beecee

Here's a couple of nice aLIGO video [around 15 minutes long] on GW's, there discoveries, and the potential consequences......... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQMKODLyeS4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_puOPsuR4Q

I have had that view re-enforced by my Son and some of his friends of both sexes....The approaching women bit, not so much the colour coding.

Here's a couple of nice aLIGO video [around 15 minutes long] on GW's, there discoveries, and the potential consequences......... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQMKODLyeS4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_puOPsuR4Q

Thing is what was seen as harmless years ago, is viewed by many now as harrassment. Let me relate two incidents.....Many years ago, I had a sheila give me a slap on the bum and mumble nice arse ....many many years ago! I was as happy as any bloke could be and took it as a compliment.....incident 2: While walking 20ft or so behind a buxom blonde with low cut blouse and short shorts, and passing a building site, the workmen on said side let out with a series of wolf whistles and calls. It wasn't directed at me. The blonde simply turned around, open up her blouse to bare a large pair of breasts and flashed them to the wolf whistlers. I of course just happened to get an eye full which didn't concern her one bit. standards change.

Best book I have ever read??? "The Making of the Atomic Bomb" by Richard Rhodes: Much more then a history of the Manhatten project and the bomb, and a pretty solid history of late 19th century, 20th century physics, from the likes of Bequeral, Rhotegen, Curie, and Rutherford, and to Meitner, Bohr, Szillard, Einstein, and Bethe, through to Feynman Oppenheimer and company. Great read and recommend it to all.

Nice, thanks for that Carrock Yep, very interesting indeed! And even more so I suggest when LISA is aloft. Vinaka vakalevu fellas!

https://techxplore.com/news/2018-12-atomic-clock-exact-dark.html Scientists have invented a new clock that keeps time more precisely than any that have come before. The clock is so accurate that it won't gain or lose more than one second in 14 billion years—roughly the age of the cosmos. Its ticking rate is so stable that it varies by only 0.000000000000000032 percent over the course of a single day. That level of exactitude is not really necessary for those of us who rely on clocks to get us to a doctor's appointment on time, or to know when to meet up with friends. But keeping time is just the beginning. This new clock is so exact that it could be used to detect dark matter, measure the gravitational waves that ripple across the universe, and determine the exact shape of Earth's gravitational field with unprecedented precision. more at link.... ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: the paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0738-2 Atomic clock performance enabling geodesy below the centimetre level Abstract: The passage of time is tracked by counting oscillations of a frequency reference, such as Earth’s revolutions or swings of a pendulum. By referencing atomic transitions, frequency (and thus time) can be measured more precisely than any other physical quantity, with the current generation of optical atomic clocks reporting fractional performance below the 10−17 level1,2,3,4,5. However, the theory of relativity prescribes that the passage of time is not absolute, but is affected by an observer’s reference frame. Consequently, clock measurements exhibit sensitivity to relative velocity, acceleration and gravity potential. Here we demonstrate local optical clock measurements that surpass the current ability to account for the gravitational distortion of space-time across the surface of Earth. In two independent ytterbium optical lattice clocks, we demonstrate unprecedented values of three fundamental benchmarks of clock performance. In units of the clock frequency, we report systematic uncertainty of 1.4 × 10−18, measurement instability of 3.2 × 10−19 and reproducibility characterized by ten blinded frequency comparisons, yielding a frequency difference of [−7 ± (5)stat ± (8)sys] × 10−19, where ‘stat’ and ‘sys’ indicate statistical and systematic uncertainty, respectively. Although sensitivity to differences in gravity potential could degrade the performance of the clocks as terrestrial standards of time, this same sensitivity can be used as a very sensitive probe of geopotential5,6,7,8,9. Near the surface of Earth, clock comparisons at the 1 × 10−18 level provide a resolution of one centimetre along the direction of gravity, so the performance of these clocks should enable geodesy beyond the state-of-the-art level. These optical clocks could further be used to explore geophysical phenomena10, detect gravitational waves11, test general relativity12 and search for dark matter13,14,15,16,17. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wow!!! Any comments, errors, alterations and/or corrections anyone would like to add to this article and paper? Or is it just simply over the top, sensationalism? Ytterbium vibrating at 500 trillion times per second! is that correct? Detecting DM GW's etc, I mean what the hell did we build aLIGO for?

Let me say that firstly, as one who enjoys Neil De-Degrasse Tyson as an educator presenter second only to the great Carl Sagan, IF, IF he is guilty, he deserves whatever punishment that the system where he resides gives him. I totally resent any actions by any male, forcing himself on a woman. By the same token, if Tyson or anyone else is accused of something unjustly, then I certainly know that if it was me, I would be instinctively outraged and would probably react in the same way. In saying all that. let me give a just recently publicised case where I live of a woman seen on CCTV repeatedly punching herself in a lift before reporting to the Police that her husband or boyfriend [not sure on that] had assaulted her.

The whole premise of this so called debate is that GR is wrong and has been superseded by an alternative model, and that scientific academia are simply being recalcitrant and stubborn in accepting that as a fact. Of course it is obvious it is not a fact and just plain stupid to believe that science/cosmology is simply refusing to let go. I have even posted a "sensationalistic headline article re GW's and the possibility that it maybe more attuned to another model other then GR type GW's. As yet there is no definitive evidence that shows that GR type GW's is invalid, and in contradiction to the erroneous claims of recalcitrance by the many scientists at VIRGO and aLIGO, they are considering it as many other scientists around the world are considering and researching it. The BICEP2 error claiming evidence of "rapid inflation" was due to an enthusiastic driven preemptive announcement. In double quick time though, fellow scientists were quick to point out the more likeley scenario of "dust contamination" A great example of science correcting science and moving ahead and evident in life everyday of every year as further new observations are made. But of course any evidence found perhaps questioning any incumbent scientific model such as GR, which we all know has an outstanding absolutely incredible track record, must be conclusive to have the incumbent automatically superseded as it appears is claimed here. Any new hypotheticals, claiming to be better then some well held incredibly accurate and predictive incumbent model, needs to "run the gauntlet" just as the incumbent model had done. So far that hasn't happen. So far GR still reigns as supreme and the best theory of gravity we have. That position at this time, despite claims by the authors and creators of new models, and their supporters has not altered. Here is a article and link discussing the many other models of gravity and the demise of most of them...... Apr 30, 2018 https://www.quantamagazine.org/troubled-times-for-alternatives-to-einsteins-theory-of-gravity-20180430/ Troubled Times for Alternatives to Einstein’s Theory of Gravity: "New observations of extreme astrophysical systems have “brutally and pitilessly murdered” attempts to replace Einstein’s general theory of relativity." extract: "The predictions made by other theories differ in some way from those of general relativity. Yet these differences can be subtle, which makes them incredibly difficult to find. Consider the neutron-star merger. At the same time that the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) spotted the gravitational waves emanating from the event, the space-based Fermi satellite spotted a gamma ray burst from the same location. The two signals had traveled across the universe for 130 million years before arriving at Earth just 1.7 seconds apart. These nearly simultaneous observations “brutally and pitilessly murdered” TeVeS theories, said Paulo Freire, an astrophysicist at the Max Planck Institute for Radio Astronomy in Bonn, Germany. “Gravity and gravitational waves propagate at the speed of light, with extremely high precision — which is not at all what was predicted by those [alternative] theories.” "Further limits come from new pulsar systems. In 2013, Archibald and her colleagues found an unusual triple system: a pulsar and a white dwarf that orbit one another, with a second white dwarf orbiting the pair. These three objects exist in a space smaller than Earth’s orbit around the sun. The tight setting, Archibald said, offers ideal conditions for testing a crucial aspect of general relativity called the strong equivalence principle, which states that very dense strong-gravity objects such as neutron stars or black holes “fall” in the same way when placed in a gravitational field. (On Earth, the more familiar weak equivalence principle states that, if we ignore air resistance, a feather and a brick will fall at the same rate.)" "The triple system makes it possible to check whether the pulsar and the inner white dwarf fall exactly the same way in the gravity of the outer white dwarf. Alternative-gravity theories assume that the scalar field generated in the pulsar should bend space-time in a much more extreme way than the white dwarf does. The two wouldn’t fall in a similar manner, leading to a violation of the strong equivalence principle and, with it, general relativity". "Over the past five years, Archibald and her team have recorded 27,000 measurements of the pulsar’s position as it orbits the other two stars. While the project is still a work in progress, it looks as though the results will be in total agreement with Einstein, Archibald said. “We can say that the degree to which the pulsar behaves abnormally is at most a few parts in a million. For an object with such strong gravity to still follow Einstein’s predictions so well, if there is one of these scalar fields, it has to have a really tiny effect.” The test, which should be published soon, will put the best constraints yet on a whole group of alternative gravity theories, she added. If a theory only works with some additional scalar field, then the field should change the behavior of the pulsar. “We have such sensitive tests of general relativity that they need to somehow hide the theory’s new behavior in the solar system and in pulsar systems like ours,” Archibald said. The data from another pulsar system dubbed the double pulsar, meanwhile, was originally supposed to eliminate the TeVeS theories. Detected in 2003, the double pulsar was until recently the only binary neutron-star system where both neutron stars were pulsars. Freire and his colleagues have already confirmed that the double pulsar’s behavior is perfectly in line with general relativity. Right before LIGO’s October announcement of a neutron-star merger, the researchers were going to publish a paper that would kill off TeVeS. But LIGO did the job for them, Freire said. “We need not go through that anymore.” "A few theories have survived the LIGO blow — and will probably survive the upcoming pulsar data, Zumalacárregui said. There are some Horndeski and beyond-Horndeski theories that do not change the speed of gravitational waves. Then there are so-called massive gravity theories. Ordinarily, physicists assume that the particle associated with the force of gravity — the graviton — has no mass. In these theories, the graviton has a very small but nonzero mass. The neutron-star merger puts tough limits on these theories, Zumalacárregui said, since a massive graviton would travel more slowly than light. But in some theories the mass is assumed to be extremely small, at least 20 orders of magnitude lower than the neutrino’s, which means that the graviton would still move at nearly the speed of light" "There are a few other less well-known survivors, some of which are important to keep exploring, Archibald said, as long as dark matter and dark energy remain elusive. “Dark energy might be our only observational clue pointing to a new and better theory of gravity — or it might be a mysterious fluid with strange properties, and nothing to do with gravity at all,” she said. Still, killing off theories is simply how science is supposed to work, argue researchers who have been exploring alternative gravity theories. “This is what we do all the time, put forward a working hypothesis and test it,” said Enrico Barausse of the Astrophysics Institute of Paris, who has worked on MOND-like theories. “99.9 percent of the time you rule out the hypothesis; the remaining 0.1 percent of the time you win the Nobel Prize.” "Schmidt thinks it’s necessary to measure the laws of gravity on large scales as directly as possible, using ongoing and future large galaxy surveys. “For example, we can compare the effect of gravity on light bending as well as galaxy velocities, typically predicted to be different in modified-gravity theories,” he said. Researchers also hope that future telescopes such as the Square Kilometer Array will discover more pulsar systems and provide better accuracy in pulsar timing to further improve gravity tests. And a space-based replacement for LIGO called LISA will study gravitational waves with exquisite accuracy — if indeed it launches as planned in the mid-2030s. “If that does not see any deviations from general relativity, I don’t know what will,” said Barausse." <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> While we can say that GR along with all scientific theories are being put to the test everyday of every year by many professional scientists in professional ways, no one that claims to be "impartial" can at this time claim that GR is in any serious doubt. It still stands as our superior model of gravity. Will the SKA as per the article and as I have previously mentioned throw any more tests for GR? Will the space based LISA that will further add accuracy to GW's detection, enable us to use further more precise tests of gravity? Will they re-enforce GR, or show limitations on it and enhance the viability of any other alternative? We don't know as yet but my money is still on GR.

I remember it very well. I also remember some of the errors in your thinking and obscure interpretation on the matter as others pointed out. Again, GR at this time is not in any serious doubt. It remains secure and you have yet to show otherwise, in spite of your crusade. Please, don't be so nonsensical. Let me drill it into to you again...this isn't about me...it isn't about this forum or your erroneous claims...It isn't about science academia in general, that again you are making erroneous claims about. This is now all about the silly conspiracy nonsense you are inferring and that has shown on many occasions to be totally fabricated in the minds of anti relativists. Do you also accept the 9/11 nonsense? Your claims are on the same level. I have never shied away from my zero technical expertise, and have been up front in that regard on this forum. What are your technical expertise? ps: Oh you forgot Q-reeus to reply to my answer below following another of your baseless accusations.... So what is it? You can't back up what you claimed and was mistaken? You were telling porky pies? Or just simply frustration on your part in not being able to show that GR is finished. Of course the fact that as yet GR is not in any doubt is why this is in speculation.

No you couldn't. The only scientific theory I see as valid to that extent is evolution of life, which of course you would agree with, and I have never used the word perfect in that regard, and have always said that it is as certain as one could hope for.With GR and the BB reasonably close behind, and my usual statement that all theories grow in certainty over time and as they remain observationaly valid. The facts are that contrary to your own position with regards to GR already being in serious doubt, at this time, the evidence says no it is not in any serious doubt, and again no other challenger can do as well withing that zone of applicability. And you questioning that undoubted position is why precisely why this was moved to speculation. Does that clear it up for you? I can produce many reputable articles from reputable scientists disputing the many positions and agendas of the usual anti GR brigade and their fruitless crusades.

To have worked out and observed that baryonic matter is only 5% of everything, is awesome in itself....considering how science was so hog tied in the past, and in some societies still is. We know much, and have the basic knowledge of gravity to get it to work for us to accurately with one craft, rendezvous with four planets. Yes, still much to learn, but that is improving all the time, even as we speak.

This isnt about me q-reeus...this is about you contradicting the world in general....Serial posting??? It actually appears you just resent critical acclaim of your error ridden, anti GR stance. While GR remains on top of the ladder though, that will continue. Again you fail to comment on.... "General Relativity is not the final theory of gravity, for there is no such thing. As General Relativity turns 100, we would do well to celebrate it with a healthy does of scientific scepticism. Long live General Relativity, and a big welcome to its eventual replacement, whether in our lifetime or not". and...."In reality, and if we are all honest with ourselves, there can never really be any theory that one could call complete. But again, at this time GR is the best we have and has performed magnificently being head and shoulders above anything else". http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~hooft101/gravitating_misconceptions.html

Hiya again q-reeus...It's quite notable, how you never commented on the final paragraph in my post. It is as you know deep down, 100% factual, and if you are not here to be contrary just for the sake of contrariness, then you should acknowledge that fact, as I have constantly inferred throughout this and other threads. Anyway once again, I thought I would continue with revealing the error of your ways and found another interesting late 2016 paper.......https://arxiv.org/pdf/1609.09781.pdf Abstract: For the last 100 years, General Relativity (GR) has taken over the gravitational theory mantle held by Newtonian Gravity for the previous 200 years. This article reviews the status of GR in terms of its self-consistency, completeness, and the evidence provided by observations, which have allowed GR to remain the champion of gravitational theories against several other classes of competing theories. We pay particular attention to the role of GR and gravity in cosmology, one of the areas in which one gravity dominates and new phenomena and effects challenge the orthodoxy. We also review other areas where there are likely conflicts pointing to the need to replace or revise GR to represent correctly observations and consistent theoretical framework. Observations have long been key both to the theoretical liveliness and viability of GR. We conclude with a discussion of the likely developments over the next 100 years. extract: "General Relativity is also unique among theories of fundamental interactions in the Standard Model. Like electromagnetism, but unlike the strong and weak interactions, its domain of validity covers the entire range of length scales from zero to infinity. However, unlike the other forces, gravity as described by General Relativity acts on all particles. This implies that the theory does not fail below the Planck scale. All gravitational phenomena, from infinitesimal scales to distances beyond the observable universe, may be modelled by General Relativity. We may therefore formulate a mathematically rigorous description of General Relativity: it is the most complete theory of gravity ever developed." . Conclusions: GR may well survive for another 100 years. After all, Newtonian gravity was around for 200 years. GR has just reached its peak, when data and computing power have caught up with the theory. We are at a pivotal moment in the history of GR. We are on the point of confirming beyond reasonable doubt all its predictions throughout its entire domain of validity. We have seen how modern cosmology is faced with big questions which touch the very foundations of physics. What is this form of matter which interacts only with gravity and apparently with nothing else? Why is the expansion of the universe accelerating? What caused the universe to undergo a period of rapid expansion soon after the Big Bang? These questions, motivated by cosmological observations, lead to questions about fundamental physics. Are there forces and interactions besides the four we know of, that is, gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces? Are there particles beyond the Standard Model? What determines the value of the fundamental constants of nature? What is the real structure of spacetime? Are there extra dimensions? Science needs data, so each of these questions must be addressed through careful experiment. The challenge of modern experimental physics is to probe nature at extreme distances and energies, well outside the capabilities of the instruments that were available to Einstein. It has certainly come a long way, as shown by the detection of gravitational waves in 2015, a feat which was thought to be impossible by many of Einstein’s contemporaries. General Relativity is not the final theory of gravity, for there is no such thing. As General Relativity turns 100, we would do well to celebrate it with a healthy does of scientific scepticism. Long live General Relativity, and a big welcome to its eventual replacement, whether in our lifetime or not. Acknowledgments: George F. Smoot acknowledges support through his Chaire d’Excellence Université Sorbonne Paris Cité and the financial support of the UnivEarthS Labex programme at Université Sorbonne Paris Cité (ANR-10-LABX-0023 and ANR-11-IDEX-0005-02). I.D. acknowledges that the research work disclosed in this publication is partially funded by the REACH HIGH Scholars Programme—Post-Doctoral Grants. The grant is part-financed by the European Union, Operational Programme II—Cohesion Policy 2014–2020. Author Contributions: All the authors conceived the idea and contributed equally. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You really need to consider in the final paragraph the highlighted, underlined sentence, which is all I have been trying to get you to understand, and may I say what the others on this forum have also tried to get you to understand, not to mention the myriads of reputable links I have given you, pointing to the error in your thinking. Perhaps you should understand that you need to get past any preconceived agenda that you may have? Hope that helps.

Actually you have everything arse up.....Firstly I don't carry any dagger, secondly you do not have an argument, you have a skewered version of a weird overall interpretation of GR. GR at this time still stands as unchallenged as our theory of gravity....dem de there are der facts! And the reason it still stands as unchallenged is because it has not yet been falsified, and no other hypothetical can predict anymore, though this appears to be where you are caught in your own personal interpretation loop. Your apparent paranoia re daggers is well just that.....paranoia. And of course I do no more mining of the Internet then you or anyone else. Whether rival hypotheticals can be ruled out is neither here nor there...This recent experimental result supports further GR, along with GW's as predicted. GR remains our chief working model of gravity. Again as you constantly are ignoring the fact, any of your pet hypotheticals are always being looked at, tested and researched, the same as GR is being constantly tested at the same time...all by professional experts, not rank amateurs like you or me. And of course they have absolutely no reason to fudge, ignore, fabricate, or in any other way attempt any of the paranoid recalcitrance that many anti mainstream actors like to accuse them of, for many varied personal agendas. In other words, there is no conspiracy in mainstream science, just as there is no conspiracy with other well known accepted notable world events like 9/11 and the Moon landings.

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6395/1342 A precise extragalactic test of General Relativity: Testing General Relativity on galaxy scales Einstein's theory of gravity, General Relativity (GR), has been tested precisely within the Solar System. However, it has been difficult to test GR on the scale of an individual galaxy. Collett et al. exploited a nearby gravitational lens system, in which light from a distant galaxy (the source) is bent by a foreground galaxy (the lens). Mass distribution in the lens was compared with the curvature of space-time around the lens, independently determined from the distorted image of the source. The result supports GR and eliminates some alternative theories of gravity. Science, this issue p. 1342 Abstract: Einstein’s theory of gravity, General Relativity, has been precisely tested on Solar System scales, but the long-range nature of gravity is still poorly constrained. The nearby strong gravitational lens ESO 325-G004 provides a laboratory to probe the weak-field regime of gravity and measure the spatial curvature generated per unit mass, γ. By reconstructing the observed light profile of the lensed arcs and the observed spatially resolved stellar kinematics with a single self-consistent model, we conclude that γ = 0.97 ± 0.09 at 68% confidence. Our result is consistent with the prediction of 1 from General Relativity and provides a strong extragalactic constraint on the weak-field metric of gravity. https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/06/21/einstein-wins-again-general-relativity-passes-its-first-extragalactic-test/#f92ef682f577 Einstein Wins Again! General Relativity Passes Its First Extragalactic Test: extract: For the first time, we've been able to perform a direct test of General Relativity outside of our Solar System and get solid, informative results. The ratio of the Newtonian potential to the curvature potential, which relativity demands be equal to one but where alternatives differ, confirms what General Relativity predicts. Large deviations from Einstein's gravity, therefore, cannot happen on scales smaller than a few thousand light years, or for masses the scale of an individual galaxy. If you want to explain the accelerated expansion of the Universe, you can't simply say you don't like dark energy and throw Einstein's gravity away. For the first time, if we want to modify Einstein's gravity on galactic-or-larger scales, we have an important constraint to reckon with. I am a Ph.D. astrophysicist, author, and science communicator, who professes physics and astronomy at various colleges. I have won numerous awards for science writing since 2008 for my blog, Starts With A Bang, inclu... MORE Astrophysicist and author Ethan Siegel is the founder and primary writer of Starts With A Bang! His books, Treknology and Beyond The Galaxy, are available wherever books are sold. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In reality, and if we are all honest with ourselves, there can never really be any theory that one could call complete. But again, at this time GR is the best we have and has performed magnificently being head and shoulders above anything else.

https://phys.org/news/2018-11-students-grade-climate-science-expert.html The National Climate Assessment, released the day after Thanksgiving, offers motivation and opportunity to bring climate topics into the classroom at every grade level. Even the youngest students are ready to learn about climate science, according to Michael Wysession, professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences in Arts & Sciences at Washington University in St. Louis and executive director of the Teaching Center. Wysession, who has co-authored more than 30 textbooks, helped write a position statement on teaching climate science adopted by the board of directors of the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) in September 2018. The NSTA has a membership of more than 50,000 teachers and other educators at the K-12 grade levels. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-11-students-grade-climate-science-expert.html#jCp Nice article....And appropriatley yesterday [Friday 30th Nov] Student of all ages right across Australia had a strike day in protest against the Liberal Coalition government's lack of action and concern over climate change....see.... https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-11-30/australian-students-climate-change-protest-scott-morrison/10571168 Students strike for climate change protests, defying calls to stay in school Updated about 5 hours ago Thousands of Australian students have defied calls by the Prime Minister to stay in school and instead marched on the nation's capital cities, and some regional centres, demanding an end to political inertia on climate change. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you agree or disagree with our kids taking such action? Should this "strike" tactic be tried elsewhere?

https://phys.org/news/2018-11-probing-quantum-physics-macroscopic-scale.html Why does quantum mechanics work so well for microscopic objects, yet macroscopic objects are described by classical physics? This question has bothered physicists since the development of quantum theory more than 100 years ago. Researchers at Delft University of Technology and the University of Vienna have now devised a macroscopic system that exhibits entanglement between mechanical phonons and optical photons. They tested the entanglement using a Bell test, one of the most convincing and important tests to show a system behaves non-classically. Ever since its inception more than 100 years ago, physicists realized that quantum theory might be in conflict with some of the basic axioms of classical physics. In particular, the principles in question are if information can be exchanged faster than the speed of light (called 'locality'), and whether physical quantities exist regardless of whether they are observed or not (called 'realism').Albert Einstein once famously asked Abraham Pais, his biographer, if he really thought the moon only existed when he looked at it. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-11-probing-quantum-physics-macroscopic-scale.html#jCp <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the paper: https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.220404 Optomechanical Bell Test: ABSTRACT: Over the past few decades, experimental tests of Bell-type inequalities have been at the forefront of understanding quantum mechanics and its implications. These strong bounds on specific measurements on a physical system originate from some of the most fundamental concepts of classical physics—in particular that properties of an object are well-defined independent of measurements (realism) and only affected by local interactions (locality). The violation of these bounds unambiguously shows that the measured system does not behave classically, void of any assumption on the validity of quantum theory. It has also found applications in quantum technologies for certifying the suitability of devices for generating quantum randomness, distributing secret keys and for quantum computing. Here we report on the violation of a Bell inequality involving a massive, macroscopic mechanical system. We create light-matter entanglement between the vibrational motion of two silicon optomechanical oscillators, each comprising approx. 1010 atoms, and two optical modes. This state allows us to violate a Bell inequality by more than 4 standard deviations, directly confirming the nonclassical behavior of our optomechanical system under the fair sampling assumption. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://physics.aps.org/synopsis-for/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.220404 Synopsis: Quantum Entanglement With 10 Billion Atoms: Researchers have experimentally demonstrated two cornerstones of quantum physics—entanglement and Bell inequality violations—with two macroscopic mechanical resonators

https://phys.org/news/2018-11-black-hole-donuts-fountains.html Black hole 'donuts' are actually 'fountains' November 30, 2018, National Astronomical Observatory of Japan Based on computer simulations and new observations from the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA), researchers have found that the rings of gas surrounding active supermassive black holes are not simple donut shapes. Instead, gas expelled from the center interacts with infalling gas to create a dynamic circulation pattern, similar to a water fountain in a city park. Most galaxies host a supermassive black hole, millions or billions of times as heavy as the Sun, in their centers. Some of these black holes swallow material quite actively. But astronomers have believed that rather than falling directly into the black hole, matter instead builds up around the active black hole forming a donut structure. Artist’s impression of the gas motion around the supermassive black hole in the center of the Circinus Galaxy. The three gaseous components form the long-theorized “donut” structure: (1) a disk of infalling dense cold molecular gas, (2) outflowing hot atomic gas, and (3) gas returning to the disk. Credit: NAOJ Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-11-black-hole-donuts-fountains.html#jCp :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: the paper: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/aae20b/meta Circumnuclear Multiphase Gas in the Circinus Galaxy. II. The Molecular and Atomic Obscuring Structures Revealed with ALMA: Abstract: We used the Atacama Large Millimeter/Submillimeter Array (ALMA) to map the CO(3–2) and [C i](1–0) lines, as well as their underlying continuum emission, from the central ~200 pc region of the Circinus galaxy that hosts the nearest type 2 Seyfert-class active galactic nucleus (AGN), with a spatial resolution of ~6–15 pc. The lines and continuum-emitting regions consist of a circumnuclear disk (CND; 74 pc × 34 pc) and spiral arms. The distribution of the continuum emission revealed a temperature-dependent dust geometry and possibly polar dust elongation in the torus region. The molecular mass of the CND is , with a beam-averaged H2 column density of ~5 × 1023 cm−2toward the AGN position, which contributes significantly to the nuclear obscuration. The [C i](1–0)/CO(3–2) ratio at the AGN position is unusually high, suggesting an X-ray-dominated region-type chemistry. We decomposed the observed velocity fields into rotational and dispersion components, and revealed a multiphase dynamic nature in the r 10 pc torus region, i.e., the diffuse atomic gas is more spatially extended along the vertical direction of the disk than the dense molecular gas. Through comparisons with our model predictions based on the radiation-driven fountain scheme, we indicate that atomic outflows are the driver of the geometrical thickness of the atomic disk. This supports the validity of the radiation-driven fountain scheme in the vicinity of this AGN, which would explain the longstanding mystery of the physical origin of the AGN torus.

Essentially gravity has nothing to do with sound. Does a sealed road make a car go?

So? Science including GR has been further understood and researched since those days a 100 years ago....simply put, they were wrong, and GW's as predicted by GR, have now been observed at least six or seven times now. No scientist is infallible, even Einstein from recollection questioned BH's, as he also questioned the dynamic expanding Universe. His qualities though saw him quickly admit to his error of judgement. Perhaps we all should take a leaf out of the great man's book. Whatever "finding" you are talking about, and whether flawed or otherwise, pales into insignificance against the mountains of data and successful predictions, supporting GR and made by GR. I post many interesting scientific items of interest on this forum, most supported by peer reviewed papers, but they still remain speculative, in that no firm data is yet at hand confirming them as scientific theories. They are science news and appropriately in the science section.That's how and why science guided by the scientific method, is in continued progress. Plus of course no one, least of all me, has ever claimed GR is perfect. If it was perfect we wouldn't need quantum mechanics would we? And the search and research into a possible QGT would then be redundant, wouldn't it? But it remains a well supported, evidenced backed model of gravity, which as yet, no other theory can come within an inch of. You appear to be doing far more then that in claiming GR is wrong or faulty based on your own interpretation/s. It's your own words with regards to GR, and your claims that it is wrong is why this is in the speculative section. GR is the accepted mainstream position for obvious reasons as already stated by many here.

DE is simply the name we give to whatever it is that makes space accelerate in its expansion rate. It could loosely be termed an anti gravity force, as it is literally fighting against the gravity from the mass energy in space that was responsible for the expansion to be actually slowing down around 5 billion years ago from memory. Obviously as the universe has expanded, the density of the mass energy in a larger universe has decreased, and as a result the expansion is now accelerating. Local regions though, like our own local group of galaxies and even beyond, are decoupled from the observed accelerated expansion which is only observed over the larger scales.

I believe your question has been answered with your anti GR stance and general ridicule of the accepted model, with some weird expectation that people here, learned people, not to mention the scientific world in general, must cow tow to your interpretation, despite the reality of the evidence that supports the incumbent model...... some examples..... Your above quotes are from this page only, as I'm rather lazy at this time having consumed a couple of Schooners of Fosters with a mate, so please excuse that. The quotes reflect a mixture of "I'm not going to listen"attitude, total arrogance, casting aspersions on fellow members, intended insults and facetiousness, not to mention that it is near entirely against the mainstream view of GR and what it entails.

I have often see the explanation from a photon's point of view, it would traverse the universe in an instant [infinite time dilation] and zero space [ infinite length contraction] I recall it was swonsont that showed me and explained why the fame of reference of a photon though is invalid as there is no rest frame for a photon. Explained nicely here.....https://www.quora.com/In-what-frame-of-reference-is-a-photon-at-rest "A reference frame is technically usually (particularly in special relativity) an inertial reference frame. That is, a frame in which an object appears at rest. Every massive object (that is not subject to an acceleration) has one, and all such frames of reference are related by Lorentz boosts. A Lorentz boost is a transformation of spacetime coordinates that takes one inertial reference frame to another, and allows us to compute what the differences would be for rulers and clocks between frames (i.e. how things would look for people moving relative to ourselves). Most importantly, there is no Lorentz boost that transforms to (or from) a frame moving at cc, the speed of light. What this means is that there is no frame in which a photon is at rest. All objects/particles without rest mass are necessarily non-inertial, and thus are moving (at cc) in every reference frame. This is part of the construction of the theory"

Possibly because of your speculative unsupported nonsense? Just a wild guess on my part.