Black Hole Dynamics, and The Asymmetry of Mass and Energy

 Here I ask what powers supermassive bodies like black holes and why the jets are observed to be mostly symmetrical, and as I say on the posts that follow, the asymmetry of mass and energy may be why black holes only have 50 % of the mass predicted by the implosion of the ghost particles. Here I want to say more "in light of the shade of supermassive fields" as in the post below also, about Mercini Houghton's idea that black holes can't even exist based on her idea that due to Hawking radiation, all the mass is radiant and no black holes are even possible.

  As I say, much the observational evidence about all the mass being dragged around the centers of galaxies with darkness seen at the source (I've been framed by my luxury sweet optician!) tells us that Mercini Houghton is wrong.

   My video is about the asymmetry of mass and energy (Encyclopedia Comp video) this may be about how e.g. mass is much easier to convert to energy, and e.g. about the electron having more mass but less energy, and the positron has more energy but less mass and mass is heavy while energy is light relates to this.  Einstein makes them equivalent but relativity can't make them equal. In my idea GWD, this is why Dirac's attempt to unify relativity failed because mass and energy in relativity are completely equivalent in quantum mechanics theoretically, yet there is more matter or mass than antimatter, like energy in our world.  If the proton is more with union with the plus charge, this is why there is more mass, mass and energy are asymmetric.

   And as I say here, this would resolve why black holes weigh only about half as much as the ghost particle method of inward radiance of the supermassive fields allow. Another reason Mercini Houghton 's idea may be wrong is about my idea that gravity and inertia are distinct as I say below. Like Mach, Einstein believed gravity and inertia were essentially the same thing, so the speed of inertia may be what LIGO has recently found. Or it could be  a goof of the machine like the OPERA or BICEP2. As I say below gravity being hugely lighter than light, may move much much faster, my hopeful generalization of Maxwell's method as I say on my Physics Synopsis page see link upper left of page. Radiant Hawking reradiation at the event horizon may radiate inward because of gravity's super speed especially even just inside the event horizon where the speed might be faster than light, a speed even ghostly particles may not be able to reach.

  You may have heard of the paradox of the firewall, a zone here where there would be radiance due to the tide of the massive stretch even on the quanta by gravity. I explain this by the same contradiction around us all the time. Quanta are discontinuous, gravity seems smooth, as Einstein believed. The resolution would be by what I have called Field Line Removal. The field inside a black hole is implosive to the point where gravity creates the quanta with enough pressure to start to re radiate out, and there is no gravity or huge gravity of the electron around us here. Yet by renormalization or scattering experiments, the electron has large mass inside. It's a sort of antigravity, to lift us up against the gravity. It would flow in the spaces between the quanta, and gravity has no quantum numbers or shielding. So while all the quanta would be derived from gravity, they don't know it, and like the proverbial creator of gravity set the world in motion, the world is often unaware of what the gravity is about.

 So the fields are unified generally yet there is distinction. If gravity creates the quanta, I would hold that the reverse is possible, it could shred the ghost particles as they fall in the event horizon below a certain level of radius here. First the Hawking radiation might convert the virtual quanta to real, and then with the asymmetry of the mass and energy, the heavy positive charge falls in. Hawking believes that a large black hole can only increase in mass and I agree since this is what gravity tends to do. It has more binding energy than the radiant quanta, or we would fall off the Earth.  The event horizon would yank away the plus charge so it falls in by distinction and it being heavier a bit increases the mass.

 Once this particle falls in enough, I believe it may also be shredded to gravity waves and the firewall is also rapidly shredded with the implosion of the mass into the area of the deep event horizon. All the information isn't lost or destroyed. The higher quantum information is shredded up while the more basic momentum is conserved. Higher information is often lost e.g. a wall can be a shelf and even so its basic atoms are much the same. I believe higher information is not always conserved as in information theory, while we are alive and don't live indefinitely, some forms of life, like cities and businesses are theoretically without death. They live slow and live for ages, while our life is fast and we don't live as long..

  All this like Hawking radiation seems to follow from basic physics. Once the implosion of the field reaches the singularity I disagree with Einstein or Hawking. I agree with T'hooft that the energy isn't destroyed into infinite implosion. To save energy conservation as T'hooft says I invoke faster than light spin of a fifth and sixth force to stand counteract the implosion by the superstrong centrifugal force.

 The dynamics of the jets would use Field Line removal also to unify and polarize considerably. Here the magnetic type NS zones of the superfusion wouldn't be as much quantized much like electric charges, so by the squeezing of the force they move upward in the massive gravity.. Gravity is mostly removed inside the jets, even so some of the gravity is there moving in the opposite way and I believe this would be disproof of Relativity.


 You might wonder of Field Line removal of electrons and the superfusion method needs to be faster than light to outachieve the gravity, and if the FL removal is a sort of antigravity for both, wouldn't this mean the electron also spins at faster than light? It's interesting that Einstein rejected the Kaluza Klein method of higher dimensional spin in his belief about the unified field. It would fit the idea of FL removal if we assume indeed that the electron spins inside at faster than light, my belief is that if mass is spinning energy, if the electron has much internal mass it would also have more spin than relativity allows. Why does the muon weigh?  Relativity says nothing of the cause of rest mass, but the fractional charges of QCD are about a third reduced in electric charge compared to the electron so if they lighten up to go that much higher speed, this is the speed of Chao's experiments. Einstein may have not believed in the Kaluza Klein method for two reasons; it would be based on essentially FL removal and this won't allow a unified field mostly; and if the electron spins at faster than light inside, of course this would disprove relativity.


 As I say on the posts below, two Japanese physicists of the early 90's found that a gyroscope has weight reduced as it spins one way, the other way it weighs the same. This also would be about mass energy asymmetry since it would be also why the black holes have 50% of the mass the ghost particle method would predict.  If mass and energy are not the same then mass and weight are also distinct. So the black hole has about half the weight yet the same mass. Here too, the asymmetry of mass and energy is why the black hole gains mass yet at half the rate. With the Hawking radiation half the mass is imploded, and at the singularity, half the mass has radiance only.

  So far the evidence shows that there are the jets, and to me they seem superluminal since they must out radiate the gravity to remove outside the event horizon at the polar regions of the superstrong gravity. Evidence shows black holes to have a dynamo of electric charge, like a huge Van De Graff machine.

 All this dynamo motion would need some connection between the inside and the outside of the massive body, yet if the escape velocity is c as with LIGO, and gravity is at the speed of light and relativity is the limit, no outward information about the jets or even the gravity if it's only inward would be allowed by the speed of light.

One question Hawking might ask about is if all those particles of one charge mostly fall into the black hole, why it doesn't build up much charge and explode. This would be caused by the fifth and sixth force having more extra negative charge, and the would perhaps combine with the leftover superfusion charges powering the jets. The electromagnetic field favors the negative electric charge the strong force favors the plus charge, the proton, the weak force like electromagnetism favors negative entropy and charge so and the fifth force inside would favor positive charge by the reversal of sign between the layers of field, and the sixth force also might favor the positive entropy.

 The jets are mostly symmetric. As I earlier sought to unify gravity to e.g. other forces before I realized Field Removal would mostly be of value while not absolute as a way to allow Einstein's idea of a unified field (low energy quantum experiments show he was partially right as we would expect with partial FLR methods) I asked why if gravity is much like the other forces and they have an in out N S field we might expect to be on a South Beach diet up in Baffin Island by the N radiation outward with gravity! This seems strong evidence against a unified field. What are we left with, I hold, is with some residual quantum component of gravity, the poles of the supermassive gravity might have some distinction, because Einstein here wasn't all wrong either.

Even so I ask why was he mostly wrong about this? Because gravity isn't mostly a quantum. If gravity creates the other fields and it's a wave then waves are the foundation.  Particles have sides and don't radiate in like a gas. Einstein said it seems impossible to imagine a fundamental particle that could both  emit and absorb waves. So the jets of black holes are symmetrical because gravity is a sphere by the waves around the supermassive zone Einstein was spooked about the infinite implosion.

 If the waves wrap around and there is no beaming for gravity with the supernovas, a roughly equal number of the superfusion particles of both N and S would radiate out with the jets.


  The reason we don't sail away from the Earth's N or S is because gravity waves would be smaller than a neutron so the electromagnetic "thermodynamic" speed of light of Special Relativity would be of value here. A mass of F=ma moves slower if larger, as expected if it had some sort of surface of resistance to the external Higgs' particles, so it moves slower with the same force than the smaller mass. But the particles would have a zone of shielding like gravity if the size of a mass around us and there is no shielding. And as Einstein noted, there seems to be evidence that mass isn't electromagnetic, even with the all powerful speed of light in relativity. So I hope to save this thermodynamic influence for my science afterlife, by the idea that the bubble is the same volume as F=ma but of short enough radius to make it so when you take a + and - to make a heavy charge of mass like a meson or baryon, the mass isn't gone when you combine them to a 0  charge.

See my posts below about how the superfluidity of this field may allow solution to the problem about the Higgs' slowing all motion to stop with friction and other problems this idea of mine Modified La Sage Gravity MLSG.


As I say, the anomalous spectra of the jets tells us of new science unseen by common methods.

 The superfusion particles are the source of cosmic rays and they may be stable only with super massive force of pressure, they radiate out to the common metabolites around us. For some reason the quanta themselves don't fizzle to the level of the gravity waves. Since all forces radiate or gravitate to electromagnetism, evidence for the great influence of "thermodynamic" relativity, the stability of the electron or photon seems to relate to the tendency for the gravity to implode and the balance of the gravity with the quanta with both radiance and inward reradiance seems to me to be a deep impression of symmetry theory.

  The gravity is imbalanced mostly and the quanta are balanced charges, so gravity balances the electromagnetism, answering Einstein's question about why the electron has the charge and mass it does and why it's stable. There must be stability somewhere for us to exist. I believe the anthropic idea is silly since all the constants we are supposed to be so awed by just reaching where we are are always a balance of two opposites, and life would be at any level, all we need is balance for computation. If the constants were changed somewhat, other constants that would also be balanced by the action reaction pairs of energy conservation and Noether's theorem says nothing about the way each pair has it's aspect, merely that they balance in a cosmic center of moderation..

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

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

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

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

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

physics.org and Laura's idea

My physics Synopsis GWD/General Wave Dynamics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

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

My Physics Synopsis GWD

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

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

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

WAYS OF LOOKING AT THE DISTINCTION OF GRAVITY AND INERTIA EINSTEIN DIDN'T CONSIDER/ What's The Speed of Gravity?

  When I was 18 what I read fascinated me in a college textbook about physics. Einstein had predicted spacelike and timelike intervals (faster and slower than light) and indeed virtual spacelike and timelike light essentially had been found experimentally. Even so, there was something Einstein hadn't guessed.. The spacelike photons have mass but no inertia, and the timelike photons have inertia  but no mass.. This seemed so interesting, and for most of the time and spacetime since, I had wondered if Einstein's ideas about inertia being the same as mass or gravity, which spins mass around if mass is spinning energy as I believe..

 That mass and inertia are completely separate in the two types of virtual photons seems to be much evidence against Einstein's idea of the complete equivalence of gravity or mass and inertia. I've much later had an idea called Field Line Removal, or FLR. In this idea the compression of the gravity waves in super massive fields of gravity is where all the quanta around us come from, not just other quanta, which seems just a loop without as much science, like Aristotle's idea that smoke rises because that's what's most natural. While up to these times there is lots of evidence for energy conservation, I believe there may be two types of fields, weight fields and mass fields. By FLR the weight fields or external and move in the spaces between the quanta, while the mass fields are internal and obey energy conservation. The weight fields may not obey energy conservation since in falling they are reduced to 0 and then resurface at the surface of the Earth at rest. Another way of saying this is if the cosmos is always winding down by entropy, something must be winding it up, or gravity or the weight fields,. They might do this by being nonquantum and semiquantum like a superfluuid, so gravity flows from  thermodynamically cold to hot.

If you think of inertia as internal and quanta, and gravity and weight as an external add on, you can see the distinction of inertia and mass.

Even so all the fields are generally in connection, and no doubt, Einstein wasn't completely wrong here.  Yet the idea of the spacelike and timelike photons seems to say in some since sense he was also not complete in his formulation of the Equivalence Principle. To me at any rate, it seems like the photons themselves would need some way superficially to save Einstein's idea. So here I invoke my idea that there is indeed a connection to unify the photons. This would be that  they are connected and unified by the faster than light waves of gravity, gravity being much lighter than light might move faster indeed.

Consider this;

  A ballistic arc has inertia and gravity. The motion forward of the mass has it's displacement of light, as in Special Relativity, SR. Moving at near the speed of light, the observer can more and more only see ahead by this. So I equate the x component to be by essentially the displacement of light. The y radial component of gravity is completely independent however. Yet if gravity is at the speed of light and like inertia would be displaced the same amount by SR, the two components are yet completely independent. By FLR this is simple since the weight field like gravity is external to the quanta of all the mass while the gravity is external in the spaces between them. This relates to how Coloumb's law has the identical formula of inverse second power with distance. The weight field is the gravity field inside out. And this would be why a number of masses with a given density is increased in gravity if the spaces between them are reduced.

 In Special Relativity at first I wondered how low energy gravity was able to go right through the observer's frame and yet strong SR effects are seen. I wondered if something like another wavelength of resonance would work. By my mechanism of gravity I later found FLR may cause the gravity to bend around each quanta, always a source of gravity, and unify on the other side with a change in speed of the external field according to the mass and it's change in frequency on both side of the quanta by it's spin. I always believed mass is spinning energy, something not explained in SR the source of mass.




  Hold on you may chuckle, our team is ahead right now, and it's August! the LIGO experiment has already disproved this about gravity being faster than light..

 As I say on my post two blocks down the superhighway of science here, Einstein like Mach, believed gravity and inertia were the same thing. If inertia is like the quanta, it moves at only the speed of light. But if gravity and inertia aren't the same, the gravity waves could move much faster.

Another possibility is, the LIGO is just wrong, allowing gravity to be faster than light, and also inertia. I've tended to believe this is possible also for inertia since like gravity centrifugal force doesn't shield metal plates, and because the EPR at near its energy also seems to be much faster than light. Since the constant for centrifugal force is much stronger than the gravitation equation constant, the main thing would seem to be that gravity is faster than centrifugal force whatever its speed is.

 I'm reading sites that say there was no one in the room when the gravity waves were seen, and it's not good science to have such hype with just one event seen, and another machine like LIGO will be funded based on this result so there would be a financial motive for some  to spoof the machine for the money. In essence like OPERA and other machines like BICEP, to me this isn't yet good science. If they land on the moon with Apollo 11, where's my Soap Operas and Wheel, if it's Apollo 17, then we say it's of worth to science, and a licensed cosmetologist has a beautious celebration!


 Here I want to describe a more viable way of looking at gravity and inertia than Einstein believed in. The elevator thought experiment seems to be comparing likes to unlikes. As I say elsewhere here, there are a good number of things you would find in the inertial elevator not found in the gravity machine. as in, the light in the inertial elevator might go through zones of something like diffraction. If these were the same for the gravity of a massive body, there would be zones of these diffraction observers above and this would make the orbit of a body unstable orbiting around the massive field. Yet masses in orbit don't destabilize. Einstein believed in complete continuity for gravity.

As another distinction, if a mass is dropped in the inertial elevator and another one second later, some observers moving with the masses will say they're acceleration apart, and others will say they are in uniform motion depending on the motion of the observer, while all observers on the gravity observation elevator will agree. The gravity elevator has an acceleration of the field and the inertial flow is uniform, so choosing the right frame cancels the acceleration.

 And there seem to be several of these distinctions; why aren't observers allowed to look out to see if the elevator is in the stars or near the earth with light, the all important way of relativity?

And so on. I think these distinctions may be highlighted with what I call the Relativistic Wind Tunnel. This involves putting our elevators in the lab to see if Einstein or I am right. Either the mass or the field moving past at near the speed of light may give us a way to find out more about this. See my link at bottom of this post or click here for more about this machine!


 Here I want to replace the elevator idea with what I consider a more advanced way of looking at gravity and inertia.

  Instead of using elevators to the stars think of a centrifuge with millions of g's (which Einstein's idea gives us no clue how inertia being the exact same can have 5 million g's while the earth with it's huge mass has just a g.)

Looking at the centrifugal gyroscope, (so often they are!) and a massive star of 5 million g's of acceleration; the main difference is about induction. The centrifuge has no induction, while the massive star has huge mass dragged as it spins by. And from this you may see why the speed of gravity by LIGO if it's not a "spoof" or defect of the machine, may only be the speed of light and inertia, and not of gravity. Because inertia is like light that is a quanta, obeying energy conservation. But gravity, speeding up the massive bodies by something like MOND, may be with "Massive disproofs of Relativity" as some have said.

If inertia is a quanta, like in special Relativity, it has sides and this may allow no mass induction! Einstein believed in Special Relativity that light is a particle unchanged from emission to absorption, so that it's speed is unchanged. If you believe inertia is the same as gravity, and inertia is a quanta, you would say gravity is at the speed of light also. However it may be much faster if something is needed to connect gravity and inertia like the spacelike and timelike photons to save Einstein's idea at least to some degree. Note that centrifugal force like thermodynamic entropy radiates out while conserving energy, just as we might expect it to do if inertia might move at the speed of light. The moon is half a light second away by the "slow" speed of light or inertia, yet it would sail away by this disconnection if gravity wasn't much faster to overpower this radiance.


  The simple experiment I offer a few posts down is to use sensors like the Torsion Machine, or arrays of atomic clocks say a half a light hour from the sun. We might expect to see the gravity wave change from a CME ("solar flare") almost instantly moving the machine in, then a half a light hour later, the light and inertial waves in radiance, and what Einstein believed was gravity to indeed arrive at the speed of light a half hour later.

See my Youtube site (Encyclopedia Comp Video) and or see my  post below for evidence in favor of my ideas about waves and wave speeds being a general defining way of both gravity and other forces by my generalization of Maxwell's method I've named GWD, General Wave Dynamics, also please Click Here for my Synopsis of this idea.

Relativitistic Wind Tunnel Possible Distinctions between gravity and inertia