Energy Conservation, Cosmic Mass Energy and High Speed Motion

Here want to recap first from my other posts and say that one reason LIGO seems seems incomplete about the speed of gravity to me and general relativity is incomplete because it's only one piece of evidence and Einstein's basis of his prediction for the change in the shift of the perihelion of mercury or the bending of starlight are all based on changes in speed, but his theoretical basis was that all masses fall at the same rate.

Gravity has a problem about causality if you have a pond and the waves start at the outside and then move inward towards the rock in a time reversed method that gravity would need if by Ligo the gravity is actually radiating outward by sensors. I hold that this is going to be solved by Ligo actually having found the speed of inertia or centrifugal force so important to special relativity which would radiate out.

My belief is that while this is evidence that inertia travels at the speed of light by LIGO to explain how gravity actually radiates inward I think it's possible that the classical electromagnetic field lines actually radiate out as found by LIGO and lays down tracks the gravity then follows back inward to the source gravity being much lower energy and much higher speed than like inertia or centrifugal force.

 

This also solves the problem of a changing speed and wavelength for the overlapping field of gravity. Otherwise from the acceleration the gravity waves would be incoherent unless they were moving back and forth in a zigzag inside the inertial or electromagnetic field lines on both sides and keeping them also from kinking up or breaking.

So I believe gravity is much faster than light by my use of Maxwell's method where he predicted the speed of light itself based on the resilience of the field.. more snapback gives higher or lower speed. (Gravity being the opposite of inertia like centrifugal force would radiate inward to one center as inertia would radiate out to many events and so as the snapback decreases its speed would increase unlike the speed of light itself.)

So due to causality and the truth that the speed of light is constant while gravity is an acceleration, this has led me to believe that what Ligo has measured is only something associated with gravity and not gravity itself. Certainly inertia has something to do with gravity but only a loose association and not a complete formulation like Einstein thought he had found the day that the man fall off the roof in Berlin and said he didn't feel any change as he fell. At this moment Einstein said it was the best day of his life because he'd realized he thought that as Maxwell had unified electricity and magnetism and so too gravity and inertia could be made to fit... but I would hold that since inertia is mostly not quantum and gravity being much less so because when you plug in the equations for quantum mechanics you get infinities for gravity, you can't force gravity to fit like the more quantized electromagnetic equivalence of Maxwell.

Gravity and inertia are something other than electromagnetic fields or we'd have quantum numbers for gravity and shielding. Inertia is more unlike heavy quanta and gravity may be more unlike inertia yet.

Relativity and How it would Change the Mass of the Universe and also Violate Cosmic Energy Conservation if True..

If we say that a high speed observer is equivalent to an observer at rest like the universe we might say that also high speed observers could change the mass of the universe and this would violate energy conservation and also we would have many different masses for the stuff around us.

  But if we say that the high speed observer is actually gaining their mass from the field locally to them and that the universe's frame of reference is actually more valid than that of the high speed observer or observers of different speeds, we can see why the cosmic mass is not changing all the time according to Special Relativity. One problem with the twin paradox is that the high speed twin would have a different age than the twin that hasn't traveled as far and stays on the Earth... I hold that the mass energy equivalence of Special Relativity is actually more like an energy energy equivalence because the supposed change in mass is more like an actual increase in the energy by way of interaction with motion of the field. Since mass actually is more important to the universe than energy because as I say heavier quanta like fermions would have the phase change inside and spin faster than the speed of light to give them their rest mass and distinction in rest mass that relativity can't explain and also because one or the other is going to be truer than the other by the way of science and mass and energy can't be equally valid so the universe's frame of reference is more valid, you don't have a whole lot of different masses for the universe depending on the motion of the high speed observer.

I also believe that the heavy quanta also have a phase change that keeps the field lines of gravity from going inside and getting stronger so we don't have shielding because gravity has a sort of invisibility cloak that wraps around the outside of the heavy quanta sort of like paramagnetism or other certain shields that have been devised by engineers.

So not only are the quanta separate and violating relativity by being spinning inside faster than the speed of light but they also are maintaining something internal that's not relative to the observer.

This was what Einstein thought about the quanta and how just to observe is not to measure. My belief is that because of the phase change in line removal the quanta like fermions act like small gyroscopes that stabilize what relativity would otherwise not allow.. the universe's frame of reference is more valid in this respect and doesn't change its mass because of both line removal and the change of phase that allows the fermions to spin faster than light inside.  If mass is spinning energy this faster than light spin would also be where the proton gets 97% of its mass that can't be accounted for by way of the quanta.

The problem about relativistic mass augment of the quanta would be solved because the line removal may limit interaction with the external field to gain that energy from and also the phase change.

Above all else about special relativity Einstein believed that the only thing that determines what happens in special relativity is the connection by way of the light. But if we allow a simple phase change and reduced interaction with the rest of the field as with gravity going between the inertial field lines this is no problem.

About the reversal of time supposed to be possible by some this will be be just as an airplane going faster than the sound doesn't make it so that the sound waves reverse in time to reach us faster.. this without reversal of time has never been proven and is not a guarantee of relativity.

Indeed if space and time are unified and you went backwards through space you'll go backwards through time and this is more evidence that relativity is unfinished..

Because the movie of the motion of the high speed observer is only changed in its speed of playback by relativity and not the events themselves and because the light is relatively slow in its connection over great distances and the gravity is indeed lower energy we can see that while energy or time change for the electromagnetic fields about the speed of light and relativity, the cosmos with its greater mass has a more valid frame of reference and attracts by way of the gravity more than relativity would allow.

The relativistic changes are small and not with much connection while the universe changes not much in the spin of its heavy quanta because the mass component of the quanta would spin at faster than light with little influence by the motion of the high speed observers and would be more essential.

Time being caused mostly by the spin of heavy quanta like small clocks and the relativity of electromagnetic fields over great distances would not really connect up well and the gravity and mass waves of the heavy quantum ultimately would win out.. this would be because the much higher speed of the matter waves that gives the quanta of their mass would actually be more fundamental with more distance because they also connect everything up unlike the quanta of light which Einstein thought of as fundamental to special relativity.

Mass is more fundamental than energy even while both are obviously important and the universe in general has more mass than a small energy observer at high speed and so the universal frame of reference tends to be more valid.

While Einstein repeatedly says the Doppler shift is important to special relativity which is about waves, mostly he says that light is a particle uninfluenced from emission to absorption unlike waves and so light has a constant speed and so doesn't connect like waves of low energy like the matter waves or gravity. By relativity the light isn't being influenced or changed as it travels and "it carries itself". The gravity would change both speed and wavelength and so it's interacting with its own wave as it travels to give the acceleration of gravity that relatively doesn't allow because it's mostly about uniform motion and the constant speed of light and inertial frames. This also would violate energy conservation because without a connection between the distant observers by the "slow" speed of light energy would radiate out and be being lost to the universe.

Tesla believed that large masses like galaxies couldn't hold together by a "slow" speed of light. Because of the separate times of relativity where you can't know what's before after at a star like Alpha Centauri for like four years while light travels back from here to there this essentially means there is no causal connection other than a loose connection between here and more distant events. That is to say the points will become more and more separate by random internal motion with time and this would seem to be solved only if gravity can connect them up by a faster than light connection.

Elevators, Gravity, and Atomic Clocks

  I offer other evidence for the non relativity tendency of gravity on other posts.

 Einstein believed he had found a way to equal Maxwell, you may remember Maxwell was Einstein's most influential influence in science.

 Maxwell connected electricity and magnetism by the speed of light but they are quanta and obey E mc2 while gravity seems nonquantum and obeys the more general f=ma.

 So my belief is because gravity is more wavelike and less quantum, it can't be easily equated to the quantum of light. Maxwell's method seemed to be Einstein' s goal yet there is no assurance the cosmos will fit our will, and it may be more complex than by our need.

 Einstein, so the story goes was in Berlin and someone fell off the roof yelling he felt no force while he was falling. And Einstein thought, this is so cool, what if gravity is not a force?

 Newton believed force distinguishes motion from non motion. The way Einstein hoped to outacheive even Maxwell here about gravity was by the observation that all masses when raised to the same height fall at the same rate.  Einstein believed, we have no need to distinguish force from nonforce here because the masses fall the same way.

 As I discuss elsewhere, it takes distinction of the masses to raise them to the same height by force, and while they fall at the same rate they also release different forces when they hit the Earth.

 And Einstein's epiphany here was that if all masses fall at the same rate,

and all observers are valid it becomes as valid to say the mass falls down, or by expansion the Earth is rushing up as if boosted by millions of rockets.

 Even so and while we can laugh at this at a comfortable rate of 32 ft second,  the Earth would be at the speed of light in less than a year!

  And then based on this Einstein goes on to say all observers are valid though by relativity not equally convenient. So he uses Mcutcheon's idea of field expansion.

 Mcutcheon's idea is much the same as Einstein's and makes no predictions Einstein doesn't make.

  As I say Einstein uses the distinction of masses to then observe them at the same rate of fall where there is supposed to be no distinction.

  Yet the masses when released have distinction of force which Einstein ignores and then makes his predictions based on the lack of change where the masses fall at the same rate where by  the "relativity of gravity"; these predictions like the shift of the perihelion of Mercury, the bending of starlight, frame dragging and so on, all are based on changes in acceleration not the lack of distinction of the earth and the masses falling to it.

 Even beyond these contradictions in both his idea and how he arrives at the prediction which contradicts the idea, Einstein also makes opposite predictions, that these changes in acceleration ate evidence for relativity, yet another prediction Einstein makes is that masses also fall at exactly the same rate.

  On this post in particular I want to look at another type of evidence Einstein considered, the famous elevator events and the redshift of gravity and with it the slowing of clocks in gravity.

  Superficially the slowing of clocks may seem to be good evidence for the relativity of gravity. Einstein' s further belief was that- due to the equivalent rate of fall as above! all inertial accelerated frames are completely equivalent to the gravity frames.

"All experiments in an inertial elevator  accelerating at 32 ft/second are totally indistinguishable from the same experiments in an elevator near the Earth not in free fall"..

  Einstein derives this from his further thought experiment about the inertial accelerating elevator. Imagine a ray of light buzzing through the port of the ship and out the other side. If it's accelerating up at 32 ft/second, the light is in an inertial frame.

 You may remember in special relativity the speed of light is no doubt constant. Einstein strongly believed this because of light being a particle, unchanged by waves from source to sight. So the speed of light in SR is strongly dependant on it not interacting with the field nearby.

  Even so Einstein was constantly invoking the doppler shift in SR and it has strong wave influence. Are all the 30+ wave experiments in support of  this suddenly absent because of Einstein' s belief? This seems doubtful, Indeed Einstein was the founder of the wave particle equivalence in QM.

  At any rate Einstein invokes the quanta of light in the inertial ray of light, moving at 32 ft/ second. There is no force acting on the quanta. In Einstein's view the light has no interaction with the starship at all. Its motion is exactly the same as the 32 feet per second acceleration of the starship and the light is in its rest frame as it moves.

 Einstein then attempts to make this the same as the gravity elevator even with problems like the upward acceleration of the Earth's surface at 32/ft second to the speed of light I mention above-the cosmic elevator seems best.

 In the gravity elevator the light is bent to the same parabolic arc as the inertial acceleration of the 32/ft. "Surely they must be the same" Einstein says, if atomic clocks also slow in the strong gravity according to the same type of reasoning.

  You look downwind of the field in both elevators and as the light rises up to see the atomic clock on the base of the elevator, the flow of the field gives the redshift of the field and the blueshift looking up just like with atomic clocks in gravity right?

 One major problem is about the fact that experiments with light show that light slows down in gravity. If the elevators are the same and with no force or interaction this would be an easy way to find inertia isn't the same as gravity in the elevators.

  Another problem is about what dropping masses involves. At t1 or t2 the masses move at the same rate in both elevators. Even so with a bit of trial and error the right frame of motion in the inertial elevator can cancel out the acceleration apart of the two masses so they are in uniform motion by using the right frame of motion. Yet all observers in the gravity elevator will agree the masses are accelerating apart.

  To me it seems surprising Einstein never thought of these events, surely

Special Relativity is indeed great and much of what he did.

Here I want to also discuss a second set of elevators.

  This is about weightless elevators. One is in orbit with weightless dieters who sail around and save with the elevator radially oriented around in its fall around the Earth.

 An equivalent elevator -via the flab reduced! is an elevator farther away from the source of gravity without acceleration.  

 The second elevator becomes equivalent because of the weight of masses in both machines. So here I equate gravity and no force with uniform motion.

  Atomic clocks slow in gravity and this is promoted as evidence the relativity of gravity. As in the above about the accelerated elevators, Einstein considered the atomic clocks are important. Both gravity accelerated elevators in orbit or at rest by the Earth show the slowing of the clocks.

  Yet with the weightless elevators the inertial elevator will show no change in the clocks yet the orbiting machine has a change in the clocks from base to the higher radius.

  This is due to base of the elevator being closer to the Earth. In my belief this would be because gravity is at a different wavelength and speed than inertia.

 The x and y coordinates of a ballistic arc are completely independent. But if inertia was at the speed of light like inertia as found by LIGO they would be the same and there would be no ballistic arc.

  So I believe LIGO has found something associated with gravity, but perhaps not gravity itself.

  In the orbiting elevator there is no weight yet the atomic clocks continue with the same change as the clocks in the gravity at rest. This would be because inertia like centrifugal force outward is moving
at a different speed and energy outward than the gravity so they balance and are without weight in the orbiting machine.

  Because the clocks slow in both the elevator at rest near the Earth and the elevator in orbit yet one is with no weight while the other has weight the gravity has definite distinction from the inertia, and the Equivalence of gravity and with it the relativity of gravity and its speed of light waves may evidence that LIGO isn't proof of the relativity of gravity.

  While inertia would move at the speed of light because of the influence of relativity, even so inertia isn't gravity or the Earth and moon would orbit at the same rate around each other.

  Motion is distinguished from non motion by force. Otherwise all masses would move at the same rate with the same force like Einstein's idea about field expansion and this seems to be a special limited event. To distinguish the gravity and inertia why not just look out and see if you are by the Earth and the Equivalence is disproved.

  Einstein limits our ability to to this so it may "look good" yet the light is so all important in Special Relativity, it seems Einstein might have realized the value of this method!

Ways to Prove or Disprove This

 Eventually we might find star systems with a pulsar and a visible second star. It's been known the sun goes in 11 year neutrino cycles and this would be caused by Jupiter's 11 year orbit causing the changes in its magnetic field as I say elsewhere. These changes then cause the sunspot cycles which cause changes in pressure to then cause the neutrino flux.

 So if we find a binary star with a strong pulsar in orbit the spin of the jets motions like precession might be enough by gravity to influence the light output of the second star.

 So in terms of the radiation flux of the star the relatively complex changes in the precession of the pulsar might show up almost immediately by the gravity waves, yet the same changes in the second star would only show up in a year at the energy level of light and the LIGO influence of the signal from a year before if the two stars are a light year away from each other and the LIGO signal is only at the speed of light.

 This would be about timing above all. So in order to get a good signal from both the pulsar and the star we might want to compensate by waiting till the two stars are at right angles to us in the orbit, one away, one to us..

 A second way to achieve the proof or disproof of this is to use atomic clocks which are becoming portable to measure gravity and sending the clocks in an array perhaps a half a light hour from the Sun.

 The gravity from a huge event like a flare might show up almost right away with the clocks while the light and signal like LIGO would arrive with a half hour wait.

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 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