ABOUT The SLOWING of STARS and The SPEED Of GRAVITY


I say in my physics synopsis, see the link upper left of my web version, yes the Mandlebrot set is real! I believe gravity isn't relativistic. The Earth is more at rest than the moon and the sun is more yet at rest. So the more priveliged mass is more influential and different masses fall at different rates if you apply the same force to two masses they go upward to different heights and fall down at different rates. And in the gravity elevator no frame of motion will transform away the separation with time of two masses dropped unlike in Einstein's inertial elevator. At t1 and t2 etc. the masses move apart in the gravity elevator, and all observers agree on this yet because both masses are in uniform motion in the inertial elevator some observers can get a uniform motion result.

 So I agree with Van Flandern that if the measured displacement of the Earth's gravity is extremely limited this gives a lower limit of at least 20 billion times the speed of light. Or perhaps by my use of Maxwell's method of the lighter the weight the faster the speed, the method he used to predict the speed of light exactly, this gives a speed of 10x10 to the 37th times the speed of light, you lighten up to travel fast.

Since Einstein like Mach believed gravity and inertia are essentially the same, I believe what LIGO has found is only the speed of inertia.

  So too if gravity is essentially non relativistic the supposed proofs of general relativity if different masses are supposed to fall at the same rate are actually evidence that masses fall at different rates like the Earth around the Moon, well with global warming at any rate!

 The displacement of the perihelion of Mercury the bending of starlight and yes even the rate at which pulsars might slow down all are evidence of the changing rate of fall of light, Mercury and other masses even while Einstein holds that different masses fall at the same rate in his theoretical foundation of general relativity so that inertia and gravity are the same. As I say I believe here Einstein is assuming what he's trying to prove by f equals ma which is the more general formula when you apply the same Force to two different masses they move at different rates. I believe that if the relativity of gravity is true the Earth would indeed fall around the Moon at the same rate as the moon around the Earth and if the universe rotated once each day in relative motion there would be hugely faster than light motion for the cosmos and hugely different angles of the motion as we might imagine.

So if LIGO has found something to do with gravity I believe what it's actually found is only the speed of inertia not near zero displacement of gravity as we measure it towards the sun.

And what about the speeding pulsars rate of slowing down, right!

 I would believe since gravity radiates in as with LIGO result where it seems the gravity radiates out what's really being measured is only the outward radiance of the inertial particles which would only move at the speed of light because they're particles like Einstein believed for the speed of light in special relativity where the quanta of light in special relativity is uninfluenced in its path and completely constant.

 So if LIGO is actually measuring inertia we might expect it to be at the speed of light. As I say though if gravity might be much faster than light as Van Flandern believed, LIGO and the speed of the pulsars may both be measures only of the speed of inertia and the prize of events like much faster communications by way of gravity may await other machines  we may build as I say elsewhere.

As I say about the pulsars they may be radiating inertia and we're not measuring gravity as they change the rate of spin.

 About Van Flandern's "observation of the observation" that the  displacement of gravity is almost zero between the sun and Earth, if the speed of the gravity between the pulsars was only at the speed of light there will be a different value of the displacement with changes in the location of the source of gravity. If we look
at triple pulsars I think this might help us find the speed of gravity not just the speed of inertial radiation which Einstein holds would be only at the speed of light. Because we measure a change in the motion of the center of mass of the two pulsars in the center the change not of mere radiation yet of the speed of which the information between the central changes and the external resulting motion of the outside pulsar will give us the speed of gravity more definitely even than LIGO or other methods.

 We want the line of gravitational connection of the pulsars to be in the orbit at the nearest the right angle to our line of sight when the influence of the events the inner pulsars would be seen.(The right angle is so the distance to our sensor is the same for both events so the distance if more to see the events doesn't influence the result by the slower speed of light used to measure the influence between the stars. If one pulsar was more distant in its orbit by a few light years in our sight this could throw off the underlying connection of GWD. The cause of the event might be an explosion from incoming matter that might be fused or superfused, superfusion is the possible cause of the Jets of cosmic realms that fusion is without cause. The superfusion would spin at Faster Than Light to withstand the gravity of massive sources so energy conservation is saved and it's possible there may be super fusion of events of pulsars, or at any rate fusion of this ingoing matter. Common fusion of asteroid showers are what I attribute the otherwise anamalous events of Tabby's star, some even attribute to the possible influence of other advanced civilizations at that realm of the events).

If the speed of gravity is much faster and the speed of the inertia measured by LIGO is only at the speed of light we might expect to see first the influence of the gravity and then if the pulsars are separated by 8 light minutes only then would we see the influence of Einstein.

 This idea might also be applied to large masses over more cosmic distance.

ABOUT THE LIGO EVENTS

What has LIGO found exactly? If gravity waves radiate out how does gravity radiate in?

 This would seem improbable and here I want to look at another possible cause.

Gravity may radiate out as waves and this may induce quanta found by the evidence to be the Low Energy Higgs' or LEH. In my view called Modified La Sage Gravity or MLSG quanta are needed to cause gravity because of gravity's loose connection with inertia as Einstein believed. Quanta have sides and exert inward force with change of motion while waves would continue on the outside still sending the changes in connection out to conserve momentum.

 Even so the planets move through the waves with no change in force seen, so the particles are at a near outside radius of the heavy quanta
atawhat I dub the Radius of Action ROA. At this radius the LEH become massive enough to exert a much stronger force, the large force of the sideways force on the light and the force of inertia or gravity. So light moves at the speed Maxwell predicted exactly based on the snapback and momentum and energy conservation are saved even while the waves have reduced friction.

As I say the particles are valuable even if only at the ROA because they would cause the force felt of both gravity and inertia. And the particles radiate out for centrifugal force because they are indeed particles and they have sides to passively radiate out like a gas.

We usually can't find the waves either of gravity which would radiate out or the in waves inertia uses because they are lower energy and because they're both at much higher speed. They give the much higher speed continium Einstein hoped to find.

 The LIGO has measured outward motion of two radii of the "gravity wave" events. As above the particles are all we can see the effects of so if they radiate out it seems reasonable to me that these are the inertia events and not gravity.

In MLSG the particles are important to gravity and they cause the push from the outside of the mass, even so there are problems about La Sage gravity mostly about friction and this makes waves needy to save La Sage gravity be which is the only mechanical cause of gravity ever even considered by scientists like Maxwell or Newton.

The waves would attract masses from the inside causing the stretch that particles wouldn't have, they wouldn't speed up on their own because inertia no more causes gravity than uniform motion causes acceleration.

 The particles would be energised by the waves to exert the push from the outside radius of each heavy quanta and this would be one of gravity's modalities with inertia. This would be how gravity radiates from the outside to in with the particles if the real gravity events are
ever found.


  The outward gravity waves being much lighter than light would be much faster and also overlap with both wavelength and speed not only wavelength as in Special Relativity SR because gravity and SR are like opposites. Gravity radiates down with a change in wave speed; inerta has changes in wavelength only with radiance outward via disconnection with no change in speed.

In MLSG the changes in both wavelength and speed allow the gravity waves to wrap around the heavy quanta and on the outer radius the waves become dense enough to cause the push of push gravity as La Sage named his method.

If particles would cause inertia and centrifugal force by disconnection and gravity is much like it -somewhat! Gravity would have the quanta of the LEH. Even so inertia can't reradiate in so more continuous waves would also be needed. But if the waves were the same as inertia they would be hugely stronger or inertia would be hugely weaker.

 So what we might expect to see with LIGO if it were caused by gravity is force from particles, most on the outside radius from the distant event moving from the outside and inward. While the particles would seem to move slow as the slow 32 feet force of gravity around us like a boat in the river and the atoms of the water the waves at much higher speed could allow what might seem an almost instant connection event. By causality you don't have the events around the outside of a pond with the waves splashing around to then converge on the event of a stone on the pond even if much faster than light for the waves out, so the signal connecting the inward motion of the particles would still be no higher speed than this possible more cosmic speed limit than by relativity.

I believe that particles that would radiate out by LIGO wouldn't be gravity, and since particles and the stronger force they cause would be mostly what we can find and measure, only real gravity would have the force from the outside in.

If gravity radiates out at the speed of light as claimed by LIGO, another signal needs to move inward at another speed or it wouldn't connect because gravity is a unifying force. All radiance out would mean no inward motion without this connection so it seems if we finally measure gravity by quanta I believe it may disprove relativity.

Why I Disagree With Laura Mercini-Houton's idea about Hawking Radiation

Here I want to add that to the idea of a superluminal speed for gravity is not to be discounted yet by LIGO. This is only one experiment, it could have been a goof like OPERA or BICEP2 and as I say since Einstein like Mach believed gravity and inertia are the same thing, if the LIGO is valid, the speed of inertia at the speed of light may not be the speed of gravity. Inertia and gravity may not be equivalent as I say below.

On the physics.org site, Laura Mercini-Haughton uses Hawking's idea that Hawking radiation is so reradiant in the events that, the black hole can't be created-the black hole can't be created!

My idea of gravity as faster than light explains the problem. If black holes are nonexistant, there seem to be a lot, billions of galaxies with small sources of huge gravity at the center with mass spinning around at high speeds. Mercini Houghton's idea doesn't solve this well. The idea that gravity if faster than light allows this result if the gravity is so fast it outdistances the Hawking radiation and implodes it in before it radiates. Thus, and for the numerous other ideas I list below and on other pages, Mercin-Houghton's idea may be wrong, the black holes are at the center of mass of huge bodies in the cosmos as observed, and the idea that gravity is faster than light seems also in evidence here. 

 You may say that speed has no direct connection to force exerted by the gravity. If the Hawking radiation just barely makes it out then just a little more inside the event horizon, the escape velocity is not just c but faster exerting more force than in Mercini's calculation. A black hole of radius a if with escape velocity c would seem to have at radius 2a the velocity at 2 c or greater, just as Jupiter's gravity reaches further than the Earth's and it's escape velocity is more.

physics.org and Laura's idea

My physics Synopsis GWD/General Wave Dynamics

Why Do Black Holes Have Only 50% of The Mass Predicted By Simple La Sage Gravity?

The ghost particle method shows by simple calculations the rate at which black holes would increase in mass.Yet observations show they are gaining mass at just half the rate. 

 I was much puzzled by this and I had thought of a fifth and sixth force of the singularity to solve the infinite gravity problem that Einstein was much concerned about. Einstein wasn't confident in this and it was why he removed black holes from his beliefs about physics for awhile, like 100 years!  

 Even while Special Relativity predicted potential infinities, the singularity would have the same problem. (Also I may ask about Einstein, why are infinities allowed in Special Relativity, yet not in General Relativity?  Actually that there should be no infinities in either Special Relativity SR or General relativity I would say if either both are true or untrue, if for General Relativity, so should SR also not be with the infinite. I don't believe in them more than Einstein and my more general idea would be that SR is an extension of gravity, all the quanta around us are frozen gravity converted to quanta by the gravity force  of the implosion of the field here and neither gravity or SR has infinities. This is my idea of GWD or general wave Dynamics, a more non relativistic idea about all the forces, not just the "thermodynamic" speed of light of relativity, which Einstein hopes to awkwardly fit into gravity.) See my Physics Synopsis link upper left, Click Here or see link at the end of the page. 

In a way, not allowing the infinities solves the singularity problem of  gravity while allowing the possibility of faster than light non infinities with Special Relativity, as I say on my youtube, "metv," video (Click Here or see link at end of post)  about using a Higgs' laser or hopes of using a particle spin method to hope to achieve faster than light motion in what I call the Relativistic Wind Tunnel RWT, see post below about my thoughts about the RWT or click here.. By using a quantum spin conveyer belt moving the Higgs' out from a zone of few Higgs' might allow a small mass in the RWT to move with reduced inertia by pumping away the Higg's. This might reduce the infinities of SR. I would say if Einstein tries to stop some of the infinite problem of General Relativity, he might have also realized that Special Relativity also has this to solve, or this seems so to me. 

As I say here on my OTHER youtube Video! I believe if each quanta is with a history of EPR codes, yet by entanglement the codes are caused, the two quanta find just that code, yet the Higgs' allows a large number of Higgs codes around each quanta to find just that quanta, this may be the cause of gravity also by the codes of each quantum causing acceleration as it drags around the Higg's on the outside. This may set the code with each event possibly storing huge amounts of data about history of events. And this might allow huge amounts of data storage by using a Higgs' laser to read and write, as well as a super high resolution microscope or telescope to mine the data, it may be seen otherwise not seen in the quanta of light. Click Here for Video, or See link below.

Of course Einstein believed faster than light was possible, and he said if one of his ideas go they all go. The infinities of relativity seem so inefficient in the sense that they aren't efficient. If you want to go faster than light, or faster than sound, there may be machines for this eventually.

NASA is doing research about Faster Than Light travel, so perhaps this idea about the Higgs' or some other machine method may be viable.

 If the singularity is with a fifth and sixth force that are spinning faster than light if mass is spinning energy, the spin with more centrifugal force wouldn't collapse to infinity. This might solve Einstein's insomnia about the singularity, and as T'hooft has noted though not by the method of faster than light by GWD, this saves energy conservation, a major problem otherwise with an infinite singularity. And the faster than light radiance outward of the jet also allows the anomalous spectra of the jets, which are not explained by the standard model.

  About The LIGO experiment that seems to prove gravity is at the speed of light, see my posts below. Einstein believed gravity and inertia are the same thing, so if the results of LIGO are not an error, I believe the LIGO is only a measure of the speed of inertia at the speed of light and not gravity.


  You may be aware that Japanese physicists in the early 90's made the discovery that a gyroscope spinning in one direction at high speed weights slightly less than one spinning in the other direction, which weighs the same.

 One thing I wondered about was why the jets of supermassive stars or radio sources have almost as much mass seen moving out one  jet as the other. If the source is ionizing it would seem to separate plus and minus charges and by Newton's second law one jet should move faster than the other. While black holes are seen to be super ionizing, I think if the fifth force involves heavy particles and antiparticles, if one spins in the opposite sense it would radiate out the ghost particles while the antiparticle here (of what I call superfusion) would attract as usual by gravity and so indeed the massive source of the gravity would increase at only half the rate, and the jets are indeed mostly symmetrical as seen by the astronomy. The outflow from only the superfusion particle and not the antiparticle would make the outflow of both jets of the same type of mass and energy. Another  explanation is that gravity is mostly nonquantum and so it wraps around in a sphere.


Black holes increase in mass with time. The massive black holes at the center of galaxies have 1000 times more mass than they should by the visible matter seen falling in. This is easily solved by the  ghost particle method, and so too the problem of dark matter itself, like what you  press on as you jog around the room, or what the starship accelerates against, and so on.

 Remember the Higgs is believed to exist at lower and lower energy states, at the lowest state it's stable, so the low energy and superfast way to both store and send force by the fast speed of the waves may be how dark matter or what I call DGE dark gravitational energy have remained unseen yet by experiment yet they change our life definitely with force as you go around in the road machine.
 
  But the black holes aren't gaining mass at exactly half the rate. The actual rate gives us a way to calculate by way of how much force is moving the jets outward and also since we know how much more the gyroscope at the given rate weighs less,  we can then find the actual rate the black hole gains mass with time if also allowing the amount of common matter falling in to find the ghost particle mass contribution.. 

 You might wonder if the superfusion antiparticles weigh less, this would seem to change the mass of the black hole and so it would weigh about half the observed value and thus not weigh any more or gain mass at any other rate than half the mass at any rate. But weight isn't the same as mass as I say on my posts below. The mass may be internal to quanta like the superfusion particles, while weight may move in the spaces between the quanta, so gravity doesn't shield or have quantum numbers like quanta and so on. I would think the superfusion antiparticle may have the same gravity yet fling out more of the ghost particles by short range centrifugal force. Relativity doesn't say how there's no mass induction around the outside of a centrifuge, unlike the equivalent massive gravitational source.


 As I say elsewhere, two of the the main problems with Lasage method for gravity or indeed the Higgs' method of mass with ghost particles are about friction with the particles slowing masses as they move, and also e.g. about how particles radiate outward like a gas if they have sides yet gravity is implosive. My answer here is that below a certain energy, the external weight field between the quanta changes phase to a superfluid and has negative entropy, as superfluids often flow from cold to hot. The superfast superlight speed of gravity may wrap around the quanta of visible matter and unify so fast the slow speed of light motion of the particles as all quanta is not enough to overpower the thermodynamic common radiant form of entropy. Another problem with Lasage Gravity that Feynman considered was about the Earth gaining much mass per second by the implosion of the ghost particles. I believe in almost wavelike ghost particles so they might radiate into the Earth between the quanta without friction, and then change phase to the outward moving waves in cycles and go in loops to mostly conserve energy for gravity. 

   A good reason to believe neither the inertial or the gravity events aren't quantum mostly is in Maxwell's belief that the low energy field can't be "molecular" (atomic or quantum) because you do things like heat it and it would boil away and have other problems with discontinuity. Even so the inertial particles if they are indeed (at any rate!) at the speed of light by LIGO would be quantum by way of Einstein's idea that light in relativity is constant uninfluenced from the source to the observer. Uninfluenced seem like quantum, and quantum like relativity is balanced where the in and out waves are equal, so I believed all quanta are limited at the speed of light via relativity. If the gravity particles however with enough outside force are faster than light for supermassive sources like black holes they might move inward at faster than light. Even so for most of the low energy physics around us unlike black holes or like the fractional charge in Chou's shelftop experiments, the speed of light would limit quanta. There has never been any disproof of relativity in quanta that have unified electric charge at more radius. (I believe this may not be coincidence and indeed the cause or symmetry of confinement in QCD. The electric field quantum numbers and the other quantum numbers all are just so and would fit due to a strong influence by Einstein. The exceptions to this may be inside the heavy quanta (via QCD) or other areas of super high  mass density. The extra ways to move inside the heavy quanta like baryons indeed would only be allowable if relativity was disproven and yet they must always add up to the nonfractional speed of light. Even so there are no quantum numbers for relativity other than the speed of light and the electric charges. In my belief, the only way the muon could suddenly have more mass as you add more above the electron level of energy is by faster than light spin inside the muon if mass is spinning energy and the other extra quantum numbers for heavy quanta have no comment in relativity.)

My Physics Synopsis GWD

Higgs' Gradients and The Speed of Light? RWT My Youtube VIDEO

My Youtube Video, Click Here For How the Higgs May Light Up History, and Other Uses of the Higgs' Laser

For my ideas about why gravity and inertia aren't the same thing, see the following post.

Why LIGO may Be The Speed of Inertia Not Gravity Waves...Einstein Believed Gravity Was The Same as Inertia. 

 On my posts and videos I discuss many reasons why I believed gravity might be faster than light. The Earth is more at rest than the sun, and is thus a more privileged reference zone about gravity (more observers would say the Earth is at rest than the moon, and more observers would agree the sun is at rest than the Earth Moon system) right, because gravity might be nonrelativistic.  The higher the speed of motion, the more the displacement of light, like an umbrella in the rain being of more vertical motion than the same rain when on a train. As Van Flandern notes, why is there no displacement by gravity of the Earth to the sun? This would be because of  gravity's superluminary or superluminal, motion, and allstar, and visastar show.. I believe the EPR is so much faster than light because by things like energy conservation and other conservation laws, all the attractive fields or all the radiant fields of quanta  are derived from the one low energy field of gravity inside the supermassive fields of black holes, both unifying the fields yet also this would be the source of all the fields around us. The reradiation at that density of the waves would be where all the motion around us comes from, not merely other motion. This might prove someday that gravity is where all the field derives of the quanta, and the Ancient Greek question Einstein asked also about the electron, "Why does the electron have the charge and mass it does or in the related ancient Greek "where does the unified world around us come from, and how does the changes in distinction arise from this?" ( My Irish is as ancient as it used to be!) There is no equation for the collapse of the wave function, it seems instant for all zones of the quanta. If a large mass used the waves to fizzle out a large number of the quanta, all we might get is a handful of dust like Carl Sagan says in Cosmos, or just ephemeral dust moving out at superluminal speed. If the radiant inward fields of all types are derived from and like gravity and gravity is faster than light, the low energy fields of this type are also faster than light. 

  The wavelength of light changes with the speed of the observer in Special Relativity. It would seem to need a faster than light connection to be influenced by the starships motion before the light reaches the observer. Why is there superluminal motion seen for cosmic jets?  A black hole of radius a has an escape velocity of c yet a larger black hole not have the same radius if its escape velocity was also c.. How can anything escape these fields like the jets if the escape velocity is c? If there is no singularity to conserve energy so no infinite implosion as Einstein himself demurred, and as others like T'Hooft and myself believe, it seems like only faster than light centrifugal force would be stronger than any other force inside the supermassive zone. If the field or space time in Special Relativity is empty, why is a force of push or pull felt on acceleration of the high speed observer, or any observer as the wavelength (or speed of motion of spin, or speed) of light changes? This would seem to fit Maxwell's idea of the resilient medium he then used to predict the speed of light so well. (If this is true, my idea may be that if gravity has resilience like Maxwell's medium, it being much much lighter than light might also be much faster, you lighten up to go fast.) And I believe the regular structure seen in the Wmap image of the CMB is so regular and symmetrical because of the speed of gravity so it unifies these and other huge cosmic areas.. And so on.

 You may say, strong claims need strong evidence and there are the 10,000 experiments proving Special Relativity, and the handful above that seem to be other science. Yet Einstein said if one of his ideas go they all go. And gravity isn't about Special Relativity. Like Mach, Einstein believed inertia is the same thing as gravity. But Einstein had a real labor trying to match inertia with gravity. Special Relativity, SR is about uniform motion and a constant speed of light. With gravity the speed changes and there is acceleration. Einstein tries to make gravity going down the same as the Earth moving up by millions of rockets to boost the same inertia as gravity. And by what seems to me this comic science would have us at the speed of light in a year at the comfortable speed of 32 ft/second.

Einstein believed old electrons weigh more than new electrons, and this would follow from the motion of the surface of the Earth if so, and experiments have disproved this..

 Sure predictions Einstein makes are about changes in acceleration, the shift of the orbit of Mercury, the bending of starlight, frame dragging, these are all about changes in acceleration, not uniform equal accelerations for all observers. Gravity seems non relative if only some accelerated observers are valid, this is not relativity of the observer . If any observer isn't relative, then I believe it's not about linear motion and the constant speed of light.

  So this seems to be why the speed of gravity waves might not be the speed of light.

Is LIGO disproof of this? Aside from the possibility of spoofing, like the OPERA failure and other problems with details of the machines, no doubt this may be also possible, with time we may find the evidence here.

 If the result is valid, this would be my explanation. It's possible the results are wrong, because of these reasons especially about acceleration of the black hole at c, how does the wave or any information reach us if it's not faster than c? In some important sense, somehow it seems to me gravity is indeed  faster than light. So I believe either the results like OPERA and Bicep2 may be wrong or gravity is faster than light.

 I think if Einstein believed gravity is inertia to fit constant speed, constant light motion  to General Relativity, he chose the speed of the inertial waves, not gravity. Why or how can gravity as a wave of acceleration not flex over a billion light years between us and the source? Gravity is an acceleration, shouldn't it speed up or slow down? I've held there has been no quantum gravity seen because gravity may be a set of unifying waves. While inertia may be about quanta like light and at the speed of light, I think the waves of LIGO if proven might be inertial waves that may only show the image of the distant event not the cause. I believe inertia is just a machine sort of and gravity waves are more like the ghost in the machine.

 I've held that gravity and inertia aren't the same because of e.g. the huge distinction of strength. A single high speed centrifuge can have 5 million gs of force, and the huge Earth has one even with it's larger mass. While it may be good to find inertial waves (they may allow good astronomy and more since centrifugal force doesn't shield metal plates) these may not be gravity. Einstein might have believed these were gravity waves and they do move at c.

 If the spoofing turns out to not be a goof, I think the energy of the LIGO waves may fit more with inertia, and this might tell us inertia and centrifugal force are at the speed of light, and thus a quantum field. Einstein believed light was a quanta in SR unchanged from the source, and if this is like constant motion and a constant speed of light, the quanta also go with any field at c like inertia. I've tended to believe the slow speed of inertia would be by disconnection of quanta like light. The slow quanta separate like the distance to the moon in 2 seconds, so only if gravity is faster the moon wouldn't sail away.

 I believe there is no quanta of gravity, or not nearly so much (some would be needed to cause gravity build up the mass around us, as I say elsewhere.) But gravity waves may be much much faster than inertial waves.

 The strength and thus the speed might be the same as the speed of the inertial field at c but scaled way down in strength to fit the change in the millions of g's of the gyroscope, up to the much lower energy, much higher speed of the waves.

  I believe there may in waves and out particles for inertia and centrifugal force, and out waves and in motion of the particles for gravity. Centrifugal force like inertia would have particles and the slower waves that radiate out with the sides and quanta that might keep the speed the same of the waves seen by LIGO. Gravity might need much faster waves than inertia to overpower the outward radiance of these quanta. Even so the waves for gravity may be tougher to find and if the waves seen are indeed inertial, the force they exert will be mostly by the particles, this was how Einstein would have found the equivalence (not equality) of gravity and inertia.  Inertia has sometimes been called pseudo gravity. So gravity and inertia may  have the same quanta but the waves are not the same. If the particles of inertia move outward and they exert most of the force of the wave seen by LIGO, it would seem that the waves found would also exert more force radiating outward than inward from the source.  If Einstein had predicted inertial waves to fit his vision of gravity as the same as no change in the speed of light for the given radius, gravity with inward radiation wouldn't have  outward radiation so much with each wave oscillation seen.


   To prove this an idea I had could be used except improved to see if it's faster than light. I used the idea of the Cavendish torsion machine in a satellite around the sun to sense  gravity from solar flares and other events, the most explosive events in the solar system. Or arrays of atomic clocks might be cheaper. If gravity is faster than light, we set the orbit of the sensor at a distance near enough to sense the event but far enough away to get enough shade! Or at any rate a way to have enough distance to see if the gravity is separate from the light and inertial waves. So first with the event, there might be the gravity wave seen almost immediately, then the inertial wave and light wave both arriving at say a half hour if the distance is half a light hour. This would seem to definitely separate gravity from inertia, and inertia in it's more relativistic way of the quanta. And since gravity radiates in not out, and centrifugal force or inertia seem to radiate out, the first motion of the gravity method would find the machine moving a bit more in with each wave as it passes, while centrifugal force radiates out and this would show on both the light and the sensor of the waves as Einstein believed. 

  If gravity is the same as inertia, and the force is much increased inside a gyroscope, there might be also strong changes in the gravity measured around the machine by relativity and there is no change here also.

As Van Flandern believed if the escape velocity of a massive body is the speed of light and this is the cosmic speed limit, no information of any kind about gravity or any wave can reach the outside. So I think of the union of the two super dense masses LIGO found as being first emitted by gravity waves inside the black hole, and these then reached the outside where the inertial waves then moved on their way our way. The inertial waves were set in motion by the gravity waves but may not be the same. The gravity waves may have passed by us billions of years ago.

 If gravity radiates inward to oneness, and centrifugal force radiates out with heat, (the "thermodynamic" speed of light more on my videos) the opposition of gravity and inertia as in GWD, has a changing speed for gravity, and the constant speed of light for inertia and Special Relativity. Light travels at one speed and is relative, while gravity travels at many speeds and is not so relative it seems. So gravity changes the speed of light, and inertia stays the same.

Here's my physics synopsis