Gravitation and its misappropriation by quantum theory

Jim:

First, you appear to have, once again, mischaracterized/misrepresented my positions, assertions, and/or "requirements".

I simply wish to know where you stand in order to determine how to proceed in any possible attempt at answering your question: "to show how uniform motion/geodesic motion (choose whatever term you wish, it’s the state in the physical world revealed by a gravitiometer) transforms into energy, other than by an interpretive mathematical formalism."

Either you accept Einstein's Field Equation(s) of General Relativity (at least for the sake of further progress), or you call into question even the field equations of General Relativity as not properly having embodied the curved spacetime nature of gravitation.

Either choice is acceptable. You just have to make your choice as to where you stand.

It's quickly nearing time for me to make good on what I said I would do if you refused to make your choice.

So your next post will determine my next step. If you continue to refuse to make your stand clear, so we may proceed, then I will follow though as promised.

You make statements like:

I’m questioning your interpretation, the standard interpretation, of the field equations.

Which appears to suggest that you accept Einstein's field equation(s) of General Relativity, but then at other times you appear to be calling these field equations into question.

I simply want to know which is your actual position, so I may know what I have to work with, so I can know how to proceed (if at all).

On the other hand, if your last statement ("So yes, farewell.") is intended to ask me to "leave", then so be it.

I await your answer, so I will know how to proceed, if at all.

Fare well.

David

Jim:

Once again you either misunderstand my position, or you have (intentionally?) misconstrued it.

I most certainly do not hold that simply because something is predicted by General Relativity then it must be. (Regardless of how successful the theory has been, thus far, anything that has not yet been measured is a potential test. Furthermore, even if a theory passes all tests with flying colors, this still does not imply that its description is the Truth or Reality.)

You certainly have a right to take a stand against General Relativity. Just be a man and state that such is your position! That is one of your two choices, as I have pointed out. (Then you can have the integrity, and our respect, in being honest about your position concerning the curvature and geodesic aspects of GR vs. the Gravitational Wave etc. aspects. Of course, then the onus is upon you, and any cohorts you can convince to join you, to come up with a viable alternative to General Relativity that has your desired characteristics while simultaneously explaining all presently measured results at least as well as GR.)

Your only other choice, as I've explained, is to continue to hold that you believe that the field equations of General Relativity are "correct" (as per your assertion that you do not dispute such), recognizing that predictions like Gravitational Waves are inextricably tied to such.* While you may still be free to dispute "force"-like interpretations appended thereto.

The problem, as I pointed out, is that you cannot have it both ways: You cannot hold to the field equations of General Relativity, while also holding that Gravitational Waves do not have the characteristics predicted thereby. It's as simple as that.

Be a man, make you choice, within your "two-choice dilemma".

I await your decision.

David

* If you wish to see "proof" of this inextricable connection, we may be able to help. However, so far, I have seen no evidence that you have taken advantage of the references you have been presented. So do try those references first, and if they are still unsatisfactory (as I expect they may well be) simply come and ask for some more specific "proof" you desire.

(I'm afraid that some "hand waving", conceptual level will almost certainly not satisfy you, since all such I have seen rely upon "energy" like concepts. So, if you can really stand by your prior assertion that you do not dispute the field equations of GR, any such "proof" will be quite mathematical, I'm afraid. So I suspect you won't like it in any case. But please do let us know what you desire.)

Jim:

Once again you don't get it.

You say:

Gravitational ripples in spacetime due to changes in the distribution of mass are tidal changes. Two bodies in a stable binary star system are each moving uniformly along their geodesics, and their orbits will produce tidal ripples, but that in itself shouldn’t cause the orbital system to decay. If there is a decaying orbit there is some factor that is slowing the relative kinetic energy (producing a lower orbit), while increasing their relative kinetic energy in the lower orbit. Parenthetically, I’d be very interested in your interpretation of what could be producing the orbital decay. Pulsars are highly magnetic - could the interaction of their magnetic fields be producing a radiation of magnetic energy, and hence, a decay of their orbits? That seems to me to be the most likely explanation. And it would give substance to the prediction of the General Theory without introducing an exotic form of (gravitational) radiation.

First, in the near field (close to the orbiting bodies*), you are correct to talk about tidal effects. The difference is that 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.)

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

Second, 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.)

You are correct that pulsars are "highly magnetic". However, to suggest that the energy is leaving in some form of "magnetic energy" (don't you mean electromagnetic energy?) would "give substance to the prediction of the General Theory without introducing an exotic form of (gravitational) radiation" is to show a complete misunderstanding of the "substance" of the "prediction(s)" of the "General Theory (of Relativity)".

First off, 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!

Secondly, you act almost as if someone concocted these gravitational waves in order to try and explain the decay of such orbits. Yet it's quite the opposite! The prediction of gravitational waves came directly from General Relativity, before any evidence for such had been observed. In fact, it was a prediction that was so far beyond anything one would expect, from our experience with Newtonian mechanics and observational astronomical mechanics, that it was quite controversial. (What?! You mean that "stable" orbits are only an approximation?!)

Jim, face it, this "exotic form of (gravitational) radiation" is inextricably tied to the field equations of General Relativity, and, just as with any dynamics within any form of spacetime that has an indefinite metric (like that of Special Relativity), these waves have a finite speed of propagation (which is really one of the reasons they are "waves", and not just "undulations"). This is why I have asserted that 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!

So, you have but two choices (a "two-choice dilemma", if you will), if you wish to retain any semblance of integrity. 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.

That's the choices you are left with. That's your dilemma.

Fare well.

David

* "Close" in this case meaning less than about one wavelength of the associated gravitational wave, or any other hypothetical wave that travels at about the speed of light and has a period like that of the objects' motion (their orbital period, in this case).

Jim:

I won't dignify any of your comment that's in line with “in general it’s too dark to tell red from blue”. Your going way too far off the mark with such comments.

Again, just as on Scruffy's blog, you appear to have a problem recognizing that there is a distinction between gravitational waves and tidal effects. While they have some relations, there are significant differences.

Burt did a rather good job of pointing out that "In a way, tidal gravity, with its short range, sets up a 'near field antenna' that radiates away long range gravitational waves." Tidal effects decrease as the inverse third power of the distance (in terms of "potentials"), while the waves propagate (at least in the weak field, small amplitude, perturbation approximation, where we can treat them as linear waves) with amplitudes that decrease as 1/r. So when talking about gravitational waves we are taking about effects that are far from the "near field" tidal effects. (Generally more than one wavelength away from the source, so for the Earth-Sun system we're talking more than about a light-year, while for the Earth-Moon system we are talking 1/13 th of that, which is still far outside our solar system.)

You say that

I don’t deny that gravitational waves can produce variations in the distribution of kinetic and potential energy between, e.g., a binary star system and the rest of the universe. But I believe such variations are entirely relative between the system and the universe. It’s no different than the relationship between the earth and moon, where the moon’s orbit produces immense tidal dislocations without an exchange of “gravitational energy.” If you can explain how a gravitational model based on curvature and geodesic motion can do otherwise, I’d love to learn.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "such variations are entirely relative between the system and the universe." Are you calling upon Mach? But once again you rely upon aspersions on any concept that uses anything like “gravitational energy.”

I pointed out, in my post, that the gravitational waves do not rely upon any concept of “gravitational energy.” They come about simply as "ripples" in spacetime itself—from General Relativity itself! That's "how a gravitational model based on curvature and geodesic motion can" give rise to gravitational waves. Of course, an important feature of this particular "gravitational model based on curvature and geodesic motion" is that curvature is dynamic, it depends upon the locations and motions of the particles/fields/etc. within the universe. It's not static and immovable. (If spacetime were static and immovable, you would be correct that there would be no way for such to "cause or allow a source system to lose or decrease in energy, while causing or facilitating a receiving system to gain or increase in energy.")

Admittedly, since gravitational waves do "cause or allow a source system to lose or decrease in energy, while causing or facilitating a receiving system to gain or increase in energy" it does beg the question of where is the energy that "went from" the source system until it "reaches" the receiving system? It's this question, really, that I believe lead to the desire to obtain some kind of "localizable" "gravitational" energy-momentum-stress (tensor-like) "something" that can be used in such an accounting, not some "gravity as force" concept held over from Newtonian mechanics. (Unfortunately, as I pointed out so many times before, such attempts have failed. However, we are able to obtain something reasonably satisfactory in the weak field, small amplitude, perturbation approximation, where we can treat gravitational waves as linear.)

There is no need for "gravitational energy" or "gravity as a force like electromagnetism" or anything besides curvature and geodesics (and a metric, so we can actually make measurements like distances) that dynamically depends upon the distribution and motion of particles/fields/etc. within the universe.

One place you may wish to look for a potentially accessible explanation is in Wikipedia's "Gravitational wave" or the reference Burt gave in Scruffy's blog. If you wish to delve into greater detain, feel free to follow the references these references provide. (Burt's reference refers directly to Misner, Thorn, and Wheeler's Gravitation, which can be quite difficult for the layman. However, I may be able to help you, if you are willing.)

You do end with "I'd love to learn", but I have to question whether you mean actually learning what General Relativity has to say on this matter, or whether you are referring to something else. If you are willing to learn what General Relativity has to say on this issue, I may be able to help you.

'Til then.

David

Jim:

What you appear not to be able to grasp is that the "absolutes" of "mathematical statements that are absolute" such as the "tenets of special and general relativity" or the "fundamental tenets of quantum physics" are all model dependent.  Hence, they are never absolutes unless one "absolutely" adheres to their respective models.  So long as one is trying to understand what is "actually" the nature of this universe in which we reside one must recognize that any model is tentative, and, hence, not absolute.

As I alluded to in my previous response, there are ways in which your "tenets" can be made defensible.  Perhaps now is as good as any to present such to you.

First, there is the matter of distinguishing the effects of gravity from those of "true" forces (like electromagnetism).  If one restricts oneself to the apparent four dimensional spacetime (manifold) (assuming that there are no additional, even compact, dimensions; that spacetime is a continuum; etc.) then one can certainly distinguish between the motion of free neutral test particles (at least to the extent that any actual particles can be said to actually approximate such), which one can "define" as geodesic motion, vs. non-geodesic motions.  This distinction is independent of any assumed or actual motions of whatever "box" such experiments may be contained within.

Second, there is the issue of distinguishing when a "gravitational field" exists.  As I pointed out several posts ago, there are multiple choices available for defining what is meant by the "existence" of a "gravitational field".  Unfortunately, you have yet to make your choice.  (I would hope it's reasonably apparent how one would go about determining said "existence" once one has chosen what such means.)  However, at this point, let's just assume a choice has been made, and, since all of the definitions I presented would agree that a region with nonzero spacetime curvature (in its most general form, meaning a nonzero Riemann curvature tensor) is a region where a "gravitational field" exists, let's assume that all the remaining discussion refers to such a region of spacetime.

Third, there is the matter of distinguishing the effects of gravity from those of other inertial (pseudo,"false") "forces" (those that result from observing particle motions from any sort of non-inertial "reference frame").  With regard to this issue there is the little "problem" that if spacetime is curved there are no inertial reference frames definable.  In fact, within Differential Geometry (the language of General Relativity), so long as spacetime has nonzero curvature, at least somewhere within it (as we observe everywhere near us), then all observers must cope with the realities of making observations from a non-inertial standpoint.  Furthermore, all non-inertial "reference frames" are "equivalent" (just as good as any other, at least up to some measure of mathematical ease), from this point of view.  (This is the "relativism" of "acceleration", or, rather, the "relativism" of non-inertial "reference frames" that is embodied within General Relativity.)

This is why I've maintained that, in general, there is no theoretical way (let alone any practical way) one can uniquely distinguish between geodesics that are gravitational vs. "other" geodesics caused by non-inertial motion.  (You have expressed incredulity at the idea of geodesics due to inertial "forces".  You appear to have the supposition that all inertial "forces" are actually manifestations of an application of "true" forces upon something.  May I suggest you simply consider rotations:  No more an imposition of external "true" forces as non-rotation.)

However, for the sake of this discussion (hopefully not an "argument"), let's assume that there exists some method for separating "purely" gravitational geodesic motions from "other" geodesic "motions" cause by other non-inertial aspects of one's observations.  (Supposing that somewhere buried within Differential Geometry, at least within General Relativity, there is some mechanism that can be used to disentangle these contributions to geodesic motions.)

Then there remains your assertion that because gravitational motions (geodesics) are distinguishable from those of (at least "true") forces, and based upon an apparent assumption that the only way "energy" can come into play is via "forces", then gravity can have nothing (directly, at least) to do with "energy".  Hence, your assertion that even if there are gravitational waves predicted by General Relativity, that such can, in no way, be "a carrier of energy".

This is what is most untenable of all your assertions.  You admit that gravitational waves (as predicted by the fundamental equations of General Relativity) may exist and travel, but you appear to refuse to allow that they may, in any way, cause or allow a source system to lose or decrease in energy, while causing or facilitating a receiving system to gain or increase in energy.  (I hope you do recognize that General Relativity conserves energy, actually the mass-energy-momentum-stress tensor of all objects/things/energies/substances/etc. within the universe, in an absolute way, just as with all prior classical theories.*)

If this statement is not a correct characterization of your position, please let me know.  Otherwise, I will consider addressing this issue from within the General Theory of Relativity.  (Fortunately, I went to my office today and retrieved my General Relativity texts.)

David

*    Please don't confuse the mass-energy-momentum-stress tensor with my comments about the failed attempts to determine some form of energy-momentum-stress of the gravitational field itself.  I'm sorry I ever mentioned such, since I have seen it divert your thinking more than once.

Jim:

I'll reserve complete judgment until you've been able to respond to all I've posted (I know I posted a couple of very long messages). However, so far, I'm very disappointed.

Yes, it is true that our experience is sufficient to rule the scenario of “when the whole spacetime manifold is flat” as inconsistent with this universe. But what of other universes? Just because a scenario is inconsistent with our universe, should that preclude us from being able to develop a framework that can encompass such? (Especially when it costs us nothing, as is the case withing General Relativity.)

Far beyond this, none of your other scenarios can be dismissed out of hand, simply due to the very narrow range of our experience. Besides, what would you expect of free neutral test particles within a box surrounded by a massive ring? (Say the extremely massive, and huge, dark matter ring that has been observed within our universe.) Or what about positioning your box in orbit about a spinning black hole? (I say "in orbit" so as to have it in "free fall", or as close as possible.) What would be the motion of free neutral test particles within the box if the box is set to orbit in such a way that (at least for a period of time) it maintains a constant orientation with respect to the distant stars. What if it had a different rotation?

If we are to be able to unify that which is described by our, arguably, two greatest theories (General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics); or if we are to ever hope to create methods of traveling (effectively) faster than the speed of light (or, in other words, if we are to ever hope to visit any of the wondrous places in our vast universe, outside out very restricted, parochial experience in and near this rock upon which we reside), then we need thinkers that can handle a far greater range of circumstances than what we have locally.

Unfortunately, Jim, you are showing yourself to be insufficient to the task. Your "real world" is far too restricted. (I, and others, have no problem explaining all that lies within your "real world". So I most certainly don't mean that your "real world" is too "restrictive". The difference is I, and others, have a viewpoint [or viewpoints], and theories, that can extend far beyond your "real world" to encompass much more that is possible, to say nothing of that which has been, and will yet be observed within our universe.)

As I said, I'll reserve complete judgment until you've been able to respond to all I've posted. But at this point, I'm very disappointed.

Take care.

David

"Gadfly":

First, please allow me to decide what I will or will not do, or whether I think the discussion is worth it. (I don't mean any disrespect in this, nor do I say this with any degree of anger.)

Secondly, when one is dealing with curved spacetime, there really are no "inertial reference frames" available or definable. In fact, in one of my textbooks on General Relativity (that, unfortunately, I left in my office at work) there is a good quote concerning how the fact that all observers must deal with being in non-inertial reference frames actually accomplishes Einstein's desired goal of the "relativity of acceleration". (Incidentally, Jim's response to you about how both of the situations you present [from Einstein] involve "inertial accelerations" is correct [though he is not entirely* correct about a uniform gravitational field having no "magnitude"].)

David

* He is correct that a uniform gravitational field (devoid of curvature), in the absence of any other references, has an arbitrary "magnitude" (including zero). However, depending on other circumstances, like the distribution of mass-energy-momentum-stress surrounding the location in question, there may, indeed, be a definable magnitude.

Jim:

Some somewhat separate issues...

You quote me with:

... there are ways of approaching all the "true" forces (electromagnetism ..., and the nuclear forces [week and strong]) such that they are just as much "geometry" as is gravitation. What then? Now what appear to be deviations from geodesic motion (deviations from "free fall") are simply new geodesics seen by certain types of particles. (Is this the way the universe works, or just a mathematical trick we physicists have dreamed up? Only specific testable predictions and experiments will ever determine that.)

To which you respond with:

Well, we should await confirmation, shouldn’t we? And given the implausibility of geometric distortions that affect different particles different ways, the hypothetical mathematics needn’t divert us from real-world considerations, should it?

While you are correct that "confirmation" of testable predictions that differ from those of alternative explanations (like the "Standard Model") is an important criteria for choosing alternative theories and descriptions (as many have pointed out to you before), there is also the Occam's razor aspect of potentially choosing such a theory if it explains present measurements just as well but is simpler, or in some other way "preferable", such as due to its ability to handle circumstances outside the realm of alternatives (such as being able to be combined with General Relativity without "blowing up", for instance).

On the other hand, barring verifications of predictions that differ from alternatives, there's certainly nothing forcing anyone to abandon present models that have served us so well. (I certainly am not trying to suggest you do anything other than recognize that there are other ways of looking at such things.)

I recognize how it may appear "implausible" to have "geometric distortions that affect different particles different ways". I can agree (though I've seen how it is done both with Kaluza–Klein theory, and with a discrete spacetime model where all connections between points are geodesics and the different dynamics are due to the way different particles have different states in the fiber bundle space associated with the discrete manifold). Of course there was a time when curved spacetime was "implausible". Let alone the idea that different observers could have different times. (Of course this is to say nothing of some of the "implausible" aspects of Quantum Mechanics.)

Second, you quote me with:

... there are certain conclusions you arrive at, without justification, that are untenable. At least if the results/predictions of General Relativity are correct (as opposed to just certain interpretations, or ways of thinking about its nature).

... unless one argues that the results/predictions of General Relativity are not correct. This is the point where your arguments cannot be made irrefutable.

After which you ask: "What criticisms of GR have I made that violate its confirmations? Please be specific."

I suppose by "confirmations" you are restricting yourself to the "results/predictions of General Relativity" that have already been "confirmed"/verified. To this I would answer none, since you haven't been so careless as to call into question aspects of GR that have been well verified. However, if you had included the entire quote (the second ellipses, particularly), you will note:

You claim that you have no argument with the theory, itself, just certain interpretations, or ways of thinking about General Relativity. Yet, without justification, you jump from the conclusion that "gravity is not a force", to "gravity has no energy" (in and of itself), to "there are no gravitational waves".

Especially the last part of this chain is untenable, unless one argues ...

Since, as you even quoted me, I'm referring to whether you have been arguing against the proposition that "the results/predictions of General Relativity are correct (as opposed to just certain interpretations, or ways of thinking about its nature)". From the following (which starts with a quote of me)

“So the point of departure is exclusively in the interpretations of GR, not in the fundamentals of the theory or its predictions. Is this correct?”

Yes, with the exception of what I consider derivative issues, the association of gravitation with force and predictions of energy-bearing grav waves, I don’t think there’s anything of practical significance that I disagree with.

it would first appear that your sole "point of departure is exclusively in the interpretations of GR, not in the fundamentals of the theory or its predictions." (Your response of "Yes".) However, you then go on to impugn the General Relativistic "predictions of energy-bearing grav waves".

Since the General Relativistic predictions of gravitational waves is fully within the theory, not based on ("derivative", or derived from) an interpretation of GR wherein there is some "association of gravitation with force" (the latter association [of gravitation with any thing referred to as a "force] seems to be what you are primarily "railing" against), then, again, I must ask whether your "point of departure is exclusively in the interpretations of GR, not in the fundamentals of the theory or its predictions", or if you also call into question at least some aspects of the theory itself.

Are you aware that if we can never detect gravitational waves that the theory of General Relativity may be in real trouble? (I'm not talking about some detection of some theoretical particles that some interpretation of some amalgamation of Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity might suppose. That's a whole other matter.) Aspects of a theory that come under some "interpretation" can never be so critical to a theory, only fundamental predictions!

From a previous post of yours, you begin by quoting me:

In addition, may I suggest that the lunar (and solar) tides are to gravity what near field effects are to electromagnetism? So we do have this large "near field" effect. What of long range "transmission" or propagation? Is this not worthy of testing?

To which you respond with:

I suppose so, although it seems implausible in the absence of any evidence for the existence of such a dichotomy, and for its apparent basis in the implicit association of gravitation with energy. If a massive local gravity wave (the moon’s orbit, for example) doesn’t produce detectable energy, and (one would expect from its effects on the oceans) a shower of related particles, why should a distant source be expected to do so?

Unfortunately, this is a little difficult to parse, especially the relevant portion (your ending question): "If a massive local gravity wave (the moon’s orbit, for example) doesn’t produce detectable energy, and (one would expect from its effects on the oceans) a shower of related particles, why should a distant source be expected to do so?" Are you suggesting that the "massive local gravity[sic] wave" in actuality "doesn’t produce detectable energy"? Or am I just parsing this incorrectly (possibly due to a misplaced coma)? Since your next parenthetical statement of "one would expect from its effects on the oceans" suggests that, possibly, you may be willing to attribute energetic influences in the lunar tides, I'm just not quite sure what this really means. (Incidentally, the [sic] is placed by "gravity wave" because "gravity waves" are something quite different from the "gravitational waves" we are, supposedly, discussiong. I know, the term "gravity wave" seems more apt, but, unfortunately, the term was already applied to something altogether different long before General Relativity came along.)

However, if I go back to my post, from which you obtained the above quote from me, we see:

To move on to another (perhaps somewhat minor) issue... You state:

I think I mentioned elsewhere that once gravitation is distinguished from inertial acceleration it becomes evident that the moon provides us with a big, slow gravity wave to study, and with very little effort. The search for virtually imperceptible gravity-waves becomes pointless. The distinction also introduces some provocative but previously not-so salient questions about the tremendous energy a moving wave/curvature can provoke (not exert), as with the ocean tides.

While it appears that you are (here) saying that you see the lunar (and solar) tides to be evidence of gravitational waves, and (essentially?) a proof(?) that energy can be "provoke[d]" thereby. The question, I suggest, still remains as to whether gravity wave "travel" through space(-time), and whether they can carry or convey energy.

In addition, may I suggest that the lunar (and solar) tides are to gravity what near field effects are to electromagnetism? So we do have this large "near field" effect. What of long range "transmission" or propagation? Is this not worthy of testing?

So, are you "saying that you see the lunar (and solar) tides to be evidence of gravitational waves, and (essentially?) a proof(?) that energy can be “provoke[d]” thereby"?

To quote you, again, from your post where you respond to the above (but only to the gravity waves "traveling" and "energy" part), beginning with a quote of me (with a great deal left out, as can be seen above):

“To move on to another (perhaps somewhat minor) issue... The question, I suggest, still remains as to whether gravity wave "travel" through space(-time), and whether they can carry or convey energy.”

I believe gravity waves “travel”, but based on the issue I’ve been trying to discuss I can see no reason why they might be thought to convey energy. A geometric distortion or curvature of spacetime so-defined is not a force, it has no intrinsic energy, although as the tides make clear, a large moving mass produces a moving distortion, or curvature, that can flux geodesics, stress molecular binding energies, and especially with fluids, result in massive kinetic energies.

It appears that you may be debating this with yourself. You appear to accept that "as the tides make clear" that a moving mass can, indeed, cause motions that can be quite energetic (when integrated over the very significant volumes affected, at least in the case of the tides). Whether one wishes to use the term "energy" in this regard is semantics. The reality is that energetic processes "happen", and are well associated with the movement of at least a nearby object.

I just have to wonder whether you understand gravitational waves from a direct application of General Relativity theory, or some source intended for the layman. I don't mean this as any sort of "put down". It simply goes back to trying to understand what you know and what background you already have.

I could certainly understand a "layman" like explanation using an "energy" (and maybe even a "force") like argument in order to try and convey the concept of gravitational waves, but I have yet to see a truly General Relativistic argument made in such terms. I don't know, I'm just trying to make sense of where you actually stand.

Any way, I'm sure this is way more than enough, for now.

Take care.

David

David,

This gadfly hates to bite a guy who knows his physics so well, but don't you think it's time to give up?

Jim writes: "There is no ambiguity in distinguishing the behavior of test bodies inside a box being inertially accelerated and a box being accelerated (in a “free-fall”) in a gravitational field. In the first case, they will appear to accelerate to a side of the box, in the second case they will appear to converge toward each other while remaining in the interior of the box."

The emphasized words demonstrate that Jim has a particular curvature in mind, namely the presence of a dominant massive body (like Earth).

He continues to reject the curvature-free uniform field of Einstein's thought experiment. And he doesn't consider the possibility of divergence, which might occur at the balance point of the field of two large bodies.

So, David...

This bite of realism brought to you by "Gadfly."

Jim:

You make the claim:

Regarding your objection to my use of terminology, “inertial acceleration” in particular, the principle I am arguing goes against the accepted definition of inertial acceleration, so it’s not necessarily a legitimate objection to say I’m not defining it, or that I’m wrong to be using the concept of acceleration and force in an unconventional way, or that I don’t understand the significance of what I’m saying. In order to argue against a conventional definition I have to maintain an unconventional definition. An unconventional definition may be valid or invalid, but it isn’t invalid simply because it’s unconventional.

There is nothing, per se, that's wrong with using a concept or term in an unconventional way—especially if one is arguing against a conventional definition or concept. The problem is in doing so without a clear definition and/or declaration of what one is doing!

So yes, it is appropriate for me, or anyone, to object to your not defining a term you use so often, and in such seemingly self contradictory ways.

You then go on to "define" what you mean by "inertial acceleration" thus:

I have defined inertial acceleration in terms of its objective manifestation on test bodies. I don’t know how I could be more clear or precise. Inertial accelerations – including accelerations due to the direct application of a force, accelerations manifested in “fictitious forces” like centrifugal, centripetal, and Coriolis force, but excluding free gravitation – can be detected inside a closed box by the behavior of test bodies inside the box. Gravitational acceleration, when not coincident with an inertial acceleration (as I’ve defined it), can be distinguished from inertial acceleration as I define it, by the unique behavior of a pair of test bodies inside a closed box.

First and foremost, I pointed out in my earlier post that there are two, mutually contradictory "conventional" definitions of "inertial acceleration". Yet you appear to have not recognized that the two "conventional" definitions are mutually contradictory, and, hence, there is no one "conventional" definition.

Secondly (and more incriminating, if you'll forgive me), your "definition" above draws from both, mutually contradictory "conventional" definitions, without even batting an eye!

I'm sorry if you think that I think your calling into question features of General Relativity is any sort of challenge to my "world view", and, hence, that I'm defending it out of some attempt to preserve such. The fact is, I challenge the prevailing "world view" myself, and I actually read your initial post in the hope of learning something new, stimulating, and, perhaps, to find someone with whom I may be able to have useful exchanges on "unconventional" ideas. Unfortunately, and quite sadly, I found something significantly bellow such expectations.

However, I still had hope that your "unconventional" steak could be polished to something more closely resembling what I was looking for. Sadly, that doesn't appear to be possible from your present frame of mind.

I was hoping to find someone open to new ideas and ways of thinking, but, instead, sadly, I find someone with an apparently closed mind, who appears to have a very hard time accepting anything outside his own preconceptions.

I'm sorry, Jim. I've tried, but until I see some glimmer of understanding, and/or teachability, I'm going to have to stop waisting my efforts.

I am so sorry that what others have said about you, here, appears to be more true than I ever wanted to believe.

Take care, and feel free to contact me if you ever have a genuine desire to become a truly unconventional thinker, capable of challenging the "conventional".

David

P.S. I don't "post" or otherwise "publish" my unconventional "theories" precisely because they are not at the stage of truly being "theories": They are not complete enough to make any testable predictions, or even to be certain that they correspond with existent experimental findings. Yes, I could go all rhapsodic about how my ideas are so beautiful, and explain so many otherwise "odd" features of the world around us. However, I don't see that as particularly useful, until I can get beyond the purely conceptual aspects that make the ideas compelling (to me). Yes, I have been able to give much of it a more rigorous model, but here remains a crucial gap in the formulation. Until I can fill in this gap, I don't consider that I have something that qualifies as a viable theory. Just some interesting (to me) concepts that I hope can be worked into the requisite state.

Until then, I'm always on the lookout for other interesting ideas/theories/concepts. I find that one can never tell, a priori, where the next breakthrough idea will come from. (Hence my former hope...)