[mad aetherist]

Can understand where you are coming from. Right in line with what I said about having the same observables if you couple that statement with the words I used in stipulation: we describe what we see in different words, and we explain what we see based on different explanations. Nothing wrong with that.

Now Ranzan is unknown to me, except through your reference, and if he is a dynamic steady state thinker, he and I would have some common ground. Where it goes from here is based on evidence and logic. I gave you some of mine, and that thinking has me posting endless volumes of related word salad that people have no problem passing up, but that those same people give me a pass on because much of it is logic, and much of it is unfalsifiable. It just sort of sits there, and we wait to see if mold forms on it, lol.

Now if you throw all the offerings out before they show mold, get falsified, or are refuted by some logic, and replace it with something that requires us to reinterpret the discovery of fire and ice, and other generally accepted science, you (and Ranzan) risk being left right off the menu.

I need some more on what you mean, “Einstein refused to see that the MMX wasnt null”. Give me a link or something to at least think about. We can get to Hawking later if you want.

Cahill has about 40 papers on google re all aspects of lots of MMXs, including some of his own. No gas mode MMX has ever been null.
Munera has some good papers on MMXs including a couple of his own.

Ranzan has his own website with lots of articles, much of it from his books, but he doesnt get into the nittygritty of MMXs.

De Meo's Orgone website has links to many good papers & websites.

The best paper of all re any MMX is by Demjanov who did a first-order bi-dielectric MMX in 1970 in Obninsk (air & carbondisulphide), about 1000 times as sensitive as the old second-order 1887-1932 MMXs. His paper blows my mind. The best X in history.

There is lots of stuff out there, despite the Einsteinian mafia's censorship.

[Bogie_smiles]

Cahill has about 40 papers on google re all aspects of lots of MMXs, including some of his own. No gas mode MMX has ever been null.
Munera has some good papers on MMXs including a couple of his own.

Ranzan has his own website with lots of articles, much of it from his books, but he doesnt get into the nittygritty of MMXs.

De Meo's Orgone website has links to many good papers & websites.

The best paper of all re any MMX is by Demjanov who did a first-order bi-dielectric MMX in 1970 in Obninsk (air & carbondisulphide), about 1000 times as sensitive as the old second-order 1887-1932 MMXs. His paper blows my mind. The best X in history.

There is lots of stuff out there, despite the Einsteinian mafia's censorship.

OK, worth taking a look. One search leads here:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=75071.0
So let me see if I like it .

[mad aetherist]

OK, worth taking a look. One search leads here:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=75071.0
So let me see if I like it .

That thread aint much good, but it has a couple of links, but best just google the names i mentioned, all links usually turn up on page 1.

[Bogie_smiles]

That thread aint much good, but it has a couple of links, but best just google the names i mentioned, all links usually turn up on page 1.

Ok, Got it.

[Bogie_smiles]

I’m getting up to speed with your meaning after doing the searches you suggested. MMX is Michelson Morley Experiments (Heel of hand strikes forehead), and when you say, “Einstein refused to see that the MMX wasn’t null” you are saying that there are objections to the generally accepted consensus that MM didn’t detect aether, explained by … http://vixra.org/pdf/1007.0038v1.pdf

Let me spread some dressing on my own word salad by saying that I have no problem with the conclusion that MMX were not the definitive experiments to say there is no aether.

Now our difference is in what we call the aether. We still don’t end up on the same page, but we get closer. I agree that all space is filled with … (I don’t call it aether because my version of reality says that when objects move through space, they are moving through the gravitational wave energy density of space, and what might correspond to aether to some enthusiasts, corresponds to the high energy density spots that have a hint of mass, and that form at the convergence of intersecting gravitational waves. Beyond that, you’d have to read some of my stuff, and I wouldn’t wish that on anyone who has anything else to do, lol.

Suffice it to say, to the extent that we view the universe as infinite and eternal, a dynamic steady state, filled with matter and energy, and to the extent that the nature of the energy that fills all space can be called aether or called wave energy convergences that individually have a hint of mass, we do have some common ground for discussion in a casual encounter, two people pausing to chat. Thank you for that.

[pasala]

(1) a body accelerating toward another body due to gravity seems driven only by the other body, i.e., something that the other body is influencing is causing it to move; and

(2) bodies accelerated in space void of gravitational fields experience gravity-like pushes on them as a result of the acceleration per Einstein's equivalence theory in general relativity, i.e., when bodies are accelerated in space, something pushes against them; and

You are exactly correct.  There is something on Earth which we call it as Gravity.  But there is no such thing in space.  If this is clarified, Gravity is solved.  EMF is different and Gravity is different.  Why Gravity on Earth only and why not working in Space. 

It is said that Planets are being attracted to each other and at the same time they also repel.  Well, planets are also material objects only and they cannot move or do something.  So, naturally no planet can attract other planet by themselves.  There is certain force, literally acting on both of them. 

In normal conditions, no particle can exert or influence other particle. Inner energy of the particle is different, though it may vary from particle to particle.  But, the basic question is how a particle creates surplus energy and this extend up to space time. 

Think, no particle on the planet is shedding additional energy into the open area. In fact it has no such capacity. But what makes or causes it to extend up to space time and to bend.  Basic point is, particles are not creators of energy.   

Finally, there is one medium which is doing all this.  Why, we could not get it means, our research, our activity is going on within this strong energy.  We are taking this as base.

This energy force is giving gravity on Earth and is making planets to attract and also to repel each other and to stay at an exact place.

Yours
Psreddy
 

[mad aetherist]

I’m getting up to speed with your meaning after doing the searches you suggested. MMX is Michelson Morley Experiments (Heel of hand strikes forehead), and when you say, “Einstein refused to see that the MMX wasn’t null” you are saying that there are objections to the generally accepted consensus that MM didn’t detect aether, explained by … http://vixra.org/pdf/1007.0038v1.pdf

Let me spread some dressing on my own word salad by saying that I have no problem with the conclusion that MMX were not the definitive experiments to say there is no aether.

Now our difference is in what we call the aether. We still don’t end up on the same page, but we get closer. I agree that all space is filled with … (I don’t call it aether because my version of reality says that when objects move through space, they are moving through the gravitational wave energy density of space, and what might correspond to aether to some enthusiasts, corresponds to the high energy density spots that have a hint of mass, and that form at the convergence of intersecting gravitational waves. Beyond that, you’d have to read some of my stuff, and I wouldn’t wish that on anyone who has anything else to do, lol.

Suffice it to say, to the extent that we view the universe as infinite and eternal, a dynamic steady state, filled with matter and energy, and to the extent that the nature of the energy that fills all space can be called aether or called wave energy convergences that individually have a hint of mass, we do have some common ground for discussion in a casual encounter, two people pausing to chat. Thank you for that.

That link to Demjanov's latest english version of his paper is the best No1 most important mind blowing X ever done. He is my hero. I wish i could understand his explanation of how permitivity & permeability actually work in the X, & why he doesnt actually directly need to account for Fresnel Drag. All of which is not exactly critical to the main thrust of the work.  What i do understand is that his MMX is periodic in a full turn, whereas ordinary single medium MMXs are periodic in a half turn. Wonderful stuff.

Yes its hard to envisage an empty space with things passing throo, like photons or gravity fields or em fields etc just passing throo. To pass throo then it has to be a thing, ie an object.  If it aint a thing, eg if it is a wave, then it nonetheless has to be the waving of some thing. Aetherons (or Aethons) solve that problem (or if u like Praethons, if Praethons make Aetherons).

But anyhow everything we see & feel in our quantum world is not really a thing it is a process.  And me myself i prefer to keep energy out of things, koz energy aint a thing, it aint even a process, energy is only math, it only exists in mathland, best dont ever mention energy if u can avoid it.

If u slowly work your way throo thems links etc, most papers giving a good further link, then after say 4 years u might sound like me.

[Bogie_smiles]

…

Finally, there is one medium which is doing all this.  Why, we could not get it means, our research, our activity is going on within this strong energy.  We are taking this as base.

This energy force is giving gravity on Earth and is making planets to attract and also to repel each other and to stay at an exact place.

Yours
Psreddy

It would seem that you’re correct, if you are proposing that there is something in space related to the Earth and planets, to the presence of mass in general. What would you say it is?

[Bogie_smiles]

…

If u slowly work your way throo thems links etc, most papers giving a good further link, then after say 4 years u might sound like me.

The way I would put it is that if we were to discuss our views for four years, we might start sounding the same.

We differ in what call “a thing”. Let me point to the examples you give in the following comments, “like photons or gravity fields or em fields etc just passing throo. To pass throo then it has to be a thing, ie an object.  If it aint a thing, eg if it is a wave, then it nonetheless has to be the waving of some thing.”

I don’t imagine being able to convince you of this, but I am convinced that waves are things, and I am specifically referring to gravitational waves. My position is that they are emitted and absorbed by mass, and so I say mass is composed two components, the inflowing and out flowing gravitational wave energy, and both enter and leave the particle in quantum increments. I’ll spare us both any long explanation and don’t recommend you read my thread on "What are they saying about  Quantum Gravity?" unless you are an insomniac, but will make one comment you might pick up on:

That comment is that photons have mass, and as such they fall into a category that I refer to as wave-particles (all particles with mass are wave-particles in my model), and so by my definition, they would absorb and emit gravitational wave energy.

I mention the case of the photon because while reading some of your other threads, it is possible that we may have some more common ground there, aside from the universe being a dynamic stead state, etc.

Photons emit light as they traverse space at the local speed of light and gravity. As I see it, those emitted light waves from photon particles are the outflowing gravitational wave energy component, one of the two components mentioned above that make up the photon wave particles.

[mad aetherist]

The way I would put it is that if we were to discuss our views for four years, we might start sounding the same.

We differ in what call “a thing”. Let me point to the examples you give in the following comments, “like photons or gravity fields or em fields etc just passing throo. To pass throo then it has to be a thing, ie an object.  If it aint a thing, eg if it is a wave, then it nonetheless has to be the waving of some thing.”

I don’t imagine being able to convince you of this, but I am convinced that waves are things, and I am specifically referring to gravitational waves. My position is that they are emitted and absorbed by mass, and so I say mass is composed two components, the inflowing and out flowing gravitational wave energy, and both enter and leave the particle in quantum increments. I’ll spare us both any long explanation and don’t recommend you read my thread on The Cause of Quantum Gravity unless you are an insomniac, but will make one comment you might pick up on:

That comment is that photons have mass, and as such they fall into a category that I refer to as wave-particles (all particles with mass are wave-particles in my model), and so by my definition, they would absorb and emit gravitational wave energy.

I mention the case of the photon because while reading some of your other threads, it is possible that we may have some more common ground there, aside from the universe being a dynamic stead state, etc.

Photons emit light as they traverse space at the local speed of light and gravity. As I see it, those emitted light waves from photon particles are the outflowing gravitational wave energy component, one of the two components mentioned above that make up the photon wave particles.

That looks to me to imply that energy is a thing, but a different kind of thing to every other thing, & can travel  at the speed of light, & can have a wavy property.  If so then what sorts of properties does it have.  And how many kinds of energy of that transmitted kind & praps wavy kind might exist. How & where is it stored.  Can it be created. Can it have mass.  Can it be destroyed.

[Bogie_smiles]

That looks to me to imply that energy is a thing, but a different kind of thing to every other thing, & can travel  at the speed of light, & can have a wavy property.  If so then what sorts of properties does it have.  And how many kinds of energy of that transmitted kind & praps wavy kind might exist. How & where is it stored.  Can it be created. Can it have mass.  Can it be destroyed.

Consider the concept of a light wave, which is one variety of a gravitational wave that is continually emitted by the photon wave-particle, and carries energy, if you invoke my model of inflowing and out flowing wave energy from mass. The light wave travels at the speed of light spherically from the photon wave-particle, as the photon travels through space, and the light waves carry energy (wave energy) through space at the speed of light.

[mad aetherist]

That looks to me to imply that energy is a thing, but a different kind of thing to every other thing, & can travel  at the speed of light, & can have a wavy property.  If so then what sorts of properties does it have.  And how many kinds of energy of that transmitted kind & praps wavy kind might exist. How & where is it stored.  Can it be created. Can it have mass.  Can it be destroyed.

Consider the concept of a light wave, which is one variety of a gravitational wave that is continually emitted by the photon wave-particle, and carries energy, if you invoke my model of inflowing and out flowing wave energy from mass. The light wave travels at the speed of light spherically from the photon wave-particle, as the photon travels through space, and the light waves carry energy (wave energy) through space at the speed of light.

In that case i wonder what is that light wave, is it made of photons, or is the wave a part of a photon, etc.

[Bogie_smiles]

In that case i wonder what is that light wave, is it made of photons, or is the wave a part of a photon, etc.

The light wave is a series of wave intersections, called "third waves", that are advanced through space by the oscillating wave energy background that you would know about if you read any of my material, but try to avoid that if you want to stay awake, lol. The oscillating wave energy background advances meaningful waves, much like Christian Huygen's wavelets propagate waves through space.


https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_21_10_17_4_48_15.jpeg


Look at Reply #130 in one of my main threads for an introduction to the oscillating wave energy background:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg525839#msg525839

[mad aetherist]

In that case i wonder what is that light wave, is it made of photons, or is the wave a part of a photon, etc.

The light wave is a series of wave intersections, called "third waves", that are advanced through space by the oscillating wave energy background that you would know about if you read any of my material, but try to avoid that if you want to stay awake, lol. The oscillating wave energy background advances meaningful waves, much like Christian Huygen's wavelets propagate waves through space.


https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_21_10_17_4_48_15.jpeg


Look at Reply #130 in one of my main threads for an introduction to the oscillating wave energy background:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg525839#msg525839

Yes i had a quick read of #130. The question still exists what is waving, what is oscillating, does the photon emit something & that something waves. 
Re fields of various sorts, what makes the fields. I dont see how a wave is simply a wave, its a bit like saying a  force is simply a force, or energy is simply energy -- all three need a thing, & that thing needs to be doing something.
U cant have temperature sitting somewhere on its own.  U cant put love in a box & sell it (anyhow i have the patent). U can have stink on its own -- ie after the stinker has left -- but here the stink is made of things (in the air).

[Bogie_smiles]

Yes i had a quick read of #130. The question still exists what is waving, what is oscillating, does the photon emit something & that something waves. 
Re fields of various sorts, what makes the fields. I dont see how a wave is simply a wave, its a bit like saying a  force is simply a force, or energy is simply energy -- all three need a thing, & that thing needs to be doing something.
U cant have temperature sitting somewhere on its own.  U cant put love in a box & sell it (anyhow i have the patent). U can have stink on its own -- ie after the stinker has left -- but here the stink is made of things (in the air).

Good points, and it goes without saying that my model is quite alternative. I will keep addressing it bit by bit as long as there is interest, but feel free to give up when my layman science enthusiast's model goes beyond your line of tolerance, lol.

To be continued ...


Edit: Watching the Blood Moon Eclipse from Florida

[Bogie_smiles]

Reply #55

Yes i had a quick read of #130. The question still exists what is waving, what is oscillating, does the photon emit something & that something waves. 
Re fields of various sorts, what makes the fields. I dont see how a wave is simply a wave, its a bit like saying a  force is simply a force, or energy is simply energy -- all three need a thing, & that thing needs to be doing something.
…

I’m going to work on conveying the answer to Mad Aetherist’s question, “What waves, what is waving”. The answer to that first question comes with a lot of boiler plate in which I outline in general terms, the nature of my model. In so doing, other questions will come to the top, and I will address them in this thread as they surface, for as long as there is interest and responsiveness to my return questions as we go. Most of what I say here about my model has already been posted in my main threads, and I may link to posts in those threads when appropriate.


It is appropriate to warn people that my model is quite alternative, and to be understood, you have to be willing to ignore many preconceived details that you may be attached to; not saying to forget them, but if they don’t fit in with my model, they may be confusing. When you realize you may have a preconceived idea that doesn’t fit in the ISU model, feel free to ask about it if you think it is too important for me to ignore.


My model is called the Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU) model of the cosmology to the universe.


I have already set the stage by previously introducing my model as a dynamic steady state model that features multiple big bang events going on across the infinite landscape of the greater universe. I claim that those big bang events are orchestrated by a process that I call Big Bang Arena Action. I suggest you say it out loud: Big Bang Arena Action, because it is the major macro level process that orchestrates the perpetuation of big bang arenas across the landscape of the greater universe, and the result of arena action is the defeat of entropy on a grand scale. On that note, we can say the word “dynamic” includes in its meaning “perpetual” as it applies to describing the ISU.


Arenas are also known as big bang arena waves because they start out as hot dense expanding balls of plasma energy that emerge from the collapse/bang of each big crunch. Each big crunch starts out with the convergence of two or more expanding big bang arena waves, and where those “parent waves” converge and overlap, they produce a swirling rendezvous composed of galactic matter and energy that grows into a big crunch at the center of gravity of the overlap space. The crunches will grow through accretion from the galactic matter of the parent arenas until a certain “critical capacity” is reached, and at the point of critical capacity, the gravitational compression of the matter in the crunch exceeds the ability of the wave-particles in the crunch to maintain their individual space. As a result, there is an event called a collapse/bang of the big crunch (known as a Big Bang), as the particles in the crunch give up their individual spaces and collapse together into a hot ball of “dense state” wave energy. The collapse of the individual wave-particles results in a “bounce” off of natures maximum limit of energy density, and an expanding ball of hot dense plasma wave energy emerges from the “bang” and rapidly expands into the surrounding space formerly occupied by the converging parent arenas.


That is the big picture of arena action in the ISU. Most of us realize that our observable universe is just a portion of our own local expanding big bang arena, and according to the ISU model, our big bang arena is just one of a potentially infinite number of active arenas going on at any given time across the landscape of the greater universe.


What we see is our visible universe, our Hubble view, and according to the model, the observable universe surrounds us as we sit here within our Milky Way Galaxy, in the center of a vast number of galaxies, galaxy groups, and galactic structure in all directions. Unexpectedly, when we look far and hard, all of the galactic structure appears to be moving away from us, and away from everything else in all directions, and not only that, but the separation that is occurring appears to be accelerating at an acceleration rate. No matter where you are in the observable universe, it appears to you that you are at the center of expansion.


Those observations are generally accepted as part of the ISU model, and unfortunately the explanations for those observations are all over the map in the annals of alternative cosmology. The ISU model of cosmology has its own explanations for all of those observations, and don’t be afraid to ask, but in the mean time, now that you have a general view of the ISU, we can address the question, “What waves, what is waving?”


The initial response is that there is only one commodity in the ISU, and it is gravitational wave energy. It fills all space, and is coming and going at the speed of light, to and from all directions, at all points in space, at all times, and every object with mass is composed of gravitational wave energy in quantum increments. There is an infinite amount of it, everything in the ISU is composed of it, and so the answer to “What is waving” is gravitational wave energy. Gravitational wave energy has a characteristic that allows it to seem like the medium of space is waving, at all times, everywhere. My intention is to describe that characteristic of gravitational wave energy, but I know, OMG, the explanation so far must just leave you cold.


If that discourages you from following along, so be it. If you want more detail, then respond. I’ll be glad to clarify.


https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_06_08_17_6_06_27.jpeg

[mad aetherist]

“What waves, what is waving?”
The initial response is that there is only one commodity in the ISU, and it is gravitational wave energy. It fills all space, and is coming and going at the speed of light, to and from all directions, at all points in space, at all times, and every object with mass is composed of gravitational wave energy in quantum increments. There is an infinite amount of it, everything in the ISU is composed of it, and so the answer to “What is waving” is gravitational wave energy. Gravitational wave energy has a characteristic that allows it to seem like the medium of space is waving, at all times, everywhere. My intention is to describe that characteristic of gravitational wave energy, but I know, OMG, the explanation so far must just leave you cold.

Energy needs a something if energy is to exist, u cant put energy in a box.  Just like a wave needs a something, u cant buy a box of wave.

Gravity going at the speed of light or c doesnt work.
Einsteinologists say that gravity is instantaneous & that GWs travel at c.
Aetherists say that gravity travels at over 20 billion c (me myself i think 500 billion c). And there are no such things as GWs, or if there is something like that then it must travel at over 20 billion c (or 500 billion c).

Aetherists say that gravity is due to the acceleration of the aether inflow into mass where aether is annihilated. Photons & every other quantum thing that we readily see & feel is due to an excitation vibration spin swirl of aether.
In a sense everything depends on a movement of aether, but only one class of movement gives gravity. Aetherists cant say that gravity gives that class of movement (it dont work that way)(ie arse about)(ie effect & cause). And certainly Aetherists cant say that gravity gives all of the other classes of movement. But at a micro level praps gravity does play a part in how electrons & quarks form subatomic particles & atomic particles (we dont really know)(extropolating macro gravity stuff that we dont even understand to the micro world where we dont even see is LaLa Land)(not a problem for Einsteinologists).

[Bogie_smiles]

Energy needs a something if energy is to exist, u cant put energy in a box.  Just like a wave needs a something, u cant buy a box of wave.

For sure, you need something that waves if a wave is to carry energy. I would follow on with the facts surrounding the LIGO detection of gravitational waves, but it sounds like you already know the details of the apparatus and have concluded that gravitational waves don’t exist. I wonder what they detected if it wasn’t gravitational waves. Any ideas?

Gravity going at the speed of light or c doesnt work.
Einsteinologists say that gravity is instantaneous & that GWs travel at c.
Aetherists say that gravity travels at over 20 billion c (me myself i think 500 billion c). And there are no such things as GWs, or if there is something like that then it must travel at over 20 billion c (or 500 billion c).

Aetherists say that gravity is due to the acceleration of the aether inflow into mass where aether is annihilated. Photons & every other quantum thing that we readily see & feel is due to an excitation vibration spin swirl of aether.
In a sense everything depends on a movement of aether, but only one class of movement gives gravity. Aetherists cant say that gravity gives that class of movement (it dont work that way)(ie arse about)(ie effect & cause). And certainly Aetherists cant say that gravity gives all of the other classes of movement. But at a micro level praps gravity does play a part in how electrons & quarks form subatomic particles & atomic particles (we dont really know)(extropolating macro gravity stuff that we dont even understand to the micro world where we dont even see is LaLa Land)(not a problem for Einsteinologists).

It seems to a layman like me that the speed of gravity to an Aetherist defies logic. Can you show how  500 billion c is indicated; any observations or experiments that support it? How does it even make sense?

[mad aetherist]

For sure, you need something that waves if a wave is to carry energy. I would follow on with the facts surrounding the LIGO detection of gravitational waves, but it sounds like you already know the details of the apparatus and have concluded that gravitational waves don’t exist. I wonder what they detected if it wasn’t gravitational waves. Any ideas?

Possibly harmonics from their calibration signals. I think that there is a thread back there that goes into other possibilities. Plus i think that there is a conspiracy.  LIGO have already admitted that their lovely chirps were drawn by their PR people.

It seems to a layman like me that the speed of gravity to an Aetherist defies logic. Can you show how  500 billion c is indicated; any observations or experiments that support it? How does it even make sense?

If u google Van Flandern that will show some papers etc that say at least 20 billion c -- anything less would ruin orbits. My own reckoning of 500 billion c is based on applying the ratio of electron drift (say 1 mm/sec) to c (ie 300 000 000 000 mm/sec) onto the aether drift near Earth (ie the aetherwind)(about 500 kmps)(ie c/600), so 300 000 000 000/600  equals 0.5 billion c. Hmmmm -- that aint 500 billion c, it aint even 20 billion c -- ok i will go with at least 20 billion c.

[Bogie_smiles]

For sure, you need something that waves if a wave is to carry energy. I would follow on with the facts surrounding the LIGO detection of gravitational waves, but it sounds like you already know the details of the apparatus and have concluded that gravitational waves don’t exist. I wonder what they detected if it wasn’t gravitational waves. Any ideas?

Possibly harmonics from their calibration signals. I think that there is a thread back there that goes into other possibilities. Plus i think that there is a conspiracy.  LIGO have already admitted that their lovely chirps were drawn by their PR people.

I would call it the gravitational wave energy density effect. A strong gravitational signal from a distant massive event travels through space from the event to the LIGO apparatus. The LIGO apparatus lasers that point down each arm detect infinitesimal differences in round trip time light travel, right?

Since the arms are positioned at a 90º angle, a gravity wave will have a slightly different effect along each arm, making the light travel time down and back on each arm measurably different, which is a condition that sets off the LIGO alarm.

If there is some design flaw, possibly harmonics from their calibration signals, if there is length contraction or time dilation, or wave energy density factors at play, the LIGO device alarm will register the event of the passing of a very high energy gravitational wave, right?

My model predicts that the elevated gravitational wave energy density arriving from the direction of the massive distant event, as the gravitational waves from that event pass through the space occupied by the LIGO detectors, will increase the gravitational wave energy density to a slightly different level along each perpendicularly positioned arm, and that increase in density will affect the speed of light down each arm to a slightly different degree, and that difference in laser light return time between each arm will set off the LIGO alarm to indicate the detection of the gravitational wave. That is the ISU gravitational wave energy density explanation for the activation of the LIGO alarm.

Of the various possibilities, it is a logical explanation, according to the ISU model . What do you think?

Additionally, the model also predicts the cause of the chirping from an event that is caused by the in-swirling death spiral of two blackholes.

So now all I need to do is explain what it is that waves, and waves at a slightly different frequency down each arm, to be able to explain how an observed difference in gravitational wave energy density along each arm will change the velocity of light (and gravitational waves) through the local space. Right?

Are you up to reading about my explanation for how the change in gravitational wave energy density caused by the passing gravitational wave will cause something to wave, and explain what is waving, according to my model, so you can falsify  it, lol, while I contemplate Van Flandern? OK?