[Kryptid]

LIGO 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

[mad aetherist]

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?

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.

LIGO is complicated. I look at it as being primarily a measure of distance in each arm.  But it can involve a change in c in each arm, or wave length, or a difference in local ticking even (but i will ignore these).  LIGO is a house of cards with postulates written on them, one of the weakest is the card that has the postulate that a GW can change the distance tween two hanging mirrors whilst at the same time the length of the laser is not changed.  This card sits on a card that says that if the length of the laser is constant then the wave lengths of the emitted light is constant.  This card sits on a card that says that the laser is a solid formed by electrostatic & electrodynamic forces, & that these es-ed forces in solids are stronger than the GW force that is trying to change the length of the laser. 

Yes, LIGO needs the notion that a GW force in a solid is weaker than an es-ed force.  An adhoc idea with no reasonable logic behind it. They could just as easily say that the GW force is weaker, or that they are exactly equal. Did they make the laser out of stiffer glass to make sure. Nope, no mention.

In addition even if the GW force is stronger & wins then that win cannot be total, the GW must affect the length of the solid (glass?) laser a little or a lot, but no mention of any such thing. Here they placed a wooden block instead of a card & hoped that no one would notice.

And no mention that any such effect on length of laser must give a ringing of the laser, ie a harmonic change in length.  After all the first GW detectors were built on that principle, they were big blocks of metal that would ring (RINGOS)(& ring they did)(or so they said).  But no mention of any such ringing side effect re the length of the laser in LIGO. Another wooden block here instead of a card. In fact LIGO is based on the postulate that such ringing is not possible. 

Here i have looked at one little room of their house of cards (& wooden blocks). There are lots of other rooms just as dangerous. But i have mentioned a room not mentioned by anyone else, no other building inspector has opened that door (probly no other inspector even knows about that door). 

When they claimed that their RINGO rung they did not get a Nobel, but when they claimed that their LIGO did not ring they got a Nobel.  Go figure.

[Bogie_smiles]

The following is a little out of sequence, but I didn't want to forget to comment on it.

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

Maybe 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-mediums

You 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.

[mad aetherist]

The following is a little out of sequence, but I didn't want to forget to comment on it.

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

Maybe 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-mediums
You 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.

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).

[Bogie_smiles]

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.

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.

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).

Much to chew on, and much to debate. If I can get on board with any of that after a closer look, it would leave room for debate; let’s see where it goes.

[mad aetherist]

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.

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.

[Bogie_smiles]

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).

 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?

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.

True, it is an aspect of my model that all matter and energy has always existed, and the processes of arena action and quantum action account for the exchange from matter to gravitational wave energy, and from gravitational wave energy to matter, a continual process in a multiple big bang, dynamic, steady state universe.

[mad aetherist]

LIGO 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

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24032022-600-exclusive-grave-doubts-over-ligos-discovery-of-gravitational-waves/ 

And there are legitimate questions about that trust. New Scientist has learned, for instance, that the collaboration decided to publish data plots that were not derived from actual analysis. The paper on the first detection in Physical Review Letters used a data plot that was more “illustrative” than precise, says Cornish. Some of the results presented in that paper were not found using analysis algorithms, but were done “by eye”.

Brown, part of the LIGO collaboration at the time, explains this as an attempt to provide a visual aid. “It was hand-tuned for pedagogical purposes.” He says he regrets that the figure wasn’t labelled to point this out.

This presentation of “hand-tuned” data in a peer-reviewed, scientific report like this is certainly unusual. New Scientist asked the editor who handled the paper, Robert Garisto, whether he was aware that the published data plots weren’t derived directly from LIGO’s data, but were “pedagogical” and done “by eye”, and whether the journal generally accepts illustrative figures. Garisto declined to comment.

There were also questionable shortcuts in the data LIGO released for public use. The collaboration approximated the subtraction of the Livingston signal from the Hanford one, leaving correlations in the data – the very correlations Jackson noticed. There is now a note on the data release web page stating that the publicly available waveform “was not tuned to precisely remove the signal”.

Whatever the shortcomings of the reporting and data release, Cornish insists that the actual analysis was done with processing tools that took years to develop and significant computing power to implement – and it worked perfectly.

However, anyone outside the collaboration has to take his word for that. “It’s problematic: there’s not enough data to do the analysis independently,” says Jackson. “It looks like they’re being open, without being open at all.”

Brown agrees there is a problem. “LIGO has taken great strides, and are moving towards open data and reproducible science,” he says. “But I don’t think they’re quite there yet.”

The Danish group’s independent checks, published in three peer-reviewed papers, found there was little evidence for the presence of gravitational waves in the September 2015 signal. On a scale from certain at 1 to definitely not there at 0, Jackson says the analysis puts the probability of the first detection being from an event involving black holes with the properties claimed by LIGO at 0.000004. That is roughly the same as the odds that your eventual cause of death will be a comet or asteroid strike – or, as Jackson puts it,”consistent with zero”. The probability of the signal being due to a merger of any sort of black holes is not huge either. Jackson and his colleagues calculate it as 0.008.

Simultaneous signal
There is other evidence to suggest that at least one of the later detections came from a gravitational wave. On 17 August 2017, the orbiting Fermi telescope saw a burst of electromagnetic radiation at the same time as the LIGO and Virgo detectors picked up a signal. Analysis of all the evidence suggests that both signals came from the brutal collision of two neutron stars.

The double whammy makes LIGO’s detection seem unequivocal. Even here, though, the Danish group is dissenting. They point out that the collaboration initially registered the event as a false alarm because it coincided with what’s known as a “glitch”. The detectors are plagued by these short, inexplicable bursts of noise, sometimes several every hour. They seem to be something to do with the hardware with which the interferometers are built, the suspension wires and seismic isolation devices. Cornish says that LIGO analysts eventually succeeded in removing the glitch and revealing the signal, but Jackson and his collaborators are again unconvinced by the methods used, and the fact there is no way to check them.

What are we to make of all this? Nothing, apparently. “The Danish analysis is just wrong,” insists Cornish. “There were very basic mistakes.” Those “mistakes” boil down to decisions about how best to analyse the raw data (see “How to catch a wave”).

Not everyone agrees the Danish choices were wrong. “I think their paper is a good one and it’s a shame that some of the LIGO team have been so churlish in response,” says Peter Coles, a cosmologist at Maynooth University in Ireland. Mukhanov concurs. “Right now, this is not the Danish group’s responsibility. The ball is in LIGO’s court,” he says. “There are questions that should be answered.”

Brown thinks the Danish group’s analysis is wrong, but worth engaging with. And Cornish admits the scrutiny may not be a bad thing. He and his colleagues plan to put out a paper describing the detailed properties of the LIGO noise. “It’s the kind of paper we didn’t really want to write because it’s boring and we’ve got more exciting things to do.” But, he adds, it is important, and increased scrutiny and criticism may in the end be no bad thing. “You do have to understand your noise.”

Coles himself doesn’t doubt that we have detected gravitational waves, but agrees with Jackson that this cannot be confirmed until independent scientists can check the raw data and the analysis tools. “In the spirit of open science, I think LIGO should release everything needed to reproduce their results.”

Jackson is unconvinced that explanatory papers will ever materialise – the collaboration has promised them before, he says. “This LIGO episode continues to be the most shocking professional experience of my 55 years as a physicist,” he says. Not everyone would agree – but for a discovery of this magnitude, trust is everything.


Embarrassing noises
In 2014, the operators of the BICEP2 telescope made an announcement so momentous there was talk of a Nobel prize. A year later however, far from making their way to Stockholm for the award ceremony, they were forced to admit they had been fooled by an embarrassing noise.

Situated at the South Pole, BICEP2 had been scanning the cosmic microwave background, the pattern of radiation left on the sky from light emitted soon after the big bang. The big announcement was that it had found that gravitational waves had affected the pattern in such a way that proved a core theory of cosmology. The theory in question was inflation, which says the universe went through a period of superfast growth right after the big bang. For almost four decades it had been unproven. Now, suddenly, inflation’s supporters were vindicated.

Except awkward warnings emerged within weeks, suggesting that cosmic dust clouds had scattered the radiation in a way that fooled the BICEP2 researchers. In the end, the team’s estimate of the amount of dust present and the analysis of the kind of noise the dust would produce both proved to be flawed. Noise can hoodwink even the smartest. That is why, despite LIGO being a highly respected collaboration, there is good reason to take questions about its noise analysis seriously (see main story).

If KAGRA etc detect chirps at the same time, then that would be good evidence.  If the times indicate some sort of wave travelling in a certain direction at c then that would be extra good. And if there is a correlation with the direction & timing of some kind of optical or Xray etc event then that would be gooder.  And if there is a slight delay tween optical & GW (GW faster) then that would be goodest.
But i think that the directions speeds & delays will show a terrestrial event over the north pole, which is what i think some good scientists have been saying all along.

Re BICEP2, here is some wordage from Miles Mathis..............
Another theory killer comes from the mainstream itself, in the form of a giant contradiction. If we go to the Wikipedia page on “Steady State theory”—which of course was the major competitor of the Big Bang model of the Universe until about 1970—we find this:

For most cosmologists, the refutation of the steady-state theory came with the discovery of the cosmic microwave background [CMB] radiation in 1965, which was predicted by the Big Bang theory. Stephen Hawking described this discovery as "the final nail in the coffin of the steady-state theory". The steady-state theory explained microwave background radiation as the result of light from ancient stars that has been scattered by galactic dust. However, the cosmic microwave background level is very even in all directions, making it difficult to explain how it could be generated by numerous point sources; and the microwave background radiation shows no evidence of characteristics such as polarization that are normally associated with scattering...............

Ho-ho! The Wiki sweepers need to go to work on that page, don't they, to keep it up-to-date with the latest propaganda. Last year they were using lack of polarization to refute the Steady State model; this year they are using polarization curls to prove the Big Bang. If you are in the mainstream, everything and its opposite is proof of your theories, and nothing is ever disproof. Isn't that convenient. “Polarization is normally associated with scattering”—that is until the mainstream wishes to use it to indicate Inflation. In which case, the word “normally” doesn't mean normally anymore.

[mad aetherist]

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).

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?

Yes but Newtonian gravity does not involve speed or relative speed, it only involves distance. And if the distance is gradually changing then there might arise a GW.  If the gradual change (distance) is uniform then there is no GW, but praps a hint of the start of a GW.  If the change (distance) is not uniform then there is a possible start plus the stink of what might prove to be a GW.

In my Newtonian GWs near a binary the change (distance to observer) is getting shorter then longer then shorter etc & u have a quadrupolar Newtonian GW at that location.

But your GWs which are not near a binary, & which involve a changing relative velocity tween observer & star, can give a changing rate of change of the changing Newtonian gravity, which is i suppose a kind of GW, but qualitatively if not quantitatively it is a poorer-weaker kind of GW i think, compared to the kind of GW arising from a definite shortening-longening-shortening of distance (ie due to a change of distance moreso than being due to a changing rate of change of distance) found near a binary. 

U wont find my Newtonian GWs near a lonely simple star.  And i dont see how u can find a scenario giving rise to your kind of velocity related GWs near a lonely simple star.

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).

[Bogie_smiles]

…

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).

It’s not the same thing; in a dynamic steady state universe, it is about recycling old cold high entropy matter into fresh low entropy hot dense plasma, big bang by big bang at the macro level, via micro level quantum action at the wave-particle level. So yur mama and yur daddy are converging big bang arena waves .

[Bogie_smiles]

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.

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.jpeg

Any comments so far, before I address the concept of tornadic swirls of the aether?

[mad aetherist]

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.

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.jpeg

Any comments so far, before I address the concept of tornadic swirls of the aether?

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? 

[Bogie_smiles]

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,

All right, let’s talk as if the ISU aether is a process that produces oscillating “spots” that appear momentarily everywhere in all space (between particles and objects, and in the case of the ISU model, even within all particles and objects). The aether “spots”  are the result of a process (when defined in terms of the ISU model) that is consistent with the multiple convergences of tiny gravitational wave remnants which exist in all space. That means that the oscillations are producing aether spots filling the foundational background of space, and are perpetually there from a potentially infinite history of the existence larger scale matter and energy processes (remembering that the ISU multiple big bang universe has always existed), like the quantum level action which orchestrates the presence and maintenance of wave-particles, and the macro level processes of big bang arena action that is continually taking place all across the landscape of the greater universe.

… 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)?

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.

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?

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).

In the ISU model, light is closely related to the photon. A photon is a wave-particle in my model, which distinguishes it from aether, I guess you could say.

[Wave particles share specific characteristics, including that they are composed of (contain) gravitational wave energy (in quantum increments) consistent with the presence of internal wave convergences, much like being stuffed with aether, lol, and being subject to an aether flow through.] The most important characteristic of wave-particles, including the photon, is that they emit and absorb energy (in the ISU is it gravitational wave energy), and there are two wave energy components of each wave-particle, the inflowing gravitational wave energy absorbed from the surrounding space, and the out flowing gravitation wave energy emitted spherically into the surrounding space. Note that the out flow from distant particles and objects becomes the inflow to local objects, and that particles and objects move in the direction of the highest distant source of wave energy.


A key characteristic of the photon wave-particle is that the out flowing gravitational wave energy is light, in waves, that carry the light energy through space, based on the mass of their wave-particle cores, and the out flow produced by the core reflects the photon particle’s frequency and wavelength.


https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_4_41_02.jpeg

To interpret that image, the curved lines represent wave energy traversing space, so in terms of an aether model, think of each intersection between all of the lines as representing a momentary spot, consistent with how we are mutually describing the aether. Then, think of each high density spot in the core of the wave particle as being composed of numerous tiny wave convergences that add up to a quantum of wave energy in the ISU model. See below:

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_4_28_57.jpeg
The above link is of an artist’s conception of a group of tiny gravitational wave remnants converging to form a quantum amount of wave energy (a high energy density spot, like those in the core of the wave-particle.)

To continue with the characteristics of the photon wave-particle, they are emitted by electrons at the speed of light (into the aether-containing space between particles and objects). They are unique in that they start out their life as a photon by traveling at the speed of light through the oscillating wave energy background (aether). I characterize that background as consisting of gravitational wave energy coming and going, from all directions, at the local speed of light, (and continually intersecting to produce the aether spots that fills all space). On that basis, photons (traveling at the speed of light) get/absorb all of their inflowing replacement gravitational wave energy from the direction of motion, and that results in them taking essentially straight paths through space.

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.

Maybe I’ll understand that sentence as we get into mass and inertia…

How does your mass work, & how does your inertia work, & are your mass & inertia related? 

… Perhaps we’ll get into that in the next round.

I’m sure I have covered too much ground for one post, but I won’t hesitate to repeat myself when any of it comes up again, as I’m sure you will also not hesitate to do .

[mad aetherist]

… 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)?

Praether & Aether dont have mass -- but everything else has mass (photons etc etc)(neutrinos).

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.

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?

I am not sure what Einsteinists mean when they say radiation & CMB radiation.  I reckon that there is only one kind of true radiation, this is em radiation, & it is made of photaenos (which emanate from photons) .  All other radiations involve particles (eg photons, electrons, alpha particles etc).
I prefer not to talk of gravitational radiation, even tho gravity is radial, because gravity involves the flow of aetherons into mass, except that they dont flow into mass, they do however accelerate towards mass, the inflow into mass being trumped usually by the large background aetherwind, hencely gravity is an acceleration field not a flow field.

Anyhow i think that Einsteinologists think that the CMB is 100% photons.  I dont think that they think that it includes em radiation, or praps they do include em radiation because they think that em radiation is photons. I dont think that they think that CMB includes electrons or alpha particles or gravity waves etc. 
Anyhow the CMB is not my aether, but CMB includes stuff that is a process of aether.

[Bogie_smiles]

Praether & 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.

[mad aetherist]

Praether & 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 (alltho for Einsteinologists the learning is limited to being able to recite mantra, whilst keeping the prayer wheels spinning, with the occasional flaying of buttocks).  And i find that i dont learn much unless i write it.  Hardly a day goes by that i dont find that my old thinking had error.  Yesterday i found that years ago i had stuffed up my analysis of Esclangon's 1927 telescope experiment, i had some of the mirror reflexions going the wrong way.

Seeing as u mention Praether, i probly forget to mention that the Praether is made of Praethons or Praetherons if u like. Not that this sort of talk means much, giving something a name doesnt prove it exists. Einsteinologists are of course famous for being able to name things that dont exist (eg Higgs gluons gravitons etc), & to erase names of things that do exist but are not in accord with Einsteinology (eg aether).
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.

[Bogie_smiles]

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.

When it comes to terminology, here is a word that might apply here:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/audacious
audacious adjective
au·​da·​cious | \ ȯ-ˈdā-shəs
\
Definition of audacious
1
a
: intrepidly daring : ADVENTUROUS
an audacious mountain climber
b
: recklessly bold : RASH
an audacious maneuver
2
: contemptuous of law, religion, or decorum : INSOLENT
an audacious maverick
3
: marked by originality and verve
audacious experiments

One thing that those of us who write about and/or support an alternative cosmology of the universe is that we might be called audacious.

There is a generally accepted model of Cosmology, Big Bang Theory (BBT), that is the consensus, and it essentially consists of General Relativity Theory and Inflation Theory. It is the standard model of cosmology for all of the right reasons, and I say we are being audacious when we argue for a different model.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7C9TjdziPE
Inflation and the universe

We are being audacious from the perspective of the professional scientific community, and advocates who are science enthusiasts, because everything that is included in the BBT has the weight of the scientific method behind it; it is a legitimate theory, supported by decisive and convincing mathematics, and has withstood the test of time, having been examined and tested for many years, in many ways.

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?

[mad aetherist]

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.

[Bogie_smiles]

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.

That says a lot, and is coming from you, never having gotten the formal math education. Well, as far as I’m concerned, the level of math understanding you need to understand the popular science media’s layman level presentations of SR/GR and even QM ranges from quite basic, to as advanced as you want to get. For a general understanding of the theories, sufficient for layman discussions, and adequate enough to make personal judgements on alternative ideas, the math rarely comes into play unless you get serious. Until then, good logic is the key, IMHO.

The math in the ISU is seriously simple because there is one equation that works at all scales; each of the levels of the model where quantization takes place (Big Bang arenas, wave-particles, the oscillations in the foundation background) all are characterized by the same scenario (I refer to that as the “sameness” doctrine of the ISU). The common scenario at all levels is the intersection and overlap of two or more expanding “parent” waves (spherically expanding wave fronts), and each convergence results in a combination of energy from both parent waves in the overlap space. The overlap continues until a third wave that contains a quantum of energy is reached. The third wave then becomes a quantum of energy in its own right, and it expands out into the space formerly occupied by the parent waves.

The following two graphics show the details and the equation (simple math with familiar equations related to spheres and volume), and a depiction of the third wave action:

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_25_07_17_11_46_46.jpeg




https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_07_17_3_48_14.jpeg


Note that the “third wave” in the second image is in the same position as the “overlap space” in the first image. Those “third waves” occur at each level. At the Big Bang Arena level they are the big crunches that collapse bang into new expanding big bang arenas (the expanding big bang arena is a third wave). At the wave-particle level, they are the high energy density spots that reach at quantum of energy in the process of quantum action (the high energy density spots are momentary hints of mass that expand into new third waves to perpetuate the process of quantum action). At the level of the oscillating foundational background, the third waves are spherical waves that assist the advance (propagation) of light and gravitational waves through the medium of space (one oscillation at a time).

[Bogie_smiles]

A reasonable layman model of cosmology is an exercise in individual thinking, internally consistent, and not inconsistent with generally accepted scientific observations and data. My model, The Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU), in 300 words or less (do you see anything in here that is like you're thinking?):




The universe is an infinite space with multiple big bang arenas, each with similar preconditions, characterized by two or more preceding “parent” arenas, expanding, intersecting and overlapping, with each parent contributing a portion of their galactic matter and energy to a new big crunch that forms at the center of gravity in the overlap space, and due to the accretion of matter and gravitational wave energy, under the compression of quantum gravity, reaches a finite energy density limit, consisting of an arena level quantum of energy, referred to as the critical capacity of a big crunch, that results in a collapse/bang of each new big crunch into another new expanding big bang arena, merging into the existing space in the vicinity of the landscape of the greater universe where the parent big bang arenas (and over a larger space and further back in time, their grandparent arenas) previously merged, and whereupon, in accord with the invariant laws of nature, each similar new arena cools and expands as it fills with stable particles, forms stars and galaxies from wave-particles that take shape out of the hot dense plasma “soup” produced by the big bang’s energy ball, that is expanding locally within the universal oscillating gravitational wave energy background, and which follows the same pattern as its parent arenas, all part of an ongoing perpetual process of big bang arena action that continually occurs across the infinite landscape of the greater universe, and that defeats entropy by recycling high entropy old cold galactic matter and energy, via the big crunch/bangs, into hot dense balls of low entropy plasma energy that expand, decay into wave-particles, form galaxies, and become parent arenas in their own right, blended into the eternal sameness of the infinite past that continually accrues across the infinite landscape of the greater universe; an infinite and eternal universe where life is generated and evolved in the natural hospitable environments that abound.