1. Loop quantum gravity introduces the idea of granular structure of cosmic space; space is made out of quanta of space QS. It can be considered that "granular space" has some density that depends on the amount of matter into it. More matter in a given volume of space, higher its density. Density of space is a physical property of the space that determinates its geometric shape, its roundness.
Density of space D is in relation with mass according to the formula
D = m x G,
D = (kg) x (m3 s-2 kg-1)
D = (m3 s-2)
where D is density in the centre of the object, m is a mass of the object and G is gravitational constant. Introducing this formula in math formalism of SR and GR can be seen that density D is a concrete physical quantity that determinates gravity and motion.

Gravitational force acts between quanta of space QS that have a size of Planck. Every QS attract the QS around it. Between QS near by the moon and QS near by the earth gravitation acts on the distance and instantly via QS that are between them. Gravitational force does not propagate into space, gravitational force is the force that builds up the space. In a similar way as a wall is made out of bricks. The cement between bricks is keeping together the wall, the gravitational force between QS is keeping together the space.

2. The strength of gravitational force depends on the density of QS that build up cosmic space. Density D of QS of a given volume of cosmic space depends on the density of matter contained in it:

formula 1: D = m x G

where D is the density of QS in the centre of the material object, m is the mass of the object and G is the gravitational constant. QS are “elastic”. Its density changes with the amount of matter. The gravitational force Fg between two material objects is given by the following relation:

Fg = (D1 x D2) / ( r on square x G)

where r is the distance between the centers of the two material objects.

Gravitational force Fg on material body or on a particle that has a mass m depends on the density G of space.

Fg = (m x D) / r on square

where m is a mass of a body or particle, D is the density if space in a centre of planet or star, r is the distance from the centre of the planet or star; r can be shorter or longer as t the radius of the planet or star.

In a centre of the planet or star Fg on a material object or mass particle is:

Fg = (m x D) m10^-2

Gravitational acceleration g in a given distance r from the centre of the planet or star is:

g = (m x G) / r on square

m is a mass of planet or star,
G is gravitational constant
r is a distance from a centre


According to the formula 1: D = m x G

g = D / r on square

where D is the density of space in the centre of planet or star and r is a distance from the centre

3. Relation between mass m of particle and density of space D into it is:
D = m x G
where G is gravitational constant. The density of space inside of the same atom is higher on the earth than on the moon, because on the earth the density of space is higher than on the moon. The same atom will have a bigger weight on the earth than on the moon. But its density D that defines its mass will remain the same. So by moving through the space the weight of particles changes, but its mass remains the same. Photon is an exception here. Around the photon there is no additional density D of cosmic space, so photon has no weight and no mass.

Energy of matter and energy of space inside of a material object or mass particle are in equilibrium, equal: Espace ( Es ) = Ematter ( Em )

Es = Em = m x cc, ( D = m x G)

where m is a mass of the object, c is speed of light, D is density of space around the object and G is gravitational constant.

Es = Em = (D x cc) / G

Energy of space Es inside of particle or material object depends on the density of space D.

First experiments that proves mass increasing of particles that moves fast were done about 100 years ago. The faster the elementary particle, the bigger will be its mass. We call that “The Relativistic Mass Increase”.

The formula E = 0.5m x vv shows the relationship between the increase in mass of the relativistic particle and its increase in kinetic energy.

In this formula we can change m with D/G and we will get the formula:

E = (0.5D x vv) / G

which shows clearly that the kinetic energy of particle depends on the density D of space into it and on the speed v

The mass of accelerated particle is increasing because the with the speed increasing the density around the particle is increasing.

Density of space is increasing also inside of the inertial system that moves with the higher speed regarding the inertial system that moves with the lower speed. This higher density of space causes the speed of clocks is slower into the faster inertial system.

Higher density of cosmic space inside of an fast inertial system is the bridge SR and GR. In SR the speed of inertial system causes the increasing of the density of cosmic space, in GR the mass causes the increasing of the density of cosmic space. “Inertial mass” and “gravitational mass” of a material object or particle are equal because the density of cosmic space in inertial mass and gravitational mass is equal.

Let’s say we are in a fast space ship that travels far away from the stars and planets in cosmic space with low density. With increasing of the speed of the space ship the density of cosmic space into it will increase. By attaining a certain speed the density of the space in the space ship will be equal to the density on the surface of the earth. Space ship travel than with this constant speed. We have two material bodies that are identical. Both of bodies will behave in exact the same way in the space ship and on the surface of the earth. The density D of space in both bodies is equal. This means the equality between inertial mass and gravitational mass.

4. Cosmic space is composed by quanta of space (QS) having the size of Planck length. Light is a physical event in which photons are "jumping" from one quantum of space to another in a Planck time. Cosmic space is a medium of light, inertial systems move through the cosmic space. That's why the speed of light is “maximum speed” in the universe and it is same in all inertial systems.

Light has a double particle-wave nature simultaneously. A single photon jumping from one quantum of space to another in its trajectory is the central part - particle. The “chain jumping” of the photon changes the frequency of the QS on its trajectory from its basic frequency to the frequency of the photon. The central part of the photon also changes the vibration of QS around its trajectory that is its circumference part - wave.

In a “double slit experiment” we can settle instruments and observe photon's particle-part or we can settle instruments differently and observe the wave's part of the photon.
When we settle instruments to observe a particle, we will observe (detect) the particle part of the photon, when we settle instruments to observe a wave, we will observe (detect) the wave part of the photon. Scientist (Observer) should not play any role in this experiment.

5. When a star has a mass of 3,2 masses of sun in its centre the density of cosmic space is so strong that gravitation overpowers all other forces. Matter transforms back into quanta of space (QS) that build up cosmic space.

Beyond Schwarzschild Radius gravity is so strong that prevails above all other forces. All elementary particles transform back into the energy of cosmic space. Matter and space are made out of the same “stuff”. Black holes are the “fabric” where matter transforms back into space. In big explosions of AGN space transforms back into matter.
Universe is composed by one energy. The basic packets of this one energy are QS. Energy is circulating continuously “space-matter-space-matter-…”. Universe is a self-renewing system. There was no beginning and there will be no end.

Schwarzschild Radius Rs is:

Rs = (2G x m) / (c x c)

G is gravitational constant
m is mass of the stellar object

According to the formula (1) D = G x m
D is the density of cosmic space in the centre of the black hole

Rs = 2D / (c x c)

Inside Rs gravitation has no direction, density of space does not increases towards the centre of the black hole. The area inside of Rs is a fabric where matter transforms back into the QS of cosmic space.

A mass has a weight when it is in a space where density changes, it has a direction. At the “weightless” Lagrange point between earth and sun happens that density D of space is stable, there is no change of density, no direction. So gravity is there because gravity is carried by the quanta of space QS, and QS build up cosmic space also at the “weightless point”. If it would be no gravitation at the “weightless point” earth would fly away long time ago.
A body at Lagrange point will not move, but this does not mean that gravitational force is not there.

Decreasing of the duration of motion of the orbital period of the binary pulsar PRS1913+16 is the result of matter transforming back into space in the centre of one star. This diminishes the mass of the star, diminishing of the mass causes diminishing of the speed of rotation, with diminishing of the speed the duration of motion on the orbit is increasing.
There is no gravitational radiation, gravitational waves do not exist.

Inasmuch as gravitational waves do exist, I can't give much credit to a theory that claims they don't exist. The detection event that I recall (no, I haven't tried a Google search) was several years ago on the occassion of a visible nova.

The physics for the occurrence of gravitational waves have been well worked out; originally by Einstein, IIRC.

A number of gravitaional wave detectors have been built.

Time for Google if you want to check what I've said, I suppose.

no serious journal of physics has ever published GW detection
peer reviewed article

and will never publish it as GW do not exists

Well, amrit, your impressive number of postings seemed to imply that you know what you're writing about.

However, I feel that you may not have collected a brass ring (an old merry-go-round term) on this topic.

If you do a Goggle search for LIGO, you will learn that it is a gravity wave laboratory run by MIT and one other prestigious college. (it also turns up from a search for "gravity waves", but why dance around the payoff.)

They have links to observational reports on gravity waves.

Check it out and report back if you doubt the validity explaining why you still feel that way.

hi CactusCritter

No experimental evidence about GW at MIT, LIGO or any other institute on this planet. For now GW are pure math speculation and i believe it will remain for ever

Can you please answer three questions below:

1. which part of matter (atom) emits GW
2. which parr of matter receives GW
3. how can a GW that is on the middle way from the sun to the earth keep together this two massive objects
(theoretical gravitational waves should travel with a light speed, their travel between sun and earth is around 8 minutes)
(how can a GW that is not in a material contact with two material objects keep them together ?!)

I think that searching for GW is pointless before this three questions are successfully answered in a frame of existing theoretical physics.

yours, amrit

Hi amrit,

When trying to replace an existing theory, the person doing the replacing must understand the existing theory sufficiently well to delineate its deficiencies and to explain how the replacement theory handles all that was known before and overcomes previous deficiencies.

I have seen no sign of this approach from you.

You seem to denounce the relevant work of Einstein and of all the people who founded and operate LIGO and several other gravity wave observatories in the world.

You offer no proof of the non-existence of gravity waves. A few algebraic expresssions are not adequate. You merely produce an unsupported assertion that gravity waves do not exist.

Back in 1951, as I neared completion of my classwork in pursuit of a B.Sc. in Physics, I took a course in tensor analysis which was a prerequisite requirement for a never-offered (during my school years) course in general relativity. Tensor analysis is a fairly advanced branch of mathematics requiring a thorough understanding of calculus as background.

I'm not trying to put you down. I'm merely hoping that you will get an inkling that you may not have the knowledge to back and sell your assertion.

Have good day.

CactusCritter

Dear CactusCritter

you did not comment my three questions ??!!
no expert of GW is ready to discuss on them because no one can answer them

IN GR three questions are not the case, gravitation is described with a roundness of the space.
They become relevant with introduction of the idea of existence of GW
that Einstein introduces after GR was published.
According to my understanding it would be better he never did that because geometry of space is determined with its density and with introducing density of space GW are out of question, gravitation is described with density D)

About question 3:
Formulas of physics that describes gravitation are without symbol t
that represents duration of a physical process.
How that ?
That shows clearly that gravitation acts immediate, no motion of particle or wave is needed to pass from the sun and earth. Gravitation is a non propagating force.
Gravitation is a force that is building up 4D cosmic space in which exist 3D material objects.

About question 1 and 2
Gravitation does not act between mass, it acts into the space where mass exists

Fg = (D1 x D2) / (r square x G)

yours, amrit

amrit Posted on Feb 20 2006, 07:48 PM:

1. which part of matter (atom) emits GW
2. which parr of matter receives GW
3. how can a GW that is on the middle way from the sun to the earth keep together this two massive objects
(theoretical gravitational waves should travel with a light speed, their travel between sun and earth is around 8 minutes)
(how can a GW that is not in a material contact with two material objects keep them together ?!)

Sorry about my apparent failure to respond. I thought that I did, but evidently may have deleted the file accidently without sending.

I have no idea of what you mean by "part of matter". Mass is just mass and there is no particular part to be reserved for gravity interaction of any kind. Mass is a property and I know of nothing else to be said about your questions 1 and 2.

I have never seen an indication of the energy content that can be associated with a gravity wave. However, in as much as the detectors are large masses of metal one or more of whose surfaces are illuminated by laser beams to watch for twitches induced by gravity waves, I would assume that the energy content is not large.

Therefore, I don't believe that there is any concern about a gravity wave which passes through the space betwen the earth and the moon. There are no detectors out there to record the passage.

That's the best I can do for question 3.

Let me no what your doubts or disagreements may be regarding my answers.

Let me also say again that I regard your claim that gravitation is a non-propagating force as an unsupported assertion.

Have a good day.

If gravitational force works between mass should be defined how that happen, which part (on subatomic level) of matter emits GW and which part receives GW

According to my understanding gravitational force acts into the space and not between two material objects. This action is immediate, it exists into space, no motion of wave is needed to carry gravitational force.

In Newton physics gravitation is keeping together A and B instantly, gravitational force does not move between A and B, it is always there.

In GR gravitation is carried by the roundness of the space. Round space as a carrier of gravitational force is always there, GR respect the postulate of gravitation. For me round space is only a geometrical aspect of gravitation. The missing aspect is a physical aspect of gravitation that is the density D of the space. Round distribution of QS of space determinate roundness of space. Fg is carried by the density of space D, you can see formulas above, relativistic development of this basic formulas i can send you by e-mail.

To understand the way gravitation functions one has to understand the relation between: time-motion-space-gravitation, see more

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4902

I agree with you amrit that even if gravity somehow traveled at lightspeed, it doesn't do it in any typical sense. If light can't escape from a black hole, then obviously gravity would need to travel somehow faster, or at least pass through an alternate mechanism than light, or it would be trapped in a black hole also.

Also if gravity was delayed like light, orbits wouldn't be stable. Planets would constantly orbit further and further away. I even tried a simulation of this and you can even verify it mentally - if two planets of equal mass were orbitting 180 degs apart, with gravity travelling effectively instantly, then these two planets would correctly be pulled directly across the center of their orbits, but if you delayed this propogation then planets would be pulled to a delayed position of each other. This would correlate to each planet being pulled to an image slightly in front of its path, which would slowly increase the orbital velocity and radius. This doesn't happen. It's supposedly been known for a long time that the sun's gravity doesn't pull us to the exact position we see the sun at - light is delayed, but gravity isn't.

They've had many gravity wave detectors for decades looking for gravity waves, and are building a more sensitive one now. It's understandable that gravity waves would be difficult to detect, even if they existed (which they could at very small scales, IMO), but the EMF spectrum we have no problem at all picking up signals all across the spectrum, but gravity waves are silent.

So whether or not gravity travels at light speed somehow, it has to at least act as though it travelled faster. There was a claim that radiation emitted from massive and closely orbitting bodies matched the loss predicted by gravity waves, but supposedly other phenomenon could explain this as well, so maybe it's still in the air but it seems almost impossible that if gravity waves existed they would propogate like light. So whatever lightspeed mechanism was used would have to somehow appear faster than light. (And truly why the need for such complexity if you can get virtually identical results by simply saying gravity travels instantly?)

My view personally is that gravity could travel at light speed, but that the universe is smaller than we typically envision and gravitational forces are diffused EMF on larger scales. This seems to be able to unify EMF and gravity as the same mechanism. On small scales, below the width of the universe, direct EMF interactions are stronger than gravity but these become diffused into general gravitational forces on a larger scale. That seems to solve both problems and unifies them as a single mechanism.

Imagine a box like this with 2 particles in it:

+---------------+
|....................|
|.....a.............|
|......b............|
|....................|
|....................|
+---------------+

EMF forces are strongest directly between a and b, but reflections of these forces inside the box would be slightly unbalanced and have a smaller indirect effect. (This same effect seems able to explain a lot of quantum phenomenon) As you get second order reflections, these become even more diffused, so at very large scales individual EMF forces could die off and appear as simply a general static field focused by any curvatures in this small universe. (Alternately instead of reflections in this box, it might operate more like sinusoidal oscillations in a sphere/black hole)

I've heard about observations saying gravity doesn't appear to follow a strict 1/d^2 relationship on larger scales either, which this model seems likely able to explain.

BTW, it's a bit tougher to explain gravity being static though ... they can measure changes in gravity and gravity also affects the rate of time.

I didn't give an accurate view of my idea, just to keep it simple but when you consider deformations in the surface of this small universe is seems to be able to explain slower apparent time (deformations create a concave surface which requires a greater distance for oscillations to take), EMF and gravity (these deformations could propogate as the equivalent of EMF waves that would be either attractive or repulsive depending upon the phases ... more rapid impacts in an area = more mass, slower time, shorter wavelengths and greater inertia).

Here's a clearer view:

+---------------+
|....................|
|.....a..b.........|
|.....|..|..........|
|.....v.v..........|
|....................|
+/\/\__/\/\/....+

So if a and b are traveling in phase and impact the bottom at the same time, this creates a concave reflection (with EMF ripples travelling perpendicular to the event) that operate as either gravity or EMF depending on whether or not this impact area is a visible reflection in "real space" (basically our observations occur on a small area of the surface and we can only repeatably detect events that lie in that plane)

I have pointed this out before but gravitational waves should be floating around the universe permanently. They can't be absorbed as light is. So there would be a Cosmic Background that is composed of these gravity waves. Rather odd.

Gravity waves...........what gravity waves?

What would cause gravity to be in motion, gravity?

Gravity is not in motion, nor is it capable of being in motion, as gravity is simply a dynamic response resulting from the condition of field.

Because the field itself is continually accelerating you have the impression that gravity too is in motion, but it is not.

The earth is simultaneously responsive to the gravity of the sun, as gravity does not travel at the speed of light because it doesn't travel.

No waves no gravitational radiation.

Unless you consider an underlying force effecting both gravity and electromagnetism you are never going to find a solution. Try and understand that the field in which you exist is dynamic, always.

There are possibly two aspects to gravity to consider.

1) The gravitational coefficient between two bodies - the scaling factor to mass and fnuction versus distance etc.

2) The actual gravitational force.

The coefficient seems to be a product of the shape of spacetime itself, whereas the actual force generated by masses operating via this mechanism could possibly operate differently.

For example, two hydrogen atoms might exert some gravitational force on each other but this force could vary simply by changing the curvature of spacetime without moving the atoms. This would likely be seen as a change in the gravitational coefficient. So that's one variable to consider.

The alternate is the change in force created by moving one of these atoms.

They don't have to operate differently though. Inertia could be similar to the effect of gravity operating on an object itself. I could comment more but I'm interested in what other views there are on it. Basically, is gravity tied to mass or independent of it or is this a chicken and egg question?

Hi All,

Just a quick one. Gravity waves are possible but it really takes a really big event to produce "graviton radiation" sufficient to be detectable. It is predicted by General Relativity but there is a work function similar to that of Einsteinian Photon Emission Theory of the surface of "emitters" that need to be overcome for the emission of these as yet theoretical particles to escape the system. I envision cataclysmic phenomena that emit them like "stimulated emission" events from really nasty cosmic phenomena.

The other alternative is the emission of extremely high frequency gravity waves. I think these may be possible in artificial systems specifically constructed from "heavy" crystals in which the system is driven in the picohertz region in quadrupole modes with non-sinusoidal waves of wavelengths shorter than the crystal bond length. The excursion distance is kept exceedingly low so the crystals do not rupture thus the non-sinusoidal excitation.

This can be done with artificially created crystals purpose built for stimulation like laser crystals only for gravity... mass acceleration, thousands of tonnes of force can be electromagnetically driving a very small crystal. I believe there is a Company in the US that is currently involved in research for just such systems. Only very high frequency gravitons will "naturally" have the sufficient energy to exceed the work function of the crystal media surface. Still... this energy might possibly be used for "propulsion". I can find the references if you like but I am sure you can too if you wish. It is not hopeless and it is proposed that this is a feasible experiment with present technology. Has been presented at a number of conferences on novel future propulsion systems.

Cheers

Davidb : Gravity waves...........what gravity waves?

What would cause gravity to be in motion, gravity?

Gravity is not in motion, nor is it capable of being in motion, as gravity is simply a dynamic response resulting from the condition of field.

Because the field itself is continually accelerating you have the impression that gravity too is in motion, but it is not.

The earth is simultaneously responsive to the gravity of the sun, as gravity does not travel at the speed of light because it doesn't travel.

No waves no gravitational radiation.

Unless you consider an underlying force effecting both gravity and electromagnetism you are never going to find a solution. Try and understand that the field in which you exist is dynamic, always.

Amrit: thanks davidb
finally someone has similar view as me. That feels better for me. I was on the point to abandon discussion here. But know I go on in hope that some more people will discover a huge black holes of the theory of gravitational waves and gravitational radiation.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...st=0#entry68541

Hello all

Hmm gravity waves...

Electromagnetic waves (transverse waves) are composed of electric and magnetic fields. Their speed of propagation is based on the permittivity and permeability of their current environment. Hypothetically it is possible for electromagnetic waves to propagate in a compression mode but that would require a traveling wave front that changes the permittivity and (or) permeability of space.

Sound waves (compression waves) require a compressible medium.

Earthquakes produce fast P-waves (compression) and slower S-waves (transverse) but still require a medium.

Therefore without a medium, gravity waves should require another field (time?) in order to propagate or an underlying aspect of space similar to permittivity or permeability that can be varied.
If a medium is present (ether, multi-dimensional matrix, etc.) then is the medium compressible or not. If the medium is compressible then both compression and transverse waves are possible. If the medium is not compressible then only transverse waves are possible.

As of yet, no gravity waves of any sort have been detected. but that does not mean that they don't exist.

First of all, I think Amrit was referring to the propagation speed of the Gravitational Force not that of Gravitational Waves. The former surely does exist whereas the latter are still very much controversial.

With regard to the Gravitational Force, it is generally assumed that it propagates with the speed of light (which is also the assumption for the electrostatic force). However, in my opionion any static forces in genereal should actually be instantaneous as otherwise the concept of force can not be applied in the first place as the force would become dependent on the reference frame. I have given a proof for this on my web page The Inconsistency of the Retarded Field Concept for Static Forces

The result of this consideration is that only if instantaneous field quantities are used does one obtain the same forces in all coordinate systems moving with a constant relative velocity (which is required for the concept of force)

This fact re-establishes the strict meaning of Newton's law of action and reaction, indicating the self-evident property of a closed system that the sum of its internal forces vanishes. With the inconsistent assumption of a retarded action of forces, this law would reduce to a purely formal geometrical symmetry expressing the circumstance that a hypothetical field quantum emitted from particle 1 to particle 2 takes the same travelling time as a field quantum sent in the reverse direction. With this picture, there is however no real mutual interaction of particles invariant under a transformation between different inertial system, but only an 'interaction' of particles with field quanta which have been emitted by the other particles but do not stand in a direct relationship to them anymore. The strange possibility would arise that a body experiences a force by a static field originating from a particle which does not exist anymore at that instant (because of decay for instance).

One should be aware of the difference compared to the case of an interaction with an electromagnetic light pulse: the latter can be considered as an independent, self-supporting entity (being emitted by one atomic system and being able to be absorbed by another atomic system), whereas a static field evidently has to be related directly to a material body which, in last instance, can account for the work done on other particles.

The static field concept is thus only consistent if the field is thought of as fixed to the particles, i.e. if unretarded field quantities are used (in the same manner as one end of an ideally rigid rod responds instantaneously to a movement of the other end even if the rod measures lightyears in length (of course in reality a rod can not be strictly rigid because the inertia of atoms in the material leads to a delay of the full response, but by an infinitesimal amount movement is nevertheless propagated instantaneously)).

Thomas

Hi Thomas,

I've turned my computer on too late in the evening to try to read what your web site contains.

However, I always have strong doubts when someone claims that physicists are incorrect in their interpretation of experiments and detailed analytical studies.

Therefore, your assertion that static forces "travel instanteously" seems quite untenable to me. In fact, I'm not sure what you mean by "static forces".

A force must exist in the vicinity of some particle or body which supports that kind of force. Thus, a force moves at the velocity of the particle or body which maintains that force. I will not try to address that fact that neither a body nor a particle can change its state of motion wiithout accelerating which introduces additonal physics considerations.

There's a whole class of particles/wave packets call bosons (maybe called fermions, too, but I'm not completely certain of that) which actually transfer between particles to manifest the force which those particles maintain. There are about four other bosons, IIRC.

Electrons are the most familiar bosons and they maintain the electromagnetic force.

I'm currently reading a book named "Warped Passages: Unraveling the Mysteries of the Universe's Hidden Dimensions" by Lisa Randolph, (Harper Collins Publishers, New York, 2005.)

I anticipate finding simplistic physics considerations on your web site (I apologize in advance if that turns out to be an unfair pre-judgement), but when folks basically seem to discount that magnificent anlyses carried out by Einstein, I really wornder about the credentials of that person.

However, I think that you could learn a lot of deep physics at a non-mathematical fashion for Lisa Randall's book

Hi amrit, Cactus Critter, Thomas, Montec et al,

Gravity "influences" at the speed of light and it is "non-propagating" as a rule other than extremely violent events when gravitons may be released. The influence of gravity is pure General Relativity and is based on the curvature of space-time.... this persists to "infinity" with an inverse square law. Matter responds to the local curvature of space-time and the "local slope" tells matter how to move. We know Gravity and normal Acceleration are absolutely identical through Einstein's Principle of Equivalence so the forces in both cases are "connected" by the same propagators ... the virtual photons. Everything else on this site is just too bizarre to be right and also there are a lot of experimental verification for General Relativity too.

If gravity was not like this there would be anomalies such as forces not matching up with events ... paradox and causality failure.

Cheers