The beam does not shrink or extend. Instead the space covered by the beam expands a bit. With other words this space deforms. This is similar to the way that space deforms by a nearby massive object.

See: http://vixra.org/abs/1710.0022

If an artifact suddenly affects a continuum, then this continuum starts vibrating. If the cause of the incident is shock wise, then the vibration will take the shape of a spherical shock front. Spherical shock fronts integrate into the Green's function of the continuum. Thus, the artefact causes a deformation with the volume of the Green's function. The amplitude of the shock front diminishes with 1/r as the distance r to the trigger location increases. Thus the local deformation fades away, but the amplitude never reaches zero and finally the whole volume of the Green's function is added to the volume of the continuum. With other words the trigger not only deforms, it also expands the continuum. Local deformation of a carrier is related to the mass of what is embedded by that carrier. Thus the spherical shock front corresponds to an amount of mass. Similarly the artifact corresponds to that mass.

There is no magic in spherical shock fronts. They are solutions of the wave equation. Similarly is the Green's function a solution of the Poisson equation.

Amrit, If you dive deep into the lower levels of physical reality, then you will only encounter mathematics. Scientists derived their math from observing reality. Article Rediscovered dark quanta

Amrit,

I am quite serious. Read "Physical Simplicity"; Article Physical Simplicity

I find it quite amazing how LIGO is getting so much attention. The data to cost ratio is in the quantum realm and there are many credible scientists questioning the results. Now also a Nobel price. I am of the opinion that all waves are electromagnetic in nature and that gravity does not propagate with it's own unique wave, therefore unlikely for the LIGO experimental setup to work. I choose to stand by and observe, and hope I live to have the last laugh.

Pl read attachments

Thanks

Dr Das

What you all did not adress in the discussion above is, why does the GW change the length of the physical body interferometer arm (say concrete) but not the wavelenth of the laser light in it? (Or ist it the other way round?) What is the length of the physical body? It is a long concatenation of atomic binding distances that are given by electromagnetic field properties. It is generally accepted, that GW interferometer also will work in space with free floating mirrors in satellites. Without a physical arm. Does a physical body comply to the length change without excerting a force to it and building up strain? Otherwise elasticity would influence the result! Assuming that it does not, we concluded implicitly that all electromagnetic fields and potential minimum positions between the atoms "got shorter" to accomodate to the changed length without force. But why then do the electric fields of the light wave, that are of essentially the same nature, do not "get shorter" at the same time? Because then the same amount of wavelengths would fit in the resonator and no signal would occur.

I see a contradiction in changing distances to which physical bodies do comply like jello (a ruler would always measure the same lentgh) but light inside it does not.

Continuums can be represented by functions and functions apply parameter spaces. These parameter spaces are in fact flat continuums and can be considered to be covered by a coordinate system. Any length of a line in the parameter space corresponds to the length of a curve in the original continuum. Waves and other vibrations may occur in the original continuum and not in the parameter space. A vibration can result in a temporary deformation of the continuum. The concept of mass is related to persistent local deformation of a continuum that embeds an artifact. See: http://vixra.org/abs/1710.0022

AS: How it is possible that extremely weak gravity wave can shrink or prolong 4000 meters long beams of LIGO interferometer which have a solid iron-cement base?

The interferometers compare the distances between the mirrors in the two arms. The mirrors are free to move along the axis of the tubes and are isolated from the seismic noise in the foundations because they are supported by a suspension system with both active and passive stages.

AS: This is an open question for this year Nobel winners Rainer Weiss, Barry C. Barish and Kip S. Thorne.

They will expect you to have read the public FAQ at least, and before bothering them, you would also be expected to be familiar with the technical papers they have published on the subject. Here's a starter for you:

https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/page/vibration-isolation

AS: that is all fine, the device is perfectly designed.

Exactly, which means your question above is only an indication that previously you hadn't even looked at the published LIGO data before whining, your comments are purely philosophical bias.

Not only is it well designed but the design is working, waves are being detected.

AS: How GW change distances between mirrors nobody can explain

Read any GR textbook, you'll find the explanation there.

AS: See article attached.

I've read it, it has too many basic errors (like your question above) to be of any interest.

AS: What happen is that laser light changes minimally the speed ...

That is correct, the speed in one arm is increased while that in the other arm is decreased (expressed in TT gauge).

AS: because of the change of energy density

Density is a scalar so it can't produce an anisotropy in the speed. The speed would be the same in both arms and there would be no output from LIGO so your hypothesis does not explain the observation.

GW do change the distance, or the speed depending on your choice of coordinates, we see that in LIGO so that is an observational fact. What I take as "pure nonsense" is your error-riddled paper.

To All: Einstein's GRT assumes the equality of gravitational and inertial masses (in view of the equivalence principle) which Newton felt he had established by some pendulum experiments, but the last experiment is never done; and the attached short but very clear and insightful article by Russian Prof. Alexander Dmitriev concerning his fairly recent "falling rotor" experiments that showed that (aviation) rotors -- when spinning horizontally -- do NOT fall at (almost) the same accelerations when spinning and when not spinning evidently shows that these two types of masses are NOT the same in general!

Thus GRT is mistaken! God Bless, Denny

Did he do the test in vacuum? A horizontally spinning rotor is what keeps a helicopter in the air.

George D: Good question! YES, Prof. Dmitriev mentions that the rotors were "vacuumed" (inside their casings). See the second page of the article.

God Bless, Denny

George D: I might add that Dr. Jeremy Dunning-Davies (now retired from teaching at Hull University in the UK) and I have authored a two volume series, "Neo-Newtonian Mechanics with Extension to Relativistic Velocities," (volume one now in its fifth edition) that is a minimal extension of Newton's mechanics to variable particle inertial mass (that is, with changing as little of the physics as possible), both of which may be freely downloaded from my page on ResearchGate.com, that might interest you. God Bless, Denny

"Dr. Jeremy Dunning-Davies (now retired from teaching at Hull University in the UK) and I have authored a two volume series, "Neo-Newtonian Mechanics with Extension to Relativistic Velocities,""

What for? There is the SRT which consistently describes movement in inertial reference systems. There is an example of eliminating contradictions in the problems of motion of charges. In this example, the contradiction (paradox 4/3) is eliminated only with the help of SRT.

Article On the question of the electromagnetic momentum of a charged body

Steven Sesselmann: " I am of the opinion that all waves are electromagnetic in nature and that gravity does not propagate with its own unique wave, ... "

It depends on how strongly one adheres to the principle of relativity.

If one is at a location and a planet passes by, one is "buffetted" (tugged and bumped) by the effect of the planet's passing gravitational field. Is the effect of the field's changing strength at our location time-lagged or instantaneous? If someone on the planet tries to signal to us using a mass-oscillator in the hope that we can detect the resulting signal, then does that signal travel instantaneously or with a propagation timelag?

If gravitational signals travel instantly, then we can in theory build detectors and generators that can establish distant simultaneity. If we detect three different remote signals from different directions at the same moment, we'll know that the remote events that caused those signals are "really" instantaneous, and we will be able to select a preferred frame for the speed of light which agrees with that definition of simultaneity.

We would then be able to tell which bodies were "really" moving or "really" stationary, breaking the PoR.

So preserving the PoR means requiring that the speed of gravitational signals be finite. If they were "finite-but-not-c", then we could compare the different timelags of signals that travelled as light and as gravitational pulses, and again, presumably identify a preferred frame.

So the PoR really likes the speed of gravitational signals to be finite, and also nominally equal to the speed of light (with some caveats about nonlinearity).

If the speed of gravitational signals is finite, then it must take them some time to move from place to place, suggesting a wavelike behaviour.

None of this depends particularly on Einstein, or on Einstein's general theory of relativity.

Valery Borisovich Morozov: " What for? There is the SRT which consistently describes movement in inertial reference systems. "

Presumably for multiple reasons:

1. As an intellectual exercise.

2. As a required scientific background check.

We cannot make a scientific determination as to whether the successes of SRT are significant successes unless we know what the corresponding predictions would have been for a different theory.

Many SR people will tell you that "SR predicts E=mc2, Newtonian theory doesn't, E=mc2 is correct, therefore SR is known to be correct and NM-based theory wrong"

The problem with that argument is that it's factually wrong. Start with a "stock" SR-based derivation of E=mc2, swap out the SR content for NM content, and you end up with precisely the same result.

So a lot of people in the SR community are inadvertently repeating false claims, because they don't know what the alternative predictions would have been. To find out, someone has to sit down and work this stuff out.

3. As groundwork for a potential gravity-compatible replacement theory for SR.

Logically and geometrically speaking, Einstein's general theory is, really, quite a mess. It invokes a set of great principles such as the general principle of relativity, the principle of equivalence, and so on, and then it embeds special relativity as a supposed limiting case that violates those principles!

These two sets of theory do not legally match up. They occupy different logical universes. One is emphatically not a limiting case of the other.

To summarise, SR is internally consistent but can't be made to work in a universe that also includes gravity, and GR1916 is internally inconsistent because it wrongly supposes that SR physics should be a subset of gravitational theory.

So we badly need a relativistic curved-spacetime compatible replacement for SR and for Einstein's GR. Nobody in the mainstream seems to know how to construct such a theory, because they've all grown up believing (wrongly) that SR is a valid foundation theory.

In order to educate those people and give them a broader conceptual vocabulary (so that we can progress), other people have to produce examples of what relativity theory looks like in a non-SR context.