0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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?
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
The following is a little out of sequence, but I didn't want to forget to comment on it.Quote from: mad aetherist on 20/01/2019 21:19:06That 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 XMaybe Demjanov struggles with them too. Permeability and permittivity are necessary “givens” (axioms) within the theory of electromagnetism. They are defined mathematically to work together in varying proportions, but individually they are not observable. It appears that they play the role of placing limits on the speed of light in a vacuum, and to explain the difference in the speed of light through various mediums, i.e., to explain the refractive index, .There is a typical discussion in this link:https://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-speed-of-light-vary-between-different-mediumsYou will see various explanations of the mechanics of the refractive index, and they generally corral the allowed thinking to photon absorption and re-emissions at varying matter densities in various mediums. However, those explanations seem to fall short when you look deeper into the nature of particles. At some point, you have to think outside the box.When the nature of particles themselves begins to take on a “wave-particle” nature in the pursuit of deeper explanations of quantum action and quantum gravity, it begins to seem reasonable to think of particles as being composed of wave energy in quantum increments, and that gives them an internal composition that is not compatible with the generally accepted standard model. Current theory of permeability and permittivity works fine if particles are point like, and have no internal wave characteristics or composition.Please comment.
I am ok with (weak) Newtonian quadrupolar GWs from binaries in general but not ok with their silly GR kind of silly super GWs from binaries. And i am potentially ok with thinking of density of gravity or GWs. But waves nonetheless (& density, etc) have to be in relation to a medium.
The best explanation for the varying speeds of light in medium & in vacuum (& for refraction, & bending of light) is my own. They are due to photino drag (nowadays i tend to call it photaeno drag to distinguish it from the silly non-existent virtual particle the photino of the standard model). Search & i think u will find my more detailed explanation for photaeno drag.Photaenos are little tornadic swirls of the aether that emanate from the main helical body of every photon. The swirls (photaenos) compete with other swirls for the use of the aether. Photaenos also emanate from other free photons & from confined photons (proper particles)(electrons quarks etc). The aether cannot multitask very well hencely there is congestion, in vacuum near mass, but especially inside mass (eg air water glass). The congestion slows the progress & propagation of the photaenos. This slowing feeds back to the helix of the central body, slowing the photon's propagation. For higher frequency photons the helix of the main body is tighter & some photaenos angle somewhat more ahead (photaenos emanate kind of squarely from the helix)(the photaenos at the front of the helix do the most damage here), hencely high frequencies are slowed moreso. Photaenos try to propagate outwards from the helix of the central body of the photon at praps 5c according to some Xs (i dont think they go at c).Photaenos make what we call em waves & fields & radiation, that propagate out to praps infinity -- em waves & fields & radiation have nothing to do with photons (except that a photaeno is a part of a photon). Actually i doubt that photaenos can form photaeno waves, but they are responsible for photonic waves (see below).Also photaenos are sticky, which is an aspect of being allergic to congestion, & not only does it give slowing but it means that these little tornadic suckers just love parades. Which explains waves & coherence & lasers. Re permeability & permitivity these must arise from the properties of photaenos. I will work all of that out & explain it to the world when i get time. My thinking will have to be compatible with all aspects of the Catt Question.But all wiki & quora etc explanations of slowing of light & of refraction etc etc, & of em radiation etc etc, are complete krapp. What could better illustrate the lack of logic inside the feckless Einsteinian Mafia, the absurdity of their Dogma, the corruption of their entrenched system, & the quivering fear of their army of constipated little unimaginative surdic apostles & disciples & followers, than their stupid everlasting canon that em radiation is made of photons. Photaenos might have mass. Photons certainly have mass, ie they annihilate aether, the annihilation being a part of the helical propagation of the central helix of the photon. If the tornadic swirl of a photaeno involves annihilation of aether then photaenos contribute to mass (in which case em radiation will have mass). The swirl or spin might too be helical (like the helix of the central body of a photon), a mini-helix praps -- but that is unlikely if the maximum speed of a photon is c & the speed of a photaeno is 5c (ie it is unlikely that helical annihilation has 2 speeds of propagation). Praps a photaeno is helical but its helix etc doesnt involve any sort of annihilation. But if it is helical then that would need annihilation i think, & without annihilation it would be just a spin, not a helix (thinking out loud here)(not important).
Quote from: mad aetherist on 22/01/2019 19:39:46I am ok with (weak) Newtonian quadrupolar GWs from binaries in general but not ok with their silly GR kind of silly super GWs from binaries. And i am potentially ok with thinking of density of gravity or GWs. But waves nonetheless (& density, etc) have to be in relation to a medium.We may have some common ground in regard to the need for a medium. If you are potentially Ok thinking about density in terms of gravitational waves, then you have some agreement with my musings where I refer to the medium of space.The path I have taken has lead me to imagine a universe that has always existed, and where space has always been filled with matter and energy, (I’ve mentioned the infinites of space, time, and wave energy in my model, and that the process of Big Bang Arena Action defeats entropy on a grand scale; remember the multiple big bang arenas, dynamic steady state discussion). Along with the thinking that the universe has always existed, and has always been filled with matter and energy, the mere presence of matter supports the presence of gravity, and the presence of gravity sustains the presence of matter. It all works at the quantum level though, as opposed to the level of GR/spacetime, i.e., curved/warped/bending space is not part of the ISU model. The effect of curved spacetime is replaced by the concept of gravitational wave energy density, and that density accounts for how light bends around massive objects, like it does with an aether presence.My conclusion is that where there is mass, there are gravitational waves emitted and absorbed by mass, and those waves are carrying gravitational wave energy through the space between objects with mass. Photons have mass, and absorb and emit gravitational waves just like in-swirling blackholes. I think there is a lot of depth in each of our versions that has gone unsaid, but we may just be too far apart to make sense out of each other.
Yes every quantum thing has mass, & all mass has gravity. But in my aether theory there is no wave in the gravity unless something is changing. Near a binary there is something changing, its the distance to each of the two stars, hencely the Newtonian gravity changes, a quadrupolar change (wave if u like), but very weak in the far field (not a bullshit LIGO kind of GW). And that Newtonian wave can carry energy (like u say).
But whereas your GWs are the fundamental building block of everything we see & feel my aetheric Newtonian GWs are an end product & dont create any kind of new or old particle etc.
Quote from: mad aetherist on 22/01/2019 03:15:23LIGO have already admitted that their lovely chirps were drawn by their PR people.If that was true, then it should have been breaking news everywhere as that would be an admission of conspiracy. Where is this reputable source that you have showing that LIGO admitted to hoaxing its gravitational wave detections? Be careful how you answer that question, as admitting to "hand-tuning" the data for illustrative purposes is not the same as saying "there were no chirps at all".Also, if the new KAGRA detector in Japan ends up detecting gravitational waves at the same time as LIGO and VIRGO, are you going to claim that they are a part of the conspiracy as well? https://www.sciencenews.org/article/new-gravitational-wave-detector-kagra-almost-ready-join-search
Quote from: mad aetherist on 24/01/2019 00:50:08Yes every quantum thing has mass, & all mass has gravity. But in my aether theory there is no wave in the gravity unless something is changing. Near a binary there is something changing, its the distance to each of the two stars, hencely the Newtonian gravity changes, a quadrupolar change (wave if u like), but very weak in the far field (not a bullshit LIGO kind of GW). And that Newtonian wave can carry energy (like u say).Do you acknowledge that any given object with mass is in relative motion to all other objects with mass? Doesn’t that qualify as something changing relative to any two objects in relative motion, regardless of the distance or style of motion?
…However i daresay that your GWs are more of a micro-world happening rather than the above macro-world happenings. Thusly i daresay that your GWs must be both the building block of everything we feel & see at a micro-level whilst at the same time being the recipient of all of thems micro-happenings -- so we have a circular argument, a circular creation story (God made Heaven & Earth -- who made God -- why, Heaven & Earth did).
The best explanation for the varying speeds of light in medium & in vacuum (& for refraction, & bending of light) is my own. They are due to photino drag (nowadays i tend to call it photaeno drag to distinguish it from the silly non-existent virtual particle the photino of the standard model). Search & i think u will find my more detailed explanation for photaeno drag.
Quote from: mad aetherist on 23/01/2019 21:13:14The best explanation for the varying speeds of light in medium & in vacuum (& for refraction, & bending of light) is my own. They are due to photaeno drag (nowadays i tend to call it photaeno drag to distinguish it from the silly non-existent virtual particle the photaeno of the standard model). Search & i think u will find my more detailed explanation for photaeno drag.I found this: photaeno drag ............ of vibration or spin or swirl of the aether. Have you explained what aether is? Is it particulate? How do you describe it?If it exists in the ISU, it is contained in the tiny oscillations at the tiniest level of action, where the lowest order of gravitation waves oscillate in the background that fills all space, just waiting for a meaningful gravitational (or light) waves to enter the local oscillating background; the oscillations then assist in the advance of those more meaningful waves through the oscillating background. Below is an image of a quiet but oscillating patch of foundational wave energy background that acts to advance and assist the propagation of meaningful light and gravity waves through space. When characterizing the Aether within the ISU model, it is right there in the space occupied by those tiny oscillations, remembering that in the ISU, there is a hint of mass at the convergence of each gravitational wave, and there in the quiet oscillations of the oscillating foundational background is where the tiniest hints of mass are constantly forming momentarily, and then expanding spherically as third waves to complete an oscillation, and as the new third wave expands, it is continually forming more tiny hints of mass around the expanding spherical surface.All of those little circles in the image are supposed to represent the “third wave” action, meaning that each circle can be backtracked to a point of convergence depicted where two or more circles in the image intersect, and the image of all of those tiny circles has numerous wave convergences at points on the surface where the third waves expand spherically. Picture a tiny, momentary “spot” (hint of mass) at each of the convergences around each depicted sphere.I would ask you, if I added tiny spots at each convergence in the following image, and then removed the circle lines which connect each point of convergence among the oscillating gravitational waves, could the sum of all of those tiny momentary spots that I call hints of mass equate to aether? Edit: I might add that the aether "spots" would all appear to be flashing into and out of existence all of the time, everywhere, filling all space, as the "unseen oscillating gravitational wave action" takes place.https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_23_10_18_1_46_45.jpeg Below is a link to an image that shows a meaningful wave being advanced through a patch of the oscillating wave energy background. The oscillations would equate to your aether, while the darker regions could equate to a meaningful gravitational wave emitted from a particle with mass in the ISU model.https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_2_54_25.jpegAny comments so far, before I address the concept of tornadic swirls of the aether?
The best explanation for the varying speeds of light in medium & in vacuum (& for refraction, & bending of light) is my own. They are due to photaeno drag (nowadays i tend to call it photaeno drag to distinguish it from the silly non-existent virtual particle the photaeno of the standard model). Search & i think u will find my more detailed explanation for photaeno drag.
My aether is similar to your aether, my aether is a process, it is some sort of excitation of the fundamental praether, thusly being a process it can be annihilated,
… whereas the annihilation of praether itself, ie the annihilation of a thing, would be harder to swallow. And for sure one could make a sensible model where aether flashes in & out of existence.
I suppose that the fundamental quantum or subquantum fluid or whatever has had lots of names throo history -- the fabric of spacetime -- strings -- vacuum energy -- dynamic space -- absolute frame -- quantum foam -- there are many terms that are an aether.
I notice that u believe that light is a wave. I believe that light is made of photons, & that the photon is the elementary particle that makes electrons & quarks etc (which are usually called elementary particles).
It looks to me that praps u believe that mass is a process & a thing-thing, whereas i believe that every"thing" (other than praether) is a process.
How does your mass work, & how does your inertia work, & are your mass & inertia related?
Quote… whereas the annihilation of praether itself, ie the annihilation of a thing, would be harder to swallow. And for sure one could make a sensible model where aether flashes in & out of existence.Good point. When talking about a thing, you are referring to praether itself, as opposed to the product of a process? So we can say that the aether “spots” are process related, and do I take it right then that we would say “things” in you aether model have mass (consistent with what I would call matter)?
QuoteI suppose that the fundamental quantum or subquantum fluid or whatever has had lots of names throo history -- the fabric of spacetime -- strings -- vacuum energy -- dynamic space -- absolute frame -- quantum foam -- there are many terms that are an aether.That list covers many of the names for it. Do you include the cosmic microwave background radiation on that list or how do you see that?
Praether & Aether dont have mass -- but everything else has mass (photons etc etc)(neutrinos).
Quote from: mad aetherist on 26/01/2019 01:51:43Praether & Aether dont have mass -- but everything else has mass (photons etc etc)(neutrinos).I'm not up to speed on all of the terminology, but I do find we can get to some common ground. As we have acknowledged, there are many unknowns, and your posts have given me new views to consider in that regard. It is hard to reconcile our ideas and declare common ground, but I plan to keep my eye on your threads, and to continue to consider and learn from them.
Yes, u & me & all, we are all here to learn …Seeing as u mention Praether, i probly forget to mention that the Praether is made of Praethons or Praetherons if u like. …And i should make clear that Aether is made of Aethons or Aetherons if u like. But whereas Praether & Praethons are things, Aether & Aethons are more processes than things. Hencely Aether & Aethons are an illusion of sorts (not that we can readily see or feel them)(but we can indirectly). However both Praether & Aether occupy the sub-quantum world, rather than the completely illusory quantum world that we all feel & see. And when something crosses from the sub-quantum to the quantum (something from nothing)(creation of mass) or vice versa (nothing from something)(annihilation of mass) then Noether's conservation stuff is or can be a dead duck.
So why be audacious and speculate about cosmology when we have such a popular model at our finger tips?My excuse is that because when you look for the mechanics that are at work to answer the “how” questions, there are a few things about BBT that are problematic. One thing is that the Theory of Quantum Mechanics is a separate model and there are important incompatibilities between them. Further, upon contemplation of BBT, there are a few ideas that seem to logically fit better with some of our individual perceptions of reality.What is your excuse?
A few years ago i decided to look more closely into Einstein's SR & GR & i was shocked by how stupid it all was, & at how badly it was written, starting firstly with his twin flashes of lightning at the train station thort-X, & later his elevator equivalence (chest) thort-X. Soon i found papers & websites etc by heretics (who mostly believed in aether & aetherwind) like Michelson Morley Miller Gale Pearce Pearson Ives Courvoisier Esclangon Allais Munera Demjanov Marett Marmett Crothers Mathis Cahill Ranzan Dingle Catt & dozens of others. I didnt ever go to university, so my science & math aint good, but i enjoy learning.