Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

[Roshi]

Stop calling them "gravitational waves". These are "space-time waves" because gravity is defined as "a bend in space-time". Black holes do not even exist if gravity is not a bend in space time...

Then think about the implications: space-time is a medium, but it's not recognized as such. Does this medium have: elasticity? If I move (with the entire planet) through this medium doesn't that mean I leave a trail behind me where the medium oscillates? Because the planed bends space time, and behind it - the space time goes back to flat mode, 0 gravity. Why are there no oscillations there?

It certainly can oscillate, are these oscillation ever dampened by anything? If not, isn't this breaking the conservation of energy law? These oscillations will move and affect the entire Universe, and will go on forever from their point of origin without ever slowing down or being absorbed. A kind of "infinite energy".

[Michael Mozina]

Stop calling them "gravitational waves". These are "space-time waves" because gravity is defined as "a bend in space-time". Black holes do not even exist if gravity is not a bend in space time...

Then think about the implications: space-time is a medium, but it's not recognized as such. Does this medium have: elasticity? Does it have a "rigidity"? Does it have a density? What is it, except a math formula?

It certainly can oscillate, are these oscillation ever dampened by anything? If not, isn't this breaking the conservation of energy law? These oscillations will move and affect the entire Universe, and will go on forever from their point of origin without ever slowing down or being absorbed. A kind of "infinite energy".

https://www.christianforums.com/threads ... 18/page-17

It's actually even worse than you think. You should take a gander at my conversations at CF last night. Both sjastro and selfsim are apparently incapable of explaining why their immaculate conception events not only didn't emit any EM radiation without resorting to special pleading fallacies 8 times in a row, they haven't got a clue how to deal with the missing inspiral signal that was observed for around 100 seconds in the BNS event, but is utterly non existent in any of their immaculate conception claims (BBH events).

They have to resort to pure special pleading fallacies to explain both their lack of EM radiation *and* their lack of inspiral build up of the wave (whatever you wish to call it). Apparently they have no explanation to offer us at all.

LIGO's BH-BH merger claims are utterly falsified by their own data set, specifically the lack of any type of pre-merger build up. They show no sign of any sort of inspiral build up process at all, unlike the BNS event which produced around 100 seconds of build up prior to the actual merger (chirp peak).

That last event and their last paper pretty much *destroyed* their first four claims, and it destroyed the whole basis for the Nobel prize claims. Wow. It's no wonder why we're still living in the dark ages of astronomy. They're in pure denial of the scientific implications of their own data sets!

[Bengt Nyman]

Space-time is a nonsens concept and has nothing to do with gravity.
Gravitational wave is a misleading name because it has nothing to do with gravity. 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.

[spheenik]

"where's the inspiral build up before the merger"?

I find this question very interesting, and want to add to that:

Why was the build-up only 100 seconds? The amplitude did rise only very marginally during the first 99 seconds of the event. Wouldn't they be able to see the buildup for days if not weeks, months, or years before the final chirp?

[Michael Mozina]

"where's the inspiral build up before the merger"?

I find this question very interesting, and want to add to that:

Why was the build-up only 100 seconds? The amplitude did rise only very marginally during the first 99 seconds of the event. Wouldn't they be able to see the buildup for days if not weeks, months, or years before the final chirp?

You would think so, yes. It could be however that the inspiral signal doesn't get strong enough to be observed until the objects get close enough together to emit a strong enough wave to be observed over great distances. The waves could dissipate over distance too. Either way however, there should at least be *some* build up before the main wave peak, and we did see such a build up in the last few minutes of the visible event. We didn't see anything of the sort in the miraculous conception events however. Why is that?

LIGO has a mess on their hands now with respect that those missing inspiral build up problems from their BBH claims. The last BNS merger observation shows 100 seconds of such a wave build up, but the first four BBH claims literally show nothing at all prior to the 1/4 second chirp.

[spheenik]

It could be however that the inspiral signal doesn't get strong enough to be observed until the objects get close enough together to emit a strong enough wave to be observed over great distances.

So they say, but when the signal was not detectable before the 100 seconds and after that perfectly detectable, then there must have been quite a change in amplitude at that time. And from the "smoothness" of the amplitude change just until the end, this can be ruled out, and you can infer that abrupt change in amplitude should not have been there.

I agree with you that them being able to triangulate the position in the sky is very impressive. But I can't wrap my head around that amplitude thing. Very fishy...

[Michael Mozina]

It could be however that the inspiral signal doesn't get strong enough to be observed until the objects get close enough together to emit a strong enough wave to be observed over great distances.

So they say, but when the signal was not detectable before the 100 seconds and after that perfectly detectable, then there must have been quite a change in amplitude at that time. And from the "smoothness" of the amplitude change just until the end, this can be ruled out, and you can infer that abrupt change in amplitude should not have been there.

I agree with you that them being able to triangulate the position in the sky is very impressive. But I can't wrap my head around that amplitude thing. Very fishy...

Very!

[Solar]

Space-time is a nonsens concept and has nothing to do with gravity.
Gravitational wave is a misleading name because it has nothing to do with gravity. 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.

Some thoughts:

A media issue that keeps coming back to torment physicists is the question of the ether. – The Consequences of Assuming that the Speed of Light is not Constant

What are the expressions of this principle today? It would be conceptual terms such as “Vacuum energy Density”, “Cosmological constant”, “Dark energy”, “Dark Matter”, "ZPE" and the like. Each of these is an intepretive reference to electrodynamic and/or non-electrodynamic aspects of The Aether. The fascination with what is termed the “speed of light” applies limited scope restricting all phenomena to fall within the electrodynamic spectrum. The general concept being portrayed would be nearer to 'gravitationally induced waves in the electrodynamic “vacuum energy density”.

That is what the "gravitational wave" would be “waving” in, or causing to wave, and/or oscillate. The vague “Space time” concept is simply a malleable concept serving as a substitute that can be applied on demand without specifics when needed to any and every potential aspect dealing with the 'energetically substantive’ nature of that which is called “Space”.

… the vacuum energy density is a universal number which we call the cosmological constant. – Sean Carrol: The Cosmological Constant

[jacmac]

Bengt Nyman:

What is the medium in space and what is its density ? That is what we should ask ourselves.

Could the "medium" in space be the Background Radiation itself ?
Without implying any particular origin of the background radiation, could
a new radiation event somehow travel on, or excite, the remains of all previous radiation events ?
The density might vary in different areas of the cosmos depending on what was going on there earlier,
and what is going on there now.
Has this been proposed before ?
If yes, is there a name for this idea ?

[Bengt Nyman]

Could the "medium" in space be the Background Radiation itself ?
Without implying any particular origin of the background radiation, could
a new radiation event somehow travel on, or excite, the remains of all previous radiation events ?
The density might vary in different areas of the cosmos depending on what was going on there earlier,
and what is going on there now.
Has this been proposed before ?
If yes, is there a name for this idea ?

Excellent! I have asked myself that very question many times. Space is obviously full of EM radiation traveling in all directions, like you mention above.

Red-shift could very well be the result of a small degree of interference between white light traveling for millions of years while crossing other light going in other directions.

There is also a contribution to space content coming from black holes crushing large energy constellations into smaller ones and gamma, providing the fuel for stars to fuse smaller nuclei into larges ones.
Without this recirculation, where would intermediates like hydrogen and other fusion fuels come from.

Finally, gravity is better explained by modern particle physics and subsequent Coulomb attraction than by SR, GR or space-time.

[Webbman]

Bengt Nyman:

What is the medium in space and what is its density ? That is what we should ask ourselves.

Could the "medium" in space be the Background Radiation itself ?
Without implying any particular origin of the background radiation, could
a new radiation event somehow travel on, or excite, the remains of all previous radiation events ?
The density might vary in different areas of the cosmos depending on what was going on there earlier,
and what is going on there now.
Has this been proposed before ?
If yes, is there a name for this idea ?

if the base material was the electromagnetic strand, this would be exactly the case.

[Solar]

What is the difference between an ever-present Cosmic "background radiation" and the previously mentioned standardized version called "vacuum energy density", "ZPE" etc?

[querious]

The first observed BHM is still the closest (1.3 BILLION! LY) and most massive (62 solar masses) so far....

http://www.illustratedcuriosity.com/phy ... hird-time/

...but it was still pretty far away. There's an estimated 100 million BH's in our galaxy, (not to mention neutron stars) so it'll be interesting to see what happens if a merger takes place in it, since it'll come from less than 90,000 LY away.

[querious]

Either way however, there should at least be *some* build up before the main wave peak, and we did see such a build up in the last few minutes of the visible event. We didn't see anything of the sort in the miraculous conception events however. Why is that?

This video explains the differing lengths of buildup....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrz_MdAJ4c8

I love how he says "For 20 years I've been waiting for that sound to come from nature."

[Zyxzevn]

This video explains the differing lengths of buildup....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrz_MdAJ4c8

Thanks for link.

It kind of confirms what I was thinking.