Simple geometric proof GR's GW's are impossible

Nice plug. Check the count and see if it worked!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Lol, the count is doing fine; it's just that ... Oh, forget it.

What's your topic again?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I've taken a lull from my absurdities in the Fringe, though I will go back soon to my love for the outrageous speculations and hypotheses about a layman science enthusiast's view of the cosmology of the universe (oops, not another unapologetic plug, darn), but for now, let me ask you about your OP.

The point is that this thread got off track from the very first reply. I must admit when I look at a thread like this I have absolutely no interest in following page after page of the accusations, personal attacks, and false logic, and just don't follow along. If the topic interests me, as yours does, I might keep an eye on things. You will notice that I didn't join in until people seemed to be throwing up their arms and leaving. Also, I ignore the noise, and don't respond to stupid off topic posts, once an on-topic discussion gets going, and that is how I will conduct myself if you see fit to answer my questions.

I think the OP does present a more intelligent approach to evaluating the letter of the law surrounding GR gravitational waves, than the stick and beads you refer to from Feynman. It raises a completely legitimate point about what it is that LIGO detected, and what the mechanics might be that set off the alarm. We know about the precise measurement made by lasers along the arms, and we know there are questions about whether the alarm was set off by a shortening/lengthening of the physical arm length, or by some effect not yet understood about gravitational wave energy density as it expands through space at the speed of light.

But first, I have a question about the OP. Did you write it, or did you copy it?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That's not nice. The suggestion is I may have plagiarized. The findings there are mine and mine alone. Many times in earlier threads, going back to at least the original BICEP2 claims in 2013, I stated GR's GW's were an impossibility, but never attempted to justify it then. Have you forgotten I first declared my intentions re this thread back here:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/a-...t-it-wrong-with-gr.156996/page-5#post-3391289
And in case you have also forgotten, a link was given here in #58 to the thread in another forum, where back in 2012 the original realization dawned.

In one sense I did copy. It was originally knocked up as a text file (plus the png illustration), and firstly emailed off to a local GW expert some 5 days ahead of his giving a public lecture, July 8, on aLIGO detections & GW's in general. No acknowledgement came back then or since (no surprise), but I found it interesting that the almost obligatory use of 'deforming ellipse' was absent from that presentation. Maybe a subtle hint he didn't want anyone from audience raising that matter in Q & A session. Maybe not.
If any plagiarizing is being done, and I don't particularly think it's so, note my observation and link given in #31 here.
Have I answered your question?

 

Hey James, where are you? I made an invite in #141 that other back-water banished spin-off:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/wh...an-accepted-theory.157175/page-8#post-3393576
To anyone actually but particularly to you. Let me quote some more from your #136 there:

That bit was addressed in #141 there. No sensible feedback since. Unless the ranting tirades by an infamous troll qualify as 'sensible feedback'.

OK James, please detail which if any criticisms of those several posters qualify iyo as valid. That actually homed in on the central argument in #1 or #53 or #94 here.

Well may I suggest James it's high time to get past the gut feeling stage. And actually offer your own detailed assessment. Or you wish to argue the OP is 'incomprehensible words' maybe, like one of those 'valid questioners' kept asserting? I would hope not. It can't be argued there is anything complex to consider. Just the opposite. Which is maybe the problem for some. They just can't accept the possibility that something so dead simple, and threatening to GR, could have been overlooked by the entire GR community for a full century.
But such is the case. Or so I claim to have simply and easily shown. So - here's your own golden opportunity chance to prove me wrong. Or conversely acknowledge it's so.
And please, do so here, not in that back-water thread. It should go without saying - if anything in #1 or #53 or #94 (I strongly suggest to read those in particular again) seems unclear - well just ask for clarification! Over to you, James.

 

Thank you. The case you make is sound, and was so perfectly crafted that I wanted to be sure you were the originator before encouraging you to get back to the OP and following through. I admitted that I didn't read the thread in all its "glory", and gave my reason, and there isn't anything I can contribute except my support. I see you have rejoined your effort to continue, and so good luck.

 

OK then I now appreciate you were simply being cautious, but the way it was worded I took offense. Thanks for encouragement, which is a welcome change from that dished out from certain quarters here.

Again, thanks for thumbs up.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I am trying to get an idea what you are saying....

Fair enough, under symmetry condition, the beads on hoop may not have any relative motion with respect to hoop periphery, hoop can keep flexible dancing but beads will not move. But how does it kill GR GW ?

In case of aLIGO metric got oscillatory distortion, so we had pattern, or in case of two masses on either side of spring, the oscillations would be there, I do not think you are disputing this. You may be right in disputing Hoop-Bead experiment, please explain your idea on aLIGO.

 

Once the purely transverse pure shear character of purported GR GW's are appreciated, that Feynman's famous beads cannot move as assumed, kills GR variety GW's there and then. It's all laid out in those listed posts - #1, #53, #94. The latter in particular recaps on relaxing pure transverse requirement - allowing radial 'breathing' i.e. longitudinal wave component. And then knocks that on the head. No escape route within GR. And for viewers not registered and logged in, the relevant image again:
https://s26.postimg.org/axee7pdmh/GR_GW_paradox_2.png
From what I gather you believe in a Newtonian gravity viewpoint. In which case symmetry restraints on allowable metric distortions won't mean anything. It all has to be analyzed from within GR's own terms of reference in order to see the contradictions that arise.
As for aLIGO - well G4v is currently a viable contender. Maybe other similar theories exist with allowable GW form.

 

Till it sinks in more...

1. Will this impact the conclusion of aLIGO ?

I mean, fine G4v can explain but are you trying to say that under this paradox aLIGO has incorrectly concluded GR GW ?

I am still gathering that you are killing Feynman extended setup with hoop-beads, let that be killed, but does this imply death of GR GW ?

 

I'm observing and would like to inject some support to you and the participants for what it is worth.
There is evidence of binary black holes from the LIGO findings, and that evidence is in wave energy detected by the device. I take that as fact. The detected waves may or may not fit the exacting definition of GR GW, and the OP presents reasoning why they don't fit that model. Still, there was a detection, and the results do not confirm it was a GR GW detection, at the exclusion of some or any other explanation.

 

Yes to last bit. Unless it can somehow be shown GR GW solutions other than transverse pure shear are possible. Which would contradict all the authoritative claims to the contrary.

 

Exactly.

 

The change in arm length is due to metric perturbations. So interpherometer would have detected something. Now what you are saying is associated maths with TT gauge is incorrect, suggesting GWs are there but the assessed parameters like mass, distance which are derived with TT gauge in mind are bad. If you are right, is there any possibility of interpretation of aLIGO observations under GR ?

 

Consult the literature. The prevalent interpretation is the arms per se do not appreciably stretch/compress. Rather the freely suspended mirrors sway in response to the passing wave.
Well before my Eureka moment in 2012, that explanation never quite made sense, even looked at on a local patch, plane wave basis. The implication of stiff arms resisting struck me as oddly out of character with the assumed GW spatial metric perturbations. On a coordinate basis, which is the basis for the computed perturbative h_φφ, h_θθ 'transverse shear strains', logically material stiffness can have no bearing - offer no resistance. Only gradients should register locally as 'strains' owing to transverse 'g-forces'. Which still made no sense. What could the reference point logically be to determine where the transverse 'g-forces' had their local nodes/anti-nodes? Everything fell into place once the circular hoop idea came.

Not under GR except in the very loose sense that metric perturbations are still required as cause. In G4v, one has a 4-vector field, but afaik in the far field that reduces to just a 3-vector field entirely analogous to that in EM counterpart. Unlike in EM case though, interaction of such a GW with e.g. aLIGO is only possible via the spatial gradients of such a field, owing to just one sign of 'gravitational charge'.

 

It would be good support for your explanation if you could give a link to the literature about freely suspended mirrors in the land based LIGO.

 

Actually Q-reeus is making an astounding claim. If I understand him right, he is saying that TT gauge based GR GW calculations are improper in a sense that TT waves (quadrupole) could not have caused any perturbation, but since metric perturbations are there, and hence something other than GR is required. Although I know GR is bad, but I want to see even if he is right, still can we explain the observations in GR by changing the maths. Embarrassing but.....

 

My perspective is quite different, and the concerns I have are with the mechanics of the wave propagation in the first place. I deal in wave energy density of space, and not ripples in spacetime, or necessary GWs that correct for the EFE math at those extreme event energies, so my views are Fringe, and are of no value to a discussion about the math or the characteristics of GWs in current theory.

 

Q-reeus,

This is authentic GW text..

http://www.nikhef.nl/pub/services/biblio/theses_pdf/thesis_T_G_F_Li.pdf

for you its a cakewalk, can you pin point the problem ? It covers everything so you can easily pin point.

PS : It covers hoop bead too.

 

Thorne gives a rundown of standard GR GW causes and effects here: https://www.lorentz.leidenuniv.nl/lorentzchair/thorne/Thorne1.pdf
p36 - an elastic medium 'resists' the purely transverse, *uniform* 'shear strains' of a transverse plane GW! OK, if you say so Kip. Combine with
http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0702079
On p2, answer 2, KIp Thorne is quoted as stating the mirrors move.
http://phys.org/news/2016-02-ligo.html
Specifically states the mirror motions are what allows detection. All based on - that animated 'deforming ellipse' making actual sense.

https://www.aapt.org/doorway/tgrutalks/Saulson/SaulsonTalk-Teaching gravitational waves.pdf
A more detailed 'explanation' using free body transverse 'shear deformations'.
Look, there is not one consistent interpretation out there. The local GW expert lecturer I mentioned a few posts back specifically stated the suspended mirrors not the arms move. But other sources may actually claim the arms stretch and squeeze, or just loosely refer to 'arms moving' as inclusive of mirror motion which totally dominates.