3
$\begingroup$

A question with the title

Does the Earth produces measurable gravitational waves?

was posted on 9 May 2021.1

I am skeptical about the questions intention. Is it a legitimate question, in which case it belongs here or is it self promotion and advertising?

The particular passages of concern are,

"... The signal that I and others (including Murata, who manufacturers the accelerometers) have measured ..." and"We believe this could be a useful tool for geological exploration."

Could these passages be interpreted as self promotion and possibly advertising?


1currently Does the Earth produces measurable gravity waves?

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ Fred as I know you are a user that likes correct language in the Q&A of the site, I will tell you I think you have a typo. Intentions? I can't sugest edit at a meta post $\endgroup$ May 9 '21 at 19:12
  • $\begingroup$ @Universal_learner: Thank you for noticing my mistake. It should have been intention instead of intension. $\endgroup$
    – Fred
    May 10 '21 at 5:07
  • $\begingroup$ I asked in physics and the verdict was this can't work: physics.stackexchange.com/questions/635148/…. As long as there's nothing better than a text with magic spells referencing Wikipedia I think it is not to be taken too serious anyway. $\endgroup$
    – user22279
    May 11 '21 at 19:06
  • $\begingroup$ @Earthworm: Thanks. This further justifies closing the question. $\endgroup$
    – Fred
    May 12 '21 at 4:32
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, I come to the conclusion this is clearly pure Advertisement, "Inquiring" with the Geology Community YET at the same time Mentioning Murata and saying he is the owner of Murata. $\endgroup$
    – MooseSmart
    May 14 '21 at 15:09
1
$\begingroup$

update: There was a helpful edit in the queue and I'd accepted it. I then added a further helpful edit. I think this can now be reopened and the blockade on answer-posting can now be lifted.


There are several reasons for closing the question for improvement, but perhaps the OP was overly vilified prematurely.

And if the mention of the name of a company is felt to be problematic (it really wasn't promotional at all in this case, you folks over-reacted) then just ask the OP to remove the company name or make a quick and helpful edit yourself.

Closing and especially the answer prevention that it what closing does is heavy-handed when a tiny edit can fix that problem!

There is some physics here, let's be careful.

They didn't see gravitational waves, but perhaps they saw gravity waves.

Gravitational waves, the wiggling of spacetime due to huge things like stars and black holes accelerating are not going to be detected like this.

But there are also Gravity waves familiar to Earth scientists!

And low frequency, wave-like variations in local gravity are certainly possible.

Their period was about 9 hours, and an accelerometer might see a 24 hour periodic variation in acceleration as well.

Right now these are measured as fairly fast impulses following seismic effects, but this is just the beginning of a new field in Earth observation science so let's be careful not to rule out something without careful consideration.

See my summary in Seismic amplitude distribution and see

There is certainly an interest in long period gravitational waves, cf. What produces gravitational waves with “periods between about 100 - 8000 seconds”? which piqued their interest, but these are not observable with conventional accelerometers

Or Tidal Effects!

If there was any chance their 3$\times 10^{-5}$ Hz peak was consistent with 2.3$\times 10^{-5}$ Hz then a 12 hour period would be consistent with tidal effects https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/a/35562/7982

Tidal effect

$\endgroup$
3
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Voted to reopen $\endgroup$ May 16 '21 at 7:24
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @uhoh: you have completely changed the question's meaning, probably not even read the linked work. Given the tantrum you threw when I interpreted your questions concerning the flares of SpaceX satellites this is right away bizarre. Don't change questions to your liking, post a new one. $\endgroup$
    – user22279
    May 16 '21 at 13:16
  • $\begingroup$ @Earthworm no I did not completely change the question. That's yet another mis-representation of what can be verified by reviewing the edit history. What I did do is remove the objectionable bits and I wonder if that's what's got folks who like to regularly object and complain disappointed? It's still an observation around 3E-05 Hz at several locations around the Earth using accelerometers, and asks what these can be. I did change gravitational wave to gravity wave since it can't be gravitational waves, but the OP is primarily simply trying to find out if there is a natural source. $\endgroup$
    – uhoh
    May 16 '21 at 18:01
1
$\begingroup$

Note that @uhoh completely changed the question, from the original gravitational waves and a linked dubious work referencing wikipedia and describing a dubious experimental setup, to the more trivial gravity waves that happen in the interfaces of earth's spheres.

I believe the difference is clear to most if not all of us. The new version has nothing to do with the original one, the junk science link was removed and the context changed.

See also: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/635148/claims-of-detection-of-gravitational-waves-with-an-accelerometer

As long the original author doesn't explain closer what they are after, and possibly doesn't ask for an opinion of a community but an answer to well formed question, I won't change my position on this.

Pls. let us not encourage crackpots and junk- or pseudo-science. We're helping noone with editing their questions, potentially enabling them to return with another crackpot 'theory' but higher reputation.

$\endgroup$
8
  • $\begingroup$ No, uhoh did not completely change the question. That's verifiably false There were TWO edits, you singled me out and ignored the other edit. The OP of the question is not a crackpot, what they are doing is not pseudo-science. There was no crackpot theory and it can easily be seen by reading the original version that they were just asking if it could be that or not. It was a good-faith question. Your language is way too strong and condescending (and far from welcoming) and your statements are verifiably false. $\endgroup$
    – uhoh
    May 16 '21 at 18:05
  • $\begingroup$ I'm flagging again because you still don't seem to understand good Stack Exchange manners and the need to be careful and responsible with statements made, especially statements about your fellow users! $\endgroup$
    – uhoh
    May 16 '21 at 18:06
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @uhoh: You're in no position to teach me manners. You have told me not to interpret questions, yet you change them fundamentally (and argue again with whataboustism) and said you prefer simple/yes no ansers backed with youtube videos are preferrable to science study based answers, as they where "yahoo" answers. If you want to know weather gravity waves give readings on accelerometers, ask a question, but don't help to spread pseudoscience. The question was very clear with the mention of GR and gravitational waves and neutron stars, do not falsely argue ! $\endgroup$
    – user22279
    May 16 '21 at 18:20
  • $\begingroup$ It may though be that you think gravity waves and gravitational waves are related. They are not. $\endgroup$
    – user22279
    May 16 '21 at 18:22
  • $\begingroup$ Sixth time you've mist-represented what I've said. 1) My answer above draws a clear distinction; gravity waves make nice cloud patterns in the sky and waves on the ocean, and gravitational waves are "the wiggling of spacetime due to huge things like stars and black holes accelerating" Your pattern of misrepresentation of what is clearly verifiable (it's right here on this page in this case) means your complains have reliably and repeatably low credibility. You are in danger of building a reputation for yourself of making stuff up. $\endgroup$
    – uhoh
    May 16 '21 at 18:37
  • $\begingroup$ My question about gravity wave in Earth Science SE: What might cause these “wave clouds” near the horizon? Could it be gravity waves? and my questions about gravitational waves in Astronomy SE Before you tell a Stack Exchange user that they may not know what they are talking about, you can search their posts and find out. That saves you the embarrassment of making false statements like that. $\endgroup$
    – uhoh
    May 16 '21 at 18:41
  • $\begingroup$ my gravity wave question in Astronomy SE: Why do the upper-atmosphere clouds of Venus appear to have that V shape? and two gravity wave questions in Space SE $\endgroup$
    – uhoh
    May 16 '21 at 18:45
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The problem is you barking at people who interpret your question (that btw. makes no sense because it has been answered multiple times in the past 2 years) but yourself you edit questions, funddamentally changing their meaning to your liking, poosible enabling junk. Whatever story you invent of what you think stack exchange is about you put around it, you manipulate and influence people. And that's why I'm gone. Keep to yourselves in here, my time is too precious for that piffle. $\endgroup$
    – user22279
    May 16 '21 at 22:14
0
$\begingroup$

I think it is self promotion as the poster clearly says he is the owner of Murata.

In my opinion the question should de closed and deleted.

The fact the user complained quickly with nervous words about Fred's comment make me thing we have correctly interpreted the issue and the question need to be deleted.

The answer is suspicious of being a friend. It has joined Earth Science today to answer the question.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ It's absurd to close and delete a question when simply editing out one word would fix the objection. New users come here without any background in how Stack Exchange works. I think this is overzealous, and unnecessarily vilifies the new user. I know it took me a while to get used to how to ask good questions in Stack Exchange, and I'm sure a lot of others did too. This was the exact opposite of being welcoming. $\endgroup$
    – uhoh
    May 15 '21 at 22:53
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @uhoh it is true after MooseSmart edit removing the publicity the question is on topic. I too much quick said it needs to be deleted while an edit can make it answerable. $\endgroup$ May 17 '21 at 10:03

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .