Simple geometric proof GR's GW's are impossible

[Q-reeus]

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.

I guess you are referring to the contrast between imposed TT condition yielding null result (1.52), and subsequent, finite proper distance results in (1.53), (1.54).
Well as mentioned, zero coordinate relative disiplacements in former case is owing to gauge choice imposing zero relative motion! The later proper distance calculations assume the shear strains as locally acting, but that falls over when global consistency is required. Local can't be if global can't be.
I do not wish to go around in circles here. The global inconsistency of GR GW's is the Achilles heel.

PS : It covers hoop bead too.

You evidently refer to 1.4.3 Ring of test masses p13. That is just the standard treatment of a local patch. Thought you had me there? Nope.

 

[quantum_wave]

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.

Thank you for the explanation. The apparatus sets off the alarm when there is a variance detected in the length of time it takes the laser light to make a round trip down each arm, without regard for the reason for the out of phase timing. So suffice it to say, we don't know the physics that caused the alarm. It could be that the GR GW shortened one arm relative to the other, but you seem to argue otherwise in the OP.

The wave energy density could effect the speed of light as the waves pass as suggested by Carver Mead, and others, slowing the speed of light down one arm vs the other. Two theories, and probably others give the same result; the alarm is triggered.

 

[Q-reeus]

...It could be that the GR GW shortened one arm relative to the other, but you seem to argue otherwise in the OP....

No. I argue GR GW's are not possible - period. Something like logically admissible G4v variety GW's will impose locally detectable stresses/strains/motions owing to induced tidal g-forces. I haven't tried to figure out any details as to what mix of arm vs mirror motions that would induce, but Carver Mead's team presumably have. Must fly.

 

[The God]

I guess you are referring to the contrast between imposed TT condition yielding null result (1.52), and subsequent, finite proper distance results in (1.53), (1.54).
Well as mentioned, zero coordinate relative disiplacements in former case is owing to gauge choice imposing zero relative motion! The later proper distance calculations assume the shear strains as locally acting, but that falls over when global consistency is required. Local can't be if global can't be.
I do not wish to go around in circles here. The global inconsistency of GR GW's is the Achilles heel.

You evidently refer to 1.4.3 Ring of test masses p13. That is just the standard treatment of a local patch. Thought you had me there? Nope.

I don't intend to have you...

You mean to say that local proper displacement calculations, which are observationally matching, are bad due to global inconsistencies.

Local perturbations are there, maths is there, detection is there...

You are saying GR GW not possible, which part of text maths or which assumption is bad ?

PS : you are on it since 2012, so have patience.

 

[Q-reeus]

You are saying GR GW not possible, which part of text maths or which assumption is bad ?

This bit, from my very last response to you in #141:

Local can't be if global can't be.

It's that simple. I should not have to keep repeating. YOU will need to stop and really think. Note my list of previous posts given in #125. Nothing new to add. Absorb it.

PS : you are on it since 2012, so have patience.

Actually, I have had many other interests and duties take precedence and gave it very little thought since until aLIGO detections. Bye.

 

[quantum_wave]

No. I argue GR GW's are not possible - period.

I like the period on that statement. We agree but with slightly different language. GR GWs are a specific mathematical "animal", and I question if it makes sense to say the curvature of spacetime works, up to some "as yet" unquantified limit, and only after that limit do the calculations for the GWs take up, apparently to account for some failure of the EFEs at those high energies.

Given that logic, I speculate that gravity waves are the norm for all mass, no lower or upper limit. That way, there is just one gravity, and so a single quantum gravity solution covers it. Quantum gravity would then correspond to both the effect quantified by the curvature of spacetime at lower energy and to the GW math at very high energies.

Something like logically admissible G4v variety GW's will impose locally detectable stresses/strains/motions owing to induced tidal g-forces. I haven't tried to figure out any details as to what mix of arm vs mirror motions that would induce, but Carver Mead's team presumably have. Must fly.

Interesting, thanks.

 

[The God]

Q-reeus,

Your byes and periods will give ammo to your bashers that you are running away.

If Eureka moment came to you in 2012, then I can tell you it would have remained continuously in your head, despite your other preoccupations. So the amount of brain time you have given it, is enormous, still choice is yours to stayput with byes and periods.

The apparent objection which I can simply raise...

So what if beads do not move on the hoop, the aLIGO setup does not have any bead or hoop, metric perturbations on account of ripples in curvature (GW) are predicted by GR and they are detected at aLIGO and perfectly matching. Period.

You are making a qualitative statement with some png, pl show where is the problem in text or in aLIGO setup ?

 

[expletives deleted]

The God:

Q-reeus,

Your byes and periods will give ammo to your bashers that you are running away.

If Eureka moment came to you in 2012, then I can tell you it would have remained continuously in your head, despite your other preoccupations. So the amount of brain time you have given it, is enormous, still choice is yours to stayput with byes and periods.

In all fairness to Q-reeus, neither he, nor I, and I dare say not you, nor even paddoboy (despite his seeming ubiquity and pan-temporal "presence" across this site: just a light joke, no offense meant!) can be on call 24/7 here. Life 'out there in the real world' is so complicated and demanding that one must occasionally defer to its immediate imperatives irrespective of the importance of discussion and presence here on line. Agreed?

The apparent objection which I can simply raise...

So what if beads do not move on the hoop, the aLIGO setup does not have any bead or hoop, metric perturbations on account of ripples in curvature (GW) are predicted by GR and they are detected at aLIGO and perfectly matching. Period.

You are making a qualitative statement with some png, pl show where is the problem in text or in aLIGO setup ?

The aLIGO has long arms for a reason: to enhance the spacetime length across which the laser beams travel and across which the alleged GR GW perturbations of spacetime are alleged to occur irrespective of what's at the ends of those 'legs'. That is why the essence is not so much in the reflective masses at the ends of those spacetime 'legs', but mainly in the 'legs' themselves.

If you think more deeply about it, any hypothesized GR GW perturbation passes at light speed and its strength of distortion of spacetime is severely degraded after traveling across the alleged 1.3 BILLION light years.

Which means that any motional impetus imparted to the end masses by any such alleged GR GW must be practically instantaneously over and done with while the INERTIA of the masses will dampen any possible motional impetus (as well as any instantaneous internal distortional stresses) to practically zero observational levels.

Hence the need for the LONG 'spacetime legs' in the setup; and hence the laser beam travel times/distances being the essential aspect (the longer those 'legs', the greater the 'enhancement' of any GR GW perturbation by the longer laser travel time/distance; which is why the space based LISA experimental setup is trying to EXTEND those 'legs' even further).

I hope this has helped your own understanding of the aLIGO setup essentials; and of Q-reeus's arguments related to aLIGO and its claims etc (which imply that what aLIGO 'detected" cannot be the hypothesized type of GR GW phenomena/event). Best.

 

[The God]

ED,

Agree on the first part.

The need for higher length is texted, but pl note it cannot be very high too as that would entail different treatment, but whats the link between aLIGO arm length and Q-reeus objection that GW as envisaged under TT gauge cannot move the beads on hoop. Are you trying to support the view that aLIGO arm with two hanging mirrors can be considered as a part of a larger hoop bead system ?

 

[expletives deleted]

The God:

ED,

Agree on the first part.

The need for higher length is texted, but pl note it cannot be very high too as that would entail different treatment, but whats the link between aLIGO arm length and Q-reeus objection that GW as envisaged under TT gauge cannot move the beads on hoop. Are you trying to support the view that aLIGO arm with two hanging mirrors can be considered as a part of a larger hoop bead system ?

Before I respond, can you remind me what you are using "TT gauge" to mean. Just so I don't misunderstand. Thanks.

 

[The God]

The God:




Before I respond, can you remind me what you are using "TT gauge" to mean. Just so I don't misunderstand. Thanks.

Pl refer to Page #9 to 14 of

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

This covers few additional points as raised including the length aspect.

 

[expletives deleted]

The God:

Pl refer to Page #9 to 14 of

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

This covers few additional points as raised including the length aspect.

Yes, Transverse-traceless. Thank you. I will address your earlier relevant post now:

ED,

Agree on the first part.

The need for higher length is texted, but pl note it cannot be very high too as that would entail different treatment, but whats the link between aLIGO arm length and Q-reeus objection that GW as envisaged under TT gauge cannot move the beads on hoop. Are you trying to support the view that aLIGO arm with two hanging mirrors can be considered as a part of a larger hoop bead system ?

Yes, too large distance 'legs' would require complicated relativity treatments and allowances in data gathering and analysis methodologies.

As before, I point out that it is the spacetime 'leg' distance that is the determining factor of what is perceptible (via the laser beam travel path timing and changing lengths, ie, proper distance not co-ordinate distance).

That is why I said that the test masses are just there for the reflection to maintain the beam 'on lock' and to allow for any 'de lock' signals (interference pattern and surface impact effects on mirror surface itself, not the whole test mass body as such) to be discerned by the system.

I also explained that any passing GR GW which has been attenuated over 1.3 BILLION travel cannot impart sufficient impulse strength or duration to actually affect the INERTIAL MASS of the test blocks to any perceptible degree. Hence only the laser beam 'de lock' behavior due to CHANGED PROPER DISTANCE travel length will show up as an INTERFERENCE 'event' which is interpreted as passing GR GW perturbation of the laser beam travel spacetime leg proper length.

But as Q-reeus has been pointing out, the symmetry aspect is also a necessary consideration when trying to determine whether a bead will move along with the MOMENTARY spacetime distortion due to alleged GR GW. In which case the only way a test mass can move is for the GR GW to be BOUNDED at its 'edges' in a SOLITONIC manner [fitting within the perimeter of the experimental construct, and not a much larger plane wave extending far beyond the extremities of the 'legs' in the aLIGO or beyond the 'circumference' of the hoop in Q-reeus's illustrative example. In other words, the only way a mass can be moved by a passing hypothetical GR GW is if the wave was STRONG and moved through at much less than light speed, such that the IMPULSE imparted would be anywhere near sufficient in dwell time and in force strength to actually move the test mass as well as distort the spacetime in equal measure.

Like Q-reeus, I have to leave now. If I get time tomorrow I will come in to respond to any further on topic and on science posts to me. Thanks, The God. Best.

 

[Q-reeus]

Q-reeus,

Your byes and periods will give ammo to your bashers that you are running away.

How so? The 'period' in #143 emphasized my position - where it's FUNDAMENTALLY at. The 'Bye' meant I had to go (as expletives deleted correctly noted in #152). OK?

If Eureka moment came to you in 2012, then I can tell you it would have remained continuously in your head, despite your other preoccupations.So the amount of brain time you have given it, is enormous, still choice is yours to stayput with byes and periods.

YOU can tell ME such a thing?! Mind reader then. Would a tin-foil hat be any protection?

The apparent objection which I can simply raise...

So what if beads do not move on the hoop, the aLIGO setup does not have any bead or hoop, metric perturbations on account of ripples in curvature (GW) are predicted by GR and they are detected at aLIGO and perfectly matching. Period.

You are making a qualitative statement with some png, pl show where is the problem in text or in aLIGO setup ?

My case has been made umpteen times. You were given a list of prior posts to study. You either see it or you don't. Clearly the latter.
If stepping back one observes a picture consisting of a solidly filled square, and then decides to go in with a microscope and deduce that at microscope level, everything observed is consistent with the picture being a circle, such a way of doing things is imo crazy. Recall my reference to 'forest view' not 'tree view' aka global vs local - way back in first part of #1?

Still not getting it? Then YOU take up the unanswered challenge in (for now, still) #62. I won't even suggest a particular article out of many available on the web, that provides the explicit field expressions for a linear quadrupole oscillator. Do your own search, pick a favourite, and apply it to the scenario I have provided. That pic again:
https://s26.postimg.org/axee7pdmh/GR_GW_paradox_2.png
If the penny then drops, well and good. If not, let it go. This also answers your #153 - believe it or not.

 

[James R]

Moderator note: several off-topic posts have been split to the following thread.

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/what-is-needed-to-disprove-an-accepted-theory.157175

 

[The God]

How so? The 'period' in #143 emphasized my position - where it's FUNDAMENTALLY at. The 'Bye' meant I had to go (as expletives deleted correctly noted in #152). OK?

YOU can tell ME such a thing?! Mind reader then. Would a tin-foil hat be any protection?

My case has been made umpteen times. You were given a list of prior posts to study. You either see it or you don't. Clearly the latter.
If stepping back one observes a picture consisting of a solidly filled square, and then decides to go in with a microscope and deduce that at microscope level, everything observed is consistent with the picture being a circle, such a way of doing things is imo crazy. Recall my reference to 'forest view' not 'tree view' aka global vs local - way back in first part of #1?

Still not getting it? Then YOU take up the unanswered challenge in (for now, still) #62. I won't even suggest a particular article out of many available on the web, that provides the explicit field expressions for a linear quadrupole oscillator. Do your own search, pick a favourite, and apply it to the scenario I have provided. That pic again:
https://s26.postimg.org/axee7pdmh/GR_GW_paradox_2.png
If the penny then drops, well and good. If not, let it go. This also answers your #153 - believe it or not.

You are being edgy !!

In the text certain calculations are provided for aLIGO arrangement, I have provided a standard reference, you may be aware of that reference or equivalent, which on later pages describe the aLIGO set up and also contains all relevant maths...Question is very simple..Where is the problem ? Can you pin point ?


I think its a fair way ahead as your proposal can be understood better if you pin point the problem in established maths and then put forward your argument...

 

[Q-reeus]

You are being edgy !!

Exasperated. My reading (no claim to mind read) of your outlook is - gee, all that impressive maths by so many experts just can't be wrong. Q must have it wrong then.

In the text certain calculations are provided for aLIGO arrangement, I have provided a standard reference, you may be aware of that reference or equivalent, which on later pages describe the aLIGO set up and also contains all relevant maths...Question is very simple..Where is the problem ? Can you pin point ?

SEE MY EARLIER POSTS, LAST TIME I CHECKED, STILL BEING #'s 141, 145, 153! OK, a fresh summary:
GR is a pure tensor theory. Solutions are therefore pure tensor solutions. Applied to GW's it only admits in the far-field (where TT gauge choice distinction vanishes, assuming only that averaged source and field points are stationary wrt each other), pure transverse pure shear solutions. Which are physically inadmissible owing to global consistency restraints - as I have laid out. Hence the problem is with the theory itself. A theory like G4v does not suffer that particular issue.

Now - what is preventing you from taking up my suggestion in what is, last time I checked, still #153?

 

[quantum_wave]

Can someone, well informed about the maths of General Relativity, help me sort out a notion that I am trying to deal with?

Tell me if there is any merit to the notion that gravitational waves in the framework of GR are necessary because the EFEs that normally quantify the curvature of spacetime cannot account for the motions of binary black holes where motion approaches higher percentages of the speed of light.

If that notion is correct, has there been a threshold determined up to which the normal curvature and geodesics work, and above which there is need for the presence of gravitational waves to properly account for the energy, to maintain the conservation of momentum?

 

[The God]

Q-reeus,

You know I am not that......those experts can't be wrong....type.

I will have a relook at #153....

 

[The God]

I am at loss of words...

You acknowledge that GR GW solution is perfectly right, but GR GWs are impossible due to some far field (forest view) inconsistencies.....You will appreciate that template matching and pattern calculations got to be tree view only......


Late PS : GR GW influences the proper distance between test particles, thats what is required for aLIGO to detect.

 

[Schmelzer]

Tell me if there is any merit to the notion that gravitational waves in the framework of GR are necessary because the EFEs that normally quantify the curvature of spacetime cannot account for the motions of binary black holes where motion approaches higher percentages of the speed of light.

Nonsense. The gravitational waves are also solutions of the Einstein field equations of GR.

What fails cannot be, therefore, the Einstein field equations themselves. What fails may be some stationary approximation, which would be, say, appropriate for the solar system.