Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: MMX-LIGO paradigm shift.
54 views
Skip to first unread message
Hayek++
Feb 14, 2013, 1:35:36 PM2/14/13
to
On 14-Feb-13 11:21 AM, Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> MMX-LIGO paradigm shift.
>
> In 1887 the famous Michael Morley (MMX) experiment employed
> interferometers to measure Earths absolute motion widely agreed by
> theoretical physicists of the era to exist, yet it could not be
> measured decade after decade of trying, only a 'null' result occurred.
> The overall result was a paradigm shift leading to the Special
> Relativity Theory.
>
> Today LIGO's interferometers are unable to measure 'g-waves' entering
> the second decade, only a 'null' result is measurable.
>
> Fortunately GR provides the inclusion of any energy to describe matter,
> including mass entirely composed of storing energy in a charge ensemble=
.
> When that definition of energy is used, 'g-waves' will still be emitted
> though in the form of Electromagnetic Radiation.
>
> Hence such a theory will predict the LIGO detectors to 'null' similiar
> to our experience of the MMX.
>
> A stronger reason to expect the LIGO 'null' is the prediction of the
> Quantum Theory and it's effect on spactime in the brief,
>
> http://physics.trak4.com/GR_Charge_Couple.pdf
>
> which also incorporates the foundation of Quantized General Relativity.
> Regards
> Ken S. Tucker
My 2� :
First I think it is silly to "quantize" GR. Quantization is caused by
the lack of GR's inertia. How do you quantize something that is not
there, at the Heisenberg conditions ?
Second, gravitational waves, or better : inertial waves, tend to null
quickly : a wave with higher inertial density would almost immediately
extinguish itself.
Third : gravitational waves were modeled after electromagnetic waves,
which are not waves at all, but photons. There is no correspondent
gravitational particle/wave.
Uwe Hayek.
> MMX-LIGO paradigm shift.
>
> In 1887 the famous Michael Morley (MMX) experiment employed
> interferometers to measure Earths absolute motion widely agreed by
> theoretical physicists of the era to exist, yet it could not be
> measured decade after decade of trying, only a 'null' result occurred.
> The overall result was a paradigm shift leading to the Special
> Relativity Theory.
>
> Today LIGO's interferometers are unable to measure 'g-waves' entering
> the second decade, only a 'null' result is measurable.
>
> Fortunately GR provides the inclusion of any energy to describe matter,
> including mass entirely composed of storing energy in a charge ensemble=
.
> When that definition of energy is used, 'g-waves' will still be emitted
> though in the form of Electromagnetic Radiation.
>
> Hence such a theory will predict the LIGO detectors to 'null' similiar
> to our experience of the MMX.
>
> A stronger reason to expect the LIGO 'null' is the prediction of the
> Quantum Theory and it's effect on spactime in the brief,
>
> http://physics.trak4.com/GR_Charge_Couple.pdf
>
> which also incorporates the foundation of Quantized General Relativity.
> Regards
> Ken S. Tucker
My 2� :
First I think it is silly to "quantize" GR. Quantization is caused by
the lack of GR's inertia. How do you quantize something that is not
there, at the Heisenberg conditions ?
Second, gravitational waves, or better : inertial waves, tend to null
quickly : a wave with higher inertial density would almost immediately
extinguish itself.
Third : gravitational waves were modeled after electromagnetic waves,
which are not waves at all, but photons. There is no correspondent
gravitational particle/wave.
Uwe Hayek.
b...@birdband.net
Feb 15, 2013, 8:40:05 PM2/15/13
to
On Thursday, 14 February 2013 13:35:36 UTC-5, Hayek++ wrote:
> My 2? :
>
> Second, gravitational waves, or better : inertial waves, tend to null
> quickly : a wave with higher inertial density would almost immediately
> extinguish itself.
>
g-waves are not gravitation. they are the result of it and they propagate on HIGHER HARMONICS embedded in space-time itself.
analogy: if you let a bowling ball fall to the floor, it will not bounce for long on it but the sound generated will be laud enough to be heard away from the impact zone.
[[Mod. note -- A good one-sentence metaphor is that gravitational waves
are "ripples in the fabric of spacetime". A bit fancier would be to say
that they're propagating waves of spacetime curvature.
Contrary to what the original poster suggested,
(a) gravitational waves aren't "inertial waves": they don't have inertia
as a restoring force, indeed they propagate just fine in a vacuum
where (at least classically) there's nothing to have inertia, and
(b) gravitational waves don't null or damp out quickly; they have the
same sort of 1/r far-field falloffs in amplitude (==> 1/r^2 falloffs
in power-per-unit-area) as other propagating waves
-- jt]]
>
> Third : gravitational waves were modeled after electromagnetic waves,
> which are not waves at all, but photons. There is no correspondent
> gravitational particle/wave.
>
just like there is EM photon/wave duality
there is the graviton/wave duality.
just because we still can't see gravitons directly doesn't mean they don't exist. indirect proof on their existence has been confirm by binary pulsar PSR 1913+16, the 1993 nobel prize awarded to Taylor and Hulse:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulsar
r.y
> My 2? :
>
> First I think it is silly to "quantize" GR. Quantization is caused by
> the lack of GR's inertia. How do you quantize something that is not
> there, at the Heisenberg conditions ?
>
everything can be quantized even if the answer is 0 or very close to it.
> First I think it is silly to "quantize" GR. Quantization is caused by
> the lack of GR's inertia. How do you quantize something that is not
> there, at the Heisenberg conditions ?
>
>
> Second, gravitational waves, or better : inertial waves, tend to null
> quickly : a wave with higher inertial density would almost immediately
> extinguish itself.
>
analogy: if you let a bowling ball fall to the floor, it will not bounce for long on it but the sound generated will be laud enough to be heard away from the impact zone.
[[Mod. note -- A good one-sentence metaphor is that gravitational waves
are "ripples in the fabric of spacetime". A bit fancier would be to say
that they're propagating waves of spacetime curvature.
Contrary to what the original poster suggested,
(a) gravitational waves aren't "inertial waves": they don't have inertia
as a restoring force, indeed they propagate just fine in a vacuum
where (at least classically) there's nothing to have inertia, and
(b) gravitational waves don't null or damp out quickly; they have the
same sort of 1/r far-field falloffs in amplitude (==> 1/r^2 falloffs
in power-per-unit-area) as other propagating waves
-- jt]]
>
> Third : gravitational waves were modeled after electromagnetic waves,
> which are not waves at all, but photons. There is no correspondent
> gravitational particle/wave.
>
there is the graviton/wave duality.
just because we still can't see gravitons directly doesn't mean they don't exist. indirect proof on their existence has been confirm by binary pulsar PSR 1913+16, the 1993 nobel prize awarded to Taylor and Hulse:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulsar
r.y
Ken S. Tucker
Feb 15, 2013, 8:41:10 PM2/15/13
to
Hayek++ wrote:
> On 14-Feb-13 11:21 AM, Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>> MMX-LIGO paradigm shift.
>>
>> In 1887 the famous Michael Morley (MMX) experiment employed
>> interferometers to measure Earths absolute motion widely agreed by
>> theoretical physicists of the era to exist, yet it could not be
>> measured decade after decade of trying, only a 'null' result occurred.
>> The overall result was a paradigm shift leading to the Special
>> Relativity Theory.
>>
>> Today LIGO's interferometers are unable to measure 'g-waves' entering
>> the second decade, only a 'null' result is measurable.
>>
>> Fortunately GR provides the inclusion of any energy to describe matter,
>> including mass entirely composed of storing energy in a charge ensemble=
> .
>> When that definition of energy is used, 'g-waves' will still be emitted
>> though in the form of Electromagnetic Radiation.
>>
>> Hence such a theory will predict the LIGO detectors to 'null' similiar
>> to our experience of the MMX.
>>
>> A stronger reason to expect the LIGO 'null' is the prediction of the
>> Quantum Theory and it's effect on spactime in the brief,
>>
>> http://physics.trak4.com/GR_Charge_Couple.pdf
>>
>> which also incorporates the foundation of Quantized General Relativity.
>> Regards
>> Ken S. Tucker
>
> My 2? :
> On 14-Feb-13 11:21 AM, Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>> MMX-LIGO paradigm shift.
>>
>> In 1887 the famous Michael Morley (MMX) experiment employed
>> interferometers to measure Earths absolute motion widely agreed by
>> theoretical physicists of the era to exist, yet it could not be
>> measured decade after decade of trying, only a 'null' result occurred.
>> The overall result was a paradigm shift leading to the Special
>> Relativity Theory.
>>
>> Today LIGO's interferometers are unable to measure 'g-waves' entering
>> the second decade, only a 'null' result is measurable.
>>
>> Fortunately GR provides the inclusion of any energy to describe matter,
>> including mass entirely composed of storing energy in a charge ensemble=
> .
>> When that definition of energy is used, 'g-waves' will still be emitted
>> though in the form of Electromagnetic Radiation.
>>
>> Hence such a theory will predict the LIGO detectors to 'null' similiar
>> to our experience of the MMX.
>>
>> A stronger reason to expect the LIGO 'null' is the prediction of the
>> Quantum Theory and it's effect on spactime in the brief,
>>
>> http://physics.trak4.com/GR_Charge_Couple.pdf
>>
>> which also incorporates the foundation of Quantized General Relativity.
>> Regards
>> Ken S. Tucker
>
>
> First I think it is silly to "quantize" GR. Quantization is caused by
> the lack of GR's inertia. How do you quantize something that is not
> there, at the Heisenberg conditions ?
Eq.(4) of the provided link is,
> First I think it is silly to "quantize" GR. Quantization is caused by
> the lack of GR's inertia. How do you quantize something that is not
> there, at the Heisenberg conditions ?
S^2 = X^2 + (ab == h), with h being action such as Planck's constant.
That is basically Pythagoras, with h varying as increments, and
S DELTA(S) = X DELTA(X). That Eq.(4) describes the energy (inertia)
of a Charge Couples effect on spacetime using the Signal distance "S".
> Second, gravitational waves, or better : inertial waves, tend to null
> quickly : a wave with higher inertial density would almost immediately
> extinguish itself.
> Third : gravitational waves were modeled after electromagnetic waves,
> which are not waves at all, but photons. There is no correspondent
> gravitational particle/wave.
> Uwe Hayek.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
Jonathan Thornburg
Feb 16, 2013, 3:00:58 PM2/16/13
to
Someone (who was probably Ken S. Tucker if I've unwrapped the nested
today's LIGO and Virgo interferometers aren't (yet) accurate enough to
have a good chance of detecting signals from any gravitational-wave
sources that we (already) know about.
Fortunately, both LIGO and Virgo have hardware upgrades (e.g., more
powerful lasers, better noise-isolating suspensions for the mirrors)
in progress which should give them roughly 10 times better sensitivity
(lower noise level) by 2015. Assuming the upgrades work properly, at
that time they *will* be sensitive enough to have an excellent chance
of detecting signals from a number of gravitational-wave sources (that
we know about from other types of astronomical observations).
--
-- "Jonathan Thornburg [remove -animal to reply]" <jth...@astro.indiana-zebra.edu>
Dept of Astronomy & IUCSS, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, USA
on sabbatical in Canada starting August 2012
"Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the
powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral."
-- quote by Freire / poster by Oxfam
quotations correctly) wrote:
> Today LIGO's interferometers are unable to measure 'g-waves' entering
> the second decade, only a 'null' result is measurable.
This doesn't actually tell us as much as the author might think, because
> Today LIGO's interferometers are unable to measure 'g-waves' entering
> the second decade, only a 'null' result is measurable.
today's LIGO and Virgo interferometers aren't (yet) accurate enough to
have a good chance of detecting signals from any gravitational-wave
sources that we (already) know about.
Fortunately, both LIGO and Virgo have hardware upgrades (e.g., more
powerful lasers, better noise-isolating suspensions for the mirrors)
in progress which should give them roughly 10 times better sensitivity
(lower noise level) by 2015. Assuming the upgrades work properly, at
that time they *will* be sensitive enough to have an excellent chance
of detecting signals from a number of gravitational-wave sources (that
we know about from other types of astronomical observations).
--
-- "Jonathan Thornburg [remove -animal to reply]" <jth...@astro.indiana-zebra.edu>
Dept of Astronomy & IUCSS, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, USA
on sabbatical in Canada starting August 2012
"Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the
powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral."
-- quote by Freire / poster by Oxfam
Ken S. Tucker
Apr 20, 2013, 7:13:16 AM4/20/13
to
On 2/16/2013 12:00 PM, Jonathan Thornburg wrote:
> Someone (who was probably Ken S. Tucker if I've unwrapped the nested
> quotations correctly) wrote:
>> Today LIGO's interferometers are unable to measure 'g-waves' entering
>> the second decade, only a 'null' result is measurable.
>
> This doesn't actually tell us as much as the author might think, because
> today's LIGO and Virgo interferometers aren't (yet) accurate enough to
> have a good chance of detecting signals from any gravitational-wave
> sources that we (already) know about.
>
> Fortunately, both LIGO and Virgo have hardware upgrades (e.g., more
> powerful lasers, better noise-isolating suspensions for the mirrors)
> in progress which should give them roughly 10 times better sensitivity
> (lower noise level) by 2015. Assuming the upgrades work properly, at
> that time they *will* be sensitive enough to have an excellent chance
> of detecting signals from a number of gravitational-wave sources (that
> we know about from other types of astronomical observations).
Thank you for your comments Jonathan.
> Someone (who was probably Ken S. Tucker if I've unwrapped the nested
> quotations correctly) wrote:
>> Today LIGO's interferometers are unable to measure 'g-waves' entering
>> the second decade, only a 'null' result is measurable.
>
> This doesn't actually tell us as much as the author might think, because
> today's LIGO and Virgo interferometers aren't (yet) accurate enough to
> have a good chance of detecting signals from any gravitational-wave
> sources that we (already) know about.
>
> Fortunately, both LIGO and Virgo have hardware upgrades (e.g., more
> powerful lasers, better noise-isolating suspensions for the mirrors)
> in progress which should give them roughly 10 times better sensitivity
> (lower noise level) by 2015. Assuming the upgrades work properly, at
> that time they *will* be sensitive enough to have an excellent chance
> of detecting signals from a number of gravitational-wave sources (that
> we know about from other types of astronomical observations).
In 1996 I published a paper on the subject of Electrical GR entitled,
"Unitivity". NASA, (MSFC) working on Electro-gravitational fields based
on Ning Li's "gravitoelectric" antigravity, peer reviewed and published
in Physical Review was the theoretical foundation. My (our) work came to
their attention and I reviewed the theory in depth and found certain
discrepancies I was unable to 'work around', though many in the field
believed improved accuracy could somehow 'fix' the fault, it didn't work
that way.
My copyright is TX 0004 323 943 here,
http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=TX0004323943&Search_Code=REGS&PID=j7MJPyR6iVnCbKsV2R5DqoEccnO&SEQ=20130417111742&CNT=25&HIST=1
Based on Unitivity, relevant to g-waves, I recently prepared a 2 pg
abbreviated brief,
http://mypage.uniserve.com/~dynamics/GRXE.pdf
for those with the interest and expertise in the subject.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
0 new messages