[opportunity]

I don't know if you've actually read into what I have posted Kryptid.

Your last answer I have already answered, every point.

[Kryptid]

I don't know if you've actually read into what I have posted Kryptid.

Your last answer I have already answered, every point.

And as I read your other posts in this thread about that same matter, I ended up with the same conclusion: "I don't understand what any of that means."

[opportunity]

I'll try to summarise.

The post is re. gravity.

It went into ideas of neutron stars and the idea of grav. waves.

I suggested grav. waves not being carried by aether, yet being to out of phase EM waves produced by the highly magnetic neutron stars.

The logical conclusion of two neutron stars forming a black hole would be an EM "out" effect (damn obviously as a region of no light) yet with a resulting massive grav.-field....using that train of theory I have proposed, not to mention using the idea of EM out-of-phase resonance to assist in the "dark-matter" idea/phenomena.

Have I lost you yet?

Maybe I haven't been courteous. Tell me about your aether theory re. grav. waves and black holes, more than you have already.

Before you reply, the idea of out-of-phase EM interference is simple.....there's nothing there as an EM result....its out-of-phase interference.....but where do those two streams of EM go.....what dimension, what force?

Light has this effect, and people are researching this, and there's also the not well known idea of the Dirac sea, which answers a lot of questions regarding EM standing waves and gravity.....well, better than aether.

[Kryptid]

I suggested grav. waves not being carried by aether, yet being to out of phase EM waves produced by the highly magnetic neutron stars.

Relativity doesn't suggest that they are carried by aether either (at least not the kind searched for by Michelson-Morley experiments). When electromagnetic waves interact, they produce interference patterns where the waves cancel out in some places and reinforce in others. I know of no evidence (or even a good logical reason) that they change into anything other than electromagnetic waves. Gravitational waves also do not behave like electromagnetic waves do.

The logical conclusion of two neutron stars forming a black hole would be an EM "out" effect (damn obviously as a region of no light)

An EM "out" event? What does that mean?

yet with a resulting massive grav.-field

I don't understand why you think any kind of electromagnetic interactions would cause an increase in gravity. Gravity is linked to the quantity of mass and energy present.

....using that train of theory I have proposed, not to mention using the idea of EM out-of-phase resonance to assist in the "dark-matter" idea/phenomena.

Given that gravity is linked to energy and mass, how are electromagnetic waves interacting with each other going to increase mass or energy? That would violate the 1st law of thermodynamics.

[mad aetherist (OP)]

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?

Yes good points. Firstly i think that the close matching to the theoretical GR GW losses is overstated - what with inexact numbers for distance masses etc etc.
I think that there are other reasons for the energy losses. (1) Tidal forces. (2) Photonic radiation. (3) Charge-electro-magnetic radiation. But not GW radiation. Some of (1)(2)(3) losses might not be associated with loss of orbital momentum & loss of orbital speed -- but much will. 
I havnt given this stuff much thort. Still thinking.

Centrifuging of aether (my pet subject) is i reckon a big cause of energy loss. (4) Aether is sucked in near the equator of a spinning star & consequently aether is pushed out near the two poles (however this spinning wouldnt much affect binary orbit).
(5) But, a similar sucking & pushing must happen due to orbital rotation. In this case aether is sucked in from the outside of a star to the inside (outside being the half of the outer surface with respect to the other star)(inside being the inner half of the surface, ie the half closest to the other star). And aether is consequently pushed out in two directions along the common orbit axis.
Centrifuging of aether is completely unknown by the science community, including aetherists (except of course that i know)(& praps one other guy).
Yes, i think that the orbital centrifuging of aether (5) is the missing ingredient re energy loss -- & (4) centrifuging due to spin might contribute indirectly.
But Einsteinian GWs do not exist, & hencely cant have any effect on a binary or on anything else.

[opportunity]

I should explain myself better.


I have a website re. a new theory of EM and gravity, well, a new "a-priori" for time. It started as a question of not interfering with physics but adding more scope to the concept of time, adding more definition to it, without corrupting all the known field forces and equations thereof.


Paper 1 seemed fine, I went to paper 2, that seemed fine. No contemporary equations were corrupted. Many were simplified, many, by being more robust with a definition of time, until the definition of time re-wrote the idea of relativity, as a "relativity of time".

I thought, "this is all well and good, but can I prove something in the lab to show how better this theory is".

So I did.

Now I am thinking, "what on earth are people going to say about their models of contemporary physics, especially astrophysics".

I have been able to demonstrate in the lab G effects from EM based on my theory. Writing this 8th paper up though is a nightmare because it is so corrective in its outlook, and as one can understand its out of the blue.