Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

Plasma and electricity in space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

Unread postby Bengt Nyman » Sat Oct 28, 2017 2:16 pm

Webbman wrote: ... they clearly state the function of this machine is to detect stretched spacetime. You must reject.

Agreed.
Wikipedia: "In physics, spacetime is any mathematical model that fuses the three dimensions of space and the one dimension of time into a single four dimensional continuum."

We all know that it's a nonsensical concept. So far it's all SM got until they agree to clean up Relativity.
Bengt Nyman
 
Posts: 567
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:39 pm
Location: USA and Sweden

Re: Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

Unread postby Webbman » Sat Oct 28, 2017 2:45 pm

Bengt I don't disagree that you couldn't detect things with that machine. I just don't think you can detect black hole collisions, neutron star collisions or other arcane (occult) improbabilities.

no way to verify, no way to calibrate, no useful purpose, already up to three installations. Sounds like neutrinos part 2.
We shall know them by their works
Webbman
 
Posts: 522
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2014 10:49 am

Re: Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

Unread postby Solar » Sat Oct 28, 2017 3:31 pm

Bengt Nyman wrote:The resonance I mention is in the gravity measuring system itself due to its own natural frequencies, if any.

Your question about what transmits gravity through space Is a good one. If recent data is correct gravity transmits with a speed very close to the speed of light. Were it instant, we would have missed the gravitational shift itself by 120 million years.


The reactions are interesting. Individuals recognize these relativistic terms and concepts as an attempt at a substitute for The Aether. People actually do recognize this. In conjunction with this is also a rejection of the supposed causes of gravitational waves in the relativistic faux Aether. As known, "Space", the inter-between objects is no longer considered empty, or void. That the name "space time" has been ascribed to same by this current crop; in no way dispenses with the historical context of its conceptual progenitor. Clearly Aether proponents are having an interesting time with the results of these antenna.

A Continuum has a very long history of being posited as the natural way of things. It seems that positing a geometrized "space time fabric" may have been an attempt to avoid the inability of early developments in Electrodynamic Theory to "model" The Aether. Now it "waves" as if the original could not - because it was thought to be "stationary", "entrained", "fixed", or "static". At best this is what Michelson-Morely experiment demonstrated i.e. they did not detect a "stationary" Aether. This was an incorrect assumption but no one considered the opposite; that The Aether moves. It conveys Motion, it imparts Motion, and is That through which the "transmission" of "Force" via inter-atomic and subatomic frequencies occurs.

It is believed to be a 'continuum'… - What is a space time continuum?


Relativity simply attempts to co-opt known concepts that precede its terms and ideas by several ages. Aether proponents are not confused by this - they never have been; and never will be.

What is called "Gravity" is "transmitted across space" via the propagation of its frequencies, its particular wavelengths, through the Medium "due to its own natural frequencies" as you perceive. That is more correct imho. Gravity is an integral aspect of The Aether "medium" in motion and as with the propagation of frequencies through air and/or water one does not say that the molecules of air and/or water moved in the direction of the propagating sound. Instead, while those respective molecules move in their own particular way, the frequencies of sound though those particular mediums impart (or impress) their sound frequencies upon the molecules themselves. The sound frequency resonantly "couples to" the existing variety of wavelengths already collectively composing the molecular array of the air or water.

Similarly: I don't agree with the light speed rate that they've offered. All this speaks to is the electrodynamic realm of interactions. The nearest analogy would be that "gravitonic waves" propagating through the energy density of charged matter ("background radiation" of charged quanta) and thereby constrained to 'light speed" (or less) are not a reference to the larger scope of gravitational waves.

G-Waves constrained to light speed are those g-waves that are resonantly 'captured' by matter. This is similar to the idea of the slow moving oscillatory progression of electrons along a wire which capture the advancing wave energy of the electric field which is said to be traveling much faster than the electrons themselves. The gravitational waves constrained to light speed are those waves that would have been captured and internally confined to the inertial configuration of a host electrodynamic "charges".

This suggest that the energetic 'structure' of electrodynamic quanta is deformable (they are not billiard balls but globular constructs) and that the propagation of the wave occurs via a type of longitudinal "polarization" of the electrodynamic quanta composing the "energy density" of "background EM radiation". If true the g-waves are slow to propagate through a background medium of matter in the form of charged species and there should be Supraluminal versions of these.

Recall that "there is no vacuum", there is no "emptiness", there is no "void". People are simply arguing over nomenclature; indeed merely a war of words ("Men substitute words for reality and then argue about the words." - Armstrong).
"Our laws of force tend to be applied in the Newtonian sense in that for every action there is an equal reaction, and yet, in the real world, where many-body gravitational effects or electrodynamic actions prevail, we do not have every action paired with an equal reaction." — Harold Aspden
User avatar
Solar
 
Posts: 1346
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:05 am

Re: Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

Unread postby Higgsy » Sat Oct 28, 2017 5:21 pm

Michael Mozina wrote:This is a perfect example of the obligatory personal attack BS that you folks have become famous for. It's the kind of crap that you constantly resort to in order to elevate your cognitive dissonance.
Your post is preposterous. More than half of your rant is completely irrelevant to the question of whether the time to coalescence of compact binaries is longer for systems of less mass. The other less than half of your rant has no sensible content and makes no reasonable points.

The fact is that your refusal to accept the rather basic fact that falls directly out of a theory you claim to "support", that compact binary coalescence time is an inverse square function of system mass makes you look like the sort of whining schoolboy who refuses to accept the basic classical result that orbital period of planets goes as 3/2 power of distance from the sun.

How can you possibly claim to "support" GR when you refuse to understand its most basic results, such as the rate of gravitational energy radiated by compact binaries?
It's also exactly why most people around here tend to reject GR theory entirely along with the rest of the metaphysical crap that you load it up with.
No one outside this forum really cares whether people round here accept or reject GR, as their acceptance or rejection is not based on an understanding of the subject and is therefore worthless.
Blah, blah, blah, blah. You didn't even address a single point that I made about the potential complexity of the merger process, you cheated by attacking me personally, and then you spewed more 'mathier than thou' oversimplified nonsense at me without even considering a thing I said.
I told you exactly how the complexities are dealt with using the Einstein quadrupole formula and the post-Newtonian formalism, approaches which you had never even heard of before I schooled you on their existence, and approaches which you steadfastly refuse to learn about (even if you had the capability of doing so). I even gave you links to start learning about the subject.

But as I said, the result you are looking for falls out of the Einstein quadrupole formula in the Newtonian limit (developed by AE between 1916 and 1918), where the amplitude of the gravitational radiation is given by the second time derivative of the source mass quadrupole moment. From that you can calculate the luminosity of the gravitational radiation, and therefore the rate of loss of energy and thus the change in frequency over time of the binary inspiral. The time to coalescence of a binary from any given separation turns out to be inversely proportional to the square of the sum of the masses (times the reduced mass). So two equal masses of total 20 solar masses coalesce ~51 times faster than a system of two equal masses total 2.8 solar masses. This is pretty basic stuff. All of the other things you mention are perturbations on this basic result and are taken care of to a high level of precision by the post-Newtonian formalism.


How *exactly* are they taken into account? Be specific. Start with the charge issue and eccentric orbits.

I have already told you that the complexities are dealt with in the PN formalism. I'm afraid you'll have to learn the maths and then learn the methods. But I'll give you another starting link - see for example Tessmer and Schaeffer, Eccentric Motion of Spinning Compact Binaries, arxiv 1406.0358, which generalises the PN formalism through Hamilton-Jacobi theory and cites many papers on the subject. Are you seriously expecting me to reproduce in words in a forum post the mathematical theory of gravitational radiation?

I wonder whether you realise how absurd your refusal to accept this basic result appears to anyone with the slightest real knowledge of GR. You have been pontificating about the detection of gravitational waves for years but you have never bothered to learn how GR actually predicts the loss of energy by gravitational radiation from compact binaries which is the foundational theory of the entire field. You don't have to learn it, but rejecting its basic results just makes you look silly. You would be more self-consistent if you rejected GR altogether for whatever reason you choose.
"Every single ion is going to start cooling off instantly as far as I know…If you're mixing kinetic energy in there somehow, you'll need to explain exactly how you're defining 'temperature'" - Mozina
Higgsy
 
Posts: 217
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 3:32 pm

Re: Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

Unread postby Higgsy » Sat Oct 28, 2017 6:06 pm

Bengt Nyman wrote:GRAVITATIONAL WAVES FOR DUMMIES.

Gravity exists between objects with mass...

Imagine a perfectly spherical earth alone and stationary in the universe without gravitational pull from external bodies, without internal strains caused by earth's continental plates and density variations, without centripetal deformation due to rotation around its own axis or orbit around the sun.
Now add our sun and earth's orbit around the sun. Earth is now no longer perfectly spherical because of the gravitational pull and centripetal deformation caused by earths's orbit around the sun. Now add the moon. Etc, etc.

With the rest of universe back in place we now have an earth with as many bumps or deformations as there are gravitational and relativistic effects on earth in its environment.
A gravitational wave detector measures transient gravitational events by detecting a resonance caused by sudden changes in the shape of a body. A sudden change in the shape of earth, or LIGO – the Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory, occurs when the gravitational pull between earth and another body in space changes rapidly. ...

Unfortunately we have come to call this a gravitational wave. Instead of thinking of it as a fictitious wave of fictitious space-time, think of it as cutting off a tension-spring joining two objects. The sudden change of gravitational strain between the bodies travels with the speed of gravity and causes a minor change of shape of the associated bodies, plus the associated resonance in earth and its gravitational detectors like the LIGO.


The resonance I mention is in the gravity measuring system itself due to its own natural frequencies, if any.

OK, you have a hypothesis that gravitational wave detectors detect the change in "shape" of the Earth or the GW apparatus (you're not too clear about which), as a consequence of the sudden change in mass of some celestial body. You also have a hypothesis that the frequency(ies) measured are not a property of the source but a property of resonances inherent in the Earth or in the apparatus. Now what would a physicist do to determine whether these hypotheses are reasonable and at all likely to be correct?

Well, a physicist would look at the mechanisms and apply some numbers. So let's look at the first claim - that the Earth or the apparatus is distorted by a sudden change in mass of a celestial body. Let's take the recent LIGO discovery as an example. The first thing to be clear about is that a gravitational influence which distorts part of a free falling body like the Earth must be a tidal force, ie that part of the gravitational force which is different on one part of the body from another by virtue of it being closer to the source of gravitation. If you google tidal forces you will discover that the tidal acceleration on the Earth from an external body expressed as g's (acceleration due to gravity at the Earth's surface is 2M/m x (r/R)3 where m is the mass of the Earth, M is the mass of the body, r is the radius of the Earth and R is the distance of the body from the Earth. The mass of the Earth is ~6 x 1024 kilos, the radius of the Earth is 6371km, the distance of the source of NS merger discovery is 130 million light years and its total mass was 2.7 solar masses. Perhaps I can leave you to calculate the tidal acceleration from such a source and see whether you think it is large enough to create an appreciable change in the shape of the Earth even if the entire mass was to be instantly lost. Of course tidal force on the interferometer itself will be much much less than on the Earth as a whole because it is a much smaller structure than the Earth. If you run into trouble with the arithmetic, let me know and I'll help.

Turning now to the hypothesis that the frequency measured is a resonance of the Earth, the free oscillation resonances of the Earth all have periods of several 10s of minutes, so it can't be that. The apparatus of course has resonances, but they are known, and they are individual frequencies (tones). The actual signal contains a continuous frequency sweep from low to high, so it can't be that.

Hmm...
"Every single ion is going to start cooling off instantly as far as I know…If you're mixing kinetic energy in there somehow, you'll need to explain exactly how you're defining 'temperature'" - Mozina
Higgsy
 
Posts: 217
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 3:32 pm

Re: Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

Unread postby Bengt Nyman » Sat Oct 28, 2017 7:25 pm

Solar wrote: ... Gravity is an integral aspect of The Aether "medium" in motion and as with the propagation of frequencies through air and/or water one does not say that the molecules of air and/or water moved in the direction of the propagating sound. Instead, while those respective molecules move in their own particular way, the frequencies of sound though those particular mediums impart (or impress) their sound frequencies upon the molecules themselves. The sound frequency resonantly "couples to" the existing variety of wavelengths already collectively composing the molecular array of the air or water.

G-Waves constrained to light speed are those g-waves that are resonantly 'captured' by matter. This is similar to the idea of the slow moving oscillatory progression of electrons along a wire which capture the advancing wave energy of the electric field which is said to be traveling much faster than the electrons themselves.


When a distant event involves mass rapidly converting to energy, the radiating EM energy obviously announces the event. Why do we expect a gravitational wave. What is it in the mass to energy conversion process that is energetic or noisy, over and beyond producing EM radiation in all kinds of frequencies. E=mc^2. Not E+GW=mc^2. Imagine a body suspended by a million strings, and suddenly the tension in one of the strings is reduced. I would expect the body itself to feel the change and adjust its shape in a brief shutter or resonance. However, I do not expect the rest of the space between the objects in question to care much. Replacing these strings with gravitational strings poses the question; how does gravity communicate through space ? Recent claims suggest that V=c. But what's the string made of ? You tell me. Or maybe you have already answered above.
Bengt Nyman
 
Posts: 567
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:39 pm
Location: USA and Sweden

Re: Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

Unread postby Bengt Nyman » Sat Oct 28, 2017 7:38 pm

Higgsy wrote:OK, you have a hypothesis that gravitational wave detectors detect the change in "shape" of the Earth or the GW apparatus (you're not too clear about which) ...
Hmm...

As a physicist you surely know by now the principles of the different detectors. Now that we are both clear about that the rest is just numbers, as any physicist knows.
Bengt Nyman
 
Posts: 567
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:39 pm
Location: USA and Sweden

Re: Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

Unread postby seasmith » Sat Oct 28, 2017 8:27 pm

Higgsy wrote:
The actual signal contains a continuous frequency sweep from low to high, so it can't be that.
Hmm..


Whistlers eh ?
StefanR has a very long thread on that genre somewhere around the forum.
In this case, they can probably be modeled as very, very long Alfvén waves, with harmonics to the apparatus.
Gravity is a more local phenomenon.
seasmith
 
Posts: 2815
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

Unread postby Solar » Sat Oct 28, 2017 9:01 pm

Bengt Nyman wrote: But what's the string made of ? You tell me. Or maybe you have already answered above.


Hi Bengt

Have you not already answer this question in principle?

Bengt Nyman wrote:Shock waves traveling through space suggests that space has some kind of density. What is the medium in space and what is its density ? That is what we should ask ourselves.


Bengt Nyman wrote:The real question is: What makes up the so called aether ? One candidate is a mist of energy,...


Bengt Nyman wrote:Shock waves through the aether is probably closer to reality. 
It seams nobody is satisfied with a non-mystical explanation of what's really going on, and not going on, in space.


Bengt Nyman wrote:Shock waves in air or water are no mystery. Shock waves in space transmitted through whatever elementary constituents that occupy space, do not surprise or bother me and violates nothing that we already know about physics.


Yes, you've answered the question. Mine was merely an attempt to (briefly) expand upon on those things you've already noted i.e. that "space has some kind of density". Not "strings"; but "some kind of energy density". This is also an aspect of That which is termed The Aether. It is currently referred to as "vacuum energy density", "cosmological constant", "zero point energy" speculations amongst other terms. This is a part of that which constitutes "Space" as energetically substantive existing in the inter-between, capable of inter-conversion, and carrying out those functions your previous post characterized as "pull", "strain", "resonance" etc.
"Our laws of force tend to be applied in the Newtonian sense in that for every action there is an equal reaction, and yet, in the real world, where many-body gravitational effects or electrodynamic actions prevail, we do not have every action paired with an equal reaction." — Harold Aspden
User avatar
Solar
 
Posts: 1346
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:05 am

Re: Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

Unread postby Higgsy » Sun Oct 29, 2017 3:10 am

Bengt Nyman wrote:When a distant event involves mass rapidly converting to energy, the radiating EM energy obviously announces the event. Why do we expect a gravitational wave. What is it in the mass to energy conversion process that is energetic or noisy, over and beyond producing EM radiation in all kinds of frequencies. E=mc^2. Not E+GW=mc^2..

In E=mc2, E represents all kinds of energy, including but not limited to electromagnetic radiation, kinetic energy, heat, sound, binding energy, gravitational radiation and not just electromagnetic radiation. We expect gravitational waves as a consequence of solving the Einstein field equations in the presence of a time varying quadrupole source, which results in a harmonic expression for the metric tensor.
"Every single ion is going to start cooling off instantly as far as I know…If you're mixing kinetic energy in there somehow, you'll need to explain exactly how you're defining 'temperature'" - Mozina
Higgsy
 
Posts: 217
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 3:32 pm

Re: Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

Unread postby Bengt Nyman » Sun Oct 29, 2017 5:13 am

Solar wrote:Hi Bengt
Have you not already answered this question in principle?
Yes, you've answered the question.

Thank You.
If so, how do we reconcile the speed ? On average, speed of sound in air is about 343 m/s. Speed of sound increases with material stiffness. Diamond is the stiffest material we know and transmits sound at 12 000 m/s. The speed of light is 299 792 458 m/s. Even when transmitting sound through a diamond we are still missing a speed factor of 24 982. We know that shock waves can travel faster than the speed of sound, however, a sound or a shock wave in space with the speed of light appears to defy known possibilities.

As I see it space is a workshop full of fragments of energy and matter where Coulomb gravity and subsequent fusion reactions assemble these fragments into larger constellations like electrons, protons, hydrogen, water, people etc. At the same time the gravitation of black holes attract and crush incoherent and dying constellations back into energy fragments again.

This brings us to the dark side, Wikipedia; Dark matter: "The standard model of cosmology indicates that the total mass–energy of the universe contains 4.9% ordinary matter, 26.8% dark matter and 68.3% dark energy.[5][6][7][8] Thus, dark matter constitutes 84.5%[note 1] of total mass, while dark energy plus dark matter constitute 95.1% of total mass–energy content. [9][10][11][12]"

Because of its high prevalence compared to ordinary mass–energy, dark energy appears to be a candidate for the invisible link capable of transmitting Coulomb dipole attraction and subsequent gravity trough space.

Again, Wikipedia; Dark matter: "Although dark matter has not been directly observed, its existence and properties are inferred from its gravitational effects such as the motions of baryonic matter,[4] gravitational lensing, its influence on the universe's large-scale structure, on the formation of galaxies, and its effects on the cosmic microwave background."

Still, how come that the speed of light appears to be the same as the speed of gravity. We presently regard visible light and other EM radiation as capable of working its way through "empty" space without a carrier, while we are searching for a carrier of gravity. Is it possible that the coincidence in speed between light and gravity is an indication that they both transmit the same way, through the same dark medium, at the same speed.
Bengt Nyman
 
Posts: 567
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:39 pm
Location: USA and Sweden

Re: Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

Unread postby Bengt Nyman » Sun Oct 29, 2017 5:36 am

Higgsy wrote:We expect gravitational waves as a consequence of solving the Einstein field equations in the presence of a time varying quadrupole source, which results in a harmonic expression for the metric tensor.

Wonderful. I agree that Relativity has much to offer. However, I also think that a couple of fallacies, blind mathematical extrapolation beyond reality and failure to include discoveries made after its inception is eroding its value and credibility. I also have reasons to believe that there are contemporary voices within the community of the Standard Model which are kept internal and never heard outside the walls of the community.
The Standard Model including parts of Relativity is a wonderful old fruitcake, many ingredients of which could and should be used in the recipe for a Standard Model 01.
Bengt Nyman
 
Posts: 567
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:39 pm
Location: USA and Sweden

Re: Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

Unread postby Higgsy » Sun Oct 29, 2017 5:40 am

seasmith wrote:
Higgsy wrote:
The actual signal contains a continuous frequency sweep from low to high, so it can't be that.
Hmm..


Whistlers eh ?
StefanR has a very long thread on that genre somewhere around the forum.
In this case, they can probably be modeled as very, very long Alfvén waves, with harmonics to the apparatus.
Gravity is a more local phenomenon.

Whistlers eh? Let's see:
1. Whistler waves fall in frequency over time while GW waves rise in frequency - on its own that settles the matter but there's also:
2. GW waves 10Hz - 10kHz; whistlers 1kHz to 5kHz
3. No mechanism for coupling whistlers into the interferometer null fringe
4. No signal on the environmental EM detectors specifically designed to detect EM waves in the bandwidth of the instrument.

So not whistler waves.
"Every single ion is going to start cooling off instantly as far as I know…If you're mixing kinetic energy in there somehow, you'll need to explain exactly how you're defining 'temperature'" - Mozina
Higgsy
 
Posts: 217
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 3:32 pm

Re: Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

Unread postby Higgsy » Sun Oct 29, 2017 6:12 am

Bengt Nyman wrote:
Higgsy wrote:OK, you have a hypothesis that gravitational wave detectors detect the change in "shape" of the Earth or the GW apparatus (you're not too clear about which) ...
Hmm...

As a physicist you surely know by now the principles of the different detectors. Now that we are both clear about that the rest is just numbers, as any physicist knows.

The rest is just numbers?! In physics, it's the numbers that matter. Why do EU/PC supporters run away from quantifying any of your ideas. Why are you running away from doing the sums to see if your hypothesis that the effect is a gravitational tidal effect is actually possible?
"Every single ion is going to start cooling off instantly as far as I know…If you're mixing kinetic energy in there somehow, you'll need to explain exactly how you're defining 'temperature'" - Mozina
Higgsy
 
Posts: 217
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 3:32 pm

Re: Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

Unread postby Higgsy » Sun Oct 29, 2017 6:14 am

Bengt Nyman wrote:
Higgsy wrote:We expect gravitational waves as a consequence of solving the Einstein field equations in the presence of a time varying quadrupole source, which results in a harmonic expression for the metric tensor.

Wonderful. I agree that Relativity has much to offer. However, I also think that a couple of fallacies, blind mathematical extrapolation beyond reality and failure to include discoveries made after its inception is eroding its value and credibility.

Could you be more specific?
I also have reasons to believe that there are contemporary voices within the community of the Standard Model which are kept internal and never heard outside the walls of the community.
The Standard Model including parts of Relativity is a wonderful old fruitcake, many ingredients of which could and should be used in the recipe for a Standard Model 01.
Nice conspiracy theory there.
"Every single ion is going to start cooling off instantly as far as I know…If you're mixing kinetic energy in there somehow, you'll need to explain exactly how you're defining 'temperature'" - Mozina
Higgsy
 
Posts: 217
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 3:32 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests