 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Feb 13, 2016 - 3:13 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Metryq
(Member)
|
The crux of the matter is Einsteinian Relativity, which was contentious from the start, and still is. Only the general public is unaware of it. Please don't give me the "Relativity has been proven" arguments. There are many flaws in it, and alternative explanations for every "confirmation":
it is important to realize that none of the 11 independent experiments said to confirm the validity of Special Relativity experimentally distinguish it from Lorentzian Relativity — at least not in Einstein's favor. http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp
As for LIGO:
LIGO is said to measure ripples instigated by the vibration in spacetime as they pass through the Earth. What effect are those ripples supposed to cause? An expansion of the planet smaller than one-ten-thousandth the diameter of a proton (10^-19 meters). https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2016/02/12/wave-bye-bye/
If that doesn't raise an eyebrow:
Bruce Allen, part of the LIGO team at the Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics said:
“Before, you could argue in principle whether or not black holes exist. Now you can’t.”
Another team member, Saul Teukolsky, from Cornell University said:
“If black holes didn’t really exist, you couldn’t explain these waves.”
To this author, it seems like the team is engaged in circular reasoning. (Ibid)
Ian J. wrote after twenty years of the experiment running and being upgraded regularly:
"Upgraded"?
Seismic noise is a problem because the detector is near an interstate highway and a rail line. When trains went by, the interferometer was knocked out. Nearby logging is also a continuing problem. The team claims that dampening and filtering systems solved those issues. The laser mirrors deteriorated, requiring two of them to be removed and replaced. Wasps made nests in the beam tubes. Their waste caused a leak in the vacuum system. The wasps were evicted. The point here is that LIGO is a device concept that is rife with potentially fatal flaws. Were all of those flaws, as well as others fully rectified? (Ibid)
Perhaps you'll understand my skepticism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Feb 13, 2016 - 7:06 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Grecchus
(Member)
|
The phenomenon itself is, admittedly, hard to fathom.
Slam a door, and the concussive shock waves travel outwards. If you're sitting down you can feel the bump in the seat of your pants, or if standing, in the soles of your feet. The harder the slam, the more the shock wave can be felt. Many times I've experienced an entire building oscillate while the shock is at it's strongest. This I can understand.
Just how different is the idea of gravitational waves? I mean, in space, no-one can hear you scream - well, you get the idea. The blast of a cosmic explosion, in terms of the dissipation of outwardly flung matter, can also be interpreted. But the idea of a distortion of space itself is hard to get around, especially when one thinks "vacuum." How different are gravitational waves as opposed to the constant gravitational force exerted by matter?
Edit: It seems that everyone is writing about the subject as though it's not that hard to understand:
http://www.vox.com/2016/2/13/10981548/gravitational-waves-significance
Metryq - didn't the signal last 0.2s, or, one-fifth of a second? That's a long time when it comes to measuring lifetimes of things in the realm of physics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Feb 13, 2016 - 12:30 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Ian J.
(Member)
|
I'm not going to get caught up in a flame war, so this will be my last post on the issue just to counter an inaccuracy or two.
Special Relativity and General Relativity are not one and the same.
Einstein's theory for a space-time fabric fits observations from many varied sectors of science very well, right up to the present day. Other theories start to fall apart as they try to cover all the observed bases.
In fact, even though many people talk about Einstein being good at macro scale gravity and stuff, but not being able to link it to quantum physics, might be bunkam. The Higgs field is linked to mass (for which the Higgs Boson is the force carrier) and gravity and may be related to the space-time fabric as well (it might even be the space-time fabric). Gravity might not have a graviton, as the whole point of Einstein's theory is that there is no force between objects pulling them together, the theory is that the underlying space-time fabric is what is warped by mass, and that causes smaller masses to fall towards larger masses. The Higgs field fits into that system somewhere and it's a quantum 'thing', not a macro 'thing'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Feb 14, 2016 - 6:56 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Metryq
(Member)
|
Ian J. wrote: Special Relativity and General Relativity are not one and the same.
Gee, there's news. One dispenses with the idea of an "aether," while the other requires it. The Higgs field is nothing more than a new type of ether, an absolute reference.
the whole point of Einstein's theory is that there is no force between objects pulling them together, the theory is that the underlying space-time fabric is what is warped by mass, and that causes smaller masses to fall towards larger masses.
No force is essentially action at a distance, which puts it outside the realm of physics.
"Warped space" does not explain gravity, it merely pushes the question back one step. We're told to think of a mass, like a planet, as a bowling ball sitting on a rubber sheet or trampoline, which represents "space-time." A marble rolled by represents a smaller mass falling into the "gravity well" around the planet and taking up an orbit. But this is circular reasoning.
Assume the shape of the rubber sheet/trampoline is reproduced in hard plastic and taken out into deep space. A marble placed gently halfway down the "gravity well" will not go into orbit, or fall deeper into the well. It will not move at all. The model needs actual gravity—whatever it is—to work. So this fantastical notion of "warped space" is superfluous and explains nothing.
(But what about "gravitational lensing"? The effect is always seen near the Sun's corona, or similar medium, thus making it a refraction effect. The bending is not seen beyond that, as predicted by Einstein.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Feb 14, 2016 - 9:01 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Grecchus
(Member)
|
The marble on a tensioned sheet was an inspired analogy to explain the basic idea of mass warping space-time for the lay person, but, it has worn itself a little thin. The plain simple fact is no-one on earth, in the 21st Century, has any idea of what gravity is all about. We just know something is there. Either this gravitational waves business leads to something bigger and better, or it doesn't. It can either add another layer of complication, or, someone somewhere will tie it in with everything else and take the next step to a fuller picture of what is going on.
If the LIGO result is not anomalous, the very idea of a travelling spherical refractive wave shows there are two domains to space-time; the initial smaller inner volume extending from the gravitating mass/object to the band consisting of the wave itself, and the larger outer domain consisting of the rest of the void. If truth be told, that geometry is hard to handle.
Edit: I'm assuming that gravitational waves are nothing to do with ER. Radio waves radiate outwards, however, they do not distort space-time as they propagate (do they?) Yet they must have some kinship with gravitational waves - they move at the same 'speed' but are different . . . although how different is not exactly clear.
http://www.tapir.caltech.edu/~teviet/Waves/differences.html
https://www.learner.org/courses/physics/unit/text.html?unit=3&secNum=7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Feb 16, 2016 - 2:58 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Metryq
(Member)
|
Grecchus wrote: The plain simple fact is no-one on earth, in the 21st Century, has any idea of what gravity is all about.
Correct. At least you're realistic about it. Many, including degreed physicists and astronomers, will tell you unequivocally that gravity is a distortion of space-time. Some will tell you that Newton's "theory" of gravity was displaced by Einstein's, but Newton never actually had a theory to explain gravity. All he did was quantify it, which is the first step in science. I've been told that Einsteinian Relativity is used infrequently for practical purposes.
Just one alternative model for gravity is the corpuscular model, which dates back to Georges-Louis LeSage, and earlier. A more recent treatment of the idea is the late Tom Van Flandern's Meta Model. The first five chapters of DARK MATTER, MISSING PLANETS AND NEW COMETS explain the model in layman's terms. Even if one is not swayed by this alternative model, I recommend the book because it puts establishment ideas in perspective.
Grecchus wrote: Radio waves radiate outwards, however, they do not distort space-time as they propagate (do they?) Yet they must have some kinship with gravitational waves - they move at the same 'speed'
Wrong. Gravity is unquestionably much faster than light. Eddington argued that if gravity were the same speed as light, then the planets would speed up in their orbits and eventually be expelled from the Solar system. (See Metaresearch link below.) Numerous experiments—during eclipses, or conducted with spacecraft—show aberration between a light source (such as the Sun) and its gravity. In celestial mechanics (e.g. plotting the navigation of spacecraft) gravity is treated as "infinite" in speed because that produces the correct answers. Tom Van Flandern calculated the speed of gravity at around 20 billion times that of light. On the scale of the Solar system, that's effectively "infinite."
http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/speed_of_gravity.asp
Grecchus linked:
http://www.tapir.caltech.edu/~teviet/Waves/differences.html
https://www.learner.org/courses/physics/unit/text.html?unit=3&secNum=7
Both the Caltech and Learner sites treat "gravitational waves" as a demonstrated fact rather than a model. If that were so, why would the LIGO announcement be headline news? The LIGO announcement is also circular reasoning, as admitted by the project's own researchers:
Bruce Allen, part of the LIGO team at the Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics said:
“Before, you could argue in principle whether or not black holes exist. Now you can’t.”
In other words, black holes are a widely accepted "explanation" for observations of gamma ray and ultraviolet radiation, among other things. Yet there are alternative mechanisms that do not resort to mathematical phantoms. "Gravitational waves" are similarly theoretical, yet the LIGO team is claiming both, each as mutual proof of the other.
http://milesmathis.com/liego.pdf
(It is important to note the difference between facts and assumptions in science. For example, stars that pulse radio energy are known as "pulsars." They are an observed fact. Pulsars are assumed to spin "like a lighthouse," splashing Earth with their radio beams as the object turns. This idea worked fine until faster and still faster pulsars were detected, some "spinning" faster than a dentist's drill. Such a mass would blow itself apart, so "neutron stars" were imagined. They are allegedly pure neutrons, with all the protons and electrons squeezed out by gravity. This imagined ultra-dense material cannot exist. We know from nuclear chemistry that isolated neutrons "evaporate" in about 14 minutes. And without the binding energy of an atomic nucleus, neutrons violently repel each other. If one does not revisit basic assumptions, the problems proliferate like rabbits. And yes, there are alternative explanations for millisecond pulsars that dispense with the assumption of spinning to explain the pulsing.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
