-
All of the early articles etc re gravity waves said that they were a ripple in the bending of spacetime. Some modern articles call gravity waves a compression of spacetime. Which is true? Is it important?
Spacetime is made up of space (change of radial length near a massive object) & time (change in ticking of clocks near mass). How can spacetime or space or time bend -- how can they compress.
Being an aetherist i dont believe in gravity waves, nor in spacetime. But i am interested in the exact nature of the Einsteinian fraudulence & fakery & foolishness.
Waves is of course a misnomer -- they are gravity pulses (forced). Waves implies a natural harmonic property (no they aint waves). Ripples implies a natural harmonic property (no they aint ripples). So i say waves but i am talking about gravity pulses.
The question is mainly to clarify the exact nature of the silly Einsteinian model. None of that GW stuff (or SR or GR or spacetime) is true (real), its all complete krapp.
Gravity waves are nonsense -- there is no such thing. The quadrupole source of GWs is rubbish -- likewise any poles (mono di quad etc etc), all rubbish.
Reality involves aether -- so what is an aetheric explanation of the situation. A pair of binary stars each has an inflow of aether to replace aether annihilated in their mass. That inflow acceleration field must change in magnitude & direction near the binary -- but the changing will be negligible at large distances (where the center of mass of the binary will in effect represent the binary). So yes we will have gravity pulses -- ie a changing aether flow (ie a changing g). And that changing aether velocity will change an objects length & a clock's 'ticking. And potentially LIGO would be able to detect an associated fringeshift, as would any MMX -- except that LIGO legs have vacuum, & hencely cannot detect an MMX fringeshift no matter how strong (altho vacuum would be able to detect a 3rd order fringeshift)(praps 1/1000th of an MMXs 2nd order fringeshift)(not forgetting that Demjanov designed-used a 1st order MMX 1000 times more sensitive than an old fashioned 2nd order MMX).
An aetheric GP is very different to an Einsteinian GW. An EGW supposedly changes the distance tween 2 mirrors in freefall -- an AGP doesnt change the distance tween the centers of mass of 2 freefalling mirrors, & in fact an AGP will increase the clear distance tween such mirrors. This is because Lorentzian relativity & gamma act on objects not on space -- whereas Einsteinian relativity affects objects & space.
The Einsteinian assertion that an EGW doesnt affect the length of an object but does affect the distance tween objects in freefall (ie space) is a mystery. Its the exact opposite of the Lorentz theory. The Lorentzian theory is based on the aetherwind -- whereas the Einsteinian theory is based on spacetime (in the case of EGWs) or is based on SR (in the case of relative motion)(i dont think that spacetime is used in SR)(it is used in GR).
Just to clarify. Relative velocity in SR affects an objects length & also affects the size of space (& affects ticking). And the nearness of mass in GR affects radial length of objects & i think radial size of space (& affects ticking). And EGWs affect the size of space (eg the distance tween falling objects), but EGWs do not affect the length of solid objects (& do not affect ticking). But EGWs do initially affect the wavelength of lightwaves already in the leg & ticking (ie when the EGW first arrives), but not after the EGW establishes itself. Believe it or not.
I hope i got all of that right -- if not i would like to hear. Re the initial effect of the EGW, & then the final effect of the EGW (ie when it properly establishes itself in the 4 km leg), the fluctuations-waves-pulses making the chirp must be changing all the time, in which case the initial effect is always present, the EGW never properly establishes itself (probly not very important)(just saying).
-
but EGWs do not affect the length of solid objects (& do not affect ticking). But EGWs do initially affect the length of objects & ticking (ie when the EGW first arrives), but not after the EGW establishes itself. Believe it or not.
When you make statements like this you make it clear that you don't understand how gravitational waves are supposed to work. Yet you insist that you understand their properties better than the people who designed, built and run LIGO. Please do better research before pretending that you know more than physicists.
-
but EGWs do not affect the length of solid objects (& do not affect ticking). But EGWs do initially affect the length of objects & ticking (ie when the EGW first arrives), but not after the EGW establishes itself. Believe it or not.
When you make statements like this you make it clear that you don't understand how gravitational waves are supposed to work. Yet you insist that you understand their properties better than the people who designed, built and run LIGO. Please do better research before pretending that you know more than physicists.
Yes i wrote that EGWs do initially affect the length of objects when the EGW first arrives -- that is wrong, i might have meant initially affect the wavelength of the lightwaves already in the leg.
However that Saulson article is a bit confusing -- it says...........
Similarly, we have sufficient physical understanding not to let relativistic language confuse us into thinking that there
are no distance changes caused by a gravitational wave, even though it is convenient to define a coordinate system out of freely falling masses. There are changes in distance between two points whose coordinate separation remains fixed. This is the physical meaning behind saying that the metric has the form given in Eq.2.1. The present case is quite parallel to the situation in cosmology, since both there and in the gravitational wave case the most convenient coordinate system is defined by freely falling masses.
Does the underlined wordage mean that solid objects can change length (due to an EGW)?
-
In answering the post, both.
How can compression also be a bending?
Take a "slinky" spring: you compress it, yet the structure also bends closer. The underlying idea of course is the idea of EM, a slinky wave, being associated to the idea of gravity, as a compression. I can provide further ideas here only if there a direct questions to the effect, don't really want to link long text.
-
“Waves is of course a misnomer -- they are gravity pulses (forced). Waves implies a natural harmonic property (no they aint waves). Ripples implies a natural harmonic property (no they aint ripples). So i say waves but i am talking about gravity pulses.”
Pulses are waves. Not sure what you mean by “natural harmonic property“ but pulses are definitely waves.
-
Based on my reading or thinking these are some of the problems with Einstein's Gravity Waves........
(1) Are there such things as Einsteinian (quadrupole) gravity waves (Einsteinians say yes).
(2A) Do EGWs consume energy (Einsteinians say yes).
(2B) Does such loss of energy give a loss of mass (Einsteinians say yes).
(3) Are EGWs a force field -- do they create a force (Einsteinians say yes).
(4) Do EGWs affect the size of a solid object (Einsteinians say no) -- does this require energy (Einsteinians say yes)(they say that the EGW trys to change the objects length but that is resisted by the objects inherent stronger elastic forces)(which means that energy is used)(& it means that a solid object does change size but that change is very small).
(5) Do EGWs affect the size of space (Einsteinians say yes) -- does this require energy (Einsteinians say yes)(i think).
(6) Do EGWs affect ticking (Einsteinians say yes)-- does this require energy (Einsteinians say yes)(i think).
(7) Do EGWs travel at c (Einsteinians say yes) -- or much faster than c (Einsteinians say no)(but say that there is IAAAD).
(8 ) Do EGWs act transversely (Einsteinians say yes).
(9) If yes (8 ), is stretching along one axis associated with compression along an axis at 90 dg (Einsteinians say yes).
(10) Can EGWs produce a fringeshift in LIGO (vacuum)(Einsteinians say yes).
(11A) Can EGWs produce a fringeshift in a vacuum MMX (i think that Einsteinians say no)(unless the mirrors hang).
(11B) Can EGWs produce a fringeshift in an air MMX (i think that Einsteinians say no)(unless the mirrors hang).
(12A) Do EGWs affect the bending of (the fabric of) spacetime (some Einsteinians say yes).
(12B) Do EGWs affect the compression of (the fabric of) spacetime (some Einsteinians say yes).
(12C) Is it possible for an Einsteinian to say yes to both (12A) & (12B) (i think it is possible).
(13) Is the proper expression Gravity Wave or Gravity Pulse (i think pulse).
(14) Do EGWs have their own mass (Einstein said yes)(some Einsteinians say yes & some no, i think).
(15A) Do a pair of binary stars emit EGWs (some Einsteinians say yes some no)(because some say that stars orbiting in free-fall cannot emit EGWs).
(15B) Do a pair of rotating dumb bells joined with a rod emit EGWs (Einsteinians say no not if they are simply spinning around their main axis of symmetry passing centrally along the rod)(but yes if they are rotating around an axis at 90 deg to the rod).
(16A) Do EGWs (for a pair of binary stars) emanate in all directions or only in the plane of orbit(s).
(16B) What portion of the sky does LIGO have to be in to detect an EGW from a binary.
(16C) Is the EGW stronger in the center of such a cone.
When i say that Einsteinians say yes or no i dont mean that Einstein said yes or no.
-
I was having a discussing about my work with someone else, their own work, and they suggested my own work (see global icon if you need to) could be an "aether" model.
I made it clear to them that the idea of "aether" is a concept of many years ago, thousands, the stuff the God's breathed beyond the atmosphere of this planet.
Aetheric models are problematic; the idea of “aether” has been lost in time. I have read much of the ancients and their sciences, and “aether” to my interpretation from the classics is in fact “space”. As such, I don’t think it’s a corpuscular realm as it is considered in modern terms. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_(mythology). I could say I use the aether model according to the ancient description, as then the ancients had no understanding of pure space, and so the issue today in my thinking re. the issue of aether is a definition of the “terms” for the idea of “aether”. In giving the ancients the benefit of the doubt, I would suggest "aether" is a concept of empty space that conveys light, and here I am thinking about light as "time" associated to space.
-
In answering the post, both. How can compression also be a bending?
Take a "slinky" spring: you compress it, yet the structure also bends closer. The underlying idea of course is the idea of EM, a slinky wave, being associated to the idea of gravity, as a compression. I can provide further ideas here only if there a direct questions to the effect, don't really want to link long text.
Up to say 2000 i think that all said bending, but i think that the official LIGO preference is now compression. Which makes u wonder if there might be a real difference, eg one affects say ticking but the other duznt.
-
Yes.
Its all about the models used to explain the phenomena.
For instance, Aether is problematic; Quantum entanglement, two outcomes of a corpuscular realm, makes the aether idea improbable. One may as well consider using "time" as an algorithm with two possible outcomes, like the golden ratio, in a universal "now" time compendium where space can be space, a purely empty as a variable in itself yet a harbour to a universal compendium of time.
-
“Waves is of course a misnomer -- they are gravity pulses (forced). Waves implies a natural harmonic property (no they aint waves). Ripples implies a natural harmonic property (no they aint ripples). So i say waves but i am talking about gravity pulses.”
Pulses are waves. Not sure what you mean by “natural harmonic property“ but pulses are definitely waves.
I dont think that it is important, just semantics. But i think that a wave is (1) sinusoidal (2) going from plus to minus (3) equally & (4) repeating. I think that a pulse does what the force tells it to do -- & i think that it can mimic a wave -- or it can make any kind of shape & size & pattern. But praps i am wrong, ie praps a pulse is more correctly something that is either zero for a while then a fixed non-zero value for a while, etc, ie step pattern. Praps waves is wrong & pulse is wrong. Just saying.
-
I was having a discussing about my work with someone else, their own work, and they suggested my own work (see global icon if you need to) could be an "aether" model.
I made it clear to them that the idea of "aether" is a concept of many years ago, thousands, the stuff the God's breathed beyond the atmosphere of this planet.
Aetheric models are problematic; the idea of “aether” has been lost in time. I have read much of the ancients and their sciences, and “aether” to my interpretation from the classics is in fact “space”. As such, I don’t think it’s a corpuscular realm as it is considered in modern terms. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_(mythology). I could say I use the aether model according to the ancient description, as then the ancients had no understanding of pure space, and so the issue today in my thinking re. the issue of aether is a definition of the “terms” for the idea of “aether”. In giving the ancients the benefit of the doubt, I would suggest "aether" is a concept of empty space that conveys light, and here I am thinking about light as "time" associated to space.
I reckon that for sure there is aether (made of aetherons or aethons if u prefer) which is-are sub-quantum, & the movement of aether makes everything we see & feel (ie our quantum world).
The aetherwind has been proven many times.
Alby said that just one experiment can sink his SR & GR. No, his SR & GR didnt ever float -- they were dead before birth -- they were dead at conception -- they were never in accord with Michelson's non-null MMX (& later MMX's).
If an aether then SR & GR are deadducks. However that duznt mean that everything arising out of Einsteinian theories are deadducks. For instance i believe in blackholes, but not Einsteinian blackholes.
But, no bigbang -- no expanding universe -- no gravity waves -- no spacetime -- no relativistic mass -- E does not equal mcc -- mass does not yield mcc of energy -- etc etc.
Re quantum entanglement i dont understand it -- but i doubt that there is an aetheric explanation -- altho gravity pulses in aether travel at at least 20 billion c.
-
I have alluded to the fact that the idea of the ancients re. aether is another way of regarding time and space as one.
Take yourself back to the definition of the aether, beyond the atmosphere of this planet.....all one has is light and space.
The question is "how" light and space organise themselves.
Using the term "aether" today is a nice way to bring to bear ancient sciences, yet the time line of that vernacular needs to be addressed, implemented. I think that's what you're trying to do, which is good.
To suggest light is a particle, for instance, would confirm there exists an aether. Yet, so much has developed beyond that posit a century ago.
-
(4) Do EGWs affect the size of a solid object (Einsteinians say no)
a solid object does change size but that change is very small
Groan...
-
I have alluded to the fact that the idea of the ancients re. aether is another way of regarding time and space as one.
Take yourself back to the definition of the aether, beyond the atmosphere of this planet.....all one has is light and space.
The question is "how" light and space organise themselves.
Using the term "aether" today is a nice way to bring to bear ancient sciences, yet the time line of that vernacular needs to be addressed, implemented. I think that's what you're trying to do, which is good.
I think that aether never died. The main proponents from 1900 died by say 1960. But others continued their ideas -- some of these others were originally Einsteinians. And in 2018 in the internet era the Einsteinian mafia can no longer efficiently suppress & censor. The aether is back -- it never left.
-
I have alluded to the fact that the idea of the ancients re. aether is another way of regarding time and space as one.
The luminiferous ether ( to give it the full name) is not that ancient an idea.
It wasn't "needed" until someone proposed the wave nature of light.
-
Precisely.
The last century has put all old terminology into the forefront.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_(mythology)
To use a term/word based on an ancient definition cannot suffice, we are much more advanced.
If one were to colonise a new planet of Neanderthals though using the compacted idea of "aether" as the breathe of the Gods "would" perhaps suffice as an initial explanation for what existed beyond the sphere of the atmosphere of this planet. And thats just as simple as saying early scientists did their best to relate their social world with what they saw in the sky in the manner of nature.
-
I have alluded to the fact that the idea of the ancients re. aether is another way of regarding time and space as one.
The luminiferous ether ( to give it the full name) is not that ancient an idea.
It wasn't "needed" until someone proposed the wave nature of light.
I go along with that. Unfortunately we do not have a good model for a photon. But i reckon that a photon is a peculiar kind of particle (having mass), having a main helical body propagating at c, with a photaeno portion (having mass) emanating outwards at c from the helix. The photaeno fields give a wavy effect -- however the photon is not a wave -- hencely paradoxically there is no need for aether.
Anyhow aether is gravitational & luminiferous & chargeous & electric & magnetic all at once at the same time (or can be).
-
Yes.
The problem is "aether" as modern scientific syntax. It's not.
As I said, someone who read my work said that my work was therefore in favour of "aether". I've never consider the idea of "aether". That has not been my schooling. It's semantics. It's like saying someone has had a big meal yet they are in fact pregnant. So much more can be going on. There are symptoms and signs in physical reality, yet like Medicine, there can be so much more going on.
-
i think that a wave is (1) sinusoidal (2) going from plus to minus (3) equally & (4) repeating. ..........But praps i am wrong, ie praps a pulse is more correctly something that is either zero for a while then a fixed non-zero value for a while, etc, ie step pattern.
You are indeed wrong.
Waves do not need to be sinusoidal, or going from plus to minus, or equally, or repeating.
The reason you are making these mistakes is because:
I dont understand much of physics, but i know a few buzzwords & sayings.
It means that you are misunderstanding a great deal of what you read eg
Yes -- that is IAAAD -- like i said.
It also means that you are unable to understand the errors made by Cahill, Miller etc.
-
Yes. The problem is "aether" as modern scientific syntax. It's not.
As I said, someone who read my work said that my work was therefore in favour of "aether". I've never consider the idea of "aether". That has not been my schooling. It's semantics. It's like saying someone has had a big meal yet they are in fact pregnant. So much more can be going on. There are symptoms and signs in physical reality, yet like Medicine, there can be so much more going on.
Yes, one might call aether sub-quantum foam or "dynamic space" or vibrating dipoles. The thing is, whatever the aether or ether model it must provide for an aetherwind blowing throo Earth at 500 kmps south to north about 20 deg off Earth's spin-axis with RA 4.5 hrs.
-
It also means that you are unable to understand the errors made by Cahill, Miller etc.
There were-are no errors with aether theory. Except that Cahill had to find & explain the correct calibration of the oldendays Michelson & Miller MMXs. And Miller had to find & explain the problems surrounding the early erroneous ideas of a fixed aether, & aether drag (aether aint fixed, & there is no aether drag)(except that we have a kind of aetherdrag associated with inertia)(this being the key to my ideas re centrifuging of aether).
The only arguments against aether theory were by Roberts & by Shankland, & even i can see throo Roberts' & Shankland's errors & lies.
-
Ok. According to your calculations, or others, or even using physics, where does the aether wind "blow from"? Does something have to be present, and if so, what, as a source?
-
I ask because for someone to say my work mirrors aether theory, I really need to know how that works, through the aether lens of consideration.
-
Ok. According to your calculations, or others, or even using physics, where does the aether wind "blow from"? Does something have to be present, and if so, what, as a source?
I get most of my aether theory from the website of Conrad Ranzan -- & from the articles by Prof Reg Cahill (about 40 ovem). U will have lots of fun reading their stuff.
Ranzan talks about the creation of aether, & the annihilation inside matter-mass -- the creation-annihilation creating cosmic cells -- giving us a background aetherwind -- which together with the local wind (flowing into the Earth)(11.2 kmps)(& Sun)(618 kmps) gives us a total wind blowing throo our lab & MMX.
COBE & BICEP & others also measured an aetherwind. But their's blows about 90 deg off our Earthly aetherwind. The reason is that their wind is blowing in a different part of the universe, it aint the wind on Earth, or even the wind in our solar system, or even the wind in our Milky Way, or the wind in our cosmic cell -- it is the wind in a different part of the universe -- or it is an average praps of some sorts.
-
My attitude is to leave no stone unturned when it comes to dedicated interest in our physical reality.
In Medicine, people have all sorts of ways of explaining what's wrong with them, and then its up to the doctors to apply their science to fix that problem without teaching the patient how to do that for themselves as a short-term medical intervention. Long term, yes, short term, no...that's why people seek medical help, put their issue of health in the Doctor's hands.
In science, are we there yet? We live in a great luxury of proposing the most amazing things. I can't deny that fact.
-
My attitude is to leave no stone unturned when it comes to dedicated interest in our physical reality.
In Medicine, people have all sorts of ways of explaining what's wrong with them, and then its up to the doctors to apply their science to fix that problem without teaching the patient how to do that for themselves as a short-term medical intervention. Long term, yes, short term, no...that's why people seek medical help, put their issue of health in the Doctor's hands.
In science, are we there yet? We live in a great luxury of proposing the most amazing things. I can't deny that fact.
We are in a dark age of science -- the Einsteinian Dark Age -- a new day is coming.
-
Yeah, lol.
I think the world will be needing to wise up when grav-tech becomes apparent.....if there "is" a more fundamental underlying science of the current symptoms and signs of standard evidence and theory in physics.
There "is", no doubt, but is there any real need to "get real"?
The world today is not looking to an absolute truth in science each person can stand next to.
-
This gravity-electric theory will come when we're ready for it, and if not, some nation will have capitalised\?
-
gravi-electric....that's aether.
You'd be surprised how many people think I'm big on aether.
-
If a wave is considered to emanate in a 360* pattern expanding outward, then it both compresses and bends. Both the bend and compression occur along the wave's inner rim. A bending and expansion occurs along the wave's outer rim. This compression works much like the masonry in the arc of the aquaduct. If the force applied to the inner wave remains constant at all points, the inner wave structure remains intact by applying equal pressure to all sides of the expanding wave. As the outward force applied to the waves inner rim diminishes the wave decelerates. If the outward force ceases the waves innermost rim will fail structural. Remanents of the wave that survive due to momentum force will further diminish upon impact with any substantial force greater than itself. lol
Will the gravity wave produce its own gravity? and will that produced gravity be along the wave's inner rim or the wave's outer rim? If the wave produces gravity along it's inner rim, mass will accumulate creating drag that will deteriorate the wave. If the wave produces gravity along it's outer rim, mass will accumulate weight and resistance that the outward force coudn't compensate for also deteriorating the wave. If mass accumulates on both the inner and outer aspects, the wave expansion is negated totally, making chances of detection light years away minimal. The best chance for a gravity wave's detection 100's of light years away, is if the "gravity wave's force" maintains its initial integrity, meaning its 360* structure remained intact. This is the only way it could even make a fringeshift 1/1000 the size of a proton as claimed. It's not the integrity of the laser interferometer to measure to such detail I question, I find the probabilty of finding four gravity waves in two years as suspect. The discounting or exclusion of other possibilities should not ignored. If the ratios of found gravity waves during the next two years doesnot remain constant, it would be perfectly proper seek other answers. It's a deep hole LIGO has dug. lol
-
It also means that you are unable to understand the errors made by Cahill, Miller etc.
There were-are no errors with aether theory. ...... The only arguments against aether theory were by Roberts & by Shankland, & even i can see throo Roberts' & Shankland's errors & lies.
No, there are more, but those are only ones usually quoted because they published first so the others don’t then get published. However, I don’t see how you can “see throo Roberts' & Shankland's errors & lies” when you don’t understand basic physics.
The problem of random and systematic errors was not understood in Miller’s day, neither was the very real (and easily understandable) problem of averaging data which leads to all sorts of errors. Modern experiments by experienced labs don’t make the same mistake and will show error bars, anyone who doesn’t follow best practices will have their work ignored as unreliable.
I ask because for someone to say my work mirrors aether theory, I really need to know how that works, through the aether lens of consideration.
Did they say why they thought that? Was there a particular result of calculations or experiment that pointed them to that conclusion ?
-
If a wave is considered to emanate in a 360* pattern expanding outward, then it both compresses and bends. Both the bend and compression occur along the wave's inner rim. A bending and expansion occurs along the wave's outer rim. This compression works much like the masonry in the arc of the aquaduct. If the force applied to the inner wave remains constant at all points, the inner wave structure remains intact by applying equal pressure to all sides of the expanding wave. As the outward force applied to the waves inner rim diminishes the wave decelerates. If the outward force ceases the waves innermost rim will fail structural. Remanents of the wave that survive due to momentum force will further diminish upon impact with any substantial force greater than itself. lol
Will the gravity wave produce its own gravity? and will that produced gravity be along the wave's inner rim or the wave's outer rim? If the wave produces gravity along it's inner rim, mass will accumulate creating drag that will deteriorate the wave. If the wave produces gravity along it's outer rim, mass will accumulate weight and resistance that the outward force coudn't compensate for also deteriorating the wave. If mass accumulates on both the inner and outer aspects, the wave expansion is negated totally, making chances of detection light years away minimal. The best chance for a gravity wave's detection 100's of light years away, is if the "gravity wave's force" maintains its initial integrity, meaning its 360* structure remained intact. This is the only way it could even make a fringeshift 1/1000 the size of a proton as claimed. It's not the integrity of the laser interferometer to measure to such detail I question, I find the probabilty of finding four gravity waves in two years as suspect. The discounting or exclusion of other possibilities should not ignored. If the ratios of found gravity waves during the next two years doesnot remain constant, it would be perfectly proper seek other answers. It's a deep hole LIGO has dug. lol
Yes, i daresay that LIGO explain the shape & cones of action of EGWs emanating from binary stars -- ie the volume of the sky that LIGO needs to be inside to detect the EGW. Anyhow i have added to my list of questions in Reply #5 to include this stuff & the list now has 16 sets of questions. Some of the questions relate to things u mention, ie gravity mass compression bending of a wave.
Detection rate is not included in my list. I suspect that there is a volume of the sky that doesnt have a strong EGW to detect. And for sure LIGO is blind for a large part of the sky, depending on LIGOs orientation (ie i think LIGO can only detect say 1/4 of the sky, & a half of that 1/4 must be weak, so lets say 1/8th of the sky). And in that 1/8th of the sky if the binary is weak or a long way away then it would not be detected. And if the binary EGW is emitted in a smallish cone then that reduces the chances even more.
Question (15) (see below) is a major problem for Einsteinians -- they disagree whether an orbiting binary (ie in free-fall) cant emit an EGW.
(14) Do EGWs have their own mass (Einstein said yes)(some Einsteinians say yes & some no, i think).
(15A) Do a pair of binary stars emit EGWs (some Einsteinians say yes some no)(because some say that stars orbiting in free-fall cannot emit EGWs).
(15B) Do a pair of rotating dumb bells joined with a rod emit EGWs (Einsteinians say no not if they are simply spinning around their main axis of symmetry passing centrally along the rod)(but yes if they are rotating around an axis at 90 deg to the rod).
(16A) Do EGWs (for a pair of binary stars) emanate in all directions or only in the plane of orbit(s).
(16B) What portion of the sky does LIGO have to be in to detect an EGW from a binary.
(16C) Is the EGW stronger in the center of such a cone.
When i say that Einsteinians say yes or no i dont mean that Einstein said yes or no.
-
It also means that you are unable to understand the errors made by Cahill, Miller etc.
There were-are no errors with aether theory. ...... The only arguments against aether theory were by Roberts & by Shankland, & even i can see throo Roberts' & Shankland's errors & lies.
No, there are more, but those are only ones usually quoted because they published first so the others don’t then get published. However, I don’t see how you can “see throo Roberts' & Shankland's errors & lies” when you don’t understand basic physics.
The problem of random and systematic errors was not understood in Miller’s day, neither was the very real (and easily understandable) problem of averaging data which leads to all sorts of errors. Modern experiments by experienced labs don’t make the same mistake and will show error bars, anyone who doesn’t follow best practices will have their work ignored as unreliable.
No Roberts & Shankland are the only two hit-jobs. Thems "others" are i suppose the vacuum MMXs -- vacuum gives a null result first time every time -- thats where u certainly will find a lack of understanding of basic physics (by Einsteinians). There was one MMX that used helium & this agrees with all of the air MMXs when u apply the proper calibration for helium (as explained by Cahill).
Cahill has drawn error-bars for Michelson's work. The systematic error identified by Roberts is simply no more than the ever increasing linear non-periodic fringeshift due to the speed of rotation of Miller's MMX. This is quite correctly simply averaged & deducted. It only appears because Miller preferred to let his MMX rotate slowly rather than stopping & starting (which introduces error).
Roberts said that the error bars if properly drawn would be off the page (rubbish). I daresay that Roberts would be happy with COBE & BICEP saying that their graphs of their measured blackbody CMB radiation are so accurate that the error bars are thinner than the line of the graph (when in fact there is no blackbody radiation in space).
Michelson's & Millers results show similar periodic non-null fringeshifts (ie aetherwind)(as explained by Cahill), albeit with erroneous calibrations (as explained by Cahill)(& by Demjanov).
Shankland's verdict that Miller's fringeshifts were due to temperature effects is a deliberate lie. Miller well explains how he studied the effects of temperature & how temperature was not an issue (Miller died some years before Shanklands 1955 hit-job).
-
I ask because for someone to say my work mirrors aether theory, I really need to know how that works, through the aether lens of consideration.
Did they say why they thought that? Was there a particular result of calculations or experiment that pointed them to that conclusion ?
Not really, I'm, not sure if they read my 7 papers entire. I've found though that mentioning the idea of the golden ratio and time puts aether into people's thoughts, that my work is another new age meets old alchemy script of everything, which it certainly isn't.
-
No Roberts & Shankland are the only two hit-jobs.
That’s incorrect. What you mean is they are the only ones you’ve been told about.
"others" are i suppose the vacuum MMXs -- ...........................how he studied the effects of temperature & how temperature was not an issue (Miller died some years before Shanklands 1955 hit-job).
I still don’t see how you can understand what is written by either side and draw any balanced conclusion given your extremely limited knowledge of basic physics and your ability to misinterpret articles.
Discussion on aether can be quite interesting, but it has to be informed rather than the religious way you are taking it which blocks any interesting discussion. Anyway, you are allowed to have any (polite) views you wish, but are likely to die frustrated ;)
I've found though that mentioning the idea of the golden ratio and time puts aether into people's thoughts, that my work is another new age meets old alchemy script of everything, which it certainly isn't.
I can’t understand why they should think that. I would expect people to look for evidence of aether in some outcome from your work eg predicted behaviour of charge/mag field, light propagation, simultaneity, etc.
-
Of Course. I'm not supposing I know how they reason in their thinking that I'm an aether supporter,
yet the big deal-breaker with aether for me is the idea of quantum-entanglement, its very problematic. Yet my work explains the idea of quantum-entanglement using the golden-ratio for time, space being a 3-d void associated nonetheless to the idea of time as the golden ratio. That's not aether, and I explain that consistently from page 1 through to the last page of my work thus far.
-
No Roberts & Shankland are the only two hit-jobs.
That’s incorrect. What you mean is they are the only ones you’ve been told about.
Comment: No i only know of 2 hit-jobs on Michelson's or Morley's or Miller's MMXs, by Roberts & by Shankland. Both are rubbish. Munera has a good 1998 overview of various old MMXs & mentions Shankland a few times -- Michelson-Morley Experiments Revisited: Systematic Errors, Consistency Among Different Experiments, and
Compatibility with Absolute Space -- Héctor A. Múnera -- Colombia -- http://nov79.com/en/mmor.pdf
However Munera doesnt mention the proper calibration of MMXs, ie air & helium & vacuum require different factors based on refractive index. Prof Reg Cahill fixes that in a few of his 40 or so relevant articles -- here is one ovem -- http://www.mountainman.com.au/process_physics/hps09.pdf
"others" are i suppose the vacuum MMXs -- ........ how he studied the effects of temperature & how temperature was not an issue (Miller died some years before Shanklands 1955 hit-job).
I still don’t see how you can understand what is written by either side and draw any balanced conclusion given your extremely limited knowledge of basic physics and your ability to misinterpret articles.
Discussion on aether can be quite interesting, but it has to be informed rather than the religious way you are taking it which blocks any interesting discussion. Anyway, you are allowed to have any (polite) views you wish, but are likely to die frustrated ;)
Comment: I am not a scientist but i read the views of scientists. It amazes me that Einsteinians can get away with their lies re the original MMXs -- & are ignorant of proper calibration (eg vacuum gives null results) -- laser maser etalon etc etc in vacuum merely at best confirm the accuracy of gamma.
-
More far fetched claims-findings re LIGO. Einsteinian GWs are now described as a bending or a compression or a ripple or now a disturbance in spacetime.
https://phys.org/news/2018-11-gravitational-merged-hyper-massive-neutron-star.html
.............. Gravitational waves were predicted by Albert Einstein in his General Theory of Relativity in 1915. The waves are disturbances in space time generated by rapidly moving masses, which propagate out from the source. By the time the waves reach the Earth, they are incredibly weak and their detection requires extremely sensitive equipment. It took scientists until 2016 to announce the first observation of gravitational waves using the Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory (LIGO) detector.
Since that seminal result, gravitational waves have been detected on a further six occasions. One of these, GW170817, resulted from the merger of two stellar remnants known as neutron stars. These objects form after stars much more massive than the Sun explode as supernovae, leaving behind a core of material packed to extraordinary densities.
At the same time as the burst of gravitational waves from the merger, observatories detected emission in gamma rays, X-rays, ultraviolet, visible light, infrared and radio waves – an unprecedented observing campaign that confirmed the location and nature of the source............ Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-11-gravitational-merged-hyper-massive-neutron-star.html#jCp
If they detected something then it wasnt EGWs. Anyhow, Alby (& many others)(eg Bondi & Cooperstock) said that quadrupole GWs could not be emitted by binarys etc orbiting in freefall.
-
Waves implies a natural harmonic property (no they [gravitational waves] aint waves). Ripples implies a natural harmonic property (no they aint ripples). So i say waves but i am talking about gravity pulses.
Compare these natural harmonic oscillators:
- A spring has a natural harmonic property: a force dependent on length, and a non-equilibrium length.
- A pendulum has a natural harmonic property: a force dependent on displacement from the vertical, and a non-equilibrium position.
- The Earth orbiting the Sun has a natural harmonic property: a force dependent on distance2, and a non-equilibrium distance and velocity.
- Two neutron stars orbiting their center of mass has a natural harmonic property: a force dependent on distance2, and a non-equilibrium distance and velocity.
All of these systems "run down" over time due to various kinds of losses: mechanical friction, air resistance, and gravitational waves.
A spring and a pendulum keep the same natural period as their amplitude decays to zero.
However, according to Kepler's 3rd law, in an orbiting system like a Sun+planet or binary neutron stars, the period reduces as the semi-major axis reduces.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler%27s_laws_of_planetary_motion#Third_law_of_Kepler
So as gravitational waves carry away energy+angular momentum of the orbiting system (yes, EGWs do carry energy), the semi-major axis decreases, and the natural harmonic frequency increases.
This process was first observed in action with binary pulsars, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hulse%E2%80%93Taylor_binary
The endpoint of the process was observed with LIGO, where the natural period increases until the objects touch, and they merge, causing termination of the natural harmonic oscillator with a final, dying "chirp".
Waves is of course a misnomer -- they are gravity pulses (forced)
A periodic pulse which is not a sinusoid can be decomposed into sinusoids by means of the Fourier Transform.
The final 100 seconds of two neutron stars shows a steadily increasing frequency - but if the signal was not a sine wave, you would expect to see harmonics at higher frequencies, rising along with the fundamental - but I don't see this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GW170817
So, please advise, based on your theory:
- How would merging neutron stars (or black holes) have an orbit which is not an elliptical shape? What shape would it be?
- What would the spectrum of your "Gravitational Pulses" be, and why?
-
I really admire how astrophysics tries to be consistent with the red shift effect of light, gravitational lensing, "dark matter", "dark energy"...…..and to then relate that to elementary particles. F. amazing.
I don't think any of us is ever going to prove that stuff out there in this life-time, maybe even 3 life-times, right?
I think Disneyland is more realistic in our lifetime....seriously.
Think about that......who can, what can, prove astrophysics? A telescope?
When 70% if not more of the universe is inexplicable through a telescope care of dark "things", and its a long shot at that in reaching that place, and we trust the eye of the needle there, we came from apes, or I' a monkeys uncle...we've lost the plot of reality.
-
Waves implies a natural harmonic property (no they [gravitational waves] aint waves). Ripples implies a natural harmonic property (no they aint ripples). So i say waves but i am talking about gravity pulses.
Compare these natural harmonic oscillators:
- A spring has a natural harmonic property: a force dependent on length, and a non-equilibrium length.
- A pendulum has a natural harmonic property: a force dependent on displacement from the vertical, and a non-equilibrium position.
- The Earth orbiting the Sun has a natural harmonic property: a force dependent on distance2, and a non-equilibrium distance and velocity.
- Two neutron stars orbiting their center of mass has a natural harmonic property: a force dependent on distance2, and a non-equilibrium distance and velocity.
All of these systems "run down" over time due to various kinds of losses: mechanical friction, air resistance, and gravitational waves.
A spring and a pendulum keep the same natural period as their amplitude decays to zero.
However, according to Kepler's 3rd law, in an orbiting system like a Sun+planet or binary neutron stars, the period reduces as the semi-major axis reduces.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler%27s_laws_of_planetary_motion#Third_law_of_Kepler
So as gravitational waves carry away energy+angular momentum of the orbiting system (yes, EGWs do carry energy), the semi-major axis decreases, and the natural harmonic frequency increases.
This process was first observed in action with binary pulsars, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hulse%E2%80%93Taylor_binary
The endpoint of the process was observed with LIGO, where the natural period increases until the objects touch, and they merge, causing termination of the natural harmonic oscillator with a final, dying "chirp".
Waves is of course a misnomer -- they are gravity pulses (forced)
A periodic pulse which is not a sinusoid can be decomposed into sinusoids by means of the Fourier Transform.
The final 100 seconds of two neutron stars shows a steadily increasing frequency - but if the signal was not a sine wave, you would expect to see harmonics at higher frequencies, rising along with the fundamental - but I don't see this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GW170817
So, please advise, based on your theory:
- How would merging neutron stars (or black holes) have an orbit which is not an elliptical shape? What shape would it be?
- What would the spectrum of your "Gravitational Pulses" be, and why?
I know little about orbits etc. I appreciate your detailed reply. However i dont think that the wave~pulse question is important (its just a side issue). I only mentioned it because pulses fit better with my reverberation ideas (that i might explain later)(I'm sorry i mentioned it).
I dont know much about elliptical binary orbits, & i am not sure why u ask about elliptical orbits -- i suspect that the theory says that circular orbits dont produce GWs but elliptical orbits do (dunno). I am happy re the existence of neutron stars & black holes (of some sort)(but not Einsteinian black holes). However i dont believe that GWs are produced by any orbits of any kind (elliptical or not). But if they were -- then they would have a spectrum based on the orbital periods -- ie a chirp.
I like the idea (Einstein's idea)(& others) that free-fall orbits cant produce GWs. A free-falling orbiting body doesnt feel anything -- except praps that it feels tidal forces (& praps some internal rumblings).
And i dont believe that GWs rob energy -- & rob mass. The Hulse Taylor losses etc will be found to have an ordinary explanation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But here is my aether based GW theory. An orbiting star's gravity field produces GWs of a kind (a changing gravity field) especially locally (ie very weak if afar). The gravity field does not of itself use or rob energy. And likewise the fluctuations-changes in a GW dont use or rob energy. That might be hard to swallow -- but i reckon that it needs the presence of a detector (eg another body)(eg a third star)(or lots of them) to result in energy loss. That might sound crazy, ie no energy loss if no detector (shades of one hand clapping). But i see in my reading that this line of thinking does mirror-parallel a classic physics GW argument from the oldendays. That argument related to Einsteinian GWs -- my case is basically & physically different as it involves aether not spacetime.
To explain let me start by saying that aether is sub-quantum & has no mass or energy of a quantum kind. What aether does is it transfers force-energy tween quantum objects (eg stars). No objects then no transfer. No transfer then no energy loss. Thusly GWs of themselves have no energy & need no energy. I am talking about aetheric GWs here -- i am not talking about Einsteinian GWs. Aetheric GWs do not have a quadrupolar birth, nor any other kind of polar birth. Polar produced GWs are Einsteinian (ie they dont exist).
A part of the explanation is that the shape & behavior of flat helical galaxies cannot be purely Newtonian. Newtonian theory-equations work best if the gravitational aether tension-stress has something to pull on in a 3D directional sense. In our solar system the distribution of mass is something between 2D & 3D because the Sun is not a point source, it is very large. Nearby stars help to develop aether tension. Not forgetting that the aetheric tension travels as mini-pulses moving at at least 20 billion c (Van Flandern says)(but praps much much faster than that) -- the whole process being a continuous & continual reverberation.
This aether tension stuff is a bit like having two people having a sucking contest, each sucking with lots of force & energy on the end of a hose. Take away the hose & their sucking reduces to having almost zero force & almost zero energy. In aether's case the tension is due to aether being annihilated inside mass (ie inside every elementary particle), aether flowing in to replace the lost aether. I might as well add that photons have mass, & hencely photons too suck. Neutrinos (2 joined photons) have double the mass. Radiation (charge-electro-magnetic fields)(photinos) has mass. Every quantum thing has mass (annihilates aether).
Anyhow, my tension explanation must mean that all spinning (orbiting) systems must ultimately reduce to a flat (spiral) system. And as the system gets closer to being a flat system the Newtonian equations start to go awry.
I am not saying that there arent any other reasons why flat systems develop -- there might be lots of other reasons. My centrifuging of aether theory also helps to create flat systems. I reckon that the inertia of Earth's spin sucks aether in near the Equator & aether is spat out at the two poles. This is in addition to the gravitational aether inflow at all points of Earth's surface. Re flat systems, our solar system is such a system, & Saturn & its rings.
And i am not saying that dark matter doesnt exist, it does exist, dark matter is made of dark elementary particles, which are made of confined neutrinos. Anyhow, dark matter is another reason why flat spiral galaxies have a peculiar rotation. And dark matter includes ordinary blackholes, ie made of ordinary matter (confined photons), but so large that light cannot escape (hencely black), or very little light (hencely brown, or blue praps).
Sorry about the volume of wordage, but a short explanation (of why a GW doesnt rob energy if there is no detector) would i admit look crazy. And i havent thort much of this throo -- & the ink is still wet & needs blotting paper (i think we should go back to using ink & ink-wells & pens with nibs (or feathers)).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Define "aether" in a 100 words and I'll give 100 of my own that links to your 100 words. Seriously. 100 words. What's aether.
-
A simple 5 lines, who defined the term initially, how it has progressed in history through science, and where it is now.
-
Define "aether" in a 100 words and I'll give 100 of my own that links to your 100 words. Seriously. 100 words. What's aether.
Aether & aether theory are not relevant to #1. However i will give it a go.
Aether is a sub-quantum media (consisting of aetherons). The vibrations or spins of aetherons create quantum things,
(1) free photons &
(2) free neutrinos (paired photons), &
(3) confined photons (elementary particles)(eg electrons quarks etc), which make
(4) sub-atomic particles (protons & neutrons), which make
(6) atoms.
(7) Photinos (vibrations-spins of aether) emanate from the central helical bodies of photons, giving us charge fields & electric fields & magnetic fields.
(8 ) Aether is annihilated in mass, & aether flows in to replace the lost, the acceleration (the converging streamlines) giving us g, &
(9) resistance to g gives us wt mass & inertia. [99 words].
-
Effort great, but fail.
What grand-dad in science first used the idea of that word in science and why did you decide to raid that crypt of wording?
-
Effort great, but fail.
What grand-dad in science first used the idea of that word in science and why did you decide to raid that crypt of wording?
Wiki will give the history & roots of aether & ether. But the idea & the word are not necessarily the same thing. And the ideas & the words are not necessarily the same things.
All fundamental particles-essences are aether (if u like).
A rose by any other name would stink good. Proof by naming comes to mind. If u dont know what in hell is happening then thats no problem -- just give it a name -- eg spacetime -- problem goes away, & u get a Nobel.
-
"aether" is fairy floss today.
Its a word.
Define it as a progression from when it was first introduced in scientific circles relevant to today....
I could use it in my own work as light attached to space.....but why would I?
-
Am I close to thinking aether is light and space?
-
Is the aether the 5th element?
earth, air, wind, fire....aether?
What are your guidances?
-
Even before the detection of gravitational waves by LIGO, it was observed that the Hulse-Taylor binary neutron star system experienced orbital decay at exactly the rate predicted by relativity if the system emitted energy in the form of gravitational waves: http://aspbooks.org/publications/328/025.pdf
Take a look at the fourth page of the document to see just how closely the data matches the predictions. An awfully convenient coincidence if gravitational waves do not exist. If gravitational waves don't exist, then what was carrying the energy of the system away to allow for such orbital decay and why did it exactly match gravitational wave predictions?
-
Two EM wave out of phase with each other that by their alignment can produce a completely new type of wave. Gravity "can" emerge from EM. No aether required. Much of my writing is central to this hypothesis.
-
The LIGO observation presented a "pop" of an EM harmonic wave by the nature of the decaying (...as what is observed as...) "neutron stars" dancing around each other. My work also predicts such a phenomena of gravity waves. LIGO didn't register an EM wave, because as an EM wave as an "out-of-phase" harmonic it is unregisterable, except as its new feature of gravity.
-
From : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_star
Neutron stars that can be observed are very hot and typically have a surface temperature of around 600000 K.[3][4][5][6][a] They are so dense that a normal-sized matchbox containing neutron-star material would have a weight of approximately 3 billion tonnes, the same weight as a 0.5 cubic kilometre chunk of the Earth (a cube with edges of about 800 metres).[7][8] Their magnetic fields are between 108 and 1015 (100 million to 1 quadrillion) times as strong as that of the Earth. The gravitational field at the neutron star's surface is about 2×1011 (200 billion) times that of the Earth.
So when two magnetic fluxes come together as per two dancing neutron star observations, my hypothesis was bang on with a resultant gravitational wave when their rotations and proximity were right for the gravity effect to occur.
The next step is to of course demonstrate this in laboratory conditions, out of phase EM waves coupling to form a gravity effect.
-
In regard to http://aspbooks.org/publications/328/025.pdf, the issue here re. relativistic predictions is that the paper rightly points out that given all measurements of the neutron stars in question over that nominated 30 year period one should find gravitational energy. My work doesn't dispute that. The issue is "where" does this gravitational energy come from, what is its source, and as you point out, how is it conveyed through space.
-
Given aether is problematic, that it hasn't been carried in official scientific circles, the issue is how these gravitational waves are carried through space.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor
The simplest explanation using the least amount of assumptions should better explain this phenomena.
Here, the focus should be on the magnetic field of the neutron stars bridging together, and if it isn't apparent as an EM wave, then the EM wave would appear to be out of phase at the source in that bridging process, yet apparent as a "gravity wave".
I have "yet" to find in scientific theory why such is not possible, not a possible theory.
With all the light bouncing around in our reality, much of this will interfere with each other as standing waves, out of phase with each other. Is it a stretch of scientific imagination to suggest that this interference not registerable as EM fields represent a type of "gravity" effect with no real source. There's discussion in science re. dark matter, and so on. Why is it not possible to consider EM fields out of phase having this effect?
-
So when two magnetic fluxes come together as per two dancing neutron star observations, my hypothesis was bang on with a resultant gravitational wave when their rotations and proximity were right for the gravity effect to occur.
If that was true, then why do colliding black holes produce gravitational waves as well? A naturally occurring black hole would have close to zero net charge and as a result would have a near-zero magnetic field.
The issue is "where" does this gravitational energy come from, what is its source
It comes from the motion of the neutron stars, which in turn comes from their gravitational potential energy.
Here, the focus should be on the magnetic field of the neutron stars bridging together, and if it isn't apparent as an EM wave, then the EM wave would appear to be out of phase at the source in that bridging process, yet apparent as a "gravity wave".
I have "yet" to find in scientific theory why such is not possible, not a possible theory.
Because black holes can make them, as I have pointed out.
-
Colliding black holes? For the same reason science says these are a development of neutron stars.
Yes, where does the grav. wave come from, as I said, that dynamic....."where" I am asking is "what theory of explanation" does this field arise from.
Your third point you may need to elaborate on before I reply. In theory, super-dense entities have gravity. What's your point?
-
Take the possibility that two neutron stars develop such an EM resonance the join becomes "dark" as EM, and just pure gravity.....right.....owing to the out-of-phase EM resonance.
-
Why can't that theory be possible as opposed to "aether"?
-
Colliding black holes? For the same reason science says these are a development of neutron stars.
Neutron stars lose their magnetic fields when they become black holes.
Yes, where does the grav. wave come from, as I said, that dynamic....."where" I am asking is "what theory of explanation" does this field arise from.
Relativity.
What's your point?
Electromagnetism has nothing to do with it. Uncharged black holes without magnetic fields can produce gravitational waves.
Take the possibility that two neutron stars develop such an EM resonance the join becomes "dark" as EM, and just pure gravity.....right.....owing to the out-of-phase EM resonance.
I'm sorry, but I don't understand what any of that means.
-
I don't know if you've actually read into what I have posted Kryptid.
Your last answer I have already answered, every point.
-
I don't know if you've actually read into what I have posted Kryptid.
Your last answer I have already answered, every point.
And as I read your other posts in this thread about that same matter, I ended up with the same conclusion: "I don't understand what any of that means."
-
I'll try to summarise.
The post is re. gravity.
It went into ideas of neutron stars and the idea of grav. waves.
I suggested grav. waves not being carried by aether, yet being to out of phase EM waves produced by the highly magnetic neutron stars.
The logical conclusion of two neutron stars forming a black hole would be an EM "out" effect (damn obviously as a region of no light) yet with a resulting massive grav.-field....using that train of theory I have proposed, not to mention using the idea of EM out-of-phase resonance to assist in the "dark-matter" idea/phenomena.
Have I lost you yet?
Maybe I haven't been courteous. Tell me about your aether theory re. grav. waves and black holes, more than you have already.
Before you reply, the idea of out-of-phase EM interference is simple.....there's nothing there as an EM result....its out-of-phase interference.....but where do those two streams of EM go.....what dimension, what force?
Light has this effect, and people are researching this, and there's also the not well known idea of the Dirac sea, which answers a lot of questions regarding EM standing waves and gravity.....well, better than aether.
-
I suggested grav. waves not being carried by aether, yet being to out of phase EM waves produced by the highly magnetic neutron stars.
Relativity doesn't suggest that they are carried by aether either (at least not the kind searched for by Michelson-Morley experiments). When electromagnetic waves interact, they produce interference patterns where the waves cancel out in some places and reinforce in others. I know of no evidence (or even a good logical reason) that they change into anything other than electromagnetic waves. Gravitational waves also do not behave like electromagnetic waves do.
The logical conclusion of two neutron stars forming a black hole would be an EM "out" effect (damn obviously as a region of no light)
An EM "out" event? What does that mean?
yet with a resulting massive grav.-field
I don't understand why you think any kind of electromagnetic interactions would cause an increase in gravity. Gravity is linked to the quantity of mass and energy present.
....using that train of theory I have proposed, not to mention using the idea of EM out-of-phase resonance to assist in the "dark-matter" idea/phenomena.
Given that gravity is linked to energy and mass, how are electromagnetic waves interacting with each other going to increase mass or energy? That would violate the 1st law of thermodynamics.
-
Even before the detection of gravitational waves by LIGO, it was observed that the Hulse-Taylor binary neutron star system experienced orbital decay at exactly the rate predicted by relativity if the system emitted energy in the form of gravitational waves: http://aspbooks.org/publications/328/025.pdf
Take a look at the fourth page of the document to see just how closely the data matches the predictions. An awfully convenient coincidence if gravitational waves do not exist. If gravitational waves don't exist, then what was carrying the energy of the system away to allow for such orbital decay and why did it exactly match gravitational wave predictions?
Yes good points. Firstly i think that the close matching to the theoretical GR GW losses is overstated - what with inexact numbers for distance masses etc etc.
I think that there are other reasons for the energy losses. (1) Tidal forces. (2) Photonic radiation. (3) Charge-electro-magnetic radiation. But not GW radiation. Some of (1)(2)(3) losses might not be associated with loss of orbital momentum & loss of orbital speed -- but much will.
I havnt given this stuff much thort. Still thinking.
Centrifuging of aether (my pet subject) is i reckon a big cause of energy loss. (4) Aether is sucked in near the equator of a spinning star & consequently aether is pushed out near the two poles (however this spinning wouldnt much affect binary orbit).
(5) But, a similar sucking & pushing must happen due to orbital rotation. In this case aether is sucked in from the outside of a star to the inside (outside being the half of the outer surface with respect to the other star)(inside being the inner half of the surface, ie the half closest to the other star). And aether is consequently pushed out in two directions along the common orbit axis.
Centrifuging of aether is completely unknown by the science community, including aetherists (except of course that i know)(& praps one other guy).
Yes, i think that the orbital centrifuging of aether (5) is the missing ingredient re energy loss -- & (4) centrifuging due to spin might contribute indirectly.
But Einsteinian GWs do not exist, & hencely cant have any effect on a binary or on anything else.
-
I should explain myself better.
I have a website re. a new theory of EM and gravity, well, a new "a-priori" for time. It started as a question of not interfering with physics but adding more scope to the concept of time, adding more definition to it, without corrupting all the known field forces and equations thereof.
Paper 1 seemed fine, I went to paper 2, that seemed fine. No contemporary equations were corrupted. Many were simplified, many, by being more robust with a definition of time, until the definition of time re-wrote the idea of relativity, as a "relativity of time".
I thought, "this is all well and good, but can I prove something in the lab to show how better this theory is".
So I did.
Now I am thinking, "what on earth are people going to say about their models of contemporary physics, especially astrophysics".
I have been able to demonstrate in the lab G effects from EM based on my theory. Writing this 8th paper up though is a nightmare because it is so corrective in its outlook, and as one can understand its out of the blue.