Mordred

Your answers have been accurate thus far. Individual VP are not observable or measurable. So size has no meaning. I like to call them perturbations to distinquish from excitations. However that also has little meaning. Once you have a quantum of excitation/energy you are no longer dealing with a VP but a real particle. Theoretically the graviton should be the heaviest boson on the mass/energy relation via the full energy/momentum version of e=mc^2. Though the invariant mass via the last equation will be zero.

How can lanquage not be a representation? Every single word in any lanquage represents a meaning. Including mathematics. How can you possibly have a lanquage that isn't representative? Of course understanding reality must include lanquage usage. There is no option to convey discoveries etc without some form of lanquage. It is unavoidable. Mathematics is simply a more exacting lanquage but a lanquage nonetheless. Yes lanquage terminology has limits in describing reality but there is no better option. At some point one must convey to another a descriptive of a dynamic etc. I didn't post examples to discuss circumstances but to convey that at some point interpretation and representation would be required ie the examples I posted.

Correct, even if the graviton were discovered nothing would change in GR. Unless the graviton has unpredicted characteristics which is more unlikely now that we detected GW waves. (matched spin 2 statistics)

No it should not its velocity will always be less than c I will look over it later though you do realize that the issues I raised are incredibly well tested and extremely accurate. To this day I still do not understand why it is that everyone wishes to reinvent GR. When it is one of the most accurate snd tested models out there. The most common reason usually ends up being "The OP didn't understand relativity past SR."

Perfect then identify where the linear momentum in your system is involved. As per your logic arguments. Prove to us a wheel with a stationary axis has linear momentum. Do so mathematically. Show us your superior knowledge. Or learn (linear monemtum must have a vector or force parallel to the direction of motion)by literal definition. Identify this vector. I have asked you to do this before but you ignored that challenge. Support this claim from your logic argument then. Here is the definition of linear momentum once again for you. "Linear momentum is a vector whose direction is parallel to the velocity of the particle. with relations p=mv " Identify which particles or otherwise that satisfies the above definition. In other words put up or shut up. The only arguments in your defense you have thus far provided is "everyone else is wrong because you claim so" So snap to it and defend your claim above. I bet you cannot defend it mathematically can you? prove us wrong and we will listen. Ball is in your court. (just to avoid an argument on definitions) Here is a quick Google search on the definition itself. https://www.google.ca/search?ie=UTF-8&client=ms-android-samsung&source=android-browser&q=linear+momentum+definition&gfe_rd=cr&ei=yBRJWZT4D8Pe8AeysY_oAQ "Linear momentum is a vector quantity defined as the product of an object's mass, m, and its velocity, v. Linear momentum is denoted by the letter p and is called momentum for short: Note that a body's momentum is always in the same direction as its velocity vector" So feel free identify the linear momemtum component in that wheel system I mentioned above.

Ok with electric field polarity is the vectors of charge. With magnets polarity is vectors of poles (north, south) Both above cases are dipolar. GW is quadrupole instead of two vectors you have 4 (per wave cycle). These occur regardless of propogation direction. They do not describe the direction the wave is travelling in. Though using the above one can calculate direction of travel. Lets try this. Take a telegraph machine. Each bip on your morse code is a chirp. Each chirp will be dipolar (neg to positive and positive to negative). The signal still radiates outward depending on the emiiter antennae. Omnidirectional vs directional) Now apply that to a GW wave each chirp corresponds to a change in angular momentum of the two BH's. A consequence of the conservation of angular momentum. The loss momentum is your GW wave. The chirp rate depends on the orbit changes. Each chirp will have a quardupole polarity. Here is the chirp mass formulas for a binary system (specifically). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chirp_mass See image 5 for how a GW transverse polarity wave propogates in 3d. ( best image I could find) though still misleading somewhat all images tend to be in GR lol http://www.thephysicsmill.com/2016/03/06/direction-ligos-gravitational-waves/

No I posted previously h+ is positive polarity and h× is cross polarity.

As mentioned your logic argument is ib error for the reasons already provided. As you will be the only one suffering from your logic argument. As well as not listening to others with greater expertise. Like Studiot I will not waste anymore time trying to convince you. You cannot teach to someone unwilling to learn. Though quite frankly a good textbook would be enough. A closed system is a very specific state.Studiot if I recall already defined the closed system for both linear and angular momentum.

Umm no definition in physics.... How can you possibly model that sentence. Nothing personal but one of the avenues to understand physics besides mathematics,is also terminology and grammar usage.

Telling require a clear clut model with precise and predictive dynamics. Sorry that requires a clear cut methodologuly of modelling. Not as easily stated as placed into a practicum. Take a simple set of atractive and repulsive force. When one studies the mathematics. A homogeneous and isotropic distribution is simple. Add a diverse range of anistropic action and holy man, you better understand the math as there is absolutely no hope in seeing the dimemsionsality of property relations without it P.S: side note I got serious studying physics in the early 80's. Forum discussions have changed dramatically since then. Particularly in GR and subsequently the FLRW metric itself coupled with the thermodynamic applications of particle physics. when one truly learns the intensity of interconnected mathematical models. Only then can one understand the dynamics we can measure

Still good to ask about them. Good way to learn. Though obviously learning the math is the best route.

Sure we learned lots. Every wave we get we can hone in on previously unmeasured properties that were only theoretical in so far as no measured confirmation. The more signals we get the more fine tuned those properties become. Often referred to as confining the possible range. Various properties such as velocity is it truly c, mass (assuming graviton), quantifying gravity, etc. Every recording is critical the more recordings the greater the accuracy. There is a slew of applications a comprehensive and fine tuned GW model can be used for. 1) measuring mass of transmitting bodies, 2) measuring Baryon acoustic oscillations in the CMB. As mentioned above, we thought we did. However the dynamics we learn from measurements on Earth will allow us to hone into the CMB oscillations due to GW. 3) potentially garnishing further details on mass distribution of spacetime regions (similar to Sache Wolf effect with electro magnetic redshift usage) There is a huge usage eventually in simply GW astronomy. Mass of an orbitting body isn't the easiest thing to pin down. The more data the better.

Absolutely weather modification should continue as a global study. Far more study than modifying the weather itself. The environmental impact if any is a little out of my field however.

Ah yes Hawking Berkenstein radiation from the ergosphere. One of my favourite BH articles is this blackhole Accretion Disk'' -Handy article on accretion disk measurements provides a technical compilation of measurements involving the disk itself. There is some coverage on the radiation within. http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.5499

Thats probably true or would be except a Kerr rotating BH has two photon spheres. https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0005050 Though the garden variety is rotating lol

The Prof's logic is absolutely correct. The detector was designed to detect a specific type of wave. That being the quadrupolar nature. Hence the L shape, the detail many miss is that the detection also confirms spin 2. Prior to detection models merely favored, however spin 0 was a remote possibility. Any spin statistics other than 2 and the detector would not have worked.

Rocky mountains are breathtaking lol. I'm within easy driving range. Though I still don't carry bear spray etc. Wife keeps telling me to but nah never bothered. Lived in bear country most my life. Never needed it. The dang mosquitos are a greater nuisance. Ya forgot those on your list lol.

Stringy and I x posted.

Good questions, as there is other readers as well. I will probably add what you may already know (judging from other posts I've read of yours). The BB model itself in current form of LCDM only truly covers from a hot dense state. Starting from [latex]10^{-45}[/latex] second forward. It by itself doesn't attempt to describe how the universe began but rather from that hot dense state. Prior to that we run into mathematical singularity problems. The model above is one where the singularity issue is avoided by the tunnelling described above. Mathematically it is a universe beginning model but like other universe beginning models (not LCDM, BB). LQC for example has a bounce previous universe collapse then bounce. In effect their is 3 classes of models that try to answer the beginning. Universe from nothing, cyclic and bounce. The paper above being a cyclic if I recall. So no LCDM is still secure, the model above works with LCDM including the homogeneous and isotropic mass distribution. Gravity waves can be helpful in one way other than confirming GR. We have a limit as to how far we can see via the electromagnetic spectrum. That limit being the surface of last scattering. (CMB) prior to that mean free path of photons becomes less than [latex]10^{-32}[/latex] metres. Due to free electrons, protons and neutrons. This is called the dark ages in cosmology, Theoretically the only two ways of detection beyond this that I am aware of is detecting the Neutrino background and Detecting GW waves that originate prior to the dark ages. So via those GW waves we could theoretically see further assuming we have the funds to build sensitive enough detectors.

Surprisingly enough I still often use hex directly for programming for microchips. Just now I can cheat more such as with the basic microchips. (though their basic compiler leaves a lot to be desired). Their chips are great for hobby projects.

Lol try building a 3d engine to run a set of distancing lasers to map a room in 3d on a 8085 Intel PC in hexadecimal. (As the interface was strictly hexadecimal). Each set of trig calcs took the poor thing 45 minutes.

I've found the river model handy to help the laymen better understand relativity. I've posted it a few times over the years. Though one has to be aware it is its own coordinate system.

The LHC. The energy required to accelerate the proton to near c follows the predictions of relativity. The proton gain in variant mass allows the production of particles with greater rest (invariant) mass of the rest mass of the two protons.

Nope understanding comes when you can represent every dynamic via mathematical modelling. No verbal descriptive is as exacting, all descriptives of anything is a representation. Verbal descriptives simply are not as detailed as mathematical descriptives. Take a metal bar for example. Can you describe the precise tensile strength without referring to a mathematical value? Try to describe how rough an object feels verbally. You end up comparing the roughness to other objects. Where as mathematically you can precisely define every detail. Pick up any random rock. Describe its shape, obviously the mathematical representation will be more precise than any verbal representation. What is more precise. The ball is red or the ball reflects the wavelength of light we see as red? I don't know about anyone else but I would think in order to understand reality you must be able to as precisely as possible describe reality. Mathematics is a more precise tool to do so.

So am I correct your goal is presenting your work into publication and that your looking at how to get your works to publication standards? Excellent work above by the way love your setup and methodology thus far. Well detailed on the presentation.