gravitational-wave sources (was: Is temporal sign ambiguity inherent in Einstein's general relativistic field equation?)

Joe Fischer wrote: "John Bell" wrote:
Hi again Joe.
I did respond to this posting via sci.physics.research moderation, but
my response did not get posted, so I guess the moderator thought it
added little to the discussion.

However, in addition to the comments here at sci.physics.relativity,
there is a continuation of the discussion (only) at
sci.physics.research, between T.Essel and me (under the original
title). (Essel appears to be stumped at present by my last response to
him).
John Bell.

I read the Essel response, and the only thing that
I could remark about is that he said I proposed a "railgun"
test, and that is not what I said.

Even a double ended Shuttle booster firing one way
and then the other at 200 miles altitude half way between
two of the detector locations should provide a stronger
signal than astronomical events in other galaxies.

I should study quadrapole radiation, to see if it
is know to exist in any form (tested).

The only other project that I know of offhand that
has spent such large sums of money is magnetic containment,
and in my opinion that was a mistake because in my opinion
fusion does not "release" energy, something has to "squeeze"
it out, such as gravity or inertia.

At the moment I am looking at the origination of
the Einstein Field Equations. It looks to me like the
external gravitational field should be purely geometric
--- AND --- kinematic ONLY.
The dynamic components of the field equations
should only be in the nearby matter, not in the "field",
but GR might work ok either way.

There has always been a tendency to attribute
the dynamics to a field of some kind, so Einstein would
likely have been following convention.

But if I am right, then there would be no radiation
of any kind, there would only be the geometric kinematics
of changes in motion due to gravitation, --- WITHOUT ---
any "forces" acting.

NON - contact interaction dynamics need not be
a component in the geometry, but would definitely need
to be in the field calculations in some way to relate the
results to reality and to attain a quantitative result.

So I feel that the continuum is even more of
a continuum than Einstein ever dreamed, a geometry
alone cannot be anything but continuous.

But nobody involved it gravity wave experiments
will want to hear any of this.

Joe Fischer

$$ NO m1, NO "NO-feelings".
i LOVE it when you cut the EMPTY space bull and get SPECiFiC
about your THESiS (or WHATever), howEVER, you KNOW space is FULL
of LiGHT and OTHER emissions, etc etc. So ..w.r.t "NO-feelings",
there is NO "falling" if EVERYthing is in bouyant equiblibrium:

G*M1
-- - -- = rA^2*g ..where (n=1). Newton & Einstein died on (n - 1).
(n - 1)

n = mD/m1 @ point of weightless equilibrium in equivalent ambient.
mD = DisCHARGE mass (ambient equivalent), from a sealed m1 CAViTY.
m1 = The GUESS iSS TEST mass, as per: G*M1*m1/(n - 1) = m1*rA^2*g.

TEST mass m1 isN'T UNnecessary. You NEED it to HAVE "NO-feelings".
You "feel" g because EVERYthing isN'T in a weightless equilibrium.
```Brian.