Reply to comment

David,

We do seem to be at an impasse. You’ve been generous with your time, but your focus seems never to have gone beyond defending and imparting the convention.

To say “I don’t get it” (one of the nicer things I’ve heard from contributors here) when it’s presumed that the only issue is whether I’m being consistent with GR is simply dogmatism. To object that my position is inconsistent with GR isn’t to refute my position. And I’ve stated repeatedly that GR can be clarified as simply a description of the distortion of the geometry of spacetime without invalidating GR in its entirety. To object that discarding any part of GR would be catastrophic to GR is a theoretical fundamentalism.

“since General Relativity does not allow gravitational effects to travel at infinite velocity (unlike Newton), there are waves that are set up and propagate away from the system at the speed of light. It is these wave that are referred to as Gravitational Waves, not the near field tidal effects. (You also appear to have totally ignored, or not recognized, my discussion on the difference in how such effects diminish with distance, such that the waves will always dominate at sufficiently large distances.)”

Ripples in spacetime due to changes in the distribution of mass, whether tidal or somehow energetic, would in any case propagate at the speed of light. Given that I’ve questioned the reality of non-tidal gravitational waves, it's unavailing to argue that “Gravitational Waves” exist because “Gravitational Waves” exist.

“(I'll ignore your perpetual confusion concerning orbital mechanics and the energies involved.)”

I suppose I’ll have to ignore it too.

“you are correct that if there is a decaying orbit there must be something that is causing or facilitating the reduction of total energy of the system: Energy is ‘going away’ (somewhere). Since all of science has found that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but can only change form, one will certainly expect that the orbital energy has been transformed into some other form and is, in some way, leaving the system. (Unless we find that the system is heating up, in which case it will eventually leave through electromagnetic radiation in the infrared, etc.)”

If there’s a net loss of kinetic energy to the system, there’s a net gain of kinetic or potential energy (unless maybe the intensity of the magnetic field is somehow being dissipated) outside the system. You’ve yet to explain where “Gravitational Energy” comes in, except to say that it’s predicted by GR. It is because it is because GR says it is.

“the prediction of gravitational waves, from the General Theory of Relativity, is derived from first principles within said theory, without any electromagnetic fields being involved. Hence, if the observations could be completely explained via electromagnetic effects, this could actually be viewed as a refutation of the General Theory of Relativity!”

Ripples in spacetime due to changes in the distribution of mass can be interpreted as only tidal fluctuations without a complete rejection of GR. My point is that any loss of energy to a system (given that I don’t see how geometry can produce energy) could be attributed to either potential/kinetic energy, or to the radiation of some other established (presumably electromagnetic) form.

“face it, this ‘exotic form of (gravitational) radiation’ is inextricably tied to the field equations of General Relativity…. you cannot hold that you don't dispute the field equations of General Relativity, while only disputing interpretations that use ‘force’-like concepts (and, by extension, and your own assumptions, ‘energy’-like concepts), if you assert that the predicted nature of gravitational waves are not as predicted by General Relativity. You can't have it both ways! ….You may accept that the General Theory of Relativity predicts Gravitational waves, with their predicted characteristics of causing orbits to decay (thus maintaining that you believe in the field equations of General Relativity, while disputing interpretational issues). Or, you must admit that there is more to your dispute with the General Theory of Relativity than the interpretational disputes you have admitted to thus far.”

Your challenge sounds strangely doctrinal. I’m not trying to conceal the depths of some awful heresy. And again, there’s no reason why any aspect of GR that associates geometry with force or energy can’t be excised without abandoning GR's basis as a geometric interpretation of gravitation, and of its confirmed, unambiguous predictions. You’ve given me to choose between orthodoxy and heresy. Can’t I be just somehow “reformed”?