Information and The Speed of Gravity

 In the Discover magazine article "Why Does Gravity Travel at the Speed of Light?" (Link below) Eric Betz holds that the picture is quite simple....

"...The speed of gravity is just the speed of information" no more, no less. To me this seems not so definite because you may remember Einstein never actually defined what information or a signal is or was!

This doesn't look as good for relativity to me at least about the speed of gravity if we look at the definition of what information or signal really are.

In the information math there has been much debate about what the definition of information is.

People have debated so much in information science that they haven't agreed and there have been more than 70  basic definitions attempted to nail down what information is. "What is this stuff.." Right!

  Relativity and action reaction events seem to be more the basis of much and as a physicist at any rate, I would believe right at the foundation of energy conservation or relativity  we're going to find something that's more solid than most definitions of something like "even yes, right, wisdom.."

So here's my definition of information or a signal;

... "change in one place that can be correlated with a change in another place and with energy or mass exchange between those two changes to mediate the exchange"..

  As I want to say here if this turns out to be the fundamental definition of information I think this may be of value about connectivity.

  I think it's not easy to put any kind of speed on information with all of the speeds around us of information! Matter and energy on the other hand move in regular ways..

As in the collapse of the wave function or about the speed of gravity to save Relativity, some believe in information as something that doesn't travel between bodies or events. This way it can travel at any speed and allows the speed of light or gravity to fit right in because we don't know what else it could be and only because of that.

This is the same idea used by some to describe the speed of the collapse of the wave function. "It's a black box, because we can't see inside yet which we don't yet know it must be at the speed if light because of Relativity which we do know."

In the history of science, there are black box after black box being lit up, as science has gotten, brighter! Because it might be like Relativity doesn't mean it is..

I believe Einstein was so concerned about the speed of wave function events because he knew intuitively that matter is being moved from one point to another in the collapse of the wave function, at faster than light. By my definition of information and a signal there's a connection between them and not just information which seems to like it hasn't got much physical meaning and if I were Einstein and believed in relativity so much I would have been a bit concerned too.

Perhaps for just a moment in all the hustle around him he might have remembered back to when he was thinking about that idea about information and a signal and in his elation about relativity he may have forgotten that there are other truths than employees because there are employers not just employees and the moon does full at a different rate around the Earth than the Earth around the Moon and there are privileged observers part of the time that are common. 

All known fundamental interactions are mediated by the exchange of an intermediate boson. None are added on with the more slippery idea of those 70 or so other definitions of information. 

  This is why this one simple definition may narrow down all the other definitions. They may be only derived from this based on energy conservation or action reaction events in physics not math or information (as if it exists without a basis). As you may know in the history of science and math, great math has only followed great science like physics most of the time, not the other way around. This and the foundation of Relativity and energy conservation as far as it goes is why I believe my definition of a signal is the most basic and improved over Einstein's.

With my definition of information and a signal, gravity can't be forced to fit the speed of light necessarily because other definitions of information say nothing about the speed, and of course if we use this definition of information which may be the most important one Einstein didn't define, there's always an exchange of mass or energy between the two bodies or events the information travels between.

And if we accept force as an exchange of energy not just information, all energy has a speed and I think the speed of gravity as I say elsewhere not inertia may be faster than light.

This is because when we start looking at the force between masses different force always has a change of speed. And if gravity has a much reduced force it might have a much higher speed even while as I say LIGO may have found merely the speed of inertia.

This is why I think of Einstein's lack of definition of what a signal or information is was perhaps not even coincidental.

  There are a few historic events where Newton actually lied about the evidence he was boosting to get people to believe what he was saying and Einstein was aware before he was making his discovery about the shift of  the perihelion of Mercury that the shift to the perihelion of Venus was 5 times retrograde. It's been said that he deliberately downplayed the evidence about this just because he couldn't believe it was real.

So I even think it's possible his omission about defining a signal or information might have even been deliberate. I would think as smart as he was he was probably able to reach this definition more than once as he considered it.

(The idea that the shift of the perihelion of mercury may only be by way of impactors n the early history of our solar system is testable by other solar systems and we can find out if they all have a shift to the perihelion like Venus to the minus or if there is indeed some residual effect left like about the shift of the perihelion of Mercury.)

When you start to look at something definite like signals sending the information you get a different kind of idea of connection. The fields are no longer empty as Einstein believed.

When the fields are  connected as needed by energy conservation they have tension like waves as Maxwell believed to find the speed of light exactly. And waves with different tensions have different speeds, all the speeds that are possible.

In my belief you can see the heavy quanta but the waves between them may be much faster than light but they're also much lighter than light so they're difficult to find.

Even if these waves don't turn out to be faster than light I think they really may be the solution about dark matter. Dark matter may be the perfect way to connect up the events of relativity by way of the low energy dark matter field.

As I say elsewhere on some of my recent posts my belief is that above a certain density as in a singularity gravity may become so strong that it removes its own field lines, or at any rate the dense quanta that are created there that we find all around (by way of radiation outward from the superluminary jets). These become strong enough by Line Removal that gravity or anything like dark matter may essentially be invisible to the chemical events or things like electrical conductivity of the other fields.

  Remember that dark matter is believed to make up 4/5 of all the mass of the universe by different lines of research going back to the 1930s. At first appearance it might seem that Maxwell's low energy field would just connect up as usual and we can find lots of easy evidence for the waves. But so far- nothing has been seen of dark matter!

On the other hand this type of phase change combined with line removal could explain what dark matter is, how energy is conserved for Maxwell's fields and not Einstein's and why the singularity doesn't become infinite for different black holes of different mass or different radii since infinity equals infinity.

Gravity like dark matter doesn't shield and Line Removal and the phase change with the superluminal ability to change speed and phase may be why. If the Dark Matter makes up 4/5 of the mass of the Earth by this method where would it be? I think it may be both flowing in and out with only the much smaller net force we see on the mass around us.

  And no doubt moving masses, big and small with the same force would move at different speeds because the larger mass has more area in contact with the external waves and so it moves slower with the same force applied. Or about the distinction of center of mass and center of gravity for bodies in motion often seen. It's a field with tension and gravity is not the same as the higher energy com of inertia even while both have resilience.

  All this would explain what dark matter is, and why it's so tough to find and also why when you change the light or boson between two heavy quanta they both change because they're connected unlike what Einstein tells us about how there's nothing connecting them. The waves of light.. with all the experiments that prove they exist I haven't doubted them so much..

  Special Relativity is a great idea and has been a real inspiration to me but ultimately I believe it's missing some important things that are we see all around us all the time, like when you move around the room what waves are  exerting on you as you go through your swim moves..

I believe dark matter may bend light and not other matter because it's not mere gravity as some believe but also because light unlike the heavier quanta being a boson would spin at the speed of light all the way to the center and those doesn't have much Line Removal. So as I say on some of my recent posts heavier quanta such as electrons pions or electromagnetic fields have Line  Removal and in this scenario they act like they're not only inert to chemical or mechanical forces etc. but they also have internal gyroscopes to resist change more than the light. Since at high energy, light behaves like a heavy quanta when it converts over to an electron or a muon it has a change in the speed of its collapse of the wave function to faster than light inside explaining otherwise the unexplained problem of "why the muon weighs". More importantly it would now have line removal. And if light is bent differently at high energy than low energy by gravity, it's no longer a simple empty field the same as light as Einstein believed.

 Go Here for the Article about This https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/why-does-gravity-travel-at-the-speed-of-light

A Few of My Favorite Links For You...

Generally I've admired SA and the authors seem  to have also written a column about how if some don't have all there is there is no merit with the dreams doubts and deeds of the authors involved. I have kudos for the SA belief in pro science events and if it seems against the evil of antiscience and the woes it involves,  to me this seems like SA often believes in being kind to those who love the deeper truth science evolves and involves. Sometimes however the magazine seems to say some are without any merit as if they were a one science magician. I in my innocence think of my life as a series of solutions to problems, problem, solution.

 And some seem to perhaps be commenting on one of my posts about solving cellphone overuse, (Click here if you like) Most age 22 use their smartphone 10 hours a day, and the harm is caused like neural harm even after 2 hours,

As you see on my post, I discuss some valuable solutions to this problem that more than 50% now have, and on my post I live my comedy as much as any so as they say in the ancient Rome SA Latin US of Venzuela! I discuss in all comedy about just the talking horse quote, or other such  creativity in my column (it's a sort of light science event, with good celebration often involved with the SA rhetoric site also ) Why shouldn't I be allowed about talking horses and other creativity if SA allows much in comic science..

I'm allowed by what horses sing if as sing on TV. I'm generous enough so I would allow others comic relief also.

 When some may ask about there being evidence for my possible claims about the speed of gravity.

 First I offer two important pieces of evidence, as Van Flandern holds, there is no displacement for gravity between the sun and the Earth, and I think of this as important evidence about the speed of gravity being much faster than light. Others have tried to fit this to relativity by using an effect that doesn't exist where the wave train in front of the Earth's motion somehow knows without any Faster Than Light connection just how to  move ahead of the Earth in its motion and then cause the gravity by a light speed signal. We would at least expect gravity to have a forward displacement to match this magic, and near 0 displacement instead is a major problem for relativity as I say in detail on

this post. I would expect gravity to have reduced displacement at more radius by the "slow"  speed of light. Instead the galaxies all spin too fast without more gravity.

A second piece of evidence is about the collapse of the wave function, that it's instant at all points and there is no  equation for the collapse of the wave function. I believe if it is anything it's made out of something since it's about energy conservation and I don't just assume relativity holds inside wave function events just by assuming it's so as I say 


here. 

Einstein was much concerned about this and I am relaxed and soothed more!

 Most physicists believe that Einstein's ideas  aren't infinite and that sooner or later someone will find a better way to boost relativity.  Einstein said if one of his ideas go, they all go. So even one piece of evidence  like this would seem to be evidence of deeper truths. As I say on my physics Synopsis link above left this page, there are lots of reasons to doubt that relativity is absolute.

As I say I'm hoping to be of value to the world with my problem solving awareness.

I'm not just promoting my ideas about physics, I have lots of other ideas of value. What can I do for you?

Here are some of my solutions...

 I discuss how to lose weight and keep it off using timer boxes. The weight problem is in general going around and needs to be improved. Click here!

On this link I discuss my ideas about Reducing radioactivity using Reversed b decay. This was at the top of the search for about five years "reducing radioactivity" above even the government site about this.

On this YouTube Video 


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KRA1SysHVnA&t=53s

I speak of how 100s of thousands of lives can be saved each year by using mitten pocket warmers with antibacterial powder that prevents issues with doctors  who don't wash their hands as most don't in research . This is useful for people who handle money in stores or health care pros also.

Here's my site


about how anyone can learn how to be good at music. I speak 20 languages and play 10 instruments..

Here's my site


 about How I built My own Comedy Machine and Saved! This is a way to build your own paper computer with cross referencing and easy exercises, as well as using pun lists and the good and bad side of words to make your own  comedy, both for general creativity and problem solving. I think this machine may have influence in the future history of comedy with computers. 

Here's a post

 about a possible way we might cure cancer, if in the rare type of cancer cure known as abscopal cancer, the copying machine itself of RNA transcriptase has a defect that the immune system can then perhaps easily find and destroy all the cancer by a simple reliable signal, and how we might achieve this cure more reliably, as in by rnai to make the snips of rna more regular (not random so much) so the immune system might have a much improved defense by finding the regular tags on the outside of each cancer cell as I noteabout how abscopal cancer sometimes is a complete cure for some with cancer.

Here's my  Art blog, including how to for artists who want to learn how I've done this more.

On this link I discuss how the magnetic field of the solar events modulated by Jupiter itself with its much stronger influence may have influence on events like the ice ages.  Click here for more..

 

     Here's my post

 about just what neural branching events may be the source of conciousness

Asteroids might make good cheap shades against global warming.. and unlike other method being considered to cool the Earth it would be easy to reverse as I say here on Youtube..




Here's my post 


about a how a cheap method of mining asteroids may be in easy reach using lasers to boost self assembling three d printers to then print out any machine we want at the site to be mined or explored, super cheap compared to other methods just by sending more 3 d ink...

    Here's my post about how I believe the greatness of civilizations historically, has a close (aprx.80%) relationship to the basic resources that civilization had  available, by the measure of what I call 5 Foundations of History, And 5 Measures of Greatness, rated on a scale.

 Here's my post about why I believe gravity powered Machines might be good physics 
as balancing a simple weight will show..
(There are many patents on  these machines)



Here's a post about the History of Civilizations

 and how the general events seem to be closely related to the levels of overpopulation, e.g, right after the plague of the 1500s the wages went up 87%,  this would be because changing the room per person with overcrowding of the ancient world led to its decline due to increasing competition for decreasing resources, and this wasn't optimal;

  Neurons are made of proteins and I believe we might shine a huge light on ancient history as well as prehistory by finding the evidence in old neurons since they contain the memory of the entire brain as in the ideas that the brain is like a hologram as has been found in lab research. All neurons have all the memory of the whole brain as was found in lab science of the 1920's.

Here's my page about this on Youtube.

Here I want to share my idea about a possible simple way to build a fusion machine anywhere from atomic size to much larger by my hope of using natures stable geometry of the tubes of magnetic fields of atoms in a crystal so the N S unify with the force of cohesion and Coulomb's limit is overpowered by the one time use of the machine. For decontamination mostly it's without neutrons and the rest of the radiation would be collected for heat in what I name a light box, standing waves of light to stop neutrons that radiate out to protons and electrons (that is) useful clean hydrogen in a few minutes. To counteract any residual radioactivity I propose the method of reversed b radioactivity as I say on my site about this see link above..

For my Youtube video about these types of possible fusion machines


 Click here.

Here and here are two of my comedy pages for you.

These, my sites, are mostly technical sites that solve problems. Sir Isaac Newton was often arguing yet mostly how much skill he had determined the value of what he did. Behavioral resilience is a highly predictive measure of survival rates in those age 50. Employers may not be saints but they are worth listening to. Perhaps if some saw all my pages together they would be aware a lot of us aren't movie stars but were're doing fine and thriving.

Rhetoric sites

seem to have an easy job. Choose a theme and then find a quote so the players say whatever fits the agenda, plus add a bit of comedy. They may discuss about how some people are cherry picking the data in antiscience events. And for those on the internet often if they aren't good looking the search engine seems to chose the worst out of date posts that got like 27 clicks instead of the valuable ones that got 1000's of clicks.

 Authors could put their pro science praise in favor of counteracting this sort of influence. In evolution love has been found not to be about gene selfishness but rather efficiency. And this concern about looks is inefficient use of sites if it removes the site intended for the reader and instead tries to use a lower value substitute. While this is not serious and just a misdemeanor there are new ways of proving intent itself with probabilities like the program that solved the Onion software.

 I've never criticised others in science and my ideas as far as I know are ways to explain things otherwise not common and also to make definite predictions. Edison was proud not to invent war machines and I think so much of science I just want to help.

Some have asked why are some pushing just one idea? I had been spending some time with my relatives learning to grow cash crops like trees and researching a few inventions. This isn't more than uncommon or common sense on our part I would say.

If one of the ideas aren't yet perfect, science allows improvement. And if I want good dreams, I have a lot of dreams, as you see on my links list on the left.

My goal in all my activities is the search for goodwill, and I want to conserve good will more than energy with authors and the world in general!

Thanks for reading this  "resume". These are all ideas I've "devised on my own". 
For more, see my links list on left of page.. Thanks!

Cosmic Rays as A Cheap Source of Propulsion For Small "starchips" Plus..

How To Stop Chip Erosion by Cosmic Radiation and More About Breakthrough Starshot 

   You may have heard about the  problem of cosmic ray showers that originate above us (up hill all the way) these are gradually eroding computer chips. Toyota had a series of lawsuits since the chips in the autos were causing the car to accelerate about to 120 and the brakes to fail. After more than 80 people died and Toyota was interested in a higher speed settlement! The companies making the chips settled on redundancies, redundancy, redundancy... So any chip of lifesaving power like on planes or boats on plane in the ocean or a SUV over a water on a bridge, yeah right, More than 1 chip would save the ship! And both chips are checked so if one fails the other has value.

  Even so as the chips get smaller and the world gets more  round than a Toyota wheel, the cosmic rays can now  zap more and more bits; earlier chips needed  200,000 energy units to flip the bit; newer ones just need like 10.


 Some have believed that storing bits on DNA might solve the problem at any rate of 55 mph with a code that could always be read. Yet as with the original idea of all computers reading the same code instead of the real  world where there is often a babble of codes, so too the DNA storage method is already being modified to hybrid  synthetic DNA for this and it's easy to imagine all the purposes being changed for more and more  incompatible codes. I think all the code problems could be solved with a good enough sensor that has a master decoding  code, "where the code will decode  the machine" and the sensor might use matter waves of QED that are well established in physics, the most accurate method in science ever devised . And so the matter waves might converge inward and wrap around each heavy quanta to find old data even after the hardware is long gone, another possibility for a super sensor like this might be a blend of neutrinos and light. This might be like the light and electron hybrid that has recently been found that has some properties of both the light and electron. So a super sensor reads all data and uses software to convert it all to a universal cosmic code.

  Even if so DNA erodes with time due to the cosmic ray events as the chips,. So I was wondering how this might be solved. I thought of two layers one more positive and the other layer negative. The cosmic ray enters and this creates a sensor that then would turn on a third inner sensor and this would build up enough charge to  shield the chip. This might be like  electromagnetic armor like for tanks that is super strong yet light weight even so used for  the shielding for the cosmic rays, not explosions. Then I realized a better method might be to use  wires that have magnetic fields around them that would automatically become much stronger powered by the energy of the incoming  particles, to both reflect them while also using the power to power the laptop, solving both problems at one time.

************

  I think this might be used as a source of motive power for small ships like the "starchips" of the Breakthrough Starshot method. To do this we might  use a low energy magnetic bubble like this on the rear of the machine like a wire with the bubble inside behind the small machine. When a cosmic ray might move in from the direction with the motion of the ship, the larger high energy bubble at the right angle could catch the cosmic ray's force and the power is stored in the battery of the starship. A single high energy high energy cosmic ray can have as much power as a tennis ball moving at 100 mph into the Earths air, so even capturing one such event in the starchips travel might be a real boost. Since in an hour there might well be 5 showers here as outer realms, the small starships could get enough power to go much much faster that by the Breakthrough Starshot method since they are proposing giant lasers from the Earth to boost them. The actual lasers that have been built are only about 3 inches yet it's believed an a machine hundreds of feet in area would be needed. By using the cosmic ray for propulsion , while we could boost the starchips at the start  this extra boost would be much cheaper.




  And this may put many more Earthlike worlds in reasonable reach, as well as booting small machines anywhere in the solar system much faster and also we could reach Proxima B much sooner, Proxima b is the Earthlike world in  orbit around the nearest star, Alfa centauri, a good first goal for study by the Starship method. And we could reach all the Earthlike worlds in the time of  Starshot cheaper within about 2900 light years 5 times more area than the radius of Proxima B.

A Possible Way to Explain the Mach Drive.

Mach who Einstein admired came up with what Einstein named Mach's Method. This is to say the cosmos is connected by gravity to all the rest of the masses in it.

The idea of the Mach Drive is that if you squeeze masses together you change the mass. This is easy to see by Newton's method; the nearer you move the same masses the more gravity they have, and so by relativity, if inertia is rather like gravity you've changed the inertia and the way the mass of the Mach Machine might interact with the entire cosmos.

Supposedly the rapid change in compression and moving masses outward of the machine by a piezoelectric slice of the pizza slices of the machine may allow the mass to get heavier, lighter, heavier, lighter as it moves ahead.

So far so good. And by the weight I haven't seen if this change in mass is seen with a machine like LIGO or by weight. Mostly the law of gravity seems enough evenso it might be worth more "evidence based events"..

 While I make no ultimate claim about the viability off the Mach Drive, here's my own interpretation; As Mach believed, the masses are all connected. This would be by the speed of light field of LIGO.

CLICK HERE 


FOR MY EXPLANATION OF HOW THIS CONNECTION MIGHT WORK OR SEE LINK BELOW..

The idea that's been promoted for the Mach Drive which seems to put out real though not giant thrust in research is that it changes mass then moves in the space nearby where the mass is reduced before it changes and this gives energy of propulsion at no cost. This has been scoffed at by some as in violation of energy conservation.

I think it might be possible by way of changes in the density in the connection field just as solitons now make it possible to call around the world at low cost and high value at any rate! Solitons take the wave in the channel like in the old canal where it was observed that a wave of the right wavelength relative to speed wouldn't lose nearly as much energy and go much further down the line before it dissipates. This is because the wave is a resonance and like riding it's own surf it is more efficient.

 So too it seems possible the Mach Drive might move forward into the inertial wave of LIGO (which may be much denser and slower than real gravity waves be as I believe because Einstein and Mach believed gravity and inertia are the same thing).

If this wave moves at the speed of light as in the LIGO events then we can find its density and this will tell us if the speed of resonance the Mach Drive might need to be viable based on the density and energy of the field.

(Even so like the solitons if this actually is viable (it's gotten stage II NASA funding and seems to be copied well on other machines by others who used machines like it) it would seem to have some cost to energy conservation! So if we know the resilience of this resonance, as with solitons we might much improve our experiment and theory because we know just how much the overall cost would be just as with other waves in resonance by how much the wave snaps back and its resonance and speed.


 A way of connection of the Mach Drive with the rest of the cosmos without disproof of relativity might be by Modified La Sage Gravity. Click here for more.

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.