Gravity Waves

[comingfrom]

I think, there is too much money at stake, for them to honestly question their notions.

And there is too much money at stake to not come up with some further results, and some extraordinary promises, right about now.

~Paul

[comingfrom]

Just what Michael Mozina ordered; "A New Type of Astronomy"
(not really, I'm just joking)

But seriously,
the claims and promises being made are huge.
I feel like we should note them down and see how they pan out.

They lead with "Gravity Waves: A New Type of Astronomy"
and end with "the new branch of astronomy promises to be exciting and fruitful".
I think they are self fulfilling this prediction already
by speaking as if they already set this branch up.
They are the new branch.

"But in the near-distant future, the detection of gravitational waves will not make headlines anymore. Sightings will be more common as LIGO is upgraded to become even more sensitive. The range of signals it can "hear" in the universe will be expanded – from the big loud crashes from supermassive black holes colliding to tiny whispers from supernovae bursts."

""By the end of the decade we'll probably be able to detect at least one gravitational wave event per month," Ken Strain, professor of physics at University of Glasgow involved in upgrading LIGO, told The Register."

"The detector will only get more sensitive, Strain says. "The laser power is only working to a third of its capability." In three years time, the power will be cranked up to 200W, allowing LIGO to detect gravitational waves from greater distances."

(Wow, 200W. That's like 2 incandescent household light bulbs, isn't it?)

"LIGO ushers in a new kind of astronomy...

Gravitational wave astronomy allows scientists to observe the universe in a new way. More exotic objects that were hidden in the dark depths of the universe will now be brought to light, providing new answers to questions that were impossible before. How do stars collapse into black holes? What is happening inside a black hole? What makes supernovae explode?"

How about, how do you get out of Black Holes?
and back to doing science at home.
They'll be able to hear the whispers of SuperNovae, but really...

""We are interested in the real monsters – the supermassive black holes that are millions or even billions of solar masses at the centre of galaxies.""

All that money...because they're interested in monsters.

"Shankar hopes that eLISA will uncover the secrets to how black holes and galaxies evolve. Studying this might even allow scientists to get a better idea of how dark matter behaves. It is thought that all galaxies evolve at the center of dark matter holes.

"If we can trace back the origins and distances of supermassive black holes, we might get more information on how the universe is expanding. It will be a new way to understand dark matter and dark energy," says Shankar."

Listening to Black Holes might help us understand Dark Matter.
Might.

They're preparing to build a detector in space,
and India and Japan are building their own, so...

"Having five detectors in place also means that the location of the source behind the gravitational waves can be pinpointed more accurately."

They even feel the need to reassure us...

"Scientists have signed a memorandum to ensure that all data is shared and achievements will be credited to all scientists. Collaboration is essential in science..."

Ahh, that makes me feel a whole lot better.
They're going to give us the data, when they manage to pull out a signal.

Excuse me if my sarcasm shows,
but the way they speak is almost offensive to me.
I can't help but feel like we are watching a daylight robbery in progress.
A BIG con.

They always drop Einstein's name.

"The discovery coincided with the 100-year anniversary of Einstein's theory of General Relativity, which predicted the existence of gravitational waves."

But I don't believe that is even true.
Maybe someone run with Einstein's theory and predicted gravity waves,
but Einstein himself didn't predict them.
I think I read that he didn't subscribe to gravity waves or to gravitons.

Maybe someone can clear me up about that.
Who did actually predict gravity waves?

One final thing.
"the passing gravitational waves only moved the mirrors by 0.7 of a thousandth of a femtometre (10^-15m) – smaller than a proton"

Just so we know what we are talking about here
~Paul

[Zyxzevn]

Bending of light, due to gravity.

This is one of the most fundamental ideas of General relativity, and all of its evidence that I have seen
has certain flaws. The major problem is that all this evidence is in astronomical objects, and not in
the laboratory. In the laboratory we have only seen shifts in frequency, which might have other causes.

But the bending of light can be tested in the laboratory. We can do it by
placing mirrors opposite of each other and a laser. These mirrors can reflect the
laser beam forth and back for a very long distance. If these mirrors are straight enough,
we will see the acceleration of gravity affecting the beam of light.
Let us assume 2 mirrors 4,000 m apart, and light bouncing about 100,000 times.
If we use c= 300E6 m/s, light will take a 4E8/3E8 = 4/3= 1.3 seconds. (i'll use 1 second instead).
With G=10 m/s², light should fall a distance of 5 meter.

It will even change, depending on the gravity of the sun and the moon.

Difficult?
Maybe, but we have actually done this experiment, with very high accuracy.

It is the LIGO itself.

Nowhere I have seen this falling of light mentioned everywhere...

Maybe, because light does not fall.

[comingfrom]

I did some researching.
Apparently, we should be saying gravitational waves, not to be confused with gravity waves.

Gravity waves are waves in a medium, caused by gravity.

According to Wikipedia, Heavyside discussed the possibility of Gravitational waves in 1893, before Einstein published his paper.
Einstein did predict them, in 1918, he published a paper called, Uber Gravitationswellen (On Gravitational Waves).

The Wikipedia page is very up to date.
"Gravitational-wave astronomy is an emerging branch of observational astronomy which aims to use gravitational waves to collect observational data about objects such as neutron stars and black holes, events such as supernovae, and processes including those of the early universe shortly after the Big Bang."

They got two points of data, and already, it's an emerging branch of science.

~~~
Thank you, Zyxzevn,

interesting thought.
Maybe none of the more than 2,000 top scientists working on it ever of thought of that.

Maybe, because light does not fall.

sshh
Don't tell anyone. They'll all want to know.

Doesn't QED say gravity is negligible to zero at the quantum level?
And don't Relativists and Astrophysicists say gravity bends light,
and Black Holes hold light from escaping by gravity?

~Paul

[Sal]

https://www.change.org/p/prof-karsten-d ... experiment

The English translation is below the original German.

[webolife]

What distinguishes "gravitational lensing", light "relativistically" bending at the solar limb, and simple "diffraction" at an edge?
None of these require wave theory to explain...

[Roshi]

Let us assume 2 mirrors 4,000 m apart, and light bouncing about 100,000 times.
If we use c= 300E6 m/s, light will take a 4E8/3E8 = 4/3= 1.3 seconds. (i'll use 1 second instead).
With G=10 m/s², light should fall a distance of 5 meter.

How did you calculate the 5 meter fall?

[Zyxzevn]

Let us assume 2 mirrors 4,000 m apart, and light bouncing about 100,000 times.
If we use c= 300E6 m/s, light will take a 4E8/3E8 = 4/3= 1.3 seconds. (i'll use 1 second instead).
With G=10 m/s², light should fall a distance of 5 meter.

How did you calculate the 5 meter fall?

I assume two mirrors that are placed parallel.
If the light starts exactly horizontally, it would accelerate downwards according to Einstein's
interpretation of gravity (a=-10m/s²).
Using this acceleration it will fall 0.5*a*t² = 0.5*10*1.0² = 5 meter.

Now let's assume that the mirrors are perfectly compensating this free fall.
The light now always starts upward a bit, and falls slowly back to the same height.

Of course the mirrors could be correcting this fall, by not being exactly parallel.

With two different lasers, which the LIGO has, can be used to go in exactly the opposite direction,
and measure the free fall of the lasers. Each correction would be slightly different for the other laser.
They could use their experiment to measure this free fall,
and proof Einstein's light bending theory. But somehow they did not.

[Roshi]

I'm confused. With your calculations you treated light the same as a piece of rock. What is light? When they say "light can't escape a black hole", or light is "bent by gravity", do they treat light as a particle?

Does that mean that if I shine a light from Earth into space, the light will start of slower, then it will accelerate in space for reasons unknown? Or it will go at the slow speed it started because of Earth's gravity? What about the Sun or other stars? Does light travel at different speeds in space, in relation to the gravity of the star it was emmited from?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens

[Zyxzevn]

.. do they treat light as a particle? ...

According to Einstein's gravity, the rock and the photon-particle experience the same acceleration.
It is one of the basic assumptions of general relativity.
That way you can not experience the difference between gravity and acceleration.
He also uses it to compensate for the energy-gain they you get when mass/energy gets to a higher position in a gravity field.
This energy difference can be compensated in many other different ways, but Einstein thought it
would be by bending of space/time.

On pages about gravity, you can generally see that the proof of gravity lensing/bending is rather weak.
It depends on a certain explanation of the images, while other explanations are also possible.

Ron Hatch goes deeper into the GPS problem.
Before he starts with his own theory, he explains that the GPS-radio-waves do not change frequency during the fall
towards earth. Instead they are send on a different frequency to start with.

A good source on this is Einstein was wrong

Thunderboltsproject video

[lamare]

.. do they treat light as a particle? ...

According to Einstein's gravity, the rock and the photon-particle experience the same acceleration.
It is one of the basic assumptions of general relativity.
That way you can not experience the difference between gravity and acceleration.

The problem with both Einstein's relativity theory as well as Quantum Magic is that both are fundamentally derived from Maxwell's equations. I have recently been able to re-derive these using basic fluid dynamics vector theory, and I found an astonishing inconsistency in Maxwell's eqations, namely in his definition for the electric potential.

One would expect both the electric and the magnetic potentials to be defined along fluid dynamic theory, and therefore that they would have been defined properly. In fact, Maxwell did *not* include any description of the medium itself and that is he left the potentials pretty much undefined, whereby he added a term dA/dt to the electric potential, which should *not* be there. It violates a basic check for the units of measurement.

With my re-derived version, and the addition that gravity G = grad E, we get a complete, simple and elegant :theory of everything", whereby we must reject both relativity as well as Quantum Magic.

The extra term dA/dt is the reason Maxwell's equations were not invariant to the Galilean transform, hence the "correction" for this unwarranted time derivative in the electric potential in the form of the Lorentz transform.

With our definiton, "gauge freedom" is eliminated as it should be. How on Earth can you have "gauge freedom" in a model which is supposed to be an aether model??

http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/ ... Everything

[katesisco]

Well, wondering the same thing.
You Tube now has bpearthwatch looking at past 'surpass all energy flash' event from a MAGNETAR in the Lesser Magellenic Cloud and comparing it to a supposed approaching energy flash almost a universe away. I am leery of these ' universe away' energy flashes impacting little ol Earth. Supposedly it is from two black holes (don't exist) coming together. Disappointing to me is that they use the magnetar event to support a gravity wave claim!!
Magnetic waves are SOLITONS not to be confused with gravity waves which is what science is doing on purpose to enable the satisfying conclusion to Einstein's theory. I suspect that it will be repeated endlessly with 'gravity waves' being researched to produce the energy to recover from the debacle of "nuclear energy."

I am curious to know if lab experiments in plasma focus have created two plasma arcs that can be brought into near proximity with each other and what happens? What happens when two plasma focus near each other?

Would that not be the same as two imaginary black holes approaching each other? Will we see the blinding white light of a helium flash? Also on You Tube from Higher Truth channel.

[saul]

With our definiton, "gauge freedom" is eliminated as it should be. How on Earth can you have "gauge freedom" in a model which is supposed to be an aether model??

Gauge freedom is what michelson and morley discovered about the aether. More specifically gauge invariance refers to two fundamental facts of electromagnetism: 1) - adding a constant electric to potential to everything in your system will not change the predicted dynamics 2) - adding a constant magnetic vector potential to everything in your system will not change the predicted dynamics. In so-called Lorentz Aether type theories (as I gathered from your link, the kind you like) the magnetic vector potential A is proportional to the velocity field of the aether. Thus - as Michelson and Morley famously demonstrated, and Lorentz and others explained, we cannot (with ordinary electromagnetic devices such as meter sticks and clocks) determine the velocity of aether flow through a system! This is what Einstein meant when he said "the aether is superflous", that its first order moments fall out of the dynamical equations. Only spatial and temporal derivatives thereof (see also Aharanov-Bohm effect) can be detected. This is gauge invariance. Similarly the absolute pressure of the aether is the electric potential phi. How could we observe that? Only gradients of pressure affect the dynamics of moving charges. We, and all our laboratory equipment, are built out of the aether. That is why we cannot measure things like A or phi, just as in the "nocturnal doubling hypothesis".

This is a bit off topic of this thread, but thanks for asking.

[Michael Mozina]

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... l-in-2017/

Now that we know what we’re doing, the next haul should be massive. Having seen two strong events in three months, we should see at least six in the first half of next year – possibly more. Plus, the team has been upgrading LIGO’s detectors and they are 15 to 20 per cent more sensitive now.

If all goes well, the two detectors will have an assistant next year. The VIRGO detector in Italy is expected to start taking data in March 2017, meaning all three detectors will operate simultaneously for a time. That will enable us to pinpoint the source of gravitational waves in the sky, so more conventional telescopes can follow up and check for a visible counterpart to the signal.

Keep in mind that their first so called "discovery" event was marred by the false published claim that no veto signals were received around the time of the event, when in fact their own internal publications noted that a veto signal was triggered *immediately* following the event. They had to manually override the original veto, and the nature of that veto was never explained in the published papers. That's not professional IMO.

Neither supposed "signal" has enjoyed any visual support of any kind. Thus far it's been a purely "invisible" affair that is based upon the egotistical (5+ sigma) assertion that they can absolutely, positively rule out any other potential "causes" of the events in question, and *only* "naked uncharged black holes" could possibly be the cause of the signal in question.

With a third LIGO detector coming online next year, the pressure will be on LIGO to validate the technology. With three detectors picking up a signal, they should be able to triangulate such a signal to a relatively small region of the sky. If only two detectors pick up the signal, then what? Will they even tell us if that occurs? It should be interesting to see what transpires in 2017.

While I remain a fan of GR theory, and I'm open minded to the concept of detecting gravity waves, I have to say that at this point in time I remain quite "skeptical" of the claims of gravity wave detection. The published false claim that no veto signal was picked up around the time of the signal takes away any credibility they had IMO. That was simply a false statement in a *published* paper no less, and their own internal publications demonstrate that it was a false claim.

I think the pressure is now on for the LIGO teams. They currently have the funding and they will shortly (March) have the equipment necessary to triangulate any signal they pick up to a reasonably small region of space. If in fact these signals really are "gravity waves", we should also observe other types of energy emissions from these very high energy events. The concept of "naked", "uncharged" black holes always being the culprit sounds rather suspicious. I would expect to see light from these high energy events, if only the light from the materials in the event horizons around such objects.

I don't believe that they ever can or will validate their signal visually because I don't believe it's cosmological in origin. If I'm wrong, they should be able to prove that I'm wrong next year by validating the signal visually. If I'm right however, 2017 is likely to be a virtual repeat of last year's unsupported claims, along with a string of lame excuses as to why they still can't validate the signal visually even with three detectors online.

It should be an interesting and exciting upcoming year, or a very stressful next year for LIGO. Either way, they've piqued my interest.

[Solar]

With a third LIGO detector coming online next year, the pressure will be on LIGO to validate the technology. With three detectors picking up a signal, they should be able to triangulate such a signal to a relatively small region of the sky. If only two detectors pick up the signal, then what? Will they even tell us if that occurs? It should be interesting to see what transpires in 2017.

You've reminded me to share something that I had forgotten to share. Grab a large java and ponder the following - because: “The last thing anyone expects from the cosmos is a collapsing star every 718 minutes”

… searching for gravitational waves in the “fourth dimension” is a politically risky business because the instrumentation may actually detect a real world phenomenon.

This is particularly true when the instrumentation detects a resonating pulse from “the direction of the galactic center” every 718 minutes i.e. every half of a sidereal day. - The Syncopated Sidereal Shake

... the results from measurements carried out in 1978 and 1980 showed that these events, corresponding to sub-microscopic mechanical vibrations in the antenna of the order of 2 x 10-15 m, tend to occur with a regular period of one half of the sidereal (astronomical) day – 718 minutes.

Then, from the always entertaining mind of R. Cahill:

LIGO GravitationalWave Event as Observed by Network of Quantum Gravity Detectors – R. Cahill

So, maybe they did find the “correct” gravitational waves; but what *may* have been left on the cutting room floor (filtered) is also interesting? If I understand this correctly what are these “sub-microscopic” 2 x 10-15 sidereal resonances??? They don’t seem to be related to what LIGO is looking for because they occur regularly and would’ve been filtered; yes? Interestingly, at the very bottom of the LIGO page for Vibrational Isolation it says:

This level of isolation can reduce the magnitude of vibrations introduced to the suspensions (at the point of their attachment to the ISI) to a level of at most 2x10-13 m. The suspensions do the rest, reducing this noise level nearly six more orders-of-magnitude to achieve LIGO's desired detection sensitivity of 10-19 m - Vibrational Isolation

So these ranges, LIGO’s “at most 2x10-13m”, then the previous decade's “sub-microscopic mechanical vibrations in the antenna of the order of 2 x 10-15m”, then to “LIGO's desired detection sensitivity of 10-19m” seems interesting in relation to these sidereal resonances. LIGO sensitivity seems to bypass some of the effects; but… without knowing what causes them how can they be certain that the detections weren’t a type of residual random lagging ‘anti-nodal’, stray, (or precursor) effect of this feature? – is the question.

Lastly, while perusing matters with an eye towards gravity as another form of The Aether in Motion I also came across "A Replication of the Silvertooth Experiment"by the folks over at Conspiracy of light. If you’ll read this the effects of heat become quite problematic. Nonetheless, at the very bottom it says:

My own persistence with this experiment was because of the uncanny correlation of the diurnal pattern in the data with the alignment of the interferometer along our direction of motion through space, which now appears to be simply a bizarre coincidence. - “A Replication of the Silvertooth Experiment”

Regularly periodic is one thing; I just wonder if transients exist. How peculiar.