Ice Cube and Gravity Wave Telescopes.

What has LIGO found? As I say elsewhere I believe since Einstein like Mach believed that gravity and inertia are essentially the same thing and because gravity would radiate in not out, what LIGO may have found is the speed of inertia, not gravity. Gravity waves being much lighter than light may travel that much faster than light. (Einstein believed light was a particle in Special Relativity so it would have constant unchanged speed from source  to observer. Even so he also found the wave particle duality and Einstein uses the doppler shift often in Special Relativity, a wave event. So the waves being more continuous would have attraction and particles like inertia and as in Relativity would radiate out while the waves could radiate in unlike as with LIGO.) I agree with Van Flandern that the apparent near 0 displacement seen for gravity from the Sun to the Earth is also like the lower density as Maxwell believed for light and the pressure may result in higher speed in my more general use of Maxwell's method he used to predict the speed of light exactly. (Gravity is in general the opposite of relativity since it radiates down to one, and the Earth is more priveliged and at rest than the moon, and the thermodynamic speed of light and high speed motion of Relativity radiate outward, so when light slows down in gravity the gravity speeds up. So lower density for gravity might mean higher speed). 

 I name my hopeful use of Maxwell's method General Wave Dynamics GWD. 

  The Ice Cube neutrino sensor is in Antarctica, the highest, driest continent with most wind, dry ice, no doubt! 
   
As Van Flandern notes, there is no yet measurable displacement for gravity. (Van Flandern gets the credit for priority about the idea of the speed of gravity being fast, I have used the idea of FTL gravity
for different uses, as in about the EPR events, why particles don't stop spinning, etc.

 And I have many other ideas in science as you see on my links list. But the idea of Line Removal, and my explanation of gravity and e.g. the Lorentz contraction, the cause of rest mass as well as many other ideas like about fusion and what causes lightning or how damping of Jupiter's field may be causing global cooling, are my own.)



  



  My mechanism for the acceleration of gravity is like the neutrino which changes mass in cycles of 3, so by the time it reaches the same degree of rotation, it "doesn't know" the field because the flat field like electromagnetism is based on pairs of electric charges, so there's a net acceleration for the neutrino. The flat field would also be the Higgs' field and since it allows the round wheel to compare with the constant Higgs' field, this might revive Newton's idea of a flat space that a spinning bucket "knows" change relative to the cosmos with. Newton might have believed that no frame of motion could transform away the parabolic water of the bucket. (And this would be why pi has been found to not quite be random in many bases because the grid of the flat space of the Higgs' has jagged edges at higher resolution. This would cause the nonpattern of 60% reduced probability a given prime number will be followed by a second prime that ends in 1 as has been seen. Even so this tends to be random at much more giant wheel size, and this would just be like looking at a much higher resolution wheel, like looking at a low res TV at more distance.)


   If gravity like the neutrino is also an acceleration, and is also penetrative in the space between the heavy quanta it might also have an odd number of Higgs' around each quantum and likewise as in Wilczec's Nobel prize winning work with Quantum Chromodynamics, there's not much influence of it on the mass of the fractional charges. They get 4/5ths of their mass mostly from the back reaction of the field, an ancient idea. The high energy Higg's may be "squeezed out".

 The high energy Higgs' might thus not be so much inside the heavy quanta because of what I call Field Line Removal. The field in creation in the black hole implodes with the gravity and then reradiates out through the jets at faster than light, the only way they could reach us and all around us the quanta are frozen gravity, and the gravity like the neutrino would always be removed by Field Removal to the outside of the quanta. The low energy Higgs' field around each quantum being an acceleration may have another conservation law to be an acceleration so the Higgs' like the neutrino may have a similar uneven number to cause the acceleration of gravity and motion around the outside of the quanta. 

  I believe there is no quantum way to solve gravity, when you plug in the quantum equations to gravity you always get infinities. This is the fundamental distinction of acceleration and linear motion, pi is also infinite because of this. So gravity may accelerate with low saucers not quantum wells and slosh in and out of the "well" with much higher efficiency. 

 While McCutcheon's ideas seem to explain nothing new he knows the general truths well I think, like Einstein he seems to have good horse sense, and he says in his books the idea of the force between the Earth and moon is more like a ball and spring than a ball and string, and this would be because these low quantum saucers for gravity slide well and while this might allow the gravity to flow from cold to hot like a superfluid it also means gravity may not be quantum.



  I believe with the frequency of supernovas in our galaxy being one in 30 years or so we might find a supernova also near us like 1987B and then see if the ratio of the light to the neutrinos changes, e.g. if it were not too far or near from themselves and distant enough to multiply up the overall time we might find the neutrino difference too great to fit in with the idea of the light tunneling through the stars outer realm of gas before it reaches us, arriving at a different time so more distinct than allowed by the idea that all the delay in time of 1987B was caused by the slow light alone yet not so distant like supernova SN2011fe that the neutrinos arrive millions of years before the light.
If  light itself couldn't connect up, this is why in SR they say due to the slow speed of light we can't definitely know what's before or after at Alpha Centauri, the events are more and more separate with time and the thermodynamic entropy of a slow speed of light. 

 I believe gravity like light if slower would radiate out not attract, and the cosmos seems to need long range attraction to not fizzle to 0 density over infinite time of mass and energy being neither created or destroyed. 


 In my explanation of neutrino speed, the neutrino being like the graviton in its ability to change mass like gravity as it moves may have a bit more implosion, or negative entropy than reradiance. So the objection that it would create electron positrons bremstrallung and this would make it slow down isn't necessarily a disproof.. The same mechanism as found in tunnelling experiments like Chou's that seem faster than light may be involved. The implosion might overpower the entropy of the low energy electromagnetic field enough to go a bit faster than light. 

  Another way the high energy neutrinos and thus the high energy pions (which wouldn't be able to decay with the slowing of time near the speed of light needed to cause their high energy to create the neutrinos) might exist may be by faster than light heavy quanta I call superfusion particles that power the huge jets of massive sources fusion can't explain. These heavier quanta inside the singularity and that power the cosmic jets might spin at faster than light to have enough centrifugal force to withstand the singularity saving energy conservation itself.  

 These heavy quanta also have strong gravity and in the GRB or other high energy event, these particles radiate out and they are unstable except under much pressure at the center of the mass so we don't find them near us so they decay rapidly into the pions, and being heavy with the same force applied fall back in at a different rate also in disproof of Einstein's Equivalence Principle. The pions escape they being lighter than the superfusion but first the superfusion quanta might shred them up increasing the rate of decay so the neutrinos then can reach us. 
  
Einstein said if one of his ideas go, they all go, so by the disproof of the Equivalence Principle we aren't assuming two masses moved to the same height with different force will fall at the same rate releasing a different amount of force, this is where Einstein was assuming what he was trying to prove. If the same force is applied to different masses, they rise to different rates, and fall at different rates according to their mass as we would expect. 

 Einstein uses two different forces to raise the two masses to the same height and then asserts there is no distinction even while force is used to create the illusion. Then, based on this "hypothesis about Relativity" and constant rates of fall Einstein predicts how the Mercury shift of rate of fall also is different with the rest of the predictions of General  Relativity and the "evidence by experiment" for no force is based on these different rates of fall. So he hopes to prove no change exists by using this with another disproof by the experimental evidence. Finally Einstein makes another prediction elsewhere that the masses fall at exactly the same rate and this with the change elsewhere are both taken as fundamental evidence for the relativity of gravity even while these are two opposite types of evidence! I believe Einstein's method won't find motion from non motion as Newton believed. While Einstein was brilliant in SR and he's influenced me the most in science, Einstein's name alone isn't the foundation of good science, about gravity at any rate. I believe the evidence for change in rate of fall is correct but not the constant rate and these types of experiment about changes in acceleration are strong evidence against the relativity of gravity.

 Some have claimed that this idea in particular is wrong and that I'm somehow being ungenuine but I didn't make the moon fall at another rate than the Earth while Einstein claims they fall at the same rate. I say this not to make Einstein look bad, I say this because I care about the value of science. While I'm not a super weight lifter, force that changes and connects masses seems more important than Einstein's empty field of nothing that changes nothing.

 

  We all have supervisors or parents and there are more privileged frames of reference in most of the world. Science is about descriptions of the world that are real and I believe in the truth more than my dreams. While a relative world is real, it's only some of the world and to say there is a boss is not to say we celebrate all he does just that in our consideration and judgement we don't completely ignore that our employer is real.

I believe neutrinos may help us understand gravity since both are without shielding so much and vice versa.. That neutrinos change mass in cycles might be like the graviton, and so since at the end of each cycle the neutrino isn't the same, this could be how gravity also changes mass and yet space time is mostly stable. From here to Alpha Centauri stays the same, as if both by stable implosion and radiance of two types of fields or there would otherwise be 0 or infinite time to reach distant realms.

 Consider one of the supposed proofs of SR; this is about how if we see a distant starship with a faster than light connection, the events would both be changed by relativity yet not changed by the sensor, so it seems reductio ad adVisa..But I think of this like a ship in the ocean. We might assume if the boat interacts with the water much and water is all we've seen, yet if we then found light some might say, "how can the boat be both changed by the waves yet the light tells us it would be the same". Obviously this is proof of what they are assuming, so this isn't a proof of SR. I've seen several of these different types of proof that seem to only assume what they are trying to prove.

It may seem relativity is complete based on so many experiments, but Einstein said if one of his ideas go, they all go. The assumpton above all about relativity is that there is no way other than the light for the starship to connect the distant observer than by the light. Yet this seems to be just an assumption, and a change of phase for gravity if it is removed from the influence of relativity by Line Removal may be enough to explain the reduced relativity of gravity.

 

  Miles Mathis the scientist who brought down BICEP 2 the gravity wave sensor by more research believes the LIGO result may also be a fraud as he says in detail on his sites and due to such as the huger engineering needed to reduce vibration and such as natural magnetic and cosmic fields the LIGO claims levels of resolution it may not have reached. 

 Miles also says that there may be fraud since LIGO wasn't in an observational run and other colleges may have had the profit motive to boost funds to build their own machine.

Click Here or See Link at the end of this post for what I consider an excellent page by Robert Sungein where he discusses Einstein's belief in no ether and constant speed of light for Special Relativity, yet Einstein flip flops for gravity where  says it changes the speed of light by way of the ether which Sungein indeed says was about SR being completely disproven by the Michelson experiments he achieved in the 1920's. Einstein used a spokesman to discuss the disproof by this second set of experiments by Michelson, and never directly countered its value.
 
And you may say, Einstein had real evidence for relativity by the equivalence of mass and energy by invention of  the atomic bomb. But as I say below, the tension in the field Newton believed in to cause gravity and Maxwell's belief in the tension to cause the speed of light both would need local distinction in mass and energy.

 (See my post about the distinctions in bosons and fermions for details.

Click here or see link below for more. Mass and energy are numerically  equivalent in general, even so if they were exactly the same not just numerically but also in way of action there would be no tension of the field and all the quanta would stop spinning. On the post I discuss how we may measure and define the distinctions. For example if bosons spin at c and are simple fermions spin at higher speed inside, the cause of rest mass which is not explained by relativity if mass is spinning energy. If all the quanta spin at c on the outside they would have integer and half integer mass in my belief, instead there is the rainbow of masses for the leptons mesons and baryons.

The energy of bosons is more simple while mass has more complex quantum events etc due to the faster than light spin and Line Removal.)



 Ultimately I believe the unified field fails and its complete equivalence of  mass and energy, or of gravity and inertia isn't complete because all the cosmos would be an indistinguishable blob of one wave even if, as Einstein observed that it was impossible to imagine a fundamental particle that can't emit and absorb a wave. There must be distinction as in quantum physics around us caused by the ultimate lack of unity of the fields caused by Line Removal. 

  Contrary to Relativity, I believe this distinction will be made quantitative even if by much reduced magnitude if the matter waves of QED are faster than light and more efficient, even so they are of finite energy so causality would be restored to the foundation of physics as Einstein hoped for. The electron doesn't exist in two places at once, the waves are much faster and more efficient but not infinite so mass and energy aren't absolutely equivalent and there is no absolute relativity. 

  Sure by mass energy equivalence the fields are all loosely unified, yet if the unity was complete the fields would be linear as in SR only and completely interchangable. Centrifugal and centripetal force balance in general, yet I ask not why as in the Unified Field but also how is it that they are with spin, and this is how the spins would be a spiral. (The spiral method was eventually the solution to the problems of the wave theory of light the great mathematical physicists of the 1800's settled on.)

  
The neutron has 0 electric charge yet it has a slight magnetic moment since the positive and negative charges that make it up don't quite cancel, my idea is that this small moment may be boosted at high enough energy to bend the cosmic rays as I say here on my youtube video CLICK HERE or see link below.


Mass Energy Efficiency

The plus and minus charges give the speed of light by my use of Maxwell's method. Even so the positive charge has some mass and less energy and the minus charge has more energy and less mass. This is anti relativistic since mass and energy should be completely equivalent. This would also be why there's more matter than antimatter.

The tension of this distinction gives the speed of light as Maxwell predicted. A test of this might involve different efficiencies of mass to energy conversion with annihilation of plus and minus charges at higher and lower energy. Nuclear reactions convert mass to energy with just 5% efficiency, and I believe that the positive charge like the earth with more mass is a more valid frame of observation and the negative charge like the moon has more energy and they are distinct.

Relativity superficially would seem to predict complete conversion efficiency of mass to energy but I think of it as limited by the quantum nature of light Einstein believed in for Relativity. In other words the slow speed of light means it's quantum and small quantum bubbles of the light would slow down the speed of the mass to energy conversion efficiency of high vs. low energy positron electron events while with a much higher speed more continuous matter wave these events would be little changed in GWD.  If the wavelength of the light is reduced in high energy events the light is heaver and so the speed is slower so we might expect the efficiency to reduce not increase at higher energy for simple events like with electrons positrons. The Wikipedia says that the conversion efficiency is higher not lower.

The cause for the inefficiency of nuclear events compared to electron positron events would be because while the particles are spinning at faster than light inside and here the efficiency is reduced because of the faster than light spin at different angles, where the waves are directly opposite and simple as in pair creation events the mass energy conversion efficiency would actually be higher both caused by faster than light motion of the field and more definitely so for the electron and positron events. 

 The distinction of the mass and energy by Line Removal would give the tension of the field to move the light and at the energy level of gravity it would cause the acceleration.

So it seems plausible that while inertia is at the speed of light gravity really is much faster than light and the neutrinos may have some other cause such as high enough energy to interact more strongly with the cosmic magnetic fields bending them at random over great enough distance because of high enough energy, an explanation also for the isotropy of cosmic rays.

 You may say, the plus and minus charges don't give the speed of light since light "carries itself"; the light is completely in its rest frame, right? I think of the + and- charges as like the weight and counterweight of an elevator. When in balance the force is stored, not absent that maintains the motion or rest.

 I believe relativity can't describe other than uniform motion. If you restart the motors of the elevator the force is felt and the information about the wavelength of the distant light is changed and while it isn't definite because in my consideration of tbe doppler shift of the sound waves of a train as I say below, it seems possible the waves connecting the light to the high speed observer is faster than light. Even if it isn't the connection of the light to the elevator and the plus and minus charges by changing the light between the "elevators" needs no interaction at all as Einstein believed and changing the light to change the plus and minus charges already seems to be evidence against complete relativity.

 If space and time are completely unified reversing your motion through space would seem to reverse time motion, and this seems to be disproof of relativity, and this would be why Dirac's method of unifying relativity with QM failed. (The quanta are like small clocks with spin that can be reversed with motion through space yet this isn't common in relativity.) So if the plus and minus charges aren't quite the same as for the neutron with a small magnetic moment even if it has 0 electric charge, at much higher energies with the cosmic rays the distinction between mass and energy, or plus and minus charges may be strong enough to bend both the neutrinos and cosmic rays so they seem to have no light source.

  The speed of inertia may be much different from that of gravity since i.e. the equations for centrifugal force and gravity have such hugely different values for the constant and centrifugal force is so much easier to cause than gravity. And because there are two masses in the equation for gravity since it would be external and in the spaces between the quanta (and not shield) and just one mass for centrifugal force because the inertia is internal to the mass, like a quanta it would perhaps move at only the speed of light, not gravity.

 So to explain the neutrinos some seen with/some  without a source of light, I offer these possible solutions;

...the neutrino has a different displacement/is faster than light,

...The pions are shredded by the Faster Than Light superfusion quanta and the neutrinos are released while the heavier quanta fall back in the source of strong gravity which the equivalence principle says is impossible since the Earth should fall around the moon at the same rate as the moon around the earth. 

....Or.. the neutrino might have a strong enough magnetic moment (the photon at high energy acts much like a heavy quanta) at high energy so random magnetic fields might move some out of the path of the source and others we see well.

 By the failure of Dirac's method of unifying relativity with QM, the option of a stronger magnetic moment for the neutrino at high energy might be the best, (because some supernovas are seen by LIGO and others are not and by ICE Cube some strong neutrino sources without any light source and other sources of radiation are seen with and without neutrinos) while all three of these options are non relativistic.. 

The shredding method would allow at least some light to reach us and the light is often at much the same energy essentially as the neutrinos so this may not be the solution.. The faster than light neutrino idea has no evidence yet in its favor. 

 The bending by the magnetic field method explains both why some supernovas have neutrinos and others don't, and why cosmic rays are isotropic. So the bending of the neutrinos seems to be the best solution essentially by a non relativistic method as above.


 Even if LIGO finds the speed of light displacement for the distant sources, this doesn't mean the main cause of gravity is the same as inertia. In my belief, GWD, "inertia doesn't cause gravity" any more than uniform motion causes acceleration and the Earth wouldn't slow down with greater wavelength if more mass is added with more redshift, instead it speeds up. 

 My idea General Wave Dynamics may be more general since it's about both changes and cause (dynamics) and not just description of motion without cause as in Special Relativity. Therefore the real speed of gravity as measured by it's near zero displacement of e.g. the Earth around the sun may await future low energy telescopes not LIGO. If "gravity wave telescopes" find speed of light displacement for "gravity" I always ask, why is there no displacement measurable yet with the Earth around the sun? And so gravity may be
much faster than light.

For the link to the site by Robert Sungein with some sound ideas about Einstein's contradictions and why I hope to add on by way of the mechanics of the inequivalence of mass and energy since this seems Einstein's most definite claim about relativity, and no field for SR that Einstein hoped to revive somehow for General relativity even so, CLICK HERE.

  Ligo measures a radiantly outward field but gravity radiates inward and this has causality problems as I say on my posts just as we don't expect the waves of the pond to start to oscillate and then move inward to the point where the stone is now changed that caused the radiance outward supposedly of those waves. For this reason I believe that the classical electromagnetic field lines are important to relativity because of inertia and uniform motion and SR and these tracks are laid down by inertia. While the speed of the electromagnetic field flux is indeed at the speed of light gravity only flows inward to the source I would say so this has a different cause since gravity changes both frequency and wavelength unlike the light in special relativity. If we say that those classical lines of the electromagnetic field are actually like tubes of the quanta of light with sides as Newton discovered with the crystal for polarized light my belief is that perhaps the gravity flows in the spaces between those radial lines like of centrifugal force. Gravity would seem to be more wavelike and it flows in the opposite direction by the change of phase so it's mostly wavelike by channeling between those electromagnetic lines.

By zipping back and forth between that area as it moves and widens between the electromagnetic field lines the gravity being acceleration itself of a changing wavelength speed and frequency unlike the light in SR would remain coherent without the changes in wavelength and speeds of the gravity waves otherwise quickly making them fizzle out.

  It's been well considered that it is inconceivable that there would be any point of any field in the universe without both centrifugal and centripetal force. Yet if we say that they're the same as by relativity they would both flow in or both flow out and gravity would be either super strong and quantased like light or inertia would be much less strong.

 It's true that inertia is highly important to gravity because of laying down the lines but I think it's incomplete to say that relativity describes gravity itself because of the extra tensor gravity has relativity doesn't describe. I believe while it's true that Ligo has measured something important about gravity at the speed of light the gravity waves may be at a much different speed. The gravity waves would flex the electromagnetic field lines together and this would seem to be superficially a complete measure of the gravity but the deeper cause is that you can't have just centrifugal force and inertia controlling all the events.. this is the reason I named my idea General wave Dynamics GWD because in my belief relativity only describes motion without cause but Dynamics actually is more about the cause. Certainly special relativity is a beautiful idea as far as it goes but I don't think it's finished.

This idea relates to what Einstein thought that gravity doesn't have a source..

Inertial forces have no sources but if we say the gravity is zigzagging back and forth between the lines of the electromagnetic field to the source then we would also not ignore that when you have a pendulum it goes back and forth so it finally settles towards the center of where the gravity would be and this of course would only be true if if all points of view aren't equivalent and the Earth frame is more privileged to some extent than other frames with less mass by gravity.

I believe what LIGO has found is something associated with gravity, inertia. Thus as I say elsewhere I believe if we look at a pulsar and an orbiting star the flex of the pulsar jets and its influence on the star would show up as changes in the fusion light output of the second star by way of a similar change the sun shows as caused by flux from Jupiter in the 11 year neutrino cycle. While the strong magnetic field of Jupiter would cause most of the mechanical flex to cause the change in fusion of our star, strong flex by the gravity would also change the fusion and light of the more distant star. This would be both with the inertial waves at the speed of light as LIGO has seen and also with the gravity waves with a delay of like a year and changes in the oscillation as the star would orbit if the star is a light year from the pulsar but also the same change in the gravity itself without much of the delay. This might also be the speed of dark matter which hasn't yet been measured and about LIGO, this might be an inertial wave. Einstein like Mach believed that inertia and gravity are the same. 

Centrifugal force doesn't shield metal plates but if it's at the speed of light it would be a quantum and uninfluenced more from emission to absorbtion and like the particles of a gas would radiate out mostly even if mostly a wave. So it moves at the speed of light as under the influence of relativity.

I believe what LIGO has found isn't gravity with more continuous waves that would radiate in, rather this is the low energy reradiant electromagnetic field Einstein predicted that powers cosmic acceleration.

You may say "there is no quanta of inertia-or quantum either so
a mass in motion will go on in motion without acceleration." What we might find with the pulsar star event would be the speed of light LIGO "gravity wave" but I would say with masses around us the inertia is caused by the reradiant field at near radius as I also say (search "Computoria ROA" in Bing, Yahoo or Ask.com if you like) at what I call the Radius of Action (ROA) of the heavy quanta and it becomes strong enough to influence cosmic acceleration only at long range or with the LIGO events.

The light has the huge snapback at the ROA for the light to give just the speed of light Maxwell predicted yet only at the ROA does it have enough force to convert to the LEH due to Line Removal. At longer range the inertial field is more wavelike and tougher to find as dark matter since it has the phase change.

So the quantum of inertia of Einstein's reradiant cosmic low energy electromagnetic field would be the cause of inertia and centrifugal force and while usually like for metal plates centrifugal force doesn't shield at long range this is the quantum of inertia that causes the cosmic acceleration even if by LIGO it's mostly a wave in general.

Maxwell is quoted as saying the low energy field even if with tension has what he might have called non quantum mass. This because it has no measurable weight by volume and we might say the same of dark matter.

As I say the particles are thus removed inside the Radius of Action and the waves of the dark matter are removed from the inside of the heavy quanta. In this model of the dynamics the waves are anchored to the particles as they are dragged around the spinning quanta. The tension of the phase change inside the quanta by line removal keeps the small particles like Einstein believed in to resolve the Uncertainty conundrum spinning to then maintain the tension of the field outside the ROA. Higgs' particles like this while good to give mass would have problems with friction without the waves acting by proxy outside the ROA.

It's easy to see how Einstein's ideas about inertia were as of the motion only of masses relative to each other. The waves are of dark matter, it's easy to ignore what's been a real challenge to find direct evidence for even while just moving around the room of moving light and heavy masses was no doubt a strong inspiration to Maxwell and his colleagues to find it. 

The Low Energy Higgs' particles inside the ROA give the mass to quanta and would explain why when you fall and you move around,  while exercising! Moving your arms shows the pressure of inertia and this like centrifugal force would radiate outward. Even so the particles might seem to cause a lot of friction and have weight by volume as Maxwell noted. E.g. where is mass induction by the friction of the particles outside like the radiation of the particles is outward, where is the impact of one vehicle by another by as they move by up the road at high speed. 

Dark matter seems to have no chemical, mechanical or other properties associated with particulate events. Even so the evidence for it like just the right snapback of the light seems convincing. Tension is what waves use well at any rate if the waves are well controlled from the source.. 

After all the non quantum properties are removed what's left seems to be tension, non infinite speed, and wavelength (other than that it bends light). Research is being done using large interferometers in search of small changes in the field. I think of this like a way of finding the way in about dark matter if we use both high sensitivity by e.g. combining the interferometers with quantum sensors or methods like twisting the interferometer's light for higher resolution (by this socalled Zeno Method named by the researchers because it's like Zeno's paradox events in ancient Greece of no limit like the quanta for super subquantum resolution). 

Due to the superfluid properties of the waves I believe we might first find combinations of the wave trains from high energy sources

to find the general value of dark matter and if it's Faster Than Light as in for communication science. If we first find evidence for the waves by the Zeno or other methods I believe we might first use an event like the massive CME events of the sun. Having found the waves if they exist we might then use two of the interferometers in the line of travel of these waves to find the speed.

Like LIGO the waves could also be created like for communications by reversing the same frequency resonation of these machines. 

Even so as they say for LIGO to move a mass by the "gravity waves" of the machine would take hugely more mass energy than we have currently to power it according to the scientists who envision this method. Even so, my belief is they're wrong because I think we might build an array of crystal mass modules of the right distance of resonance that then might move past the machine like an advanced torsion balance used to resonate with the waves of the machine and move it out or in,  and using quanta with more motion and sensors like quantum or Zeno sensors might find the force of inertia not gravity which would be both much weaker, and a prediction of my idea is if it really is inertia not gravity by LIGO it would radiate out not in, after all it's radiated out from the source to reach LIGO...

The force by LIGO might seem weak yet moving masses in like the crystal atoms of the torsion machine multiples the force between them by Line Removal even while the mass stays the same on the inside. Thus by these methods and the right resonance a much stronger force would be measurable about whether LIGO is about inertia or gravity. At any rate these are good ways to boost the science of the torsion machine even if I'm wrong about Relativity..

  Here I want to propose  a simple experiment; As the earth shows no sign of displacement to the sun in its orbit, so also, there is no displacement for gravity in the radial component of a ballistic arc.

Since light slows down in a gravitational field (how is this possible with relativity if the speed of light is constant, right) ...At any rate of travel even if perhaps the travel is more than one speed of gravity (and how is this so if Relativity only is about uniform gravity?) Einstein might have held the real solution is simple...

  The light slows down and the gravity speeds up so the result is the gravity outdistances the light and is attractive and it holds the Earth in its cohesion and so energy conservation fits general relativity, not just special relativity which is well proven. If gravity moves at the speed of light, by Einstein's belief they must be quanta as above but quanta are not waves so they can't cause gravity's cohesion it seems.(GR is about acceleration and SR is about uniform motion and these while both about motion seem to me like the idea that a line and non linear motion are the same.
  

 This is just what Einstein believed; force and non force are the same and not much could be achieved in science or math.) At any "rate of  rest or speed", I held that if the coordinates of the ballistic arc are both at the speed of light or near the speed of light there would be as much change of radial force of the gravity as the change of inertia of the displacement of the machine moving by the inertia.

Since the x and y seem completely independent, there would seem to be no need to do this experiment. Yet as they say no idea is proven till the experiment says so.

  So I propose two atomic clocks would be used on a high speed airplane or rocket or a small laser sped quantum gravity sensor might measure both the radial changes in displacement  of the Earth with different speeds of our high speed machines.. If at c the displacement of both gravity and inertia will change and change strongly at different speeds of the machine. If the gravity is much faster than light the change would mostly be near the 0  change Van Flandern notes but not quite and it might fit GWD.

  Essentially here I'm in hopes of refining the evidence of the function of the radial displacement with changes in speed unlike the more constant speed of the Earth around the sun. 

TESLA AND DARK MATTER

A lot of us remember Tesla who was an inventor and also a physicist. He had some definite beliefs about physics, often wrong, no futurologist was 100% aware of science! It's the ways his methods  seem deeper than Einstein's "mere math" that make me wonder.

He believed in the ether and Einstein was saying in one lecture in 1920 that the ether was needed due to the waves of light as I say. But no one listened to his claim and physicists stopped ether research. Actually they "didn't stop as much it seems" as they thought because by the mid-1930s the evidence for Dark Matter began to be found and by two separate lines of both theory and experiment  it seems that 4/5 to the universe is made up of dark matter...

What Einstein was saying was not that the ether "wasn't necessary",  what he meant to say was that it wasn't detected. Elsewhere he upped the ante and said that if the ether is found Relativity fails. I believe strongly in the Evidence as far as it goes for Special Relativity. Even so Tesla's view seems also of value to me and this may be possible by way of the phase change that may remove most of the ether's interaction with visible matter and energy.

Science is self-correcting enough that it's not surprising that if there is evidence for this idea and 4/5 of the universe is made of dark matter it wouldn't go unnoticed.

Tesla was claiming that the Earth is absorbing huge amounts of the field to cause gravity. The question about why Dark Matter hasn't been detected seems to relate to the simple question where is all this huge energy? I hold that the energy is indeed radiating in and out between the heavy quanta of the Earth and it is indeed somewhat related to gravity. So the field is being moved in and out, yet mostly not absorbed.

 By Line Removal  we have the explanation for its reduced chemical or nuclear changes with other matter. 

Tesla mocked Einstein in his later years as he claimed there wasn't one bit of evidence that supported relativity, before it was more definite.  But Tesla was no dummy and many believe that he would have accepted the evidence about the atomic bomb and that Einstein might have also  accepted dark matter as the evidence became more definite.

 And the main question about the difficulty of finding dark matter  also relates to Tesla's seemingly wrong claim  that the sun is absorbing much more energy in than it's radiating out. Relativity and even Newton seem give us the feigned hypotheses that gravity is just a magical sort of event. 

 By Tesla's method he seems to solve the problem of why particles spin as well as gravity and the unified field at once..gravity radiates into the quanta  and then spins back out as the Electromagnetic field. 

I also explain the acceleration of gravity itself by the spin of the quanta and by comparing the change on both sides. So all quanta are sources of gravity. (The experiments about how gravity may not need spin changes might not be at nearly at low enough energy if the gravity spins in only one direction so it only attracts and so fast the slow electromagnetic spin is "almost equal" on both sides. So as the experiments by the two Japanese physicists on the early 1990's seemed to show a spinning mass might weigh less in one direction and the same in the other. However it seems like a good idea but not at the energy they measured. The effect would be definite but much smaller due to the huge speed of the field.)

 I think Tesla was good but not as good as he would hope.  I considered this problem of where is the huge field for gravity and this is one way I arrived at the idea of line removal.  Because if we simply unify gravity with Electromagnetism this way  with the gravity going inside the heavy quanta and back out the gravity is now high energy and we have the problem of where are the shielding and the quantum numbers for gravity. Another problem is about why this high energy gravity wouldn't stop the particles from spinning instead of maintaining their spin....

 Tesla's idea is how quanta need the gravity to radiate in for the quanta to be able to spin outward. .....

  My method is the opposite;  Instead of the quanta needing gravity by this unweildy connection, gravity needs the quanta to spin by disconnection to wind it up so there aren't problems like this by friction or quantum numbers for gravity.

 Tesla as an inventor believed the field was unified much the same way as his Automaton, a robot boat he invented, controlled from the outside by electromagnetic field influence. So he believed by the connection of gravity and spin of the quanta in determinism. Here I offer the solution is more by Line Removal and this allows reduced control from the outside and we aren't all robots controlled from the outside. One known input of the quantum radiates out 5 unknowable quanta in subatomic physics and this is evidence indeed we aren't just robots. This arises by way of Line Removal,and not by Tesla's method or by Einstein's unified field. 

 As I say gravity may not be much involved about dark matter.  Almost all the dark matter may flow in and out of the Earth without interaction.

  This is just a measure of Dark Matter's way of interaction..

 The Dark Matter method may also solve the proton mass problem. 97% of the mass of the proton is unaccounted for.  3% is by the fractional charges of qcd and what causes the rest of the mass has been one of the recent conundrums of science. Dark matter with much faster than light changes with all its inertness might be the solution.  Mass is spinning energy in General Wave Dynamics GWD.   The contribution of dark matter to the mass of the proton has gone mostly unseen and this would be because it's indeed dark matter, and just because of this. 

 Even so as I say and as some believe gravity is related to dark matter... this may well relate to Tesla's curious comment that the sun is absorbing more energy than it's radiating out. If the dark matter is on the outside of the quanta  and the quanta need to be disconnected to keep it in motion then a large amount of dark matter is radiated in but also out at another wavelength. But there needs to be more in basically (at any,rate at one wavelength moving in) in order for gravity to hold us to the Earth and while most of it just moves past us inward and out  a certain small percentage of it actually causes the gravity by interaction.  So this is how we might find dark matter. While for gravity at lower energy it will be more difficult to detect because it is lighter and so much faster than light and thus able to change phase so fast it would seem more continuous and more difficult to detect, for the proton the dark matter energy is much higher and indeed it might be interacting with the quanta of QCD  in ways that might more definitely influence both the general mass of the proton which we can easily measure the change but also it more directly have a certain amount of residual effect on the quanta of QCD. It's been said that the standard model is all set there are no "loose ends". But if the mass itself is given by dark matter and if mass is highly fundamental  I hold that all the quantum numbers and all the constants would ultimately be "made of spin" (and linear motion while not as much).  And this way I believe it's possible that the protons dark matter influences much of the standard model and may permeate it in more subtle ways.

Changes in many of the quantum numbers by transferral of the mass if much faster than light might also be much unlike what relativity may allow.

 

Einstein believed space and time are unified. Thus to move backward through space would reverse time, and this actually seems viable with quantum physics. While Feynmann was the inventor of time reversal, it doesn't goeswith as much as relativity says it should because it's not a property of particles; instead it describes some of the events of near radius in a looser way than Relativity might seem to deign.

 I hold if space and time are unfied as in SR then motion through time and space are reversible and gravity would radiate out as much as in. Thus Relativity tells us antigravity exists, while GWD, line removal and the non relative nature of gravity would be why we find no antigravity. It's not reversible in and out. Instead antimatter being with reversed spin as above with the experiment with the gyroscope might also weigh a bit less and fall at a bit different rate than matter.

  
 Displacement and Relativity

 I want to also look at the idea some have used to try to fit relativity into the observed radial change of gravity. 

 Einstein invoked the idea of a velocity dependent event in the labyrinth of General Relativity's obscurity that displaces the Earth's sense of where the Sun is to "now" and use the same trick to solve for the displacement of + and - charges that also see each other "where they are now". 

 But what is this obscure event? Einstein invokes effects that create the waves the Earth "surfs on" and these two effects of the gravity and this wave cancel and both would be at the speed of light to fit Newton's idea that gravity would otherwise have to have "infinite" (or e.g. billions of times faster than light) speed so the Earth doesn't move away by the effect of a finite speed of displacement. 

But what is Einstein's velocity dependant effect? The foundation of

SR itself is above all, motion. The redshift of light, mass augment, mass contraction, all are "determined by motion itself". So we look to Special Relativity to find where this velocity dependant change is. In SR there is only a contraction with motion along the line of motion, the x axis. The y and z are unchanged. There is no sideways effect of motion known, and if there were any change like this no computer or atomic reaction would even be possible as we know it! The Wikipedia has no entry about this effect even while it seems General Relativity would totally fail without it.

 Imagine looking to the light from a star a bit above (well a few billion years above!) the sun and the light from the sun itself as we move around the sun on our world, the platform Earth. The light from the sun is displaced exactly the same as the star because all there is there is motion. If anything, the motion of the Earth will increase the displacement of both the sources of light. Both sources if anything are displaced forward toward the direction of motion. They might multiply a bit but they by no means will counteract. There is no radial displacement of either the star or the light of the sun or it would be well known.

 So this prize of Relativity, actually to me a justification without evidence, is not what Relativity can claim. Below I'll look at the evidence that the displacement will reduce with increasing radius if relativity is true and this has been disproved by experiment.

 

The velocity dependent effect if it's caused by  the Earth surfing a gravity wave seems to violate Einstein's own idea that gravity is simple.

 

If gravity is simple it seems arbitrary to just add in a wave to save general relativity.

 

 

 

  But if we assume that gravity is complex then we can allow it and also allow resonances like the L5.

 

But if we can easily find L5, where is the velocity dependent wave? Certainly gravity is complex like for Bodes' law which would be a resonance between the sticky fields of both the dark matter and dark energy. If we allow it's complex then it becomes more possible to allow to combine our speed with resonances like the l5 and have them relative to which to measure our motion as would the earth being a more set frame of reference.

 

 Light bubbles, often used in Special Relativity are used to mark out motion and this is of value for the method of relativity. The fast limit is the speed of light so motion sets them off center so that the wavelength changes with motion stretching the bubbles according to the motion. If all observers are equivalent the only displacement would seem to be about motion, this works well "from the inside" for inertia and Special Relativity with the speed of light constant. 

 

 Even with gravity the speed of light changes, this sets the bubbles offcenter in a way relativity doesn't seem to allow if all observers are equal. The bubbles would radiate out the same in all directions other than by motion and not gravitate.

 The bubbles are not being influenced by internal motion as they are in SR. Instead the only way the bubbles can be influenced without external motion (gravity is present with or without motion) would be by the external influence of the faster than light gravity.

 If nothing faster than light is involved with the bubbles they could only radiate out at the speed of light at the edge and be changed only by relative motion but gravity radiates in and more mass tends to be a more priveledged frame. If the faster a mass moves the more velocity dependant change is invoked and gravity is uniform as in relativity, all masses would experience the same gravity and fall at the same rate. While Einstein can ignore acceleration in Special Relativity I would think gravity wouldn't allow this.

The main problem seems that the velocity dependant method doesn't solve the main problem of relativity about connectivity; light is a particle uninfluenced from emission to absorption in relativity in order to move at the speed of light. So if gravity moves at the speed of light, it can't be continuous and attract, the same problem, in a roundabout way, as the displacement of light. Even with the velocity dependant change gravity would still not be cohesive.

The light bubbles are used to explain why you could only fall in a black hole. Nothing can move faster than light, so if the bubble is way offset to the singularity it's so. For a flow of a bubble like a balloon in a stream, it's not needed that the wave of the flow be much faster than the balloon if the bubble was radiating out at slow speed but when the deflection becomes extreme it would only be caused by faster flow due to the bubble moving inward and not being as influential, Or flow intual, and if all black holes had escape velocity at c there would only be black holes of one radius if the mass gained falling in was infinite and infinity equals infinity.

 I would say it's neither obscure nor about Relativity if a faster than light influence is needed to displace the light "back to it's source" This itself seems to need influence on the gravity since the wave is already at the speed of light. Any change in the gravitational radiation like acceleration in radial motion seems to be evidence of faster than light influence on it. (The light of the electric charges would be influenced by the matter waves of QED.)

Originally I believed the EPR was valid so I sought to explain by a code caused by the Low Energy Higgs' like a small constellation around each heavy quantum that would resonate like two fans spinning with the same resonance. Each photon finds it's resonanant distant unified quanta by the special "code" of the unique LEH "orbit events" around each quanta and this distinction in each quanta other than entangled ones also would solve Maxwell's observation that the opposite charges of electromagnetism attract yet mass by gravity attracts by union and this doesn't "unify the field" at least to the degree energy conservation seems to need.. 

 So the distinction by the "code" of the LEH would solve this and be the distinction that gravity uses much like the opposite charges of other forces attract via yet with a much larger number of tbe LEH "charges" around each quanta and at much higher speed.


Later I considered what was called the modern interpretation of the EPR (The idea that no signal goes between entangled electrons and they are just in the same state in different places.) Even so an electron seems to disappear in one place and then resurface after travel at faster than light somewhere else or the double slit experiment and the collapse of the wave function also seems evidence in favor of events like this being possible and so I've reconsidered this as some have for the mechanism to cause the EPR. 

You may say that the change in the acceleration of the field as a mass accelerates by it might fit Relativity by merely changing the wavelength of the gravity wave at the speed of light as it radiates out. The overlapping waves of different wavelength would interfere without changing speed so thus Relativity of gravity might seem saved and causethe continous change in the field while all the waves out are at the speed of light. But since the speed of light is the top speed by relativity the wave trains move along at the same speed and don't interact. So the continuous field by radiance outward of the gravity waves seen by LIGO would't be a viable event.

Next consider wave trains of light in the opposite direction, both at the speed of light. Train a moves toward you with a two minute schedule. Train b moves opposite the first train at the speed of light. Imagine light from both trains being exchanged at a point where train a will reach in two minutes. The two trains change light like by mirrors in the window here at the two minute level. Information is exchanged and both trains continue in opposite motion till train b reaches the one minute mark for the area of train a that started a 0 and moved to one minute where the light from train b now exchanges the same information it got from the 2 minute mark. So the information has travelled from 2 light minutes to one. And it's travelled at twice the speed of light. Since in essence both light trains are moving in relative motion if they exchange any information the information is faster than light because if information reaches train a at the one minute mark and it would take another minute to reach the start of the exchange event at two minutes. 

 You may say "Wait, this is all solved by the Lorentz contraction. You can't add your speed to the speed of light in Relativity. The trains both contract and expand just so, so they can't move at twice the speed of light even in opposite motion." 

This is why,I name them "literally, trains of light". When they are lower energy and not made of mass and "lighter" there is no Lorentz contraction! This expresses the opposition in conversion of mass and energy Relativity doesn't allow. By this energy of light being more "the opposite" of mass in conversion at any rate actually radiates out in Special Relativity and is redshifted, while mass contracts! They would both expand or contract if mass and energy were the same as in Relativity. 

So I propose using low energy experiments with smaller machines with this method than a giant train, or just bouncing light off of light quanta for rhe mirror or methods as in the low energy quantum experiments that have been used to prove Einstein was generally right about the Uncertainty problem in quantum mechanics. 

If the light if anything speeds up for the two light trains it won't have as much Lorentz contraction because it would have reduced resistance to motion through the field and as in quantum mechanics where Einstein removed the observer this method might also do the same for Relativity making Einstein's ideas more consistent about the observer. Realtivity says all observers are valid, yet Einstein believed the opposite for quantum events, so here I agree with the observer being moderate.

The two light trains allow the gravity to have the continuous connection if they move both out and in unlike LIGO's only out wave but any speed for the second train,the in train, is faster than light in order to connect.

To test the idea even at the speed of light as some have believed that the Sun and Earth somehow tweak the field so they seem to have no displacement, consider a television monitor. If it has a slow connection to the station its ability to synchronise with the station limits the number of pixels. If we happen to just have the luck of being at the right distance like how we got good resolution with 1000 pixels at the radius of the Earth and yet if we were in some more distant area of say a nearby star certainly the resolution allowed is reduced to just a few pixels without the connection and so by the "slow" speed of light the ability to "tweak" by the events is reduced by definition.. to adjust needs a loop and the loop needs connection. The connection is reduced with more radius from the source. So GWD with a FTL connection predicts almost no change in the displacement of gravity with radius while relativity predicts a reduction in resolution. The 0 displacement rapidly falls off with relativity while not in GWD and in astronomy this would be why all the galaxies are spinning so fast yet they don't radiate out and they don't fit relativity by the way of the centrifugal force. If gravity is faster than light it may go faster yet and if it was at a slow speed without change it would lose more and more cohesion and this would also be how astronomy has shown the masses are spinning as a solid body with even more radial connection.. Here too a simple experiment to find the events nearby with atomic clocks at other radii than the Earth's orbit may hopefully help resolve this.

I think it's of value to remember an entire generation of mathematical physicists and Maxwell who Einstein admired the most devoted their lives to the wave methods of light. We may say no doubt all those experiments have been fit into relativity, by the waves funneled into the quantum wells, even so I believe waves are more general in general since if the fields couldn't hold together as a first principle by continuous wave attraction certainly the cosmos would be changed for any field. 

 Waves aren't just going to vanish. Or at any rate I think we can add on the outside waves that shape and mold events like the wavelength of light in Special Relativity. I believe waves are on the outside of the quanta and Line Removal is inside so Coulomb's law and the equation for gravity are inside out. Einstein's belief that light is a particle in Special Relativity so its speed is constant and unchanged from source to absorption is counteracted by his own idea of the quantum wave duality. This contradiction tells us Relativity might fail. The quanta need more waves to hold them together than would cause them to stop spinning and this would be derived from the  gravity waves by the common source of origin, Line Removal and reradiance inside the massive fields.

 
The Evidence for GWD

The 30 and more experiments that prove that light is a wave I hold to be evidence that Relativity is incomplete based on Einstein's holding that light needs to be a quanta to have constant speed. None of the waves themselves are faster than light; even so a simple phase change might seem to be of value in essence by Einstein's own words to allow more influence in the change in the wavelength of light otherwise without cause in SR.

As above the main experiments (other than the constant rate of fall in GR) taken to be evidence of General Relativity all may seem to be evidence against relativity here.

On my synopsis I discuss 8 more events in evidence for the lack of complete relativity, like the collapse of the wave function which is instant and at all points and without which quantum computers wouldn't be viable.

As I say elsewhere I believe we can build a machine to test SR in the lab, the Relativistic Wind Tunnel or RWT,  one of my own inventions. It may help us understand SR better by sending light past a small starship in the lab which with the light in relative motion to it would be equivalent to motion near the speed of light yet in reach without having to build the fast starship. 

I believed we might find superluminal connection between the small lab "starship" and the distant light in the lab before it meets the "ship".  While connection is already evidence against relativity as I say this about Faster Than Light connection here seems possible though not guaranteed. It's possible because if the connecting waves between the light and the high speed observer were at the speed of light at long wavelength and still at the speed of light, they would have far far more energy density the the waves LIGO has found and masses couldn't move through the low energy waves without obvious changes. This is the original problem about Maxwell' idea that the medium of the field has tension to give the speed of light. Waves have tension and with known speed have known snapback. If the light has huge speed and presumed huge density of the medium, where is the huge density if the planets move through it without any resistance seen? This may sound familiar much like dark matter. And so the phase change that might allow the light to connect the electron and positive charges would also solve the dark matter delimma.


If the fast waves shape the light before they reach the starship this might be easily proven if we send higher energy light past the machine and change it now and then by "acceleration" (not uniform motion where the light is uninfluenced as in SR) before it reaches the machine.

Consider a train and "the observer of the sound, right!"..The sound waves are of constant speed but like all other waves known, they need a medium, the air.. Why are we to believe there are all the other waves with a medium and Maxwell predicted the speed of light so well based on a resilient medium between electric charges and somehow electromagnetic waves are made of nothing? If all the fields are connected by energy conservation I hold they are all connected by the matter waves which are Faster Than Light and Einstein's consideration about light being a particle and having constant speed isn't the same as his common use of the doppler shift in relativity. 

The doppler shift seems more general because waves hold all the fields and the world together, particles can't do this since they would radiate out like a gas without higher speed waves to connect them.The main reason the first Michalson Morely experiment (not the second) seemed to not show the waves other than light is while the first experiment was wrong as Sungean says and while the low energy waves are valuable to energy conservation and the right snapback of the light as Maxwell believed, they're much faster and lower energy. 

In GWD the low energy light carries the same force as the snapback but with much higher speed so it gives the illusion of a completely continuous field as Einstein thought even while Aristotle disagreed about infinite speed in an empty medium. Also if they are indeed important to dark matter, the Line Removal events would make them also essentially only like gravity and chemically inert etc. 

While these ideas seem unusual I find they are much easier to comprehend and more like machines than I can imagine than what the early believers in relativity believed. And as they say whatever the physics of gravity are they are sure to be quite different from other physics..

By a superficial look the sound for the train observer merely compares itself to the air. Motion of the doppler shift is independant of the motion of the train or other observer. As the points of the wave are stretched out to reach from the train to the observer or from the observer to the train there is no stretching of the wave in its rest frame. While each point of the wave from the observer is stretched by the trains motion not its own motion...

  Even so there are two important events here; the sound wave itself has to compare itself to some event or it would be infinite as Aristotle says. Empty space would mean infinite speed. Certainly the sound compares itself to the air and the air molecules are much faster than sound to maintain the sound.

 The other is about the distinction between air and the electromagnetic events of the air. The sound wave needs the tension of the air to move. By Maxwell's method there is tension but it's maintained more constantly between the plus and minus charges, more like a constant connection between the weight and counterweight of an elevator than the train and the distant sound sensor with no connection.

  Like the waves of a rope the waves are sent yet the electromagnetic waves of the
atoms and molecules of the wave have to be faster or much faster so the individual molecules of it don't disconnect as the wave is moved from the observer to the sensor.

  So too the sound can't move without a medium of another speed, the molecules of the air. This is always true. So at a small distance like the collapse of the wave function or stretched out entanglement this seems to say that while the observer and the train aren't connected for the sound, in other events like the rope, the electron and positive charge, or the motion of waves in a rope or an elevator where there is real tension involved between two sources it would seem there is more than the speed of the larger waves in these events.


 If the Relativistic Wind Tunnel isn't built since I'm not mostly an experimental physicist consider the light in Einstein's elevator bent as the elevator accelerates away. Two major problems here are that while at least one frame of motion can translate away the force between the two weights dropped from the inertial accelerating elevator so it's uniform motion between two masses dropped at t1, t2, and t3.. no frame of motion can do this for the gravity bound elevator. All observers agree the two masses are accelerating away with time and a force exists.

 If the arc of the light in the inertial elevator is without any interaction with it, by Relativity it's just space and time. Atomic clocks placed on both falling masses in the inertial and gravitational elevators will show no change in the inertial elevator other than the change of motion by Special Relativity while the gravitational clocks on the falling masses change with time and this is defining the distinction of gravity and inertia. This refutes the entire claims that all the events about atomic clocks in the elevators is strong proof of the relativity of gravity. Einstein said NO experiment can distinguish an accelerated elevator like this from the other elevator.

Consider however an "abstract or concrete more unlimited edition of the Elevator"! Let the positive and minus charges be indeed the weight and counterweight of the elevators and the light between them is now the wire binding them. When we change the light say by another ray of light, the positive and minus charges will also have changes in acceleration and this is obvious evidence that it isn' t empty space time in relativity connecting the elevators to the light.

Laser Tractor Beams and Relativity

NASA is doing research about tractor beams and I've had ideas about this and relativity.

Consider two masses like asteroids with lasers attached to both on the side nearer in. These are the tractor beams.

Relativity holds that the beams are particles only. Particles have sides as Newton realized about light. This means the light between the masses can' t be continuous or attract. So no tractor beam will be viable since the particles of the lasers will first act like small weights with emission as they move away from the laser source. Think of throwing a weight away and the recoil moves the source and the weight apart. Also since the light is only a particle by relativity when the two beams hit they bounce off each other. There might be some radiation returning outward to the sources but this too would move them apart. 

Now consider the laser light enmeshed between the sources. If the light is continuous it allows the sources to be set with changing phase so the attraction can move the masses inward. 

The Pilot Wave theory of subatomic physics is considered by many to be the best way to solve some of the main issues physics has had about like quantum uncertainty. I'm a fan of the Pilot Wave method because e.g. it allows the collapse of the wave function to not be infinite with a more fluid wavelike outer "atmosphere" of each quantum that collapses with a simple phase change from "gas to solid" and the inner solid radius would both give the underlying stability Einstein hoped for in quantum events. You don't #create a sofa when you see it" it's stable and solid by Line Removal at the solid radius. The pilot wave also would guide other quantum events more around the outside of the quanta as observed by interactions.

Even so the apparent speed of the collapse of the wave function much concerned Einstein. This readily fits with GWD, since the wave is lighter so it's faster than light. 

And this might fit in with the idea that relativity won't allow a tractor beam, as above. 

And so if the pilot waves are around the outside of each quanta of both lasers they being faster than light seem to not only allow the laser sources to move inward I believe since each pilot wave needs attraction to hold the quanta together, and if they are faster than light this could give a faster than light connection between the two sources, by connection of each FTL wave around each light quantum to the next so the wave is sending the signal from quanta to quanta and this might extend the reach of the pilot waves beyond the quantum realm as might be expected if GWD is more general than relativity. I'm not certain it would be Faster Than Light here but the wave connection as I say seems non relativistic and the speed of the collapse of the wave might be used this way..

  We might say like the hydraulic tractor beam now in use or other tractor beams like I've thought of or that NASA is developing, the wave of cohesion in the water or the mass being moved by the tractor beam of others isn't faster than any other waves or sound waves in water. So while the connection is real all that might be needed in relativity would be to merely change the wavelengths of different light waves connecting the elevators to the distant light not the speed and relativity is saved other than the connection problem as above.

  These waves would seem to be necessary in relativity to allow cohesion of the  elevators of the plus and minus charges..But if these higher energy waves were just at the speed of light and still connecting the positron and electron an any way I would think they would have been found in the days before Einstein. The huge snapback for transverse waves means huge density for the medium considered yet this huge density would be found as the planets move through the "medium" without any resistance seen. So there seems a strong need for connection yet no friction is seen.

There are three reasons I believe the low energy field connects the light and the elevators;

 Energy conservation connects up all the fields as with the positive and minus elevators and the light;

 Second by Aristotle the field isn' t empty without infinite speed possible;

 Third, motion nearer and nearer the speed of light is met with more and more resistance and it puts on weight directly from the field this the third reason in my belief might be a simple cause of the Lorentz contraction by way of the resilience of the field which Einstein's method has no cause whatsoever even while as Sungean says is  the foundation of virtually All of modern physics. 

And this resistance is why two different masses with the same force applied move at different rates. The heavy mass moves slower because it has more area and thus impacts more of the waves outside both masses. If there is no field the two masses would move at the same speed with the same acceleration.

Conservation of momentum would also mean that the internal spins of the quanta are interacting with the external field. 

The energy of the external field doesn't change the speed of the mass in uniform motion as I say because while there is the weight and counterweight of the plus and minus charges, it's a quantum effect since the light is a quantum and so important to special relativity, so in order to interact with the external field and not be changed by it in uniform motion otherwise it has to go over a certain threshold energy, and the impact of one mass with another and also interaction of a mass with the external field in non-uniform motion.

This allows the field to compute unlike by relativity because the internal field is loosely connected to the internal field and because of the threshold it can store the changes and also make them by being over the threshold. This is like the computer of energy conservation which is not surprising considering all the evidence around us that energy conservation and the world in general is like a computer being able to both make and store the changes.

This relates to the idea about where I say that if the Higgs particles are around each quanta there needs to be a certain quantum threshold below which the Higgs' don't have more influence than the wind up of the field inside the quantum which maintains the tension by the separation of the internal spin from the external field. This is in order for the particles to keep on spinning even if the Higgs' would cause friction.

This seems like the photoelectric effect except it would hold for all masses whether they have electric charge or not.

More particularly below a certain quantum energy if you apply the same force to two different masses if they're small enough so they're below that level it's possible they might move at the same speed. 

This would be because as I say a heavy mass and a light mass would move at the same speed with the same force applied if they weren't interacting with the external field and by reducing the force acting on them they might also not be interacting with the external field in order that the results of the interactions to conserve energy not just change but also be stored by being under the threshold level during the time when it's stored. This possible result of my ideas may be like the photo electric effect but it's more about inertia and not just electromagnetism.

In addition I agree with Tesla that since the field doesn't have 0 permeability to light, it's with tension like sound waves in the air giving rise to the possibility of superluminal events of the field around the light.

Why Pilot Waves Fail for General Relativity..

The Pilot Wave method I think is gaining deserved recognition as an explanation for how events like the collapse of the wave function take place.

In special relativity it would seem to work well also because it would be a pilot quantum method, except it might be reversed around so that the quanta drag along the waves. So the quanta are well preserved so Einstein dreams well, and essentially the waves are just removed by this method, they're influenced but not influencing the particles. And it's obvious that those waves themselves are not faster than light as would be the expression of this event.

I would think this trick works well for uniform motion and while the speed of light is constant.
Einstein said any detection of the low energy field is disproof of relativity, more particularly about changes  in the speed of light.

But this is what happens in General Relativity where light slows down and I think of all the famous events about atomic clocks and the redshift of gravity as therefore about the inertial component of the field just as in Special Relativity.

But this is ignoring the change in the speed of light here, an event that is disproof of relativity by detection of the change in the speed of light relativity ignores.


This would be because the gravity at another speed than inertia or light wraps around each of the higher energy quanta on the outside by Line Removal and flows through it by the extra tensor.

So relativity seems to fit superficially but the slowing of light is the small change that's evidence relativity is incompete. Any detection of the low energy field Einstein says by change in the speed of light is disproof of absolute relativity..

WHAT ABOUT THE SLOWING OF PULSARS BY GRAVITY WAVES?

Since inertia doesn't cause gravity any more than uniform motion causes acceleration, I think gravity controls the speed of light more than light controls the speed of gravity. 

If different masses in general move by f=ma as with the Earth and the moon instead of E=mc squared we can actually assume many different speeds for gravity because there are no uniform gravitational fields.  The inertial component of gravity is at the speed of light because the speed of light is so important to uniform motion in relativity. 

 

 With pulsars even accelerating at any speed other than the speed of light itself or with change in speed as with the pulsars in their orbit, I hold to be evidence that gravity is not just at the speed of light.

Some, myself included, have believed that you could assume any speed for gravity.. . if you assume it's at the speed of light then the pulsars will radiate out and slow down at the same rate if gravity is much faster, provided you also allow for it to be much lower energy. 

 In this event it's just as easy to assume that gravity has another speed and you merely change the energy, and you can get that much radiation and slowing down of the pulsars as observed. 

So the observed speed of the pulsars may not be the result of GWD not relativity which would be more general than relativity.

This also would hold for bending of starlight like for Jupiter and indeed all the other changes in acceleration that Einstein  used to "prove" general "relativity" because as I say different masses would have to fall at the same rate if relativity holds

or all would derive from E=mc squared and so the momentum of all masses large and small would move at the speed of light.

That the light slows down in a gravitational field as has been well known is not the same as Einstein's basic formulation of relativity where he says that all masses fall at the same rate. 

Light has mass too and from a relativistic point of view and the view of conservation of momentum it might seem possible to say that the light slows down, and so to conserve energy the gravity merely speeds up. If the LIGO results are true however, gravity is already at the speed of light so it could only change its wavelength.

The light here is slowing down so it's going to have shorter wavelength, so the gravity waves would have to have longer wavelength.

But gravity contracts masses. At first I wondered how you could have a red shift for light and relativity holds well it seems and yet gravity would have a blueshift. I wondered how the gravitational blueshift would interact with the electromagnetic fields of relativity so well and more recently I realized that Line Removal is a way for this to fit, by relativity if gravity always has a redshift otherwise we would expect there the Earth to have more volume inside than outside! The field would radiate out because if light were quantum and particles without connection they couldn't hold together. Only if gravity is faster than light to wrap around the outside of the light can gravity bend light.

 In physics often it's been often observed that while experiments like "physics simulation experiments" where events like water wave observations "are used to hope to find an equal in more distant physics" like the edge of black holes, we were also cautioned by professors that this use of analogy about machines is often not true. I would hold however that this about more general samples used before finding general evidence is important. Einstein used a lot of "thought experiments" and believed there are deeper solutions all around us if we are aware and these are machines like the elevator, the rope, the air, and perhaps the + and - charges that seem to have enough in common that there is enough evidence to consider them as more than luck. While Einstein used a lot of ideas about machines I consider his ideas not as deep. There are a lot of things left unsolved in physics. Why there is rest mass, why particles spin, why Einstein's unified field failed or why the constants what they are and not changing have been inspirations to me.

 I'm more a physicist and inventor than a mathemetician or involved with experiments. If these are your fields your collaboration may be welcome. Please call 276 228 3469 if you like or write me at 138 Longview Village Wytheville, VA. 24382 Thanks!


Why GWD explains rest mass and the distinctions of bosons and fermions, of mass and energy.

 Here's my Youtube video about how to build a hugely more giant cosmic ray sensor than the LHC. 

  Please See Also my Synopsis Link at The Upper Left of The Site or click here. Thanks!