[mad aetherist (OP)]

All of the early articles etc re gravity waves said that they were a ripple in the bending of spacetime. Some modern articles call gravity waves a compression of spacetime. Which is true?  Is it important?

Spacetime is made up of space (change of radial length near a massive object) & time (change in ticking of clocks near mass). How can spacetime or space or time bend -- how can they compress.

Being an aetherist i dont believe in gravity waves, nor in spacetime. But i am interested in the exact nature of the Einsteinian fraudulence & fakery & foolishness.

Waves is of course a misnomer -- they are gravity pulses (forced). Waves implies a natural harmonic property (no they aint waves). Ripples implies a natural harmonic property (no they aint ripples). So i say waves but i am talking about gravity pulses.

The question is mainly to clarify the exact nature of the silly Einsteinian model. None of that GW stuff (or SR or GR or spacetime) is true (real), its all complete krapp.

Gravity waves are nonsense -- there is no such thing. The quadrupole source of GWs is rubbish -- likewise any poles (mono di quad etc etc), all rubbish.

Reality involves aether -- so what is an aetheric explanation of the situation. A pair of binary stars each has an inflow of aether to replace aether annihilated in their mass. That inflow acceleration field must change in magnitude & direction near the binary -- but the changing will be negligible at large distances (where the center of mass of the binary will in effect represent the binary). So yes we will have gravity pulses -- ie a changing aether flow (ie a changing g). And that changing aether velocity will change an objects length & a clock's 'ticking. And potentially LIGO would be able to detect an associated fringeshift, as would any MMX -- except that LIGO legs have vacuum, & hencely cannot detect an MMX fringeshift no matter how strong (altho vacuum would be able to detect a 3rd order fringeshift)(praps 1/1000th of an MMXs 2nd order fringeshift)(not forgetting that Demjanov designed-used a 1st order MMX 1000 times more sensitive than an old fashioned 2nd order MMX).

An aetheric GP is very different to an Einsteinian GW. An EGW supposedly changes the distance tween 2 mirrors in freefall -- an AGP doesnt change the distance tween the centers of mass of 2 freefalling mirrors, & in fact an AGP will increase the clear distance tween such mirrors. This is because Lorentzian relativity & gamma act on objects not on space -- whereas Einsteinian relativity affects objects & space.

The Einsteinian assertion that an EGW doesnt affect the length of an object but does affect the distance tween objects in freefall (ie space) is a mystery. Its the exact opposite of the Lorentz theory. The Lorentzian theory is based on the aetherwind -- whereas the Einsteinian theory is based on spacetime (in the case of EGWs) or is based on SR (in the case of relative motion)(i dont think that spacetime is used in SR)(it is used in GR).

Just to clarify. Relative velocity in SR affects an objects length & also affects the size of space (& affects ticking). And the nearness of mass in GR affects radial length of objects & i think radial size of space (& affects ticking). And EGWs  affect the size of space (eg the distance tween falling objects), but EGWs do not affect the length of solid objects (& do not affect ticking).  But EGWs do initially affect the wavelength of lightwaves already in the leg &  ticking (ie when the EGW first arrives), but not after the EGW establishes itself. Believe it or not.

I hope i got all of that right -- if not i would like to hear. Re the initial effect of the EGW, & then the final effect of the EGW (ie when it properly establishes itself in  the 4 km leg), the fluctuations-waves-pulses making the chirp must be changing all the time, in which case the initial effect is always present, the EGW never properly establishes itself (probly not very important)(just saying). 

[Kryptid]

but EGWs do not affect the length of solid objects (& do not affect ticking).  But EGWs do initially affect the length of objects &  ticking (ie when the EGW first arrives), but not after the EGW establishes itself. Believe it or not.

When you make statements like this you make it clear that you don't understand how gravitational waves are supposed to work. Yet you insist that you understand their properties better than the people who designed, built and run LIGO. Please do better research before pretending that you know more than physicists.

[mad aetherist (OP)]

but EGWs do not affect the length of solid objects (& do not affect ticking).  But EGWs do initially affect the length of objects &  ticking (ie when the EGW first arrives), but not after the EGW establishes itself. Believe it or not.

When you make statements like this you make it clear that you don't understand how gravitational waves are supposed to work. Yet you insist that you understand their properties better than the people who designed, built and run LIGO. Please do better research before pretending that you know more than physicists.

Yes i wrote that EGWs do initially affect the length of objects when the EGW first arrives -- that is wrong, i might have meant initially affect the wavelength of the lightwaves already in the leg.

However that Saulson article is a bit confusing -- it says...........

Similarly, we have sufficient physical understanding not to let relativistic language confuse us into thinking that there
are no distance changes caused by a gravitational wave, even though it is convenient to define a coordinate system out of freely falling masses. There are changes in distance between two points whose coordinate separation remains fixed. This is the physical meaning behind saying that the metric has the form given in Eq.2.1. The present case is quite parallel to the situation in cosmology, since both there and in the gravitational wave case the most convenient coordinate system is defined by freely falling masses.

Does the underlined wordage mean that solid objects can change length (due to an EGW)?

[opportunity]

In answering the post, both.

How can compression also be a bending?

Take a "slinky" spring: you compress it, yet the structure also bends closer. The underlying idea of course is the idea of EM, a slinky wave, being associated to the idea of gravity, as a compression. I can provide further ideas here only if there a direct questions to the effect, don't really want to link long text.

[Colin2B]

“Waves is of course a misnomer -- they are gravity pulses (forced). Waves implies a natural harmonic property (no they aint waves). Ripples implies a natural harmonic property (no they aint ripples). So i say waves but i am talking about gravity pulses.”

Pulses are waves. Not sure what you mean by “natural harmonic property“ but pulses are definitely waves.

[mad aetherist (OP)]

Based on my reading or thinking these are some of the problems with Einstein's Gravity Waves........
(1) Are there such things as Einsteinian (quadrupole) gravity waves (Einsteinians say yes).
(2A) Do EGWs consume energy (Einsteinians say yes).
(2B) Does such loss of energy give a loss of mass (Einsteinians say yes).
(3) Are EGWs a force field -- do they create a force (Einsteinians say yes).
(4) Do EGWs affect the size of a solid object (Einsteinians say no) -- does this require energy (Einsteinians say yes)(they say that the EGW trys to change the objects length but that is resisted by the objects inherent stronger elastic forces)(which means that energy is used)(& it means that a solid object does change size but that change is very small).
(5) Do EGWs affect the size of space (Einsteinians say yes) -- does this require energy (Einsteinians say yes)(i think).
(6) Do EGWs affect ticking (Einsteinians say yes)-- does this require energy (Einsteinians say yes)(i think).
(7) Do EGWs travel at c (Einsteinians say yes) -- or much faster than c (Einsteinians say no)(but say that there is IAAAD).
(8 ) Do EGWs act transversely (Einsteinians say yes).
(9) If yes (8 ), is stretching along one axis associated with compression along an axis at 90 dg (Einsteinians say yes).
(10) Can EGWs produce a fringeshift in LIGO (vacuum)(Einsteinians say yes).
(11A) Can EGWs produce a fringeshift in a vacuum MMX (i think that Einsteinians say no)(unless the mirrors hang).
(11B) Can EGWs produce a fringeshift in an air MMX (i think that Einsteinians say no)(unless the mirrors hang).
(12A) Do EGWs affect the bending of (the fabric of) spacetime (some Einsteinians say yes).
(12B) Do EGWs affect the compression of (the fabric of) spacetime (some Einsteinians say yes).
(12C) Is it possible for an Einsteinian to say yes to both (12A) & (12B) (i think it is possible).
(13) Is the proper expression Gravity Wave or Gravity Pulse (i think pulse).
(14) Do EGWs have their own mass (Einstein said yes)(some Einsteinians say yes & some no, i  think).
(15A) Do a pair of binary stars emit EGWs (some Einsteinians say yes some no)(because some say that stars orbiting in free-fall cannot emit EGWs).
(15B) Do a pair of rotating dumb bells joined with a rod emit EGWs (Einsteinians say no not if they are simply spinning around their main axis of symmetry passing centrally along the rod)(but yes if they are rotating around an axis at 90 deg to the rod).
(16A) Do EGWs (for a pair of binary stars) emanate in all directions or only in the plane of orbit(s).
(16B) What portion of  the sky does LIGO have to be in to detect an EGW from a binary.
(16C) Is the EGW stronger in the center of such a cone.

When i say that Einsteinians say yes or no i dont mean that Einstein said yes or no.

[opportunity]

I was having a discussing about my work with someone else, their own work, and they suggested my own work (see global icon if you need to) could be an "aether" model.

I made it clear to them that the idea of "aether" is a concept of many years ago, thousands, the stuff the God's breathed beyond the atmosphere of this planet.

Aetheric models are problematic; the idea of “aether” has been lost in time. I have read much of the ancients and their sciences, and “aether” to my interpretation from the classics is in fact “space”. As such, I don’t think it’s a corpuscular realm as it is considered in modern terms. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_(mythology). I could say I use the aether model according to the ancient description, as then the ancients had no understanding of pure space, and so the issue today in my thinking re. the issue of aether is a definition of the “terms” for the idea of “aether”. In giving the ancients the benefit of the doubt, I would suggest "aether" is a concept of empty space that conveys light, and here I am thinking about light as "time" associated to space.

[mad aetherist (OP)]

In answering the post, both. How can compression also be a bending?
Take a "slinky" spring: you compress it, yet the structure also bends closer. The underlying idea of course is the idea of EM, a slinky wave, being associated to the idea of gravity, as a compression. I can provide further ideas here only if there a direct questions to the effect, don't really want to link long text.

Up to say 2000 i think that all said bending, but i think that the official LIGO preference is now compression. Which makes u wonder if there might be a real difference, eg one affects say ticking but the other duznt.

[opportunity]

Yes.

Its all about the models used to explain the phenomena.

For instance, Aether is problematic; Quantum entanglement, two outcomes of a corpuscular realm, makes the aether idea improbable. One may as well consider using "time" as an algorithm with two possible outcomes, like the golden ratio, in a universal "now" time compendium where space can be space, a purely empty as a variable in itself yet a harbour to a universal compendium of time.

[mad aetherist (OP)]

“Waves is of course a misnomer -- they are gravity pulses (forced). Waves implies a natural harmonic property (no they aint waves). Ripples implies a natural harmonic property (no they aint ripples). So i say waves but i am talking about gravity pulses.”
Pulses are waves. Not sure what you mean by “natural harmonic property“ but pulses are definitely waves.

I dont think that it is important, just semantics. But i think that a wave is (1) sinusoidal (2) going from plus to minus (3) equally & (4) repeating. I think that a pulse does what the force tells it to do -- & i think that it can mimic a wave -- or it can make any kind of shape & size & pattern. But praps i am wrong, ie praps a pulse is more correctly something that is either zero for a while then a fixed non-zero value for a while, etc, ie step pattern. Praps waves is wrong & pulse is wrong. Just saying.

[mad aetherist (OP)]

I was having a discussing about my work with someone else, their own work, and they suggested my own work (see global icon if you need to) could be an "aether" model.

I made it clear to them that the idea of "aether" is a concept of many years ago, thousands, the stuff the God's breathed beyond the atmosphere of this planet.

Aetheric models are problematic; the idea of “aether” has been lost in time. I have read much of the ancients and their sciences, and “aether” to my interpretation from the classics is in fact “space”. As such, I don’t think it’s a corpuscular realm as it is considered in modern terms. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_(mythology). I could say I use the aether model according to the ancient description, as then the ancients had no understanding of pure space, and so the issue today in my thinking re. the issue of aether is a definition of the “terms” for the idea of “aether”. In giving the ancients the benefit of the doubt, I would suggest "aether" is a concept of empty space that conveys light, and here I am thinking about light as "time" associated to space.

I reckon that for sure there is aether (made of aetherons or aethons if u prefer) which is-are sub-quantum, & the movement of aether makes everything we see & feel (ie our quantum world).
The aetherwind has been proven many times.
Alby said that just one experiment can sink his SR & GR. No, his SR & GR didnt ever float -- they were dead before birth -- they were dead at conception -- they were never in accord with Michelson's  non-null MMX (& later MMX's).

If an aether then SR & GR are deadducks. However that duznt mean that everything arising out of Einsteinian theories are deadducks. For instance i believe in blackholes, but not Einsteinian blackholes.
But, no bigbang -- no expanding universe -- no gravity waves -- no spacetime -- no relativistic mass -- E does not equal mcc -- mass does not yield mcc of energy -- etc etc.

Re quantum entanglement i dont understand it -- but i doubt that there is an aetheric explanation -- altho gravity pulses in aether travel at at least 20 billion c.

[opportunity]

I have alluded to the fact that the idea of the ancients re. aether is another way of regarding time and space as one.

Take yourself back to the definition of the aether, beyond the atmosphere of this planet.....all one has is light and space.


The question is "how" light and space organise themselves.


Using the term "aether" today is a nice way to bring to bear ancient sciences, yet the time line of that vernacular needs to be addressed, implemented. I think that's what you're trying to do, which is good.

To suggest light is a particle, for instance, would confirm there exists an aether. Yet, so much has developed beyond that posit a century ago.

[Kryptid]

(4) Do EGWs affect the size of a solid object (Einsteinians say no)

a solid object does change size but that change is very small

Groan...

[mad aetherist (OP)]

I have alluded to the fact that the idea of the ancients re. aether is another way of regarding time and space as one.
Take yourself back to the definition of the aether, beyond the atmosphere of this planet.....all one has is light and space.
The question is "how" light and space organise themselves.
Using the term "aether" today is a nice way to bring to bear ancient sciences, yet the time line of that vernacular needs to be addressed, implemented. I think that's what you're trying to do, which is good.

I think that aether never died. The main proponents from 1900 died by say 1960. But others continued their ideas -- some of these others were originally Einsteinians. And in 2018 in the internet era the Einsteinian mafia can no longer efficiently suppress & censor. The aether is back -- it never left.

[Bored chemist]

I have alluded to the fact that the idea of the ancients re. aether is another way of regarding time and space as one.

The luminiferous ether ( to give it the full name) is not that ancient an idea.
It wasn't "needed" until someone proposed the wave nature of light.

[opportunity]

Precisely.

The last century has put all old terminology into the forefront.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_(mythology)


To use a term/word based on an ancient definition cannot suffice, we are much more advanced.

If one were to colonise a new planet of Neanderthals though using the compacted idea of "aether" as the breathe of the Gods "would" perhaps suffice as an initial explanation for what existed beyond the sphere of the atmosphere of this planet. And thats just as simple as saying early scientists did their best to relate their social world with what they saw in the sky in the manner of nature.

[mad aetherist (OP)]

I have alluded to the fact that the idea of the ancients re. aether is another way of regarding time and space as one.

The luminiferous ether ( to give it the full name) is not that ancient an idea.
It wasn't "needed" until someone proposed the wave nature of light.

I go along with that. Unfortunately we do not have a good model for a photon. But i reckon that a photon is a peculiar kind of particle (having mass), having a main helical body propagating at c, with a photaeno portion (having mass) emanating outwards at c from the helix. The photaeno fields give a wavy effect -- however the photon is not a wave -- hencely paradoxically there is no need for aether.

Anyhow aether is gravitational & luminiferous & chargeous & electric & magnetic all at once at the same time (or can be).

[opportunity]

Yes.

The problem is "aether" as modern scientific syntax. It's not.

As I said, someone who read my work said that my work was therefore in favour of "aether". I've never consider the idea of "aether". That has not been my schooling. It's semantics. It's like saying someone has had a big meal yet they are in fact pregnant. So much more can be going on. There are symptoms and signs in physical reality, yet like Medicine, there can be so much more going on.

[Colin2B]

i think that a wave is (1) sinusoidal (2) going from plus to minus (3) equally & (4) repeating. ..........But praps i am wrong, ie praps a pulse is more correctly something that is either zero for a while then a fixed non-zero value for a while, etc, ie step pattern.

You are indeed wrong.
Waves do not need to be sinusoidal, or going from plus to minus, or equally, or repeating.

The reason you are making these mistakes is because:

I dont understand much of physics, but i know a few buzzwords & sayings.

It means that you are misunderstanding a great deal of what you read eg

Yes -- that is IAAAD -- like i said.

It also means that you are unable to understand the errors made by Cahill, Miller etc.

[mad aetherist (OP)]

Yes. The problem is "aether" as modern scientific syntax. It's not.

As I said, someone who read my work said that my work was therefore in favour of "aether". I've never consider the idea of "aether". That has not been my schooling. It's semantics. It's like saying someone has had a big meal yet they are in fact pregnant. So much more can be going on. There are symptoms and signs in physical reality, yet like Medicine, there can be so much more going on.

Yes, one might call aether sub-quantum foam or  "dynamic space" or vibrating dipoles. The thing is, whatever the aether or ether model it must provide for an aetherwind blowing throo Earth at 500 kmps south to north about 20 deg off Earth's spin-axis with RA 4.5 hrs.