Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: opportunity on 28/12/2018 03:44:02
-
I've read theories (as per "gravitational wave" theory) that gravity as a force propagates at "c", and yet I've also read theories that gravity is far much faster than "c". Has anyone any ideas on this topic?
-
Consider this:
https://mic.com/articles/19755/the-speed-of-gravity-why-einstein-was-wrong-and-newton-was-right#.06P9Euz7a
It does make sense that light would have a tailing effect to a far greater speed of gravity, with that argument.
The issue of course is "visible measurements" v "actual measurements". When visible measurements go stellar, the following qualifies for "c" for gravity:
Measurements[edit]
The speed of gravity (more correctly, the speed of gravitational waves) can be calculated from observations of the orbital decay rate of binary pulsars PSR 1913+16 (the Hulse–Taylor binary system noted above) and PSR B1534+12. The orbits of these binary pulsars are decaying due to loss of energy in the form of gravitational radiation. The rate of this energy loss ("gravitational damping") can be measured, and since it depends on the speed of gravity, comparing the measured values to theory shows that the speed of gravity is equal to the speed of light to within 1%.[19] However, according to PPN formalism setting, measuring the speed of gravity by comparing theoretical results with experimental results will depend on the theory; use of a theory other than that of general relativity could in principle show a different speed, although the existence of gravitational damping at all implies that the speed cannot be infinite.[citation needed]
(from wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity)
Hmmm.
-
I've read theories (as per "gravitational wave" theory) that gravity as a force propagates at "c", and yet I've also read theories that gravity is far much faster than "c". Has anyone any ideas on this topic?
Quadrupolar Gravity waves are a stupid idea. So too the idea that they travel at c.
Van Flandern & others said that gravity travels at at least 20 billion c. I reckon probly a pulse, ie a GP not a GW.
Einsteinists say that gravity is fundamentally instantaneous, ie we have IAAAD (i say Einsteinists but not necessarily for Einsteinian reasons). I have seen two different explanations for their silly IAAAD.
The binary proofs of GWs travelling at c are problematic. So called proofs usually involve 3 or 4 tiers of assumptions & postulates & principles & laws, each depending on the other, making a house of rotting cards held in place by years of moldy lies told to skoolkids by Einsteinist Priests.
The Einsteinian view is that the force of gravity is instantaneous, but that changes in gravity travel at c (eg a GW).
How is it that Einsteinists can extrapolate a train carriage thort-X (or an elevator thort-X or a spinning disc thort-X)(that shows that the speed of light appears to have a constant value of c) to somehow show that gravity waves travel at c is a question that should never have survived for more than a few seconds & should not now need to be asked.
How is it that Einsteinists can insist that gravity is fundamentally IAAAD is also a question that should never have survived.
No skoolkids today should have heard of this Einstein. They should be tort Lorentz relativity (LC) & Poincare TD.
We are living in an Einsteinian Dark Age, but the times they are a'changin.
-
Quadrupolar Gravity waves are a stupid idea.
I am sure that you are familiar with electromagnetic radiation, which comes from a dipole source.
- Positive and negative charges attract each other, forming a dipole
- These can be produced by accelerating + and - charges orbiting each other
- every cycle of the + & - charges produces a positive excursion and a negative excursion of the electromagnetic wave.
- So the frequency in Hertz is equal to the orbital frequency.
The major difference with gravitational waves is that mass only comes in positives (as far as we know)
- And two positive masses attract each other
- These can be produced by two positive masses orbiting each other (like two neutron stars)
The way I think of it is with two neutron stars with identical mass and diameter, orbiting each other
- they are effectively identical and indistinguishable
- So you cannot distinguish A approaching you from B approaching you
- So an identical gravitational wave must be produced when A is approaching you as when B is approaching you
- So the frequency in Hertz is equal to twice the orbital frequency.
This is why electromagnetic radiation has a dipole source, and gravitational waves has a quadrupole source.
-
Quadrupolar Gravity waves are a stupid idea.
I am sure that you are familiar with electromagnetic radiation, which comes from a dipole source.
- Positive and negative charges attract each other, forming a dipole
- These can be produced by accelerating + and - charges orbiting each other
- every cycle of the + & - charges produces a positive excursion and a negative excursion of the electromagnetic wave.
- So the frequency in Hertz is equal to the orbital frequency.
The major difference with gravitational waves is that mass only comes in positives (as far as we know)
- And two positive masses attract each other
- These can be produced by two positive masses orbiting each other (like two neutron stars).
The way I think of it is with two neutron stars with identical mass and diameter, orbiting each other
- they are effectively identical and indistinguishable
- So you cannot distinguish A approaching you from B approaching you
- So an identical gravitational wave must be produced when A is approaching you as when B is approaching you
- So the frequency in Hertz is equal to twice the orbital frequency.
This is why electromagnetic radiation has a dipole source, and gravitational waves has a quadrupole source.
Well said. I believe in quadrupolar gravity waves near the plane of a binary, but.
The waves are due to cyclic changes in the strength of the simple Newtonian gravity field due to the simple decrease in distance to the nearest body (partly negated by the increase in distance to the farthest body).
Its not a strong field, & the cyclic changes are weakish (especially at longish distances).
There is a transverse component at near distances, ie in the near field, but it is nearnuff zero at long range.
The field & the cyclic changes are weaker at greater rpm as the binary gets tighter, ie rpm & star velocity have no effect in themselves (the field strength is only due to simple distance considerations)(per the Newtonian equation).
There is no loss of mass due to ordinary Newtonian gravity, ie a gravity field does not consume energy -- but this is a difficult area & i could be wrong, but if wrong & energy is consumed then nonetheless there is no loss of mass.
But there can be a loss of mass in a blackhole (Ranzan).
In which case there can be a loss of mass if large binaries form a blackhole.
There is no loss of mass due to the rpm of a binary, ie a cyclic change in gravity field does not consume energy.
The loss of mass in a blackhole does not create an equivalent amount of energy (Ranzan).
Any loss of mass in a binary or elsewhere can have only a simple Newtonian effect on the gravity field, ie less mass equals less gravity as per the simple Newtonian equation.
Such waves travel at more than 20 billion c (Van Flandern).
But such waves (QGWs) are only due to a cyclic change in the ordinary Newtonian gravity field, they are not some kind of additional gravity field that superposes with the ordinary field.
The above simple weak Newtonian effects cant give a QGW anything like the silly Einsteinian QGW.
However the centrifuging of aether (aether is sucked in in the plane of the spinning binary bodies & is spat out in both axial directions) produces a quasi-gravity field, a quasi-quadrupolar GW (a QQGW), which radiates out from each body like a beam, which is stronger when rpm are greater, & adds to any ordinary Newtonian gravity field & any QGW field (ie it superposes). The strength of quasi-gravity aint known, but i reckon that it might be severe in the end stages of extreme binaries. In that sense it might in some ways mimic the supposed Einsteinian QGWs (in which case LIGO's QGWs might be due to my quasi-gravity), the main spoilers being that quasi-gravity must propagate at more than 20 billion c (as for ordinary gravity), & quasi-gravity doesnt annihilate mass. However, quasi-gravity must i think consume energy (unlike ordinary Newtonian gravity), but this energy would be fueled by the simple kinetic energy & potential energy of the binary. I would not be surprised if QQGWs fooled Hulse-Taylor (as well as LIGO). That would be a friendly result. Aetherists & Einsteinians could share a beer & have a laugh about it, at my Nobel ceremony.
I went for the name quasi-gravity because pseudo-gravity & faux-gravity are already used for other kinds of science.
And there is another thing i dont like about Einsteinian QGWs, i reckon that if u introduced say 64 pairs of binaries sharing the same orbit (forming in effect a ring of stars) then according to Einsteinians the nett QGWs would be nearnuff zero & the energy losses etc would be nearnuff zero. This sort of nett effect or lack of effect might be ok for e.m. fields, but i reckon that it aint ok for gravitational fields, i reckon that the total superposed 64 sets of fields must rob energy, even if the nett field is zero. But here i am arguing about the proper application of their silly Einsteinian QGW theory, ie trying to keep them consistent & honest, even tho i dont believe in Einsteinian QGWs, but u know what i mean. But my QGWs do exist, i reckon, both kinds, QGWs & QQGWs.
-
Did anyone read this article:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24032022-600-exclusive-grave-doubts-over-ligos-discovery-of-gravitational-waves/
-
The interesting implication is that if the explanation for waves was there, yet the proof isn't, when it was initially thought it in fact was there, namely the proof, the explanation must be wrong.
-
Did anyone read this article: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24032022-600-exclusive-grave-doubts-over-ligos-discovery-of-gravitational-waves/
Very interesting. We all know of that old gunfight with LIGO but i hadnt seen the latest shot that points out that....
(1) thems beautiful chirps shown all over the world were fake, &
(2) LIGO lied about the fakes & the fakery, &
(3) LIGO now wont comment re the fakes & fakery.
Statement regarding LIGO’s response to the New Scientist (1 November 2018)
Recently, the New Scientist magazine published an article describing our concerns regarding LIGO’s claims of the detection of the gravitational event GW150914. We have at no point challenged the existence of a signal in GW150914 distinct from detector noise, our concern is related to the physical interpretation of this signal as a gravitational wave from the merger of a black hole binary. In this regard, we have observed statistically significant abnormal correlations in the residuals of the Hanford and Livingston detectors when the presumed gravitational wave signal has been removed.
The various LIGO responses to this article can be found at:
Facebook and ligo.org
The second of these links once again stresses LIGO’s familiar claim that the “entire gravitational-wave signal data stream from the first observing run is already publicly available” and promises yet another LIGO “instructional” paper that “will provide more details about LIGO detector noise properties and the data analysis techniques used”.
We believe it is essential for LIGO to respond to the following simple points:
1. If LIGO files with Hanford and Livingston residuals
https://www.gw-openscience.org/GW150914data/P150914/fig1-residual-H.txt
https://www.gw-openscience.org/GW150914data/P150914/fig1-residual-L.txt
were made for the sole purpose of illustration, what are the correct files with the waveforms actually used, and why has LIGO not made them public?
2. If our analysis of correlations is incorrect and there is some error in our publicly available programs, LIGO must point out precisely where we have made a computational mistake.
3. If the cross correlations are present and their residual files are correct, why does LIGO consider this statistically significant 80% correlation to be irrelevant for the physical interpretation of the signal?
4. Unfortunately, our attempts to identify members of the LIGO collaboration with responsibility for data analysis have been unsuccessful. While we have had many discussions with co-authors of the original Physical Review Letters publications, none of them have been able to speak officially on behalf of LIGO. This is why we believe it would be extremely useful for LIGO to identify some individual or a group of scientists to represent LIGO with the aim of resolving these differences of interpretation in an appropriately professional manner.
-
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1002.4568v1.pdf
I think its great they got there.