Why LIGO may Be The Speed of Inertia Not Gravity Waves...Einstein Believed Gravity Was The Same as Inertia. 

 On my posts and videos I discuss many reasons why I believed gravity might be faster than light. The Earth is more at rest than the sun, and is thus a more privileged reference zone about gravity (more observers would say the Earth is at rest than the moon, and more observers would agree the sun is at rest than the Earth Moon system) right, because gravity might be nonrelativistic.  The higher the speed of motion, the more the displacement of light, like an umbrella in the rain being of more vertical motion than the same rain when on a train. As Van Flandern notes, why is there no displacement by gravity of the Earth to the sun? This would be because of  gravity's superluminary or superluminal, motion, and allstar, and visastar show.. I believe the EPR is so much faster than light because by things like energy conservation and other conservation laws, all the attractive fields or all the radiant fields of quanta  are derived from the one low energy field of gravity inside the supermassive fields of black holes, both unifying the fields yet also this would be the source of all the fields around us. The reradiation at that density of the waves would be where all the motion around us comes from, not merely other motion. This might prove someday that gravity is where all the field derives of the quanta, and the Ancient Greek question Einstein asked also about the electron, "Why does the electron have the charge and mass it does or in the related ancient Greek "where does the unified world around us come from, and how does the changes in distinction arise from this?" ( My Irish is as ancient as it used to be!) There is no equation for the collapse of the wave function, it seems instant for all zones of the quanta. If a large mass used the waves to fizzle out a large number of the quanta, all we might get is a handful of dust like Carl Sagan says in Cosmos, or just ephemeral dust moving out at superluminal speed. If the radiant inward fields of all types are derived from and like gravity and gravity is faster than light, the low energy fields of this type are also faster than light. 

  The wavelength of light changes with the speed of the observer in Special Relativity. It would seem to need a faster than light connection to be influenced by the starships motion before the light reaches the observer. Why is there superluminal motion seen for cosmic jets?  A black hole of radius a has an escape velocity of c yet a larger black hole not have the same radius if its escape velocity was also c.. How can anything escape these fields like the jets if the escape velocity is c? If there is no singularity to conserve energy so no infinite implosion as Einstein himself demurred, and as others like T'Hooft and myself believe, it seems like only faster than light centrifugal force would be stronger than any other force inside the supermassive zone. If the field or space time in Special Relativity is empty, why is a force of push or pull felt on acceleration of the high speed observer, or any observer as the wavelength (or speed of motion of spin, or speed) of light changes? This would seem to fit Maxwell's idea of the resilient medium he then used to predict the speed of light so well. (If this is true, my idea may be that if gravity has resilience like Maxwell's medium, it being much much lighter than light might also be much faster, you lighten up to go fast.) And I believe the regular structure seen in the Wmap image of the CMB is so regular and symmetrical because of the speed of gravity so it unifies these and other huge cosmic areas.. And so on.

 You may say, strong claims need strong evidence and there are the 10,000 experiments proving Special Relativity, and the handful above that seem to be other science. Yet Einstein said if one of his ideas go they all go. And gravity isn't about Special Relativity. Like Mach, Einstein believed inertia is the same thing as gravity. But Einstein had a real labor trying to match inertia with gravity. Special Relativity, SR is about uniform motion and a constant speed of light. With gravity the speed changes and there is acceleration. Einstein tries to make gravity going down the same as the Earth moving up by millions of rockets to boost the same inertia as gravity. And by what seems to me this comic science would have us at the speed of light in a year at the comfortable speed of 32 ft/second.

Einstein believed old electrons weigh more than new electrons, and this would follow from the motion of the surface of the Earth if so, and experiments have disproved this..

 Sure predictions Einstein makes are about changes in acceleration, the shift of the orbit of Mercury, the bending of starlight, frame dragging, these are all about changes in acceleration, not uniform equal accelerations for all observers. Gravity seems non relative if only some accelerated observers are valid, this is not relativity of the observer . If any observer isn't relative, then I believe it's not about linear motion and the constant speed of light.

  So this seems to be why the speed of gravity waves might not be the speed of light.

Is LIGO disproof of this? Aside from the possibility of spoofing, like the OPERA failure and other problems with details of the machines, no doubt this may be also possible, with time we may find the evidence here.

 If the result is valid, this would be my explanation. It's possible the results are wrong, because of these reasons especially about acceleration of the black hole at c, how does the wave or any information reach us if it's not faster than c? In some important sense, somehow it seems to me gravity is indeed  faster than light. So I believe either the results like OPERA and Bicep2 may be wrong or gravity is faster than light.

 I think if Einstein believed gravity is inertia to fit constant speed, constant light motion  to General Relativity, he chose the speed of the inertial waves, not gravity. Why or how can gravity as a wave of acceleration not flex over a billion light years between us and the source? Gravity is an acceleration, shouldn't it speed up or slow down? I've held there has been no quantum gravity seen because gravity may be a set of unifying waves. While inertia may be about quanta like light and at the speed of light, I think the waves of LIGO if proven might be inertial waves that may only show the image of the distant event not the cause. I believe inertia is just a machine sort of and gravity waves are more like the ghost in the machine.

 I've held that gravity and inertia aren't the same because of e.g. the huge distinction of strength. A single high speed centrifuge can have 5 million gs of force, and the huge Earth has one even with it's larger mass. While it may be good to find inertial waves (they may allow good astronomy and more since centrifugal force doesn't shield metal plates) these may not be gravity. Einstein might have believed these were gravity waves and they do move at c.

 If the spoofing turns out to not be a goof, I think the energy of the LIGO waves may fit more with inertia, and this might tell us inertia and centrifugal force are at the speed of light, and thus a quantum field. Einstein believed light was a quanta in SR unchanged from the source, and if this is like constant motion and a constant speed of light, the quanta also go with any field at c like inertia. I've tended to believe the slow speed of inertia would be by disconnection of quanta like light. The slow quanta separate like the distance to the moon in 2 seconds, so only if gravity is faster the moon wouldn't sail away.

 I believe there is no quanta of gravity, or not nearly so much (some would be needed to cause gravity build up the mass around us, as I say elsewhere.) But gravity waves may be much much faster than inertial waves.

 The strength and thus the speed might be the same as the speed of the inertial field at c but scaled way down in strength to fit the change in the millions of g's of the gyroscope, up to the much lower energy, much higher speed of the waves.

  I believe there may in waves and out particles for inertia and centrifugal force, and out waves and in motion of the particles for gravity. Centrifugal force like inertia would have particles and the slower waves that radiate out with the sides and quanta that might keep the speed the same of the waves seen by LIGO. Gravity might need much faster waves than inertia to overpower the outward radiance of these quanta. Even so the waves for gravity may be tougher to find and if the waves seen are indeed inertial, the force they exert will be mostly by the particles, this was how Einstein would have found the equivalence (not equality) of gravity and inertia.  Inertia has sometimes been called pseudo gravity. So gravity and inertia may  have the same quanta but the waves are not the same. If the particles of inertia move outward and they exert most of the force of the wave seen by LIGO, it would seem that the waves found would also exert more force radiating outward than inward from the source.  If Einstein had predicted inertial waves to fit his vision of gravity as the same as no change in the speed of light for the given radius, gravity with inward radiation wouldn't have  outward radiation so much with each wave oscillation seen.


   To prove this an idea I had could be used except improved to see if it's faster than light. I used the idea of the Cavendish torsion machine in a satellite around the sun to sense  gravity from solar flares and other events, the most explosive events in the solar system. Or arrays of atomic clocks might be cheaper. If gravity is faster than light, we set the orbit of the sensor at a distance near enough to sense the event but far enough away to get enough shade! Or at any rate a way to have enough distance to see if the gravity is separate from the light and inertial waves. So first with the event, there might be the gravity wave seen almost immediately, then the inertial wave and light wave both arriving at say a half hour if the distance is half a light hour. This would seem to definitely separate gravity from inertia, and inertia in it's more relativistic way of the quanta. And since gravity radiates in not out, and centrifugal force or inertia seem to radiate out, the first motion of the gravity method would find the machine moving a bit more in with each wave as it passes, while centrifugal force radiates out and this would show on both the light and the sensor of the waves as Einstein believed. 

  If gravity is the same as inertia, and the force is much increased inside a gyroscope, there might be also strong changes in the gravity measured around the machine by relativity and there is no change here also.

As Van Flandern believed if the escape velocity of a massive body is the speed of light and this is the cosmic speed limit, no information of any kind about gravity or any wave can reach the outside. So I think of the union of the two super dense masses LIGO found as being first emitted by gravity waves inside the black hole, and these then reached the outside where the inertial waves then moved on their way our way. The inertial waves were set in motion by the gravity waves but may not be the same. The gravity waves may have passed by us billions of years ago.

 If gravity radiates inward to oneness, and centrifugal force radiates out with heat, (the "thermodynamic" speed of light more on my videos) the opposition of gravity and inertia as in GWD, has a changing speed for gravity, and the constant speed of light for inertia and Special Relativity. Light travels at one speed and is relative, while gravity travels at many speeds and is not so relative it seems. So gravity changes the speed of light, and inertia stays the same.

Here's my physics synopsis

INFLATION COSMOLOGY And The WILKINSEN WMAP OBSERVATIONS


   It's believed the Wilkensen Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) which show the cleanest
map yet of the cosmic microwave background or CMB, may imply Guth's cosmic inflation was the start of a chain reaction of other bubble universes. See this page for more about Guth's idea. WMAP shows a round simple cosmic circle with regular "sides" of the cosmos, Click here for image. Tufts University astronomer Alex Vilenken believes in this, and NYU researchers Spencer Chang, Thomas Levi, and Matthew Kleban say "If the two bubble universes impacted, the impact zone would be in the shape of a circle, and the pulse of energy from this circular zone would travel into our bubble like a shock wave, where it would presumably leave a disk like imprint on the microwave background". Kleban predicted that the light may be polarized in special angles in two concentric rings of the disk.

  My belief is another view of both cosmology and cosmogony, I've named Cosmic Jet Cosmology, or CJC. I use more familiar physics seen in astronomy of the jets that are of stars and more massive bodies the highest energy seen of any masses of the universe. In this cosmology, it may be of related high energy events. The observed Hubble radiant outward travel of the galaxies might be mostly inside one of the jets, where we are, the other perhaps yet too distant to see. In CJC the jets then move out to the cosmic equator which would also explain this feature found by WMAP, though not by Kleban's explanation. Bubbles would be radiant and spherical, spin would involve a zone like this band of galaxies, not bubbles. In CJC the jets from the source of radiance like the galaxies while scaled up more in higher power, could then spill over to the plane of the cosmos, the cosmic equator then might implode the matter back from the plane to the center of the jets where it's recycled by the gravity to reradiate via the jets in infinite cycles of radiance and implosion conserving energy and powered by gravity.

  The Sloan sky survey seems to show that more galaxies are spinning counterclockwise in the N hemisphere than they would by inflation cosmology. The S hemisphere survey is in progress to see if it is also with clockwise spins of the galaxies. As on this page it seems anamalous the Milky Way is spinning with spin axis highly aligned with the direction of the cosmic expansion seen. This seems to be definite evidence against a completely smooth era of inflation expansion as in Guth's cosmology.


OTHER OBJECTIONS TO GUTH'S INFLATION COSMOLOGY

  Inflation Expansion cosmology was the most published idea in cosmology by researchers in the early 1980's. However, CJ Cosmology may be better to explain the cosmos, since in CJ Cosmology energy is conserved via recycling of the energy jets to plane and rewinding up via gravity, and a simple spherical Big Bang created out of nothing would violate energy conservation.  Another problem with Inflation Expansion that CJC allows more solution for is about the short period of hyperinflation that Guth used to explain the general smoothness of the microwave radiation (except for the lower energy fossil found by WMAP. And perhaps the possible spin of the cosmos.) What caused the hyperinflation and why it stopped are neither explained in Inflation Cosmology. There are no known physics involved, and this is completely to be accepted on faith in Inflation Cosmology. Where ultimate cosmology is from we may say. These two problems of inflation expansion have not been much considered.
 
 In CJ Cosmology the cause of the general smoothness is only that the slow speed of light via electromagnetism can't connect up the galaxies at great distances and only the weaker force of gravity being faster than light could connect even inside the jet. Indeed I use the regularity of the sides and central zone as evidence that gravity being lighter than light may be faster than light. Only the weaker force of gravity being faster than light could connect inside the jets. My hopeful generalization of Maxwell's idea that was forgotten with the goings on of Relativity is the method he used to predict the speed of light exactly based on the resilience (density) of the field. If gravity is lighter than light it may move faster than light, you lighten up to travel faster. The question here I would still ask is "how did Maxwell do this" hardly a coincidence it seems.. Though my explanation I call General Wave Dynamics, may not be as dramatic as relativity, it's possible GWD may give us new science like in astronomy, high speed communications, or finding advanced civilizations faster, or computers, and how gravity works, by finding the deeper truth. Here's my GWD synopsis or see the link upper left of the page. In CJ Cosmology and GWD gravity is lower energy and longer acting, and thus the microwaves are smoother than by relativity. If gravity is at the speed of light, thermodynamic entropy like via the speed of light wouldn't hold the cosmos together..


 If the fields are in a continuous loop of eternal motion powered by gravity like the world would spin if left in the cosmos as a system, there might be a more electromagnetic cause of expansion and radiance too as I say on my site about Cosmic Jet Cosmology . As in the huge magnetic fields found between the galaxies, and perhaps the Cosmic jets being of ionized charge would attract the plane of the cosmos, causing cosmic acceleration, also unexplained in Kleban's view or Inflation Expansion, and so on. CJ Cosmology saves energy conservation and the same mechanism causing the jets of galaxies might be used to solve the Hubble radiance that vexed Einstein and caused him to invent the Einstein cosmological constant. To me Einstein seems to have believed in a deeper truth in cosmology.


 The WMAP would be explained as looking at the center of the cosmic jet on our side as in the same general result as bubble cosmology. CJC predicts a related mirrorlike image seen on the other side, looking inward to the center of the cosmos. Here we might see another low energy image with the same central zone except to a different degree since it's in expansion too, though not at the higher rate of speed of the outer cosmic radiance.

 I have three scenarios for bubble impacts if Guth is correct;

 Either a bubbble might impact and continue in, leaving a lot of matter to find yet this hasn't been seen just the much lower energy WMAP.


Or it could could bounce off and leave even more energy, also "off the WMAP".


Thus it might be stationary relative to our universe with a standing wave.


  The problem with all there is here is about the simplicity of the central circle and sides, especially in the third situation, which may seem most probable. An impact would seem to have more complex waves and ripples that wash around the outside of the bubbles, not just two, especially if it's a standing wave. In CJ Cosmology I imagine it's possible the cosmic belt zone seen by WMAP implies cosmic spin, and this would imply torque forces and more complexity of the ripples seen, yet the data so far shows simplicity. You might say, comic cosmology rules. Hyperinflation allows a simple wave seen since the bubble expansion smooths out the geometry. CJ Cosmology makes the same general prediction since the shear forces of the jet would explain the simplicity of the waves seen too. The "sides" as in the image are not a disk and can't be explained by the impact of the bubbles.. I think they may be caused by the red shift of the field flowing more in our line of site, as the jet flows more sideways above us since we aren't in the center, the displacement of the light would reduce the temperature we see. While the jet is regular, it's not symmetrical all around as the bubble would have. CJ Cosmology makes other predictions the bubbles won't and may also solve the problem of when the cosmos was created. If eternal, it seems more creative..

  By F=ma, not the less general Emc2, the motion of smaller bodies around galaxies might be used to map the force between galaxies. Emc2 says there is more mass of a heavy body, and more energy. So when the same force is applied to a heavy and a light mass they should both move at the same speed, heavy and light are equal in Relativity. Mass doesn't enter into the equation of fall in the Earth's field, so Einstein believed it was space itself that controls gravity, either the mass or the earth is in equivalent motion, it doesn't matter which.

  If there is a magnetic force powering the cosmic expansion or even acceleration, it will act on charged galaxies and lighter masses in different ways in GWD for the lower energy fields. A lighter galaxy will move a bit faster with the radiance outward, one with more charge yet faster, and a heavy light galaxy with no charge will have the most inertia and so move in the most linear way all else held the same. These three components may help map out the force powering the cosmic radiance.

 Impacting bubbles in time imply complexity as in ripples. No ripples are yet seen though they should have been by impacting bubbles. Also the asymmetrical spin of galaxies is relatively complex, and moderate complexity is involved in CJ Cosmology too because of spin not completely via the stretching of the world lines of the linear motion reducing angular motion though not completely nearby us in the jet on our side. Einstein's idea has more complexity via stability over time, (and a simple radiance and expansion being in balance so no round zone as in the image so Einstein's cosmology in a simple form seems disproven) and so do impacting bubbles via the ripples. Impacting bubbles imply more complexity if the resonant fossil wave has had plenty of time to resonate and vibrate. A constant of expansion plus some angular momentem nearer us has moderate complexity as observed, as in the sheets of galaxies, the Great Wall, and so on. In general in CJ Cosmology there are the jets, the one jet near us that would the cause of the symmetrical round zone seen, and the more distant asymmetry of the cosmic equator, to balance the expansion and then conserve energy by the inward motion of the disc. Any spin of galaxies implies disproof of Inflation Cosmology, and a slower radiance would be found with finite jets. The spins of the galaxies imply the radiance like in a jet is assymetrical, and by no means perfectly smooth as in inflation cosmology.



The spin of the cosmos nearby might be much smaller than a method like Einstein used to explain how we haven't imploded to the center. If the universe is balanced both in and out, where's all the spin? In general there is spin at the cosmic disc in CJ Cosmology, and this is distant. A jet near us would be via linear travel as we radiate out to reach the cosmic plane and it would have just some spin, though not a lot. Inflation cosmology predicts no spin, Einstein's idea predicts lots of spin, and CJ Cosmology predicts just some spin as observed, and because we may be at the center of the jet, CJC predicts the spin axis is parallel to our travel outward.


OTHER PREDICTIONS, THOUGH NOT MORE OF ALL THERE IS! Of COSMIC JET COSMOLOGY