Talk:Gravitational wave/Archive 1

message: Hi all. The articles linearized gravity and linearised Einstein field equations may be worth a quick perusal to decide exactly where certain derivations should be. The derivation given here (or part of it, at least) is in the linearised EFE article; I planned to go into that in more detail, but server problems put an end to that idea. As there is no point in having duplicate derivations, can we come to an agreement over which article should have the derivation ? Thanks. ---Mpatel  (talk) 09:22, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know. I am torn. But I do think that the linearized gravity would need other derivations as well. There is more to linearized gravity than this one derivation. And this article still needs the derivations of the monopole, dipole, quadropole stuff. Personally I see no problem with duplication. (CHF)
"Also, because gravitational waves are so weak (and thus difficult to detect), objects opaque to light are often transparent to gravitational radiation."
Objects are transparent to gravitational radiation because the waves are weak? --24.94.189.89 14:13, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content 

message: To whoever wrote this:
Our solar system can not radiate very much gravitational radiation because the planets are mostly on the same plane of orbit with spins aligned to that plane. And even if this were not the case, the gravitational forces in our solar system are very weak with the exception of Mercury and the Sun.
FYI, spins aligned with the orbital plane or not has nothing to do with the quadrupole moment formula giving the most elementary estimate of the power (energy per unit time) radiating by a binary system such as Mercury, Sun.---CH 00:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Spin-spin interactions can make the orbits more stable (decay slower) if they have a certain alignment (both up or one up and one down (but pointing in a little in both cases)). But, yeah it won't totally stop the radiation. (CHF 14:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

text: (LOL)  Now I recall that I wrote the second paragraph I quoted!  That is, I wrote it in on this talk page--- and then someone else added that sentence to the article without the context!    This illustrates the point that context is everything: if you yank meaningful sentences from another users writings and insert them randomly into an article, you are likely to turn sense into nonsense, in addition to disrupting the flow of ideas in the article.---CH 13:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted nonsense

message: This section needs a new introduction clarifying that this "derivation" involves the linearized approximation.  Indeed, this is a linearized perturbation of Minkowski vacuum. ---CH 00:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Derivation

message: Hi, 24.61.41.56, thanks for noticing the wrong sign.  Someone other than myself keeps putting in the incorrect minus sign, and I don't know why that is attributed to me (I don't even use that syntax!).  Whoever you are, do you see that one part in ten expresses the ratio one:ten?  So one part in 1021 is what we want here.---CH 10:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: One part in 10<sup>21</sup>, not 10<sup>&minus 21</sup>

message: 139.184.30.17, you wrote  A gravity wave arises due to density changes in a fluid.  But this claim is not only ambiguous, it is incorrect under either interpretation:
*density perturbations do not always produce gravitational radiation (consider a spherically pulsating star)
*gravitational radiation will be produced by any source having a time varying quadrupole moment tensor (or time-varying higher multipoles), regardless of whether the source contains a fluid (consider a bar rotating about an axis orthgonal to its symmetry axis).
Please do not edit this article if you do not have your facts straight, OK?  TIA---CH 10:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Production of gravitational radiation

message: Anon 130.184.88.44 (University of Arkansas at Fayetteville) added several links within the body of the article to a cranky website promoting alleged proprietary "technology", .  These links were embedded in text promoting claims about high frequency gravitational radiation which must be regarded as fringe at best.  Such edits are somewhere between linkspam and POV pushing and are deprecated. ---CH 19:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More linkspam and POV pushing

message: As a courtesy, I have removed the "expert" items from the todo list.  I am leaving WP and doubt anyone else will know how to implement the suggested improvements since this was mostly a note to myself.
While I never extensively edited this article, and mostly hadn't the heart to monitor it, since I feel it is rather awful and concerns a subject dear to my heart, from time to time I make more or less specific suggestions in this talk page.  Sadly, I am now abandoning this article to its fate.
Good luck to all students in your search for information, regardless!---CH 00:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Todo list