Recent content by pawprint

The geodesic which comes to mind is that traced by the laser beam within the arm. I agree. In an article by Lee Billings in the November 2019 Scientific American on Page 56/7 he says- "...a passing gravitational wave briefly stretches and shrinks spacetime, altering the chambers' lengths (and...

Some six or seven years ago I asked the question in here- "is detection based on (1) the length of the arm geodesics or (2) the movement of the test masses?". I received a single response who stated that it was (2). There was no further post on the thread so I have accepted this answer since. I...

Welcome to PF edwinhubble. Your first two posts have brought smiles to my face:{) There appear to be differences of opinion within LIGO as to how it works. Some say the result will be detected by the movement of the 'test masses' to which the end mirrors are attached. Others expect the data to...

I posed the question because I am one who believes that the sublime silence of LIGO is itself a scientific datum. I am working on an entirely different approach to the detection of gravitational waves; one which has less reliance on entropic interactions. Some information is on my website...

Unless somebody knowelgeable posts a contradictory answer I consider this closed. Apologies for being imprecise once again. Thank you all.

Thank you. Had you answered 'yes' or 'no' without qualification I'd have accepted it.

I know that, but it's not what I'm asking. If the answer to my question is 'yes' then we would blame the variable speed of light for the phenomenon. Once again: Can the equations stand mathematically under this assumption, or do they fail to balance?

I comprehend SR without understanding the math. I am asking if, were t to be defined as constant and c allowed to vary as t does within the current framework, would the same equations balance. I apologise for my lack of formal mathematical training, but surely this is answerable?

What does it mean for c to be constant? All I'm asking is whether the SR, Lorentz et.al. equations can be validly reframed under the assumption that t, not c, is constant. I'm not trying to overturn physics, just get a better understanding. A yes or no answer will do.

I'm asking whether the mathematics hold together. I'm not suggesting the hypothesis is true.

The question: is the following statement true or false? "If the Special Theory of Relativity is re-framed so that instead of c being constant, distance or time is the constant, it remains valid."

Thank you, edwinhubble. Your answer is at least as clear as my question. Furthermore I'd just about given up hope on ANY answers. The forum areas I have been inhabiting can get half a dozen replies per hour. I think I can safely infer that a gravitational wave passing through ultradense matter...

I'm learning about gravitational waves and associated matters (detectors etc.). I don't do much maths, but physics is in my bones. Totally at home with classical physics and SR; as for GR- well, I'm O.K. as long as you stay on the 'friendly' side of event horizons... I'm comfortable with the...

In the same vein I now understand what hgwellsjnr was getting at, although it took a different thread to find it. When I used the term 'subjective' I should more accurately have referred to 'frames of reference'. Thank you hgwellsjnr.

Your point is well taken. I am happy to be corrected and will endeavour to keep this in mind.