Gravitational waves may oscillate, just like neutrinos

September 21, 2017 by Lisa Zyga, Phys.org feature
This illustration shows two merging black holes generating gravitational waves. At large distances from the black hole merger, spacetime may be described by superpositions of two grid sets, depicting the two metrics in the bigravity framework. Credit: Max, Platscher, and Smirnov, based on an image by R. Hurt at Caltech-JPL.

(Phys.org)—Using data from the first-ever gravitational waves detected last year, along with a theoretical analysis, physicists have shown that gravitational waves may oscillate between two different forms called "g" and "f"-type gravitational waves. The physicists explain that this phenomenon is analogous to the way that neutrinos oscillate between three distinct flavors—electron, muon, and tau. The oscillating gravitational waves arise in a modified theory of gravity called bimetric gravity, or "bigravity," and the physicists show that the oscillations may be detectable in future experiments.

The researchers, Kevin Max, a PhD student at Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa and INFN Pisa, Italy; Moritz Platscher, a PhD student at the Max Planck Institute for Nuclear Physics, Germany; and Juri Smirnov, a postdoc at the University of Florence, Italy, have published a paper on their analysis of gravitational wave oscillations in a recent issue of Physical Review Letters.

As the explain, the work may help answer the question of what "the other 95%" of the universe is made of, by suggesting that the answer may lie in modifications to gravity rather than new particles.

"Only 5% of matter is of a type we think to understand properly," Smirnov told Phys.org. "To address the question of what our universe is made of ('dark matter' and 'dark energy'), most authors discuss alternative particle physics models with new particles. However, experiments such as the ones at the LHC [Large Hadron Collider] haven't detected any exotic particles, yet. This raises the question if maybe the gravitational side needs to be modified.

"In our work, we ask what signals we could expect from a modification of gravity, and it turns out that bigravity features a unique such signal and can therefore be discriminated from other theories. The recent detection of by LIGO [Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory] has opened a new window on the dark sectors of the universe for us. Whether Nature has chosen general relativity, bigravity, or any other theory is a different question in the end. We can only study possible signals for experimentalists to look for."

Two gravitons instead of one

Currently, the best theory of gravity is Einstein's theory of general relativity, which uses a single metric to describe spacetime. As a result, are mediated by a single hypothetical particle called a graviton, which is massless and so travels at the speed of light.

The main difference between general relativity and bigravity is that bigravity uses two metrics, g and f. Whereas g is a physical metric and couples to matter, f is a sterile metric and does not couple to matter. In bigravity, gravitational interactions are mediated by two gravitons, one of which has mass and the other of which is massless. The two gravitons are composed of different combinations (or superpositions) of the g and f metrics, and so they couple to the surrounding matter in different ways. The existence of two metrics (and two gravitons) in the bigravity framework eventually leads to the oscillation phenomenon.

As the physicists explain, the idea that there might exist a graviton with mass has been around since almost as long general relativity itself.

"Einstein's theory of general relativity predicts one mediator (the 'graviton') of the gravitational interactions, which travels at the speed of light, i.e., which is massless," Max said. "Back in the late 1930s, people were already trying to find a theory containing a mediator that has a mass, and thus travels at a speed less than the speed of light. This turned out to be a very difficult task and was only recently accomplished in 2010. Bigravity is a variation of this 2010 framework, which features not one, but two dynamical metrics. Only one of them couples to matter while the other doesn't; and a linear combination of them becomes massive (slower than the speed of light) while the other is massless (speed of light)."

Oscillations

The physicists show that, in the framework of bigravity, as gravitational waves are produced and propagate through space, they oscillate between the g- and f-types—though only the g-type can be detected. Although previous research has suggested that these oscillations might exist, it appeared to lead to unphysical results, such as a violation of energy conservation. The new study shows that the oscillations can theoretically emerge in a realistic physical scenario when considering graviton masses that are large enough to be detected by current astrophysical tests.

In order to understand these oscillations, the scientists explain that in many ways they resemble neutrino oscillations. Although neutrinos come in three flavors (electron, muon, and tau), typically the neutrinos produces in nuclear reactions are electron neutrinos (or electron anti-neutrinos) because the others are too heavy to form stable matter. In a similar way, in bigravity only the g metric couples to matter, so the gravitational waves produced by astrophysical events, such as black hole mergers, are g-type since f-type gravitational waves do not couple to matter.

"The key to understanding the oscillation phenomenon is that electron neutrinos do not have a definite mass: they are a superposition of the three neutrino mass eigenstates," Platscher explained. "More mathematically speaking, the mass matrix is not diagonal in the flavor (electron-muon-tau) basis. Therefore, the wave equation that describes how they move through space will mix them up and therefore they 'oscillate.'

"The same is true in bigravity: g is a mixture of the massive and the massless graviton, and therefore as the gravitational wave travels through the Universe, it will oscillate between g- and f-type gravitational waves. However, we can only measure the former with our detectors (which are made of ), while the latter would pass through us unseen! This would, if bigravity is a correct description of Nature, leave an important imprint in the gravitational wave signal, as we have shown."

As the physicists note, the similarity between neutrinos and gravitational waves holds even though neutrino oscillation is a quantum mechanical phenomenon that is described by the Schrödinger wave equation, whereas gravitational wave is not a quantum effect and instead is described by a classical wave equation.

One particular effect that the physicists predict is that gravitational wave oscillations lead to larger strain modulations compared to those predicted by . These results suggest a path toward experimentally detecting gravitational wave oscillations and finding support for bigravity.

"Since bigravity is a very young theory, there is still a lot to be done, and its potential to address our theories' shortcomings needs to be explored," Smirnov said. "There has been some work along these lines, but certainly a lot is yet to be done and we hope to contribute in the future as well!"

Explore further: Hints of extra dimensions in gravitational waves?

More information: Kevin Max, Moritz Platscher, and Juri Smirnov. "Gravitational Wave Oscillations in Bigravity." Physical Review Letters. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.111101. Also at arXiv:1703.07785 [gr-qc]

Related Stories

Hints of extra dimensions in gravitational waves?

June 28, 2017

Researchers from the Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics (Albert Einstein Institute/AEI) in Potsdam found that hidden dimensions – as predicted by string theory – could influence gravitational waves. In a recently ...

Shocks in the early universe could be detectable today

October 27, 2016

(Phys.org)—Physicists have discovered a surprising consequence of a widely supported model of the early universe: according to the model, tiny cosmological perturbations produced shocks in the radiation fluid just a fraction ...

Recommended for you

How can you tell if a quantum memory is really quantum?

May 23, 2018

Quantum memories are devices that can store quantum information for a later time, which are usually implemented by storing and re-emitting photons with certain quantum states. But often it's difficult to tell whether a memory ...

223 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

EyeNStein
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 21, 2017
As gravitons modulate spacetime and PHOTONS (not matter) detect that change. What does their particle modulate?
If a graviton had mass wouldn't it give a kick to matter as neutrinos do? Especially as gravity interacts with all matter and neutrinos hardly interact at all.
Benni
1 / 5 (7) Sep 21, 2017
"In bigravity, gravitational interactions are mediated by two gravitons, one of which has mass and the other of which is massless."

"The same is true in bigravity: g is a mixture of the massive and the massless graviton, and therefore as the gravitational wave travels through the Universe, it will oscillate between g- and f-type gravitational waves."

This is just too much fun to pass up. A single "gravitational wave" with components moving at two different velocities is what you get when you propose mixing a massive graviton with a massless graviton. Imagine a KINETIC ENERGY GRAVITON riding coat tails with a MASSLESS GRAVITON moving at lightspeed.

We need some frames here explaining why this isn't perpetual motion. Maybe there's a frame expert available who can be the splainer?



KMax
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 21, 2017
Dear EyeNStein: in Bigravity, the introduction of the second graviton can lead to an oscillation phenomenon which can be probed by looking e.g. at GWs emitted from binary black hole mergers. As the GW travels towards us, its 'admixture' of the graviton which couples to matter varies (for example, directly after production, the GW is fully "g-like"; at later times, you may see a suppressed wave). In this way this is analogous to neutrino oscillations.

Concerning the interactions of massive gravitons with matter, this in fact also applies in standard GR; the effect you are describing is gravity itself!
dnatwork
2.1 / 5 (9) Sep 21, 2017
What's that? Serious scientists are suggesting the answer might be to modify our understanding of gravity instead of assuming dark energy and dark matter? Who could have known gravity would be so complicated?
Benni
1 / 5 (7) Sep 21, 2017
If a graviton had mass wouldn't it give a kick to matter as neutrinos do?


Yes, it would give "kick" (RECOIL is a better word), because that is how Kinetic Energy works which is the Fundamental Law of Physics to which neutrinos are also subject & the context describing this "massive graviton".

When there is RECOIL within a system, there is ACCELERATION be it positive or negative. There is no Fundamental Law of Physics by which a particle of mass can be made to ride on the coat tails of something traveling at lightspeed as gravity is known to do. This negates any possibility that these two proposed gravitons can exist within the same "frame", right Schneibo?
dnatwork
1.2 / 5 (5) Sep 21, 2017
Just so I understand, when they talk about particles, do they really mean particles? Little bits of matter that are not waves, actually flying through space and breaking apart when they hit other bits? Or is that shorthand for waves that exhibit particle-like aspects when they collide or decay?

'Cause if energy and mass are equated (e=mc2), then mass is just the binding or concentration of energy into a dense state. So, for instance, the Higgs boson could just be (mathematically equivalent to) a particular kind of wave that drags other waves along with it. That is, mass and gravity would be the effects you see when my wave grabs your wave and pulls it in my direction.

So I'm thinking there might be no particles at all, just waves that interact in ways that appear to our feeble minds to be matter.

I guess that's string theory.
dnatwork
1.2 / 5 (5) Sep 21, 2017
Also, at my low level of understanding, these two gravitons they're talking about are very reminiscent of the wave-particle duality of light. Photons are massless, but they can exert light pressure by whatever it is, relativistic mass?

Secondary thought: If gravity propagates at the speed of light, and they are looking for a massless graviton, maybe we already found it, but we call it the photon.
Benni
1 / 5 (7) Sep 21, 2017
but they can exert light pressure by whatever it is, relativistic mass?


Yes, and it's no more complicated than that. When mass is transformed it carries away within the RELATIVISTIC MASS the proportion of gravity lost to the original mass when that proportion of the original mass was transformed to ENERGY & exited the system.
Benni
1 / 5 (7) Sep 21, 2017
Just so I understand, when they talk about particles, do they really mean particles? Little bits of matter that are not waves
........that's exactly what they said, I quote their words below:

"In bigravity, gravitational interactions are mediated by two gravitons, one of which has mass and the other of which is massless"

...........this "mass" they are assigning to this proposed "graviton" means only one thing, that in accordance with the Laws of Physics that their new proposed theory of gravity does not move at lightspeed thus is subject to the laws of KINETIC ENERGY, ie, KE=1/2mv² & is also not subject to the Inverse Square Law set for electro-magnetic energy as well as for gravity.
fthompson495
1 / 5 (3) Sep 21, 2017
Dark matter fills 'empty' space and strongly interacts with ordinary matter. Ordinary matter moves through and displaces the strongly interacting dark matter. The Earth displaces the strongly interacting dark matter. What is referred to geometrically as curved spacetime physically exists in nature as the state of displacement of the strongly interacting dark matter. The state of displacement of the strongly interacting dark matter is gravity.
Whydening Gyre
3 / 5 (4) Sep 21, 2017
Just so I understand, when they talk about particles, do they really mean particles? Little bits of matter that are not waves
........that's exactly what they said, I quote their words below:

"In bigravity, gravitational interactions are mediated by two gravitons, one of which has mass and the other of which is massless"

...........this "mass" they are assigning to this proposed "graviton" means only one thing, that in accordance with the Laws of Physics that their new proposed theory of gravity does not move at lightspeed thus is subject to the laws of KINETIC ENERGY, ie, KE=1/2mv² & is also not subject to the Inverse Square Law set for electro-magnetic energy as well as for gravity.

I see no reason why it can't be travelling at C. Just oscillating at varying frequencies...Like photons, but with a different relativistic "mass".
Also, would you mind explaining your "transformation" process, again?
dnatwork
1.2 / 5 (5) Sep 21, 2017

...........this "mass" they are assigning to this proposed "graviton" means only one thing, that in accordance with the Laws of Physics that their new proposed theory of gravity does not move at lightspeed thus is subject to the laws of KINETIC ENERGY, ie, KE=1/2mv² & is also not subject to the Inverse Square Law set for electro-magnetic energy as well as for gravity.

I see no reason why it can't be travelling at C. Just oscillating at varying frequencies...Like photons, but with a different relativistic "mass".
Also, would you mind explaining your "transformation" process, again?


IIRC, in order to travel at c any particle has to be massless, else it would take infinite energy to accelerate to that speed. Also IIRC, that means any particle traveling at c must be a photon. But it seems I generally don't RC.
Benni
1 / 5 (7) Sep 21, 2017
I see no reason why it can't be travelling at C. Just oscillating at varying frequencies...Like photons, but with a different relativistic "mass".


In bigravity, gravitational interactions are mediated by two gravitons, one of which has mass and the other of which is massless."


So WhyGuy, you're coming here to be the splainer as to why they don't mean what they plainly state?

Just what is behind this business of subjecting GRAVITY to properties of MASS? The next step in this line of reasoning would be to suggest gravity could also have transformative properties just like MASS & Electro-magnetic Waves have transformative properties to one another.

So, if this bunch is gonna come up with a "mass graviton", I want to know what it's inverse transformation will be? Duhhhhhh? Yeah, I know, but at least somebody here in the Comments had to bring it up, right?
Benni
1 / 5 (7) Sep 21, 2017
in order to travel at c any particle has to be massless, else it would take infinite energy to accelerate to that speed.


that means any particle traveling at c must be a photon.
......that would be true unless it can be proven massless gravitons actually exist.

What we know about gravity & electro-magnetism is that both move at exactly the same velocity 100% of the time. We also know that the RELATIVISTIC MASS of energy fields have a field of gravitational attraction whereby those fields exert gravitational influence on any other MASS or ENERGY they encounter, sure, comparatively speaking to mass it is weak, but is easily measurable, but there's a conundrum here.

The conundrum being the the lightspeed properties of both ENERGY & GRAVITY inextricably tying the two together such that they cannot be disassociated with one another, one somehow depends on the other for it's existence, take gravity away from energy & the EM Wave disappears & vice versa.

Curious George Sr
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 21, 2017
x
dnatwork
1.3 / 5 (4) Sep 21, 2017
The conundrum being the the lightspeed properties of both ENERGY & GRAVITY inextricably tying the two together such that they cannot be disassociated with one another, one somehow depends on the other for it's existence, take gravity away from energy & the EM Wave disappears & vice versa.


Which is (a distantly related) part of why I'm thinking of particles not existing at all but being waves whose properties we perceive as this thing we call matter.

A) Gravity propagates at the speed of light, but otherwise only photons go at c.
B) Take away the relativistic mass of a wave, and the wave disappears.
C) When two things share properties and cannot exist independently, how do you say they are not the same thing, in fact?

Back to the no-matter thing: If the Higgs boson is not a particle but just the drag of one wave on another, then maybe the graviton is really just the photon pushing all the other waves back toward its own source as it moves away. Action = reaction.
Benni
1 / 5 (7) Sep 21, 2017

]B) Take away the relativistic mass of a wave, and the wave disappears.
......seems that way, because that's where the gravity of the energy field comes from.

maybe the graviton is really just the photon pushing all the other waves back toward its own source as it moves away. Action = reaction.
......RELATIVISTIC RECOIL?

dnatwork
1.3 / 5 (4) Sep 21, 2017

RELATIVISTIC RECOIL?



More like ruthlessly climbing to the top, getting ahead with a lead-pipe sensibility, stepping on heads and not bothering to take names.
Whydening Gyre
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 21, 2017
So WhyGuy, you're coming here to be the splainer as to why they don't mean what they plainly state?

Not at all. I was actually just positing...
Just what is behind this business of subjecting GRAVITY to properties of MASS?

I think it's more gravity AS a property of mass...
The next step in this line of reasoning would be to suggest gravity could also have transformative properties just like MASS & Electro-magnetic Waves have transformative properties to one another.

Not quite following what you mean...
Can you explain or rephrase?

So, if this bunch is gonna come up with a "mass graviton", I want to know what it's inverse transformation will be?

Not quite sure how it would apply...
Duhhhhhh? Yeah, I know, but at least somebody here in the Comments had to bring it up, right?

They wrote it especially for you...;-)
Whydening Gyre
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 21, 2017

RELATIVISTIC RECOIL?



More like ruthlessly climbing to the top, getting ahead with a lead-pipe sensibility, stepping on heads and not bothering to take names.

Wouldn't that mean it was bigger (more mass) or had more force?
Benni
1 / 5 (6) Sep 21, 2017
The next step in this line of reasoning would be to suggest gravity could also have transformative properties just like MASS & Electro-magnetic Waves have transformative properties to one another.


Not quite following what you mean...Can you explain or rephrase?


It's similar to Mass/Energy Equivalence Principle of Special Relativity, Conservation of Energy if you will.

It almost appears to me these guys are trying to create an EQUIVALENCE PRINCIPLE for gravity, but they need to find something that can never attain lightspeed/gravityspeed, so they come up with this "massive graviton" idea to create a new Fundamental Law of Physics they could label CONSERVATION OF GRAVITY but they can't get there until they have an end product for the transformation, voila, "massive graviton".

But to have Conservation of Gravity there needs to be something gravity can transform to, or how do you know if anything is conserved as in Mass/Energy transformation?

Benni
1 / 5 (6) Sep 21, 2017
They wrote it especially for you...;-)


What? Are you suggesting they knew I'd be here? And that's why they ran this piece to get MY INPUT & later claim it to be their own idea?

Ok WhyGuy, tuck this article into the backroads of your memory, and we'll just keep an open eye for any one of these guys five years from now talking about conservation of gravity.
Seeker2
1.3 / 5 (3) Sep 21, 2017
" gravitational interactions are mediated by a single hypothetical particle called a graviton, which is massless and so travels at the speed of light."

By gravitational interactions do they include the force of gravity? If the force of gravity traveled at the speed of light the earth would fall out of orbit and the whole universe would fall apart. That is the gravity force vectors on earth would point to where the sun was 8 minutes previously and the vectors on the sun would point to where the earth was 8 minutes previously. There would then be a tangential component to the force vectors which would drive the earth out of its orbit.
Whydening Gyre
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 21, 2017
It's similar to Mass/Energy Equivalence Principle of Special Relativity, Conservation of Energy if you will.

Well, since it only has "mass" while in motion (at C), the opposite would be no motion or, at least, slowed motion... The only "opposite" I see is - empty motionless space ...
It almost appears to me these guys are trying to create an EQUIVALENCE PRINCIPLE for gravity, but they need to find something that can never attain lightspeed/gravityspeed,

empty, motionless space...?
so they come up with this "massive graviton" idea to create a new Fundamental Law of Physics they could label CONSERVATION OF GRAVITY but they can't get there until they have an end product for the transformation, voila, "massive graviton".
But to have Conservation of Gravity there needs to be something gravity can transform to, or how do you know if anything is conserved as in Mass/Energy transformation?

How bout (again) empty, motionless space...?
Whydening Gyre
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 21, 2017
" gravitational interactions are mediated by a single hypothetical particle called a graviton, which is massless and so travels at the speed of light."

By gravitational interactions do they include the force of gravity? If the force of gravity traveled at the speed of light the earth would fall out of orbit and the whole universe would fall apart. That is the gravity force vectors on earth would point to where the sun was 8 minutes previously and the vectors on the sun would point to where the earth was 8 minutes previously. There would then be a tangential component to the force vectors which would drive the earth out of its orbit.

That's the reason we are in rotation and in orbit...
To prevent that from happening...
Whydening Gyre
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 21, 2017
They wrote it especially for you...;-)


What? Are you suggesting they knew I'd be here? And that's why they ran this piece to get MY INPUT & later claim it to be their own idea?

Actually - ANY input. (Humans are a crafty, deceitful bunch...)
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (6) Sep 22, 2017
Bah.

Any particle associated with a force that is as close to a perfect inverse square force as gravity must be massless. The reasons for this are mathematical and not explored in the linked paper. If you want to see a conjecture that rejects math it doesn't like, here it is. They try to "protect" it by hiding the massive gravitons, by making them not interact with anything.
Benni
1 / 5 (6) Sep 22, 2017
How bout (again) empty, motionless space?


Transformation has an end product result, MASS/ENERGY for example. Your proposal is GRAVITY/EMPTY, so why don't you run it by researchers, Kevin Max, a PhD student at Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa and INFN Pisa, Italy; Moritz Platscher, a PhD student at the Max Planck Institute for Nuclear Physics, Germany; and Juri Smirnov, a postdoc at the University of Florence, Italy & see if they'd be willing to trade your idea for theirs, the "massive graviton"?

Actually - ANY input. (Humans are a crafty, deceitful bunch...)
..........Oh you betcha, but I'm gonna be be even craftier, I'm gonna copywrite the term CONSERVATION OF GRAVITY, that way it'll 50 years from the day of copy protection that they will never be able to use that word unless I give them written permission, and that will cost them some mighty big bucks to gain the rights of stringing those three words together.

dnatwork
1.2 / 5 (5) Sep 22, 2017
They try to "protect" it by hiding the massive gravitons, by making them not interact with anything.


That is precisely the objection to dark matter and dark energy.
dnatwork
2 / 5 (5) Sep 22, 2017
@Whydening Gyre
Wouldn't that mean it was bigger (more mass) or had more force?


What I was saying was that it's not more force, but instead the force that a photon has had all along may be gravity, if people are looking for massless particle that goes at c.

People just don't see that aspect because they already see the photon doing something, i.e., carrying quatnta of electromagnetic energy from here to there. But coincidentally, everything that emits more EM has more gravity.

So I say it's no coincidence, they are the same thing, conveyed by the same particle (if particles exist at all).
dnatwork
2.7 / 5 (7) Sep 22, 2017
So I just looked up EM backreaction (which is not the words I used but the concept I was using).

Backreaction (not the radical half-baked thing I said, but a version that takes it into account for all particles) is used in a nascent theory (Buchert 2008 etc) that, as far as I can tell, would be an alternative to dark energy.

Score 1/10 of a point for me. Or a pointy, to go with my cap. Or a pointless, to go where this will probably end up.
tallenglish
2 / 5 (2) Sep 22, 2017
I think we should be looking at the forces being more than 1D - Gravity acts along a 2D plane (1D mass, 1D for energy/light), because spacetime is flat (i.e. gravity is acting perpendicular to spacetime - i.e. it is either pulling you to infinity or pushing you into a point source).

So spacetime actually has 4 seperate phases - light (positive massless energy we see, like real part of complex number), mass (positive energy we can't see - like imaginary part of complex number), dark matter (inverse version of normal matter - so stable anti-matter in other words) and finally dark energy (opposite of light - pulls in all directions not push).

Each of these 4 phases are actually all at right angles to each other - so dark matter and matter don't interact as they are both 2D branes acting at right angles. Same for dark energy and light - gravity is the "friction" caused when these branes interact and as energy is inherently 2D.
dnatwork
1 / 5 (4) Sep 22, 2017
No theory is useful without testable predictions, so I'll make one. If gravitons and photons are the same thing, then an effective invisibility cloak must also have antigravity effects. They are developing EM cloaks, so this can be tested soon.

This could be (part of) the mechanism behind the Casimir drive (did I get the name right?), assuming that actually works. If you create the right kind of imbalance in the shape of the normally spherical EM field, you get a net force due to higher gravity on one side and lower gravity on the other. An object inside a broad-spectrum invisibility cloak should experience the same kind of acceleration, without the drive but just by shining light on it.

Narrow spectrum won't do, as the net propulsive force we are looking for would be, sorry to say, swamped by the rest of the spectrum.

Maybe intense lasers on a cloaked object in a darkroom would be enough to get measurements?
dnatwork
2 / 5 (5) Sep 22, 2017
Braaanes!

Sorry, couldn't resist a zombie joke.

I love the brane thinking. Abstract as all get-out. Have to think about that a lot.

Someday me do math. (That's not directed at you, tallenglish. Ashes of a recent flame war.)
nikola_milovic_378
Sep 22, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
nikola_milovic_378
Sep 22, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
nikola_milovic_378
Sep 22, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
swordsman
2.7 / 5 (3) Sep 22, 2017
This is based on old theory that has no firm basis. The so-called "graviton" has never been found and measured. It is thoroughly hypothetical. More nonsense from particle theory.
Seeker2
1.5 / 5 (2) Sep 22, 2017
That's the reason we are in rotation and in orbit...
To prevent that from happening...
Right. So we are in orbit to prevent us from falling out of orbit. Obviously a matter of cause and effect. Kudos.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Sep 22, 2017
Total misinterpretation of the charge's field! Who thinks this is a proper scientific paper, the same reviewer that refused to allow a paper showing how ridiculous is GR.
Whydening Gyre
1 / 5 (3) Sep 22, 2017
That's the reason we are in rotation and in orbit...
To prevent that from happening...
Right. So we are in orbit to prevent us from falling out of orbit. Obviously a matter of cause and effect. Kudos.

Not exactly the way i meant it...
In this case, cause and effect are in constant "rotation", as well as the orbital bodies involved.
IOW - Orbit and rotation of the bodies, modifies the "cause and effect" relationship.
Constant rebalancing act...
Whydening Gyre
2 / 5 (4) Sep 22, 2017
Einstein's theory and all related to them are fatamorgans ...
When this is understood, then science will be transmitted on the right path and accepted the existence of the SEU.

Nik,
I think you might be spending too much time watching Youtube videos...
anadish
1 / 5 (2) Sep 23, 2017
How are all the folks so sure that GW travels at c? Lord Einstein's Law for the universe? Ha Ha Ha Ha. You idiotic slaves of a neo-Ptolemic era ready to burn at stakes (now microwave) any rational challenger!
Reg Mundy
2 / 5 (2) Sep 23, 2017
Look, lets get one thing straight - Force with a capital F is merely a mathematical concept useful for equations etc. The universal law that every action has an equal and opposite reaction applies everywhere and everywhen. There is NO WAY of influencing the movement of any object without an equal and opposite movement of other objects. Hence, when you write F1=M1A1 what you are really writing is M1A1=M2A2. Force is just a convenient way of mathematical shorthand for noting this. Yet science persists in claiming that Force exists. It does NOT! Gravity is not a force, it is an effect only! There are no gravitons, never mind umpteen different types and flavours of gravitons. What LIGO detected was a time ripple.
anadish
1 / 5 (2) Sep 23, 2017
What LIGO detected was a time ripple.


Reg Mundy -- Sir, LIGO did not even detect a time ripple from a GW, it was a signal injected to mimic a model. It was all cock and bull story that was reported as a great discovery by the Americal people; just a billion or two of public money going down the drain to make the LIGO scientists comfortable.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Sep 23, 2017
The only fields in space are due to charge! There has never been a discovery of another. Theoretical physics is only a quest for Nobel's and is, how can I put this politely, nonsense!.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Sep 23, 2017
Maybe the nonsense was meant to deter Nuclear weapons.
Whydening Gyre
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 23, 2017
What LIGO detected was a time ripple.


Reg Mundy -- Sir, LIGO did not even detect a time ripple from a GW, it was a signal injected to mimic a model. It was all cock and bull story that was reported as a great discovery by the Americal people; just a billion or two of public money going down the drain to make the LIGO scientists comfortable.

Ah, yes... the Evil scientist bureacracy conspiracy theory...
I'm surprised it took so long for someone to crack that case. Congrats, Anadesh...
(For everyone one else, that was my attempt at dripping sarcasm...)
Whydening Gyre
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 23, 2017
Bah.

Any particle associated with a force that is as close to a perfect inverse square force as gravity must be massless. The reasons for this are mathematical and not explored in the linked paper. If you want to see a conjecture that rejects math it doesn't like, here it is. They try to "protect" it by hiding the massive gravitons, by making them not interact with anything.

Well, except massLESS gravitons...:-)
Whydening Gyre
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 23, 2017
@Whydening Gyre
Wouldn't that mean it was bigger (more mass) or had more force?


What I was saying was that it's not more force, but instead the force that a photon has had all along may be gravity, if people are looking for massless particle that goes at c.

What if... photons are expressions of gravity?
People just don't see that aspect because they already see the photon doing something, i.e., carrying quanta of electromagnetic energy from here to there. But coincidentally, everything that emits more EM has more gravity.

Perhaps... EM being a method of "broadcasting" that expression...?
So I say it's no coincidence, they are the same thing, conveyed by the same particle (if particles exist at all).

I don't think they're the same thing ... but, you're right on the coincidence aspect...
(Not a big fan of "particles" - at that scale, anyway...)

Da Schneib
3 / 5 (4) Sep 23, 2017
"Massful" is not a word in English, nor is it used as a term of art in physics. "Massive" has a different connotation, denoting (outside physics) something that has a *great deal* of mass; this is not true in its (mis)use in physics, where it merely means a particle that has mass, as opposed to one that does not.

Novices are often misled by this problem.
Whydening Gyre
1 / 5 (2) Sep 24, 2017
"Massful" is not a word in English, nor is it used as a term of art in physics. "Massive" has a different connotation, denoting (outside physics) something that has a *great deal* of mass; this is not true in its (mis)use in physics, where it merely means a particle that has mass, as opposed to one that does not.

Novices are often misled by this problem.

I guess that means I'm not a novice, cuz I knew what you meant...:-)
anadish
1 / 5 (3) Sep 24, 2017
What LIGO detected was a time ripple.


Reg Mundy -- Sir, LIGO did not even detect a time ripple from a GW, it was a signal injected to mimic a model. It was all cock and bull story that was reported as a great discovery by the Americal people; just a billion or two of public money going down the drain to make the LIGO scientists comfortable.

Ah, yes... the Evil scientist bureacracy conspiracy theory...
I'm surprised it took so long for someone to crack that case. Congrats, Anadesh...
(For everyone one else, that was my attempt at dripping sarcasm...)


Good Sir, For once Lord Einstein was wrong, gravitation does travel at infinite speed. LIGO dug its grave by declaring GW speed as c, found out by the so-called GW travel time between Livingstone and Hanford!
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (4) Sep 24, 2017
@anadish, I await your explanation for the fact that the GW was not detected simultaneously by the observatories at widely separated points on the Earth.

I'm sure you'll have some #crankphysics excuse.
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 24, 2017
@Whyde, one little problem-- you seem to have confused massful and massless particles.

That was what I was pointing out.
anadish
1 / 5 (2) Sep 24, 2017
@anadish, I await your explanation for the fact that the GW was not detected simultaneously by the observatories at widely separated points on the Earth.

I'm sure you'll have some #crankphysics excuse.


https://arxiv.org...09.03809 It would make it clear why there is too much GW here on earth.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 24, 2017
Unfortunately that doesn't explain why the same waveform was detected at widely separated locations after speed of light delays.

Looks like a #crankphysics excuse to me.
anadish
1 / 5 (2) Sep 24, 2017
@Da Schneib Sir, TO SUM UP: (1) Although, a 4km interferometer cannot easily get disturbed by an infinity long GW wavelength, still, if the simultaneous detection were not delayed according to the c based delay, still there were a very faint possibility of a chirp. (2) There is too much man made GW noise (read my patent and the quoted thread) on earth which is of the same frequency as the LIGO-claimed GW. (3) There are too many BH mergers taking place at a given time to detect the mergers in such time separation. Thanks
anadish
1 / 5 (2) Sep 24, 2017
Unfortunately that doesn't explain why the same waveform was detected at widely separated locations after speed of light delays.

Looks like a #crankphysics excuse to me.


Sir, Exactly, the time delays show that why they were not detected at all, they were injected to simulate detection. GW speed in infinite. There is no experimental construct to show it otherwise, except for the postulated c limit.
anadish
1 / 5 (2) Sep 24, 2017
@ Da Schneib Dear Sir, Kindly also read this popular article on Tilloy's paper: https://www.newsc...gravity/ Thanks
anadish
1 / 5 (2) Sep 24, 2017
@Da Schneib Dear Sir, If you want, see this comment thread for more details on LIGO GW detection issues: https://phys.org/...vae.html Thanks
Da Schneib
1 / 5 (2) Sep 24, 2017
@anadish, can you describe the waveform detected?
anadish
1 / 5 (2) Sep 24, 2017
@Da Schneib (1) Used Audacity to see the recorded frequency spectrum; there was always ambient noise, but clear peak at the GW transmitted frequency. The transmitted waveform was a bit smoothed square wave; however, no attempt was made to filter out the received waveform from noise; at that time, sheer reception of GW was good enough -- although, the recordings are still present and can be passed through filters to see the received waveform. (2) In the static mass change experiment there was no GW waveform -- just a constant ambient audio signal from a source whose intensity showed a change when unmodulated photons hit the glass target -- the intensity of the detected audio increased showing that the sensor mass was pulled up by the mass increase of the glass target. Thanks
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 24, 2017
"Square wave" is utterly wrong. It's called a "ringdown." You can listen to it here: https://www.ligo....160211v2

It's quite distinctive, and it's exactly what General Relativity predicts.

So, definitely another #physicscrank. Bye now.
anadish
1 / 5 (2) Sep 24, 2017
@Da Schneib Dear Sir, you are jumping on to a quick but wrong conclusion. LIGO claims to have listened to cosmic GW mergers (which is false, as I explained earlier); I never listened to BH mergers; I listened to lab origin GW produced using my technique. It is not possible to listen to BH mergers in an urban setting using simple equipment of any kind. My experiment was first to generate GW and then receive it at a distance. Thanks
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 24, 2017
Right, and I listen to the voices of the little green men who live on the Moon from my throbbing pillow every night.

Tell me, do you write NASA to warn them about rockets puncturing the atmosphere and letting all the air out?
anadish
1 / 5 (2) Sep 24, 2017
@Da Schneib Sir, It appears, you'd like to digress from the subject of present discussion. I repeat, what LIGO claims as GW chirp is claimed to be of cosmic origin having originated from the merger of two circling black holes. However, the GW that I created was created in lab and was detected using a static mass detector. LIGO never claimed to have created the wave they detected. How could their GW detection chirp and my GW experiment's transmitted waveform be the same? However, the fact stands that LIGO cosmic BH merger detections are false and I have point wise made it clear in earlier comments why so. You may read the recent paper by Antoine Tilloy, I linked in an earlier comment in this thread -- GW travels at infinite speed not at c. Einstein was wrong in his conjecture to insist that no radiation travels at faster than c. Thanks
anadish
1 / 5 (2) Sep 24, 2017
@Da Schneib And by the way, though not to NASA, I wrote to the Navy about a novel Electromagnetic Railgun technology in 2007 and they invited me to Washington DC to learn about it. The Navy later acknowledged the promise my technology had.
Benni
1 / 5 (3) Sep 24, 2017
How are all the folks so sure that GW travels at c? Lord Einstein's Law for the universe? Ha Ha Ha Ha. You idiotic slaves of a neo-Ptolemic era ready to burn at stakes (now microwave) any rational challenger!


It's so simple even Schneibo sometimes understands it after I explain it to him.

When mass is transformed, it carries away within the transformed mass that proportion of the gravity field now lost to the original mass. Thus we know gravity & electro-magnetism must both move at exactly the same velocity 100% of the time. We also know that ALL energy fields have a field of gravitational attraction whereby those fields exert gravitational influence on any other MASS or ENERGY they encounter.

It is precisely due to the inherent gravity bundled within the electro-magnetic wave itself that we are able to establish the velocity of gravity, it can be no faster or slower than TRANSFORMED MASS.

anadish
1 / 5 (2) Sep 24, 2017
I
.....It is precisely due to the inherent gravity bundled within the electro-magnetic wave itself that we are able to establish the velocity of gravity, it can be no faster or slower than TRANSFORMED MASS.

@Benni Mass changes at a speed no faster than c, but its change can be felt in no time. So where is the fallacy? Kindly read Tilloy paper on arXiv and some details here https://www.newsc...gravity/
anadish
1 / 5 (2) Sep 24, 2017
@Benni May as well read the comments thread here https://phys.org/...vae.html THE INVARIANT MASS CHANGE HAPPENS SLOWLY NO FASTER THAN c BUT THAT EFFECT CAN PROPAGATE FASTER. IN LAYMAN TERMS, COMPARE IT TO FM BROADCAST -- voice takes a lot of time to reach the microphone (through the air in space) but its effect on radio waves and their propagation through space is much much faster.
anadish
1 / 5 (2) Sep 25, 2017

It is precisely due to the inherent gravity bundled within the electro-magnetic wave itself that we are able to establish the velocity of gravity, it can be no faster or slower than TRANSFORMED MASS.


@Benni Sir, further to clarify, EM waves are affected by the space time distortion effected by any gravitational field; however, any amount of EM radiation per se does not create any gravitational field (that is why photons are massless). Gravitational lensing is a good example. Thanks (PS: if you yourself are a professor of physics, then I am sure I cannot argue with you on this, because you will then be bound to your views in a very formalistic manner which you are entitled to hold)
anadish
1 / 5 (2) Sep 25, 2017
What we know about gravity & electro-magnetism is that both move at exactly the same velocity 100% of the time. We also know that the RELATIVISTIC MASS of energy fields have a field of gravitational attraction whereby those fields exert gravitational influence on any other MASS or ENERGY they encounter, sure, comparatively speaking to mass it is weak, but is easily measurable, but there's a conundrum here. The conundrum being the the lightspeed properties of both ENERGY & GRAVITY inextricably tying the two together such that they cannot be disassociated with one another, one somehow depends on the other for it's existence, take gravity away from energy & the EM Wave disappears & vice versa.
@Benni THIS IS THE GENERAL FORMAL VIEW (AS HELD BY YOU ALSO). IT NEEDS SOME TWEAKING, BUT THIS IS NOT THE RIGHT TIME TO DISCUSS IT. SOON, THINGS SHALL BE MODIFIED, I AM SURE, ONCE WE HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE RELATIVISTIC MASS IS OR MASS ITSELF IS. Thanks
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (2) Sep 25, 2017
Neutrinos are wavelets, more exactly a set of wrinkles in the fields of an electron and a proton as they separate. Although Lambda Nu = c for the charge; it does not have anything to do with the wrinkle, except you must notice the wrinkle due for each charge; anyway, what does that have to do with Newton's apple or Einstein's magical light beams and a theory based upon an undefined axiom, mass and scale.
nikola_milovic_378
Sep 25, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
nikola_milovic_378
Sep 25, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
nikola_milovic_378
Sep 25, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Benni
1.3 / 5 (3) Sep 25, 2017
PS: if you yourself are a professor of physics
.......I am a Nuclear/Electrical Engineer, spent six years in Engineering school in addition to almost 2 years worth of continuing education credits. Part of my job description is oversight of our Gamma Spectroscopy Lab testing facility.

Mass changes at a speed no faster than c, but its change can be felt in no time.


Mass/Energy transforms at lightspeed, I agree with you, and it's EFFECTS as well. Gravity has no transformation qualities but simply TRANSFERS to the Mass/Energy Equivalence of the TRANSFORMATION process.

further to clarify, EM waves are affected by the space time distortion effected by any gravitational field.... .......Gravitational lensing is a good example.
.......Agree. Shapiro Effect is the perfect example of this.

ONCE WE HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE RELATIVISTIC MASS IS OR MASS ITSELF IS. Thanks
Or unless CONSERVATION OF GRAVITY is discovered.

Seeker2
1.5 / 5 (2) Sep 25, 2017
This is based on old theory that has no firm basis. The so-called "graviton" has never been found and measured. It is thoroughly hypothetical. More nonsense from particle theory.
You mean like LIGO?
Seeker2
1.5 / 5 (2) Sep 25, 2017
There is no Fundamental Law of Physics by which a particle of mass can be made to ride on the coat tails of something traveling at lightspeed as gravity is known to do. This negates any possibility that these two proposed gravitons can exist within the same "frame", right Schneibo?
Gravity, being a field, travels only with it's sources like massive bodies or charges. Excitation of the medium, like photons or gravitons, causes excitation of the fields which travel through the medium. The speed of travel depends on the medium and not the source of the excitation. Or so it seems. Right, Schneibo?
Seeker2
1.5 / 5 (2) Sep 25, 2017
cont
Actually I'm not sure if it's the excitation of the fields traveling through the medium or the excitation of the medium itself. And the fields themselves would not be traveling if their sources are not traveling.
anadish
1 / 5 (1) Sep 25, 2017
@Benni

Mass/Energy transforms at lightspeed, I agree with you, and it's EFFECTS as well. Gravity has no transformation qualities but simply TRANSFERS to the Mass/Energy Equivalence of the TRANSFORMATION process.

ONCE WE HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE RELATIVISTIC MASS IS OR MASS ITSELF IS. Thanks


Or unless CONSERVATION OF GRAVITY is discovered.


Now, that's called a perfect agreement -- well, almost!

Gertsenshtein Effect or its inverse is an example of how gravity is intertwined with EM radiation. However, the fact that gravity is so very much intertwined (embroiled?) with EM radiation may not take away its independent form too (yet to be discovered or postulated). Are you interested in Antoine Tilloy's paper (the link I posted here earlier)? Only disagreement here is regarding LIGO's genuineness of cosmic GW detection -- I know it is false. I am privy to a bit of unscientific fact, which LIGO heads know well.
Seeker2
1.5 / 5 (2) Sep 25, 2017
Who could have known gravity would be so complicated?
Perhaps a bit too simple to understand. At least Newtonian gravity - gradients in the energy density of spacetime.
Seeker2
1.5 / 5 (2) Sep 25, 2017
...regarding LIGO's genuineness of cosmic GW detection -- I know it is false. I am privy to a bit of unscientific fact, which LIGO heads know well.
So it's all a conspiracy. Sort of like global warming. Right?
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (4) Sep 25, 2017
In this case, @Seeker, @Lenni appears to have gotten the right answer, but for the wrong reason; it has nothing to do with frames of reference. There's nothing to prevent particles with different speeds being measured in the same frame.

I'm still waiting to see how neutrino oscillation shakes out with neutrino mass; the two main hypotheses at this time are extremely massive (GUT scale) right-handed neutrinos, and Majorana mass terms. Neither one will result in Standard Model left-handed neutrinos gaining real mass. So far all measurements comparing flight time for neutrinos are consistent with them propagating at the speed of light.

This is significant because the effects of gravitons oscillating into a state with true mass would be to slow the gravitons measurably below the speed of light, and this is inconsistent with pulsar observations.
Seeker2
1.5 / 5 (2) Sep 25, 2017
...how gravity is intertwined with EM radiation.
Gravity is a field. Radiation is an excitation of the medium. You don't have to have gravity to have radiation. Or so it would seem.
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 25, 2017
@Seeker, and with regard to fields and particles, a field is a property of spacetime. A particle is the probability amplitude of the field nearing +/-1 at a particular location in space at a particular time. Whether a particle represents a field that is massless or not determines whether that field propagates at the speed of light or not.
Seeker2
1.5 / 5 (2) Sep 25, 2017
There's nothing to prevent particles with different speeds being measured in the same frame.
Else how would you know if they were different?
Da Schneib
2 / 5 (4) Sep 25, 2017
@Seeker,
Gravity is a field. Radiation is an excitation of the medium.
"Field" can have a zero value; "excitation" implies a non-zero value of a field at a particular location at a particular time.

You don't have to have gravity to have radiation. Or so it would seem.
This is rather like saying, "you don't have to have stars to have kindness." It's a non-sequitur; gravity doesn't matter to the existence of radiation, and stars don't matter to the existence of kindness.
Seeker2
2.7 / 5 (3) Sep 25, 2017
Whether a particle represents a field that is massless or not determines whether that field propagates at the speed of light or not.
I don't think fields propagate. I think excitations propagate.
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 25, 2017
@Seeker, you are technically correct. Saying "fields propagate" is common shorthand for the propagation of excitations of the field; it is, however, imprecise, though common.
anadish
1 / 5 (1) Sep 25, 2017
@Seeker2
...regarding LIGO's genuineness of cosmic GW detection -- I know it is false. I am privy to a bit of unscientific fact, which LIGO heads know well.
So it's all a conspiracy. Sort of like global warming. Right?


Rather a plot to continue the GW detection project at this giant scale. You can compare it to a design like in the story The Emperor's New Clothes. Cannot call it a conspiracy, it was a genuine attempt for very long; but a long history of failures prompted this little plot to continue funding which is gigantic and has plans of space based searches. Otherwise LIGO's fate could have been the one faced by Tevatron. It is a huge face saving gesture which can last at least 3 decades.
Seeker2
1.5 / 5 (2) Sep 25, 2017
"Field" can have a zero value;
Certainly.
"excitation" implies a non-zero value of a field
So a photon carries a field with it? I dunno. I think the concept of a field requires more of a wide distribution of force.
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 25, 2017
Bad example, @anadish. The Tevatron generated about one paper in the scholarly literature per week, discovered the top quark, the tau neutrino, five B mesons, and particle jets, and made numerous other fundamental contributions to particle physics, as well as advancing detector technology significantly. https://www.i-cpa...tron.pdf

This type of sweeping generalization and dismissal of what you cannot understand is what makes you a #physicscrank.
Da Schneib
2 / 5 (4) Sep 25, 2017
So a photon carries a field with it?
No. A photon is an excitation of the field at a particular location at a particular time. "Carries a field with it" is meaningless. The field is everywhere; its excitation levels at various locations at various times determine the presence or absence (the probability amplitude) of particles at those locations at those times.
Seeker2
1.3 / 5 (3) Sep 25, 2017
A photon is an excitation of the field at a particular location at a particular time.
If you're talking about quantization then you're talking about excitation of the medium. Maybe I missed something but I don't think of fields as quantized.
"Carries a field with it" is meaningless.
Sure is.
The field is everywhere;
At least where it's non-zero. But the photon doesn't care. Thanks to the dark energy it just keeps on propagating with its excitation of the medium regardless of whether the field is zero or not.
.its excitation levels at various locations at various times determine the presence or absence (the probability amplitude) of particles at those locations at those times.
In other words it has momentum. But I'd say it also leaves behind a redistribution of virtual particles to form a magnetic field.
anadish
1 / 5 (1) Sep 25, 2017
@Da Schneib
Bad example, @anadish. The Tevatron generated about one paper in the scholarly literature per week, discovered the top quark, the tau neutrino, five B mesons, and particle jets, and made numerous other fundamental contributions to particle physics, as well as advancing detector technology significantly. .....

This type of sweeping generalization and dismissal of what you cannot understand is what makes you a #physicscrank.


You did not read the finer point and the inherent irony, even when Tevatron was immensely productive, it had to be shut, ostensibly its lack of luminosity compared to the more advanced facility elsewhere in Switzerland. LIGO in comparison produced papers which were just negation of any finding and regarding its detector enhancement and detector S&T. You love to label me #physicscrank, although unjustified, you are entitled to your view; however it is far better to be a #physicscrank than a #physicscam
Seeker2
1.5 / 5 (2) Sep 25, 2017
OBTW an interesting question: Does the speed of light depend on the dark energy?
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (4) Sep 25, 2017
Maybe I missed something but I don't think of fields as quantized.
It's called "quantum field theory."

The field is everywhere;
At least where it's non-zero.
No. Just because it has a zero value at a particular place doesn't mean it's not there.

But the photon doesn't care. Thanks to the dark energy it just keeps on propagating with its excitation of the medium regardless of whether the field is zero or not.
It has nothing to do with dark energy, and the photon isn't separate from the excitation; it *is* the excitation.

its excitation levels at various locations at various times determine the presence or absence (the probability amplitude) of particles at those locations at those times.
In other words it has momentum.
No. Momentum has nothing to do with it.

But I'd say it also leaves behind a redistribution of virtual particles to form a magnetic field.
I don't know what that means.
Da Schneib
2 / 5 (4) Sep 25, 2017
OBTW an interesting question: Does the speed of light depend on the dark energy?
That's not clear. It's being researched right now. It might turn out to be dependent upon the level of quantum fluctuations, and there is some good math to say so, but nobody's gotten to the point of an experimentally testable hypothesis yet.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Sep 25, 2017
The field is everywhere;
At least where it's non-zero.
No. Just because it has a zero value at a particular place doesn't mean it's not there.
If you say so.

But the photon doesn't care. Thanks to the dark energy it just keeps on propagating with its excitation of the medium regardless of whether the field is zero or not.
It has nothing to do with dark energy,...
I prefer your response to my next post about the speed of light.
its excitation levels at various locations at various times determine the presence or absence (the probability amplitude) of particles at those locations at those times.
In other words it has momentum.
No. Momentum has nothing to do with it.
So how many excitation levels can a photon have at any one location or time?

Benni
1 / 5 (2) Sep 25, 2017
Are you interested in Antoine Tilloy's paper (the link I posted here earlier)?


I did look at it, I've seen these questions come up before, "it predicts that gravity will behave differently at the scale of atoms from how it does on larger scale". My opinion is really more a question: Why should gravity behave any differently at one level than another? That's Black Hole Math.

Only disagreement here is regarding LIGO's genuineness of cosmic GW detection -- I know it is false.


I could never figure out what the LIGO guys were labeling a gravity WAVE. From anything I could figure out is that what they detected was a CHANGE OF INTENSITY of the existing gravity field that was already present. It seemed to me that a couple of detectors were inserted into an already existing gravity field & when two bodies of mass merged there was an upward spike in the intensity of the already existing field. So how can that provide evidence gravity exists as a WAVE?

Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Sep 25, 2017
...I'd say it [the photon] also leaves behind a redistribution of virtual particles to form a magnetic field.
I don't know what that means.
I was confusing the photon with a charged particle. I don't think a photon leaves behind a magnetic field in its track. But it could break an existing magnetic field line.
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Sep 25, 2017
Enough already,

one assumption, Charge Exists! Charge is conserved; therefore, is never created or destroyed. A charge's Field exist from it's center to infinity and The charge's Relative motion produces a wrinkle through its field at the speed, c relative to its center, i.e. lambda nu.

Disprove the above before even thinking about any other theory! All theories must have an at least 1 unambiguous Truth! Particles don't exist.
Reg Mundy
2.5 / 5 (2) Sep 25, 2017
@Da Schnickel
No. Momentum has nothing to do with it.

My Dear Chap, Momentum has something to do with everything.
Conservation of momentum is the basis for every movement in the cosmos. There is no way of moving an object (including everything from a photon upto a galaxy) without producing an equal and opposite effect somehwere else.
Da Schneib
2.7 / 5 (3) Sep 25, 2017
The field is everywhere;
At least where it's non-zero.
No. Just because it has a zero value at a particular place doesn't mean it's not there.
If you say so.
If the temperature is 0 degrees, do we say "there is currently no temperature?"
So how many excitation levels can a photon have at any one location or time?
I don't know what that has to do with it. We were discussing fields vs. particles; of course particles have momentum, but you threw this in there like it has something to do with the definition of field or particle. It doesn't; momentum is one characteristic of a particle. It's like claiming that spin determines everything. It doesn't.
Whydening Gyre
3 / 5 (2) Sep 25, 2017
So how many excitation levels can a photon have at any one location or time?

All of 'em?
Whydening Gyre
3 / 5 (2) Sep 25, 2017
Are you interested in Antoine Tilloy's paper (the link I posted here earlier)?


I did look at it, I've seen these questions come up before, "it predicts that gravity will behave differently at the scale of atoms from how it does on larger scale". My opinion is really more a question: Why should gravity behave any differently at one level than another? That's Black Hole Math.

Because of the AMOUNT of mass...?
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Sep 25, 2017
...claiming that spin determines everything. It doesn't.
It determines if the particle is a boson or a fermion.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Sep 25, 2017
Why should gravity behave any differently at one level than another? That's Black Hole Math.
Because of the AMOUNT of mass...?
Actually I don't think dark matter would come into play at the atomic level. At least not like it does at the macroscopic level.
Whydening Gyre
3 / 5 (2) Sep 25, 2017
Why should gravity behave any differently at one level than another? That's Black Hole Math.
Because of the AMOUNT of mass...?
Actually I don't think dark matter would come into play at the atomic level. At least not like it does at the macroscopic level.

Not counting DM. Just plain M in large quantities (vs atomic amounts). It's accretive...
As is gravitational effect...
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) Sep 25, 2017
...claiming that spin determines everything. It doesn't.
It determines if the particle is a boson or a fermion.
You're ignoring the point.
Benni
1 / 5 (2) Sep 25, 2017
Not counting DM. Just plain M in large quantities (vs atomic amounts). It's accretive...
As is gravitational effect...
.

......meaning that one atom of something has inherent total gravity that is half of exactly the same thing when two atoms are present. Why anyone would think differently mystifies me, I guess it's kinda like the BH, DM & DE conjectures,it's a bunch of old dudes sitting around a campfire circle needing something to talk about & this is the silly shinola they come up with.

anadish
1 / 5 (1) Sep 25, 2017
@Benni
Only disagreement here is regarding LIGO's genuineness of cosmic GW detection -- I know it is false.

could never figure out what the LIGO guys were labeling a gravity WAVE. From anything I could figure out is that what they detected was a CHANGE OF INTENSITY of the existing gravity field that was already present. It seemed to me that a couple of detectors were inserted into an already existing gravity field & when two bodies of mass merged there was an upward spike in the intensity of the already existing field. So how can that provide evidence gravity exists as a WAVE?


Quite right. I was amazed to read a comment by a lay person who pointed out the fact that tides themselves are such fluctuations for everyone to see -- they are ELF GW, if you go by LIGO projectionism. Further, as I pointed out earlier, LIGO findings are unfortunately doctored, a result of secret signal injection. I have personal knowledge of their guilt in this regard.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Sep 25, 2017
You do understand; Mass is a Cluster of Charges, typically binary cluster dynamics or the motion of the superimposed centers objectively, defines mass. So there is no unit "mass".
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Sep 25, 2017
Silly wabbits, there are only these fields, molded by an infinite set of diametrical fields, we get all crazy watching the field centers; or more specifically; the collective effects. We just happen to be this funny set, with complete feedback from the collective universe. Don't you get it, each field is unique to its center, each ripple is a wrinkle in the field. I like wrinkle cause it 's 3D and can have different sets of attributes, all defined by the fields relative to the centers; but, we rather see the world relative to us and what we do not know! LOL! It's all around you, we should give more respect for our shields, juz say'n Playing with cosmic rays, Dude!?
Whydening Gyre
2 / 5 (4) Sep 26, 2017
......meaning that one atom of something has inherent total gravity that is half of exactly the same thing when two atoms are present.

I think it prob'ly takes more than two to actually start seeing gravity scale up...:-) And it's also dependent on how tight a bond a group of atoms form. It's why gravity at the atomic level appears weak... just ain't a lot there...
Benni
1.3 / 5 (3) Sep 26, 2017
LIGO findings are unfortunately doctored, a result of secret signal injection. I have personal knowledge of their guilt in this regard.
..........well then put it up & clue us in. As far as I'm concerned, all the LIGO thing did was prove gravity moves at lightspeed, I mean like duhhhhh, who didn't already know that?

Don't let it be a conspiratorial secret like the guys who wrote this "massive graviton" article about the END RESULT they are going for which is a new Fundamental Law of Physics called CONSERVATION OF GRAVITY. They are looking for a gravity TRANSFORMATION process here & if they can lay the groundwork for discovering it, yep, NOBEL PRIZE for Physics & they go into the history books with their names alongside Einstein's.

Benni
1.3 / 5 (3) Sep 26, 2017
And it's also dependent on how tight a bond a group of atoms form.
..........yeah, yeah, yeah WhyGuy, like don't we already know about Schwarzschild Black Hole Math so thoroughly discredited by Einstein's 1939 paper: "On Stationary Systems with Spherical Symmetry consisting of many Gravitating Masses", http://www.cscamm...hild.pdf

anadish
1 / 5 (1) Sep 26, 2017
@Benni
LIGO findings are unfortunately doctored, a result of secret signal injection. I have personal knowledge of their guilt in this regard.
well then put it up & clue us in. As far as I'm concerned, all the LIGO thing did was prove gravity moves at lightspeed, I mean like duhhhhh, who didn't already know that?

Don't let it be a conspiratorial secret like the guys


In January 2016 a business intelligence expert came from Zurich to meet me in New Delhi; probed me thoroughly about whether I did manage to discover something in gravitation. After I shared some information, the person suddenly vanished and after a fortnight happened the LIGO PC with great fanfare. If the guys were so confident, there was no need to send a senior BI expert to probe me (a small time independent inventor with 1 GW US patent) in India. Thereafter, by the end of 2016, a long series of torturous events started concerning me which cannot be mentioned on a public platform.
Benni
1 / 5 (2) Sep 26, 2017
anadish........I take it you're from India? What is the "PC" thing you referred to?

What kind of educational degree do you have? I know these questions seem abrupt, but don't take them as being rude, I'm just trying to establish a level of rapport with you before Schneibo interlopes again with his name calling routine.

anadish
1 / 5 (1) Sep 26, 2017
@Benni
anadish........I take it you're from India? What is the "PC" thing you referred to?

What kind of educational degree do you have? .....



PC = Press Conference by LIGO in Feb 2016. I have no formal tertiary qualifications -- entirely self taught.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) Sep 26, 2017
As far as I'm concerned, all the LIGO thing did was prove gravity moves at lightspeed, I mean like duhhhhh, who didn't already know that?
Make that gravitational waves, please. Gravity moves instantaneously following the gravitating bodies, which don't usually move anything like light speed. Gravitational waves propagate in the same medium as light, and so propagate at light speed, as I think we all know.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Sep 26, 2017
...it's also dependent on how tight a bond a group of atoms form. It's why gravity at the atomic level appears weak... just ain't a lot there...
Yes but out in free space it doesn't take a lot. Plus nature figured out how to jump start the process with static electric charge.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Sep 26, 2017
...claiming that spin determines everything. It doesn't.
It determines if the particle is a boson or a fermion.
You're ignoring the point.
I think whatever it was went right over my head.
Seeker2
3 / 5 (3) Sep 26, 2017
...LIGO findings are unfortunately doctored, a result of secret signal injection. I have personal knowledge of their guilt in this regard.
I understand they now have observed 2 mergers, the latest being 14 and 8 solar masses. More fake news?
anadish
1 / 5 (1) Sep 26, 2017
@Seeker2
...LIGO findings are unfortunately doctored, a result of secret signal injection. I have personal knowledge of their guilt in this regard.
I understand they now have observed 2 mergers, the latest being 14 and 8 solar masses. More fake news?


They have to make it look convincing. For that they roped in Virgo in Italy too. Virgo was to start in November '17, but it started on 1 Sept to run for 25 days, during which they floated rumors of a neutron star merger detected by all the 3 detectors -- this time with an optical counterpart -- just before the physics Nobel is announced. No harm, LIGO collaboration has to run this project on somehow; a denial will close it all.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (4) Sep 26, 2017
@Seeker, I don't think you quite get how gravity works.

Einstein's GRT shows that the effect of gravity moves at the speed of light; this was proven by the precession of the major axis of Mercury's orbit, which cannot be explained under Newton's TUG, which assumes infinite velocity (your statement, "Gravity moves instantaneously following the gravitating bodies," but has a clear explanation under GRT due to the delay in gravity propagation to the speed of light limit.

I think whatever it was went right over my head.
The point was, gravity doesn't propagate at infinite velocity, but at the speed of light. And the orbit of Mercury proves it.
Whydening Gyre
3 / 5 (2) Sep 26, 2017
@Benni
LIGO findings are unfortunately doctored, a result of secret signal injection. I have personal knowledge of their guilt in this regard.

well then put it up & clue us in. As far as I'm concerned, all the LIGO thing did was prove gravity moves at lightspeed, I mean like duhhhhh, who didn't already know that?

Don't let it be a conspiratorial secret like the guys


In January 2016 a business intelligence expert came from Zurich to meet me in New Delhi; probed me thoroughly, ... by the end of 2016, a long series of torturous events started concerning me which cannot be mentioned on a public platform.

You mean probed as in "PROBED" or did you mean, questioned...?
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Sep 26, 2017
Einstein's GRT shows that the effect of gravity moves at the speed of light; this was proven by the precession of the major axis of Mercury's orbit,......The point was, gravity doesn't propagate at infinite velocity, but at the speed of light. And the orbit of Mercury proves it.
I thought the precession was predicted based on the relativistic effect of the motion of the planets, not the speed of gravity. It's true that the relativistic effects depend on the speed of gravity.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) Sep 26, 2017
I thought the precession was predicted based on the relativistic effect of the motion of the planets, not the speed of gravity.
Then you thought wrong. You can look it up.
anadish
3 / 5 (2) Sep 26, 2017
@Seeker2
Einstein's GRT shows that the effect of gravity moves at the speed of light; this was proven by the precession of the major axis of Mercury's orbit,......The point was, gravity doesn't propagate at infinite velocity, but at the speed of light. And the orbit of Mercury proves it.
I thought the precession was predicted based on the relativistic effect of the motion of the planets, not the speed of gravity.


Seeker2, you were right. It has nothing to do with the speed of gravity.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Sep 26, 2017
I thought the precession was predicted based on the relativistic effect of the motion of the planets, not the speed of gravity.
Then you thought wrong. You can look it up.
So there is no relativitistic effects on the planets due to their orbital velocities. Interesting. If you look it up you see that the relativistic motion of the planet relative to the sun is different depending on whether the planet is receding from the sun or approaching the sun. Of course for circular orbits the velocity relative to the sun would be constant. In which case the gravity force vector from the sun traveling at light speed would always be pointing to where the earth was 8 seconds before, and there would be a component tangent to the radial line from the sun pointing in the backwards direction slowing down the earth's velocity and shortly causing it to fall into the sun. A sad situation indeed.
anadish
1 / 5 (1) Sep 26, 2017
@Seeker2 from https://en.wikipe..._gravity

"The speed of gravity (more correctly, the speed of gravitational waves) can be calculated from observations of the orbital decay rate of binary pulsars PSR 1913+16 (the Hulse–Taylor binary system noted above) and PSR B1534+12. The orbits of these binary pulsars are decaying due to loss of energy in the form of gravitational radiation. The rate of this energy loss ("gravitational damping") can be measured, and since it depends on the speed of gravity, comparing the measured values to theory shows that the speed of gravity is equal to the speed of light to within 1%..." However it is only indicative, as there are various views on this subject. Mercury's orbit has no connection with the speed of gravity proof.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 26, 2017
I thought the precession was predicted based on the relativistic effect of the motion of the planets, not the speed of gravity.


Then you thought wrong. You can look it up.
......he'd haf to "look it up" because you are sure as hell clueless about how to explain it. You can't even explain to anyone where in General Relativity claims you've made that it was in GR that Einstein laid the foundation for Black Hole Science, why would you be expected to find anything else in that document.

anadish
3 / 5 (2) Sep 26, 2017
@Seeker2
.....of the planets, not the speed of gravity.
Then you thought wrong. You can look it up.
So there is no relativitistic effects on the planets due to their orbital velocities. Interesting. If you look it up you see that the relativistic motion of the planet relative to the sun is different depending on whether the planet is receding from the sun or approaching the sun. Of course for circular orbits the velocity relative to the sun would be constant. In which case the gravity force vector from the sun traveling at light speed would always be pointing to where the earth was 8 seconds before, and there would be a component tangent to the radial line from the sun pointing in the backwards direction slowing down the earth's velocity and shortly causing it to fall into the sun. A sad situation indeed.


Very good! https://en.wikipe...%80%93Ro
Whydening Gyre
3 / 5 (2) Sep 26, 2017
I could never figure out what the LIGO guys were labeling a gravity WAVE. From anything I could figure out is that what they detected was a CHANGE OF INTENSITY of the existing gravity field that was already present. It seemed to me that a couple of detectors were inserted into an already existing gravity field & when two bodies of mass merged there was an upward spike in the intensity of the already existing field. So how can that provide evidence gravity exists as a WAVE?

I think it might have been due to the differences in time that the different detector components sensed the intensity increase. IT ACTED like a wave. It calculated out to C...
Whydening Gyre
3 / 5 (2) Sep 26, 2017
[So there is no relativitistic .. In which case the gravity force vector from the sun traveling at light speed would always be pointing to where the earth was 8 seconds before, and there would be a component tangent to the radial line from the sun pointing in the backwards direction slowing down the earth's velocity and shortly causing it to fall into the sun.

There is ANOTHER (equal) force vector from the Sun, already there, 8 seconds in FRONT of the Earth.
It's a continual field, not a point...
Benni
1 / 5 (2) Sep 26, 2017
As far as I'm concerned, all the LIGO thing did was prove gravity moves at lightspeed, I mean like duhhhhh, who didn't already know that?


I think it might have been due to the differences in time that the different detector components sensed the intensity increase. IT ACTED like a wave. It calculated out to C...


Nice WhyGuy. You must have read my earlier post that Copied & Pasted just above this one of yours. There was no WAVE, what they detected was a lightspeed change in the upward spike of intensity of the existing gravity field as the changing field moved from one detector to the other.
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Sep 26, 2017
As far as I'm concerned, all the LIGO thing did was prove gravity moves at lightspeed, I mean like duhhhhh, who didn't already know that?


I think it might have been due to the differences in time that the different detector components sensed the intensity increase. IT ACTED like a wave. It calculated out to C...


Nice WhyGuy. You must have read my earlier post that Copied & Pasted just above this one of yours. There was no WAVE, what they detected was a lightspeed change in the upward spike of intensity of the existing gravity field as the changing field moved from one detector to the other.

It proved nothing! The concept was flawed. First, how do you calibrate? The charges' Fields are everywhere, some shields here, some there, with an impossible Theory. The Speed of Light = Lambda_Emitted/Measured_Period, as always Lambda_Observed/Measured_Period = c! So, Really?
Whydening Gyre
3 / 5 (2) Sep 26, 2017
Nice WhyGuy. You must have read my earlier post that Copied & Pasted just above this one of yours. There was no WAVE, what they detected was a lightspeed change in the upward spike of intensity of the existing gravity field as the changing field moved from one detector to the other.

And.... what would be the SOURCE of that "spike"...? If it was the "existing gravity field" (that they are both in), why wouldn't they have experienced the spike simultaneously?
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Sep 26, 2017
As I've stated, the wrinkles within a charge's Field are only due to the charges relative motion, i.e. relativity, not GR or SM! or Newton, yet Newton just did the math, made a measurements and called the thing he was measuring the mass. He conjectured something inside the mass was responsible for the fields, i.e. bi-polar components, aha! Do the summation yourself. Since every single field is unique, superposition exist everywhere! QED "The Answer to the Universe and Everything"
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Sep 26, 2017
There is ANOTHER (equal) force vector from the Sun, already there, 8 seconds in FRONT of the Earth.
Smart sun. Knows where the earth will be 8 seconds in the future. Maybe it's due to the rotation of the sun. But wait. Different parts of the sun rotate at different speeds. Maybe it just calculates the average rate of rotation.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Sep 26, 2017
...what they detected was...
I thought they detected an actual displacement of the sensor suspended in the earth's gravitational field.
Whydening Gyre
3 / 5 (2) Sep 26, 2017
There is ANOTHER (equal) force vector from the Sun, already there, 8 seconds in FRONT of the Earth.
Smart sun. Knows where the earth will be 8 seconds in the future.

You're "anthropomorphise"ing...
Maybe it's due to the rotation of the sun. But wait. Different parts of the sun rotate at different speeds. Maybe it just calculates the average rate of rotation.

The Sun doesn't calculate. It just does. And what is does is present a gradient gravity field to the entire space surrounding it (At Inverse square). Primarily, the Earth is what is reacting - to the larger (total) gravitational field. At the speed of light. PLUS it's own momentum.
Let me coin a term - symmetrically gradient oppositional reaction...
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Sep 26, 2017
There is ANOTHER (equal) force vector from the Sun, already there, 8 seconds in FRONT of the Earth.

The Sun doesn't calculate. It just does.
Does what? How does it know where the earth will be in 8 seconds? What if there was a collision with another planet? Would the sun see it coming and make the right correction factor? More black magic physics?
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 26, 2017
I thought the precession was predicted based on the relativistic effect of the motion of the planets, not the speed of gravity.
Then you thought wrong. You can look it up.
So there is no relativitistic effects on the planets due to their orbital velocities.
I didn't say that.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 26, 2017
Oh and BTW, @Seeker, the major part of precession isn't relativistic; it can be calculated using TUG. But you can't calculate all we observe unless you use GRT.

And that is what I said.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Sep 26, 2017
Oh and BTW, @Seeker, the major part of precession isn't relativistic; it can be calculated using TUG. But you can't calculate all we observe unless you use GRT.

And that is what I said.
Well said. Now try RND - https://en.m.wiki...ynamics. Doesn't use curvature of spacetime. TG.
Benni
1 / 5 (2) Sep 26, 2017
And.... what would be the SOURCE of that "spike"...?
,,,,,,,a couple of merging stellar masses a billion light years away. When they merged there was a sudden upward spike of gravity caused by the additive presence of the two masses merging into a single mass.

When gravity fields change rapidly, a change in background gravity fields that were once stable suddenly develop a ripple that affects gravity detectors, this causes them to activate recording the time they activated. Sensors that are spaced a meaningful distance apart will record the event at different times as well as the intensity of change in what previously was a stable background field of gravity.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) Sep 26, 2017
The problem I have with RND is that potentials suddenly become the origin of modified forces.

A weight sitting on a shelf in a gravity field suddenly becomes a source of gravity. Justify this.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 26, 2017
Meanwhile, remember that every portion of the Earth must therefore contribute its gravity due to its distance from the center of the Earth due to its potential. I'm sure you can see what the integrations are going to look like. Suddenly we go from nice simple easy obvious

F(g) = Gmm'/r²

to some incredibly complicated formula with integrals left and right. Doesn't look much like a Law of Nature anymore, hmmmm?
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Sep 26, 2017
The problem I have with RND is that potentials suddenly become the origin of modified forces.

A weight sitting on a shelf in a gravity field suddenly becomes a source of gravity. Justify this.
Thanks but I'd rather go with something I can understand such as the expansion of spacetime.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 26, 2017
How is GRT incompatible with expansion of spacetime?

Meanwhile, you're the one who brought up RND. Now you don't like it? What's up with that?
Whydening Gyre
3 / 5 (2) Sep 26, 2017
The Sun doesn't calculate. It just does.
Does what? How does it know where the earth will be in 8 seconds?

it doesn't - and it doesn't care.
What if there was a collision with another planet?

It's a tuff Universe out there...
Would the sun see it coming and make the right correction factor?

"Anthropo-morphising" - again.
More black magic physics?

What is magic about the physics of 2 body gravitational interaction?
9IE - changing reference frames...)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Sep 26, 2017
Oh and BTW, @Seeker, the major part of precession isn't relativistic; it can be calculated using TUG. But you can't calculate all we observe unless you use GRT.

And that is what I said.
Well said. Now try RND - https://en.m.wiki...ynamics. Doesn't use curvature of spacetime. TG.

Your link is useless...
Whydening Gyre
3 / 5 (2) Sep 26, 2017
And.... what would be the SOURCE of that "spike"...?
,,,,,,,a couple of merging stellar masses a billion light years away. When they merged there was a sudden upward spike of gravity caused by the additive presence of the two masses merging into a single mass.

When gravity fields change rapidly, a change in background gravity fields that were once stable suddenly develop a ripple that affects gravity detectors,

A ripple... hmmm. Aren't they essentially like a - "wave"...?
this causes them to activate recording the time they activated. Sensors that are spaced a meaningful distance apart will record the event at different times as well as the intensity of change in what previously was a stable background field of gravity.

Waitaminit... I thought you were previously arguing AGAINST gravity fluctuations as a wave...?

Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Sep 26, 2017
Your link is useless...
Sure is. Maybe
https://en.wikipe...dynamics
Whydening Gyre
3 / 5 (2) Sep 26, 2017
Your link is useless...
Sure is. Maybe
https://en.wikipe...dynamics

it was the .m after en that screwed it up (for my system, at least)
I shall now peruse...
Benni
1 / 5 (2) Sep 26, 2017
this causes them to activate recording the time they activated. Sensors that are spaced a meaningful distance apart will record the event at different times as well as the intensity of change in what previously was a stable background field of gravity.


Waitaminit... I thought you were previously arguing AGAINST gravity fluctuations as a wave?
......Oh really? Show me........I think you are confusing me with Schneibo, try not to be so insulting.

Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Sep 26, 2017
What is magic about the physics of 2 body gravitational interaction?

There is ANOTHER (equal) force vector from the Sun, already there, 8 seconds in FRONT of the Earth.

Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Sep 26, 2017
There is ANOTHER (equal) force vector from the Sun, already there, 8 seconds in FRONT of the Earth.
Actually you're right, except there is a force vector all around the sun and they are all the same for a perfectly circular orbit. That is the force vector is there all around the sun pre-existing in space just waiting for the earth to come around and meet it. Same applies for every point in spacetime. It doesn't make a whing dingie difference how long it took the force vectors to get there as long as they get there before the orbiting object comes along. At least in the non-relativistic case. For relativistic corrections you can then use Relativistic Newtonian dynamics. As far as I know right now anyway.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) Sep 26, 2017
Hey, I thought you were all against RND because you didn't want to try to explain how a weight sitting on a shelf makes gravity. Make up your mind, @Seeker.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Sep 27, 2017
Hey, I thought you were all against RND because you didn't want to try to explain how a weight sitting on a shelf makes gravity. Make up your mind, @Seeker.
Ok. There is more spacetime expansion above the weight than below it. Expansion is blocked by the earth or whatever quantized matter is down there. Quantized matter doesn't expand along with the rest of spacetime. So the weight gets the squeeze. Hope that helps.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Sep 27, 2017
OBTW spacetime expands because the atomic (not nuclear) energy stored in atoms at the BB is released by black holes when they get pulled into the black holes. Yeah I know - there's also the supernovae. But I'll bet you didn't know that. Now you do so that makes you special. Actually both of us.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 27, 2017
Sounds pretty, ummmm, unusual. If you know what I mean.

You do realize this is all well explained by the stress-energy tensor in the EFE, right?
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) Sep 27, 2017
So that lurkerz can follow along here, it's worth mentioning that RND is a type of MOND. Its proponents claim it explains all the results that have confirmed GRT over the last ninety some-odd years. Keep in mind that if this is so, it may indicate that RND actually is an alternative mathematical formulation of GRT. This would not be unprecedented; early on in quantum mechanics, there were two formulations which turned out to be mathematically equivalent. And there's also the AdS/CFT correspondence, which is making some headway in several areas of physics, notably condensed matter physics.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) Sep 27, 2017
To add to all this, first, it's pretty unlikely that someone has found an equivalent formulation of GRT that doesn't involve tensors, second, the paper that proposes RND is available on arXiv but has not been published in peer reviewed literature, and third, if it predicts satisfaction of all the tests of GRT, then it's unlikely to predict anything different cosmologically. So there is some wait and see here, but it's very unlikely that this will overthrow GRT given the evidence we have now.
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Sep 27, 2017
I'm beginning to sort of understand the Quantum view; however, the local space is definitive. i.e, define density, curl, divergence, with these, just field centers at any state, at any volume, defined!

But stay in the lines.
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Sep 27, 2017
I'm only expressing an understood axiom, Charge. By bringing attention, I call it "Modern Physics: a Correction"

or whatever... simple
anadish
1 / 5 (1) Sep 27, 2017
@Whydening Gyre
@Benni
LIGO findings are unfortunately doctored, a result of secret signal injection. I have personal knowledge of their guilt in this regard.

well then put it up & clue us in. As far as I'm concerned, all the LIGO thing did was prove gravity moves at lightspeed, I mean like duhhhhh, who didn't already know that?

Don't let it be a conspiratorial secret like the guys


In January 2016 a business intelligence expert came from Zurich to meet me in New Delhi; probed me thoroughly, ... by the end of 2016, a long series of torturous events started concerning me which cannot be mentioned on a public platform.

You mean probed as in "PROBED" or did you mean, questioned...?


Yeah, questioned.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (2) Sep 27, 2017
@SqueakerToo
Hey, I thought you were all against RND because you didn't want to try to explain how a weight sitting on a shelf makes gravity. Make up your mind, @Seeker.
Ok. There is more spacetime expansion above the weight than below it. Expansion is blocked by the earth or whatever quantized matter is down there. Quantized matter doesn't expand along with the rest of spacetime. So the weight gets the squeeze. Hope that helps.

Here, Squeak, this is getting awfully close to my TOE wherein time is driven by the universal expansion of matter, gravity being a side effect and not a force. Black holes occur when so much matter is concentrated in one place that expansion is compromised, and the Black Hole effectively falls out of our universe which has carried on expanding. Essentially, to us, the BH shrinks, but in doing so the conservation of angular momentum causes it to spin ever faster and eventually shed matter which we see as CMB. You been reading my books?
Benni
1 / 5 (3) Sep 27, 2017
it predicts satisfaction of all the tests of GRT, then it's unlikely to predict anything different cosmologically


So why Schneibo, do you continue to assert that General Relativity laid the basis for Black Hole Science & Math even though Einstein trashed your dumb idea with this:

"On Stationary Systems with Spherical Symmetry consisting of many Gravitating Masses",

http://www.cscamm...hild.pdf

The fact of the matter is Schneibo, you don't actually comprehend much of ANYTHING about what Einstein wrote in GR, you simply imagine back in the tiny dark recesses of your mind that your IQ jumps 50 points when you make an illusory reference to the Einstein Field Equations, You can't even tell us what section of GR to look in for computation of gravitational lensing much less black holes.
Benni
1 / 5 (3) Sep 27, 2017
You mean probed as in "PROBED" or did you mean, questioned...?


Yeah, questioned.


Of course, why wouldn't it be questioned? It should be questioned so that probing the results will continue.

The ONLY thing LIGO proved is that gravity moved at lightspeed between two sensors, period. It did not PROVE gravity exists in the FORM OF WAVES or GRAVITONS, period. If it did either one of these two things, then HOW did it prove it? Yeah, I know, duhhhhhhhhh? Right WhyGuy? Maybe Schneibo has a test tube full of gravitons stashed away someplace & will generously offer to post pics of them somewhere for our enlightenment, after all he claims to have seen pics of BHs, so why not gravitons as well? Or maybe a spectroscopy of a gravity wave in the process of transformation?
nikola_milovic_378
Sep 27, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
anadish
1 / 5 (1) Sep 27, 2017
@Benni
You mean probed as in "PROBED" or did you mean, questioned...?


Yeah, questioned.


Questioned not as to cast doubt but to verify that there was something new "...under the hat of the intangible.". Also there was a dire warning regarding my safety from very powerful quarters.

Benni
1 / 5 (3) Sep 27, 2017
@Benni
You mean probed as in "PROBED" or did you mean, questioned...?


Yeah, questioned.


Questioned not as to cast doubt but to verify that there was something new "...under the hat of the intangible.". Also there was a dire warning regarding my safety from very powerful quarters.


Yeah, well, I've gotten those physical threats from a Stumpy clown who made threats about showing up at my doorstep right here on this website, a clown who has since been banned from posting for a couple of months now. He & Schneibo were always trading 5 Star votes between each other while coming up with such litanies of foul mouthed filth & profanity that I banned my kids from coming to this site........Hey, right Schneibo? Where is your compadre these days?

Whydening Gyre
3 / 5 (2) Sep 27, 2017
@Benni'
You mean probed as in "PROBED" or did you mean, questioned...?


Yeah, questioned.


Questioned not as to cast doubt but to verify that there was something new "...under the hat of the intangible.". Also there was a dire warning regarding my safety from very powerful quarters.

Aren't you putting yourself at risk by bringing it up here...?
Whydening Gyre
3 / 5 (2) Sep 27, 2017
The ONLY thing LIGO proved is that gravity moved at lightspeed between two sensors, period. It did not PROVE gravity exists in the FORM OF WAVES or GRAVITONS, period. If it did either one of these two things, then HOW did it prove it?

Correct. It did not "prove" either of those things. But, it does seem to indicate that gravity travels in a wave/pulse like manner.
If it looks like a duck...
Of course, further research will likely find out if it quacks like one...
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 27, 2017
Aren't you putting yourself at risk by bringing it up here...?
Congratulations, mommy.
anadish
1 / 5 (2) Sep 27, 2017
@Whydening Gyre
@Benni'
You mean probed as in "PROBED" or did you mean, questioned...?


Yeah, questioned.


Questioned not as to cast doubt but to verify that there was something new "...under the hat of the intangible.". Also there was a dire warning regarding my safety from very powerful quarters.

Aren't you putting yourself at risk by bringing it up here...?


Not much choice. I sat over it thinking LIGO are too powerful. But the way they made me suffer continuously thereafter, now makes no difference. It is better that I put it on record here.
Whydening Gyre
3 / 5 (4) Sep 28, 2017
Aren't you putting yourself at risk by bringing it up here...?
Congratulations, mommy.

Was a sarcastic impulse question, not a mommy one...:-)
But, I think you prob'ly guessed that...
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (4) Sep 28, 2017
Better go watch MIB again, @Whyde. You usually don't miss these cultural references, must be off your feed. ;)
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Sep 28, 2017
I'm only expressing an understood axiom, Charge. By bringing attention, I call it "Modern Physics: a Correction"

or whatever... simple

Whydening Gyre
3 / 5 (2) Sep 28, 2017
Better go watch MIB again, @Whyde. You usually don't miss these cultural references, must be off your feed. ;)

Been a while since I've seen that one...:-)
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 28, 2017
"Congratulations, Reg, it's a... squid."

:D
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (1) Sep 29, 2017
@Da Schnob
"Congratulations, Reg, it's a... squid."

:D

Sorry, Schnibby, that's gone completely over my head.
Unless you are confusing me with Widening Gob, and you are referring to the MIB alien birth in a car sequence? In which case, can I suggest you lay off the keyboard whilst you are on the juice (or whatever it is that's addling your brain...)?
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Sep 30, 2017
@DS But the photon doesn't care. Thanks to the dark energy it just keeps on propagating with its excitation of the medium regardless of whether the field is zero or not.
It has nothing to do with dark energy, and the photon isn't separate from the excitation; it *is* the excitation.
Talking about propagation, not excitation.
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Sep 30, 2017
@Benni
There was no WAVE, what they detected was a lightspeed change in the upward spike of intensity of the existing gravity field as the changing field moved from one detector to the other.
The existing gravity field is perpendicular to the displacement detected, meaning it occurred independently of the existing gravity field. The existing gravity field was not affected at least in theory. In practice movements of heavy objects around the detector would be detected as noise.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Sep 30, 2017
I understand they now have observed 2 mergers, the latest being 14 and 8 solar masses. More fake news?
I saw somewhere it was up to 4.
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Sep 30, 2017
Anyway when you see similar signals popping up out of the noise at 2 different locations at about the same time it should be a pretty sure thing especially when the time difference between the signals indicates they are separated by something traveling at the speed of light.
anadish
1 / 5 (1) Sep 30, 2017
@Seeker2
Anyway when you see similar signals popping up out of the noise at 2 different locations at about the same time it should be a pretty sure thing especially when the time difference between the signals indicates they are separated by something traveling at the speed of light.


The signals are popping from secret (blind) signal injection by the LIGO-Virgo bosses themselves. Read here about the LIGO-Virgo chaps from their own website: http://www.ligo.o...tion.php
anadish
1 / 5 (1) Sep 30, 2017
@Seeker2 FROM LIGO-VIRGO WEBPAGE: Blind injections:
The LIGO Scientific Collaboration and the Virgo Collaboration conducted their latest joint observation run (using the LIGO Hanford, LIGO Livingston, Virgo and GEO 600 detectors) from July, 2009 through October 2010, and are jointly searching through the resulting data for gravitational wave signals standing above the detector noise levels. To make sure they get it right, they train and test their search procedures with many simulated signals that are injected into the detectors, or directly into the data streams. The data analysts agreed in advance to a "blind" test: a few carefully-selected members of the collaborations would secretly inject some (zero, one, or maybe more) signals into the data without telling anyone. The secret goes into a "Blind Injection Envelope", to be opened when the searches are complete. Such a "mock data challenge" has the potential to stress-test the full procedure and uncover problems.
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Sep 30, 2017
... Such a "mock data challenge" has the potential to stress-test the full procedure and uncover problems.

So they calibrated out the infinite set of fields provided by the universe! Looking for something that is not electromagnetic with electromagnetic instrumentation calibrated to any set will produce a set of what? Dimensional waves? i.e. the value of your measurement with respect to nonsense?
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Sep 30, 2017
Such a "mock data challenge" has the potential to stress-test the full procedure and uncover problems.
I understand that's just what happened per your link. Hopefully it won't happen again.
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Oct 01, 2017
... Such a "mock data challenge" has the potential to stress-test the full procedure and uncover problems.

So they calibrated out the infinite set of fields provided by the universe! Looking for something that is not electromagnetic with electromagnetic instrumentation calibrated to any set will produce a set of what? Dimensional waves? i.e. the value of your measurement with respect to nonsense?

I meant that as a challenge, not an insult. Niggas also play the dozens, and better at it.
anadish
not rated yet Oct 01, 2017
@Seeker2
Such a "mock data challenge" has the potential to stress-test the full procedure and uncover problems.
I understand that's just what happened per your link. Hopefully it won't happen again.


Sadly, that is what is happening over and over again. The secret lies in what goes into the "secret envelope". There is no third party or third party instrument to verify anything. Like in Kung Fu Panda 3, LIGO takes the "chi" of every gravitational interferometer setup -- as, all over the world it becomes one consortium with a lot of money to send a beam of laser a few kilometers around in a sophisticated manner, the possibility of a third party is annihilated in order to finish all opposition -- quite like what Kai did in the computer animated movie!
anadish
not rated yet Oct 01, 2017
@Hyperfuzzy
... Such a "mock data challenge" has the potential to stress-test the full procedure and uncover problems.

So they calibrated out the infinite set of fields provided by the universe! Looking for something that is not electromagnetic with electromagnetic instrumentation calibrated to any set will produce a set of what? Dimensional waves? i.e. the value of your measurement with respect to nonsense?


You train your telescope at a star and whether the sky was a real one or the walls of a planetarium is not known to you is a farce in itself. It is only revealed to you once the secret envelope is opened. That is what is happening in LIGO collaboration. Some kind of Russian roulette played in the field of science?
Seeker2
not rated yet Oct 01, 2017
You train your telescope at a star and whether the sky was a real one or the walls of a planetarium is not known to you is a farce in itself.
For this to work you would have to have all telescopes viewing the star actually viewing the same planetarium. Tricky.
It is only revealed to you once the secret envelope is opened. That is what is happening in LIGO collaboration. Some kind of Russian roulette played in the field of science?
So we have all the collaborators opening the same secret envelope? Again, tricky.
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Oct 01, 2017
You train your telescope at a star and whether the sky was a real one or the walls of a planetarium is not known to you is a farce in itself.
For this to work you would have to have all telescopes viewing the star actually viewing the same planetarium. Tricky.
It is only revealed to you once the secret envelope is opened. That is what is happening in LIGO collaboration. Some kind of Russian roulette played in the field of science?
So we have all the collaborators opening the same secret envelope? Again, tricky.

So, riddle me this, these waves are unique as to electromagnetics; so, my question, how do you calibrate it?
Seeker2
not rated yet Oct 01, 2017
...these waves are unique as to electromagnetics; so, my question, how do you calibrate it?
Lasers, I should think.
anadish
not rated yet Oct 02, 2017
...these waves are unique as to electromagnetics; so, my question, how do you calibrate it?
Lasers, I should think.

@Hyperfuzzy @Seeker2 Man made GW can easily be produced near the interferometer mirrors and the detector would pick it up with a good signal to noise ratio. It is easy to produce man-made GW, just pump photons into a target and the pumping waveform is nearly the GW waveform. There is a whole area of man made GW -- read GravWave site or about Robert M L Baker Jr. With man-made GW of any frequency you can calibrate and fool proof your detector (irrespective of the what the speed of GW is, if GW is faster than light, then the signal will be feeble, but a very close high power GW generator will produce enough power for calibration purposes). The fact that "blind injection" was used instead of GW generators, clearly shows the magic trick LIGO was preparing for. Like good magicians, they laid all their moves on table, so as to build up confidence.
anadish
not rated yet Oct 02, 2017
@Hyperfuzzy @Seeker2 If you want to read more on man made GW generation read this comment thread: https://phys.org/...vae.html
anadish
not rated yet Oct 02, 2017
@Seeker2
You train your telescope at a star and whether the sky was a real one or the walls of a planetarium is not known to you is a farce in itself.
For this to work you would have to have all telescopes viewing the star actually viewing the same planetarium. Tricky.
It is only revealed to you once the secret envelope is opened. That is what is happening at "LIGO Scientific Collaboration". Some kind of Russian roulette played in the field of science?


They do open the same envelope -- that is the trick. That is why there is this LIGO-Virgo collaboration, to be extended with INDIGO and KAGRA, all under LIGO hat! INDIGO is going to be nothing else bu a disused LIGO lying at Hanford. Read this link carefully: http://www.ligo.o...tion.php
Seeker2
not rated yet Oct 02, 2017
...@Seeker2 If you want to read more on man made GW generation read this comment thread: https://phys.org/...vae.html
Problem here is you don't understand the difference between gravity and radiation. Gravity is generated with its source as part of the source and moves right along with its source. It doesn't propagate. It's there waiting on you when you get there.
anadish
not rated yet Oct 02, 2017
@Seeker2
...@Seeker2 If you want to read more on man made GW generation read this comment thread: https://phys.org/...vae.html
Problem here is you don't understand the difference between gravity and radiation. Gravity is generated with its source as part of the source and moves right along with its source. It doesn't propagate. It's there waiting on you when you get there.

Where is the disagreement? I never said that EM radiation and gravity are the same. EM radiation produces invariant mass change by conversion of energy into mass. This can be utilized to produced gravitational fluctuation in a man made setting also, although it is happening everywhere in the universe even without human activity.
Seeker2
not rated yet Oct 02, 2017
...EM radiation produces invariant mass change by conversion of energy into mass.
You mean like in baryogenesis? That would take a log of energy.
This can be utilized to produced gravitational fluctuation in a man made setting
So you can generate a deflection in the detectors with an e/m signal and make it look like gravitational radiation without having to produce any mass whatsoever.
...it is happening everywhere in the universe even without human activity.
Everywhere would include everywhere around the detectors from every direction so It seems like whatever goes on there would cancel out.
anadish
not rated yet Oct 02, 2017
@Seeker2
...EM radiation produces invariant mass change by conversion of energy into mass.
You mean like in baryogenesis? That would take a log of energy.
Thietting
So you can generate a deflection in the detectors with an e/m signal and make it look like gravitational radiation without having to produce any mass whatsoever.
...i
Everywhere would include everywhere around the detectors from every direction so It seems like whatever goes on there would cancel out.


My US patent teaches how. Once you, say, pass a beam of light through a piece of glass, it absorbs some photons and immediately releases them (quantum absorption), as this process of absorption and release continues, as long as the photon beam is shining through the glass, there is extra energy is the glass which is reflected in a slight increase in the invariant mass of the glass piece. Switch the photon beam on/off and you have mass fluctuations which can be detected at a distance as GW.
anadish
not rated yet Oct 02, 2017
...EM radiation produces invariant mass change by conversion of energy into mass.
You mean like in baryogenesis? That would take a log of energy.
This can be utilized to produced gravitational fluctuation in a man made setting
So you can generate a deflection in the detectors with an e/m signal and make it look like gravitational radiation without having to produce any mass whatsoever.
...it is happening everywhere in the universe even without human activity.
Everywhere would include everywhere around the detectors from every direction so It seems like whatever goes on there would cancel out.

In essence you are right. There was an interesting exchange here too: http://edition.cn...dex.html The chap who replied was from LIGO.
Seeker2
not rated yet Oct 02, 2017
...Switch the photon beam on/off and you have mass fluctuations which can be detected at a distance
So I suppose this mass fluctuation is in the glass but I don't think that fluctuation is what is creating a gravitational wave. At a distance the beam will be shut off stopping the radiation pressure on the detector and causing it to deflect. It doesn't seem very likely you could ever detect the mass fluctuation in the glass.
Seeker2
not rated yet Oct 02, 2017
...There was an interesting exchange here too: http://edition.cn...dex.html
Interesting but I think he's saying moving black holes cause gravitational radiation. I don't think so unless they are accelerating.
The chap who replied was from LIGO.
Which chap?
anadish
not rated yet Oct 02, 2017
...There was an interesting exchange here too: http://edition.cn...dex.html
Interesting but I think he's saying moving black holes cause gravitational radiation. I don't think so unless they are accelerating.
The chap who replied was from LIGO.
Which chap?

rleonar5 16 hours ago
anadish
not rated yet Oct 02, 2017
@Seeker2
...Switch the photon beam on/off and you have mass fluctuations which can be detected at a distance
So I suppose this mass fluctuation is in the glass but I don't think that fluctuation is what is creating a gravitational wave. At a distance the beam will be shut off stopping the radiation pressure on the detector and causing it to deflect. It doesn't seem very likely you could ever detect the mass fluctuation in the glass.

What I tried to explain was an example in an isolated laboratory setup. Not applicable to the LIGO detectors' scam. LIGO scam is purely blind injection by LIGO seniors, masquerading as cosmic-origin BH merger detection.
Seeker2
3 / 5 (1) Oct 02, 2017
@anadish So I get it now. Science is not a democracy. Democracy is the worst form of government possible except for all the rest. LIGO is a threat since it tries to implement democracy.
anadish
not rated yet Oct 02, 2017
@Seeker2
@anadish So I get it now. Science is not a democracy. Democracy is the worst form of government possible except for all the rest. LIGO is a threat since it tries to implement democracy.


Scientific reality is not decided by human majoritarianism or a lone view's supremacy. Like majority view of heliocentric universe of the medieval times and flat earth view held by B.o.B. of current times. It is beyond these two and reflects a testable reality which has to pass many tests repeatedly.
Seeker2
not rated yet Oct 02, 2017
Sounds like scientific reality is a matter of faith. Well ok.
Seeker2
not rated yet Oct 02, 2017
For example Lawrence Krauss says science works by pushing the frontiers, not by majoritarianism as I understand it.
anadish
not rated yet Oct 02, 2017
@Seeker2
Sounds like scientific reality is a matter of faith. Well ok.


Scientific reality is anthropocentric no doubt. Matter of faith, hmmm.... What I am sure of, science is moderated by faith; if the findings are very much in opposition to your faith, they become unsavory. "God does not platy dice....," he said, because he, Einstein, believed in god and opposed Neils Bohr.? People have doubts, but still the man dragged in god.
anadish
not rated yet Oct 02, 2017
@Seeker2
For example Lawrence Krauss says science works by pushing the frontiers, not by majoritarianism as I understand it.


Agree fully, extremely well said!
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Oct 02, 2017
...these waves are unique as to electromagnetics; so, my question, how do you calibrate it?
Lasers, I should think.

@Hyperfuzzy @Seeker2 Man made GW can easily be produced near the interferometer mirrors and the detector would pick it up. ...

No there will be the imaginary spatial distortion, i.e. Time and space. This cannot be detected because it does not exists. You will only see charge, or more likely the "Theory defined by Maxwell". There is nothing else. Anything that does not exist may be imagined, and since you elect to change time and space, I conjecture this is complete nonsense! The speed of light is not a constant with all observers, else no redshift. QED.
tallenglish
not rated yet Oct 20, 2017
all you need is matter and light (those with positive spins) and their DM alternates (opposite spin, charge and directions of movement in time). When the neutrons stars orbit they will both shed light/mass and DM/DE - the mass pushes down and the DM pushes up, mass/light expands time, DM/DE contracts it (hense the wave as the two stars reach equilibrium). Most if not all of the red shift we see is due to our sum being a proton rich star emitting light not that the universe is expanding away from us in all directions which would imply we are at the center of the big bang - thats no better than the first scientists who thought this planet was the center of the solar system.
tallenglish
not rated yet Oct 20, 2017
If you put away the bias in thinking nothing can travel backwards in time (relative to us - i.e. travelling -c to our +c). Dark Matter would not be such a mystery, nore does travelling at -c violate general relativity as the energy is the same stuff (just its direction, spin and charges are all reversed). Thats the missing anti-matter we can't find, no need for gravitons, WIMPS or any other made up particle, only quarks, leptons and the guage bosons, the localised balance between those and their anti-matter/dark-matter components is what causes gravity (relative change to ground - mass pushing down, DM up), as these neutron stars shed mass on merger they will oscilate between having more DM then more mass - giving off the gravity waves as it does it.

I just don't see why we are trying to overcomoplicate it, when we know the simplest answer is usually the correct one. and gravity waves are showing us something is always underneath time.
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Oct 20, 2017
...

I just don't see why we are trying to overcomoplicate it, when we know the simplest answer is usually the correct one. and gravity waves are showing us something is always underneath time.

The correct physics works backwards and forwards; however, those who believe Einstein, please go back in time and correct him!

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.