charge and superimposing rf varying in the microwave region that seem to have an effect on gravity. Down side is that it also effects the materials in the experiment. I personally consider the science of gravity to be wide open. I imagine that gravity might somehow be related to quantum mechanics which is also still not fully understood.

10. Originally Posted by Freelance Scientist
As I recall, Gravity waves and The science of Physics don't get along that well.
Then, apparently, your memory is faulty given that physicists are the people who suggested their existence, set up experiments to find them and actually did so.
Studies indicate that the wave may be transverse.
Which studies?
There are experiments done by John K. Huchison
Get it right: claims of experiments...
Hutchison (note spelling) is a nutcase and a fraud.

11. Originally Posted by Freelance Scientist
As I recall, Gravity waves and The science of Physics don't get along that well.
You mean gravitational waves, not gravity waves (which are something completely different).

Gravitational waves were replaced by physics and detected by science and engineering. So your recall is faulty.

12. I'm thinking that a wave is a group interaction of smaller things with a force between them. For example water is the interaction of water molecules. Magnetism can be a wave, but static field cannot. As again I don't recall science seeing gravity gravitation as a wave or not. Just a dip in spacetime.

13. Originally Posted by Freelance Scientist
I'm thinking that a wave is a group interaction of smaller things with a force between them.
That is true for waves in matter. But not for, say, light waves or gravitational waves.

As again I don't recall science seeing gravity gravitation as a wave or not.
Gravitational waves have been discussed for well over a century. And directly detected a few years ago.

"The possibility of gravitational waves was discussed in 1893 by Oliver Heaviside using the analogy between the inverse-square law in gravitation and electricity.[27] In 1905, Henri Poincaré proposed gravitational waves, emanating from a body and propagating at the speed of light ... [Einsten] based on various approximations came to the conclusion there must, in fact, be three types of gravitational waves (dubbed longitudinal-longitudinal, transverse-longitudinal, and transverse-transverse ... the first indirect evidence for the existence of gravitational waves was discovered. In 1974 ... LIGO made the first direct detection of gravitational waves on 14 September 2015"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravit...l_wave#History

14. None of that is enough. Theoretically gravitational waves should exist. What it says there is that the possibility was discussed and resulted in a proposal. Try a quick double chedk on that. If the waves do exist then you could have gravitation emitters. Wanting them to exist and even knowing that they must exist has no effect on physics. So just take out your old gravity detector and see what frequency they use.

15. You missed that they DO exist.....

16. I really wish that were true. Examining this from the very basis of matter, Feinman equations and diagrams of charge interactions and resulting waves, fine. On a larger scale mass mass interactions result from what. Weak forces? Spacetime dip? Unknown magic? Also note that that last one wasn't good science. Matter acts as waves, therefore, mass mass interaction must also be a wave? Ok given, if it involves mass, there are waves involved. So theoretically there must be gravitational waves. If they were actually found though, they might have specifications, such as wavelength and frequency and exact source sources of emission. Hey guess what canceling them out to a null would mean anti gravity. This is great. Now we can go out and start building some saucers.

17. Originally Posted by Freelance Scientist
I really wish that were true. - snip - So theoretically there must be gravitational waves. If they were actually found though
How many times do you need to be told?
They were directly observed 4 years ago.

18. Originally Posted by Freelance Scientist
None of that is enough. Theoretically gravitational waves should exist.
They do exist.

If the waves do exist then you could have gravitation emitters.
They do. You could make one yourself. (The gravitational waves would be undetectably small though.)

So just take out your old gravity detector and see what frequency they use.
They detect a range of frequencies. This tells them about the source.

19. Originally Posted by Freelance Scientist
So theoretically there must be gravitational waves. If they were actually found though, they might have specifications, such as wavelength and frequency and exact source sources of emission.
Where have you been for the last few years?

Gravitational waves have been detected, the wavelength and frequency has been measured, the sources have been identified.

https://www.ligo.caltech.edu

Hey guess what canceling them out to a null would mean anti gravity.
Gravity is not caused by waves, so cancelling them out would not stop gravity.

20. Thanks Mr. Strange. I skimmed over the info presented by Mr. Duck. It ,gravitational wave, was detected over three different times for sure. The first lasting .02s. The frequency varied between 35 and 250hz. The wavelength 40 times the size of earth. Sorry, I was somehow thinking gravity instead of gravitational waves releasing great amounts of energy from rotating black holes. Gravity is thought to be the result of gravitons not waves. Gravitons may somehow relate to bosons another nobel particle.

21. Originally Posted by Freelance Scientist
Thanks Mr. Strange. I skimmed over the info presented by Mr. Duck. It ,gravitational wave, was detected over three different times for sure. The first lasting .02s. The frequency varied between 35 and 250hz. The wavelength 40 times the size of earth. Sorry, I was somehow thinking gravity instead of gravitational waves releasing great amounts of energy from rotating black holes. Gravity is thought to be the result of gravitons not waves. Gravitons may somehow relate to bosons another nobel particle.
What is a nobel particle?

 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement