Gravitational Waves and Variable Speed of Light

GW would be possible in a VSL context; however, I still hold doubts about the very existence of gravitational waves.
Medium articles with many links:
www.heise.de/t...
/ gravitational-waves-th...
/ five-years-of-gravitat... .
See also my backup channel: odysee.com/@Th...
My books: www.amazon.com/Alexander-Unzicker/e/B00DQCRYYY/

[@marcv2648]

When you build a gravitational wave detector that costs that much, you damn well better detect gravitational waves. On a lighter note, science fiction writer, Max Tegmark says that multiverses exist on 3 levels.

[@TheMachian]

That is basically what Collins said in the interview.

[@vjfperez]

1. Propose a plausible yet complex/expensive scheme to detect famous theoretical signal that is faint 2. Make it an international collaboration project and raise a lot of money and attention 3. Build the apparatus and collect large random data sets 4. Keep trying filters and improving your story, sometimes testing out the reception of the public to candidate events, until you have a plausible “detection” pattern to publish

[@vjfperez]

The whole fundamental physics thing became another big state scam in the 60s

[@ronniedahlgren2733]

Just wanted to say that I first stumbled upon one of your videos and have now watched basically all of them, except the german ones and I believe that you might be onto something with VSL. Things finally fall into place. It has been an eye-opener and hopefully the current discoveries of the JWS telescope will be a paradigm shift in cosmology and physics.

[@TheMachian]

Paradigm shifts occur not easily, but thanks for your comment. Next week I will mention some problems, but VSL is definitely worth pondering.

[@uptoapoint7157]

Good, stimulating video as usual. Physics, like climatology and public health science, is suffering from marketing creep in which a conclusion is reached and then data arranged to justify it. Of course, it is not science but there are a lot of PhD salaries that depend on it.

[@helenbuckley5532]

The basis of the detection of gravity waves has always been suspect from the outset when the device used to measure them cancels out any variation in the speed of light.The Michelson interferometer was originally designed to measure any variation in the speed of light due to direction, so it was a surprise when non was detected. Any change in the velocity of light in one direction can be cancelled out on the return journey from the mirrors at the end of the arms. So it should come as no surprise that using the Michelson device would render similar results when used to detect gravity waves as they propagate in a similar fashion to the light in the arms of the detector.

[@rainertheraven7813]

Ligo is detecting fallen sacks of rice in China. Till they had no entry for artificial fake signals, they detected nothing at all.

[@ShadowDrake102]

It would double, not cancel out, if it passes through the altered region twice??? There's no way you'd end up back in phase...

[@haddow777]

No, it wouldn't cancel out the same way. Yes, I agree that the back and forth motion of the light, if the Earth's motion affected the timing of its journey in each direction, would cancel out any gains or losses in each direction. The problem with claiming the same failure for a gravitational wave is that the gravitational wave isn't light. They're just claiming it moves at the speed of light. So, when it passes through the area of the experiments nothing reflects it and makes it go back to cancel any speed differences. What's supposed to happen, in their description of it, is it stretches and shrinks the space, including the space between the matter, as it travels through. So, what they are looking for is one of the tubes with the lasers in it literally getting longer and shorter by a very tiny amount. While I agree the Mickelson-Moorely experiment wasn't very good at proving light is how they claim it is today, it is an exceptional measuring device able to measure extremely tiny differences in length. For them to measure the speed of gravity, as they describe it, a single site would never be able to do it. Instead, they have multiple sites at different areas around the planet. They check for the same patter of disturbance happening in all of them, then calculate the difference in time between it happening in one and then the others and track that against the distances between them. In all of this, the gravitational wave would be like a large flat line moving through the earth, passing each site as it progressed further and further until it moved on past the earth. All the times it would be moving in the same direction.

[@glenwaldrop8166]

​​@@haddow777given how large the hardware has to be in order to even be able to detect the difference in the speed of light it's like tuning an antenna, they're only going to see very long wavelengths. What if gravity waves are constant vibrations, a matrix of interactions, we wouldn't even be able to see them on that large of a device.

[@haddow777]

@@glenwaldrop8166 I don't think you understand how it measures the difference in the two laser beams. It does so through the effects light waves from the same source have when out of sync. When in sync, they make each other stronger, brighter. When out of sync, by even a fraction of a wavelength of the light source, they begin to cancel each other out, dimming dramatically. The wavelengths of light is in the hundreds of nanometers. Add this to the fact that while each tube is only a couple of kilometers long, mirrors inside the tube bounce the laser back and forth so many times it simulates a tube thousands of kilometers long. Combining these two features together gives the system to measure a change in the length of the tube to less than the width of a single atom. Even still, with all the things that happen our planet, all the vibrations and temperature differences, the devices can only be so precise when hunting for patterns in amongst all the noise. So, that is why the experiment really only expects to find gravitational waves put out my two massive black holes spinning incredibly fast around each other and the moment they collide. This is because this is the biggest gravitational effect the universe can conceivably come up with. By the time such effects have traveled across hundreds, thousands, possibly millions of light years to reach us, they've lost a lot of their power. Still, the wavefront would be wide enough to be read by the detectors as a nearly flat wavefront passing through Earth. So, it's not really so much the lack of precision that makes detecting smaller gravitational events not really feasible. It's more the noise from our planet inducing a lot of false data into each device so the only way to possibly detect gravitational waves is by hunting patterns that differ from the norm and is equal amongst several devices across the planet, as each's local noise will be different. That is why they are planning satellite versions of these things that will be a million kilometers from the planet and will be many more thousands of kilometers long. In space, they don't need tunnels to create vacuums. They just need laser emitters, mirrors, and detectors. Then maybe they will be able to detect more fine level detail and be able to observe smaller level gravitational events.

[@rosomak8244]

When I was a child I was convinced that many things from science-fiction would become reality later. Well somehow it did: science embraced fiction .

[@paulg444]

He is exactly right, there must be a fair application of the laws of probability. The careful treatment of uncertainty in both the composite null and the composite alternative are critical. I had doubts when I first saw the statistical methods being employed from a colleague close to the LIGO community. What Unzicker calls the use of "templates" is a perfectly fine way of describing the concerns. But it goes even deeper than this. The treatment of the composite null hypothesis is a serious issue and it is a challenging one. They need to refine their models, incorporate proper mixture models where necessary and integrate over the uncertainty parameters bringing everything we know about the physics to bear. It is no small feat. Hopefully in the near future the statistics can catch up and the conclusions of LIGO will be supported.

[@Mathblade]

Why, it's almost like a matched filtering system can create a signal's matching statistic from noise by selectively filtering only things which match it--whether a signal is there or not. Perhaps they should take credit for synthesizing gravitational waves instead of detecting them. Particle physics could show them how to do that

[@phyarth8082]

When Broglie's proposed the electron duality particle and wave idea, physicist Peter Debye made an offhand comment that if particles behaved as waves, they should satisfy some sort of wave equation. inspired by Debye's remark, Schrödinger decided to find a proper 3-dimensional wave equation for the electron Maybe we have the opposite situation Gravitation waves don't exist they are just math acrobatics and scientists try to find (detect) math inconsistency.

[@jaydenwilson9522]

mathematical abstractions are my favourite because of how much trouble they cause XD

[@sergiomanzetti1021]

Looking forward to this

[@johnnyllooddte3415]

all visual artistic renderings of gravitational waves show anti gravity bending around and away from planets.. i find that quite funny

[@OneCrazyDanish]

@4.43 THANNK YOU! I feel like I have been howling at the moon about their "templates". They did something similar with the EHT and their black hole "image".

[@konradcomrade4845]

it is a good way to get newspaper or science magazine reporters jumping on it.

[@gonegahgah]

It is amusing that an experiment that is very similar to the one that dispelled the notion of the æther is now being used to test the presence of gravitation waves which like most quanta today are being very closely tied to today's field theory which itself is an even crazier new æther theory variant this time with multiple overlapping æther fields... 🥺 Maybe we should rewrite the Michelson-Morley experiment as a success after "errors in the process have been removed".

[@aerosoapbreeze264]

I've been meaning to ask you if you still have the original recording / footage of the discussion you had with Wolfgang Kundt on black holes and the idea that other dust obscured celestial phenomena are an alternate causal explanation. Also waiting on Taubes paperback to arrive, I took a shot in the dark assuming your suggestion was for Nobel Dreams. I passed his cold fusion book anecdotally the most in-depth reviews tend toward dislike. I am pre-emptively suspect after seeing the rest of his sizeable catalogue are all diet related? Seams left of field and its rather odd contrast. Time will tell I suppose. Your book and my preferred choice was priced at 70 in-store at dymocks, too much for my miserly nature. Anyway looking forward to this upcoming video as it's touching on the original subjects that introduced your content to me. I just hope your Audio game is up to scratch. Another discussion from Wolfgang would be worth while, His perspective really provoked a lot of thoughts in my small social circle . Given he is 91 years old it would be a shame to miss the opportunity to interview him again if you could. Kudos and regards

[@TheMachian]

Well, there are the raw files... why? Feel free to contact me via ChannelInfo

[@rd9831]

Ofcourse they need a million times more sensitive and expensive LIGO. They need funding.

[@Dyslexic-Artist-Theory-on-Time]

I predict that at the end of the day, and it might be a long day, light waves will do the job of gravitational waves. No gravitons, photons interacting with electrons (matter) can do their job.

[@Discoverer-of-Teleportation]

if gravitational wave exists, we should also detect sun/Jupiter/saturn waves as they are so massive in size

[@trucid2]

There is a lot of things that are suspicious about the first detection that was made, before LIGO was officially supposed to start. Did you know that LIGO has a way of injecting a signal into the detector in such a way that *very* few people would know that the signal is fake. And even fewer people have the ability to inject the signal. The idea of this signal injection is to test that all parts of the system are working properly. An interview with researchers working there at the time of detection revealed an interesting thing. For months after the detection was made these researchers were skeptical that it was real. They thought it was injected! This is just scratching the surface.

[@TheMachian]

I know, read my articles on medium.com: fuíve years GW: a sreis of strange coincidences...

[@SkyDarmos]

You fail to discuss that the fact that there are always two detectors. How do you explain that they both go off simultaneously?

[@hoozentroger]

I'm just a guy with no background in science, but still to me there are so many things off with mainstream physics I cant help but to look for alternative explanations!

[@jaydenwilson9522]

modern physics, astronomy, etc. are all built on mathematical abstractions which don't really represent reality... some good science has come out of it but the frameworks and models are really bad representations and not fundamental to reality in most cases.

[@altEFG]

Would you consider making text posts based on your videos? I find it easier to comprehend technical and/or scientific information that way, surely I am not the only one.

[@rheticus5198]

Star date: 9 Sept 2022. Long wait for a video. I would say gravitational waves are likely. It is another question whether there is sufficient evidence. Throw out accelerating expanding universes as preposterous, and here is what you have left. Light decays exponentially, losing hH in energy every cycle for any photon. This implies (from Planck's hypothesis) that electromagnetic radiation would be quantised with zero-point energy, hH/2. The significance of the Hubble constant is that it would be the natural frequency of a quantum harmonic oscillator - the "hum" of the universe. As the energy, hH, is lost in the process of exponential decay, it accumulates at or near the zero-point, which would be at the coldest radiation temperature. Walther Nernst won the 1921 Nobel for his work on low temperature physics, also known as the third law of thermodynamics. In Nernst's cosmological model, the zero-point energy serves as a reservoir of potential energy which is eventually recycled into matter. This reservoir could be like a Bose-Einstein condensate, forming a plenum of energy which is a kind of aether that gives our space-time its properties, a kind of quantum ball. It is this reservoir that is the medium in which gravitational waves could exist. Of course, this has little to do with VSL, but in no way contradicts it. In fact, dimensional considerations of general relativity alone dictate that the speed of light should have two gravitational factors. I believe that the apparent difficulty might come from the equivalence of two forms of analysis, one used for Newtonian physics, and the other for the differential geometry of general relativity due to Hilbert. For GR, in a gravitational field radial variation of Length, Time, and Energy is supposed to vary as L'=Ls, T'=t/s, and E'=Es where s the gravitational contraction factor. A velocity being a length divided by time implies V'=Vs^2. This radial dimensional variation implies that Planck's constant does not change in a gravitational field, because the s factors in its units cancel out. The factors also cancel in the normalized gravitational potential energy GM/Rc^2. Curiously, this is also the case if the length scale does not change, and I have reason to believe that this relates to the two forms of analysis. The entire structure comes from the quantum hH. Just ask yourself the question, "How much energy would be lost per cycle by a photon under Hubble's law?" Here is one solution involving elementary algebra. If there is a trick to getting exactly hH, it is in posing the problem. Let Hubble's law be given by c d / D = H x, c is speed of light, d is change in wavelength, D is wavelength, H is Hubble's constant, x is distance traveled by photon. The energy of the photon at the source is h c / D, h is Planck's constant. After traveling a distance x = D + d, the energy falls to h c / (D + d), losing hH in the process which results in the observed exponential decay of photon energy, interpreted as "tired light." This has been known for nearly a century, but is routinely ignored by modern physicists.

[@TheMachian]

I still lack experience how to handle these premieres... what would be a reasonable announcement time for you? Btw, your nick is interesting :-) Otherwise maybe we would not have had the Copernicanian revolution :-)

[@rheticus5198]

@@TheMachian My comment about the long wait was meant as a joke for anybody else who only noticed the hour, and not the date, on the announcement. I did not intend to criticize. I enjoy your presentations, and appreciate the ideas that are discussed. Rhaticus was my cat's name, and when I googled it I found Rheticus, who was the only student of Copernicus and became his assistant. Having experienced difficulty in publishing any of my papers, the link to the plight of Copernicus seemed either appropriate, or funny because I have few credentials and could be an example of the Dunning-Kruger effect, where amateurs think they are professionals. Having said that, and getting back to the quantum hH, luminosity vs redshift curves for two versions of tired light can be compared against the conventional curves, and indicate a difference in distance measures. This is the sort of technical thing that I think should be investigated by professionals, and maybe fits the idea of rheticus as assistant, although, I cannot be sure whether they have already, or not. If you are interested, there is an essay, "Cosmological Redshift: Accelerating Expansion or Quantum Phenomenon" at viXra:2205.0138

[@rheticus5198]

@@TheMachian I should have mentioned viXra:2007.0009 about a relativistic reformulation of gravitational potential energy which has a table (Appendix A) with a basic dimensional breakdown of general relativity. Appendix B shows an equivalence between the proposed model without radial length contraction, and curved space with radial length contraction. The model in this essay results in the same metric as "variable mass" models. Since E=mc^2 is conventionally defined with c constant independent of the field, it might be more appropriate to call them variable energy models. The underlying assumptions are different, to the extent that variable mass presumes Mach's principle, as opposed to having Mach's principle inferred from the result.

[@User53123]

Definitely going to catch it this time. I was wondering about something recently relating to the expanding universe hypothesis. If scientists claim that certain galaxies are speeding away from us faster than light, then why should we be able to see these galaxies? It kind of bugs me, and maybe I don't understand what is being postulated, but if this is what is postulated then maybe this can be leaned on as evidence against the redshift being caused by expansion.

[@howdy832]

If the universe is expanding, then galaxies recede faster the farther away they are. At some distance away, the galaxies are moving right at light speed. This is the edge of our possible view. But a galaxy could emit light on this side of the line then cross the line while the light is in transit. Then by the time we see that light the galaxy would be emitting light we will never see. Hope this helps!

[@User53123]

@@howdy832 Ah so they are just calculating that it should be speeding away faster than light based on expansion. It really does sound like they claim they can tell it's faster than light by the redshift they see. I guess it's just the wording. Some of the stuff they say I can't get their meaning. Like why the universe is flat. I can't see why they expect triangles to add up to more than 180. We're in a sphere not on it's surface. The cosmological ideas they talk about are so bizarre.

[@tortenschachtel9498]

@@User53123 The universe being flat does not refer to any form in 3 dimensional space, but how 3 dimensional space itself may or may not be arranged on a higher dimensional shape. You can easily draw a triangle with 270° internal angles on a sphere. If the universe has a positive curvature the surface of the sphere would be our 3 dimensional space.

[@ddtt1398]

Indeed, these gravitational waves are just not acceptable. I agree that Nature must be simplified. Let's do a crowdfund for this.

[@Naomi_Boyd]

There is really only one way I can think of that a VSL theory of gravity could work with respect to Special Relativity. Black holes and gravitational waves would fit very nicely into that model. In fact, they would be predicted by it. I don't understand the contention. Can you articulate precisely why you think these concepts would not play nicely together? One of us is missing something somewhere, and I'd like to know if it is me.

[@bugmonkey9226]

They spent 1 billion dollars to detect gravitational waves, so godammit they're going to detect them!

[@konradcomrade4845]

do GWs undergo redshift on cosmological distances, similar or exactly equal to light (curved backward/timeward light cone; making us see distant_Z galaxies at an enlarged arc-seconds angle)? if so then could GWs from behind the CMB (very "primordial Black Hole collisions"?) get redshifted to such long wavelengths ( Lambda ~ = 200 000 lightyears) that they could effectively shake whole galaxies? As with light, which carries impulse and exerts a pressure ( making photon-rockets conceivable), would GravitationalWaves transmit impulse and energy to galaxies?

[@sergiomanzetti1021]

Seems the data from LIGO is based on the philosphy of Microsoft "buy Windows version X and get accurate results", then you are told you have to update/upgrade X+1 to get your accurate results, because of flaws in the original version.

[@Sevetamryn]

Hi. I'm an interested, educated (i think), amateur only. After watching a couple of your videos I'm very curious about more. From what i have seen now VSL seems to be an interesting point of view to explain things we have no explanation for. . However, i have some immediate question. Maybe there is already a video about i have not found for now .. If c is variable, what are the consequences when we look to well known formula and even natural constants? What are the consequences to E=mc² with VSL in mind. I remember some constants from the elementary particle realm to have c in it. ... Especially when we look from the VSL perspective to the explanations for what we observer about the incredibly early universe, the speed of light must be vastly different back then with some consequences for all of this ... i think ...

[@thomaslechner1622]

What is the current theory? Do gravitational waves curve within curved space-time like waves on an ocean or like light around a galaxy is also taking a curved path? Or don't GWs do that? Can / does this explain GW signals arriving a few seconds earlier than light (=electromagnetic) signal from neutron star collisions?

[@maxtabmann6701]

Can anyone explain to me why we need a theory of gravitational waves? Gravity obviously works in empty space. Gravitational changes propagate with the speed of light. These two observations alone are sufficient. Assume a sun, which is orbited by a very heavy planet. Consequently, the sun will not rest but orbit around the common center of gravity. On a planet near the sun, this distance change can be observed as a periodic change in the gravitational force of the sun. The amplitude of this change depends on the distance to the sun and the phase too. Thus we may call it a gravitational wave. But no special theory is required here - only logic and the two observations: gravity works in free space and changes propagate with the speed of light.

[@tonymarshharveytron1970]

Hello Dr. Unzicker, I believe that the term ' Gravitational Wave' , is a misnoma, since there is no evidence throughout the whole of the history of physics to suport the idear that gravity acts as a wave. Surely if gravity acted as a wave, there would be chaos in the universe, considering how many violent events occure that would disturbe gravity. If the gravitational force that we experince on earth varied to any extent, I doubt that we could exist. What is being claimed as gravitational waves, could only be shock waves, which, unless the event that caused them was relatively recent in cosmological terrms, they would have disipated long before the present time. Kind regards, Tony Marsh.

[@chrisoakey9841]

to detect gravitational wave in a 33d world shouldn't ligo have a third leg heading into the ground or to the sky?

[@digbysirchickentf2315]

Unzicker, are you aware they have a 'mechanical' device to generate a GW shaped test signal, built in to the LIGO unit for testing.. makes you wonder if a lone worker could hack that device?

[@TheMachian]

Yes, there is software and hardware for blind injections. They claim they have ruled this out. Hard to prove.

[@digbysirchickentf2315]

To be fair the concept of GW does seem reasonable, not as crazy as black holes.

[@romado59]

I believe Einstein wrestle with detecting gravity wave or they were electromagnet waves?

[@AbhTri-kq8hc]

One question has been troubling me a lot after watching these videos. If according to variable speed of light, the expansion is not real, is it a sort of static and eternal universe? If so why hasn't all the stars died out already?

[@edcunion]

It appears one can identify light speed gravitational waves closer to home, groups of acceleration measuring seismometers located at different sites recorded "prompt" light speed accelerations after both the Tohoku and Banda Aceh megathrust earthquakes 11 and 18 years ago. This viewer wasn't directly involved in the studies but did read a few papers on these events, here's some observations and comments. Seismometers are small discrete devices, can they be considered three dimensional double-slit-like, i.e multiple slit recorders for measuring discrete packets of acceleration waves? Let's call them megathrust derived acceleration waves as they both push and pull on the seismometers at light speed? Beside the physical effect of compressing and stretching, distorting the seismometer, from Albert's work, time would both slow down and speed up as the acceleration wave passes, and any EM radiation traversed through by the acceleration wave would also be temporally red and blue shifted? So, can the various seismometers spread out radially away from the megathrust be considered double slit acceleration wave sensing devices that recorded massless packets of acceleration traveling at the constant speed of light c? This viewer believes they may be doing so. Would the discrete measured packets then be called packets of acceleratons, not gravitons, as they push and pull on objects, and are not just attractive? After their passing, would they show any evidence of the theorized gravitational memory effect on spacetime? This is of course a different phenomena than the voltages generated and recorded by the light-speed, curved-spacetime (acceleration) shaken seismometers' induced movements? Gravitational memory indicates a metric-remembered expansion of spacetime itself? In any case, there's much to study for many researchers, this perhaps falls under Albert's topic of gravitoelectromagnetism. Our recently seeing though, that universal acceleration is larger magnitude than local gravity and increasing out toward Mach's universal hinterlands, it might be thought of, again using Albert's equivalence principle idea, as acceleroelectromagnetism?

[@minkis42]

If gravity were just a scalar field then large bodies moving in a straight line through space would drag on their own field and lose momentum over time, if we consider gravity to be made from a scalar field plus another scalar field to describe the gravitational change over time then objects traveling in straight lines would not lose momentum, but objects accelerating in tight orbits would lose momentum. This is what is observed and theoretically, accelerating masses should be emitting gravitational waves. I don't think our current gravitational wave detectors would have a chance in picking this up however as the way I see it, if one arm of the detector is compressed by the wave, then the light within that arm is also slowed down by time dilation, so detector wouldn't show any result.

[@edcunion]

Light's speed is a constant in GR, time slows down though and this can be measured using various accurate clocks that can record pico, femto or atto seconds? These clocks are already being used to measure gravity in labs for vertical offsets on tabletops in the centimetre range. One doesn't need to put clocks on Mt. Everest, jets, rockets or satellites anymore to measure time and gravity changes or gravitational redshift?

[@davidwilkie9551]

A "lite" Mathemagical argument would say that because the appearance of wave-particle coordination-identification positioning is a line-of-sight probabilistic superposition derived from the frequency density-intensity alignment that collapses the wave of zero-infinity Totality, then the Sciencing measures are always going to be uncertain products of approximation due to the sum-of-all-histories here-now-forever convergence of the pseudo random gaps between Primes. This is the reason for pulse-evolution differentiates integrated in transverse trancendental cross-sectional probability compositions of potential Superspin Modulation Mechanism Lensing and containment by that alignment = collapse, unity of e-Pi-i i-reflection focused here-now-forever. Wave-packaging holographic formation is all there is.., some of which is identified as gravitational.

[@-Pentcho-Valev]

The speed of light is variable not only in the presence of gravity. It is variable (as per Newton) in the absence of gravity as well. Consider Doppler (moving observer): kzbin.info/www/bejne/mJiagGeoqdGqe6c The speed of the light pulses relative to the stationary observer is c = df where d is the distance between subsequent pulses and f is the frequency at the stationary observer. The speed of the pulses relative to the moving observer is c'= df' > c where f' > f is the frequency at the moving observer.

[@finky555]

If 2 bodies orbiting each other come closer and closer until they rotate fast enough that their gravity makes waves as they orbit, then why is the moon moving away from earth rather than slowly coming towards earth? We are told the moon is receding because of the tides. Shouldn't tides be happening on 2 neutron stars or black holes as the spin around each other causing them to move apart rather than come closer? Can't have different rules for 2 body scenarios.

[@sunsinati2610]

Thanks for questioning the progress. We always need people like you in the society. But in this case, as a gravitational wave astronomer I can say that you trying hard to convince your viewers that you have a point.

[@TheMachian]

Thanks for your kind feedback and moderate tone. I know very honest people working in this community, yet I have my reservations. Feel free to comment on my medium articles which go more in detail:medium.com/@aunzicker/five-years-of-gravitational-waves-a-chronicle-of-strange-coincidences-7d22be19319d

[@-Pentcho-Valev]

Quotation: "On 8:41 am EDT August 17, 2017, LIGO detected a new gravitational wave source, dubbed GW170817 to mark its discovery date. Just two seconds later NASA's Fermi satellite detected a weak pulse of gamma rays from the same location of the sky." "Just two seconds later" and "the same location of the sky" implies that gravitational waves and gamma rays travelled hand in hand: same gravitationally deflected path, same speed, same Shapiro delay; if some cosmic matter blocked gamma rays, it equally blocked the accompanying gravitational waves. Too far-fetched, isn't it? Spacetime and gravitational waves (ripples in spacetime) don't exist. The reason is that the speed of light is VARIABLE AS PER NEWTON, as originally (prior to the introduction of the length-contraction fudge factor) proved by the Michelson-Morley experiment: Wikipedia: "Emission theory, also called emitter theory or ballistic theory of light, was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, explaining the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887. [...] The name most often associated with emission theory is Isaac Newton. In his corpuscular theory Newton visualized light "corpuscles" being thrown off from hot bodies at a nominal speed of c with respect to the emitting object, and obeying the usual laws of Newtonian mechanics, and we then expect light to be moving towards us with a speed that is offset by the speed of the distant emitter (c ± v)." Banesh Hoffmann, Einstein's co-author, admits that, originally ("without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations"), the Michelson-Morley experiment was compatible with Newton's variable speed of light, c'=c±v, and incompatible with the constant speed of light, c'=c: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether." Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92

[@TheMachian]

There are many details to remark about the cicumstances of the GW170817 event, some are briefly mentioned in my second medium article. (see description). I would hve liked to dig deeper into that story, but I have lost an important coworker (even two, to be precise).

[@rofustus24]

How does LIGO account for earthquakes and other geologically caused vibrations? To me as an engineer LIGO might be able to detect gravitational waves but since its on the crust of the earth it may also be the most sensitive seismometer ever built. Are these lasers, mirrors and detectors on gyroscopes? I really need to dig into the setup but that is my initial thought.

[@TheMachian]

In fact, not easy to distinguish. Coincidence is key, but if you dig int the details of their data analysis, tehre are many flaws. See papers by Andrew D. Jackson.

[@r-gart]

They detect everything and filter it out if its not detected in their twin detector thousand miles away.

[@arthurrobey4945]

I was under the distinct impression that a scientific experiment was to challange a model, and that great excitement ensued if the model was *disproved* . Why are we trying so hard to find confirmation of the standard model? I smell a Kuhnian revolution in the offing. I am a previous naieve believer in physics. Now I shake my head; how could I have believed in Albert's 'Bent Nothingness" conjecture? I follow Dr. Tom Campbell who asserts that Reality is proceedurally generated by our observations. My contribution is that the illusion is complete with only two dimensions. There is no requirement to generate a third. The natural condition of the San peoples who cannot conceive the third dimension is therefore correct.

[@SkyDarmos]

You also fail to mention the pulsar pair which was shown to lose energy from gravitational waves emittions.

[@ronstiles2681]

Is gravitational waves a electromagnetic wave .? I'm asking because I'm not sure what it is I have not heard of anyone explain what the wave actually is

[@curiousmind9287]

Does it ever worry you that Einstein theory has no physicality, just several pretty questionable assumptions and math? They do add up and give a correct answer, but in science we are not looking for the result, but for understanding, physicality, which his theory has none.

[@curiousmind9287]

Knowing how science works, I also think if Einstein theory would not be giving support for Max Plank quantization, his article would not be published and we would never know about him. Plank was not confident about his own work and desperately needed someone to support it. And, he is an editor of the journal receiving manuscript from a completely unknown guy that incorporates his quantum. The temptation to leverage this would be overwhelming. I am not denying here that it is possible that his theory may have value. I am not an expert in physics, just a curious guy with a lot of experience in applied science.

[@walterbrownstone8017]

I don't see a problem with the existence of gravitational waves but I'm not a physicist.

[@keithnorris6348]

My new favourite star from the J W T photo is W R 140 so many rings it looks like a plasma lab experiment.

[@carly09et]

tides - gravitational waves are trivial - the measure here is quantum noise restriction. The 'quantum' limit is what is, extracting a signal from noise is just a 'lottery'.

[@Rampart.X]

If gravitational waves do NOT exist then what is the speed of gravitational effects?

[@rosomak8244]

Has any speed of gravity other than a mass moving itself been ever detected?

[@l.rongardner2150]

Has gravity been identified as an effect from bodies that don't rotate? I ask, because one innovative thinker I encountered described gravity as a whirlpool-like effect created by rotating bodies, such as planets.

[@jaydenwilson9522]

we follow the inertia of the galaxy.... everything move in a vortice like you see when water drains out of your bathtub. Ever wondered by clocks go clockwise??? because the galaxy moves clockwise..... inertia of the galaxy controls the motion of forces like electromagnetism and gravity... even out sun and the rest of the solar system are essentially spiraling similar to the galaxies spiral...... everything from celestial bodies to molecules of h2o follow the inertia of the galaxy (whether the galaxy follows the inertia of the universe remains to be seen) I'm very interested in what out galaxy spirals through as motion is relative to other mass's..... we have to have something akin to an ocean to explain the way mass/energy moves throughout the universe.

[@johnlord8337]

Do gravitational waves exist ? Yes. But, there is no one singular gravity wave. There are 3 space-time fabric waves with gluons having mass properties. There are 2 particulate and 3 particle matter gravity waves. So there is no "universal" gravitational constant, let alone talking about a terran g constant, let alone go to another part of the galactic arm or within another portion of the cosmos, and that g constant is different.

[@holgerjrgensen2166]

Life is Eternal, the Life-Desire is the MOTOR of Life, in direct extension We have Will, (Life-side) and Gravity, (Stuff-side) By the Will, We do balance Gravity of Earth, with our own, when We lift the cup. So in this Life-side perspective, the wave-and particle-princip/realty, (Stuff-side) may be an extension of Gravity.

[@sumdumbmick]

the day the announcement was made that gravitational waves were detected I reached out and asked multiple people in the field how it's even logically possible to measure them, given that they are allegedly distortions in space-time which carry along with them distortions in the propagation properties of light. that is, how could you possibly detect distortions in the alleged fundamental fabric of the universe while existing purely within the fabric of the universe? to date I've never received an answer, only scoffing claims that I don't know what I'm talking about. and then we get claims of measurements that perfectly match predictions paired with admissions of the fact that they had to manipulate the data to reach the published results... it's obviously shady af.

[@sumdumbmick]

it's fascinating to me that people do not perceive that science is a cult. it very obviously is. every video you post reveals this, and yet even you yourself resist the truth here. if the valued thing is rigorous pursuit of truth, that is not uniquely a product of science. science is somewhat better at yielding it than most other cults humans have established, sure, I would more or less agree on that point, but that does not change its status as a cult. there are many, many examples of how the cult aspect of science impairs the ability of science to produce sound results. one I know offhand is the hypothesis that the composition of a cat's hyoid bone dictates whether it roars or purrs. generally, cartilaginous hyoids are present in roaring cats and bony hyoids are present in purring cats. however, prior to this hypothesis even being proposed a counterexample was documented, and known to the person who proposed the hypothesis. and worse, about 80 years later the individual in the field most expert in the species that was the exception elevated the status of the hypothesis to theory, and that theory stood for roughly another 80 years. clearly, this is ludicrous bad science if science is about rigor and truth. but it turns out that it's actually quite ordinary science. you have other examples in Piltdown Man being accepted as valid simply because it fit scientists' expectations, and it was so well accepted that nobody even tried to date it until 40 years later. notably, the dating method used was invented about 40 years before Piltdown Man was presented, so again, this should be absolutely inexcusable if science is about rigor and truth, but it turns out that it was actually so acceptable that only one man lost his standing within the scientific community when the hoax was recognized by the mainstream, despite that mainstream community being the ones who sustained the fucking thing for 40 years. Clovis First is another example, Copernicus' artificial maintenance of a firmament in his cosmological model, etc. science is fundamentally always about appealing to the biases and expectations of a mob.

[@eytansuchard8640]

A variable speed of light can be realized in an observed space-time where Einstein's action holds true in the observer space-time. Einstein's equation becomes geometric on both sides, observer volumetric curvature on one hand and non-geodesic acceleration action on the other. In the observed space-time the action is the square norm of the accelerations of 1,2,3 or 4 unit vectors using Gramian determinants. These acceleration vectors are realized as Reeb vectors. 1,2,3 such functions have a direction of time as a Geroch function. The representation is not unique but the Scarr Friedman acceleration matrices of 2 Reeb vectors have unique action operator. The gram actions of 1,2,3 or 4 vectors are also unique the 2 Reeb case have two equivalent formalisms. This is exactly the Geometric Chronon Field theory which its building blocks are realization events in an observer space-time manifold, where matter appears where these events are misaligned. The first idea of encoding matter through a quantum field of time was of Sam Vaknin in 1982 and his doctoral thesis was submitted in 1984. An earlier work in that spirit was of Snyder in 1947, however, Snayder did not understand that matter should come out of time. Snyder's purpose was to find a cure to renormalization problems in QM and he wanted to quantize space-time in observer coordinates, not to use an entire observer spacetime as a reference object.

[@barrywilliams991]

Is gravity a force or the effect of mass warping the fabric of space?

[@longextinct]

The latter

[@rosomak8244]

@@longextinct We actually do not know.

[@longextinct]

@@rosomak8244 einstein’s equations, which treat gravity as a field, make accurate calculations in areas where Newtonian physics does not. Neither version of gravity has the capability to explain dark energy and dark matter. We can’t be entirely sure Einstein had it flawlessly right. All good theories will likely be replaced with better ones. But gravity being a force is fundamentally problematic. A force needs a mediating particle. Newton’s equations don’t even rely on such a concept, you simply plug in values and end up with a calculable “force” whose origin is unknown. The search for the graviton has been fruitless. The idea of the force being some kind of magical thing without some form of mediation is unscientific. Warped spacetime has been far more effective, as it is consistent with what we observe. As far as uncertainty goes, warped spacetime has its own set of issues. Not being sufficient to account for dark energy and dark matter is one thing. The realness of an empty spacetime itself is another. General relativity treats absolute empty void like a real fabric that can bend, stretch, and permeate waves. Some scientists are beginning to look at this “void” as not even being real, which itself may help find conceptual explanations for how entanglement works. There is a part of me that likes to believe the universe was once unified in all its forces, gravity, the strong and electroweak force all were one and then separated as thing expanded, and there’s some deeper underlying property they all share. But that’s just another potential wacky theory out of thousands. There r so many theories to be made on a universe we can never truly glimpse. Things would be so much easier if I could just shrink down to the size of a neutrino and watch the inside of an atom.

[@crazy8sdrums]

Do you have a video or a writing that describes 'how' Light speed is variable? 'What' slows Light? 'What' accelerates Light? Simple questions...but one may find them very difficult to answer.

[@crazy8sdrums]

How does 'variable speed of light' differ from 'tired light'? I personally lean towards Tired Light, even tho such ideas are mocked and supposedly debunked. The 'debunking' of Tired Light relied on basically the same interferometry that suggested they found 'gravity waves' and now also that such waves were not actually found. The debunkers are unreliable.

[@Lincoln_Bio]

He tends to point to one of Einstein's early papers, before he realised it was completely wrong and came up with Relativity, which has been experimentally verified for over a century. It can be hard to get your head around, I mean light does technically move at different rates in different parts of the Universe, but only to *distant observers*, that's the key. Wherever you are in the Universe you will measure light in a vacuum to propagate @ c. Light travelling out of a gravity well (from a star for example) will be redshifted, the pull of gravity lowers the frequency, but not the speed - the wave still propagates at the speed of light. Light from an object moving towards you will be blueshifted, the light gets kinda smushed up, but again, it doesn't go any faster, the frequency just increases. Hope this makes some sort of sense :)

[@crazy8sdrums]

@@Lincoln_Bio I appreciate the response. I am familiar with that perspective. To be fair, my questions are somewhat 'loaded' and cannot really be answered within the 'status quo' cosmologies.

[@Lincoln_Bio]

@@crazy8sdrums Fair enough, I think Einstein 1911 & Dicke 1957 are the VSL papers Unzicker refers to if you wanna look em up

[@crazy8sdrums]

@@Lincoln_Bio I like to use extremities as test-beds for thought, because I am slow and lazy. Here is an example...Speed of Light in vacuum = 300k km per sec. Speed of Light in a Bose-Einstein condensate = about 17 meters per sec. So, we pop a photon in a straight line through the 'vacuum' at 'c', into the BEC which slows it down to just a minuscule fraction of the photon's former glory...and then as the photon exits the BEC what does it do? Does it carry on indefinitely at 17m/sec or does it regain it's former glory as Light and resume it's pace of 'c'? The measured and observed solution to that is that the photon resumes at 'c' after leaving the BEC. There is only one way to explain that. I am not really slow or lazy.

[@MrApplewine]

Direction of the aether is like a moving walkway. You have to add/subtract the velocity of the aether to the velocity of the light. This should account for the blue/red shift. The contraction or expansion / direction of the aether should be a function of space and matter and the localized space between the matter. There is no contraction or bending of space or time. Einstein got lucky with his eclipse prediction.

[@shawns0762]

It's almost pointless to talk about it until LISA comes out

[@theeddorian]

If gravity travels as waves, doesn't that make it a "force" after all??

[@edcunion]

Feynman sticky bead idea, where work is carried out from/at a distance? Any analogy to the idea of gravitational memory where space is stretched out?

[@AmbivalentInfluence]

I would argue that the only difference between gravitational waves and EM is wavelength/frequency. Would it not be possible to detect gravitational waves by comparing variances in the world's clocks, including those in the GPS satellites (are they accurate enough ?). In my view, a gravitational wave is a density wave and so the rate of time and speed of light would vary as they passed.

[@edcunion]

Certainly, check out some Kip Thorne lectures online. The passage of time and the frequency of light are variables, as most researchers consider light to travel at the invariant c in a vacuum. There's more to learn though as BEC researchers are creating the coldest temps and throttling & bottling light in labs for the past 20-30 or so years. So many papers to read!

[@AmbivalentInfluence]

@@edcunion Thank you for talking to me. I am well aware of Kip Thorne and I have a lot of respect for him. On the other hand, I still disagree with some of his ideas. The 'invariant' c depends upon the density of the vacuum it is travelling through, which also affects the rate of time at that location. This is why it appears invariant. It is my belief that the outermost layer of a black hole is most likely a BEC and then spacetime gets 'colder' and liquid beneath the skin. The issue for me is how do we reproduce temperatures below 0K, At these 'temperatures', spacetime will not vibrate at the required frequencies to support 'matter' or EM.....which is a bit of a show-stopper.

[@AmbivalentInfluence]

@@edcunion Kip Thorne said 'Everything likes to live where it will age most slowly, and gravity pulls it there.' I say that life evolves anywhere it can, and gravity provides the home.

[@AmbivalentInfluence]

@@edcunion c only appears to be constant because of time-dilation. Nothing 'likes' to be in freefall, there is not other choice (that's why the arrow of time is unidirectional). The only entry in the Standard Model that has anything at all to do with mass is the Higgs boson (it is only there for completeness anyway). As c is a variable then the Planck second is merely a relativistic measure, not an absolute (all of the 'constants' are like this, just ratios). The Planck Second: The shortest length of meaningful time at a given strength of gravity (I wish that I could word that better). The Graviton, Tachyon, Chronon, etc. are desperate attempts to support the dogma of the particle, We already know how and why time works, we measure it, can calculate it and use it in out technology, it is only the faith that refuses the obvious (IMO). How many imaginary (theoretical) particles have there been over the past 50 years or so and how many have been detected ? Spacetime is only curved in the same sense that our atmosphere is curved when a leaf travels around a tornado.

[@AmbivalentInfluence]

@@edcunion Follow this logic and try to break it. QM, by its own admission) has no concept of time, therefore it can not have anything to do with reality. Without time there is no reality. As time and gravity are intimately linked, the strength of gravity determining the rate of time, then QM can never explain gravity. QM can only be a prisoner of gravity, it has no influence at all. If gravity is nothing to do with QM then neither is mass. Our reality, our universe, is built of mass gravity and time, QM is the study of consequential sparkly ripples. Reality is 'empty space', the vacuum, spacetime, Brane, Pilot waves, etc. Everything else is just the cymatics of notes and chords (sparkly ripples).

[@trescatorce9497]

LIGO is just another PhD thesis mill. The assumption that the wavelength of the gravitational wave is detectable is hilarious for LIGO as built. It is like assuming one can see gamma rays, or AM radio waves for that matter. Then they assume that these so-called waves are isotropical. Who says so? As politicians working on the next year's budget, one is free to make any assumptions as would fit the paper for review.

[@roccraz]

There is no such thing as gravitational waves. Do they know what a wave is? The answer to this question proves there is no such thing as gravitational wave.

[@rainertheraven7813]

If a body moves nearer in its orbit, its g. field looks stronger. But nobody could measure this if the body is 1 million lightyears away, even if LIGO claims so.

[@roccraz]

@@rainertheraven7813 they are idiots. Don't know why they are so driven to prove Einstein's fantasy theories. None of Einstein's theories are real that was based on mathematical models. Can't believe everyone has accepted Einstein's fantasy theories as real.

[@roccraz]

@@JFJ12 think about it. Gravity pulls stuff inward and waves spread outward. So why would gravity have waves spreading out? They are idiots trying so hard to prove Einstein was. None of Einstein's theories made any sense because Einstein was wrong on everything. No, gravity doesn't behave like electromagnetic force. Gravity is only an attractive force. Einstein said gravity was not a force. Einstein didn't know what he was talking about with any of his theories.

[@rainertheraven7813]

@@JFJ12 EM force is completely different. E-force is a polar potential and the M-force is a polar flow.

[@johnnyllooddte3415]

no they dont exit..and if they do, they havent been proven

[@oakhillclassroom4827]

Is it a gravity spiral Lattice just like the heat lattice that Dr.#robitaille talks about

[@andrewrivera4029]

Sabine WAS GREAT! She sold out and now does hot coco videos…

[@johnsmith-fr3sx]

Following GR, how would one be able to "measure" gravitational waves with any local apparatus on the scale of humans. Very short wavelengths are not plausible since there are no small local high gravity sources. Any waves reaching the Earth would more than likely have wavelengths greater than its diameter. And here is where the problem arises: we are inside the wave-distorted reference frame. No apparatus on Earth would be able to measure such waves in principle. This does not mean that gravitational waves do not exist but LIGO is not even a start at measuring them. Perhaps a set interferometers deployed in different orbits in the solar system separated by much larger distances could have a chance.

[@shawns0762]

This is what LISA will do

[@buddysnackit1758]

I would be in favor of gravitational waves because as two black holes collide they split open and pour out their ether centers thus causing a wave of increased ether density. The measurement could be by using masses and measuring force change between them, but also using highly accurate synchronized clocks at distance and tracking change. As your example picture depicts I highly doubt. But on destruction of black holes (The manufacturers of ether...which is why they are black.) there should be an ether wave which will should provide a push followed by a much smaller pull of of mass. Also clocks should speed up momentarily when measured from another distant synchronized clock. You'll need several masses and clocks to cover the 3 dimensions. The amplitude of the pulse will quickly be reduced by distance just like a pebble thrown in the water (F/(r*r))

[@AndrewBarbacki]

Mr Smarter Than Everybody

[@whig01]

Gravity is necessarily longitudinal.

[@mohitsinha2732]

Its good to be skeptical Sir, But are you also cherry-picking data to make your case? Heard of a case (don't know about it being confirmed) where a neutron star collision was detected both in Gravitational & Radio waves simultaneously. You should have either confirmed or refuted the Neutron Star detection in both EM & Grav waves Sir!

[@snowpants2212]

Do you have a video explaining how VSL provides a better way to do GR? Is it in Dicke’s article?

[@berndmayer3984]

Einfach so mal die Konstante c als variabel erklären und danach die ganze Physik neu durcharbeiten?! Und das Ganze unter dem Label Real Physics.

[@telkoehf175]

this is a fiction we live in plasma universe

[@markbarber7839]

Thanks for the video. I see it similar to particle colliders. What real physics has come out of 30yrs at Lucerne? These are white elephant edifices to the science religion

[@PrivateSi]

I don't like gravitational waves for the same reasons you don't. In my 'model' they can only be a longitudinal compression wave with no transverse movement.. The entire field moves forward and back multiple field cells at a time, with a large field stretch at its tail. This wave front would hit a bit sooner than than a light wave front and peak that is more compressed transversely than longitudinally. -- LIGO is a very large, expensive and ultimately unreliably noisy experiment, but even if it wasn't, and proved gravitational waves one way or another for sure, it's not something tax dollars should be spent on as it has no practical value for Americans, or anyone. Deep Space astronomy and sundry experiments should be a rich man's useless folly, not funded by thieving of tax payers.

[@manicmadpanickedman2249]

Dude dose a wheel slow down when you subtract weight ... no !!!!!.... water ...arc/parabolic boundary... pendulum ... synchronice motion..... conservation of momentum ... ac pendulum volume....water quality 0 kenetic 1 enertial ...... water quantity... 3d read out volume of a cube of water .... internal fluid force vectors..... standing enertial feild vector .. attributes but indirect the sequence is I'd started by external means ... ie... over come the maximum fiction to gain effortless motion ... slip plane trajectory ... electromotive as a dc generator potential 100% ... electromotive consumption even on a poorly efficient design would only equate half if there was impedance... but still you come out with a ² as a relative for the gain in volumetric potential using mechanical flux aka..water... the standing flux toroidal plane of enertia ... aka arch inverse to the counter spacial pendulum combination of latitude wave and longitudinal wave to complete 360° circuit from a 180° cyclic fase... and thus is relative to the observer... a fluid has internal slip ....and thus returns to the height of the inverse head when dropped as it is relative..... and the generator is relative to the efficiency which is constant or consistent with the observation potential which gains a bleed currency of 100% before up to 50% is returned... its a volume squaring machine ... at a 1 to 1 additional sequence so if no potential is put in the is reads zero and if you drop the pendulum and water aka give it potential .. then things in motion stay in motion unless" acted" apon by an equal and opposite force ... hence "active" meaning principles at play and the other is an "enert" hence "enertial" point or null point... ...enertia is attributed too the boundary ... that is a 1 to 1 addition... to compensate the effect of countering space ie the latitude slip plane .... and that leaves the longitudinal plane open ...as enertial is mono polar in direction but the pull leads no resistance it is subtractive .... the mass is constantly being cycled and thus there is infinite energy density in space it exists in potential and that comes from two places ...you... and electromotivation....

[@toymaker3474]

How is light able to speed back up after slowing down when passing through glass without breaking the laws of energy conservation?????? gravity is really just dielectric acceleration . ( and i can tell you have no clue to what the dielectric is.... because its obvious you have not read any steinmetz.) I don't except you to respond because we both now why.

[@peterting313]

This is boring

[@TheMachian]

So why do you continue to watch this channel?

[@lasa18]

I found a deeper connection between the large number hypothesis of Dirac and VSL, I was taking ratios of the biggest and smallest quantities and always ended up with a quite strange number: R_universe/R_planck = 10^60 T_universe/T_planck = 10^60 This is a very strange observation which suggests a very large number. I then looked deeper and found out that this number is actually the period of the universe in Planck seconds! So: t_universe = 10^17 s ☰ 10^60 Planck s This way the relation makes a ton more sense; suggesting that the ratios are just a HISTORY. I then applied this to the other constants of nature like c,h,G and so far I’ve gotten extra proof that they are actually varying at a very slow rate! The Ratios then gave out a number which I call the measure, coincidently the gap between the proton and the Planck scale seems to suggest this relation: R_proton/R_planck = 10^20 which I denote as ξ Proton-Planck Gap ☰ ξ and the History of the universe is 10^60 ( I.e ξ^3 ) I will dive deeper and hopefully find meaningful insights about the universe

[@TheMachian]

This is the same as Dirac. I do not like Planck's units because they are obscuring Dirac by taking teh square root of 10^40 - The Planck length is just 10^20 smaller than the proton radius.

[@User53123]

I'm not sure why Dirac's hypothesis wasn't taken more seriously when it was proposed. They took Murray Gelmans theory of quarks seriously. That theory uses the quarks to each add up to equal the proton(with some additional energy). The large numbers hypothesis is like this, it uses the particles to make up the universe. There seems to be more evidence that Dirac's hypothesis is correct, and they have already employed this method to explain quarks.

[@lasa18]

@@User53123 I believe that once we have understood the Large Number Hypothesis we have also understood QG, and from there Quantum Gravity should come out naturally.

[@dicktracy3787]

Thank you for challenging the prevailing doctrine, which is killing physics and science.