[alright1234 (OP)]

The LIGO detected celestial gravitational waves that originate from a 21,000 binary pulsar (PSR 1913+16) that produces a ΔL = 10-18 m disturbance of the interferometer mirror but Creswell-Jackson (2017) discredited the LIGO experimental results as background noise (Creswell-Jackson, Abstract) since the mirror displacement of ΔL = 10-18 m is less than the diameter of an electrons which is to small of a displacement to experimentally measure. The formation of a wave requires a medium, composed of matter yet gravitational waves propagate in vacuum of celestial space that is void of matter. Einstein uses a space-time curvature to justify the formation gravitational waves using the varying relativistic (time-space) translational velocity v that is formed by the earth's daily and yearly motions but gravitational waves that are propagating in stellar space are not effected by the earth's daily and yearly motions.

[Kryptid]

The LIGO detected celestial gravitational waves that originate from a 21,000 binary pulsar (PSR 1913+16) that produces a ΔL = 10-18 m disturbance of the interferometer mirror but Creswell-Jackson (2017) discredited the LIGO experimental results as background noise (Creswell-Jackson, Abstract) since the mirror displacement of ΔL = 10-18 m is less than the diameter of an electrons which is to small of a displacement to experimentally measure.

That so-called "discrediting" was based on faulty information: they based part of their conclusion on a graph published by LIGO that was meant for only illustrative purposes. Your claim that the change in length is too small to measure is also incorrect. It depends both on the sensitivity of the instruments and how well you can filter out noise. The more photons that a laser detector uses, the more sensitive to change it can be made. Here is an explanation:

The gravitational wave event you speak of was detected by both of LIGO's detectors in the United States (which are over 2,000 miles apart from each other) and the VIRGO detector in Italy. Since all of these detectors picked it up, we know that it could not have been a mere glitch in the system. The detection was accompanied by a gamma ray burst, which further confirmed its existence as a real phenomenon from outer space.

The formation of a wave requires a medium, composed of matter

No it doesn't. Light alone demonstrates that.

yet gravitational waves propagate in vacuum of celestial space that is void of matter.

They are waves in space-time itself.

Einstein uses a space-time curvature to justify the formation gravitational waves using the varying relativistic (time-space) translational velocity v that is formed by the earth's daily and yearly motions but gravitational waves that are propagating in stellar space are not effected by the earth's daily and yearly motions.

The motion at the source of the gravitational waves (the fast orbital motion of the neutron stars) is what created them. Earth's own motion is irrelevant.

[Bored chemist]

less than the diameter of an electrons which is to small of a displacement to experimentally measure.

Is the "point" here that an electron is too small to measure, so you can't possibly measure something smaller still?
Well, there are two problems with that.
The first is that the electron is smaller than any available experiment can measure. As far as we can tell, it's a point charge.
So LIGO's displacement isn't smaller than the electron. That assertion's simply wrong.

The second point is that it's much easier to measure the mirror displacement than it is to measure an electron- simply because LIGO was deliberately designed to make such  measurements possible.

[alancalverd]

A problem arises if you consider an electron to be a point charge with no radius: having a measurable mass, it would have infinite density. This would give it an infinite gravitational potential. There are quite enough black holes in the universe without postulating several more inside every atom.

Just one more example of the inappropriateness of  classical modelling in a quantum universe.

[Bored chemist]

A problem arises if you consider an electron to be a point charge with no radius

Then don't.
However, as far as any experiment is concerned they are point charges.
I apologize for not saying " As far as we can tell from measurements, it's a point charge.", but I thought that was a bit redundant  immediately after saying "the electron is smaller than any available experiment can measure."

[alancalverd]

Wikipedia says

According to modern understanding, the electron is a point particle with a point charge and no spatial extent.

which I suppose is rather stretching the meaning of "understanding".

My inclination is to say that an electron probably has the same density as a proton or neutron, so its radius is probably calculable if not directly measurable.

We can also set a lower limit to its radius from the knowledge that you can't bind two electrons together by gravity, so the maximum gravitational attraction  Gm_e²/d²  must be less than the electrostatic repulsion q_e²/4πε₀d² where d is the diameter of an electron, with mass m_e and charge q_e.

[Bored chemist]

Empirical evidence suggests "smaller than a breadbox".

My inclination is to say that an electron probably has the same density as a proton or neutron

The proton radius is about 10^-15m
the electron mass is about 1000 times less, so, if the density is that same, that's about a 10 times smaller radius.
10^-16 metres.
Collision measurements give results that say less than 10^-18 metres.

My strong inclination is to say that you are wrong, but that's only based on experimental observation, while you have an inclination on your side.

It's all beside the point since the OP is talking cobblers.

[alancalverd]

And yet the damn things have a rest mass (about 1/1800 of a proton), so they can't have zero diameter.

[alright1234 (OP)]

I rewrote the original post to___>>>



The LIGO detected celestial gravitational waves that originate from a 21,000 binary pulsar (PSR 1913+16) that produces a ΔL = 10-18 m displacement of the interferometer mirror which is too small to experimentally measure. The formation of a wave requires a medium, composed of matter yet gravitational waves propagate in vacuum of celestial space that is void of matter. Einstein uses a space-time curvature to justify the formation gravitational waves using the varying relativistic (time-space) translational velocity v that is formed by the earth's daily and yearly motions but gravitational waves that are propagating in stellar space are not effected by the earth's daily and yearly motions.

[alright1234 (OP)]

Maxwell's theory is based on an ether composed of matter.

"If we adopt either Fresnel's or Maccullagh's form of the undulatory theory, half of this energy is in the form of potential energy, due to the distortion of elementary portions of the medium, and half in the form of kinetic energy, due to the motion of the medium. We must therefore regard the aether as possessing elasticity similar to that of a solid body, and also as having a finite density." (Maxwell, Part XCVII, p. 767).


Also, time-space is formed by the earth's daily and yearly motions that do not effect a distance star's formation of GW's. Furthermore, I disagree that a 10^-18 m displacement can be measured. Time uncertainty is about 1/1000 seconds; therefore, distance would approximately 1/10,000 of a meter at the most which is 14 orders of magnitude difference. The standard candle method is fake.

[Kryptid]

Maxwell's theory is based on an ether composed of matter.

So you don't know what matter is either. Also, experiments designed to detect the aether either gave ambiguous results or negative results.

Also, time-space is formed by the earth's daily and yearly motions

That doesn't make any sense. Space and time do not depend upon the Earth's existence.

Time uncertainty is about 1/1000 seconds; therefore, distance would approximately 1/10,000 of a meter at the most which is 14 orders of magnitude difference.

What is your source for this information?

[alright1234 (OP)]

Maxwell's theory is based on an ether composed of matter.

So you don't know what matter is either. Also, experiments designed to detect the aether either gave ambiguous results or negative results.

Also, time-space is formed by the earth's daily and yearly motions

That doesn't make any sense. Space and time do not depend upon the Earth's existence.

Time uncertainty is about 1/1000 seconds; therefore, distance would approximately 1/10,000 of a meter at the most which is 14 orders of magnitude difference.

What is your source for this information?

First, what I am writing is my opinion and does not represent an absolute fact so don't take anything I state personal since it is only an opinion.  Yes, I know matter as solid, liquid or gas. Yes, there is no ether, composed of matter but the wave theory of light that is used in college text books is based on an ether, composed of matter which is similar to the wave-particle duality theory represents a contradiction since a particle structure of light conflict with the continuity of Maxwell's electromagnetic field. I am just pointing this out which is a fact. Time-space originates from Einstein's relativity that is based on the earth's daily and yearly motions which is also a fact; therefore, you cannot use time-space to depict gravitational waves which is my opinion. The time uncertainty originates from Olympic skiing and the distance originates from a micrometer. The time uncertainty is a fact and the distance uncertainty is an approximation which is an opinion based on the time uncertainty order of magnitude.

[Kryptid]

First, what I am writing is my opinion

Facts are what matter, not opinions. Either we can measure it or we can't. There is no "in my opinion" to that. That's like claiming that the Earth's roundness is a matter of opinion. It isn't. The fact of the matter is that all of that money wouldn't have been wasted building LIGO if the scientists knew in advance that it wouldn't be sensitive enough to detect the very thing it was designed for.

The time uncertainty originates from Olympic skiing

At this point I'm going to have to ask if you are trolling. What does Olympic skiing have to do with LIGO?

[evan_au]

matter which is similar to the wave-particle duality theory represents a contradiction since a particle structure of light conflict with the continuity of Maxwell's electromagnetic field

The debate about whether light was a particle or a wave raged for centuries, and engaged luminaries such as Huygens, Newton and Maxwell.

This was all resolved in the early 1900s with the development of quantum theory, which showed that the opposing camps were both right - light is both a wave and a particle.
- And indeed, with de Broglie in 1924, ordinary matter was also realised to have the characteristics of both a wave and a particle.
- This has been demonstrated with subsequent laboratory experiments

So I don't see your perceived contradiction.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_wave

[alancalverd]

Yes, there is no ether, composed of matter but the wave theory of light that is used in college text books is based on an ether, composed of matter which is similar to the wave-particle duality theory represents a contradiction since a particle structure of light conflict with the continuity of Maxwell's electromagnetic field.

Time to buy some new college textbooks.

The derivation of Maxwell's equations does not depend on the properties of an aether  since, as Maxwell says in the passage you quote, said aether would (a) have a finite density and elasticity, whilst em waves propagate in a vacuum which has neither, and (b) whose existence was comprehensively disproved in 1887.

I take issue with my learned friend that light "is" a wave and a particle. In my experience, light can be modelled as a wave or a particle, but always behaves as light - we just don't have one comprehensive model for it.

[Kryptid]

Modern technology can accurately measure time to 3.5 parts in quintillion (10¹⁸): https://www.newscientist.com/article/2149568-the-most-precise-atomic-clock-ever-made-is-a-cube-of-quantum-gas/

Why you think we can only measure time to 1 part in 1,000 is beyond me...

[Colin2B]

Why you think we can only measure time to 1 part in 1,000 is beyond me...

Looking at his other posts gives everyone a clear understanding that he is somewhat clueless.

[alright1234 (OP)]

https://www.google.com/search?q=electron+microscope&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS845US845&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiu4uyip-ThAhWR_1QKHULLCgQQ_AUIDygC&biw=1920&bih=937#imgrc=QwNWanSAwjmi0M:

100um = 10^-4 m

[Kryptid]

https://www.google.com/search?q=electron+microscope&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS845US845&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiu4uyip-ThAhWR_1QKHULLCgQQ_AUIDygC&biw=1920&bih=937#imgrc=QwNWanSAwjmi0M:

100um = 10^-4 m

What was the purpose of this post?

[alancalverd]

Probably to complain about his micrometer (should be able to resolve 10^-5 m with a cheap one) or stopwatch (should be better than 1s per month for an electronic watch, 1s per day for a cheap mechanical one).