[mad aetherist (OP)]

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

There were-are no errors with aether theory. Except that Cahill had to find & explain the correct calibration of the oldendays Michelson & Miller MMXs. And Miller had to find & explain the problems surrounding the early erroneous ideas of a fixed aether, & aether drag (aether aint fixed, & there is no aether drag)(except that we have a kind of aetherdrag associated with inertia)(this being the key to my ideas re centrifuging of aether).

The only arguments against aether theory were by Roberts & by Shankland, & even i can see throo Roberts' & Shankland's errors & lies.

[opportunity]

Ok. According to your calculations, or others, or even using physics, where does the aether wind "blow from"? Does something have to be present, and if so, what, as a source?

[opportunity]

I ask because for someone to say my work mirrors aether theory, I really need to know how that works, through the aether lens of consideration.

[mad aetherist (OP)]

Ok. According to your calculations, or others, or even using physics, where does the aether wind "blow from"? Does something have to be present, and if so, what, as a source?

I get most of my aether theory from the website of Conrad Ranzan -- & from the articles by Prof Reg Cahill (about 40 ovem). U will have lots of fun reading their stuff.
Ranzan talks about the creation of aether, & the annihilation inside matter-mass -- the creation-annihilation creating cosmic cells -- giving us a background aetherwind -- which together with the local wind (flowing into the Earth)(11.2 kmps)(& Sun)(618 kmps) gives us a total wind blowing throo our lab & MMX.

COBE & BICEP & others also measured an aetherwind. But their's blows about 90 deg off our Earthly aetherwind. The reason is that their wind is blowing in a different part of the universe, it aint the wind on Earth, or even the wind in our solar system, or even the wind in our Milky Way, or the wind in our cosmic cell -- it is the wind in a different part of the universe -- or it is an average praps of some sorts.

[opportunity]

My attitude is to leave no stone unturned when it comes to dedicated interest in our physical reality.

In Medicine, people have all sorts of ways of explaining what's wrong with them, and then its up to the doctors to apply their science to fix that problem without teaching the patient how to do that for themselves as a short-term medical intervention. Long term, yes, short term, no...that's why people seek medical help, put their issue of health in the Doctor's hands.

In science, are we there yet? We live in a great luxury of proposing the most amazing things. I can't deny that fact.

[mad aetherist (OP)]

My attitude is to leave no stone unturned when it comes to dedicated interest in our physical reality.

In Medicine, people have all sorts of ways of explaining what's wrong with them, and then its up to the doctors to apply their science to fix that problem without teaching the patient how to do that for themselves as a short-term medical intervention. Long term, yes, short term, no...that's why people seek medical help, put their issue of health in the Doctor's hands.

In science, are we there yet? We live in a great luxury of proposing the most amazing things. I can't deny that fact.

We are in a dark age of science -- the Einsteinian Dark Age -- a new day is coming.

[opportunity]

Yeah, lol.

I think the world will be needing to wise up when grav-tech becomes apparent.....if there "is" a more fundamental underlying science of the current symptoms and signs of standard evidence and theory in physics.

There "is", no doubt, but is there any real need to "get real"?

The world today is not looking to an absolute truth in science each person can stand next to.

[opportunity]

This gravity-electric theory will come when we're ready for it, and if not, some nation will have capitalised\?

[opportunity]

gravi-electric....that's aether.

You'd be surprised how many people think I'm big on aether.

[guest46746]

If a wave is considered to emanate in a 360* pattern expanding outward, then it both compresses and bends. Both the bend and compression occur along  the wave's inner rim. A bending and expansion occurs along the wave's outer rim. This compression works much like the masonry in the arc of the aquaduct. If the force applied to the inner wave remains constant at all points, the inner wave structure remains intact by applying equal pressure to all sides of the expanding wave. As the outward force applied to the waves inner rim diminishes the wave decelerates. If the outward force ceases the waves innermost rim will fail structural. Remanents of the wave that survive due to momentum force will further diminish upon impact with any substantial force greater than itself. lol

Will the gravity wave produce its own gravity? and will that produced gravity be along the wave's inner rim or the wave's outer rim? If the wave produces gravity along it's inner rim, mass will accumulate creating drag that will deteriorate the wave. If the wave produces gravity along it's outer rim, mass will accumulate weight and resistance that the outward force coudn't compensate for also deteriorating the wave. If mass accumulates on both the inner and outer aspects, the wave expansion is negated totally, making chances of detection light years away minimal. The best chance for a gravity wave's detection 100's of light years away, is if the "gravity wave's force" maintains its initial integrity, meaning its 360* structure remained intact. This is the only way it could even make a fringeshift 1/1000 the size of a proton as claimed. It's not the integrity of the laser interferometer to measure to such detail I question,  I find the probabilty of finding four gravity waves in two years as suspect. The discounting or exclusion of other possibilities should not ignored. If the ratios of found gravity waves during the next two years doesnot remain constant, it would be perfectly proper seek other answers. It's a deep hole LIGO has dug. lol 

[Colin2B]

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

There were-are no errors with aether theory. ...... The only arguments against aether theory were by Roberts & by Shankland, & even i can see throo Roberts' & Shankland's errors & lies.

No, there are more, but those are only ones usually quoted because they published first so the others don’t then get published. However, I don’t see how you can “see throo Roberts' & Shankland's errors & lies” when you don’t understand basic physics.
The problem of random and systematic errors was not understood in Miller’s day, neither was the very real (and easily understandable) problem of averaging data which leads to all sorts of errors. Modern experiments by experienced labs don’t make the same mistake and will show error bars, anyone who doesn’t follow best practices will have their work ignored as unreliable.

I ask because for someone to say my work mirrors aether theory, I really need to know how that works, through the aether lens of consideration.

Did they say why they thought that? Was there a particular result of calculations or experiment that pointed them to that conclusion ?

[mad aetherist (OP)]

If a wave is considered to emanate in a 360* pattern expanding outward, then it both compresses and bends. Both the bend and compression occur along  the wave's inner rim. A bending and expansion occurs along the wave's outer rim. This compression works much like the masonry in the arc of the aquaduct. If the force applied to the inner wave remains constant at all points, the inner wave structure remains intact by applying equal pressure to all sides of the expanding wave. As the outward force applied to the waves inner rim diminishes the wave decelerates. If the outward force ceases the waves innermost rim will fail structural. Remanents of the wave that survive due to momentum force will further diminish upon impact with any substantial force greater than itself. lol

Will the gravity wave produce its own gravity? and will that produced gravity be along the wave's inner rim or the wave's outer rim? If the wave produces gravity along it's inner rim, mass will accumulate creating drag that will deteriorate the wave. If the wave produces gravity along it's outer rim, mass will accumulate weight and resistance that the outward force coudn't compensate for also deteriorating the wave. If mass accumulates on both the inner and outer aspects, the wave expansion is negated totally, making chances of detection light years away minimal. The best chance for a gravity wave's detection 100's of light years away, is if the "gravity wave's force" maintains its initial integrity, meaning its 360* structure remained intact. This is the only way it could even make a fringeshift 1/1000 the size of a proton as claimed. It's not the integrity of the laser interferometer to measure to such detail I question,  I find the probabilty of finding four gravity waves in two years as suspect. The discounting or exclusion of other possibilities should not ignored. If the ratios of found gravity waves during the next two years doesnot remain constant, it would be perfectly proper seek other answers. It's a deep hole LIGO has dug. lol

Yes, i daresay that LIGO explain the shape & cones of action of EGWs emanating from binary stars -- ie the volume of the sky that LIGO needs to be inside to detect the EGW. Anyhow i have added to my list of questions in Reply #5 to include this stuff & the list now has 16 sets of questions. Some of the questions relate to things u mention, ie gravity mass compression bending of a wave.

Detection rate is not included in my list. I suspect that there is a volume of the sky that doesnt have a strong EGW to detect. And for sure LIGO is blind for a large part of the sky, depending on LIGOs orientation (ie i think LIGO can only detect say 1/4 of the sky, & a half of that 1/4 must be weak, so lets say 1/8th of the sky). And in that 1/8th of the sky if the binary is weak or a long way away then it would not be detected. And if the binary EGW is emitted in a smallish cone then that reduces the chances even more.

Question (15) (see below) is a major problem for Einsteinians -- they disagree whether an orbiting binary (ie in free-fall) cant emit an EGW.

(14) Do EGWs have their own mass (Einstein said yes)(some Einsteinians say yes & some no, i  think).
(15A) Do a pair of binary stars emit EGWs (some Einsteinians say yes some no)(because some say that stars orbiting in free-fall cannot emit EGWs).
(15B) Do a pair of rotating dumb bells joined with a rod emit EGWs (Einsteinians say no not if they are simply spinning around their main axis of symmetry passing centrally along the rod)(but yes if they are rotating around an axis at 90 deg to the rod).
(16A) Do EGWs (for a pair of binary stars) emanate in all directions or only in the plane of orbit(s).
(16B) What portion of  the sky does LIGO have to be in to detect an EGW from a binary.
(16C) Is the EGW stronger in the center of such a cone.

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

[mad aetherist (OP)]

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

There were-are no errors with aether theory. ...... The only arguments against aether theory were by Roberts & by Shankland, & even i can see throo Roberts' & Shankland's errors & lies.

No, there are more, but those are only ones usually quoted because they published first so the others don’t then get published. However, I don’t see how you can “see throo Roberts' & Shankland's errors & lies” when you don’t understand basic physics.
The problem of random and systematic errors was not understood in Miller’s day, neither was the very real (and easily understandable) problem of averaging data which leads to all sorts of errors. Modern experiments by experienced labs don’t make the same mistake and will show error bars, anyone who doesn’t follow best practices will have their work ignored as unreliable.

No Roberts & Shankland are the only two hit-jobs. Thems  "others" are i suppose the vacuum MMXs -- vacuum gives a null result first time every time -- thats where u certainly will find a lack of understanding of basic physics (by Einsteinians). There was one MMX that used helium & this agrees with all of the air MMXs when u apply the proper calibration for helium (as explained by Cahill).

Cahill has drawn error-bars for Michelson's work. The systematic error identified by Roberts is simply no more than the ever increasing linear non-periodic fringeshift due to the speed of rotation of Miller's MMX. This is quite correctly simply averaged & deducted. It only appears because Miller preferred to let his MMX rotate slowly rather than stopping & starting (which introduces error).

Roberts said that the error bars if properly drawn would be off the page (rubbish). I daresay that Roberts would be happy with COBE & BICEP saying that their graphs of their measured blackbody CMB radiation are so accurate that the error bars are thinner than the line of the graph (when in fact there is no blackbody radiation in space).

Michelson's & Millers results show similar periodic non-null fringeshifts (ie aetherwind)(as explained by Cahill), albeit with erroneous calibrations (as explained by Cahill)(& by Demjanov).

Shankland's verdict that Miller's fringeshifts were due to temperature effects is a deliberate lie. Miller well explains how he studied the effects of temperature & how temperature was not an issue (Miller died some years before Shanklands 1955 hit-job).

[opportunity]

I ask because for someone to say my work mirrors aether theory, I really need to know how that works, through the aether lens of consideration.

Did they say why they thought that? Was there a particular result of calculations or experiment that pointed them to that conclusion ?

Not really, I'm, not sure if they read my 7 papers entire. I've found though that mentioning the idea of the golden ratio and time puts aether into people's thoughts, that my work is another new age meets old alchemy script of everything, which it certainly isn't.

[Colin2B]

No Roberts & Shankland are the only two hit-jobs.

That’s incorrect. What you mean is they are the only ones you’ve been told about.

"others" are i suppose the vacuum MMXs -- ...........................how he studied the effects of temperature & how temperature was not an issue (Miller died some years before Shanklands 1955 hit-job).

I still don’t see how you can understand what is written by either side and draw any balanced conclusion given your extremely limited knowledge of basic physics and your ability to misinterpret articles.
Discussion on aether can be quite interesting, but it has to be informed rather than the religious way you are taking it which blocks any interesting discussion. Anyway, you are allowed to have any (polite) views you wish, but are likely to die frustrated 

I've found though that mentioning the idea of the golden ratio and time puts aether into people's thoughts, that my work is another new age meets old alchemy script of everything, which it certainly isn't.

I can’t understand why they should think that. I would expect people to look for evidence of aether in some outcome from your work eg predicted behaviour of charge/mag field, light propagation, simultaneity, etc.

[opportunity]

Of Course. I'm not supposing I know how they reason in their thinking that I'm an aether supporter,
yet the big deal-breaker with aether for me is the idea of quantum-entanglement, its very problematic. Yet my work explains the idea of quantum-entanglement using the golden-ratio for time, space being a 3-d void associated nonetheless to the idea of time as the golden ratio. That's not aether, and I explain that consistently from page 1 through to the last page of my work thus far.

[mad aetherist (OP)]

No Roberts & Shankland are the only two hit-jobs.

That’s incorrect. What you mean is they are the only ones you’ve been told about.
Comment: No i only know of 2 hit-jobs on Michelson's or Morley's or Miller's MMXs, by Roberts & by Shankland. Both are rubbish. Munera has a good 1998 overview of various old MMXs & mentions Shankland a few  times -- Michelson-Morley Experiments Revisited: Systematic Errors, Consistency Among Different Experiments, and
 Compatibility with Absolute Space -- Héctor A. Múnera -- Colombia -- http://nov79.com/en/mmor.pdf
However  Munera doesnt mention the proper calibration of MMXs, ie air & helium & vacuum require different factors based on refractive index. Prof Reg Cahill fixes that in a few of his 40 or so relevant articles -- here is one ovem -- http://www.mountainman.com.au/process_physics/hps09.pdf

"others" are i suppose the vacuum MMXs -- ........ how he studied the effects of temperature & how temperature was not an issue (Miller died some years before Shanklands 1955 hit-job).

I still don’t see how you can understand what is written by either side and draw any balanced conclusion given your extremely limited knowledge of basic physics and your ability to misinterpret articles.
Discussion on aether can be quite interesting, but it has to be informed rather than the religious way you are taking it which blocks any interesting discussion. Anyway, you are allowed to have any (polite) views you wish, but are likely to die frustrated 

Comment: I am not a scientist but i read the views of scientists. It amazes me that Einsteinians can get away with their lies re the original MMXs -- & are ignorant of proper calibration (eg vacuum gives null results) -- laser maser etalon etc etc in vacuum merely at best confirm the accuracy of gamma.

[mad aetherist (OP)]

More far fetched claims-findings re LIGO. Einsteinian GWs are now described as a bending or a compression or a ripple or now a disturbance in spacetime.
https://phys.org/news/2018-11-gravitational-merged-hyper-massive-neutron-star.html

.............. Gravitational waves were predicted by Albert Einstein in his General Theory of Relativity in 1915. The waves are disturbances in space time generated by rapidly moving masses, which propagate out from the source. By the time the waves reach the Earth, they are incredibly weak and their detection requires extremely sensitive equipment. It took scientists until 2016 to announce the first observation of gravitational waves using the Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory (LIGO) detector.

Since that seminal result, gravitational waves have been detected on a further six occasions. One of these, GW170817, resulted from the merger of two stellar remnants known as neutron stars. These objects form after stars much more massive than the Sun explode as supernovae, leaving behind a core of material packed to extraordinary densities.

At the same time as the burst of gravitational waves from the merger, observatories detected emission in gamma rays, X-rays, ultraviolet, visible light, infrared and radio waves – an unprecedented observing campaign that confirmed the location and nature of the source............ Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-11-gravitational-merged-hyper-massive-neutron-star.html#jCp

If they detected something then it wasnt EGWs. Anyhow, Alby (& many others)(eg Bondi & Cooperstock) said that quadrupole GWs could not be emitted by binarys etc orbiting in freefall.

[evan_au]

Waves implies a natural harmonic property (no they [gravitational waves] aint waves). Ripples implies a natural harmonic property (no they aint ripples). So i say waves but i am talking about gravity pulses.

Compare these natural harmonic oscillators:
- A spring has a natural harmonic property: a force dependent on length, and a non-equilibrium length.
- A pendulum has a natural harmonic property: a force dependent on displacement from the vertical, and a non-equilibrium position.
- The Earth orbiting the Sun has a natural harmonic property: a force dependent on distance², and a non-equilibrium distance and velocity.
- Two neutron stars orbiting their center of mass has a natural harmonic property: a force dependent on distance², and a non-equilibrium distance and velocity.

All of these systems "run down" over time due to various kinds of losses: mechanical friction, air resistance, and gravitational waves.

A spring and a pendulum keep the same natural period as their amplitude decays to zero.

However, according to Kepler's 3rd law, in an orbiting system like a Sun+planet or binary neutron stars, the period reduces as the semi-major axis reduces.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler%27s_laws_of_planetary_motion#Third_law_of_Kepler

So as gravitational waves carry away energy+angular momentum of the orbiting system (yes, EGWs do carry energy), the semi-major axis decreases, and the natural harmonic frequency increases.
This process was first observed in action with binary pulsars, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hulse%E2%80%93Taylor_binary

The endpoint of the process was observed with LIGO, where the natural period increases until the objects touch, and they merge, causing termination of the natural harmonic oscillator with a final, dying "chirp".

Waves is of course a misnomer -- they are gravity pulses (forced)

A periodic pulse which is not a sinusoid can be decomposed into sinusoids by means of the Fourier Transform.

The final 100 seconds of two neutron stars shows a steadily increasing frequency - but if the signal was not a sine wave, you would expect to see harmonics at higher frequencies, rising along with the fundamental - but I don't see this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GW170817

So, please advise, based on your theory:
- How would merging neutron stars (or black holes) have an orbit which is not an elliptical shape? What shape would it be?
- What would the spectrum of your "Gravitational Pulses" be, and why?

[opportunity]

I really admire how astrophysics tries to be consistent with the red shift effect of light, gravitational lensing, "dark matter", "dark energy"...…..and to then relate that to elementary particles. F. amazing.


I don't think any of us is ever going to prove that stuff out there in this life-time, maybe even 3 life-times, right?

I think Disneyland is more realistic in our lifetime....seriously.

Think about that......who can, what can, prove astrophysics? A telescope?


When 70% if not more of the universe is inexplicable through a telescope care of dark "things", and its a long shot at that in reaching that place, and we trust the eye of the needle there, we came from apes, or I' a monkeys uncle...we've lost the plot of reality.