Mordred

I figured someone would utilize the datasets to apply constraints on alternative models. Thanks for the link

Proper acceleration (the acceleration 'felt' by the object being accelerated) is the rate of change of rapidity with respect to proper time (time as measured by the object undergoing acceleration itself). Therefore, the rapidity of an object in a given frame can be viewed simply as the velocity of that object as would be calculated non-relativistically by an inertial guidance system on board the object itself if it accelerated from rest in that frame to its given speed. see this link for the above on Rapidity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapidity When you define freefall it is a state of constant inertia as per Newton's laws of inertia. ie f=ma lol. In GR all frames of reference are inertial frames even the rest frame in SR. This is one of the distinctions between SR and GR. Every coordinate location in GR is an event and all events are a frame of reference which is an inertial frame. In a state of constant inertia no force is applied so if every reference frame is in constant inertia there is no force

The author doesn't fully define why his sign convention doesn't follow the norm (-+++) or (+---) for his orthogonal tensor geometry. I'm still trying to follow his [latex] A_k[/latex] to understand his reasoning.

Your still wrong on sensitivity. I even gave you a relevent formula. Tell me why you would think that a detector incapable of picking up lower frequencies can possible be more sensitive than a detector that can only pick up higher frequencies when the frequency itself is directly related to the energy of that frequency ? here is a simple formula [latex] E=hV[/latex] the energy is directly proportional to the frequency... this is a very basic formula and is well established under physics... In order for a detector to pick up weaker signals that detector MUST have sufficient sensitivity to do so. LIGO does not have the required sensitivity to pick up signals in the microhertz range that are specified in the LISA proposal link I provided earlier. The seismic interference is one factor that limits its possible sensitivity. Let me ask you another question seeing as your so strongly opposed to any refutation of the Vector gravity paper... If two blackholes merge would that not be significantly different that if two neutron stars collide? The reason I ask this is that the paper under discussion specifies that BH's do not exist in vector gravity. Yet one of the first GW waves detected by LIGO was a BH merger which followed all the predictions including the production of GW waves of GR. It even had the correct ringdown and final mass of the merger event. On a side note linking an article where the author is defending himself in rebuttals merrily enhanced my lack of faith in his model

I don't find it extraordinary at all there is literally 100's of alternative theories competing against GR. Is it LIGO's job to counter them or is it the physics community in general ? The staff at LIGO's duty is to collect the data....

Well for one thing LIGO has identified the sources of the GW waves it has detected. The paper clearly mentions that there is a distinct difference in the polarization angles for the [latex]h_+[/latex] and the [latex]h_x[/latex] components between the 45 degree detection and the perpendicular to the detectors. Yet gravity waves have been detected by several detectors and those results can be compared to find the polarization angles with the current datasets available to distinquish between the two. The theory also requires both photons and gravitons to be fermion/antifermion pairs yet the photon has spin characteristics of spin 1 which is different that the spin 2 characteristics detected by LIGO. The very design of the detector is specific to detecting a spin 2 quadrupole rather than a spin 1 dipolar wave. Gravitons and GR in general regardless of whether or not the graviton actually exists has successfully follow all the spin 2 characteristics The paper claims to agree with the LIGO results but one has to ask how is this possible with such a distinctive difference in detectable polarization angles.... edit side note the paper also reminds me too much of vector electrogravity that I read back in the 90's also the polarization angles detected by LIGO were used to identify the GW wave sources

Good article Beecee... I seriously doubt that GR will be overturned by the VR gravity... The more I read the article the less confidence I have in it

strain isn't a measure of the detectors sensitivity. LISA will be able to detect much lower frequencies than LIGO. One related formula is the gravitational wave energy flux [latex]F\sim f^2h^2[/latex] as LISA will be able to detect roughly [latex] 10^5[/latex] lower frequency this will correspond to roughly [latex] 10^{10}[/latex] greater sensitivity. higher frequencies are easier to detect the energy flux is greater

did you miss this part when I already stated your correct on other factors being involved ? However your incorrect on LIGO being better than LISA. One other factor I didn't yet mention is seismic interference which wouldn't occur in space this is a serious limitation for LIGO.

Why do you think I mentioned photon shot noise ?

The amplitude of the of the GW frequency and how closely the antenna resonates at given frequency will give rise to the amount of strain. Greater strain is easier to detect than a smaller strain. The strain is the amount of change in arm lengths this will always depend on the frequency of the signal as well as the sensitivity the antenna is to that particular frequency. [latex]h=\frac{\Delta L}{L}[/latex] this is the basic strain formula that applies however your correct that other factors are involved. Such factors are the direction of the signal to the arm in terms of polarizations [latex] h_+, h_x[/latex] the cross section. Photon shot noise also plays a factor in laser interferometers

Your welcome and its an excellent question to ask. I got curious as the expected strain and frequencies LISA would be sensitive to so I did some digging. Here is the mission proposal with those specifications. https://www.elisascience.org/files/publications/LISA_L3_20170120.pdf

LISA would allow us to detect a spectrum of GW wavelengths that we would not be able to detect on Earth. In order for LIGO or LISA to work the arm lengths are critical to capture the required frequencies. In order to detect a wave the arm length must match a quarter of the wavelength the longer the arms the longer the wavelengths that can be detected. In essence LISA would be far more accurate in so far as it will be able to measure an extremely smaller amount of strain. It should also capture a greater number of events than LIGO. In essence it is the same for any antenna, the frequencies that the antenna can detect depend on the length of the antenna. Ideally the optimal sensitivity is to match the length to a quarter wave. If you pick up a half wave the strength of the detection drops as the two quarter waves that make up the half way will interfere with each other causing a loss in wattage. The reason for the L shape is that GW waves a quadrupole waves whereas your antenna at home your antenna will only pick up dipolar waves ie electromagnetic

Its an interesting paper, I am still reading it atm. Its too early to form an opinion of the papers accuracy, some of the postulates are rather different to say the least. In particular the graviton being a fermion/antifermion pair. However that is just me lol. Anyways I have seen far too many alternative theories proposed that I will wait and see what happens. Far too often promising theories never succeed in the face of further evidence.

LOL considering that I've worked with magnets that can literally rip 10 inch nails out of concrete and cost by itself nearly half a million US dollars. It is interesting to note that such a high powered magnet such as the one I just described generates literally zero indications of diffraction. I can literally shoot a laser directly past that very same magnet and the laser still shoots straight and true. No optical illusions are generated, etc etc. Yet you wish us to believe a home experiment using a low powered garden variety laser and magnet is going to overturn the understood properties of light ? We literally use millions of magnets in our everyday world. I'm positive that if light was affected by electromagnetic charge then you would notice measurable effects. This would includes signal delays in fibre optical cables which has literally no interference from local power cables. Not that this has any bearing on wave-particle duality which applies to all particles and not just photons, neither does your light to light interactions that were mathematically predicted by QED support wave-particle duality. You also obviously are following a garden path with regards to particle entanglement. Though the last one is rarely understood by a vast majority of posters. Yes I've read your article, There is literally zero substance within that article to support any of your claims....

The way to look at this video is to recall the following that has been mentioned in the video. Entanglement must have a correlation between two quantities. If you have a correlation one can fully describe an entangled state by the measured conditions of the measured state. In the case of the two BH's the question becomes one of "Does the two states still preserve enough causal connection sufficient to preserve the entangled correlated states" Can we accurately make those predictions via measuring one state and predicting the other state ?

My thanks, this will help those that have some understanding of the field equations. Though it may be too advanced for the OP. If you have no stress tensor where [latex]T_{\mu\nu}[/latex]=0, then you have no curvature term. All light paths will remain parallel and there will be no acceleration (changes in magnitude or direction). Curvature due to mass or acceleration are defined by changes to the stress tensor. This in turn results in changes to the lightpaths that follow the spacetime paths.

Careful here. time is part of the spacetime geometry itself, it is more accurate to state that gravitational acceleration is due to changes of the spacetime geometry. If there is no change in the spacetime geometry then you have no acceleration. A freefall object approaching a planet is being affected by different spacetime conditions at each location as it approaches higher and higher gravitational potentials. A good visual aid take two parallel lines, in a homogenous and isotropic (uniform spacetime) these parallel lightpaths will remain parallel. However if you then take those lines and have them approach a common centre of mass, this no longer remains the case. The lightpaths no longer remain parallel to each other as the approach the CoM. The spacetime metric is no longer in a homogeneous and isotropic state. (you now require further tensors to show the variations from this state.) (rapidity). Time itself will be seen as varying for each observer as well as mass and the calculated force under the Newtonian treatment for every observer. In freefall towards the planet the spacetime itself becomes curved. =gravity. Hence gravity is a result of the of curvature.

It may help to consider that force is any interaction that unopposed causes an inertia change. (acceleration). Then consider that the metric of relativity is one of freefall (unaccelerated state). This may seem arbitrary but all physics definitions must apply accurately to its underlying mathematics. So under relativity the freefall state has no acceleration and under mathematics this entails that there is no force involved. f=0 under f=ma applications of the metrics of GR. When you have acceleration become involved you then involve "Rapidity". of the field equations of GR. Which involves other tensors. The trick to understand is that GR applies the term spacetime as opposed to a separation of space and time as per Newtonian physics. When you seriously apply the definitions of force and the laws of inertia under a spacetime metric the way of thinking of how force is involved becomes tricky unless you take a close look at how the equations are being applied under both Newtonian and GR. The distinction lies in the mathematics of the geometry metrics. Newtonian being 3d while GR is 4D. Hint the baseline geometry state under GR has all objects in freefall, so no acceleration. Thus no force is involved. This is literally the reasoning behind the statement gravity isn't a force but a result of variations in spacetime curvature. The baseline metric (metric tensor) of GR has no gravity itself as it is modelling the geometry of spacetime. Changes to the geometry is seen as gravity by this argument gravity is merely an observed effect of the spacetime variations. How one observes that effect involves the spacetime conditions of each different observer. Hence you have different mass values depending on which observer is measuring the mass of the event (object being measured). This in turn means each observer could measure different quantities for the mass term under f=ma. So treating all events in freefall state becomes a simplification where the geometry spacetime changes accounting for the different observers measuring the same said events

@OP it may help to consider that the term invariance in this case means a measured quantity or value that will be the same for all observers measuring that quantity or value. For example rest mass is an invariant quantity. The variant quantity of mass is often called the relativistic mass. Light having no invariant mass. I too am not sure how your describing geometries so will guess that you are referring to the geometries of a metric. However without knowing which properties of light you addressing this is just a guess.

I concur with the above reply, more often than not nearly everyone that takes on the challenge of the various physics arena's always want to discover new theories. Unfortunately the self taught path is fraught with the peril of not realizing how intensively interconnected the numerous theories are to one another. The other serious common lacking element is the mathematics itself. The primary and utmost essential tool to understanding physics is the math. This includes a huge percentage of the terminology itself. A good understanding of the terminology is essential regardless of how seemingly simple a term such as mass, energy, time, force, etc etc are. Start with the basics. Make sure you drill the precise terminology definitions down pat. You will find this is essential in particular to understanding the fundamentals of any theory under physics and this in turn will help prevent you running through garden paths

Its modelling by its fluid/ ideal gas influence. We do the same with all particle species in that every particle has a pressure to energy density relation. Matter exerts zero pressure while radiation w=1/3.

Swansont is right in that the photon frame is not a valid reference frame, You get too many garbage answers when trying the LT transforms in that frame such as the photon being everywhere at once. For example a null geoedesic is denoted with a separation distance of ds^2=0. Hence the application of the term Null. We know it still takes time to get from event A to event B so stating time doesn't pass for the photon frame is obviously also garbage from the reference frame of the photon. The time of travel can only be shown via other reference frames Not the photons reference frame.

Its more readily described in terms of its effective equation of state [latex] w=\frac{\rho}{P}=-1[/latex] it has negative pressure (the negative is simply a vector assignment) characteristics. That characteristic can be described as antigravity like. However once you consider the thermodynamic influence the pressure term is more accurate. Mathematically the equation of state formula for a scalar field does an excellent job of modelling DE in terms of thermodynamic fluid statistics.

Its not considered a fundamental force we may not know what causes DE but there is no indication it is a fundamental force.