Pretty sure you can rig something far better than radar if you have the ability to detect extremely tiny gravitational waves via an array of hyper-accurate clocks.

▲

NitpickLawyer 7 hours ago | parent [-]

> detect extremely tiny gravitational waves via an array of hyper-accurate clocks.

I wonder how tiny is feasible. Would it get to a level of accuracy where you could detect neutrinos? We know they have some (v tiny) mass, so it should in theory be detectable that way?

▲

inigyou 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Moving objects don't emit gravitational waves though. They have to be orbiting.

▲

terminalbraid 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

First, that claim is patently false. Two objects with size accelerating directly towards each other (i.e. zero orbital angular momentum hence zero "orbit") will produce waves. A moving object will produce detectable changes in gravity so arguing about "waves" in the context of atomic clocks detecting gravity is irrelevant.

	▲	winwang an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I don't GR but I'm fairly certain dipole does not work for gravitational waves (i.e. two objects accelerating straight at each other). Supposedly, there's a specific definition of "gravitational wave" here. You can, of course, detect the change in gravity though, regardless of "gravitational wave" or not.

▲

actionfromafar 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

1. Isn't everything orbiting something?

2. If a black hole passed us by, no gravitional wave?