"Gravitational waves transmit energy"

[primemignonite]

THERE HAS BEEN much elevated discussion of recent, regarding gravity as a general phenomenon, as applied to our goal, this taking place mainly between four or five participants on the "Gravity as a conservative force" topic, started originally by John Collins.

Found indirectly by means of a link originally supplied compliments of (Sir) Michael, is THIS from WikipediA's page entitled "Gravitational radiation" which appertains directly to the original topic, but which I am starting here as a new tributary to it:

Gravitational waves transmit energy

Within parts of the scientific community there was initially some confusion as to whether gravitational waves could transmit energy as electromagnetic waves can. This confusion came from the fact that gravitational waves have no local energy density - no contribution to the stress-energy tensor. Unlike Newtonian gravity, Einstein gravity is not a force theory. Gravity is not a force in general relativity; it is geometry. Therefore the gravitational field was thought not to contain energy, as would a gravitational potential. But the field can most certainly carry energy as it can do mechanical work at a distance. For a number of years this issue was addressed by using gravitational stress-energy pseudotensors that transport energy. Among a number of candidates a frequently used one is the symmetric Landau-Lifshitz pseudotensor. The analysis based on pseudotensors is subject to the general criticism that they are not proper tensors and thus physical conclusions based on them may not be coordinate independent. Since the components of a pseudotensor can vanish in a coordinate system but not in others, the gravitational energy density is not localizable. In physical terms this is simply a reflection of the fact that gravitational field is locally transformed away for a freely falling observer because of the Equivalence Principle. A major conceptual advance came when in 1962 Hermann Bondi and his coworkers analyzed gravitational radiation in Einstein gravity using a specially devised coordinate system which showed explicitly how radiation can carry energy out to infinity from an isolated source causing it to lose mass. The work by Bondi et al., Sachs and by Newman and Penrose form the basis of much of the current theoretical understanding of the structure of gravitational radiation field far from the sources.

From what I can make of the above, it tends to gird-up nicely the direction of thought and theorizing of both John Collins' and Ken Behrendt's.

From reading through the whole contents of the page, the general message I get is that theoretical physicists just don't KNOW much! Excepting for observed effects of gravity, they haven't a clue, merely endless theories.

For example, here, from that same page, we get this kind of thing:

Electromagnetic waves are associated with a massless particle called the photon. Attempts to create an analogous quantum field theory for general relativity led to an analogous concept: a massless particle called the graviton. However, quantum field theory calculations involving gravitons produce many infinite values, which cannot be readily canceled to yield a sensible finite result. (In technical terms, gravity is nonrenormalizable.) Some proposed quantum gravity theories (notably string theory) address this problem, but currently there is no known means of testing these ideas empirically. The graviton itself (if it exists) is unlikely to be detectable, due to the weakness of its interactions.

Among others, this touches on the supposed "massless" (excuse me?) particle that theorizers about it fancy to call the "graviton". What is telling, however, is what we find between their parenthesis "(if it exists)". Exactly, "if".

[At this point I shall resist with all my powers of self-control, the severe temptation to indulge my impulse to discuss in-depth, the meaning and use of "substance", as it might apply to something so fantastically proposed as a "graviton", which is NEITHER energy nor mass?!]

Apparently, so-far, in the end as it was at the beginning, after all the theorizing has been done and offered-up, they just don't KNOW anything about King Gravitas, other than his observed effects upon masses!

Regarding all manner of OTHER phenomena, however, they do know much that is substantive, but not about this particular unique nut, so it would seem. Judging by what they've gotten so far in exchange for their myriad efforts, they well may NEVER crack it, no matter how hard they try.

If I understand it correctly, did not brother Bessler entertain the more-than-strong notion that this Monarch of Forces was a divine phenomenon?

Frankly speaking, I am no one to suggest otherwise, 'though others may well be.

In closing, I would respectfully suggest to the esteemed researchers into this 'mystery of all mysteries', that they might eventually consider adding term "INEFFABLE" to their lexicon.

James

This is the link as originally supplied by Michael, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_waves , which lead me to this one from which the extracts were taken, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_radiation . It is well worth a serious read, although the "Perturbation of Flat Space-time" part we'll just have to leave to Ken Behrendt and Jonathan, or one or two others . . . |:)

[ken_behrendt]

James...

Interesting material you provided. I found this of particular interest:

...in 1962 Hermann Bondi and his coworkers analyzed gravitational radiation in Einstein gravity using a specially devised coordinate system which showed explicitly how radiation can carry energy out to infinity from an isolated source causing it to lose mass.

Obviously as an object "radiates" gravitational energy, that energy must be "paid for" by a loss in the mass of the object. Actually, whenever any object loses energy, it must also lose the amount of rest mass associated with that energy. And, the object need not radiate gravity waves to lose its rest mass...simply dropping in a gravity field will cause it to lose rest mass.

About a decade or so ago, I was really "into" gravity physics and had reached the point where I was able to mathematically calculate the size of a graviton. It was incredibly small...only about 1/50th the diameter of the "classical" electron. My results were published, but in a journal that only put out about 100 copies per issue! I'm hoping someday to republish the derivation and bring it to a wider audience.

I predict that the next "big" breakthrough in physics will not be with String Theory that only seems to be getting more tangled up in itself with each passing decade, but, rather, with gravity physics. Eventually, we will be able to generate and control gravity fields as easily as we do electric and magnetic fields. The mind boggles at the thought of what new technologies that might lead to.


ken

[primemignonite]

Ken...

I missed that but am glad you didn't. It would seem to lend weight to Bessler's Fourth Law which itself proposes loss of it.

So, a "graviton" does have mass after all, but so vanishingly little that they, the esteemed lab coats, choose to say it has none on account? Well, if so, this would not surprise me in-the-least; they are seemingly capable of any outrage.

When getting down to the hard-and-fast of this subject - gravity - my poor mind is just not up to it. I will stick with conceptual mechanics, and leave the really heavy going to the experts. Mechanism shall establish the initial reality of things, and then you analysts can have at it, explaining down to wee atomic structure, and below, the true how and why of matters.

Yes, how COULD anything styled as "string theory", do any other than become entangled with it's own self? No big loss; it was just theory after all.

I trust that you will be publishing that re-work in Nature, or at least in some other journal equally worthy?

James

[KAS]

"I will stick with conceptual mechanics, and leave the really heavy going to the experts".

I agree. There is a insatiable need for the learned ones to find answers to to natures complexities so much so that some devote their whole lives to it.

To study mass to its infinitesimal atomic structure is all very interesting if you have the intellectual prowess to cope with it. But does it really provide answers to our problem? I think not. I firmly believe that the answer is simple, attainable, mechanical and more tuned to a workable scale.

IMO Bessler's achievement has so far eluded us only because some believe the answer to be more complex than it really is.

I don't possess computer software to help me with my quest which is probably why I have always had a workable test wheel at various stages of failure.

Although I enjoy reading all the principles and concepts discussed on this forum (especially Ken's theories), I tend to rely on my ingenuity, experience and basic mathematical skills when constructing.

It would be interesting to have a poll on what type of inventor we are.
I would class myself has an obsessed, nocturnal, serial trialist on a mission.

Kas

[ken_behrendt]

James...

Actually, gravitons, like photons, travel at light velocity and can be considered massless. They, by themselves do not normally carry away any of the rest mass of their sources which are the subatomic particles that compose matter. However, the article you quoted says that gravity "waves" can transmit energy and, when this happens, the sourses of the gravity will lose some of their rest masses. Apparently, a nice radially symmetric outflux of gravitons is one thing, but when sudden changes in shape or position of their source occurs, this outflux can to transmit a kind of compression wave of compressed gravitons. This is what carries the energy mentioned in the article and which then drains some rest mass from the graviton source to "pay" for the energy in the gravity wave.

You also asked with regard to my derivation of the size of a graviton:

I trust that you will be publishing that re-work in Nature, or at least in some other journal equally worthy?

Most likely not, unfortunately. The competition to get in published in the existing physics journals is fierce. They are the playground of the academics who depend upon a constant stream of published articles to maintain their veracity and status in the academic world. I will eventually be privately publishing my research and making it available to a far larger audience for a far longer time. I had a solid block of about ten years of intensive research into gravity physics and, although all of my work was published, it is only known to a handful of people on the planet at the moment. Now, with the advent of Print On Demand technology, I see the potential to have all of this material published in a massive collective work. But, that's for the future. Right now I am concentrating almost exclusively on two things. Getting my next book published (it deals with the knotty problem of UFO technology) and maintaining some level of ongoing Bessler research. It's rather humbling to realize that getting answers to the mysteries of the UFO phenomenon was actually far easier than finding a solution to the Bessler mystery!!!


KAS...

There is nothing wrong with being a "hands on" mobilist. But, when one can only test a design by having to actually build it, that can slow one's progress down tremendously.

I recommend to you as I would to all new members to consider downloading WM2D and practicing with it. After several hours of this, you will be able to quickly model almost any kind of mechanism and see how it performs. Since I got my free download of WM2D, I have already probably saved myself about a decade of wasted effort!

Theories are nice and make us feel like we understand the universe better...at least until the theory is exploded by the emergence of new data that it can not adequately account for. Regardless of what one's theories, opinions, or philosophy may or might be, they are all irrelevant to one central issue: one either has working device or one does not have a working device. And, by "working", I mean something that continuously outputs energy from an unseen and unexpected source.


ken

[MrTim]

There is nothing wrong with being a "hands on" mobilist. But, when one can only test a design by having to actually build it, that can slow one's progress down tremendously.

Sorry, as one of these "hands on" people, I'm going to disagree with your presumption.
I start all of my "designs" out with a quick sketch. (I have over 7,500 of them :o ) This tells me where the parts will be in relation to each other, how they will move, and even other possible mechanism permutations. Eventually you get to be good at determining what won't work with just a glance.
If something looks interesting, or appears to have potential, out comes the box of spare parts, pins & pivots, and weights. A quick construction tells you how things are going to move on the mechanism. If it doesn't work, then you can see why it doesn't, and figure out how to overcome it (if possible, which means going back to sketching.)
If it still looks good, then the next step is to build the design into the test wheel itself. (Again, lots of spare parts :) Failures, yes, and often. But you also get a feel (and an appreciation) of an actual physical construction that you can't get from a computer screen. And it won't lie to you....
No, my progress isn't slowed at all. There are wonderful things that can be discovered by experimenting with physical mechanisms (and I have) that a computer can't teach you. Or even build.
Maybe you should give "hands on" a try....

[KAS]

James...

There is nothing wrong with being a "hands on" mobilist. But, when one can only test a design by having to actually build it, that can slow one's progress down tremendously.

ken

Ken, Thanks for the info on WM2D I'll look into it.

As to your view that it will save alot of time;

I have a test wheel that has a number of pre drilled holes at different radii, location anchorage points, gimbal (lockable) brackets for weight and spring fixing.
In addition, at one time, I was a production engineer with access to a machine shop,
I was fortunate enough to be able to design and make the above (PMM) kit.
This allows me to built any type of scenario in minutes.

Your probably right that it will save some time but through experience, I find that once an idea comes into my head, I instinctively know if it is a goer or not from the onset. Testing the concept with software does have advantages however if the design is complex but as I have stated. I believe that the answer is too simple for words and I try not to overcomplicate my attempts.

WM2D may prove to be a useful tool however and I will give it a go.


Kas

[graham]

We should not forget that J B found the solution the old fashioned "hands on" way so it should not be dismissed too quickly.
Today,the "hands on mobilist " has so much more in the way of hardware available to him ,and power tools to make life easy. So many advantages that an 18th century mobilist could not even imagine possible.
And in the end your hands will need to be "on" for you to bring forth your wonderful machine into the world.

Graham

[ken_behrendt]

Graham wrote:

And in the end your hands will need to be "on" for you to bring forth your wonderful machine into the world.

Quite true! No matter how impressive one's sketches, calculations, CAD models, or "gifted" insights might be, the bottom line is that it means little unless it leads to a working physical model of some type. And, most importantly, it must be a model whose apparent OU operation can be independently verified by qualified individuals.

One must keep this detail in mind at all times. Despite the slick websites, earnest claims of success, both past and present, and promises of future success, the simple fact is that, so far, NO ONE on planet Earth, with the single exception of Johann Bessler, has been able to provide an undeniably working device.

If anybody, other than Bessler, had been able to do this, then, most likely, that device would now be in use worldwide.

From reading through Dircks' massive book, Perpetuum Mobile: The Quest for Self-Motive Power in the 17th, 18th, and 19th Centuries, I soon discovered that there were many mail order journals being produced exclusively for mobilists in the 19th century. In a manner similar to the threads of the BesslerWheel.com Discussion Board's forums today, these journals were filled with letters from inventors claiming to have solved the problem of perpetual motion or who were confident that they soon would be able to if they could only make a few critical modifications in their pet design.

In other words, despite the rise of the modern internet, things have not much changed in over a century!

But, I like to think this sad state of affairs will not persist for yet another century and that soon we will, in fact, finally have the secret of Bessler wheels...


ken

[jim_mich]

And, most importantly, it must be a model whose apparent OU operation can be independently verified by qualified individuals.

Getting "qualified individuals" to even look at a perpetual motion machine might be like pulling hen's teeth, near to impossible. So I would suggest a POP (proof of principle) model simple enough that anyone can build and observe it actually working.

[rlortie]

I am with you on this one Jim.

My vision is to have a POP that will fit in a suitcase no larger than what the Airlines allow for carry-on.

You simply take it out of the suitcase set it on the observers desk and remove the shipping bolt and let it start running. Once you have his attention then you hand him a brief analogue with a chronologicle background on Bessler and eye witness reports with a refference to their positions of the day.

Ralph

[primemignonite]

My, my, my . . . I am away but for a day, and action abounds on my topic! Many thanks for it.

Kas...

Something went haywire with your quotation of Ken's, alleged to have been directed at me, but in actuality to yourself.

If I may so-state for the record, I think it might have looked something more like this?:

Kas...

There is nothing wrong with being a "hands on" mobilist. But, when one can only test a design by having to actually build it, that can slow one's progress down tremendously.

* * * * *
ken

Fair enough? And also,

* * * * *
It would be interesting to have a poll on what type of inventor we are. . . .

Kas

I agree, it would. Why not run one and find out? As I understand it to be, any registered member can.

Jim Mich and Ralph...

If I might add some to the general thrust of what you both propose, I would imagine one such presentation to take place at MIT, for instance, and to be given by an emeritus professor of physics and ideally, a former alumnus as well. It might be entitled something like Mechanically Breaking Nature's Symmetry, the POP model merrily spinning away throughout, silencing all possible objections to the presentation, to the positive assertions made as well as the tangible, self-demonstrating reality itself.

At that time and place, the nasty, circularly-reasoned and bogus "axiom" of the tiny physician's, would DECEASE FOREVER, and join it's overreaching maker in the grave, never ever to be resurrected to torment and mislead again! Aah!, what sweet delight such an advent would be - Bessler - after all, having the very last laugh and final say over the doctor/wind bag, and his cohorts in giddy derision!

Speaking of Helmholz, has anyone here actually ever read over any of his stuff? Heh! Endlessly it goes on and on and on, having more words to the glut of nonsense than Carter ever had of "Little Liver Pills", no doubt!

No need to take my word for it; here, read his very words:
link
If you last through all forty pages you will see how he lays out his case as a snake would. An adequate and necessary antidote to the tiny one's riot of tortured silliness might be this: http://freespace.virgin.net/ecliptica.w ... petuum.htm .

And last but NOT least,

* * * * *
But, I like to think this sad state of affairs will not persist for yet another century and that soon we will, in fact, finally have the secret of Bessler wheels...

ken

Nowhere near a "century", Ken, but rather, "Oh-so-soon shall it be . . ." as that little bird whispers into my ear, in sweet continuation.

James

"In the face of demonstrated reality, all "laws" standing to-the-contrary must fall"

[rlortie]

James and Kas,

Kas wrote:

* * * * *
It would be interesting to have a poll on what type of inventor we are. . . .

Kas

Your Poll would have to include three categories. one for Sim or cad usage, one for hands on builders and one for written specs and sketches which are farmed out to the hands on class.

I receive numerous proposals fitting the latter category.
Ralph

[james kelly]

YOU may be surprised at who we have as an expert. I took drafting for 3 years, cad for two. It depends on wheter I am in a hurry or not. sometimes you can build it full scale faster than you can draft it. For a patent , you are going to have to produce a drawing.

[Fletcher]

Most I would suppose use a combination of all options.

I for instance use a white board to rough up an idea. Then onto a sim package if it still looks good or I need to verify some anticipated behaviour. [Sometimes there are surprises revealed in the sim if it is complex.] Next comes the build of the mech/s into a wheel template I have in my workshop. This build 'in situ' confirms or dashes the drawings & the sim's predictions of behaviour, in which case it is back to the white board having learnt something. It's a continual feedback loop.

So if you take a poll you need to give as many permutations as possible as there are people here that participate at all levels or only some of the possible steps or routes you can take.