Simple geometric proof GR's GW's are impossible

PhysBang:

Thankyou for clarifying.

This then automatically involves the usual GR expert arguments treating small enough regions of spacetime as "essentially flat". If that orthodox GR expert argument is valid, then I am prompted to ask:

1) How much GR GW effects and energy transfer do you assert happens in the small spacetime region occupied by a 'bead'?

2) If the overall collection of circular arrangement of many beads is then considered, then how much does the interconnecting/intervening spacetime react to the alleged GR GW energy transfer to that overall spacetime encompassed by that circular arrangement of beads?

3) In what way does that overall region distort and in what way can those beads move despite the very small bead-occupied sub-regions themselves are individually considered "essentially flat" as per the usual GR expert argument I mentioned?

If you are alluding to Hulse-Taylor binary Neutron Star systems, I have long understood that the main active factors are the local electro-magnetic forces interplay between the two Neutron Stars' magnetic and electric features; which interplay cause EM friction losses that radiate away as EM energy of various wavelengths/frequencies, not necessarily as exclusively Gravitational energy; and that this EM interaction causes 'orbital decay' related energy loss from the system because of the orders of magnitude greater forces and energy involved in the EM forces interplay than in the gravitational interplay (which latter is balanced due to the very nature of orbital motion). Any claims that gravitational wave energy loss is responsible for such orbital decay related energy losses in such systems are therefore still speculative until the local EM energy states and extents and losses as described can be quantified and any continuing discrepancy (if any) can be attributed to gravitational energy loss as hypothesized.

Can you clarify; when you say, "the LIGO system", are you referring to the spacetime 'leg' distance traveled by the laser beam; or to the test masses themselves? I ask because the whole point of GR GW interferometry as per LIGO system is "in the legs" not the test masses, as I explained. So we may be talking at cross purposes until that distinction is agreed between us.

And his OP title and posted argument imply that he challenges just that: ie, challenges that GWs can exist as extrapolated from and claimed by the GR theory mathematics; which puts the question of whether any energy can be imparted by non-existent GWs front and center for further physically based discussion only once the first part of the argument (ie, the OP itself) is refuted or not without making assumptions/conclusions which are merely 'begging the question' arguments unless and until that first part is settled.

Thankyou again PhysBang for your patient clarification efforts for my benefit on this aspect of the discussion between you and Q-reeus.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well, I'm done with this thread.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Has anyone considered the idea that the speed of light is affected by the local gravitational wave energy density. The idea being that gravitational waves carry energy that fluctuates with the in swirling pattern of the death spiral of the binary black holes, and when those fluctuations in wave energy density reach the arms of LIGO, they cause the wave energy density along each arm to fluctuate out of sync with each other, causing the speed of light to fluctuate accordingly, and setting off the alarm?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Qreeus,

Your OP is lengthy and I doubt if all have grasped it. Can you please look into following relevant aspects..

1. Feynman original thought experiment was not with the hoop-bead. It was with the stick-bead with friction between. I personally feel Newtonian Potential energy and Force concept can answer that, but somehow it resolved GW energy transfer dispute as people supporting GW energy transfer were looking for something like this.

2. In hoop-bead arrangement, your argument is that beads will not move under certain cases even if frictionless arrangement. How does it matter ? Because energy is involved in distorting the hoop, you are agreeing to hoop distortion, so the basic purpose is served.

3. Schmelzer's argument that GR solution where Grandfather's paradox is involved may be a physical impossibility, but logically consistent, is bad. I am sure logical and illogical aspects need to worry about physicality too. In fact this kind of argument and thinking has given rise to Black Hole Singularities....Physically Impossibility but logically consistent....A new name can be coined for them "logically consistent absurdities".

4. I do not know why you are dismissing material stresses. Electromagnetic force among the atoms of stick is so massive that such small GW energy cannot displace it, so GW detection argument should fail on this score itself.

5. Interesting and deliberate confusion in this frequently discusssed BH BH merger is mass loss. A BH will have a Baryonic mass component and Equivalent Spin Mass Component. So this loss of 3M is actually of this spin mass component, it is not of Baryonic Component. Am I right ?

Now see, what all is done with this much below noise level signal..

a.. Total Mass of both BHs is ascertained.
b. Spin Mass of Each BH is ascertained, which is near impossibility, it is just fudged.
c. Part of total Spin Mass is dispersed as GW, this is will be as bad as (b).
d. Then distance of 1.3 bly is ascertained.
e. No energy loss on account of interaction with in transit disturbances is considered, which again is bad.

6. The most important aspect which is given a go by is that in GR (Strong field near merger) Energy Conservation Law does not hold. So use of simple algebra itslef is incorrect.

7. Finally, lets put a negatively charged bead on a stick where it can move with some friction, at some distance let us move a bigger charged particle in periodic motion....A simple observation can be made that the bead would move. Does it mean that bigger charged particle is loosing charge ? Suggesting that any detected motion in aLIGO can be explained without logical inconsistency in simple ways. If they want to see GW, so be it.

 

Unfortunately you are among those having not grasped it. As revealed below.

Of course. As I introduced at the outset in #1. And then appropriately and logically extended. Which to anyone clued-up, immediately reveals the issue undermining GR's GW's.

Wrong on several levels. Go back and study just #165 - together with if need be, illustration linked to in #60. ACTUALLY READ AND THINK ABOUT WHAT I CLAIM!

Irrelevant stuff.

Again wrong on several levels. I have not 'dismissed material stresses' per se, but correctly shown their introduction by one poster was just irrelevant BS distraction. As to 'stick stiffness being impervious to GW distortion' somehow undermining detection, this just entirely misses my core geometric constraint argument. Sticks & hoops can be dispensed with. Forget about Feynman's original aim re energy. Just try and appreciate the argument re metric distortion constraints imposed by axial symmetry! Good grief!

No. And an issue not germane to OP.

Your opinion. At one stage I believed non-conservative in-spiral was likely the case, but not since discovering G4v and of course aLIGO detections.

You have a profound misunderstanding. In EM case, charge invariance is a fundamental feature of the theory. There is no such equivalent 'gravitating mass invariance' in GR or any reasonable alternative gravity theory. Only by going back to Newtonian gravity could there be a parallel. And Newtonian gravity does not even accord with SR.

 

expletives deleted, has, apart from some welcome 'I like' support from dmoe, and well-meant but misdirected input from The God, as a respondent other than myself, single-handedly managed to accurately see through and pinpoint the disingenuous tactics of two relentless critics in particular. Whose true base motives, as mentioned in #158, will never be divulged here. Thanks expletives deleted. An onerous and wearisome task to undertake. And one where there will never be any final truce, any 'let's shake hands and have a beer together' occasion. A strategically timed 'well done - you made a really good point there' compliment to one of those disingenuous critics, given elsewhere, signals as to where and who higher up folks here give their support and approval. Fine. Value judgements tend to be from a personal perspective.

Anyway, it's just futile to keep rebutting endlessly recycled junk arguments here. A truly informed and impartial reader having for instance carefully read the content of my #165, need only then compare to the content of subsequent responses by the disingenuous critics. And note whether there was any attempt to address or accurately reflect the points I made there. Which points were in fact made way back in #1 and on many occasions since. Or note that a straightforward appeal in #101, repeated numbers of times, just kept being artfully dodged.
And 'artfully' is the word. With superficially valid counter-challenges thrown back. Pitched with enough craft to fool those lacking the necessary background and insight, but painfully obvious as garbage by anyone informed in the subject. And how many here, apart from one such disingenuous critic, are so informed? Hence the ability to 'get away with murder'.

Given such a toxic situation, eventually one realizes nothing useful can be gained by continuing to play an imo very obviously maliciously motivated game.
Sorry to annoy folks with a speech, but that's the point it has come to. Seems a few possessing sufficient insight have opted to stay as onlookers, maybe out of fears real or imagined. Such are things at SF.

 

I re read your post # 1. I am still not able to figure out, how you can generalize it. It is obvious, and must have been known that for a given orientation there may not be any movement. This does not rule out the nature of GW, it is just the detector orientation.


PS: IMO there is nothing like curvature of spacetime as being pushed which could deform a material object. Till the physical aspect about spacetime is not answered, the ambiguity shall persist.

 

You have not grasped the situation correctly. Maybe try and fiddle with 'detector orientations' that you think admit 'bead motions' logically consistent with the global axial symmetries for given scenario.

Then you seem to question the very concept of spacetime metric as used in GR and similar metric theories. If so, we speak different languages. For me, IF the global symmetries, owing to both the source geometry and underlying field theory allow it, GW spatial metric gradients must act to induce proper distortions in material objects. G4v qualifies automatically. GR does not. Notice that capitalized word IF.

 

There is some reasonable logic behind the wave energy density solution to quantum gravity. You never considered it?

 

The question about the wave energy density model of gravity is not off topic, though I am rightfully ignored at this late date in the thread. Me mentioning it twice might be seen as me trying to elevate myself in stature to that of an informed person who could participate in a discussion like this. It is not that. I haven't read all of the pages of content, but only some of it.

The video in the OP by Carver Mead is very much about the gravitational wave energy density of space, and the variable speed of light as the energy density varies. In Mead's video, he comes out with the distinction at minute 58, where Mach's principle is mentioned in part, as it applies to the values of the energy density of the universe. He says, "all is just energy", and his description of vector coupling is about the effect of wave energy density on gravity, and so I posed the question, more specifically to Q-reeus, but hoping others who viewed the Mead video might have interpreted it that way too.

 

If you go back considerably further, it's actually very much about starting with a direct analogue of EM vector potential, and associating that to Mach's principle. Energy densities and variable c are consequences.

I didn't get that drift at all. In reviewing that vid, starting to have misgivings G4v can be ultimately correct. His implementation of Mach's principle appears to be a first-order only treatment, accurate in weak gravity, but not a true metric theory valid in strong gravity. Hopefully someone I've approached will be coming back sooner rather than later with more details and an expert opinion on a few such matters.

 

Yes, I did note with much interest the connection to EM vector potential influence on gravity, and yes, it is true that the energy density can be thought of as consequences, but they all are pieces of the net gravitational wave energy on an object in space.

Mach's principle certainly contains some truth to the extent that every massive object in the universe plays a part in the net gravitational forces at any point in the universe. But it is far removed from mainstream mathematical curvature of spacetime as in the EFEs, and so whatever input you are waiting for to get back to you may not contain any insight into gravity's mechanism. If everything is wave energy, then the mechanics are all dependent on the interaction of waves in space on all scales, IMHO.

 

You know what....the binding energy of a nucleus also influences gravity.

Start a new thread on this pl for more.....

 

In a "wave energy density" model of gravity, that would certainly be true, but I don't want to start such a thread though.

 

Try a search using e.g. "gravitational theories based on Mach's principle". You may be surprised. One such theory claims to be able to explain galactic rotation curves without any need for dark matter. But it's 5D, like virtually all implementations conceptually screws up re Mach's principle and rotating frames of reference
(cf my posts in: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/relativity-of-rotational-motion-confirmed.156353/)
and I don't like it. Let's not get right away from OP please.

 

Yes, and the Mead video, as I recall mentioned that his view does away with dark energy. I wasn't aware it was 5D, nor how that brought in a Newton's bucket type rotational motion.

Sorry if I am getting too far removed from the OP; I'll desist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

 

A tongue in cheek acknowledgement to Q-reeus for admonishing me not "to get right away from the topic",

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

 

A bit of conflation there. The 5D & 'Newton's bucket' aka Mach's principle implemented properly re rotation, wasn't referring to Mead's G4v. A general comment about an unspecified alternative theory, for which there is no point in specifically referencing here.

Thank you for being responsible. Unlike one other poster in particular who has managed to continue trashing this thread. One suspects with a blessing from higher up.

 

The rules are the rules, even though no one gets out to the Fringe to read my very interesting and controversial posts in the ISU Update thread out in AltTheory :shrug:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!