|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Gravitational Waves Recorded with GRB
This past weekend the magnetic scalar wave detector detected a clear
gravitational wave signal with its associated gamma ray burst. I have updated the Magnetic Scalar Wave page and also posted the raw data online. http://www.16pi2.com/magnetic_scalar_waves.htm Dave |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Gravitational Waves Recorded with GRB
Dear David Thomson:
"David Thomson" wrote in message ... This past weekend the magnetic scalar wave detector detected a clear gravitational wave signal with its associated gamma ray burst. Gravitational waves =/= magnetic fields Gamma radiation ionizes gas, and Earth's magnetic field is thereby locally enhanced. So you detected gamma radiation two different ways. Congratulations. David A. Smith |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Gravitational Waves Recorded with GRB
On Jun 2, 9:16*pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"
wrote: Dear David Thomson: "David Thomson" wrote in message ... This past weekend the magnetic scalar wave detector detected a clear gravitational wave signal with its associated gamma ray burst. Gravitational waves =/= magnetic fields Gamma radiation ionizes gas, and Earth's magnetic field is thereby locally enhanced. So you detected gamma radiation two different ways. Congratulations. Thanks, However, gravitational waves ripple not only space-time, but matter, too. When the gravity wave passes through a magnet, it causes a change of magnetic flux density. When properly setup, changes in magnetic flux density can record the gravitational waves. I did seem to pick up a minor signal for the gamma rays, which surprised me. You may be right on the mechanism. I'll see what happens with future detections. Dave |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Gravitational Waves Recorded with GRB
Dear David Thomson:
"David Thomson" wrote in message ... On Jun 2, 9:16 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" wrote: "David Thomson" wrote in message ... This past weekend the magnetic scalar wave detector detected a clear gravitational wave signal with its associated gamma ray burst. Gravitational waves =/= magnetic fields Gamma radiation ionizes gas, and Earth's magnetic field is thereby locally enhanced. So you detected gamma radiation two different ways. Congratulations. Thanks, However, gravitational waves ripple not only space-time, but matter, too. .... and when "rippled" together ... When the gravity wave passes through a magnet, it causes a change of magnetic flux density. .... it negates your suspected action, for exactly that reason. When properly setup, changes in magnetic flux density can record the gravitational waves. No. I did seem to pick up a minor signal for the gamma rays, which surprised me. You may be right on the mechanism. I'll see what happens with future detections. The problem with a "bulldozer" plowing through your apparatus, is that it tends to generate unintended signals. Gravitational waves are "angular momentum" being propagated through the Universe. You need not look for a flux, but a torsion... David A. Smith |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Gravitational Waves Recorded with GRB
On Jun 3, 8:08*am, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"
wrote: Congratulations. Thanks, *However, gravitational waves ripple not only space-time, but matter, too. ... and when "rippled" together ... When the gravity wave passes through a magnet, it causes a change of magnetic flux density. ... it negates your suspected action, for exactly that reason. That would be the case with a laser interferometer, because the entire experiment is setup and observed from a four-dimensional, space-time perspective. The Aether, which manifests as magnetic fields (among other things), exists in a five-dimensional, space-resonance environment. Magnetic flux is observable from our four-dimensional space-time perspective, yet it is also the medium carrying the gravitational wave. If a stick man shoots a beam of light across a sheet of paper to another stick man, neither can use the beam of light to detect when the paper is folded or curved. They have no view of a three dimensional space at all. However, if someone from three dimensional space projected a cone of light from outside the paper, the stick men could see the intersection of the light cone and paper, and could tell from changes in that intersection whether the paper was being bent, or not. Gravitational waves are that outside "light source" for our four- dimensional world. Magnetic flux density is the intersection where the outside gravitational waves merge with our four dimensional space- time. It is true that magnetic flux density changes within our four- dimensional perspective, but it is also true that magnetic flux density changes due to the greater five-dimensional perspective. When properly setup, changes in magnetic flux density can record the gravitational waves. No. What do you mean, "no?" I have already performed the experiment with positive results! I did seem to pick up a minor signal for the gamma rays, which surprised me. *You may be right on the mechanism. *I'll see what happens with future detections. The problem with a "bulldozer" plowing through your apparatus, is that it tends to generate unintended signals. No signal is unintended. If something produces a signal, it is intended. This detector picks up signals at all scales of existence, from intergalactic to switching on a light near the detector. It also picks up lightning strikes, military submarine communications, HAARP experiments, and apparently even earthquakes. Theoretically, it should be possible to filter out local signals by building three or more sensors and placing them a great distance apart. The further apart the sensors are, the greater area of the locality that can be filtered out. Only the common signals would be recorded. Gravitational waves are "angular momentum" being propagated through the Universe. *You need not look for a flux, but a torsion... I have the physics that demonstrates angular momentum is exactly orthogonal to magnetism. That is why magnetism can be used to determine subatomic particle angular momentum. Mechanical waves of the Aether propagate coincident with magnetic pulses of the Aether. Dave |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Gravitational Waves Recorded with GRB
Dear David Thomson:
On Jun 3, 6:40*am, David Thomson wrote: On Jun 3, 8:08*am, "N:dlzcD:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" wrote: Congratulations. Thanks, *However, gravitational waves ripple not only space-time, but matter, too. ... and when "rippled" together ... When the gravity wave passes through a magnet, it causes a change of magnetic flux density. ... it negates your suspected action, for exactly that reason. That would be the case with a laser interferometer, because the entire experiment is setup and observed from a four-dimensional, space-time perspective. Light is EM fields. *The Aether, which manifests as magnetic fields (among other things), exists in a five-dimensional, space-resonance environment. *Magnetic flux is observable from our four-dimensional space-time perspective, yet it is also the medium carrying the gravitational wave. And light. So you cannot have a different behavior for light than you have for magnetism (which also derives from light). ... When properly setup, changes in magnetic flux density can record the gravitational waves. No. What do you mean, "no?" *I have already performed the experiment with positive results! No, you performed the experiment and recorded a result that you cannot show is not due to local ionization of matter. Did you even record the orientation of the "upset" in the magnetic field? ... Gravitational waves are "angular momentum" being propagated through the Universe. *You need not look for a flux, but a torsion... I have the physics that demonstrates angular momentum is exactly orthogonal to magnetism. *That is why magnetism can be used to determine subatomic particle angular momentum. *Mechanical waves of the Aether propagate coincident with magnetic pulses of the Aether. So does ionization. David A. Smith |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Gravitational Waves Recorded with GRB
On Jun 3, 9:38*am, dlzc wrote:
That would be the case with a laser interferometer, because the entire experiment is setup and observed from a four-dimensional, space-time perspective. Light is EM fields. Not quite, light is a flow of photons. Light is to photons as a river is to water molecules. A photon is the mechanical structure of the Aether. A photon cannot exist without also influencing the magnetic structure of the Aether, because mechanical and magnetic structures of the Aether are locked together. They are two different views of the same thing. *The Aether, which manifests as magnetic fields (among other things), exists in a five-dimensional, space-resonance environment. *Magnetic flux is observable from our four-dimensional space-time perspective, yet it is also the medium carrying the gravitational wave. And light. *So you cannot have a different behavior for light than you have for magnetism (which also derives from light). Magnetism does not derive from light. Magnetism exists as a specific condition of the Aether, which is orthogonal to the mechanical structure (angular momentum). And again, light is not a quantum thing, it is the flow of quantum photons. Yes, a magnetic field coincides with light, but they are two distinct realities. Also, the magnetic field perspective is dozens of orders of magnitude stronger than the light perspective. What do you mean, "no?" *I have already performed the experiment with positive results! No, you performed the experiment and recorded a result that you cannot show is not due to local ionization of matter. *Did you even record the orientation of the "upset" in the magnetic field? I'm measuring scalar waves, they have no specific orientation except direction. They are just like tsunamis in the ocean, P waves in the Earth, and sound waves in a room. And yes, I can show the result is not due to ionization of local matter. As I have pointed out with regard to the construction of the detector, it is completely encased in a grounded Faraday cage of solid, heavy aluminum. I have the physics that demonstrates angular momentum is exactly orthogonal to magnetism. *That is why magnetism can be used to determine subatomic particle angular momentum. *Mechanical waves of the Aether propagate coincident with magnetic pulses of the Aether. So does ionization. Yes, that is true. However, ionized particles cannot carry their radiation through grounded, solid aluminum (at least not at the levels we are talking about). Also, the ionization from the gamma rays has nothing to do with the gravitational waves. The gravitational waves are occurring nearly 24 hours before the gamma ray burst arrives. Light is the flow of photons, which are limited to the speed of light. The gravitational waves are tsunamis in the Aether fabric, which can travel faster than the speed of light (and also slower). The fact that the gravity waves are disconnected from the photons of the gamma ray burst by dozens of hours clearly shows the magnetic component is separate and independent from the photon stream. Dave |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Gravitational Waves Recorded with GRB
Dear David Thomson:
On Jun 3, 8:54*am, David Thomson wrote: On Jun 3, 9:38*am, dlzc wrote: ... I have the physics that demonstrates angular momentum is exactly orthogonal to magnetism. *That is why magnetism can be used to determine subatomic particle angular momentum. *Mechanical waves of the Aether propagate coincident with magnetic pulses of the Aether. So does ionization. Yes, that is true. *However, ionized particles cannot carry their radiation through grounded, solid aluminum (at least not at the levels we are talking about). I had aluminum carriers that were nearly entirely transparent to the 1.1 and 1.3 MeV gamma radiation of Co-60. Additionally, there was quite a bit of "spallation" products scattered from the aluminum, allowing "increased ionization" near the aluminium surface. I worked on drive systems for conveyors, that used "linear induction motors" to induce electrical currents in aluminum plates. No wires touched the plates, and hundreds to thousands of amps were induced. All it needs is Muons induce very similar reactions in metals (and anything else). Geiger Mueller tubes (and their ilk) detect radiation passing through various intervening materials, identifiying the type of radiation based on what is still present. Unless you have a large evacuated space around your detector, you are simply fooling yourself. *Also, the ionization from the gamma rays has nothing to do with the gravitational waves. But can have a lot to do with detection. *The gravitational waves are occurring nearly 24 hours before the gamma ray burst arrives. So a single detection is simply noise and random chance. Disprove that. Light is the flow of photons, which are limited to the speed of light. One would hope. But photons can disguise themselves as electromagnetic fields, completely describable by wave equations, you cannot discount that photons have some EM nature to them. *The gravitational waves are tsunamis in the Aether fabric, which can travel faster than the speed of light (and also slower). Aether is the medium of propagation of light. Or have you completely redefined aether for your own evil purposes? The fact that the gravity waves are disconnected from the photons of the gamma ray burst by dozens of hours clearly shows the magnetic component is separate and independent from the photon stream. No such proof, just random noise and someone that *wants* there to have been a detection. Disprove that. Not being argumentative, just asking for you to have a scientific mind here. David A. Smith |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Gravitational Waves Recorded with GRB
On Jun 3, 4:27*pm, dlzc wrote:
Not being argumentative, just asking for you to have a scientific mind here. I think I have provided a scientific mind by developing a quantified Aether theory and performing actual experiments. I don't mind questions, but is it too much to ask for you to look at the data and listen to my answers? Yes, that is true. *However, ionized particles cannot carry their radiation through grounded, solid aluminum (at least not at the levels we are talking about). I had aluminum carriers that were nearly entirely transparent to the 1.1 and 1.3 MeV gamma radiation of Co-60. *Additionally, there was quite a bit of "spallation" products scattered from the aluminum, allowing "increased ionization" near the aluminium surface. I worked on drive systems for conveyors, that used "linear induction motors" to induce electrical currents in aluminum plates. *No wires touched the plates, and hundreds to thousands of amps were induced. All it needs is Muons induce very similar reactions in metals (and anything else). Geiger Mueller tubes (and their ilk) detect radiation passing through various intervening materials, identifiying the type of radiation based on what is still present. Unless you have a large evacuated space around your detector, you are simply fooling yourself. Using that logic, no detector is reliable. Gamma and cosmic rays are constantly bombarding everything, even vacuum tubes. I have a scintillator encased in about 3" of lead all around it and it still picks up thousands of cps. But you made me curious tonight. I checked for E fields near the detector, and there were none. Then I checked for EMR and was surprised. The power supply must have blown a transistor or something as the power output was down a half volt. Also, it was putting out EMR to five feet. The meter's low threshhold is .1 mW/cm^2. The power supply was only about a foot from the sensor, so I moved it downstairs to the room below and replaced it with a fresh power supply. Checking the power supply after setup shows that no EMR from the power supply is reaching the sensor at this time. Other than removing an intense buzz from the signal, the device works as it did before. There is a lightning storm about seventy miles away and I'm picking up lightning strike signals loud and clear. I'm also picking up a technology signal (probably related to the military submarine communications system). *Also, the ionization from the gamma rays has nothing to do with the gravitational waves. But can have a lot to do with detection. It can't have anything to do with the gravitational signals since they occur long before the gamma ray bursts reach the earth. *The gravitational waves are occurring nearly 24 hours before the gamma ray burst arrives. So a single detection is simply noise and random chance. *Disprove that. The gravitational wave signals are not subjective little blips in the system, they are completely saturating signals. Take a look at the graph I posted on the web page, it's under the June 2 follow up entry. There is no chance a gravitational wave is a random signal. That does not mean there aren't gravitational waves without GRBs. It appears the Milky Way galaxy puts out its own gravitational waves, and they don't follow the same pattern as for supernovae. I'll bet when the Sun gets active again, I'll see gravitational waves associated with strong CMEs, but that is speculation. Light is the flow of photons, which are limited to the speed of light. One would hope. *But photons can disguise themselves as electromagnetic fields, completely describable by wave equations, you cannot discount that photons have some EM nature to them. I agree that photons are fully quantifiable with wave equations. And I agree that photons will correspond with electromagnetic radiation. In the Aether Physics Model, the Aether unit is also equal to a photon per electromagnetic charge. In order for photons to exist, they must exist in connection with electromagnetic charge, much like potential and current can only exist in conjunction with resistance. *The gravitational waves are tsunamis in the Aether fabric, which can travel faster than the speed of light (and also slower). Aether is the medium of propagation of light. *Or have you completely redefined aether for your own evil purposes? Light does not propagate, any more than a river flows. Water flows as a river, photons flow as light. Aether is the medium in which photons flow, yes. But the Aether medium can itself flow. That is what frame dragging is all about. It is also why the MMX showed a flowing Aether entrained behind the Earth. The fact that magnetic fields can move (rotating magnetic fields) is further evidence the Aether is capable of movement. Further, the Aether is capable of propagating longitudinal waves, just like water propogates a tsunami through the ocean. The longitudinal waves of Aether are not caused by photons, they are caused by the Aether units, themselves. A gravitational wave and a magnetic pulse are the same thing but seen from two different views. A gravitational wave and a magnetic pulse are longitudinal waves within the Aether medium, which do not involve photons. The fact that the gravity waves are disconnected from the photons of the gamma ray burst by dozens of hours clearly shows the magnetic component is separate and independent from the photon stream. No such proof, just random noise and someone that *wants* there to have been a detection. *Disprove that. I did. You need to look at the data. There is no way the magnetic pulses detected in this sensor are random noise. Right now, the Sun is extremely quiet. When it gets a little more energetic and the long wave solar x-ray irradiance starts showing on the graph, then the gravitational waves that I detect are nearly exactly timed to a similar burst of solar x-rays. I appreciate your questions. I'll gladly answer them. Please be courteous and give my responses adequate attention and comment on them. After looking at the data, do you agree or disagree that the data I provide is not just random noise? Dave |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Gravitational Waves Recorded with GRB
Dear David Thomson:
"David Thomson" wrote in message ... On Jun 3, 4:27 pm, dlzc wrote: Not being argumentative, just asking for you to have a scientific mind here. I think I have provided a scientific mind by developing a quantified Aether theory and performing actual experiments. Did you make quantitative predictions, and seek to verify them? Or did you just hook it up and turn it on? I don't mind questions, but is it too much to ask for you to look at the data and listen to my answers? All I've got here is *your* answers. You assume your conclusion, and everything you see is "proof of magnetic 5D aether". You are supposed to *disprove*. Yes, that is true. However, ionized particles cannot carry their radiation through grounded, solid aluminum (at least not at the levels we are talking about). I had aluminum carriers that were nearly entirely transparent to the 1.1 and 1.3 MeV gamma radiation of Co-60. Additionally, there was quite a bit of "spallation" products scattered from the aluminum, allowing "increased ionization" near the aluminium surface. I worked on drive systems for conveyors, that used "linear induction motors" to induce electrical currents in aluminum plates. No wires touched the plates, and hundreds to thousands of amps were induced. All it needs is Muons induce very similar reactions in metals (and anything else). Geiger Mueller tubes (and their ilk) detect radiation passing through various intervening materials, identifiying the type of radiation based on what is still present. Unless you have a large evacuated space around your detector, you are simply fooling yourself. Using that logic, no detector is reliable. But that is all that Nature gives us. But much can be done with even that. Gamma and cosmic rays are constantly bombarding everything, even vacuum tubes. I have a scintillator encased in about 3" of lead all around it and it still picks up thousands of cps. So how do you know which gamma detection corresponded to your "gravity wave" of ~24 hours before? But you made me curious tonight. I checked for E fields near the detector, and there were none. What detector impedance do you have? What is the response time? Then I checked for EMR and was surprised. The power supply must have blown a transistor or something as the power output was down a half volt. Also, it was putting out EMR to five feet. The meter's low threshhold is .1 mW/cm^2. The power supply was only about a foot from the sensor, so I moved it downstairs to the room below and replaced it with a fresh power supply. Checking the power supply after setup shows that no EMR from the power supply is reaching the sensor at this time. Why not leave it downstairs, and feed the power up shielded wire? More to the point, are you using a switcher or a linear power supply? For a quickie test, can you construct a bank of batteries and run for a few minutes, just to quanitfy the effect of an external power source? Other than removing an intense buzz from the signal, the device works as it did before. There is a lightning storm about seventy miles away and I'm picking up lightning strike signals loud and clear. I'm also picking up a technology signal (probably related to the military submarine communications system). Do you have a cell phone, or wireless phones in the house? They usually impinge on sensitive stuff for quite a ways. Also, the ionization from the gamma rays has nothing to do with the gravitational waves. But can have a lot to do with detection. It can't have anything to do with the gravitational signals since they occur long before the gamma ray bursts reach the earth. 1) you cannot discount ionization, either "today" or "about 24 hours ago". 2) you have not even attempted to establish polarity on the "magnetism" you have detected, to see if it has a northwards bias. 3) you assume your conclusion, so everything you see is "gravitational waves". The gravitational waves are occurring nearly 24 hours before the gamma ray burst arrives. So a single detection is simply noise and random chance. Disprove that. The gravitational wave signals are not subjective little blips in the system, they are completely saturating signals. Take a look at the graph I posted on the web page, it's under the June 2 follow up entry. There is no chance a gravitational wave is a random signal. There is a big chance your detector "saturated" for other reasons. You have not even attempted the most basic of analyses. That does not mean there aren't gravitational waves without GRBs. It appears the Milky Way galaxy puts out its own gravitational waves, and they don't follow the same pattern as for supernovae. I'll bet when the Sun gets active again, I'll see gravitational waves associated with strong CMEs, but that is speculation. Oh no, you will imagine all sorts of stuff, when the CME induces noise in the AC lines. Light is the flow of photons, which are limited to the speed of light. One would hope. But photons can disguise themselves as electromagnetic fields, completely describable by wave equations, you cannot discount that photons have some EM nature to them. I agree that photons are fully quantifiable with wave equations. And I agree that photons will correspond with electromagnetic radiation. In the Aether Physics Model, the Aether unit is also equal to a photon per electromagnetic charge. In order for photons to exist, they must exist in connection with electromagnetic charge, much like potential and current can only exist in conjunction with resistance. Be careful, current can exist without potential, just as potential can exist without current. The gravitational waves are tsunamis in the Aether fabric, which can travel faster than the speed of light (and also slower). Aether is the medium of propagation of light. Or have you completely redefined aether for your own evil purposes? Light does not propagate, any more than a river flows. Water flows as a river, photons flow as light. Aether is the medium in which photons flow, yes. But the Aether medium can itself flow. That is what frame dragging is all about. Better not be. A dragged aether has been disproven by experiment. Better look to your similes. It is also why the MMX showed a flowing Aether entrained behind the Earth. It has not shown any such thing. It only *disproved* an aether through which light propagates, but matter not. The fact that magnetic fields can move (rotating magnetic fields) is further evidence the Aether is capable of movement. .... when you assume your conclusion. Further, the Aether is capable of propagating longitudinal waves, just like water propogates a tsunami through the ocean. The longitudinal waves of Aether are not caused by photons, they are caused by the Aether units, themselves. Yet you agree that photons "flow through" the aether, but are not in any way affected by your tsunami? A gravitational wave and a magnetic pulse are the same thing but seen from two different views. A gravitational wave and a magnetic pulse are longitudinal waves within the Aether medium, which do not involve photons. So you assert... The fact that the gravity waves are disconnected from the photons of the gamma ray burst by dozens of hours clearly shows the magnetic component is separate and independent from the photon stream. No such proof, just random noise and someone that *wants* there to have been a detection. Disprove that. I did. You need to look at the data. There is no way the magnetic pulses detected in this sensor are random noise. Who said this: QUOTE Then I checked for EMR and was surprised. The power supply must have blown a transistor or something as the power output was down a half volt. Also, it was putting out EMR to five feet. END QUOTE What was the correlation between your "absolutely, positively a gravitational wave detection" and the failed power supply? For that matter, have you tried inducing a magnetic field in other ways, to see how your detector behaves? Right now, the Sun is extremely quiet. When it gets a little more energetic and the long wave solar x-ray irradiance starts showing on the graph, then the gravitational waves that I detect are nearly exactly timed to a similar burst of solar x-rays. I appreciate your questions. I'll gladly answer them. Please be courteous and give my responses adequate attention and comment on them. After looking at the data, do you agree or disagree that the data I provide is not just random noise? I can't tell. You bluster about this "theory", then you start measuring... and just assume that Nature is only showing you what you want to see. She really doesn't work like that. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Louis_Pasteur .... chance only favors the prepared mind. Find out what orientation your "magnetic detector" responds to. Calibrate it to some sort of magnetic field intensity. Assure yourself that you are not reading only "ionization boosted M-field" from Earth's own magnetic field. Do you know what a Faraday cage is? How about Helmholtz coils? Aluminum (nor lead) does neither job well. No response required. David A. Smith |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Gravitational Waves | jonathan | Policy | 6 | November 9th 05 06:46 AM |
Spaceships should surf on gravitational waves | Ted Ratmark | Space Shuttle | 4 | September 17th 05 08:53 PM |
Einstein@Home: Search for Gravitational Waves | Davoud | Amateur Astronomy | 6 | February 25th 05 07:20 PM |
Gravitational waves discovered? | Luigi Caselli | Misc | 2 | November 2nd 04 11:32 PM |