On Apr 13, 2:43 pm, xxein wrote:
On Apr 12, 8:40 pm, Yousuf Khan wrote:

I was watching a program which were comparing various Big Bang theories
against each other. In it, they said one way to falsify Inflation vs.
Cyclic Universe theories is that a Cyclic Universe will *not* produce
gravity waves. Does anybody know why this would be the case? One would
think that whatever mechanism lead to the BB, would always cause a lot
of gravity ripples.

I found some info on it, but it doesn't really explain what leads to
this conclusion:

The one possible test that they point to that could distinguish
the inflation and cyclic scenarios is the expected more sensitive
measurement in coming years of a possible B-mode polarization
signal due to gravity waves in the CMB. They claim that inflation
predicts a significant amount of B-mode polarization, whereas the
cyclic model doesn’t.

Endless Universe | Not Even Wrong
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=563

xxein: Wublee comes close. He explains that the math is similar to
EM. But it just doesn't follow that the math is describing a physical
wave. EM is just an escape function for energy. It has its
longitudinal length appear as a "wave" because the pulse energy is
released as building to a peak and then decreasing down until the next
pulse. Pictorially as an ocean wave.

Well, it does not matter if you accept Ampere’s assumption in the
physical phenomenon of magnetism or not. Nevertheless, magnetism has
so very adequately to be able to explain away just about all mundane
phenomena observed. It was Maxwell who cleverly showed with
definitive mathematical argument that the electric and the magnetic
fields are able to propagate away as waves at exactly the speed of
light. That was one of mankind’s proudest moments on par with
Newton’s gravity thing. shrug

A so-called 'gravity wave' is different in that it changes the dynamic
equlibrium of the temporary state of the present energy in the
universe because of the changes of position of the causal mass. And
it does not end there. The energy is forced to continuously seek its
equilibrium.

Energy is a phenomenon created by an observer. It is ridiculous to
tell energy to seek an equilibrium within the harmony of the
universe. shrug

There is much more to it than that though. No one can comprehend all
the complexities that come with it. And then there is that pesky
E=mc^2. 'E' as provided by EM radiation? Or E the result of causal
change of its position in a temporal equilibrium i.e. just a flow from
here to there to seek an equilibrium? Could it be acceptable that the
notion we have as a wave has infinitely complex behavior beyond our
knowledge?

No, waves represent simple phenomena in nature that have been well
understood. shrug

I think we can have both at scale. Whether a sunburn or metabolic
change that allows something like a cancer to occur, or the
astronomical motions, they all have something in common but are
witnessed at different scales of belief that we yet have to unite.

God helps you if you do not believe in Leprechauns or genies. Only
these guys can grant you wishes. So, think carefully of your wishes
before indulging them since these creatures can be as tricky to deal
with as the self-styled physicists. shrug

The same as considering a gravity wave as a 'wave' without knowing or
considering any other explanation.

Gravity waves on based on the assumption if the Riemann curvature
tensor is valid. Since the Riemann tensor is created through man-
made, tweaked mathematics that offers no connections to the real
world, chances are that the Riemann tensor mirrors mere idols in pagan
religions. shrug

I would welcome any intelligent discussion on this. Just label it
"xxein and gravity" for post or email.

To carry on any intelligent discussion in physics, you must be
proficient in mathematics. Are you? shrug