LIGO

The LIGO detected celestial gravitational waves that originate from a 21,000 binary pulsar (PSR 1913+16) that produces a ΔL = 10-18 m disturbance of the interferometer mirror but Creswell-Jackson (2017) discredited the LIGO experimental results as background noise (Creswell-Jackson, Abstract) since the mirror displacement of ΔL = 10-18 m is less than the diameter of an electrons which is to small of a displacement to experimentally measure. The formation of a wave requires a medium, composed of matter yet gravitational waves propagate in vacuum of celestial space that is void of matter. Einstein uses a space-time curvature to justify the formation gravitational waves using the varying relativistic (time-space) translational velocity v that is formed by the earth's daily and yearly motions but gravitational waves that are propagating in stellar space are not effected by the earth's daily and yearly motions.

How do you measure an event that is supposed to have caused " a ripple in spacetime that changed the length of a 4-km LIGO arm by a thousandth of the width of a proton "? Seems it also changed the distance to the nearest star (4 light years) by a hairs width! Maybe we just have to take their word for it.

Mike.

Spacetime cannot form gravitational waves since spacetime is based on the earth's daily and yearly motions that do not affect gravitational waves formed by a pulsar. Thank you very much. I've been waiting for this. Very satisfying and gratifying. I feel gratified and relived. Finally someone bit the cheese. Congratulations mouse (Pommie).

Sorry, but your fundamental concepts are wrong.

alright1234 said:

The formation of a wave requires a medium, composed of matter

Click to expand...

Totally false.

Electromagnetic energy propagates in a vacuum, as obvious from light reaching us from the Sun.
Other forces do not need matter - eg. magnetic fields and electrostatic fields.

We do not yet know what gravity actually _is_, but again it obviously does not require matter as planets etc. remain in their orbits due to gravity in space.

Magnetic fields and electrostatic fields can be varied or modulated to pass information through a vacuum; why should a gravity variation or modulation not be the same?

Maxwell's theory is based on a ether, composed of matter.


"If we adopt either Fresnel's or Maccullagh's form of the undulatory theory, half of this energy is in the form of potential energy, due to the distortion of elementary portions of the medium, and half in the form of kinetic energy, due to the motion of the medium. We must therefore regard the aether as possessing elasticity similar to that of a solid body, and also as having a finite density." (Maxwell, Part XCVII, p. 767).


Also, Einstein (1917) justifies the existence of the ether, composed of matter. If I am the mistaken. I could be mistaken. The wave theory of light is based on an ether composed of matter which is a fact and Maxwell's theory is a wave theory. Furthermore, modern physics is a wave theory that is based on Maxwell's theory (gauge). I could be mistaken. However, everything that is stated is a verifiable fact that I can miraculously confirm. The time-space was so gratifying.

The ether / aether idea was already disproved in 1887 by Michelson & Morley.

The same type of experiment has been repeated endlessly with steadily improving equipment and accuracy ever since.
No ether.

In 1917, Einstein's time-space is used in the reversal of MMX to justify the existence of the ether. Huygens wave theory of light is current used in physics text books.

Love

alright1234

alright1234 said:

In 1917,

Click to expand...

MXM - "The same type of experiment has been repeated endlessly with steadily improving equipment and accuracy ever since. "
That's through to the current decade.


I don't have the time or inclination to keep looking up references and doing research for you.

However, IF you insist the ether exists, that would presumably provide a medium for gravity waves as well as electromagnetic etc., which appears to counter your original idea that they could not exist.

End.

I am not insisting on anything. I am just stating the facts and only the fact to the bestest of my humble knowledge.

First you insist that there is not ether but now you say that there may be an ether. There is you conviction? You loyalty and blind devotion to not being an ether as you stated before. I was getting use to it. An what about the electromagnetic ether?

rjenkinsgb said:

IF you insist the ether exists,

Click to expand...

... if YOU insist...
I do not, it's nonsense.

I was just pointing out you had shot yourself in the foot by insisting it did, as that would allow gravity wave propagation.
You can't have it both ways.

Subject closed.