PDA

View Full Version : Existence Of Gravitational Waves Now Empirically Confirmed



Aragorn
11th February 2016, 17:25
http://www.crystalinks.com/einstein1199.jpg
Albert Einstein (14.03.1879 – 18.04.1955)




In 1915, Albert Einstein published his Theory of General Relativity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity), which holds that space and time are not separate, but that instead, just like the spatial dimensions, time is also nothing but a dimension of the unified space-time continuum. Among many other things, General Relativity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity) also holds that matter — i.e. anything with mass — causes the fabric of space-time to curve around it, and that this is what causes the phenomenon we call gravity, i.e. objects fall toward each other because of the curvature of space-time.




http://www.ast.cam.ac.uk/sites/default/files/assets/images/research/cosmology/gravitational_waves/fabric_of_space_warp.jpg



Because matter warps the fabric of space-time, General Relativity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity) also predicts that the motion of matter through space-time — e.g. the rotation of stars, planets and moons — will cause ripples to occur in the fabric of space-time. This effect is called frame-dragging (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame-dragging).




https://larvalsubjects.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/www-wired-2.jpeg



These ripples are called gravitational waves (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave), but although just about everything else predicted by Einstein's Theory of General Relativity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity) had already been confirmed, the gravitational waves themselves had still not been detected directly yet. Or at least, not up until now, that is. Enter the LIGO ("Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory") (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIGO).




http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03572/hanford_ligo_960_3572325b.jpg



Today, on the 11th of February 2016, the LIGO (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIGO) has announced that they have directly detected gravitational waves, thereby proving Albert Einstein right once again, now a whole century after the publication of his Theory of General Relativity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity).

You can find the official statement from the US National Science Foundation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Science_Foundation) here (http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=137628&org=NSF&from=news). I reckon that if good old Albert were still alive today, he'd be making a face like this now... :p




http://wallpapercave.com/wp/qa4PHuo.jpg

The One
11th February 2016, 18:17
Over 100 years ago Albert Einstein said that gravitational waves existed and guess what they have confirmed today that these gravitational waves do indeed exist.

Its taken over 100 years for all the expert scientists to finally admit these are real.

Wow it makes you wonder if science had been taken more seriously back then how far we would have advanced by now but we all now why things are suppressed.Funny how they said we did it below no no no no no Albert did it you just did not listen.

http://media.skynews.com/media/images/generated/2016/2/11/446595/default/v2/rtrqvp3-1-736x414.jpg

Albert Einstein first predicted the gravitational waves, which may help scientists to see hidden parts of the universe.

US scientists have announced the discovery of ripples in space and time known as gravitational waves, in a breakthrough that could revolutionise astronomy.

Their existence was first predicted by Albert Einstein in his Theory of Relativity a century ago but has never been proven - until now.

To loud applause, researchers from the Advanced Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory (LIGO) unveiled their findings in Washington DC.

Laser physicist Professor David Reitze, from the University of Florida, told the National Press Club: "Ladies and gentlemen, we have detected gravity waves. We did it."

At the news conference, they played what they called a "chirp" - the signal they heard last 14 September, believed to have come from the distant crash of two black holes.

It was a moment that might have surprised even Einstein, who also theorised that scientists would never be able to hear such gravitational waves.

A British member of the international team said it was "the biggest scientific breakthrough of the century".

Professor James Hough, from the University of Glasgow, said the find was more important than the missing Higgs boson, the so-called "God particle".

Other scientists compared Thursday's announcement to the moment Galileo took up a telescope to look at the planets.

The waves could help scientists learn more about what happened immediately after the Big Bang and how the universe expanded.

Gravitational waves, sometimes called the soundtrack of the universe, are elusive ripples in the fabric of space and time created by every massive object in the universe.

Catastrophic events, such as a collision between two black holes, can create waves that spread out across the universe.

A passing wave essentially stretches space in one direction and causes it to shrink in another.

"It's one thing to know soundwaves exist, but it's another to actually hear Beethoven's Fifth Symphony," said Marc Kamionkowsi, a physicist at Johns Hopkins University, who wasn't part of the discovery team.

Scientists hope that by detecting the waves, it may be possible to see parts of the universe that have so far remained hidden.

It may also allow them to unravel the mysteries of dark matter, the invisible material that makes up around 80% of the universe.

LIGO researchers have been using a $1.1bn device called a laser interferometer to detect the space-time ripples.

They say it is like a microphone that converts them into electrical signals.

Three such interferometers have been built for LlGO - two near Richland, Washington state, and the other near Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

At least two widely separated detectors, operated in unison, are needed to rule out false signals and confirm that a gravitational wave has passed through the earth.

Source (http://news.sky.com/story/1640269/scientists-discover-ripples-in-space-and-time)

lcam88
11th February 2016, 18:36
Reminds me of research done by the Anderson Institute (http://www.andersoninstitute.com/time-warped-fields.html).


As general relativity predicts, rotating bodies drag spacetime around themselves in a phenomenon referred to as frame-dragging. This rotational frame-dragging effect is also known as the Lense-Thirring effect. The rotation of an object alters space and time, dragging a nearby object out of position compared to the predictions of Newtonian physics.

Aragorn, do you have a definition for "gravitational waves" specifically defined by the LIGO team?

I really can find no specific definition for the adverb-verb [fiction] composition I quoted in the prior question.

Anyone here think this "discovery" is misinformation?

Aragorn
11th February 2016, 19:17
Reminds me of research done by the Anderson Institute (http://www.andersoninstitute.com/time-warped-fields.html).


As general relativity predicts, rotating bodies drag spacetime around themselves in a phenomenon referred to as frame-dragging. This rotational frame-dragging effect is also known as the Lense-Thirring effect. The rotation of an object alters space and time, dragging a nearby object out of position compared to the predictions of Newtonian physics.

Aragorn, do you have a definition for "gravitational waves" specifically defined by the LIGO team?

Well, the best way to think of gravitational waves is to picture them as ripples in a pond. For instance, if you lower, say, a basketball into a pond at rest, then this will cause the water around the ball to ripple, and these ripples will then spread out concentrically. And to then visualize frame-dragging, if you were to spin the ball while it floats on the water, then that too will displace the water molecules all around the area of its volume where it comes into contact with the water.

As a connotation to this, it also suggests that the idea of an aether — which Einstein initially rejected, but of which he then later on said that the idea wasn't so crazy after all — is very plausible. The big difference here being that the aether is not some strange gas which fills the void of space — which is the notion that Einstein rejected — but rather that the aether would be the fabric of space-time itself.

As a secondary connotation, this in turn then also means that if the fabric of space-time can be warped, then there has to be an extra direction — read: a dimension — into which it would be warping. You can only bend a straight line drawn on a sheet of paper because the flat sheet of paper itself exists in a spatially 3-dimensional environment. And this is something that quantum physics does allow for, because depending on the model, there could be 4, 10, 11 or 26 dimensions, with one temporal dimension included in each of those models — provided that there would, indeed, be only one temporal dimension, but personally I'm not so sure about that yet.


I really can find no specific definition for the adverb-verb [fiction] composition I quoted in the prior question.

Anyone here thing this "discovery" is misinformation?

No, I don't think that it's misinformation at all. For decades already, quantum physicists have been positing that gravity is merely the result of a hypothetical elementary particle, called the graviton (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton). But they've never been able to prove the existence of gravitons, and as we know, quantum physics and Einstein's Theory of General Relativity contradict each other in that regard.

Personally, I have always considered Einstein's theory that gravity is the result of the warping of space-time — and both this and the frame-dragging effect Einstein predicted have already been proven multiple times, albeit indirectly — to be more plausible, as opposed to the desire of quantum physicists to describe the entire universe in terms of elementary particles.

Therefore, I personally consider the discovery at the subject of this thread to be a big middle finger salute from Einstein in the face of quantum physicists. ;)

bsbray
11th February 2016, 20:58
Anyone here think this "discovery" is misinformation?

The thought has crossed my mind but I'm going to reserve judgment until "anti-gravity" technology finally becomes public. I'm sure the big militaries of the world know exactly how gravity works and whatever is going on in the public institutions is unnecessary at best.

The little-known fact that Einstein was a kleptomaniac and worked in Vaudeville acts for a while has always intrigued me too.


His classroom behavior, coupled with his never-ending imagination and exploratory mind, caused Einstein to wonder about the laws of physics. In fact, in 1886, as young Albert was hurling a spitwad at the back of his classmate’s head, he began to ponder the laws of physics as it applied to the flight of his projectile. Einstein felt at that moment that he had to know more and by age 16, he had mastered differential and integral calculus to further comprehend the dynamics of his flying spitwad. His strides in his academic achievements did not prevent him, however, from getting expelled from the Rotterdam Academy for releasing into the classroom a rabid skunk, again concealed in his lunchbox.

Kicked out of academia, Einstein went on the road to pursue life as a musician and a standup comic. Not many know that Einstein was a violin virtuoso. He performed solos and was the coveted first chair in a symphony. But, he became so bored conforming to the strains of other musicians, he would often improvise and as a joke insert quips like “She’ll be Coming Around the Mountain” into the middle of performances. Even playing it backwards on occasion. Though the audience found it hilarious, the Maestro didn’t. He was sent packing. It didn’t take him long to find his way to New York as a Vaudeville comedian. His physical comedy captured the hearts of the audience. He was a huge success. But again, his success was thwarted as he was busted for stealing over 200 souvenirs from the celebrities with whom he worked. Albert Einstein was a kleptomaniac and subsequently shunned from the vaudeville community.

With his hopes as a performer in shambles, Einstein had little left to do, but return to his “academic arts”. In 1896 he applied to FIT, New York’s Fashion Institute of Technology. He failed the entrance exam several times before finally passing it and being admitted. He seems to have excelled in his years at FIT, but a disagreement with a professor over an algorithm to calculate optimum lapel width left him closed to future opportunities with the University. He returned to Europe. It was here and then that he finally became the Albert Einstein we’ve come to know, love, and read about.

Where in the annals of history do you read of Albert Einstein, the slow learner, the class clown, the problem child, the loser, the weirdo, the musician, the comedian, the kleptomaniac, the failure, the nut? We know him simply as Albert Einstein, The Genius.

http://www.planetmotivation.com/albert-einstein.html


Tesla apparently didn't think much of him either, and Tesla was a genius in his own right, who, unlike Einstein, had created hundreds of immediately useful inventions based on his theoretical models, from AC generators to remote control technology. But they both had their eccentricities and I try to reserve judgment on the whole situation.

And if Tesla is any example of early meddling by wealthy industrialists and bankers, Tesla was spied upon by the Rockefellers, who employed members of the Bush family if I remember correctly, before they were infamous. His interest in providing free energy wirelessly to everyone on Earth did not sit well with the big energy producers, who would have no way of charging individuals for their energy consumption that way.

Big money already pervaded this whole period of time, there are military implications, global energy market implications... So I'm just going to wait and see what technology comes out and how it works. That's when the issue will be settled beyond dispute.

Aragorn
12th February 2016, 00:25
Tesla apparently didn't think much of him either, and Tesla was a genius in his own right, who, unlike Einstein, had created hundreds of immediately useful inventions based on his theoretical models, from AC generators to remote control technology. But they both had their eccentricities and I try to reserve judgment on the whole situation.

Both Nikola Tesla and Albert Einstein were posthumously diagnosed with autism. That explains for their somewhat odd behavior.


Einstein refused to wear socks, and was once caught giving a very elaborate physics class before an empty auditorium, because he had been scheduled to teach at that particular hour and on that particular day, even though nobody had showed up.


Tesla was obsessed with hygiene, refused to shake hands, always stayed in hotel rooms with a number that was divisible by three, and he loathed people who wore jewelry, as well as people who were overweight. He also had an eidetic memory, and he purposely abstained from romantic relationships because he felt that it would distract him from his scientific work — a decision he would come to regret later in life. In his later years, he also became a proponent of eugenics.


And if Tesla is any example of early meddling by wealthy industrialists and bankers, Tesla was spied upon by the Rockefellers, who employed members of the Bush family if I remember correctly, before they were infamous. His interest in providing free energy wirelessly to everyone on Earth did not sit well with the big energy producers, who would have no way of charging individuals for their energy consumption that way.

Yes, and it was particularly J.P. Morgan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._P._Morgan) who decided to ruin him and who had his Wardenclyffe Tower (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wardenclyffe_Tower) burned to the ground.


Big money already pervaded this whole period of time, there are military implications, global energy market implications... So I'm just going to wait and see what technology comes out and how it works. That's when the issue will be settled beyond dispute.

Well, both NASA's EM drive (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RF_resonant_cavity_thruster) and David Pares's nascent warp drive (http://www.spacewarpdynamicsllc.com/) could be used to repel gravitational pull.

From what I've seen of it so far — even though I must admit that I'm still not clear on the actual physics involved, but according to Nassim Haramein, it "pushes against the fabric of space-time" — NASA's experimental EM drive (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RF_resonant_cavity_thruster) seems to more or less fit the description given by Bob Lazar of the propulsion and anti-gravity system of the extraterrestrial craft referred to by his fellow technicians as "the sports model".

David Pares's warp drive (http://www.spacewarpdynamicsllc.com/) on the other hand is something which actively bends the fabric of space-time, and unlike the predictions made by quantum physicists in the 1990s that it would take enormous amounts of dark energy to do so, the key seems to be the use of very high voltage.

lcam88
12th February 2016, 11:25
bsbray:

I like your position of waiting to see.

I have the feeling that even if anti-gravity type technology emerges, no additional light in regards to standard model dogma will really be very revealing. I am of the view that at least metaphorically the issue boils down to: "has the fish taken the bait?" The concept is so complex and so profoundly intricate that you can spend your whole life coming to the conclusion that it is actually [not] valid. I think finding an alternative concept, if possible, is the best way [for me] to proceed.

Aragorn:

I think the best concept to start with is luminous light, something most of us are familiar with, perhaps as a self-propagating (along the fabric), EM oscillation. In what ways is the gravitational wave defined by the LIGO team different from luminous light?

I suppose understanding this concept of "fabric of space", something described as not an etheric medium, is important.

My issue with all of this are analogous concepts like "fabric of space" that leads the mind to suppose a 2 dimensional sheet that one would use when making their bed. This conceptual 2D fabric is further reinforced by likening it to the surface of a pond, where waves are analogous to ripples in the pond. But that analogy is weak because we know a position in space to be defined by 3 degrees of freedom: x, y and z (3 dimensions)

And then to imagine that 2d "analogous" concept expanded to 3 dimensions but in such a way that the concept is not of an actual substance (not ether and devoid of "gaseous" characteristics). Then this unimaginable non-substance is then supposed to be "foldable"?

Do you have some additional insider insight about these concepts that de-mystifies them?

Bear in mind Anderson Institute has been researching the Lense-Thirring effect for some time now, focusing on temporal manipulations. They go so far as to say that rotating energy is enough; that it does not need to be a rotating mass. The subject matter of their research is based on the very same "frame dragging" effect observable as divergences in satellite orbital positions as compared to predictions based on Newtonian models.

bsbray
12th February 2016, 16:29
If they release anti-gravity stuff where public scientists and engineers can see and work on it, and figure out how exactly it works, they might be able to lie or twist the truth of it at first if they wanted to, but I think in the end it would be like trying to lie about the fact that combusting gas is what propels a car forward. Sooner or later somebody is going to figure out that that's the main thing that makes it go, and nothing can work without that.

People for years have been saying that anti-gravity type stuff uses some esoteric electronics array, maybe having to generate a strong magnetic field oscillating at a certain frequency or whatever the case may be. I wouldn't know about any of that stuff and since I'm not going to invest in a personal laboratory, I'll just be patient and see what comes of it in the end. But if this kind of technology really does rely on the EM force to "repel" off of or negative the effects of gravity, that would mean that there must be some kind of relation between EM and gravity which could be even expressed in a formula. Once we get to that level, no matter what the model looks like, then we'll be going somewhere.

Aragorn
12th February 2016, 16:45
Aragorn:

I think the best concept to start with is luminous light, something most of us are familiar with, perhaps as a self-propagating (along the fabric), EM oscillation. In what ways is the gravitational wave defined by the LIGO team different from luminous light?

Oh, wow, they are very different concepts.


Light is comprised of photons, which are bosons, or otherwise put, energy particles — or energy waves, depending on how we look at them, because of the wave/particle duality. But these particles/waves move through and exist within the space-time continuum. See my comments below the next quoted paragraph from your post.


Gravitational waves on the other hand are not elements which exist within the space-time continuum, but instead they are ripples in the fabric of the space-time continuum itself.

An analogy would be that if bosons and fermions make up for the different elements in a photograph — e.g. a house, a car, people, et al — then space-time would be the paper upon which the photograph is printed.


I suppose understanding this concept of "fabric of space", something described as not an etheric medium, is important.

It is, indeed. Before Einstein's time, many physicists believed that the void of space was permeated by an aether, and that light was simply a mechanical wave propagating through this aether in the same vein as how sound waves propagate through matter. But this was of course still in a time where Newton's laws of thermodynamics were considered the end-all and be-all of physics, and where people believed that time progressed constantly everywhere in the universe, and for every observer. And it is this is exactly that Einstein's Theory of General Relativity proved wrong, because the only thing that is constant everywhere in the universe, and for every observer, is the speed of light in a vacuum — hence why he chose the symbol c, for "constant".

However, considering that space and time are interlinked and that space-time can be warped, Einstein later on posited that even though the classical description of an aether was wrong, the principle of it could be correct, in that space-time must have a fabric of some sorts, which itself then might exist as an object within a greater and as yet undefined universal construct.

I will touch upon that a little farther below in this reply, because I see that you're jumping ahead of me. ;)


My issue with all of this are analogous concepts like "fabric of space" that leads the mind to suppose a 2 dimensional sheet that one would use when making their bed. This conceptual 2D fabric is further reinforced by likening it to the surface of a pond, where waves are analogous to ripples in the pond. But that analogy is weak because we know a position in space to be defined by 3 degrees of freedom: x, y and z (3 dimensions)

I'm afraid that's a logical fallacy, i.e. you are conflating correlation and causation.

The purpose of my analogy higher up was to convey the concept in a visually comprehensible form, or otherwise put, I am trying to visually represent a higher-order principle by way of a lower-order example. I am not constructing the principle behind the higher-order physics from the physics behind the lower-order example.


And then to imagine that 2d "analogous" concept expanded to 3 dimensions but in such a way that the concept is not of an actual substance (not ether and devoid of "gaseous" characteristics). Then this unimaginable non-substance is then supposed to be "foldable"?

Do you have some additional insider insight about these concepts that de-mystifies them?

Well, I have a theory, if that is what you want to know, and my theory partly unifies the spiritual aspects with the physical aspects. My theory holds that space-time and everything in it are actually one and the same thing at the root, just like the leaves and the fruits growing on the branches of a tree are actually part of the tree itself, even though we tend to think of them as separate entities. We say that the apple grows on the tree, but the apple is part of that tree — more precisely even, it is the tree's reproductive system.

If we postulate that matter and energy — or to put it in terms of physics, fermions and bosons — would both be "emanations" of the underlying space-time continuum, then that would explain why both their presence in and their motion through space-time cause the fabric of space-time to warp around them. If you grab hold of the very middle of a sheet on your bed and you pull it upward toward the ceiling, then even if the sheet is tucked under the mattress on all four sides, at some point beyond the elastic threshold of the fabric that the sheet is made of, you will start seeing the edges of the sheet move up on the mattress and toward you.

The bottom line of my theory therefore is — and this is where it ties in with spirituality — that everything is an emanation of the one and the same thing that underlies all of creation. And as such, everything and everyone is interconnected, and everything has an influence on everything else in varying degrees of perceptibility. The Butterfly Effect, if you will.

;)

lcam88
12th February 2016, 17:38
Aragorn:

So luminous light "moves through" and "exists within" a medium. Not self-propagating? That very idea would suggest an etheric medium as the constituents of the fabric of space-time, does it not?

And a gravitational wave is an effect of the medium itself?

I'm thinking about the "photo element vs photo paper" analogy... That luminous light is the pigment applied to the paper. The issue still being, both pigment and paper are still actual substances. Can you elaborate any more?

How do you know that mass, as you may find it in such common tangibles within your midst, are actually not effects of the medium (fabric of space-time) itself?

I like your theory as you share it. But it too bodes better, in my view anyway, within a theory where an etheric medium indeed participates in the constituents of the fabric. Why? I think such a medium provides "connectivity" that if otherwise absent would result in all the parts, rather than a whole.

Bear in mind, even the concept of ether is rather vague as far as the standard model would define it for the Michealson-Morley experiment. I think a perfectly valid case could be made where refining the concept of the ether would result in perfectly valid understandings of the observations made during the Michealson-Morley experiment without discarting the concept itself... <shrug/>

Here is the real kicker question for you Aragorn: How can you know that anti-light concept we head-butted over, is not the same thing these LIGO guys are describing as gravitational waves?

PS If you want, I can present a scenario where this "gravitational wave" idea serves as disinformation, but perhaps that is actually off topic.

Aragorn
12th February 2016, 19:00
Aragorn:

So luminous light "moves through" and "exists within" a medium. Not self-propagating? That very idea would suggest an etheric medium as the constituents of the fabric of space-time, does it not?

I don't see why you would surmise from my above elaboration that light would not be self-propagating. On the contrary, Einstein proved that the idea of the aether as a medium which permeates space is false.

However, Einstein did later on contemplate the principle behind that idea with regard to space-time itself being some sort of distortable construct. But that in itself doesn't make it into an aether yet. Apples and oranges.


And a gravitational wave is an effect of the medium itself?

It is a distortion of the fabric of space-time itself. See my newer analogy in response to the following quote from you.


I'm thinking about the "photo element vs photo paper" analogy... That luminous light is the pigment applied to the paper. The issue still being, both pigment and paper are still actual substances. Can you elaborate any more?

No, I'm afraid you've misunderstood me. In this analogy, the bosons (energy) and fermions (matter) make up the information about the objects being depicted, not the pigments themselves as particles in the photographic film.

Okay, let me try a new analogy here. You know what sound waves are, right? And you know that sound waves travel through matter. Well, music is made up of many sound waves, but in order to port music over a very large distance, we don't use sound waves. Instead, we use radio waves. The music thus becomes information, which is carried by the radio waves. In other words, the radio waves are not audible, because they are not mechanical waves propagating through matter — they are electromagnetic waves, carrying information about the sound waves.

In this analogy, a gravitational wave is a distortion of the electromagnetic wave carrying the information about the sound wave.


How do you know that mass, as you may find it in such common tangibles within your midst, are actually not effects of the medium (fabric of space-time) itself?

It is part of my theory that they actually are, but with their connection to the fabric of space-time lying beyond our ability to perceive, because all we can perceive of space-time is that it is, for most part, empty.


I like your theory as you share it. But it too bodes better, in my view anyway, within a theory where an etheric medium indeed participates in the constituents of the fabric. Why? I think such a medium provides "connectivity" that if otherwise absent would result in all the parts, rather than a whole.

That's the great mystery here, where the connection between the space-time continuum and the particles within it should be made at the spiritual level, rather than at the physical level. Because there is no aether. Or to put it in your own vernacular, there is no medium. Space-time is a manifold, not a medium.

Another analogy here would be that all energy and all matter are in fact only holographic projections, and that space-time would then be somewhat like the computer program running the holodeck, in Star Trek vernacular. Note that I said "the computer program", not "the hardware making up for the holodeck".

(And no, I did not mean to imply that we would all be living inside a computer simulation.)


Bear in mind, even the concept of ether is rather vague as far as the standard model would define it for the Michealson-Morley experiment. I think a perfectly valid case could be made where refining the concept of the ether would result in perfectly valid understandings of the observations made during the Michealson-Morley experiment without discarting the concept itself... <shrug/>

But there is no aether! ;)


Here is the real kicker question for you Aragorn: How can you know that anti-light concept we head-butted over, is not the same thing these LIGO guys are describing as gravitational waves?

Apples and oranges again. The anti-light concept perpetrated by Thunder Energies and Santilli speaks of this hypothetical form of light which supposedly refracts and diffracts in the opposite direction of what "normal" light does. The laser interferometers at the LIGO use standard laser light. Furthermore, diffraction and phase cancellation are not quite the same thing.


PS If you want, I can present a scenario where this "gravitational wave" idea serves as disinformation, but perhaps that is actually off topic.

Well, if you want, then I can present a scenario where I would be an advanced form of artificial intelligence, programmed either by alphabet soup agencies or by an extraterrestrial hyper-dimensional super-duper mega-powerful alien entity to infiltrate the alternative community and have you guys all chasing your own tails. And you know what? There are actually idiots who believe that.

In fact, I didn't just make this up. I myself have had to hear, here on the forum, and from one of our members, that there are people spreading that story around as if it were true, based upon my command of the English language and the fact that I know how to use a spell checker.

:fpalm:

Okay now, let's get real here. Not everything is deliberate disinformation, but the fallacious belief that it would be is exactly why the alternative community keeps on chasing its own tail. Too many people can't see the forest for the trees anymore.

As I wrote elsewhere on the forum already, mankind is its own worst deceiver. And the so-called alternative community is no exception to that rule — if anything, it's the ultimate confirmation thereof.

lcam88
12th February 2016, 23:20
ok

We are clearly going to continue to agree to disagree, on a lot of stuff. I am not actually challenging anything in particular that you are saying, you can't actually make this stuff up, I know. Rather I think it is better rationalized as boiler-plate cognitive dissonance for anyone who decided they liked physics.

Photon is a name given to the concept of luminous light when observed for its particle like properties. So the use of that term, especially in context of examination of wave characteristics of various types is deliberately choosing Apple when the Orange is there in plain sight.

Even though we are engaging in a conversation about "gravitational waves", and even though luminous light is known to have wave characteristics that are very well known, you mention "photon", a particle that can easily be misunderstood and be expected to bounce off each other, rather than electro-magnetic waves. Why?

Just as you may be so willing to observe particle characteristics in luminous light, if you felt compelled, it is not unreasonable to expect to find wave properties observable in tangible light (matter). It begs further questions about the true nature of things in general, to me anyway.

Ether is a theoretical medium pre-Michelson-Morley that was was considered to be the medium light waves propagate in, much like how water waves propagate in water, or like sound waves propagate in air (and water and steel etc), or perhaps even how earthquakes propagate through the the crust of the planet.

As a result of disproving the existence of the ether, the problem of how electro-magnetic wave propagation worked had to be faced, and it was decided that electro-magnetics "self-propagate". :fpalm:

Ok then.

But to then characterize luminous light (electro magnetic waves) as "moving through" or "existing within" is to revisit a presumption where the ether indeed is a medium of propagation. I'm fine with that, but standard model is not (apparently). To create a new term for the sake of splitting differences now referring to the medium as the manifold, even when it may serve the same purpose is like renaming God to Allah.


Another analogy here would be that all energy and all matter are in fact only holographic projections, and that space-time would then be somewhat like the computer program running the holodeck, in Star Trek vernacular. Note that I said "the computer program", not "the hardware making up for the holodeck".

That is an interesting perspective, so following this analogy "luminous light" would be a holographic projection, and a gravitational wave would be like the "computer instruction buffer". And since we have thrown out the ether in this theory, the "holodeck" itself is devoid of any hardware?


But there is no aether!

That is what the standard model says. And yet you fashion the analogies and explanations in such a way that ether seems to be required. (except the star trek analogy)



How can you know that anti-light concept we head-butted over, is not the same thing these LIGO guys are describing as gravitational waves?
Apples and oranges again.

So everything is apples and oranges. The standard model is...

... is completely wonky.

I do like your explanations though, to the question I posed about anti-light vs gravitational waves. It was meant to be an easy question. Your answer is actually about how the two are

Of course diffraction and cancellation are different things. Using standard dogma: the words are composed of different letters, they have different definitions. :D Seriously though, the interference pattern given by the diffracted waves have moments of cancellation and moments of energy reinforcement. <shrug/>

Perhaps, using the star trek analogy, light is to spacetime as gravitational waves is to subspace. Maybe?

Aragorn
13th February 2016, 02:21
ok

We are clearly going to continue to agree to disagree, on a lot of stuff. I am not actually challenging anything in particular that you are saying, you can't actually make this stuff up, I know. Rather I think it is better rationalized as boiler-plate cognitive dissonance for anyone who decided they liked physics.

Photon is a name given to the concept of luminous light when observed for its particle like properties. So the use of that term, especially in context of examination of wave characteristics of various types is deliberately choosing Apple when the Orange is there in plain sight.

First of all, the word "luminous" is superfluous in your description. Visible light is only a narrow frequency band within the electromagnetic spectrum. We could just as easily use the word "microwaves" instead of "light" — light waves do indeed fall within the somewhat wider (but still narrow enough) EM frequency band we call microwaves.

Secondly, yes, there is the wave-particle duality. Light can behave as a wave when one specifically seeks to observe it as such, and it can behave like particles when one seeks to observe it in that manner. This duality is typical for all forms of electromagnetic radiation, but has also already been observed with fermions — i.e. matter particles — at the subatomic scale.

The "decision" of light (or other elementary particles) to act as either a wave or a particle is what we call the collapse of the wave function (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function_collapse), and it is one of the foundations of quantum physics. It underscores that the method of observation influences the outcome of the experiment. Similar wave function collapses can manifest in other areas of quantum physics as well. For instance, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle), which states that the closer you come to ascertaining the momentum of a particle, the less information you will have on its exact position, and vice versa.

However, I am not the one equating apples to oranges here. You are. I will explain this farther below.


Even though we are engaging in a conversation about "gravitational waves", and even though luminous light is known to have wave characteristics that are very well known, you mention "photon", a particle that can easily be misunderstood and be expected to bounce off each other, rather than electro-magnetic waves. Why?

A photon is simply a quantum of electromagnetic energy, perceived as a particle. The word "photon" is not restricted to visible light only. X-rays for instance can also be quantified as photons, if one wishes to observe them that way — see my elaboration on the wave-particle duality higher up in this reply.


Just as you may be so willing to observe particle characteristics in luminous light, if you felt compelled, it is not unreasonable to expect to find wave properties observable in tangible light (matter). It begs further questions about the true nature of things in general, to me anyway.

Yes, well, I am not a qualified physicist — nor a mathematician for that matter — and my knowledge of string theory and brane theory is fairly limited. So I'm going to have to defer you to one of the experts in the field for answers about that. (This, in spite of my suspicion that you wouldn't be willing to accept what they tell you.)

And then we haven't even touched upon quantum entanglement yet, or as Einstein described it, "spooky action at a distance". There is yet much to be explained in that regard.


Ether is a theoretical medium pre-Michelson-Morley that was was considered to be the medium light waves propagate in, much like how water waves propagate in water, or like sound waves propagate in air (and water and steel etc), or perhaps even how earthquakes propagate through the the crust of the planet.

Correct, and the complete name for it was "the luminiferous aether".


As a result of disproving the existence of the ether, the problem of how electro-magnetic wave propagation worked had to be faced, and it was decided that electro-magnetics "self-propagate". :fpalm:

Correct.


Ok then.

But to then characterize luminous light (electro magnetic waves) as "moving through" or "existing within" is to revisit a presumption where the ether indeed is a medium of propagation. I'm fine with that, but standard model is not (apparently). To create a new term for the sake of splitting differences now referring to the medium as the manifold, even when it may serve the same purpose is like renaming God to Allah.

And here is where you are equating the apples with the oranges and accusing me of doing it. It could always be possible that my eloquence would be failing me catastrophically, but I found no other verb suitable for expressing the movement or existence of light. You are focusing too much on the exact words that I wrote, rather than upon what those words were meant to convey, and in doing so, you yourself are introducing ambiguity into my words while no such ambiguity was intended by me.

Light exists, doesn't it? And it is moving, isn't it? That does not mean that it would be moving as part of a medium — cfr. your analogy of the ripples in the water. It just so happens to be that we all currently dwell within the space-time continuum, and we can move around in that. It is the environment we exist in, not a medium. And considering that this environment can be interpreted as a vector space for making calculations on account of coordinates and movement, it is a manifold.

Well, electromagnetic radiation exists here in this environment, and it can move here. That is what I meant to convey. Not that it would be moving through a luminiferous aether as part of it, the way ripples in a pond are actually mechanical oscillations of the water in the pond.

And that is what makes gravity waves different, because the gravity waves are oscillations of the environment itself. They are distortions of space-time — just like the picture on a badly tuned television set with an antenna can also be distorted without that the people in the actual television program you're watching would be going through life with some strange morphological disorder — and these distortions of space-time propagate in the form of ripples that fan out like the ripples in a pond. They have a frequency (and thus a wavelength), and they propagate with the same speed as light in a vacuum, i.e. c.

I really don't think that I could explain it any better than I just have.


That is an interesting perspective, so following this analogy "luminous light" would be a holographic projection, and a gravitational wave would be like the "computer instruction buffer". And since we have thrown out the ether in this theory, the "holodeck" itself is devoid of any hardware?

That's a non sequitur again, my friend. If the aether would have been brought into this equation, then it would be some kind of substance which fills up the holodeck. It would not be the hardware.


That is what the standard model says. And yet you fashion the analogies and explanations in such a way that ether seems to be required. (except the star trek analogy)

Nope. That's just you focusing on my vocabulary — of which I personally still think that I was not incorrect to phrase it like that — rather than upon the idea.


So everything is apples and oranges. The standard model is...

... is completely wonky.

If you say so. You're entitled to your opinions just like everyone else is, but in my personal opinion, you hold a prejudice against the whole of conventional science. And that, in my opinion, is throwing out the baby with the bathwater.


I do like your explanations though, to the question I posed about anti-light vs gravitational waves. It was meant to be an easy question. Your answer is actually about how the two are

That sentence is not complete. Not that it matters, though.


Of course diffraction and cancellation are different things. Using standard dogma: the words are composed of different letters, they have different definitions. :D Seriously though, the interference pattern given by the diffracted waves have moments of cancellation and moments of energy reinforcement. <shrug/>

That is indeed what an interference pattern is supposed to visualize. That has nothing to do with light refracting in the opposite direction.


Perhaps, using the star trek analogy, light is to spacetime as gravitational waves is to subspace. Maybe?

Finally, now we are getting somewhere! <grin>

Shadowself
13th February 2016, 14:52
Good Morning guys! Long time!


Saw this thread and thought I'd share a comment by a guy who spent as he claims "a pretty chunk of Discovery Channel money to tell their story when no one gave a crap".

I rather like the way he tell it and hope this helps sus out the direction of this conversation about gravitational waves. and Enjoy!


What we talk about when we talk about gravitational waves.

By now you’ve all read the headline: gravitational waves detected at LIGO! Major breakthrough in physics! Einstein confirmed! Scientists just heard the faint sound of two black holes colliding and it’s important! Science science science waves gravity Stephen Hawking SCIENCE!

So let’s get down to business and cut right through the crap peddling and click baiting. Is this a big deal? Yes. Is anyone telling you why? No, because it’s hard to explain in one headline. Predictably, half the world is getting this as a takeaway: EINSTEIN PROVEN RIGHT! (has there really been any doubt since Dyson’s confirmation in 1919?). LIGO is not about Einstein. I spent 6 months of my life researching and investigating LIGO; I then had the privilege to see it in person when I traveled to Nowhere, Washington and spent a pretty chunk of Discovery Channel money to tell their story when no one gave a crap. From this experience I can tell you, with one singular word, exactly why the current LIGO results are bigger than the Higgs Boson and bigger than Einstein.

That word is LISA. LISA is going to change everything.

To understand LISA and LIGO, you need to think about the concept of a telescope from a scientist’s perspective. Suppose you want to study the planet Jupiter. There is nothing in our technological arsenal that is capable of safely sending a human observer to the Jovian sphere, so instead, we use telescopes to parse out the intimate details of this distant world. Our telescopes catch the dim light reflecting off Jupiter, and then magnify it to the point where we can literally watch the weather change. Neat! The laws of physics then clearly state that the bigger your telescope, the more distant stuff you can see. After Edwin Hubble built the world’s largest telescope (at the time) he discovered that the little blurry things were actually distant galaxies, billions of light years away in space and time. Scientists have since built Space born telescopes like COBE, WMAP and PLANCK that are so sensitive, they can see light coming from the very horizon of the Universe. In essence, they can look back in time to the very beginning of everything! Everyone thought that we were about to learn exactly how our Universe suddenly just came to be 13.8 billion years ago.

Except, the Universe decided to play hardball.

For the first 400,000 years of our Universe’s existence, light (“electromagnetic radiation”) was trapped inside matter. Because light (“electromagnetic radiation”) could not travel freely, there is thus a solid wall at the 400,000 years year mark that no telescope can ever see past. Think of it like this: whenever you look at a distant star, you are seeing that star as it was millions, perhaps billions, of years ago – this is so, because it has taken the light (“electromagnetic radiation”) from that star many years to reach you. Ok, so instead of looking at a distant star, now take a look at an empty patch of space in the night sky – your telescope is looking as far back in time as the Universe will allow. In this case, it detects light (“electromagnetic radiation”) that originated 400,000 years after the big bang. Without the ability to observe any light (“electromagnetic radiation”) older than 400,000 years after the big bang, we are literally in the dark as to what happened when our Universe was born.

But what if there was another form of radiation that we could observe?

There is! Electromagnetic radiation (“light”) not the only form of energetic radiation that can transmit information; as it turns out, objects with mass can also emit GRAVITATIONAL RADIATION. It works like this: if I move an object with electric charge back and forth, it will induce a electromagnetic wave that propagates outwards at the speed of light. If I move an object that has mass, it too will induce a gravitational wave that moves radially outward at the speed of light. But here’s the key difference between gravitational waves and light waves: human beings evolved to detect and process electromagnetic radiation (vision) with our eyeballs because electromagnetic waves are quite large and energetic! Unfortunately, gravitational radiation is so puny that if our Sun were to suddenly explode, we would barely feel the resulting gravitational wave. (Of course, we would also be flung off into the cold expanse of deep space fated to freeze to death, but that’s beside the point.)

LIGO was a simple proof-of-concept experiment to prove that gravitational waves could be directly detected with a large enough machine and a large enough gravitational even (say, the collision of two black holes many light years away.) LIGO is that machine – it works by firing two laser beams into mirrors to form an “L” shape, each leg being exactly 4 kilometers long. The lasers start at the bottom left and corner of the L, fire outwards, reflect, then converge back at the starting point. If sufficiently strong gravitational radiation happens to pass through Earth, it will stretch and squash the space-time we live in such that the lasers in the L shape will distort by a distance smaller than an atom, and the alarm bells will sound. Simple enough. And yet when LIGO was built, nobody knew if gravitational radiation really existed… even though Einstein predicted it and since 1919, nobody has ever really doubted that Eintstein was wrong. We had indirect evidence of gravitational radiation, but nothing concrete. And so, LIGO was proposed as a billion-dollar proof of obscure science concept – much to the chagrin of 90s era congressional republicans who saw the whole affair as wasteful government spending. Kip Thorn (The “Interstellar Dude”) championed the project, the NSF gave the finger to congress, and LIGO survived. LISA didn’t.

Over a billion dollars later, the pricey LIGO had only heard crickets… and the occasional truck that rumbled down the road a few miles away from the experiment. NASA abandons LISA and sells whatever could be salvaged to the Europeans.

And so, a woman enters this story who embodies the very definition human fortitude. Her name is Nergis Malvalvola and she was raised in Pakistan. Today, she is a professor at MIT and CalTech, a Macarthur Fellow, and one of the world’s most respected experimental physicists. She has dedicated her life to perfecting LIGO, and spent decade after decade refining every detail of this billion-dollar project. While she will undoubtedly scold me for this statement, I nevertheless feel obligated to mention that she is a gay woman who obliterated the thick glass ceiling of boys-club physics and deserves to be cherished as a hero to all outsiders who dream of contributing to endeavors greater than themselves. Back to the story: Nergis blazed a trail and led the charge to upgrade the experiment’s sensitivity. She, and her numerous colleagues, collaborated to invent a groundbreaking technique to increase the detector’s sensitivity from resolving the width of an atom, to resolving the width of a tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny, sub atomic particle. This major upgrade just paid off, because you all just read the headline. The damn thing finally worked!

Thanks to the brilliance of Nergis and her colleagues, LIGO has now directly observed gravitational waves. Specifically, the gravitational wave radiation from a distant black hole colliding with another black hole. If an electromagnetic radiation based telescope were to resolve this event, it would have to have a mirror larger than orbit of the Earth around the Sun! That is the sheer power of LIGO – humanity’s first gravitational wave telescope! With this successful proof of concept, the time has come to put in LIGO in space, and jack up it’s power to 11.

LISA stands for the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna. LISA is LIGO, but in space. She works off the same principles, but without having to worry about the curvature of the Earth, her lasers can fire much longer distances to form a gargantuan “L” shape. Remember how light is bounded until 400,000 years after the big bang? Gravity isn’t. In fact, nearly every reputable cosmological model we have predicts testable gravitational radiation artifacts in the earliest moments of the big bang. In other words, we now have the technology to literally look back in time to the very beginning of everything and watch our Universe birth itself. Think about that for a moment.

TL;DR –

LIGO just proved that LISA is worth the billions it will cost to put her into space.

When LISA goes up (or whatever she’s called by then), she will see farther back in time than any other telescope in the history of mankind. Which means…

…In our lifetimes, we will almost assuredly learn the exact physics of how the Universe (as we know it) came to be.

So yeah, LIGO’s a big deal.

TL...is this guy.... Tony Lund Producer, writer, and director of Through the Wormhole.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2810966/

lcam88
13th February 2016, 21:59
First of all, the word "luminous" is superfluous in your description.

Luminosity does not need to be visible, as far as I know. It can be felt, like sun rays you can feel on your skin (infra-red or ultra-violet), and insofar as you then describe those rays within a domain of electro-magnetism, I think luminous light is quite a precise concept.

I use the term to distinguish it from other types of light, such as brilliant ideas that philosophers may externalise or even material light in tangible forms, or even spiritual light as some people may find present in their lives.

I understand your position of engaging my initial question with the introduction of light "particles" perhaps to invoke the logical thoughts that would then find this scandalous type of difference obvious. So then the question begs, can gravitational waves also exhibit particle like characteristics?


Light exists, doesn't it? And it is moving, isn't it?

So, does it really move, or does it propagate? Consider the Heisenberg principle of uncertainty, if you indeed can identify the particle, can you actually say anything about where the particle is going or even if it is going?

I like your explanation for light vs gravitational wave. :) I had a different idea I am sure you don't what to hear it.


The "decision" of light (or other elementary particles) to act as either a wave or a particle is what we call the collapse of the wave function

Ridiculous!

You can't say that light decided anything, all you can say is that the observers' decision to setup the various detection experiment in one configuration or another determines the type of characteristic he will find.

The stuff about collapse of the wave function is the mathematical understanding of what happens to the model that suddenly has moved out of the predefined limit and thus no longer properly models what is observed. In other words, the model defines the limits when it can applied, once the phenomena no longer is within those bounds, then the model no longer applies, ie its ability to calculate and predict collapses.


...If the aether would have been brought into this equation, then it would be some kind of substance which fills up the holodeck. It would not be the hardware.

Either analogy fits. The holodeck is presumed to be filled with air so that people who enter it do not need to bring their own life support systems. Insofar as that air serves as some part of the holographic animation it too is "hardware". But I can see you point too, I really don't know much about holodeck technology to suppose what constitutes hardware, or not. No need to overthink stuff.


That's just you focusing on my vocabulary...

And so do you, my friend, so do you. Excessively if I may add, and that is the only reason I call so much attention to vocabulary in the prior posting.

It is almost as though, you find it easier to simply claim something as a non-sequitar or Apples vs Oranges than to find enough flexibility in the terms to actually understand the idea or merits of an idea. I have come to think that perhaps the real reason you are not be interested in visiting such ideas with valid points/concepts from standard model theory is because the amount of complexity in standard model theory does not permit anything but superfluous examinations and consequently defending the theory really can only be done by debunk other ideas by whatever means available.


...in my personal opinion, you hold a prejudice against the whole of conventional science. And that, in my opinion, is throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

I am inclined to agree with you. See one such reason I have just shared above.

Everyone has a prejudice, insofar as you understand prejudice to be meaning and value inflected on the parts that are discriminated arbitrarily from the whole. Nobody discriminates completely equally.

I think the more you attempt to represent or to convey such conventional scientific ideas, the more firmly my prejudices seem to become in rejecting some of those ideas. Maybe that is because the tone of our dialectic has taken, one of opposition, and not necessarily well founded opposition. I am not claiming any more innocence in this observation that I would yield to you, my friend. Not seeing eye to eye is quite distinct from claiming to be an authority of some kind.

I rather liked you personal view of it all, that there is a wholeness, a moment where all the distinctions and differences hereto labeled by the whole spectrum of terms like "photon" to "boson" to "atom" to plant and even planet can be unified into a whole. You expressed the idea much more eloquently a few posts ago in a way much more aligned to your view of things.

My issue, it seems, is only that I am much less tolerant in accepting ideas that can't be found to fit in what would be the homogeneous pattern of all things that define that wholeness. If you imagine wholeness as having an innate pattern, something perhaps fractal like that permeates throughout, you are imagining that homogeneous pattern. That is a pattern that I try to make fit, even where such a fit may be poor.

Standard model appears to me as devoid of reasoning that could support such a concept. The ether being a fundamental that indeed might fundamentally make such a pattern viable to conceptualise.

I hesitate to refer to the ether as "the luminiferous aether" only because that term is quite a bit more specific to the properties of luminous light than I understand the ether to actually be. Indeed a "luminiferous aether" may be a completely different theory to the etheric theory I have yet to elaborate on, and needless to say, conflating the two of them is a declension of one perhaps very valid theory through association with a less valid one. It would be like a type straw-man argument as such a strategy could be applied to the concepts.


That is indeed what an interference pattern is supposed to visualize. That has nothing to do with light refracting in the opposite direction.

hmm, light reflects in the opposite direction. Refracting is what happens when a wave goes by a corner. Or when light enters a prism (a corner of sorts).


Finally, now we are getting somewhere! <grin>

I'm happy to know!

lcam88
13th February 2016, 22:08
Shadowself!

Welcome back.

The LIGO experiment as you quote above, at first glance, appears to be very very similar to the Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment).

It compared the speed of light in perpendicular directions, in an attempt to detect the relative motion of matter through the stationary luminiferous aether ("aether wind"). The result was negative, in that the expected difference between the speed of light in the direction of movement through the presumed aether, and the speed at right angles, was found not to exist; this result is generally considered to be the first strong evidence against the then-prevalent aether theory, and initiated a line of research that eventually led to special relativity, which rules out a stationary aether. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment)

If memory serves, if the speed of light where altered by the movement of the medium it was thought to be propagating within, an interference pattern should emerge.

The results never did yield an interference pattern and so it was concluded that the theory of a medium of aether that light propagates through was invalid.

The text you quote above suggests an experiment of very similar setup, except where we have 4km of perpendicular legs... And we are trying to detect a difference within the width of an atom.

Do you feel up to commenting on this issue?

Shadowself
14th February 2016, 14:21
Hi Icam88!

Me comment? LOL Sure...I'll try with only half a cup of coffee but I'm working on that as I write!

" LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration teams announced that they had directly detected gravitational waves using the Advanced LIGO detectors from a pair of black holes merging".


Interestingly enough the Virgo Collaboration team use a Michelson interferometer that is isolated from external disturbances: its mirrors and instrumentation are suspended and its laser beam operates in a vacuum. The instrument's two arms are three kilometres long.

The Michelson interferometer is especially known for its use by Albert Michelson and Edward Morley in the famous Michelson-Morley experiment (1887) in a configuration which would have detected the earth's motion through the supposed luminiferous aether that most physicists at the time believed was the medium in which light waves propagated. The null result of that experiment essentially disproved the existence of such an aether, leading eventually to the special theory of relativity and the revolution in physics at the beginning of the twentieth century.

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

LIGO cofounded by Kip Thorne and Ronald Drever of Caltech and Rainer Weiss of MIT since 1992 was to observe and detect gravitational waves.

My first thought is Kip Thorne the champion of Wormhole theory!

So if one can detect these gravitationl waves apart from the earth curvature essentially from space as the comment states from a prototype of LISA....this my friends when perfected would certainly detect any naturally occurring wormholes...and possibly (my conspiracy theory side comes out) any type of wormhole activity that might be perfected and "made" and possibly carrying travelers of time and space no? YES! It would certainly detect that!

I'll add more thought after I've had more coffee!

Good to see you all!

Shadowself
14th February 2016, 15:49
Whoa Nelly! Coffee kicked in!

I've had some time to think on this and given the fact that Kip Thorne's goal is to build a stable wormhole...this "detector" LISA and LIGO would make a great tool for building a wormhole! Think about it....

If you were to attempt such a thing in spacetime....you would certainly need a detector to determine if it's stable enough to travel!

Whoa!!!!!!!!!!!


Thorne derived from general relativity the laws of motion and precession of black holes and other relativistic bodies, including the influence of the coupling of their multipole moments to the spacetime curvature of nearby objects. Thorne has also theoretically predicted the existence of universally antigravitating "exotic matter" – the element needed to accelerate the expansion rate of the universe, keep traversable wormhole "Star Gates" open and keep timelike geodesic free float "warp drives" working. With Clifford Will and others of his students, he laid the foundations for the theoretical interpretation of experimental tests of relativistic theories of gravity – foundations on which Will and others then built.

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

Double whoa!!!!!!!!

lcam88
14th February 2016, 17:43
Very interesting.

Those are some interesting insights indeed. I would never have imagined...

Shadowself, do you think the results, in some way, challenges the 1887 conclusion of non-existence of the aether? Do you think these observations would be reason to revisit conclusions drawn on the original and followup experiments?

Why do I ask? Only because indeed the results that would have been reasoned to confirm the existence of the aether, would indeed be similar to what LIGO is observing right? Am I oversimplifying somewhere?

Thanks in advance.

Aragorn
14th February 2016, 18:25
Here's Kip Thorne, a leading scientist, explaining the discovery of gravitational waves on RT television...




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9Zs-CjybTc




(With thanks to member URIKORN, who posted this video elsewhere on the forum.)

Myst
15th February 2016, 08:01
.

Shadowself
15th February 2016, 14:29
Very interesting.

Those are some interesting insights indeed. I would never have imagined...

Shadowself, do you think the results, in some way, challenges the 1887 conclusion of non-existence of the aether? Do you think these observations would be reason to revisit conclusions drawn on the original and followup experiments?

Why do I ask? Only because indeed the results that would have been reasoned to confirm the existence of the aether, would indeed be similar to what LIGO is observing right? Am I oversimplifying somewhere?

Thanks in advance.

Good morning!

I'm not really qualified to determine that question. I do know that Aether has been equated to dark energy and that dark energy is said to distort gravitational waves...other than that I really cannot comment on that. This has been brought up several times during the quest for gravitational waves.

Hope that helps in your quest for an answer which I surely don't have.

I did run into a few videos by the LIGO team yesterday I would like to share here. They are short but pretty neat.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVJ6kKfZbZo


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zisf2xKvjA&feature=youtu.be


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

lcam88
15th February 2016, 15:07
Yeah, at the end of the day, standing theory does not require more considerations or contemplations of this medium. Thanks for the links.

bsbray
15th February 2016, 19:42
And now for something completely different. ;)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yis7GzlXNM

hughe
15th February 2016, 23:09
Theory of General Relativity is pseudo hypothesis.

What's the speed of gravity? Did Mr. Einstein ever explicitly express what's the speed of gravity? Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light I assume. Earth's average orbital speed around the Sun is 100,000 km/h. It's traveling in space very fast. The average distance between Earth between the Sun takes eight minutes at speed of light. Suppose speed of gravity is c (300,000 km/s), our solar system could've been fell apart long time ago. Every moment I see how entire universe works against the delusional hypothesis manufactured by few scientists.

Simple fact is if a physical law is right, you don't need to build complex super equipment for observation. Modern astronomy becomes such absurd field of study that any reasonable man can't be part of. Few decades ago a group of scientist won Nobel prize in physics after detecting the 3K cosmic background of radiation. Apparently they fudged observed data from the satellite to justify the Big Bang theory because the stake was too high. The satellite was orbiting around near Earth's surface and couldn't separate temperature reading from Earth and outer space. Can you measure ambient temperature putting the gauge inside a container of boiling water?


To the EU team



In reference to the fake Gravitational waves discovery in LIGO project; few words from me ; Gravitational waves DO NOT exist (!); ' G' has electrical nature. The current EU concept of 'G' is based on Fritz London work ; in 1930 he explained the weak, attractive dipole electric bonding force that causes gas molecules to condense and form liquids and solids- the LONDON FORCE.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_dispersion_force
https://youtu.be/1iYKajMsYPY



This positive force originates in oscillating electric dipoles caused by slight distortion of otherwise electrically neutral atoms and molecules.The electric dipoles resonate and line up so that they attract each other. This is the - clue about real nature of 'G' . We are bonded to the Earth by a similiar but far weaker version of the London force between atoms. LDF like Gravity is always attractive (...) However we still do not know what is Gravity.(?) The full answear will probably come to us from our Electric Sun.



And more: 'G' is a complex phenomena; is affected f.ex. by atmospheric pressure; vide - Venus: the pressure at its surface is about 92 times that at Earth's—a pressure equivalent to that at a depth of nearly 1 kilometre under Earth's oceans.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus

Check Venus data on -' G' and think about it.

Shadowself
16th February 2016, 06:04
What's the speed of gravity? Did Mr. Einstein ever explicitly express what's the speed of gravity?

Well....yes he did...


The speed of gravitational waves in the general theory of relativity is equal to the speed of light in vacuum, c. Within the theory of special relativity, the constant c is not exclusively about light; instead it is the highest possible speed for any interaction in nature. Formally, c is a conversion factor for changing the unit of time to the unit of space. This makes it the only speed which does not depend either on the motion of an observer or a source of light and/or gravity. Thus, the speed of "light" is also the speed of gravitational waves and any other massless particle. Such particles include the gluon (carrier of the strong force), the photons that make up light, and the theoretical gravitons which make up the associated field particles of gravity (however a theory of the graviton requires a theory of quantum gravity).

In classical theories of gravitation, the speed of gravity is the speed at which changes in a gravitational field propagate. This is the speed at which a change in the distribution of energy and momentum of matter results in subsequent alteration, at a distance, of the gravitational field which it produces. In a more physically correct sense, the "speed of gravity" refers to the speed of a gravitational wave, which is the same speed as the speed of light.

Also:

https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/q1510.html

lcam88
16th February 2016, 11:52
What's the speed of gravity?

Newtons gravity equations do not have a variable defining time. That would suggest that, like the electric force, it is instantaneous in its effects.

Indeed it takes about 7 or 8 minutes for luminous light from the sun to reach the earth. If indeed the force of its gravity also required 7 or 8 minutes to effect the earth, things would be really wonky.

I am skeptical about this gravitational wave idea, needless to say more, especially after that exchange with Aragorn. (He is a champ)

Indeed electric instruments require noise filtration to separate noise that comes with the SIGINT from the actual signal. When you are searching for a signal in background radiation, effectively that is like selectively filtering noise and then declaring that some aspect of that total noise is something special.

Using the ripple in the pond analogy, it would be like watching the surface of a pond during a hailstorm and having the lab assistant throw a rock out into the middle of the pond to then try to separate the ripples caused by the rock from all the falling ice. If the rock was very large, indeed it would be possible to notice the wave it caused within a certain radius of the point of impact , but eventually it becomes part of the noise.

That is not to say the filtered signal is nothing special, especially when you managed to filter the SIGINT in such a way that pre-established equations explain the results. But it may be equally fitting to say the filters themselves are special.

Shadowself
16th February 2016, 14:28
Newton's reservations....


While Newton was able to formulate his law of gravity in his monumental work, he was deeply uncomfortable with the notion of "action at a distance" which his equations implied. In 1692, in his third letter to Bentley, he wrote: "That one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one another, is to me so great an absurdity that, I believe, no man who has in philosophic matters a competent faculty of thinking could ever fall into it."

He never, in his words, "assigned the cause of this power". In all other cases, he used the phenomenon of motion to explain the origin of various forces acting on bodies, but in the case of gravity, he was unable to experimentally identify the motion that produces the force of gravity (although he invented two mechanical hypotheses in 1675 and 1717). Moreover, he refused to even offer a hypothesis as to the cause of this force on grounds that to do so was contrary to sound science. He lamented that "philosophers have hitherto attempted the search of nature in vain" for the source of the gravitational force, as he was convinced "by many reasons" that there were "causes hitherto unknown" that were fundamental to all the "phenomena of nature". These fundamental phenomena are still under investigation and, though hypotheses abound, the definitive answer has yet to be found. And in Newton's 1713 General Scholium in the second edition of Principia: "I have not yet been able to discover the cause of these properties of gravity from phenomena and I feign no hypotheses... It is enough that gravity does really exist and acts according to the laws I have explained, and that it abundantly serves to account for all the motions of celestial bodies."

Thus....Brings about Einstein's solution...


These objections were explained by Einstein's theory of general relativity, in which gravitation is an attribute of curved spacetime instead of being due to a force propagated between bodies. In Einstein's theory, energy and momentum distort spacetime in their vicinity, and other particles move in trajectories determined by the geometry of spacetime. This allowed a description of the motions of light and mass that was consistent with all available observations. In general relativity, the gravitational force is a fictitious force due to the curvature of spacetime, because the gravitational acceleration of a body in free fall is due to its world line being a geodesic of spacetime.

This...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypotheses_non_fingo

Leads to this:

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

It is what it is... :tea:

lcam88
16th February 2016, 16:43
Shadowself:

I agree that science has moved from the position of "I have not yet been able to discover the cause of these properties of gravity from phenomena and I feign no hypotheses...", to relativity where one can say "We have a theory".

That is progress.

My skepticism is better qualified as "probabilistic skepticism" rather than "deterministic skepticism", in that I look at something and think, "it possibly could be explained better", or even "a better answer/solution is possible". Those being quite different from "it's wrong", "I can prove it", or even the classical appeal to authority, "Einstein showed it to be so."

Let's examine this idea of spacetime, probabilistically skeptical here, and please correct or add to this where it is incorrect:

1) spacetime is a concept; "In physics, spacetime is any mathematical model that combines space and time into a single interwoven continuum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime).",
2) where our understanding of 3 degrees of freedom of a point or particle (x, y, and z) is given an additional degree of freedom where we can examine a point or particle in relation to a duration (time),

3) we can further examine nearby energies using the concept of spacetime,
3.1) changes in any of the 4 degrees of freedom must be in response to external stimulus,
3.2) by describing deviations from a nominal neutral state of the concept defined above, by supposing a "curvature" can occur as x,y or y,z or x,z are plotted on a 3d grid in relation to t,
3.3) any change in state observed within the 4 degrees of freedom are only introduced into spacetime and are only there to describe the nearby energies, and not there to describe spacetime,
3.4) so we describe possibilities that are difficult to conceptualize, of the nearby energy, by super-imposing the effects of those concepts onto the concept of spacetime in the near vincinity, this experiment permits greater discrimination and offers mathematics a chance to describe bits and bytes of the whole as independent parts, not because necessarily the bits and bytes are independent, but because they can be represented that way,

4) if you examine exactly what curvature means, considering along x, y, z and t(ime) we may be able to establish some things it is not:
4.1) it is not more than can be defined by the 4 degrees of freedom we are using to define it,
4.2) it is not a medium (aether), or anything else that requires particulate type consideration for any single point,
4.3) it is not the fundamental that may cause an observation, it is only an explanation (one possibility) of what is observed,

5) as you examine theories built on this concept, perhaps special relativity, you get insight into a relationship between light and matter as elaborated by that theory, the use of the concept of spacetime assists in "thought experiments" as well,
6) and if a theory adds nuances about what the spacetime concept actually is in such a way that it adds properties, those elaborations do not change what fundamentally is only a concept defined by 4 degrees of freedom, but would define a new conceptual construct; such an elaboration, where applicable, seems fitting as a new term so that studies made with the new concept could be identified easily as based on a different model,

7) the concept of gravity (a property of mass) applied to the concept of spacetime aids our understandings, we elegantly have gotten to step 3.4 and we have elaborate mathematical models that represent observations made in many circumstances, but its important to remember fundamentally those observations are of mass.

We are all consciously aware of what we describe as the infinite possibilities of the universe, from a position of probabilistic skepticism as I describe above, item 4.3 above makes it perfectly clear why such skepticism would be well founded.

Does the term "gravitational wave" mean anything different now that spacetime is defined as above? It certainly does mean more to me.

If indeed there is a medium that fills space, a hypothesis or theory that would further elaborate and describe such a medium would not be unfounded if that medium was deemed to be important. But, as long as we confuse spacetime with this yet untheorized medium, we have yet to reach the point where Newton said: "I feign no hypotheses..."

Here is another Sam Harris video that inspired all of this.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mP6ukJHyQiI

Dreamtimer
18th February 2016, 14:00
Shadowself! Good to see you. You were never more than six degrees away...:)

Dreamtimer
18th February 2016, 14:33
bsbray, thank you for that video. Hilarious. Weird Al reached new heights with his rapping in that one. I heard some Eminem in his rhyme/rhythm. The DeGrasse Tyson look alike was the perfect addition. :lol:

Shadowself
21st February 2016, 13:43
Shadowself:

I agree that science has moved from the position of "I have not yet been able to discover the cause of these properties of gravity from phenomena and I feign no hypotheses...", to relativity where one can say "We have a theory".

That is progress.

My skepticism is better qualified as "probabilistic skepticism" rather than "deterministic skepticism", in that I look at something and think, "it possibly could be explained better", or even "a better answer/solution is possible". Those being quite different from "it's wrong", "I can prove it", or even the classical appeal to authority, "Einstein showed it to be so."

Let's examine this idea of spacetime, probabilistically skeptical here, and please correct or add to this where it is incorrect:

1) spacetime is a concept; "In physics, spacetime is any mathematical model that combines space and time into a single interwoven continuum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime).",
2) where our understanding of 3 degrees of freedom of a point or particle (x, y, and z) is given an additional degree of freedom where we can examine a point or particle in relation to a duration (time),

3) we can further examine nearby energies using the concept of spacetime,
3.1) changes in any of the 4 degrees of freedom must be in response to external stimulus,
3.2) by describing deviations from a nominal neutral state of the concept defined above, by supposing a "curvature" can occur as x,y or y,z or x,z are plotted on a 3d grid in relation to t,
3.3) any change in state observed within the 4 degrees of freedom are only introduced into spacetime and are only there to describe the nearby energies, and not there to describe spacetime,
3.4) so we describe possibilities that are difficult to conceptualize, of the nearby energy, by super-imposing the effects of those concepts onto the concept of spacetime in the near vincinity, this experiment permits greater discrimination and offers mathematics a chance to describe bits and bytes of the whole as independent parts, not because necessarily the bits and bytes are independent, but because they can be represented that way,

4) if you examine exactly what curvature means, considering along x, y, z and t(ime) we may be able to establish some things it is not:
4.1) it is not more than can be defined by the 4 degrees of freedom we are using to define it,
4.2) it is not a medium (aether), or anything else that requires particulate type consideration for any single point,
4.3) it is not the fundamental that may cause an observation, it is only an explanation (one possibility) of what is observed,

5) as you examine theories built on this concept, perhaps special relativity, you get insight into a relationship between light and matter as elaborated by that theory, the use of the concept of spacetime assists in "thought experiments" as well,
6) and if a theory adds nuances about what the spacetime concept actually is in such a way that it adds properties, those elaborations do not change what fundamentally is only a concept defined by 4 degrees of freedom, but would define a new conceptual construct; such an elaboration, where applicable, seems fitting as a new term so that studies made with the new concept could be identified easily as based on a different model,

7) the concept of gravity (a property of mass) applied to the concept of spacetime aids our understandings, we elegantly have gotten to step 3.4 and we have elaborate mathematical models that represent observations made in many circumstances, but its important to remember fundamentally those observations are of mass.

We are all consciously aware of what we describe as the infinite possibilities of the universe, from a position of probabilistic skepticism as I describe above, item 4.3 above makes it perfectly clear why such skepticism would be well founded.

Does the term "gravitational wave" mean anything different now that spacetime is defined as above? It certainly does mean more to me.

If indeed there is a medium that fills space, a hypothesis or theory that would further elaborate and describe such a medium would not be unfounded if that medium was deemed to be important. But, as long as we confuse spacetime with this yet untheorized medium, we have yet to reach the point where Newton said: "I feign no hypotheses..."

Here is another Sam Harris video that inspired all of this.


Good Morning! Sorry it took me so long to respond to this post. I've been busy and pulled in many different directions and simply have not had the time to properly respond.

As for the spacetime "concept"....It's not simply a concept but the bending of spacetime had been actually proven on several different levels. What that means for the theory (idea) of general relativity is confirming but not yet complete and as Kip said they have a long way to go and a whole lot more to learn from this direct evidence of gravitational waves. They are well aware of this also.

Theory is simply that..... a theory and until proven through experiment are simply that...theory.

There have been many experiments that have actually shown the bending of spacetime then throw in some string theory and quantum advise and it gets even more interesting. We are living in interesting time....no pun intended. :h5:

Here is just a very short review of Evidence of Warped Spacetime but there is a whole lot more to it than that. In fact missing a few very relative (no pun intended) experiments that I will add in the following video which is again evidence of warped spacetime and an epic experiment.

http://www.astronomynotes.com/relativity/s4.htm


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkAPv5s92z0

But given the simple fact that we are sitting in a galaxy that spins around a huge black hole traveling along these lines I will quote something that struck me a while ago of an ancient Egyptian nature from the Ancient Egyptian Coffin Texts which I'm certain you'll remember. The Redshift it what struck me...and I will quote a small part of the link I just provided.


Prediction: light escaping from a large mass should lose energy---the wavelength must increase since the speed of light is constant. Stronger surface gravity produces a greater increase in the wavelength.

This is a consequence of time dilation. Suppose person A on the massive object decides to send light of a specific frequency f to person B all of the time. So every second, f wave crests leave person A. The same wave crests are received by person B in an interval of time interval of (1+z) seconds. He receives the waves at a frequency of f/(1+z). Remember that the speed of light c = (the frequency f) × (the wavelength l). If the frequency is reduced by (1+z) times, the wavelength must INcrease by (1+z) times: lat B = (1+z) × lat A. In the doppler effect, this lengthening of the wavelength is called a redshift. For gravity, the effect is called a gravitational redshift.

Observation: spectral lines from the top layer of white dwarfs are significantly shifted by an amount predicted for compact solar-mass objects. The white dwarf must be in a binary system with a main sequence companion so that the amount the total shift due to the ordinary doppler effect can be determined and subtracted out. Inside a black hole's event horizon, light is redshifted to an infinitely long wavelength.



Then the Coffin Texts and the Negative Confession of the Book of the Dead ...



If you fall into the black hole you will get crushed.

Egyptian: Second death.

If approached from the inner horizon or the axis of the black hole or the north
pole, the gravitational repulsion of the central singularity slows the entity
down, turning it around, and accelerating it back out through the inner horizon of a
white hole. Put simply, the space axis and time axis exchange places when one crosses
the outer event horizon, and the future becomes an unavoidable place in
time or the crushing singularity. Crossing the inner event horizon, time and space resume their normal axes, making the singularity an avoidable place in space, while allowing access to the past singularity of the white hole. Ultimately, one goes through four horizons

~

Egyptians referred to as the opening of mouths four times. The Opening of the
Mouth ceremony parallels the movement of the Deceased through four horizons.


According to scientific speculations, inside a spinning black hole, the act
of looking backward would allow one to see a white hole or the past singularity.
Since a white hole is a black hole running backward in time, the Negative
Confession of the Book of the Dead describes deities:

"Who come forth backwards".

"He whose Face is behind him who came forth from his hole".

The inner horizon, radiation is blueshifted as it accumulates.

Field of Turquoise and the Blue One, Lake of Turquoise,
traveling with turquoise, Lord of Turquoise, and open door of the blue sky.

Indicates blueshift or the high frequency light associated with
approaching radiation.

In contrast, radiation moving away from the observer appears redshifted.
The Dead King observes:

he who departs is red and smeared

"N" has gone up in the red hour.
(N State described in video below starting at 1:16)

~

According to Holographic principal: All Information about the black hole is stored on the horizon....The peripheral!

Particles living on the horizon boundary describe objects in the interior.


This ancient culture must certainly KNOW the landscape of space and time with great detail to know the redshift and blueshift attributes.

Dead Kings escapes the black hole Netherworld associated with
uraei shedding "light by means of their radiance (which cometh) from their mouths"

or uraei pouring fire from their mouths:

Firewall?

The mouths of a wormhole are analogous to the holes at either end of the tube in a 2D plane...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wormhole

a quantum parallel exists between the transformed Deceased and Hawking radiance in the bulk, proposing the existence of large extra dimensions in small black holes.

The Dead King is a horizon dweller: has a
seat in the horizon, and takes possession of the horizon

so that those who are in the horizon may live for this spirit

"My power is in the horizon"

~The Ancient Egyptian Coffin Texts - R.O. Faulkner ~

Peripheral Sensor/Surface

Peripheral: Of, relating to, or situated on the edge or periphery of something.

Redefining the Horizon

This is and interesting idea and I will take context once again from said Coffin texts:

In contrast, radiation moving away from the observer appears redshifted.
The Dead King observes:

he who departs is red and smeared

While the thought is that we are in a galaxy spinning around the horizon of a black hole.....WE ARE HORIZON DWELLERS as is the dead king...

The Dead King is a horizon dweller: has a
seat in the horizon, and takes possession of the horizon

so that those who are in the horizon may live for this spirit

"My power is in the horizon"

Redefining the Horizon....



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



As I said..there is much we have to learn....modern physics has a long way to go....this LIGO detection...is one small but significant step.

Shadowself
21st February 2016, 13:54
Shadowself! Good to see you. You were never more than six degrees away...:)

Good to see you too...in six degrees!

Shadowself
21st February 2016, 14:23
Oh..one last thing to add....if indeed in the Coffin Texts they are describing a black hole....they say:


Egyptians referred to as the opening of mouths four times. The Opening of the
Mouth ceremony parallels the movement of the Deceased through four horizons.


Today our physics only describes three parts:


There are three main parts to a black hole.

Singularity
Outer Event Horizon
Inner Event Horizon

So...perhaps they knew something we don't yet...

Egyptian: Second death.


If approached from the inner horizon or the axis of the black hole or the north
pole, the gravitational repulsion of the central singularity slows the entity
down, turning it around, and accelerating it back out through the inner horizon of a
white hole. Put simply, the space axis and time axis exchange places when one crosses
the outer event horizon, and the future becomes an unavoidable place in
time or the crushing singularity. Crossing the inner event horizon, time and space resume their normal axes, making the singularity an avoidable place in space, while allowing access to the past singularity of the white hole. Ultimately, one goes through four horizons

lcam88
21st February 2016, 18:52
Whats the difference between the inner and outer even horizon?

I've had a beer and so I'm not thinking "normally" :)

If spacetime is a concept, proving it by confirming observations of mass and energy interactions with it just proves the concept is useful, not that it is actually real. Right?

I would think it useful more because of how it can be used to predict characteristics of mass and energy, rather than in knowing something special about the concept.

Dreamtimer
21st February 2016, 18:56
"We are horizon dwellers." This made me think of Nassim Haramein and his idea that we are at the event horizon between the macro- and microscopic. It seems like the same or a similar idea.

lcam88
10th June 2016, 12:28
I've had a new idea that might be worth taking a moment to think about in relation to the Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887 and the LIGO experiment.

It relates to time dilation experiments that David Anderson is doing (Anderson Institute) in relation to the "frame-dragging" phenomena. That "spacetime" (or if you appeal to the theory of an aether type medium filling space) or a "bubble" of aether, is carried along with spinning energies or masses.

Would this frame dragging phenomena then have come into play in an unexpected way during the Michelson-Morley experiment? That the designers of that experiment erroneously presumed the aether to be an inert material that should interact in a specific way where in fact it unexpectedly interacted differently?

For the curious who needs a clue about what I'm hinting at: http://articles.latimes.com/1996-02-26/news/mn-40319_1_space-shuttle-columbia

Why was the tether breaking "unexpected"?

Is there a correlation between the "unexpected" participation of what was considered an inert medium/material, and the unexpected event on Columbia on Feb 26 1996?

If there is, and given the nature of that Anderson Institute has been focused on, does the mean LIGO may have actually detected temporal waves instead?

Are these interesting dots to be connecting?

scibuster
10th June 2016, 13:38
I hope I can learn about the horizon:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBPpRqxY8Uw

with Prof. Leonard Susskind

Jeffrey W.
19th July 2016, 01:59
I respectfully disagree with the claim of gravitational wave discovery. My reasoning is that space and time are not physical, so they cannot wave. Water is made of hydrogen and oxygen, it can wave. To state space and time ripple like water is like saying dark and heavy ripple. It is bad science. I do not mean to insult people here because they have been so kind to me, but I do not have a problem calling out academics who wish to bamboozle the public for vanity purposes. BLEH!!!

Aragorn
19th July 2016, 21:55
I respectfully disagree with the claim of gravitational wave discovery. My reasoning is that space and time are not physical, so they cannot wave. Water is made of hydrogen and oxygen, it can wave. To state space and time ripple like water is like saying dark and heavy ripple. It is bad science. [...]

As someone coming from a scientific background myself, I'd be interested in learning which sources, research and/or empirical testing lead you to that conclusion, Jeffrey. (And no, this is not Project Avalon, so you won't get banned here for not toeing anybody's party line. ;))

Spacetime may not be physical in the sense that it would be a gaseous or electromagnetic medium — cfr. the so-called luminiferous aether which was once believed to exist — but it is itself a reality matrix nevertheless, and its tangibility exists beyond the matrix itself; i.e. in hyperspace. A manifold never exists within itself.

This is also how wormholes can exist, i.e. they are shortcuts between two distinct sets of coordinates in spacetime, in the form of a conduit of spacetime which itself passes through hyperspace like a tunnel passing through a mountain. The only difference between a wormhole and a tunnel through a mountain in that regard is the fact that the mountain is part of the same vector space as the tunnel itself, whereas hyperspace is a higher-order vector space compared to spacetime; it has at the very least one (and probably multiple) extra dimension(s).

The fact that spacetime can be warped has been empirically established by way of several hands-on tests, including the comparison of elapsed time on two perfectly identical and initially synchronized caesium clocks, one of which in motion and the other one stationary. Not only was this confirmed, but it has also become an indispensable ingredient in the calibration of the clocks onboard of satellites.

Solar eclipses have also shown that the joint gravitational effects of the celestial bodies involved in the eclipse bend the light around these celestial bodies to a greater extent than outside of the eclipse. Given that photons move along a free-fall geodesic and that they do not have any rest mass, the only possible conclusion is that spacetime itself is being bent (to a greater extent than normal) around the gravitational well created by the conjunction of the celestial bodies.

Einstein's predicted frame-dragging effect — the rippling distortion of spacetime around Earth, caused by Earth's rotation — has also already been empirically confirmed by way of specially designed space probes. Furthermore, the warp drive research independently conducted both by David Pares and by NASA also confirms that spacetime can indeed be warped. And if it can be warped, then it can exhibit ripples and waves.

Perhaps the term "gravitational wave" would become more acceptable to you if you were to replace the word "wave" with "spacetime distortion". ;)