Gravity waves, LIGO, space-time ether, conservation of space

Got a great idea? Tell the world about it here.

Moderators: mvs_staff, forum_admin, Marilyn

Gravity waves, LIGO, space-time ether, conservation of space

Postby tvelection » Sun Feb 04, 2018 3:56 pm

I find gravity wave models to be highly questionable, much like the dark energy and mass speculations. I’d start anew to consider what the force of gravity is (or a pseudo force, the effect of something else). Modern physics seems in a crisis of interpreting measurements into models. Scientists are brilliant with the method, the instrumentation, the math, and the measure but since Einstein the model-explanations are abysmal. There is a desperate need to establish the words, the analytic, “space-time” as a thing, a medium, and let’s be clear, if it exists then it’s a material ether medium (or more absurdly an ether without mass). If they can pretend space-time exists then they can explain gravity and the absurdity of assuming, yes, absolute time (as a non-material thing that effects the motion of all material) in order to relatively distort it. Which is fine in a sense, maybe they’re right, I urge that you believe them, the specialists, over me, I’ll just remain a skeptic. The fact is that they cannot admit that they need space-time as their neo-ether. Just admit it.

As for my novel notion of “conservation of space” it’s just a thought, not even an argument so much. It makes sense that if the universe is not infinite then it must have a boundary or boundedness of shape (oval) and such a conservation (even of empty void) would work together with conservation of mass so that where there is no mass there is space and vice-versa (displacement volume, but not of space-time ether). That space and mass are both limited and conserved in a compensatory way. It may be odd to say that mass is conserved but space (as volume, void, displacement of mass, or emptiness) is not ---that mass is finite and space is allegedly infinite. Which speaks to the more nonsensical speculation of the universe going out with a “whimper.” And on the nature of space’s vacuum or low-pressure (if not perfect) then there must be containment, the resistance that creates any pressure whatsoever and yet nothingness cannot “convey” pressure so I’ll leave that up in the air.

Next is “space-time,” an idea that I wish Einstein would have never uttered [much like the word “dimensions” coined by others with regard to physical reality or alleged structures]. Yes, there’s a relative motion and perception of motion with regards to the relative location of observers and events but there’s no structural “space-time” there is space and there is motion not a space-time “continuum” a convenient medium for any model that needs one. And when you “press” science literature on this you get halfbaked excuses, that space-time is a stretchy “fabric,” space-time is “curved,” space-time is a “distortable thing,” (those are material traits, nonsensically applied to space) . . . They have a noun and they can’t help use nouns or adjectives to describe the qualities of this thing then deny that it is a thing. Space is soft, space is thin, space has “give,” or slack, space is . . . see how easy it is to give properties of mass to space and sound rational?? They cannot accept nothingness so they try to sell “ether-lite.” Space-time is an analytic fantasy. It is no-thing, a geometric/graphical analysis gone mad. The diagrams of space-time are so tiresome and “convenient” the model’s medium is simply drawn-in. I’m sure the math works though because the math follows the measure, which is why we can calculate gravity to relatively precise accuracy but are currently grasping to explain it with speculative models.

Most layman are familiar with the graphical representation of space-time right? The diagram of a grid that gets distorted by a sphere for instance. I’m sorry but it seems like such poor thinking, although I don’t have the answer for gravity either and do not claim to be more intelligent than those who believe in distortable void (I just disagree, remain skeptical). Anyway, about this grid demonstration . . . even a science columnist in the "Pittsburgh Post-Gazette" saw this point when reviewing a physics text. He, or she, wrote that the distortion lines of a grid “implies gravity to demonstrate gravity” –that an object would “fall” into that distortion. Another problem is extension, that convenient art work of geometry-as-existence shows the little wrap around space-distortion of a sphere but then how does that indentation on nothingness extend to the far reaches of space in its effect as if that sealed little indent is never closed, the grid example no longer makes sense for objects at great distances. The graphical distortion seems to give out an equatorial “split” what about the longitudinal “split.” Just ridiculous. And two blips at LIGO with all the celestial objects and cataclysmic events mixing and interfering with alleged “space-time” waves and we are not slamming around in repercussions? Seriously? This is where we’re at?? That I will admit them gravity waves and distortion of space if they admit that they desperately need “ether” again (not the ether of mystics or pre-science) but admit then that space is something like a rarefied gas where the particles by default organize in a regular distance grid and convey impulses (maybe). Modern physics has made “space-time” the new ether but are loathe admitting it to themselves.

As for LIGO (a light interferometer installation, actually two) I don’t doubt that they have some brilliant scientists working there and I’m not about to insult their intelligence, so believe them, but hear me out. They have a hypothesis for gravity waves, the model is nonsensical in that such waves travel the “medium” of space, no I’m sorry, the distortable ether of “space-time.” So they set up lasers in an array that measures and tracks their distance from each other (within each self-contained unit) and place these independent units in two locations maybe 500 miles away (give or take). A smart move because it gives a redundancy check and also a linear measure of an event from one to the other station. All that is fine, I like the interferometer idea. They think they’ve ruled out all other possibilities but they haven’t because many possibilities are unknown (which is always the case). But instead of looking for a measurement of some phenomenon, theoretical physicists have a hypothesis model they want to cast onto any result whatsoever. So soon after construction they get two blips, at each station. Theory proven right? Wrong! All they "know" is that there was an event and I agree, it would be foolish to argue that they measured nothing when they have proof (excepting a mechanical glitch). But they do not know what they measured, any detection allowed them to jump to the conclusion they wanted before they even set-up the experiment. They are using a material/hardware set-up to make a claim about space. The problem there is that a force or radiation-effect might cause matter itself to expand and contract(a material, molecular or atomic, expansion/compression that is measured) or laser to blip energy ---so that movement is not necessarily of space and absolute but of the instrument itself's matter. Alleged "gravity waves" are interesting, they shoot out from mass at light speed and yet pull-in too, an insubstantial wave that effects/pulls mass to mass by the mere mediumless "undulation" of space; that's quite a reach.

A hypothesis is a guide for experiments it should not be the only pre-ordained conclusion. A less biased approach would have been to set up an interferometer and see if there are any events, then, if there are hypothesis on possible causes and go from there. The claim does not make sense (and that is beyond mediumless gravity “waves” that somehow travel at the speed of light and yet pulls other bodies “inward” through space. The LIGO team then gave an excuse for the measurement. It was a collision of two black holes ---which is convenient in that that cannot be confirmed visually. If alleged gravity waves travel at the speed of light then it would have been far more impressive had they detected two blips and correlated it with a (near) simultaneous supernova visible to astronomers, a visual corroboration. Even then the phenomenon would be unclear. But that's not the hardest part to believe. Of all the cataclysmic celestial events, many vortex collisions, supernova, galactic collisions all those alleged waves travelling compounding and interfering and they detect two blips? Please.

A final point, some say Einstein’s cross proves space-time distortion. This is a lensing effect, mirage, where say a extremely bright star or galaxy is behind another in a visual field it then appears to come around the sides of the interfering object. All that proves is that whatever gravity is; when it is massive it can bend the path of light particles (yes, with mass not without) not necessarily bending the alleged medium of nothingness through which it travels, you cannot bend empty nothingness.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Much of the body of knowledge in science is also about social agreement within a community of scientists, a coherence to cumulative knowledge into the most current theories. And this is not a flaw but by necessity to advance any “popular” paradigm. The problem is that –as with dark energy/matter. Scientists latch onto bad ideas and take them to the nth degree in almost an insistent refusal to ever reconsider an outcome or a hypothesis (maybe that they’ve based a career on) and instead come to realize all of its weaknesses. That is not a defeat though and I’m glad there are many renegades and mavericks who take that and turn it around to say, “This is not working, 93% of universal mass/energy is not missing the outcome has an error or is lacking a necessary consideration” or “The big bang is a ridiculous natural explanation because such a gravity laden singularity could never have formed when heavy stars themselves at (0.00000000000000 . . .1% of universal mass) collapse into vortices. So let’s self-correct and explore other avenues. But as coherence builds the big-bang is not proven but assumed true to validate our perceptions, and misperceptions, or explanations for Hubble’s “red shift” effect or background radiation (which does not require a bang). But this is why I’m not worried about science in the long run. Science does self-correct eventually and Einstein is not the last word in physics, only the latest, his theories’ flaws or lack of application in special circumstances will show, as did Newton’s. Until then, I’ll just shake my head every time I open a science magazine and see a geometric grid implying substance, space's "surface tension," and pretending to describe space.

P.S. I agree with "99%" of scientific theories and do not want it to seem like I say "no" to, or know better than, all theories or scientists. These are opinions on those few current ideas I actually do disagree with (string theory, big-bang, space-time, hyperdimensions, time as a dimension, gravity waves, multiple universes, wormholes, many black-hole explanations, time dilation, and the biggest offender, dark mass and energy ---enough, please!). Otherwise, I'm impressed with science, it's amazing historical rise, technology, and the difficult work of Einstein and all committed scientists/theorists who know far more than I with regard to the requisite subjects of their specialty. That doesn't mean they're right 100% of the time, yet they'd freely admit of that if they're open-minded.
tvelection
Intellectual
 
Posts: 379
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 12:44 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: Gravity waves, LIGO, space-time ether, conservation of s

Postby Edward Marcus » Mon Feb 05, 2018 6:43 pm

For me the concept of space-time as a package has the potential to be misleading.

Time is a measure which requires motion and motion is a property of objects which are moving through space- not of the space itself. So time is really the property of objects which move through space and its passage may have nothing to do with space alone.
Edward Marcus
Intellectual
 
Posts: 214
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 1:21 pm

Re: Gravity waves, LIGO, space-time ether, conservation of s

Postby robert 46 » Mon Feb 05, 2018 9:42 pm

Edward Marcus wrote:For me the concept of space-time as a package has the potential to be misleading.

Time is a measure which requires motion and motion is a property of objects which are moving through space- not of the space itself. So time is really the property of objects which move through space and its passage may have nothing to do with space alone.

Objects move through space, and move through time (that is the passage of time). The vector sum of Vs+Vt=c. All objects move through spacetime at the speed of light. Bizarre?: yes; easy to comprehend?: no.
robert 46
Intellectual
 
Posts: 2617
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 9:21 am

Re: Gravity waves, LIGO, space-time ether, conservation of s

Postby tvelection » Tue Feb 06, 2018 1:54 pm

robert 46 wrote:
Objects move through space, and move through time (that is the passage of time).


I absolutely agree with the first part before the comma, but the passage of time is 'made' by the object's motion when relatively compared to other object's motion. Wouldn't passage "through" time make time absolute and universal even in the relativistic sense that "it" can allegedly be distorted? Where space is void but "time" is something different, e.g motion? ("move through"). As if to say there is space and there is time-as-motion but there is no "space-time" per se.

. . . of that list of phenomena I distrust at least we agree on the Big-bang.

P.S. One more question before I leave. r46, would you say that "space-time" can change, effect, or hinder the path of a moving object? If "no," I agree .If the answer is "yes," how so? By what means?
Last edited by tvelection on Wed Feb 07, 2018 12:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
tvelection
Intellectual
 
Posts: 379
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 12:44 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: Gravity waves, LIGO, space-time ether, conservation of s

Postby robert 46 » Tue Feb 06, 2018 5:30 pm

tvelection wrote:robert 46 wrote:
Objects move through space, and move through time (that is the passage of time).

I absolutely agree with the first part before the comma, but the passage of time is 'made' by the object's motion when relatively compared to other object's motion.


Consider spacefarers inside a spaceship drifting in space, without viewports. Would there be a passage of time? Of course. Would clocks measure a normal heart rate of 72bpm? Yes. Would the spacefarers think anything was abnormal? No. However, if they were traveling at Vs through space, their speed through time is Vt=sqrt(c^2-Vs^2). For 1 second to elapse, a distance through time of 299,792,458 meters must be accomplished. If the speed through space is c/2 (for example), then the speed through time is sqrt(c^2-(c/2)^2)= c*sqrt(3)/2=259,627,884 m/sec. To outside observers, when 1 second elapses on their clock, only 259627884/299792458=0.866 second has elapsed on the spacefarers' clock; so the spacefarers' clock appears to run slow, and their normal heart rate appears to be 62bpm. The spacefarers' entire reference frame is running slow relative to the outside observers who consider themselves at rest in space. The outside observers' passage through time is Vt=sqrt(c^2-0^2)=c. So they are traveling at 299,792,458 meters/sec through time, and for 1 second on their clock they travel a distance through time of 299,792,458 meters. Of course, the relationship between the spacefarers and outside observers is relative, so the spacefarers consider themselves as travelling through time at c, and the outside observers at 0.866c.

Who is right? This appears to be a difficult question, but can be resolved by determining the polar redshift/blueshift of the CMB (cosmic microwave background) radiation for spacefarers and outside observers respectively. The CMB serves as an ad hoc absolute frame of reference because the CMB is assumed to be uniform (isotropic to 1 part in 100,000), and all the redshift/blueshift is consequent to the Doppler effect, which is consequent to motion of the observers; but the CMB as a whole doesn't move.
Wouldn't passage "through" time make time absolute and universal even in the relativistic sense that "it" can allegedly be distorted? Where space is void but "time" is something different, e.g motion? ("move through").

Yes, spacetime is an absolute frame of reference. One must travel 299,792,458 meters through the time dimension for 1 absolute second to elapse. The time dimension is perpendicular to the space dimensions. It cannot be visualized because three spatial dimensions appear to use up all the available dimensions which can be perpendicular to each other. (However, this whole matter is greatly complicated by the gravitational warping of spacetime.)
As if to say there is space and there is time-as-motion but there is no "space-time" per se .

No. Spacetime is a monolithic whole. We just can't "see" into the time dimension aspect of it.
. . . of that list of phenomena I distrust[,] at least we agree on the Big-bang.

We agree on others as well.
P.S. One more question before I leave. r46, would you say that "space-time" can change, [a]ffect, or hinder the path of a moving object? If "no," I agree. If the answer is "yes," how so? By what means?

Gravitating objects affect the geometry of spacetime: the geometry of spacetime affects the motion of gravitating objects. All objects having energy are gravitating objects. However, from my perspective, gravitating objects are nothing more than the warping of spacetime. There is a gravitation field, but there is no gravitating object different from the field which creates the field: the gravitating energy is entirely contained in the field. This is like the grin without the Cheshire Cat.


“Well! I've often seen a cat without a grin,' thought Alice 'but a grin without a cat! It's the most curious thing I ever saw in my life!” ― Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland
robert 46
Intellectual
 
Posts: 2617
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 9:21 am

Re: Gravity waves, LIGO, space-time ether, conservation of s

Postby tvelection » Wed Feb 07, 2018 2:40 am

First, thanks Edward Marcus and robert46 for taking the time to read and comment.

Edward Marcus wrote:
For me the concept of space-time as a package has the potential to be misleading.

Me too, perhaps I just lack the high-end skills to understand it but a certain skepticism arises at such treatments of "time" and its application to space and dimension. The other 3 correlative dimensions are so fundamentally different. I think robert46 explains such issues with competence and understanding (as with others who speak of "space-time") but there's always left this residual "gut" feeling of doubt. I've tried articulate that short of having the necessary formal training. When imagining models I try to remove the math (or "higher math") that include equations that already presuppose time as a variable. I just try to imagine what's going on, best as I can. As far as that, gravity is the most difficult puzzle I've ever considered, so obvious yet so obscure.

robert46,

(affect/effect) oops, I know the difference (thanks for no "sic"). I'll go with the excuse that I was late for work . . . which is true, not the best excuse for them though ---"Why were you late?" . . . "I was online and lost track of time."

robert 46 quoted:
“Well! I've often seen a cat without a grin,' thought Alice 'but a grin without a cat! It's the most curious thing I ever saw in my life!” ― Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland

Good quotation, there's a certain "non-intuitive" (I think JeffJo used that interesting word once, perhaps better than "counter-intuitive," thought I'd try it out) . . . a seeming irrationality to some physic because they do not adhere to common experience or gross physical perceptions. At least I can give Einstein and novel theorists that.

But I asked questions and you gave answers, so instead of doing a long winded response I'll respect your answers as insightful whether it agrees or or disagrees with my original post. It's always possible that I'm wrong/incorrect/mistaken. "Time " will tell (although time hasn't yet spoken a word). I respect you and JeffJo's knowledge of science and math so instead of trying to debate the issue, which I'd lose whether I'm actually right or wrong because I've seen great debaters at many websites and you two fall into that category imo (there's no slight meant in that use of "debaters" either) . . .

tvelection wrote:
. . . of that list of phenomena I distrust[,] at least we agree on the Big-bang.

robert46 wrote:
We agree on others as well.


If you don't want to be specific and answer for whatever reason (maybe you work in "science" or a related field) then that's fine. But I'm curious as to where you stand on the other issues. If you could take the following list and say (agree) or (disagree) not with me but with the hypothesis itself. I'd find that insightful or if you care to comment further on some.

Which of these hypotheses, or generically "theories," do you agree or disagree with:
(1) String theory
(2) Big Bang: I disagree with it too {what's your reason(s)?}
(3) Hyperdimensions/extra dimensions (If you include time as dimension, fine, then beyond those)
(4) Gravity waves (or particles/gravitons/Higgs bosons, or something else) as gravity
(5) Wormholes
(6) Blackhole explanations(for me it's like garbage-in-garbage-out, compounded matter recycled into fundamental particles jets in a universal cycle that may prevent entropy)
(7) The "search" for Dark Matter and Energy that alleges roughly 93% of the universe that's still "missing" or unknown

If a layman came-up with "dark matter and energy" with that kind of ridiculous and shoddy result they'd be laughed out the door; it's been almost 40 yrs. of this search. Perhaps it's some unknown forces or change in gravitational constant in some circumstances. Otherwise, it's the conjecture that's missing something major ---not the universe, imo.

One last question: What do you think of the idea of "conservation of space," any traction? ---more of a recent idea than anything 'precious' to me. No big deal.

----------------------------------------------------------------
and in return . . .

Alice: “How long is forever?”
Rabbit: “Sometimes, just one second.”
Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland
tvelection
Intellectual
 
Posts: 379
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 12:44 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: Gravity waves, LIGO, space-time ether, conservation of s

Postby Edward Marcus » Wed Feb 07, 2018 6:10 am

tvelection wrote:Me too, perhaps I just lack the high-end skills to understand it but a certain skepticism arises at such treatments of "time" and its application to space and dimension.


I am in the same boat. The concept of time is interesting as one might imagine a universe with only 2 particles both moving at the same speed and direction. Then one particle's perception of the other would remain fixed and time would be a non-factor.

So would not time be an indirect indication that two separate particles cannot experience a shared directional motion, rather that there is some interaction between them which repels or attracts and subsequently alters the condition of their shared motion. In this sense, time is actually a property of attraction or repulsion forces such as gravity and electromagnetism.
Edward Marcus
Intellectual
 
Posts: 214
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 1:21 pm

Re: Gravity waves, LIGO, space-time ether, conservation of s

Postby robert 46 » Wed Feb 07, 2018 5:10 pm

tvelection wrote:Which of these hypotheses, or generically "theories," do you agree or disagree with:

I have commented on these ideas elsewhere (which may now be impossible to find, or leastwise very difficult).
(1) String theory

Add two or three dimensions to make a black-hole hypothesis. Merging strings look a lot like merging black holes.
(2) Big Bang: I disagree with it too {what's your reason(s)?}

It is an extrapolation before what is observable. Therefore it is not falsifiable, and so does not meet the criteria of a theory. However, philosophically, it is untenable to entertain the notion of spacetime coming into existence spontaneously. Time is the realm of change, so a spontaneous change presupposes a pre-existing time.
(3) Hyperdimensions/extra dimensions (If you include time as dimension, fine, then beyond those)

I do not believe in compact dimensions. However, a finite but unbounded n-dimensional realm appears to require an n+1 dimensional realm to contain it. Thus spacetime would be expected to be contained in a 5-dimensional realm. If this is also finite but unbounded then it would require a 6-dimensional realm to contain it: ad infinitum. However, if an n-dimensional realm is infinite, then it does not require an n+1-dimensional realm to contain it (because it is not contained). This leads to the antinomy:
EITHER there is
an infinite nesting of finite but unbounded realms,
OR
a limiting realm must be infinite and unbounded.

Neither is acceptable under the assumption that the infinite is not real: i.e. it is only an extended abstraction.
(4) Gravity waves (or particles/gravitons/Higgs bosons, or something else) as gravity

Gravity waves, gravitons: yes. The Higgs boson gives inertia to particles which have a rest mass. I am not particularly familiar with the theory. The claim is made that the Higgs boson has been discovered.
(5) Wormholes

Difficult to say, but I doubt it. In any case, a wormhole is not going to save you much traveling distance because the overall radius of curvature of spacetime is huge. For example:
Assume the Andromeda galaxy is 2 million lightyears away. A wormhole from our Milky Way galaxy to Andromeda would save less than 300 lightyears travel distance.
(6) Blackhole explanations(for me it's like garbage-in-garbage-out, compounded matter recycled into fundamental particles jets in a universal cycle that may prevent entropy)

There is no inside to a black-hole: the event horizon is the limit. Space does not extend inside a black-hole. This is difficult to understand, but a black-hole is not anything like a beach ball.
(7) The "search" for Dark Matter and Energy that alleges roughly 93% of the universe that's still "missing" or unknown

Galaxies contain more mass than can be seen. Dark matter is fine by me- I'm not much interested. Dark energy appears to me to be an ad hoc explanation for accelerating expansion. But I believe the latter can be explained geometrically- not requiring any dark energy.
What do you think of the idea of "conservation of space," any traction?

Scientists believe the universe is expanding. This idea is antiquated. Rather, objects in space come to occupy a larger volume segment of spacetime as they travel through the time dimension (for another 9 billion years, or so- then the volume starts getting smaller).
robert 46
Intellectual
 
Posts: 2617
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 9:21 am


Return to Great Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron