[mad aetherist (OP)]

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?

I know little about orbits etc. I appreciate your detailed reply. However i dont think that the wave~pulse question is important (its just a side issue). I only mentioned it because pulses fit better with my reverberation ideas (that i might explain later)(I'm sorry i mentioned it).

I dont know much about elliptical binary orbits, & i am not sure why u ask about elliptical orbits -- i suspect that the  theory says that circular orbits dont produce GWs but elliptical orbits do (dunno). I am happy re the existence of neutron stars & black holes (of some sort)(but not Einsteinian black holes). However i dont believe that GWs are produced by any orbits of any kind (elliptical or not). But if they were -- then they would have a spectrum based on the orbital periods -- ie a chirp.

I like the idea (Einstein's idea)(& others) that free-fall orbits cant produce GWs. A free-falling orbiting body doesnt feel anything -- except praps that it feels tidal forces (& praps some internal rumblings).

And i dont believe that GWs rob energy -- & rob mass. The Hulse Taylor losses etc will be found to have an ordinary explanation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But here is my aether based GW theory. An orbiting star's gravity field produces GWs of a kind (a changing gravity field) especially locally (ie very weak if afar). The gravity field does not of itself use or rob energy. And likewise the fluctuations-changes in a GW dont use or rob energy. That might be hard to swallow -- but i reckon that it needs the presence of a detector (eg another body)(eg a third star)(or lots of them) to result in energy loss. That might sound crazy, ie no energy loss if no detector (shades of one hand clapping). But i see in my reading that this line of thinking does mirror-parallel a classic physics GW argument from the oldendays. That argument related to Einsteinian GWs -- my case is basically & physically different as it involves aether not spacetime.

To explain let me start by saying that aether is sub-quantum & has no mass or energy of a quantum kind. What aether does is it transfers force-energy tween quantum objects (eg stars). No objects then no transfer. No transfer then no energy loss. Thusly GWs of themselves have no energy & need no energy. I am talking about aetheric GWs here -- i am not talking about Einsteinian GWs. Aetheric GWs do not have a quadrupolar birth, nor any other kind of polar birth. Polar produced GWs are Einsteinian (ie they dont exist).

A part of the explanation is that the shape & behavior of flat helical galaxies cannot be purely Newtonian. Newtonian theory-equations work best if the gravitational aether tension-stress has something to pull on in a 3D directional sense. In our solar system the distribution of mass is something between 2D & 3D because the Sun is not a point source, it is very large. Nearby stars help to develop aether tension. Not forgetting that the aetheric tension travels as mini-pulses moving at at least 20 billion c (Van Flandern says)(but praps much much faster than that) -- the whole process being a continuous & continual reverberation.

This aether tension stuff is a bit like having two people having a sucking contest, each sucking with lots of force & energy on the end of a hose. Take away the hose & their sucking reduces to having almost zero force & almost zero energy. In aether's case the tension is due to aether being annihilated inside mass (ie inside every elementary particle), aether flowing in to replace the lost aether. I might as well add that photons have mass, & hencely photons too suck. Neutrinos (2 joined photons) have double the mass. Radiation (charge-electro-magnetic fields)(photinos) has mass. Every quantum thing has mass (annihilates aether).

Anyhow, my tension explanation must mean that all spinning (orbiting) systems must ultimately reduce to a flat (spiral) system. And as the system gets closer to being a flat system the Newtonian equations start to go awry.
I am not saying that there arent any other reasons why flat systems develop -- there might be lots of other reasons. My centrifuging of aether theory also helps to create flat systems. I reckon that the inertia of Earth's spin sucks aether in near the Equator & aether is spat out at the two poles. This is in addition to the gravitational aether inflow at all points of Earth's surface. Re flat systems, our solar system is such a system, & Saturn & its rings.

And i am not saying that dark matter doesnt exist, it does exist, dark matter is made of dark elementary particles, which are made of confined neutrinos. Anyhow, dark matter is another reason why flat spiral galaxies have a peculiar rotation. And dark matter includes ordinary blackholes, ie made of ordinary matter (confined photons), but so large that light cannot escape (hencely black), or very little light (hencely brown, or blue praps).

Sorry about the volume of wordage, but a short explanation (of why a GW doesnt rob energy if there is no detector) would i admit look crazy. And i havent thort much of this throo -- & the ink is still wet & needs blotting paper (i think we should go back to using ink & ink-wells & pens with nibs (or feathers)).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[opportunity]

Define "aether" in a 100 words and I'll give 100 of my own that links to your 100 words. Seriously. 100 words. What's aether.

[opportunity]

A simple 5 lines, who defined the term initially, how it has progressed in history through science, and where it is now.

[mad aetherist (OP)]

Define "aether" in a 100 words and I'll give 100 of my own that links to your 100 words. Seriously. 100 words. What's aether.

Aether & aether theory are not relevant to #1. However i will give it a go.
Aether is a sub-quantum media (consisting of aetherons). The vibrations or spins of aetherons create quantum things,
(1) free photons &
(2) free neutrinos (paired photons), &
(3) confined photons (elementary particles)(eg electrons quarks etc), which make
(4) sub-atomic particles (protons & neutrons), which make
(6) atoms.
(7) Photinos (vibrations-spins of aether) emanate from the central helical bodies of photons, giving us charge fields & electric fields &  magnetic fields.
(8 ) Aether is annihilated in mass, & aether flows in to replace the lost, the acceleration (the converging streamlines) giving us g, &
(9) resistance to g gives us wt mass & inertia. [99 words].

[opportunity]

Effort great, but fail.

What grand-dad in science first used the idea of that word in science and why did you decide to raid that crypt of wording?

[mad aetherist (OP)]

Effort great, but fail.

What grand-dad in science first used the idea of that word in science and why did you decide to raid that crypt of wording?

Wiki will give the history & roots of aether & ether. But the idea & the word are not necessarily the same thing. And the ideas & the words are not necessarily the same things.
All fundamental particles-essences are aether (if u like).
A rose by any other name would stink good. Proof by naming comes to mind. If u dont know what in hell is happening then thats no problem -- just give it a name -- eg spacetime -- problem goes away, & u get a Nobel.

[opportunity]

"aether" is fairy floss today.

Its a word.

Define it as a progression from when it was first introduced in scientific circles relevant to today....


I could use it in my own work as light attached to space.....but why would I?

[opportunity]

Am I close to thinking aether is light and space?

[opportunity]

Is the aether the 5th element?

earth, air, wind, fire....aether?

What are your guidances?

[Kryptid]

Even before the detection of gravitational waves by LIGO, it was observed that the Hulse-Taylor binary neutron star system experienced orbital decay at exactly the rate predicted by relativity if the system emitted energy in the form of gravitational waves: http://aspbooks.org/publications/328/025.pdf

Take a look at the fourth page of the document to see just how closely the data matches the predictions. An awfully convenient coincidence if gravitational waves do not exist. If gravitational waves don't exist, then what was carrying the energy of the system away to allow for such orbital decay and why did it exactly match gravitational wave predictions?

[opportunity]

Two EM wave out of phase with each other that by their alignment can produce a completely new type of wave. Gravity "can" emerge from EM. No aether required. Much of my writing is central to this hypothesis.

[opportunity]

The LIGO observation presented a "pop" of an EM harmonic wave by the nature of the decaying (...as what is observed as...) "neutron stars" dancing around each other. My work also predicts such a phenomena of gravity waves. LIGO didn't register an EM wave, because as an EM wave as an "out-of-phase" harmonic it is unregisterable, except as its new feature of gravity.

[opportunity]

From : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_star

Neutron stars that can be observed are very hot and typically have a surface temperature of around 600000 K.[3][4][5][6][a] They are so dense that a normal-sized matchbox containing neutron-star material would have a weight of approximately 3 billion tonnes, the same weight as a 0.5 cubic kilometre chunk of the Earth (a cube with edges of about 800 metres).[7][8] Their magnetic fields are between 108 and 1015 (100 million to 1 quadrillion) times as strong as that of the Earth. The gravitational field at the neutron star's surface is about 2×1011 (200 billion) times that of the Earth.

So when two magnetic fluxes come together as per two dancing neutron star observations, my hypothesis was bang on with a resultant gravitational wave when their rotations and proximity were right for the gravity effect to occur.


The next step is to of course demonstrate this in laboratory conditions, out of phase EM waves coupling to form a gravity effect.

[opportunity]

In regard to http://aspbooks.org/publications/328/025.pdf, the issue here re. relativistic predictions is that the paper rightly points out that given all measurements of the neutron stars in question over that nominated 30 year period one should find gravitational energy. My work doesn't dispute that. The issue is "where" does this gravitational energy come from, what is its source, and as you point out, how is it conveyed through space.

[opportunity]

Given aether is problematic, that it hasn't been carried in official scientific circles, the issue is how these gravitational waves are carried through space.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

The simplest explanation using the least amount of assumptions should better explain this phenomena.

Here, the focus should be on the magnetic field of the neutron stars bridging together, and if it isn't apparent as an EM wave, then the EM wave would appear to be out of phase at the source in that bridging process, yet apparent as a "gravity wave".

I have "yet" to find in scientific theory why such is not possible, not a possible theory.


With all the light bouncing around in our reality, much of this will interfere with each other as standing waves, out of phase with each other. Is it a stretch of scientific imagination to suggest that this interference not registerable as EM fields represent a type of "gravity" effect with no real source. There's discussion in science re. dark matter, and so on. Why is it not possible to consider EM fields out of phase having this effect?

[Kryptid]

So when two magnetic fluxes come together as per two dancing neutron star observations, my hypothesis was bang on with a resultant gravitational wave when their rotations and proximity were right for the gravity effect to occur.

If that was true, then why do colliding black holes produce gravitational waves as well? A naturally occurring black hole would have close to zero net charge and as a result would have a near-zero magnetic field.

The issue is "where" does this gravitational energy come from, what is its source

It comes from the motion of the neutron stars, which in turn comes from their gravitational potential energy.

Here, the focus should be on the magnetic field of the neutron stars bridging together, and if it isn't apparent as an EM wave, then the EM wave would appear to be out of phase at the source in that bridging process, yet apparent as a "gravity wave".

I have "yet" to find in scientific theory why such is not possible, not a possible theory.

Because black holes can make them, as I have pointed out.

[opportunity]

Colliding black holes? For the same reason science says these are a development of neutron stars.

Yes, where does the grav. wave come from, as I said, that dynamic....."where" I am asking is "what theory of explanation" does this field arise from.

Your third point you may need to elaborate on before I reply. In theory, super-dense entities have gravity. What's your point?

[opportunity]

Take the possibility that two neutron stars develop such an EM resonance the join becomes "dark" as EM, and just pure gravity.....right.....owing to the out-of-phase EM resonance.

[opportunity]

Why can't that theory be possible as opposed to "aether"?

[Kryptid]

Colliding black holes? For the same reason science says these are a development of neutron stars.

Neutron stars lose their magnetic fields when they become black holes.

Yes, where does the grav. wave come from, as I said, that dynamic....."where" I am asking is "what theory of explanation" does this field arise from.

Relativity.

What's your point?

Electromagnetism has nothing to do with it. Uncharged black holes without magnetic fields can produce gravitational waves.

Take the possibility that two neutron stars develop such an EM resonance the join becomes "dark" as EM, and just pure gravity.....right.....owing to the out-of-phase EM resonance.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what any of that means.