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 Bosons and Fermions are Distinct... 
  Perhaps Because Bosons are Simple Like Waves and Spin at c and Fermions Spin at Faster Than Light Inside;

By Local "MASS ENERGY INEQUIVALANCE", Because Mass and Energy are Equivalent But Not Equal in Relativity

 I once said to my grandmother when I was a teen that democrats then were smarter than the republicans, and she said, they're equally smart just in different ways. And this made me think.

 You may say mass and energy are equivalent, so there is no extra centrifugal force of the atoms or energy radiating out of the Earth in violation of energy conservation. Yet I believe my grandmother's remark tells us about the deeper truth. In a healthy civilization the democrats and conservatives are in balance like the energy of centrifugal and inward force. Even so there are definite distinctions in how they act and live that can be measured.

 The local realms of symmetry in my belief are not equal even if equivalent because if they were equal, the electron and plus charge would be so much  alike as Maxwell believed the light wouldn't propagate through the field. If you have a weighing machine and you look at the speed of the signal between the weights on the beam, it's bound to be far faster than the weights. Empty space couldn't balance the local symmetries if the light only carries itself. And this idea that the wavelength of the light wave changes before it reaches the observer is evidence that the connecting matter wave of Special Relativity is indeed faster than light that connects it with the high speed observer so information about the momentum and wavelength of light are conserved.

 The faster than light matter wave and the local distinctions that can be measured both seem evidence that relativity is incomplete.

   I believe Einstein's rejection of the Kaluza Klein method for the cause of the mass and charge of the electron was incomplete. If mass is caused by spinning energy, the mass of the electron, the deep scattering experiments, and renormalization follow more straightforwardly by assuming its internal spin is faster than light. If mass is spinning energy, there's more internal mass than the speed of light spin would allow.

 The Kaluza Klein method involves higher dimensional spin inside for the electron, and I believe  Einstein rejected this for two reasons; the faster than light spin is forbidden by Relativity, and the change of phase needed (to throw off the relativistic events) would violate the Unified Field.

(The Kaluza Klein has been considered to be the foundation of the idea of more advanced physics of the 11 dimensions inside the quanta predicted by some physicists. I don't know that there has been evidence yet for this but it has had real influence in the history of physics, so far!)

What happens if we accept the FTL spin of the heavy quanta? We have an explanation for rest mass. Relativity has no cause for rest mass that Einstein could have advanced by use of the Kulaza Klein method..

 Note that if there is no faster spin and all quanta spin only at the speed of light, since light already spins at c because it moves at c, and slower motion for a heavy quanta is essentially not allowed by conservation of angular momentum.

There can be no electron or any particle heavier than light if relativity is true and momentum is conserved. The electron like light would spin inside at the speed of light. If mass is spinning energy and it all spins at c, unlike my idea GWD, there can be no complexity of mass like extra quantum numbers for the hadrons predicted by Special Relativity.

  So by rest mass not predicted by Relativity, the muon suddenly gains weight from .5 mev to 105 mev because not only is the electron that creates it spinning at faster than light inside, the change it the electron to the muon involves another phase change than from lower energy light to the electron.

 So I believe in the Kaluza Klein and also that Chou's tunneling experiments about the heavy nuclei have Faster than light spin. Chou himself says he doesn't believe this is disproof of relativity because he holds the wave to be only the average so while some of the wave is faster than light, this fits Einstein's belief. Yet Einstein said no signal containing information can move faster than light.

 I hold In my idea GWD General Wave Dynamics any wave has to contain information to keep it internally stable in its rest frame, etc. so if it's a wave that's faster than light it contains information by definition.

 (So I believe we might be able to refine Chou's experiments with methods like shortening the distance from the emission to the absorption of the FTL tunneling wave and so speed it up or slow it from faster to faster than light! And e.g. we could change from one limb of the spinning heavy quantum it's tunneling through for proof of FTL etc. )

  You may ask, "Isn't this solvable about rest mass if we say all the quanta spin at the speed of light? All the gradiations of masses of the heavy quanta are with the same external speed of spin outside, and this is by way of just changing the radius, all at the speed of light".


Note that if we simply allow different radii for the speed of light of the spin, these radii couldn't communicate because no sideways radial FTL signal would be allowed by Relativity to connect them and the disconnection would give internal structure to the electron with the different radii, like a shear force. Yet the electron "has no internal structure" just the smooth quantum well, and no more.

My other reply is that this wouldn't explain the distinction between bosons and fermions as I'll try to elaborate on this post. If they are distinct, there may be evidence for the Kaluza Klein and a phase change, mass and energy aren't equal, and this would involve more than relativity.

 Note also that the radius also would have to fit Planck's constant and the speed of light if it's truly universal.  If the sideways motion is at the speed of light, there can be no radial change, and all the masses like the plus and minus charge are the same.

  This idea that the internal spin is FTL  would be the cause of the experimental evidence found in the 1970's that there are indeed the virtual spacelike and timelike photons as predicted by Einstein. I wondered about this when I was in my 20's . If "time is reversed" for FTL in Relativity, yet there is no evidence around us yet seen for FTL, perhaps the solution might be seen by Feynman’s idea about the particles and antiparticles having time reversal. Einstein believed that the FTL interval balanced the slower motion with the 0 interval at the speed of light. At first I tried to fit this to just say as with the reversed spin of the particles like small clocks, the plus charges move fast nearer to c and the minus charges move slow as in nonrelativite distinction of mass and energy, and the 0 interval wouldn't be the speed of light, rather at 1/2 the speed of light, mediated perhaps by the light between them. Even so I searched for evidence for this 0 interval at half the speed of light, and there is no great cosmic resonance at one half the speed of light.

So I left this for rest and cogitation, and more recently I have a possible more advanced way of solving this.

  If the spacelike and timelike virtual photons exist, and if  we look all around for all the motion at slower than light we find real evidence the FTL interval isn’t a mere idea if both spacelike and timelike photons exist there would seem to be a real area where the FTL motion exists. So the real way the FTL motion exists that would seem to give the interaction and symmetry between the virtual photons would be about the FTL events and where they physically exist is inside the spins of the heavier quanta. Faster than light internal spin would solve this otherwise unresolved symmetry of the virtual photons.

  One problem in relativity is about mass. Sure you can say the outside of each quantum spins at the speed of light, this by simple use of Planck's constant. But constance while of real value to Relativity has the problem that if mass is spinning energy and all the quanta are spinning at the quantum speed of light, they would all have mass of 1 and minus 1 etc. (I say in my belief, the Uncertainty Principle gives mass as spinning energy because it uses the relationship between mass or momentum and time in a definite way. If time is about frequency and is a curve in higher math, mass and time become more the same. If you add more mass to a spinning body it tends to spin faster and time speeds up, for the Earth or for a quantum..)

   The idea of a phase change to allow change of mass being change in energy and without so much interaction with the outside field and Planck's constant would allow many masses of many wavelengths and energies inside. So if all the quanta are made of the matter waves and mass is spinning energy by way of the Uncertainty Principle, we take the matter waves as we find them and look at resonances and interference and so on and then we simulate by putting them inside the electron, calculate the speed and see if we can use the derived information to predict when the electron becomes a muon and so on for all the heavy quanta eventually.

  One use of the idea may be about the distinction between fermions and bosons. Bosons would spin at the speed of light like energy, and the fermions with the phase change would all spin inside at Faster Than Light. The faster than light phase change from Relativity doesn't allow compatibility. This is why you can put two bosons like light in the same place and time, yet the fermions are more solid and don't unify as well so by the phase change and FTL spin, mass is indeed distinct from the energy of the bosons, so the two types of particles fermions and bosons are a sort of cosmic balancing point,  relative and non relative. Energy is simple more like a wave, and mass is more complex like with more complex quantum numbers.

  Relativity says they are equivalent, but if they aren't equal, there must be more than relativity in physics.

  The phase change and FTL that Einstein didn't accept for the electron would allow another great idea that he also hoped to solve. The phase change gives the (non relativistic) stability of the quanta and the world around us. So if this is "disproof of relativity" it's also a way Einstein was also right in a deeper way, even if his ideas about relativity are "non absolute".

  I believe the Higg's field outside the quanta gives mass instead of the internal spin..Wilczek recently won a Nobel prize by his work that shows the high energy Higgs' gives only 1/5th the mass of the heavy fractional charges in QCD. This would follow from Line Removal. The mass is caused more from the outside, this isn't ruled out.  First, the spin is internal. If you want to milk a cow, you don't go out in the middle of the field with your stool and wait for the cow to back up to you to milk the cow. So too if the Higgs' field is flat, I believe it may no more cause mass than uniform motion causes acceleration.


  The low energy Higgs' has been discovered, and I believe it gives mass by being in the interface between the internal spin of the heavy quanta and the external flat Higgs' field. The heavy quanta spin (externally only at the speed of light). And this imparts spin to the Low Energy Higgs (LEH). The LEH's are also spinning at much faster than light but with much shorter wavelength (as Einstein believed about low energy quanta to get around quantum uncertainty) than allowed by Planck's constant and the speed of light, this would also be how the LEH are an independant parameter in the Standard physics.. These act like much smaller gyroscopes to stabilize and transmit the information about the momentum of the field through the  Higgs' field itself. In truth mass mass may be a combination of the internal spin of the quanta the LEH, and the Higgs' field, all three are needed to conserve the changes in momentum and energy conservation of the field. Even so because of the phase change and FTL motion of the mass, it is distinct from mass in relativity, there is no cause for mass in SR. Einstein believed mass isn't strictly speaking thermodynamic, yet electromagnetic fields have mass too.



 You may know that at high energy, light behaves like a heavy particle. Yet they both travel at the speed of light. This would only be possible if mass is spinning energy  if there is distinction in the spin not found in SR. One important thing about this way of distinction of mass and energy is about the simplicity of energy vs. the complexity of mass as it relates to the collapse of the wave function.

This might be also a bit distinct between bosons and fermions. If bosons spin only at the speed of light and fermions spin inside at faster speeds, at some radii where the FTL spin is influencing the collapse of the wave function, I believe the distinction of mass and energy might give a slightly different speed of the collapse.

 So high energy light might collapse a bit faster than other light all else held the same.

  Einstein and Lorentz held that space contracts in the line of motion in order to explain the difference between motion and non motion.

 Here I offer the following explanation since Einstein offered none. The small low energy Higgs' quanta (which have been predicted and recently found by experiment) exert the pressure that causes the contraction. We haven't directly seen the low energy field since it is mostly wavelike and converts over to much faster than light externally. It becomes like a superfluid here so it's much faster than light and this changes its phase so it's so efficient we don't usually find evidence for it even while it maintains the conservation of momenta of the low energy external fields.

I believe in Newton's idea that the low energy flat Higgs' field is a way the spinning bucket of water "knows" if it's spinning or not. This may only be a way to measure spin if a gyroscope only senses changes in rotation not linear motion, so it's not as absolute as he believed. Note that this version of the low energy field of gravity and inertia isn't at rest. It moves at higher speed than light as the EPR speed and at the speed of gravity by its low displacement toward the sun. The field gives way and causes force only at the ROA with the LEH by proxy all deputies sign up! This would be why Einstein and Mach believed only the relative motion of mass and energy were what "matters"! The low energy waves exist to send information about energy conservation between such as the starship and the light in SR. Because they give way so well to find like of the heavy quanta, they only so to maintain the common forces seen around us in such a passive way, as if the space and time are empty as Einstein believed. So other than the low energy Higgs' field the spinning bucket might use, this way of connection of all the external events would not be so much any absolute source of rest by which motion is measured as a way of sending and storing information about changes in Mass and energy reliably. This is why the Michealson Morely found no evidence for the Medium Maxwell assumed even while it conserves energy. Or for example if you run around the room, the medium is there and you feel the force by change of your motion by way of the LEH at the ROA of each quantum exercise boost yet the outside waves being low energy and more slippery slide and make it so you don't knock down the lady near you in the gym with the force of the wave needed even so to conserve energy. The low energy waves and particles would also be the dark matter and the same general evidence would be there like the evidence for dark matter. And both would seem invisible to sensors even while it makes up most of the cosmos, this in essence is more evidence for dark matter. It may be what you find all around.


Light is a transverse wave with large density of snapback and the particles at ROA  (Radius  Of Action ,see below) would be the cause at its radius, even so for constant motion at greater distance the waves are not so quantum and they give way much more smoothly, this is why Stokes believed the medium was like sealing wax, with strong force of high speed impact and giving way under slow or continued force of low energy. The light has a large snapback at the ROA yet the planets move through the waves with no resistance not because the waves are not viable, even while they have the important value of maintaining the momentum and energy conservation of all the fields by connecting the inside spin with the outside motions of the fields.

 The pressure of the particles freezes in by way of the force between the plus and minus electric charges as Maxwell believed to predict the speed of light exactly based on the force between them as in resilience of the medium.  The plus and minus charges act like a weight and counterweight of the elevator, so uniform motion continues without awareness as much by the high speed observer.

  This would seem like terminal velocity with the cushion falling in the air and the Earth's gravity except there is no friction felt because while the waves try to move the body in uniform motion at higher speed ahead, the particles try to slow the motion with the result being uniform motion like terminal velocity. The one major distinction is there is no friction unlike the cushion due to the reversal of entropy for the quanta inside. So the LEH exert pressure only on the outside of each heavy quanta at what I call the ROA Radius of Action. This would seem to be the cosmic balancing point between mass and energy, a balancing point where the Higgs' doesn't disappear even at the lowest energy unlike all the other heavy quanta in physics. 

 So here the Lorentz contraction is caused by the pressure of the LEH, these waves are not commonly seen even though they are in all the field, and since the heavy quanta have to be held together more than radiate out to exist as we see them, they have attraction and negative entropy, at least on the outside near the ROA, and so. And so the LEH exerting pressure only exert pressure on the outside of the heavy quanta and don't cause reradiance like the cushion because of negative entropy, like e.g. gravity which radiates in more than out (and I believe indeed that this outer zone of the quanta is derived from gravity, and so as others say, gravity may have important connections to the collapse of the wave function).

 So this idea of terminal velocity would explain uniform motion by a mechanical method and also the Lorentz contraction, for which Einstein offered no cause.

 Near the speed of light there is more and more pressure on the heavy quanta and this creates the augment of the mass. The rest mass comes from the FTL phase change inside of the heavy quanta, and this is why the more mass an object has the slower it tends to move by simple conservation of angular momentum.  Einstein' believed that at near the speed of light the observer would notice no real change or nothing unusual in the starship going on. Even so I think first the quanta would line up as e.g. electrons with high energy fields. This would change many of the properties of the events in the starship, this isn't mere change of space and time, this would involve events like changes in different historys seen by two observers at different speeds watching the higher speed starship. Since when the two observers match up the different historys of the two observations can't be time reversed even while the thermodynamic heat will cause different historys (e.g. change in the thermostat would cause more accidents, leading to time spent healing the accident, and other events) if relativity is true and the observers are absolute, even so they can't be time reversed when the observers of different speeds compare movies.

If you take a helix and force it against the wall, it would make the "events of its spin" go faster by the helix being "squashed". Since in the theorems time is always proportional to frequency, and also time is an acceleration, the spins of the quanta like small clocks would speed up even while slowing even more as seen by the distant observer.

So in my belief the Lorentz contraction with time might speed up onboard the high speed starship.  The distant observer sees the time slow down even more. This would be because of the stretching of the redshift of the light. Note that the relative red shift is in any direction unlike the doppler redshift, and I believe this is due to the internal force exerted on the field by the LEHs so it’s compressed by the field yet reacts more in radiance for the redshift, like the sun has gravity to squeeze out the heat of fusion at another wavelength of the energy.

 And the reason for the paradoxical distinction is here again, the distinction of mass and energy. The mass of the starship and the predicted speeding of time is overbalanced in this way by the even more influential slowing of time at long range as in relativity due to the opposition of the long wavelength light which is like energy, and the mass of the starship. Like truth and falsehood in life and science one or the other will win out, and while relativity wins out for long range observers, I believe this would be another possible way to disprove the complete equality of mass and energy.

 As I say elsewhere, these ideas about the speeding of time locally and the polarization of light not found in SR may be testable in the lab by way of my invention, what I call the Relativistic Wind tunnel, RWT. This involves the idea that since motion is relative, we send the high speed motion of a field like light with lasers or masers past the small starship in the lab to find effects like the Fitzgerald contraction, the polarization of the quanta and this idea of the speedup of time onboard the machine. If the speed of light is more thermodynamic and not about empty space time, there may be more complex events involved with the RWT than Einstein believed. And at the least the RWT will help us find the Fitzgerald contraction, since only the slowing of light not the change of the contraction yet has been found as in particle accelerators. While all the physics of the accelerators and other machines fit Relativity, due to the ideas like the inequality of mass and energy as above, there may be more in store.

  If mass is spinning energy you might wonder about the recent experiments that show mass may be spin independant. I would think since the gravity is at another energy than the inertial field (if gravity and inertia are the same "where's the huge gravity around an ultracentrifuge"? And the inertia radiates out not in like gravity.) the gravity waves of the quanta go through the slower speed of light realm of Planck's constant on the outside (this  FTL motion is needed to cause the information about momentum to be moved outside and in). The slower speed of the quantum spin at the higher radii might convert the FTL spin of the outer radii to a more radial motion by an exchange of motion and this interaction would be why the quanta don't accelerate indefinitely and they conserve momenta well. The pressure between the inner spin and the quantum spin which resists the FTL would give the radial acceleration of gravity.

 Or as I say elsewhere the speed of the gravity may be so hugely more by GWD it would have only a small change in the spin with the net acceleration compared on both sides of the quanta at c, even so it wouldn't be a zero change with spin and its magnitude of the effect is readily based on the speed of gravity compared to the speed of light spin.

   Finally I want to say that recent evidence seems to show that high energy light from cosmic sources seems to travel at a different speed than low energy light, high energy light arrives a few seconds before the lower energy wave.

  (I would think because of light being a boson as you add on more energy it would move more slowly it being the opposite of the fermions, as in the opposition of mass and energy.)  Relativity tells us that the light is the same as space time, and if all the changes fit inside the constant speed of light, there is "no room for relativity about change in the light itself". Light is at the speed of light yet it connects with all the rest of the quanta at slower than the speed of light. Yet how can light both move at the absolute speed of light and slower than light also? It would need something Faster Than Light to connect its already speed of light motion to change into the higher energy. Light at high energy behaves like a heavy quanta as expected if it has internal FTL spin, yet by relativity light is simple and without change. As I say elsewhere the Equivalence Principle and the ideas about the equivalence of mass and energy both seem to involve unlike masses moving at like speeds with the same force applied.

 Yet if Einstein assumes mass and inertia are the same, he's assuming what he's trying to prove. You raise different masses to the same height and they fall at the same rate because it took that much more mass to raise the heavier weight and that much more energy is liberated by the heavy mass as it falls. Yet using the same force gives a different rate of motion and they fall at different rates like the earth and moon.

 Due to conservation of momentum and angular momentum, a heavy mass tends to move slower with the same force applied. So if high energy light has had the same force often applied, we would expect heavier light to move at another speed than low energy light. This result about the different speeds of light hasn't yet made it into the mainstream of physics, even so I think it may be...if of worth to us in R and D about science...

 Like the moon falling around the Earth at different speeds, it seems possible that this high and low energy light sight may allow the two light waves to bend at different rates with the gravity lens, something Einstein's ideas wouldn't allow.

 WHAT ABOUT LIGO?

 Mach and Einstein  believed gravity and inertia are essentially the same thing.  LIGO may have found an event associated with the gravity at the speed of light. If it's inertia then it would be at the speed of light since inertia and SRT with its absence of gravity is much about the speed of light. But gravity has an extra tensor that can't be transformed away.  If inertia is what LIGO has found and it's at the speed of light, SRT says it can only change wavelength. I believe it may change both speed and wavelength, because of the extra tensor and because gravity is an acceleration. So LIGO would have the radiant outward particles of the equivalence of centrifugal force. It radiates out from the source. Gravity on the other hand would change both speed and wavelength and the particles would move inward..  So if we have three sensors at three radii, at different radii of the Earth they would change wavelength, but by the much larger speed of gravity, there may be a small change in relative motion of the speed of the sensors.


 Even if gravity moved at the speed of light, due to the coherence of the field, the inward particle motion at any speed at all means that this change could be sent as information back to the source of gravity at the nearer radius.

 The real reason I would hold that you can't add your speed to the speed of light in Special Relativity is because the light is more a particle as Einstein believed, uninfluenced from emission to sensor, and this is because light is more quantum.

 When you plug in gravity to quantum equations you get infinities, and it would be because gravity isn't mostly quantum. This the coherence of gravity would seem to be a real measure of its faster than light motion, at any rate for the waves.

   So if you shake a mass at the higher radius, in GWD General Wave Dynamics, the information in gravity wavelengths would arrive at faster than light for the inner radius. The light would only send the information at due to Planck's constant and relativity's power over the heavier quanta like light,  but the complete continuity Einstein believed in for gravity wouldn't always just give received knowledge, it may be by the much higher speed allowing the connection of gravity. Complete continuity would be infinite.

  Others hope to use Feynmann's idea that if two quanta can be in resonance and superimposed, and Feynmann believed that if this is done by gravity of the quanta, by improved sensors, then gravity is quantum. To me this seems like saying if a wave interacts with a boat, this is real proof the boat is made of the wave! So I disagree with Feynmann here, and the cause of infinities when you plug gravity in quantum equations is because gravity is more a wave and nonquantum.

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