A presentation made to the ‘Gravity’ Session in the October Conference of the American Physical Society, Four Corners Region. October 15, 2004

When I looked at the theme of this conference, a centennial celebration of Einstein’s five pivotal papers, I decided to attend, because I can see some parallels between the situation in 1905 and today.

The successes of Einstein’s 1905 papers, and the theory of General Relativity published twelve years later cannot be over emphasizes: The orbit of Mercury, the displacement of stars near the sun during a total eclipse, the time delay in accelerated atomic clocks, and the retarded atomic particle decomposition rates in high energy physics. These predictions have all been verified. We have looked for and found neutron stars, event horizons, gravitational lenses, and we have exploded nuclear bombs. Has any scientific theory ever been more successful?

In spite of these successes, not all the adaptations of General Relativity are that straight forward. Parameters have been added to address the many puzzles that remain: The MOND or dark energy effect at the edges of galaxies, the consistent, unpredicted acceleration of the Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11, and other distant probes towards the sun. We have the ambiguous reports of anomalous behavior of Foucualt pendulums during total eclipses of the sun. We cannot detect gravity waves.

We blink our eyes, wondering why we cannot nail down either the nature of dark matter, the predicted transitions of the BB, or the genesis of observational errors we might be making.

Is gravity behaving badly?

You might think so, or at least feel humbled, if you look at it from this prospective:

In order to keep a resemblance of the Einstein deSitter cosmological model in place, theorist have had to introduce inflation, they have had to reduce the baryonic content of the universe to only four percent of the total mass fraction, and they have had to introduce ‘dark matter’ and ‘dark energy’ and population III stars, the only evidence of which is the failure of the universe to behave the way we predicted.

What is most startling to me though, is our failure to detect gravity waves. When you read the latest proposals of the LIGO team, it is easy to assume that we have not detected gravity waves simply because we do not have the necessary instrumental sensitivity. It is a misconception that this limit is theoretically driven: The observational constraints placed upon current tests for gravity waves are based upon prior constraints from less sensitive experiments.

In other words, the Theory of General Relativity predicts we should have been able to detect gravity waves with instruments much less sensitive than the current generation. The failure of our instruments to detect gravity waves is not unlike to the failure of the Michelson Morley experiment to detect ‘ether’.

On the subatomic scale, things are not much better: Virtually all of the four percent of the mass of the universe we consider ‘real’ (baryonic) is tied up in the Higgs boson, which has not been detected. In other words, everything we think we know defines less than one percent of the mass fraction of the universe! Can’t we do any better?

So many of Einstein’s predictions have born fruit. Why can’t we find gravity waves? Is there another plausible explanation? Could a Primary Postulate Be Wrong? Einstein looked at the Michelson and Morley results, and concluded that to make any sense of them, he would have to find some unexpected variabless, and he chose space and time.

To play with this idea, let’s look at Einstein’s fundamental Special Relativity postulate: The speed of light is a constant, so time must vary. Replace this with the concept that time is constant and the speed of light does very, in Lorentz transforms proportions to both gravitational and inertial frames of reference. Mathematically, this is a valid solution to the Michelson Morley observations, but with a powerful distinction: We can assign causality:

We know the light we observe is redshifted by a Lorentz transform of the difference in relative speed between the inertial frames of the source and the observer. We also know the transform is based upon Maxwell’s equations. So why not assume that when light approaches an inertial electromagnetic frame, it is slowed, just as the tensors of polarization change the path of light as it enters a dense transparent medium?

If you assume the speed of light slows as it approaches a dense object, and that it also slows when a object is approaching the source of light wave, (rather than changing the time in the different inertial reference time as Einstein did), E=mc^2 still pops out.

The difference is, when you look at a ‘modified special relativity’ that varies the speed of light as it approaches matter, rather than slowing time, it is easy to assign causality: Mass, and the gravitational fields associated with it slow the speed of light in an approaching objects in the same way that the dense mass, in the center of an atom, causes a refraction of light: Objects behave like standing waves, solitons.

In this scenario, when the proverbial ‘two trains’ are approaching each other, the standing waves we call gravimetric and inertial forces, envelope each other long before the two trains collide. The speed of the light traveling between the trains is slowed by the amount of speed necessary to satisfy the Lorentz transfer. As I said, this is mathematically equivalent to Einstein’s SR transformations. (This assumes there is an extremely small variance in the Michelson Morley experiments, caused by the inertial framework of the earth and sun, and there is. It is of the same magnitude as the predicted General Relativistic gravitational effects, as it should be.)

Part of this puzzle is found in the strange effects recorded during total eclipses of the Sun – Foucault pendulums exhibit a small but traceable glitch at the beginning and end of a total eclipse…some of the time.

Big pendulums: NO
Little pendulums: Yes, sometimes
Torsion pendulums: Maybe
Inside the cylinder of the total eclipse: Yes, but only at the edges and sometimes only one edge, and sometimes the phase angle of this glitch is 180 degrees out of phase with other observations.
Outside the cylinder: Never
Gravimeters: No. (However, there are tentitive indications of variance within one or two sigma of the noise level.)

I laid a bunch of these curves out, and soon realized if the force of gravity is slowed as it passes through a dense object, there should be a slight compression in the wave at the beginning and ending of the eclipse, where the path through the mass of the moon is changing dramatically – this would allow the earth to pull the pendulum down with a little more force until the wave passing through the moon “catches up”. When the second, slightly compressed wave ‘catches up’ to the relaxed wave, the pendulum has moved slightly, recording the new position of the compressed wave to a different position on the pendulum than the ‘stretched’ gravity wave. This can cause a slight increase in the energy of the pendulum as it swings through it’s point of maximum speed: The pendulum gets a small push and we can record this.

The reason this effect would be more pronounced in small, quickly moving pendulums rather than large ones is the movement means the compressed gravity wave lands on the pendulum behind, rather than right on top of the expanded wave: A pendulum is a differential gravity meter! And it proves (as we have always suspected) gravity moves at or near the speed of light. (This ‘speed’ of the gravimetric tensor has been confirmed in the ‘frame dragging’ effect of the earth’s orbit – a conformation gravity waves have a finite speed that is approximately the speed of light.)

I was thinking about this while arguing with 'Soupdragon’ about the nature of gravity , and I argued: “If what you say is true, everywhere we expect to find gravity waves we should find electromagnetic waves” and then I thought Oh my God!

1) When supernova 1987a exploded we were very disappointed that the Allegro gravity probe did not record this event. However, the explosion was observed shortly after an intense gamma ray was emitted from the same region! Since then, it has been absolutely confirmed core collapse supernovae emit intense gamma rays! Something not predicted, but observed.

2) Neutron stars were predicted using General Relativity and Quantum physics. They have been observed, confirming the prediction, but when they are found in binary pairs winding into each other they emit intense radio pulses. This pulsing was not predicted and is proving difficult to model. What is predicted is a very powerful gravity wave that we should be able to detect in binary neutron stars we observe winding into each other. (The mass loss necessary to create this wave IS observed, but not the gravity wave.)

3) We have found evidence of a “black hole” mass in the center of our own galaxy. Again, we should be able to detect gravity waves emitted by stars as they are torn apart and fall into this hole, we see intense radiation, much greater than expected, but not the gravity wave.

Could all of the gravity wave be converted to electromagnetic forces? Would this explain the origin of cosmic rays? Cosmic rays have energies we cannot model with known mechanisms of nuclear forces, but if matter is composed of standing waves, and rapid disassociation this matter releases massive electromagnetic radiation, these waves would then demonstrate a causal relationship between cosmic EMF and gravity. Now look what else happens:

1) When an earthquake occurs or a volcano erupts, this represents a major gravimetric disturbance. If gravity is an emf, we should see electric signatures. And we do! Earthquakes and volcanoes are known to disrupt the ionosphere, but we have never known why: Now we do!

2) The tidal forces of the earth should also create gravity waves. If this is an emf, since the tidal zones of the earth run mostly north and south, waves are crashing east and west: This should –according to the laws of electromagnetism, create a magnetic pole in the north-south direction. There is one!

3) Slowly rotating planets without atmospheres should not have, or have very weak magnetic poles, while rapidly rotating planets should have much stronger ones – because of the proximity of the moon, the earth’s magnetic field should be larger than that of Venus. All true!

4) Raindrops falling from the air, and clouds condensing are measurable gravimetric effects, and should create gravity waves. They do. They also cause lightening!

5) Spaceships orbiting the earth are subjective to tidal pulls – more waves, and yes, spaceships build up enormous electric charges.

6) When we quickly rub insulated objects together, if gravity is a weak emf, a weak charge should be generated. Since Franklin, we been told this is because these objects are “dissimilar”, but as my kids taught me, you can generate a static charge by rubbing together two very similar balloons. Dragging your feet across thousands of isolated carpet fibers can create awesome charge displacement – friction should generate heat, not charges.

(The balance of this observational evidence was not presented at Four Corners, but has been developed within the same month.)

7) The piezo electric effect occurs in crystal structures that have an orthogonal projection with no plane of symmetry. If one face of the crystal is compressed, a uniform “gravity” wave must be transmitted through the crystal. If this wave is electromagnetic, the phase angle of each compression that arrives at the orthogonal plane will be offset proportional to the size of the crystal. A standing wave is assembled in the orthogonal plane that is proportional to ratio of the crystal size to the fundamental frequency. Quartz crystals are gravity wave frequency dividers!

8) The last time we heard from the Pioneer 10 and 11 probes, they were accelerating toward the sun with a near-constant acceleration that cannot be explained with known physics. Stars at the edges of galaxies are also accelerating at a comparable rate. The consensus model reason for this acceleration is ‘dark matter’, a commodity that has shirked all attempts at detection or realistic modeling.

The pioneer and ‘Dark matter’ or MOND effects can easily be modeled from these concepts: Inertial and gravimetric effects are not only equivalent as Einstein postulated, they are identical! When we place a Newtonian force on the earth by jumping (applying a force downwards), the earth is deflected from its position in space, and an equal and opposite deflection occurs in what we consider the inertial framework. The resulting force accelerates us upward. Once this energy has been absorbed in this gravitational/inertial tensor framework, we accelerate downwards and the field strength returns to an equilibrium.

Careful reading of the paragraph above reveals there is no such thing as inertia – to exhibit an ‘inertial acceleration’ a gravitational tensor must be in place. Now the MOND effect is easy to understand: As the mass fraction of a galaxy dwindles, so does the inertial potential. Stars near the edges of galaxies cannot continue to rotate according to Newton, because the strength of the ‘inertial’ field diminishes in proportion with the gravitational field.

What then is happening to the energy? It is being radiated – as radio waves! This is why all galaxies are radio loud in their perimeters, especially where jets are expanding away from galaxies cores! This is why the jets remain collimated over extreme distances that defy Machian dynamics! This is why jets stop suddenly in space, and why they form knotted structures. We know about these knots because they are extremely radio-loud!

We are trying to follow the expansion of supernova explosions into space, and this expansion is not making sense: We do not see the explosion front propogating into space, and we do not see the amount of dust in space that we should expect, given the frequency of supernova events. Why? Without the inertial framework, supernova cannot expand rapidly into space, and the energy is released as X-rays and gamma rays instead, just as we observe.

If you tried to accelerate a rocket between two galaxies, where the gravitational tensors are virtually non-existent, the rocket would not be propelled forward, but would instead broadcast radio waves, the strength of which is proportional to the thrust. Not only is ‘warp drive’ not possible between galaxies, neither is Newtonian!

This explains why our steady state universe does not collapse: Although there are acceptations, (such as when galaxies are clearly connected in clusters by gas trails), but in general, the radiating fields are at least as strong as the gravitational attractions, and a net balance in these forces keep galaxies isolated from each other.

Galaxies can absorb as well as generate radio waves, and the frequency bandwidth of absorption/emission is proportional to the Gaussian size distribution of galaxies. This net Gaussian distribution creates a blackbody radiation that is called the cosmic microwave background.

It almost goes without saying that there is an intrinsic redshift in space that we mistake for Doppler effects. Once causality is assigned to changes in the speed of light rather than ‘time dilation’, Chandrasahkar’s rules of radiation transfer come into play. The ‘Hubble constant’ is a constant because the cosmic microwave background temperature of this completely relaxed universe is constant.

An causal explanation can also be made for other observations that confirm tenants of General Relativity: Neutrons decay much less slowly when they are packed into atoms, next to protons, so even the slowing of atomic clocks and the delay in particle decay can be explained as gravimetric/inertial functions. (In this hypothetical world, a particle moving very fast relative to the inertial/gravitational field it travels in decays more slowly, because the effective density of the protons and/or electrons increases near the particle.)

Finally, an electromagnetic gravitation tensor defines Planck’s constant: The maximum frequency at which an atom can absorb energy is a function of the fundamental frequency of the atom. However, this does not mean electromagnetic radiation does not exist at higher frequencies than our atomic structure allows us to detect. We did not find all of the energy/momentum we expected to find in careful analysis of atomic explosion. An ad-hoc extension to Einstein’s theory developed the concept of neutrinos. This may be incorrect, if the mass fraction missing is broadcast as an electromagnetic wave at a frequency we cannot detect: a gravity wave.

Although these waves pass almost undetected through matter, in certain situations, such as quartz crystals, this energy is converted to detectable wavelengths. This also happens deep within the earth, in our neutrino detectors: (These are nothing more than secondary detectors of energetic events.) The reason the ‘neutrino count’ recorded in our measurements from the sun is only one third of the predicted value is because we underestimate the number and type of atoms being consumed in the sun and the do not understand the byproducts.

This means it is possible to extract more energy from atomic reactions than is currently deemed possible: Even the most nuclear stable of all atoms, Iron, can be crushed and release primal energy. This is why stars burn much longer than predicted, why there are areas of low heavy metal abundance in the oldest of galaxies, and why there is a seemingly endless supply of energy powering the universe.

General Relativity is an ad-hoc model that does not address or assign causality. It has great predictive powers, but so do epicycles. It was just as rewarding to conceptualize, model and predict events using Ptolemy’s mathematical models as it is with Einstein’s four-dimensional tensors, and almost as difficult. This does not mean they are accurate representations of reality.

This ability to assign causality to all of these events leads to the conclusion Einstein was as wrong as he was right. He recognized the equivalence of inertial acceleration and gravity, he did not realize the force is identical. He slowed time, when he could have found causality by associating the Doppler shifting of electromagnetic waves with the kinetic energy and mass density of the system.

The solutions to the gravimetric and time dilation effects characteristic of general relativity can also be found using wave equations and slowing the speed of light as it enters a high impedance gravitational and/or inertial tensor, rather than warping space and time. This mathematically equivalent solution allows causality to be assigned to relativistic effects. It predicts we should see distant gravitational waves as electromagnetic, rather than seismic events.

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?

This should be an interesting thread.

The devil is in the numbers, and it is going to take a lot of number crunching to support your examples.

For example, I'd be really surprised if the gravitational energy converted by rubbing two balloons together even remotely matched the static charge created. For one thing, you'd get different results with hollow objects versus filled objects, materials with different densities and thicknesses, etc. It'd also be hard to explain the correlation of normal force and friction coefficient to charge accumulation (capacitance, maybe?). Finally explaining triboelectrification would be cool though...

__________________
Do try not to take me too seriously.

After reading Jerry's post, I thought that the title of this thread..."A twisted look at General Relativity"...was perfectly appropriate.

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

I think the lightning/thunderclouds as gravitational->EM effect is stretching it a bit too.

Otherwise, there are some really interesting points and concepts that could/should be developed further.


Robbo

Good Go, Jerry! You've just rewritten Physics as we know it! Do I detect a hint of Morris Anderson's work here? I think it's a brilliant summation of all that we had come to believe, to paraphrase Aristotle, as "right and just", only to discover that we may have justified it wrongly. If we're missing "causation", then it's a big miss. There may be a very easy connect between gravity and emf, and we simply did not see it: they are the opposing ends of the same thing. Now, to make it all work, we need numbers... no small task!

Some of my favorites:
I think of these two are not only interactive, but inversely proportional. They are the same thing in opposing form.
This is more plausible than remnants of a questionable Big Bang.
Ptolemeic epicycles are still used in Astrology (some people really believe in this!), and they have predictive powers of finding where the planets will be in the night sky, though totally wrong. Einstein's time variable four dimensional space may also prove useful, but twisted.
The real test is predictability. Can we use this knowledge not only to predict cosmic events, but better still, to use this "gravitational waves cum electromagnetic energy" as an energy source in the future? If gravity is convertible, then the converse should also be true, where manipulating emf should yield gravitic effects. And knowing how clever we humans can be, once we get that solved, it's only a matter of time we figure how to use it to make motors, or propel spacecrafts. Once you can recreate a gravitic environment, then just manipulate the mass around it. With constant fast accelerations, velocities achieved can be immense.

As you pointed out, Einstein's predictions yielded valuable results. But we can do better, and move away from limiting interpretations that have us glued to this side of the future.

Nice, good insights. Now for the hard parts, to calculate it, and to make it work.

Cheers! Ivan

__________________
Caveat Lector. Experimentum summus judex...

Thanks LK, I had to start somewhere. Yes, Morris is on almost the same page, his derivations can be plugged right in. The numbers are important, but as we have seen with the BB, parameters can be tailored to fit about any model...

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?

That is very interesting concept. However, few questions remain:

- Large scale structure of universe? Why we don't see fantastically large structures?

- Always increasing entropy? If matter constantly decays, why there's still matter in the universe?

- Quasar-galaxy associations? I see that your model don't have a problem with high redshift objects being at same distances than low redshift galaxies, but why it seems that active galaxies eject quasars? Why quasars seem to concentrate near active galaxies? (Maybe they are very outgoing objects and like all the activity, so they just gather around active galaxies and have a party? \/ )

- Redshift-distance relation? At least for low redshift objects it seems that redshift is proportional to distance, why is that?

- Olbers' paradox?

__________________
"Stupidity gets denser in a crowd" - Old Finnish saying. [My website and My BLOG] [Nimblebrain forums]

Eleven. I'll get back to you on the rest of it.

Aren't the pioneer spacecrafts accelerating away from the sun, not towards it??? :-?

__________________
. . . My moustache is touching my brain!!!!

No. They're slowing down by a very tiny amount.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

Excellent series of questions, I think they are all conceptually answered within this framework, Moret-Bailly’s description of solitons, and Morris Anderson’s (deBroglie) wave mechanics: Essentially it is a stability issue:

In this conceptual interpretation of the Anderson equations, the denser a ‘core’ object becomes, the more approaching light is slowed and blue shifted. The limiting case becomes an expanding black body rather than a black hole, radiating nearly as much energy as it is absorbing. Black holes never form, however the frequency being radiated can be redshifted at many times the gravitational limit imposed by conventional general relativity.

This “Almost a black hole” slowly increases in size as it accumulates mass. Gravitational force is greatest on the surface of any object. As the size increases until it’s internal distances are large relative to the speed of light, the potential exists for the shape of the mass to become asymmetric and unstable. (This is because it takes time for the gravitational forces associated with one area of the mass to be transferred across the entire body. Accretion of groups of galaxy substructures, and/or collisions with other galaxies cause this instability.)

Just as a large soap bubble in the wind oscillates, then breaks into two or more smaller ones, an accreting galaxy core will eventually separate into two (or more) accreting sources.

This is the birthing process of a pair of new quasars. They separate themselves from the host galaxy because in the initial split, the gravitational potential between the two galaxies is dramatically reduced, and all the energy within these boundaries flares out of this confining shell into a galactic plane.

The masses of the splitting core furthest from galactic plane become newly formed accreting hosts – quasars. The radiative pressure in the chaotic center pushes these quasar cores further apart. These intrinsically redshifted quasars accrete mass eventually becoming maturing into new, blue elliptical galaxies, the more mass assembled about the core, the more hidden the intrinsic redshifts of the galactic centers become.

Arp’s observation that quasars are born with high intrinsic redshifts, often from the cores of older, less intrinsically redshifted galaxies, is correct. His causal mechanism for aging is wrong. Notice that quasars can also be isolated, or form from younger galaxies as well, a galaxy does not have to achieve a certain age in terms of intrinsic redshifting before the central mass becomes unstable and splits.

Obviously, as the number of galaxies increases, they cannot continue to always move away from each other, so collisions between galaxies do occur. Across the whole universe the birth rate and death rate are in equalibrium.

Galactic collisions distribute both radiative energy and matter in unpredictable patterns, but once a gaseous path links two galaxies, the gravitational bridge between them becomes a more or less permanent bond. This is why galaxies are found in clusters with blue galaxies dominating the mass center: the more connecting masses, the higher the accretion rate and the probability of finding newly formed blue galaxies increases. Near the edges of clusters, the opposite is true: There is less matter to feed the core and galaxies age and redden

The infrared background is the continuum emission predicted by Olber. The low frequency component is constantly absorbed by galaxies and reemitted as a gaussian distributed black body, as outlined in this post. This is why there is both a microwave and infrared cosmic background.

Low energy radiation is absorbed by galaxies. As this energy is transferred to the galaxy core by physical processes, the wavelengths from multiple source are combined until they are quit literally converted matter. In galaxy cores this matter is accreted until the galaxy increases to a size at which the core is unstable.

As I follow the flow of energy through this matrix, there is no net increase in entropy. A cluster of galaxies is truly a perpetual motion machine, bleed off no more energy than what it receives and processes from external sources. Is such a dynamic state possible? Since the universe exists the conclusion is yes.

It should be possible to predict or model the Tully-Fisher relationship - the rotational energies are directly proportional to the mass distribution. We should also be able to predict the wavelength of radiowaves emitted from galaxies when we understand the mass/inertia slope.

We have tossed around the idea of polarizing the Piezo electric effect, isolate the vibrational motion in one direction. We decided this is most likely not possible because it would require an a ramped EM DC offset.

To an extent we are already applying these principles: mag levitated trains, cathode ray focusing. We already know how to manipulate gravity, and this thesis does not provide a free lunch.

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?

For this "tiny" acceleration towards the Sun, there's an easy way to figure the gravity growth equivalent, taking inertial mass as equivalent to gravity mass, so if G is growing, then inertial mass is growing by like proportion: Conceptually, if distant G is growing, then dividing it by AU distance would give us what is that rate of growth per AU; and dividing that by the known Newton's G constant would give us the rate of growth of G per Newton's G, which would account for the "acceleration towards the Sun". Now taking it the other way, starting with that acceleration towards the Sun, we reverse the process for the Pioneers accelerating at ~8e-8 cm/s^2 towards the Sun:

a (towards Sun) = 8e-8 cm/s^2 = 8e-10 m/s^2

multiply by distance in meters of one astronomical unit (AU), distance of Earth from Sun:

a*d per AU = 8e-10 m/s^2 times 150e9 m = 1200e^-1 m^2/s^2 = 1.20e^2 m^2/s^2

multiply this by (Earth's) G, as in F = GMm/r^2:

a*d per AU*G = 1.20e2 m^2/s^2 times 6.67e-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2 = 8.00e-9 m^5 kg^-1 s^-4,

which represent G growth (per m^2 per s^2) per AU, or per acceleration and distance (m^2/s^2),

so that G/AU = ~8.0e-9 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2 (m^2/s^2).

However, this number is actually high (by a power of two), which means "IF" the Pioneers are slowing due to increasing G, the real G/AU number is probably lower (more like ~8e-11 Nm^2kg^-2), with the difference of 10e-2 accounted for by space dust, heat vents, signal redshift, Kuiper belt tugs, and other...etc., so the probes are slowing faster than gravity differential can account for alone.

But, as you can see, this is NOT a very small acceleration towards the Sun, but a rather LARGE number!

(for those who want to play around with more math)

Separately, I figured out by how much this distant G is growing per AU by first working out the total orbital Energy for each of the planets: Sun's irradiance (Watts/m^2) times distance (meters) times kinetic energy (KE = 1/2 mv^2) for each planet, and found that E grows parabolically TOWARDS the Sun. (Note, the final result is adjusted by 1000 to adjust for kilogram mass, viz. m = 1 gram, net for any orbital body). In using another equation to figure for proton mass, the mass drops off towards the Sun as E increases, by using: E = hc/ (em lambda)* (proton mass) where em lambda remains constant at about 1.32e-15 m). Conversely, away from the Sun, E decreases and proton mass increases. By taking this ratio and applying it to proton-to-proton gravitational coupling constant (~5.9e-39) and coverting this to Newton's G shows that G grows LINEARLY away from the Sun by an amount not too different from what was figured above, and confirmed by Pioneers. But this is becoming a very long story, so I stop here. But if anyone likes to play with numbers, try figuring total orbital Energy for the planets, and you'll discover that Earth's orbit sits at ~9e16 Watts, which is oddly similar to E=mc^2 = 90 petajoules (per second). How about that! #-o

[Edited 11-10-04, for mass m = 1 g in KE = 1/2mv^2]

__________________
Caveat Lector. Experimentum summus judex...

Fascinating! The difference between the expected outer orbital velocities stars in galaxies using Newtonian mechanics, and the measured orbitals is in the 40 km/sec range, so it is in the right ballpark for generating microwaves...

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?

Is this object black enough, so that we don't see them unless they are very close to us? I don't think we have seen this kind of objects, this is some kind of low redshift quasar, isn't it? Or is it regular galaxy nucleus you are talking about?

Not having black holes is a good thing, because I don't much like the traditional black hole concept.

Figure 7 in this paper (it's on page 11) might show an example of this. According to what you say, we have there ARP 220 that has just divided to two objects. Other one looks more compact and more massive and it's redshift is 0.018. Other one is more fuzzy and appears less massive, so it's redshift is 0.09. Earlier ARP 220 has spit out two small mass objects, both with redshift of about 1.25.

I just wonder if you can get enough velocity for these separating objects. Arp has reported ejection velocities of about 0.1c (but I don't know how speculative this is), so can you get so big velocity with your splitting process?

If small mass means large redshift, why stars don't have huge redshifts? Why the Moon doesn't have z=10?


You already described birth, but how death happens? Do galaxies just radiate themselves out of existence?


This makes sense to me, because I have always thought that in a static universe entropy should stay constant. But there will be a lot of people saying that it is not possible.

__________________
"Stupidity gets denser in a crowd" - Old Finnish saying. [My website and My BLOG] [Nimblebrain forums]

Ok, I know I'm gonna come across as pretty darn ignorant here, but why is this a mystery? Regardless of the crafts exceeding escape velocity for our solar system, they are still impacted by the Sun's gravity, right? I guess I'm left wondering "why wouldn't they be slowing down???"

Isn't escape velocity just the speed needed get you away from a body at a velocity to where the gravitational affects of the body decrease at a greater rate than the speed of the craft itself, hense it'll never be pulled back?

__________________
. . . My moustache is touching my brain!!!!

Absolutely. The amount of this force is calculated by the inverse square law. The measured acceleration of the Pioneer Probes towards the sun was in the ballpark of twice what Kepler's or Newtons laws would predict. The consistancy of this 'error' rules out a lot of possible causes, and has left everyone scratching their heads.

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?

The slowdown is more than can be accounted for by expected effects such as the Sun's gravity.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

These ‘black bodies’ are not dark, they are highly redshifted quasars, redshifted by their core density.

This conversion of a huge portion of a galactic core that is light years acroos into radiant energy - yes, this could involve major league velocities in close proximity to the galaxy...initially, the separations would be highly Newtonian.

Extremely dense, not small in mass. The idea is every galaxy contains a quasar-like high density redshift mass in the center. The more less-dense matter orbiting or infalling at increasing distances, the lower the redshift we observe for the entire structure.

That is a possibility, especially if the galaxy is not associated with a cluster (they may all be associated). When two galaxies are near enough that the do collide, we certainly have evidence they may form a single galaxy. It is possible all spiral galaxies are the result of galactic collisions - in Lee Davis's theory, bar galaxies are formed when to ellipticals collide and they eventually age into spirals.

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?

Fortunately, most of the math has already in place, and has been waiting for a model to explain it. This is true of the MOND, or dark matter effect, and also true of cosmic rays:

One of the biggest mysteries in astrophysics is the cause and nature of cosmic rays. They are more energetic than any current theory has been able to explain, and the cosmic ray energy curve over time has proven impossible to model with conventional physics. The most important, and difficult feature to explain is a sudden, sharp ‘knee bend’ to a higher energy.

It has always been suspected Cosmic Rays are associated with supernova explosions. This has been confirmed to a very high degree of probability for core collapse supernova, but no one has successful explained the mechanics of the knee and the intense power of the radiation.

A.D.Erlykin discusses the various explanations for the sudden increase in the intensity of cosmic rays, and the reasons none of the proposed models can explan the known phenomenology. (A phenomenological model is a mathematical model that does not have a theoretical bases to support it.)

Cosmic Rays are very simple: When supernova explodes, a vast amount of matter is quickly converted to radiation, accelerating the remaining matter at unbelievable velocities. As a significant portion of the mass is converted to energy, a cosmic gravitational wave is broadcast announcing this event. At the same time, the inertial field associated with this disintegrating matter is collapsing in proportion to the amount of matter converted into energy. The particles still accelerating outward in the intense nuclear fireball quickly reach the boundary conditions of the collapsing inertial wave. At this conjuncture, the collapsing inertial framework can no longer sustain the kinetic energy of the particles. As this impediance to the kinetic motion increases exponentially, the kinetic energy is immediately converted to a more powerful cosmic ray, as confirmed in the "double exponential" knee in the energy curve.

This means cosmic rays must also be associated with type Ia supernova. It means if we know a cosmic ray was triggered by a certain supernova event, once we know the approximate redshift of the cosmic ray, we also know the proportional size of the supernova. We will be able to use this information to confirm:

Supernovae Ia’s are occurring much more frequently at z-shifts of ~1. We do not detect them, because the attenuation of space is much greater than we think it is.

The “supernovae Ia" we do detect at these redshift distances are actually hypernovae, or supernova type b/c, which are much brighter and have longer light curves than supernovae Ia.

The time from the explosion of the supernova to the knee event confirms both the size and the existance of the inertial portion of the gravitational field.

The light curves of these distant hypernovae are in the same ballpark length as the handful of local hypernovae events we have observed, proofing a null validation of the Wilson hypothesis: The light curves we observe at high redshifts are not time dilated and the universe is not expanding.

The frequency of observation of cosmic rays also confirms this hypothesis: In order for the cosmic ray and therefore the supernova count to be as high as it is, the universe cannot be getting smaller in look-back time. As far as we can tell, it is infinite – just as infinite as it looks in the deep field surveys.

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?

Then I can look forward to reading a fully referenced paper? However, given the scope of the subject, you might wind up with a book. All I ask is that you keep it understandable for us poor engineering majors.

__________________
Do try not to take me too seriously.

This should not be surprising, particularly since - as Tony Rothman puts it - "Einstein's equations do not specify the universe; rather they may be considered a general framework within which you can construct many different model universes."
This is a very skewed and misleading way to put it.
This is a scientific argument?
Except, how does this square with the observed slowing of atomic clocks and the extended lifetimes of high-speed subatomic particles?

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

Prospective. I don't think pouring dark stuff all over a model that isn't working is a scientific thing to do.

Weakly...but not too bad, if everything else works, and it seems to. The best answer I have on the subatomic level is to point out that neutrons are more stable in an atomic nucleus, (as long as it is not too crowded). So increasing density or relative speed slows atomic clocks and other nuclear events by increasing the effective electron/proton mass.

The causal mechanism here is very iffy it implies atomic decay probabilities are a function of mass & kinetic energy (temperature and emf!!!), I quess it could argue GR relies upon a similar causality... If I were completely happy with this answer, Cougar, I would probably be as obnoxious as Lyndon :-? ...if I am not already.

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?

Ok, I misunderstood that then. Shouldn't we see difference in redshift between core of galaxy and it's disk (because core is more dense than disk)?

__________________
"Stupidity gets denser in a crowd" - Old Finnish saying. [My website and My BLOG] [Nimblebrain forums]

Again, see Giovanni Santostasi's thesis. The calculation of the integration time required by ALLEGRO to detect the SN1987A remnant directly is in chapter 12, beginning on page 110. That calculation is clearly based only on theoretical GR expectations for a rotating neutron star (not the core-collapse event itself, but something that should be detectable for millions of years after the event). The results of the calculation are then compared to ALLEGRO's sensitivity limit.

What has been done in the case of supernovae events (rather than remnants) is to place upper limits on the total number of core-collapse supernova within the galaxy assuming GR is correct. Currently the limits are uninteresting, being in the hundreds per year level (things will get more interesting with LIGO-II, after 2005). They wouldn't be able to quote such a number at all if your interpretation was correct, because all that would be known in that case would be that we hadn't see any detections yet. As it is, having a way (from GR) to calculate the strength of gravitational waves produced by a supernova allows a numerical limit to be quoted. Of course, if GR is wrong then so is the limit, but the limits are not yet anywhere near tight enough to conflict with what we know (that there have been about six supernovae in the galaxy in the past millenium). If all we had was the sensitivity of past experiments, and no theoretical model for gravitational wave strengths then nobody would be able to quote such limits at all.

EDIT:

They emit radio pulses when not in binaries, as well. There are more known pulsars outside binaries than there are in binaries, which is not really surprising when you consider the events that create neutron stars.

The thesis you cite, dated 2003, is an exposition on why Allegro failed. If you look at the papers while Allegro was being designed, and even during testing, you read:

Verry specifically, they expected to be able to see gravity waves from Relativistic binary Pulsar B1913+16 within our own galaxy. It would be interesting to compare Taylor’s initial calculations, predicting Allegro would be sensitive enough to detect galactic events, with Santostasis’s post mortem that explains why we did not, and see how and why parameteric assumptions were tweaked. More, later.

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?

I thought I’d add my two cents regarding a shortcoming of relativity.

Relativity is based upon a structure in which space-time is constructed with distance and temporal measures with the speed of light describing a fundamental relationship between distance and time. This structure can be visualized as a matrix like configuration, similar to a salt cube. At the vertices of this matrix are small clocks and all the clocks all read the same measures of time. The distance between vertices can be altered due to acceleration, a relative velocity, and the expansion of space-time, but barring these interactions, the basic framework of space time is a perfect lattice type structure with a given interval of time associated with a given distance, and all these measures are consistent through out.

Ignoring for now all the various factors that may distort this dimensional arrangement of space time, there is a fundamental issue that corrupts the perfect order of this model upon which all our relationships of relativity are based. Where does the energy come from to keep all those little clocks at every location in space-time running? Any model of reality shows that there is an intrinsic loss of energy for any physical process. While one could argue that the clocks are hypothetical, then one is forced to admit that the model used to describe reality is based upon hypothetical relationships that are not similar to what we observe in our universe. It is impossible to make any measures of our universe without the loss of energy. This is the same intrinsic problem that is found in quantum physics, any measure of a system will change the system. Some how in general relativity we seem to be perfectly fine in ignoring this effect, it is as if it makes no difference in the relationships, yet in quantum physics we are forced to deal with the issue.

This incongruity can be resolved if there is a way to draw off energy in such a way as to keep all relative measures the same. One way to do this is to allow time to slow down. For example, the thermal energy of a mass is directly related to the number of collisions encountered per unit area or volume per interval of time. If the same number of molecular collisions in a gas occur over a longer period of time, the energy of the system is reduced. If the rate that time passes also slows down, then there is a reduction in the energy of the system but locally it will be impossible to detect the effect. Similarly the energy of a photon is directly related to its frequency, if the frequency slows down and the rate by which time passes also proportionally slows down, there is no relative loss of energy. The rate that time passes is continuously slowing down, but there is no way for us locally to measure it since all the clocks around us are also slowing down.

The fluid like nature of time seems to be at the heart of this issue.

Snowflake

I would think that an "event" is surely not a continous wave source like an orbiting binary or a single rotating asymmetric neutron star, but is rather a core-collapse supernova. I'm saying that ALLEGRO stood no chance of detecting the likely continuous wave sources, not that ALLEGRO would fail to detect a core-collapse supernova in this galaxy. There has been no supernova in this galaxy or the clouds since 1987, which was well before the detector was built.

I cannot find any claims about 1913+16 in the ALLEGRO papers available from LSU. I cannot find any calculations made by Taylor connected with ALLEGRO. Whilst searching for these I did find some stuff that you might find interesting concerning sources and sensitivity of GW detectors.

None of the Mauceli et al. papers themselves quote any GR calculations (being mainly concerned with characterising the detector rather than quantifying possible sources). They mention that they assume an ellipticity of 10^-5 for possible continuous sources but provide no other details on their calculation. Santostasi assumes the same ellipticity when predicting LIGO-II's required integration time to detect the 1987A remnant (3 years). As Mauceli et al. themselves point out the ALLEGRO detector was built to detect core-collapse events, not radiations from relatively asymmetric neutron stars.

The paper by Zeng et al. on ALLEGRO's prospects when working with other detectors concludes,

But some of this is cheap talk. I might expect that you don't put much trust in the hype for, say, WMAP, so why would you put any more in hype concerning GW detectors, especially when it appears in a conference speech? The fullest numerical analysis of ALLEGRO concerning detectability of continous wave sources that's available on the web would seem to be that of Santostasi.

As I see it, the main points are these:

* At its best, ALLEGRO was comparable to LIGO in sensitivity. LIGO itself is not expected to pick up continuous wave sources until after the upgrade to LIGO-II.

* ALLEGRO is maximally sensitive at two relatively narrow frequency windows that were selected to be valuable in the case of another "nearby" explosion like 1987A but are quite limiting when it comes to rotating neutron stars (and don't help at all for orbiting neutron stars). Interferometers like LIGO are, by comparison, broadband detectors. So ALLEGRO could only pick up GWs from a small number of the total local neutron star population (those that happened to be rotating at the right frequency), and if they were as elliptical as 10^-5 and if the detector was sensitive enough at the "windows".

* ALLEGRO stood a very decent chance of detecting core-collapse supernovae in our galaxy (the "decent chance" is because you need other, comparable detectors operating to claim a convincing detection). There were no such events between 1991-1995, when the detector was operating (we are certainly overdue for one in this galaxy). Although the detector would probably have responded to the burst of GWs produced by SN 1987A, detecting the rotating neutron star left behind after the blast would require implausible integration times as Santostasi demonstrated.

I will definitely worry if:

* LIGO-II fails to detect any continuous sources, mainly relativistic binaries. The detection of individual neutron stars depends on the ellipticity of the source, but the detection of neutron star binaries should not (or not to the same extent).

* The successors to ALLEGRO (and LIGO or LIGO II) fail to detect a core-collapse supernova in our galaxy, if and when one goes off.

Those non-detections would say something interesting. At the moment the harshest tests of GR are coming not from presently insufficiently sensitive gravitational wave experiments but from examination of the recently discovered binary pulsar J0737–3039. But as I said last time, the most revealing and interesting tests of GR are most likely to be in the regime of low accelerations, as with Pioneer and MOND, and at small distances.

If you are looking for sources of worry in GR, dark matter and Pioneer are currently much better bets than gravitational waves. Almost all alternative theories of gravity predict gravitational waves of some form in any case, even if some of them are ruled out by pulsar observations.

The site of Pole Pawel Kolas, geocentrist and anti-relativist. Might some say his reasonings are...."twisted"?
http://www.wiser.tv/physics/

Ahh, welcome back (for now!) Dunash/Prince/Yul/Oyvey. Your posting style matches the above named posters. Dunash also posted a link to Pawel Kolasa's site and Pawel Kolasa himself posted here 5 times in August 2002.

Fellow BABBlers: stay away from this site unless you are using Mozilla or Firefox with pop-up blocking on. I made the mistake of surfing there at work and got one bad pop-up that crashed IE. #-o In addition to asking to download Shockwave, it also tried to download something else. Fortunately there was a window up where I could press cancel and stop this. Stay away from this site! Besides, there's nothing of value there. His "argument" against relativity sounds like a page from Oriel36 and makes Neville Jones sound like a scientist!

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

I spent the evening in the reference section plowing through abstracts. The only figure I could find on J0737–3039 is an estimate by Qin and Mao of a ‘dimensionless stress’ Expectation of 10^ -27 to 10 ^-29 , I’m not sure how to interpret those numbers, but I think the Allegro sensitivity is probably much less than that, so I am probably wrong.

The numbers the Allegro team was using in 1992 included an “optimistic estimate” a gravitational event would be found at 10^-18, a ‘realist estimate’ of 10^-19 and a “pessimistic’ estimate of 10^-20. Since they designed to, and achieved a sensitivity level of at least 10^-19, they have been disappointed – They did not go to congress hat-in-hand with dismal theoretical prospects for success.

Also, it was not Allegro, but the prior generation of detectors that were online during the 1987A explosion. Rome actually reported capturing gravity waves –but these were not verified by other devices at the same sensitivity-This "threshold" event was one of the motivators for Allegro.

There is a long history of unconfirmed recordings by Weber, who built the first detector in 1965. (Steve Hawkings coauthored a paper in 1971 explaining what type of event Weber had witnessed).

Gravity waves are a general relativity prediction, one of the very few theorists have not hit on-the-money. WMAP is based upon a BB prediction that did not come true, so they changed the parameters and made the theory fit the data.

One of the many things I think Ned Wright & Co. have right is that the array of tuning parameters that has blossomed about the big bang (dark energy, dark matter, Pop III starts, inflation) are necessary to hold the theory together. I am quite confident in my analysis of supernova, So I have to assume something fundamental is wrong. I don’t think I can figure out what is most right without throwing out some ideas that have a chance of being right and then defending them.

By the time LIGO I was completed, the ALLEGRO team had pushed their sensitivity into the same magnitude LIGO I was designed to, so they knew even before it was finished LIGO I was likely to be a dud. Don’t you hate it when you get to the end of the movie, and it doesn’t end because they are clearly banking on the sequel?

I’m looking at things like the double peak in the 1987A, the neutrino count, the slowing, and glowing of the debris ring and saying ‘this is what would happen if the inertial field collapsed and these electromagnetic things can’t move, so they radiate”. I think this is the best interpretation of the evidence in hand, evidence that changes every day.

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?