When Bob Lazar Declared Gravity As a Wave

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: bananasam
The media was celebrating this week about the groundbreaking discovery that gravitational waves are real and not just a theory formed by Einstein in 1918.

30 years ago, Bob Lazar told the press that the propulsion systems he worked on used gravitational waves. It gets more interesting when you realize that he actually insisted they were the correct theory. And also this is the 2nd theory that came true from him after the discovery of Element 115. This one is more amazing though because in some ways you could say Element 115 was inevitable.

Here's an excerpt:

Lazar: There are currently two main theories about gravity. The "wave" theory which states that gravity is a wave and the other is a theory which includes "gravitons", which are alleged sub-atomic particles which perform as gravity, which by the way, is total nonsense.

Lazar: Anyway, gravity is a wave and there are two different types of gravity. Gravity A and gravity B. Gravity A works on a small or "micro" scale and gravity B works on a larger or "macro" scale. We're familiar with gravity B...

Lazar had his fair share of criticisms, but out of every single person in this UFO research, at least 2 of his quantifiable assertions have come true before anyone knew the answer - one of which is almost a century old.

Gravity waves were also fairly inevitable. Just hard to detect.

... and it's not a dichotomy between either wave or particle. There are both at the same time.

... and these aren't waves that make up gravity, they are waves IN gravity.

Lazar didn't get 115 right either.

Actually they are waves IN space-time not waves in gravity. I figured if you are going to correct someone you might as well be correct when doing it.

By the way EVERYTHING is inevitable once it is detected.

Fair enough, but gravity is distortion of space-time, so I wasn't actually incorrect.

Gravity waves were/are a prediction of general relativity. Since all other aspects of GR are proven with high confidence, the detection of gravity waves was seen as something inevitable, well prior to detection.

Gravity isn't distortion of space-time. Gravity does distort space-time but gravity's distortion of space-time does not define the force of gravity.

We don't actually know exactly what gravity is. All we know is that it is a force (likely animating from another dimension).

a reply to: Alien Abduct
No.
Mass distorts space-time. Gravity is an effect of that distortion. Relative differences in the flow of time are another.

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: bananasam
The media was celebrating this week about the groundbreaking discovery that gravitational waves are real and not just a theory formed by Einstein in 1918.

30 years ago, Bob Lazar told the press that the propulsion systems he worked on used gravitational waves. It gets more interesting when you realize that he actually insisted they were the correct theory. And also this is the 2nd theory that came true from him after the discovery of Element 115. This one is more amazing though because in some ways you could say Element 115 was inevitable.

Here's an excerpt:

Lazar: There are currently two main theories about gravity. The "wave" theory which states that gravity is a wave and the other is a theory which includes "gravitons", which are alleged sub-atomic particles which perform as gravity, which by the way, is total nonsense.

Lazar: Anyway, gravity is a wave and there are two different types of gravity. Gravity A and gravity B. Gravity A works on a small or "micro" scale and gravity B works on a larger or "macro" scale. We're familiar with gravity B...

Lazar had his fair share of criticisms, but out of every single person in this UFO research, at least 2 of his quantifiable assertions have come true before anyone knew the answer - one of which is almost a century old.

Gravity waves were also fairly inevitable. Just hard to detect.

... and it's not a dichotomy between either wave or particle. There are both at the same time.

... and these aren't waves that make up gravity, they are waves IN gravity.

Lazar didn't get 115 right either.

Actually they are waves IN space-time not waves in gravity. I figured if you are going to correct someone you might as well be correct when doing it.

By the way EVERYTHING is inevitable once it is detected.

Fair enough, but gravity is distortion of space-time, so I wasn't actually incorrect.

Gravity waves were/are a prediction of general relativity. Since all other aspects of GR are proven with high confidence, the detection of gravity waves was seen as something inevitable, well prior to detection.

Gravity isn't distortion of space-time. Gravity does distort space-time but gravity's distortion of space-time does not define the force of gravity.

We don't actually know exactly what gravity is. All we know is that it is a force (likely animating from another dimension).

In general relativity, Gravity is an apparent attraction between masses caused by flexibility in space-time.

The explanation is that masses cause a 'curve' or local gradient in space-time, i.e; we may imagine the mass 'pinching together' the regularity of normal space-time (imagined as a four-dimensional grid).

When two masses are separated by a distance, this produces an area of differential where the effect of the masses adds together between the two masses. One might also imagine this as there being more, but smaller, units of space (and time) in the locality of the 'pinch'.

The net effect is that this makes the space and time between the masses becomes more compact - smaller - and we see that as the masses moving closer together.

Gravity isn't a force in the classical sense, with a standard model boson force carrier (that is why, with each confirmation of general relativity, it is less and less likely that there is a Graviton).

The GR description of gravity, what it is and how it arises, is quite complete, mathematically rigorous and has much evidential support.

Although there are some issues with how gravity may operate in higher dimensionality, it is hardly required that we postulate that it emanates from some 'other' dimension'. GR explains much.

Yeah, that is accurate for GR. However, ANY acceleration, if you graph it in 4 dimensions, is a curvature.

So Einstein describing acceleration due to gravitational attraction as being the result of a curvature of space time is about exactly the same thing as if he had simply said that acceleration due to gravitational attraction were caused by acceleration.

So is speed caused by speed? Is aging caused by aging? Is energy caused by energy?

Does Einstein have any other great insights he wishes to share with us about the cause behind fundamental forces?

The large standing wave that is a hole... don't stand there too long or it becomes a short standing wave.

Bye bye.

Magnetic spiral in, cracks like a whip. Electro magnetic PULLING force refracts. That is gravity. A report from the nucleus.

GRAVITY IS A SQUARE WAVE REFLECTION OF SINE ANTIGRAVITY (OMNIPRESCENSE)

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
Yeah, that is accurate for GR. However, ANY acceleration, if you graph it in 4 dimensions, is a curvature.

You can graph acceleration in two dimensions and still get a curve (if your axes are measured linearly), no need to overcomplicate things.

So Einstein describing acceleration due to gravitational attraction as being the result of a curvature of space time is about exactly the same thing as if he had simply said that acceleration due to gravitational attraction were caused by acceleration.

But things accelerate for reasons other than gravity, too, so as an explanation it's not really helpful.

So is speed caused by speed? Is aging caused by aging? Is energy caused by energy?

Does Einstein have any other great insights he wishes to share with us about the cause behind fundamental forces?

Speed is speed, energy is energy and I can only assume you meant to write ageing rather than aging, but yes, ageing is ageing too.

Reductio ad absurdum is also not very helpful in explaining things.

Einstein produced a vast number of insights other than general relativity. He described many fundamental physical concepts; such as electromagnetism, the photoelectric effect, atomic theory and quantum theory. But he has passed away now so I don't expect further revelations.

originally posted by: BigBangWasAnEcho
Magnetic spiral in, cracks like a whip. Electro magnetic PULLING force refracts. That is gravity. A report from the nucleus.

GRAVITY IS A SQUARE WAVE REFLECTION OF SINE ANTIGRAVITY (OMNIPRESCENSE)

Cinnabun spiral in... Crack's, like, a drug! Electro plating MASTUBATIONARY force refarcts. That is gravy. A report from the knuckles.

GRAVY IS A SQUARE DUDE REFLECTING ON COSINE ANTI-GRAVY (LOONS IN THE DISTANCE)

I plug my ears to the screams of whipped cream and hang my head in sham.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Alien Abduct
No.
Mass distorts space-time. Gravity is an effect of that distortion. Relative differences in the flow of time are another.

Are you saying that you can not have gravity without mass? Do you suppose an advanced civilization could warp/distort space-time with some sort of machine say for the purpose of interstellar travel?

I think that is possible and I would call it gravity and they would not be using large masses to do it.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
Yeah, that is accurate for GR. However, ANY acceleration, if you graph it in 4 dimensions, is a curvature.

So Einstein describing acceleration due to gravitational attraction as being the result of a curvature of space time is about exactly the same thing as if he had simply said that acceleration due to gravitational attraction were caused by acceleration.

You are describing the curved line you get when you plot acceleration on a graph. That's not what Einstein meant about space-time being curved.

Einstein, in fact, said that even under gravity a body would move in a straight line relative to space. the kicker is that space-time itself would be curved/warped by the mass of an object (like the sun) and the thing we call gravity is the result of a body following that curved/warped space.

Does Einstein have any other great insights he wishes to share with us about the cause behind fundamental forces?

Einstein specifically said that gravity is NOT a force, but a result of the curvature of space-time (as mentioned above).

Under GR, there is no force-carrying particle associated with gravity, like the photon being the force-carrier of electromagnetism.

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Alien Abduct
No.
Mass distorts space-time. Gravity is an effect of that distortion. Relative differences in the flow of time are another.

Are you saying that you can not have gravity without mass? Do you suppose an advanced civilization could warp/distort space-time with some sort of machine say for the purpose of interstellar travel?

I think that is possible and I would call it gravity and they would not be using large masses to do it.

We have no examples of gravity without mass and no evidenced theory that describes how gravity may occur without mass.

The theory that explains the relationship between mass and gravity has been known for quite a while and is supported with lots of evidence.

Large amounts of energy also have mass (in the form of momentum, as explained in equation by Einstein). This is termed: 'mass-energy equivalence' in physics.

So I'd say it's safe to state that you cannot get gravity without mass.

Why would you suggest that an advanced civilization wouldn't use mass for interstellar travel? To my point of view, engineering with vast masses could be expected to be quite the norm for advanced civilisations.

Nature uses mass to move things around and any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from nature.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Alien Abduct
No.
Mass distorts space-time. Gravity is an effect of that distortion. Relative differences in the flow of time are another.

Are you saying that you can not have gravity without mass? Do you suppose an advanced civilization could warp/distort space-time with some sort of machine say for the purpose of interstellar travel?

I think that is possible and I would call it gravity and they would not be using large masses to do it.

We have no examples of gravity without mass and no evidenced theory that describes how gravity may occur without mass.

The theory that explains the relationship between mass and gravity has been known for quite a while and is supported with lots of evidence.

Large amounts of energy also have mass (in the form of momentum, as explained in equation by Einstein). This is termed: 'mass-energy equivalence' in physics.

So I'd say it's safe to state that you cannot get gravity without mass.

Why would you suggest that an advanced civilization wouldn't use mass for interstellar travel? To my point of view, engineering with vast masses could be expected to be quite the norm for advanced civilisations.

Nature uses mass to move things around and any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from nature.

The question of whether gravity is carried by a graviton or is just the result of warping/bending of space-time from mass has yet to be answered.

In my opinion GR is headed the way of Newton's laws. They worked great for a while until we find something that explains the inconsistencies better. I like string theory.

a reply to: Phage

In general relativity the gravitational field is given by the metric tensor in space-time. The metric tensor is the solution to Einstein’s field equations. It is a symmetric tensor with ten degrees of freedom. So fundamental excitation in quantum gravity must have spin two.

In string theory the oscillations of the closed string includes a symmetric tensor state that can be identified with gravity as well as anti-symmetric tensor (The Kalb Ramond field) and a scalar field (the dilaton). To get Einstein’s GR field equations you have to find an effective low energy action that is fully compatible with the quantum conformal symmetry of the original closed string theory describing the massless bosonic excitations at the classical level. So the GR field equations are just the field equations obtained from the low energy massless bosonic action of closed string theory.

This way you can even generate corrections to GR by going to higher level terms in the double curvature and string interaction expansion. This process of obtaining effective gravity equations is well described at an easily understandable level in Maurizio Gasperini’s String Cosmology book. In that book is also explained how to describe strings in general curved backgrounds.
Gravitons are usually described in the context of linear GR. In this description the metric tensor of space-time is separated in two parts the background metric and a fluctuating part that is then quantized. So you can visualize a graviton as a quantized oscillation describing the fluctuation of space time with respect to the background metric.

So you can not say that the graviton is propagating in space time, the graviton is a quantized fluctuation of the space-time itself, not just propagating in it. In the context of string theory you can visualize the graviton as closed string states present in regions of fluctuating curvature of space-time. This is analogous to thinking about photons and electromagnetic waves.

The EM description is valid when the number of photons is high. You can say that a region in the wave with large amplitude is rich in photon states. Gravitons closed string states and curvature can be seem the same way. A region of space where curvature is high is rich in closed string states that are a part of spacetime itself. This is a simplified and rough version of what gravity waves are in string theory.

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
a reply to: Phage

In general relativity the gravitational field is given by the metric tensor in space-time. The metric tensor is the solution to Einstein’s field equations. It is a symmetric tensor with ten degrees of freedom. So fundamental excitation in quantum gravity must have spin two.

In string theory the oscillations of the closed string includes a symmetric tensor state that can be identified with gravity as well as anti-symmetric tensor (The Kalb Ramond field) and a scalar field (the dilaton). To get Einstein’s GR field equations you have to find an effective low energy action that is fully compatible with the quantum conformal symmetry of the original closed string theory describing the massless bosonic excitations at the classical level. So the GR field equations are just the field equations obtained from the low energy massless bosonic action of closed string theory.

This way you can even generate corrections to GR by going to higher level terms in the double curvature and string interaction expansion. This process of obtaining effective gravity equations is well described at an easily understandable level in Maurizio Gasperini’s String Cosmology book. In that book is also explained how to describe strings in general curved backgrounds.
Gravitons are usually described in the context of linear GR. In this description the metric tensor of space-time is separated in two parts the background metric and a fluctuating part that is then quantized. So you can visualize a graviton as a quantized oscillation describing the fluctuation of space time with respect to the background metric.

So you can not say that the graviton is propagating in space time, the graviton is a quantized fluctuation of the space-time itself, not just propagating in it. In the context of string theory you can visualize the graviton as closed string states present in regions of fluctuating curvature of space-time. This is analogous to thinking about photons and electromagnetic waves.

The EM description is valid when the number of photons is high. You can say that a region in the wave with large amplitude is rich in photon states. Gravitons closed string states and curvature can be seem the same way. A region of space where curvature is high is rich in closed string states that are a part of spacetime itself. This is a simplified and rough version of what gravity waves are in string theory.

I was under the impression that string theory is a dodo.

a reply to: 3danimator2014

The problem is the inability of physics’ string theory to be proved right or wrong. It has no way to test its validity other than one experiment i heard of that would require the GDP of the entire planet.

a reply to: 3danimator2014

Think of it as the Coelacanth.

The one thing about Lazar, is that he said it was a wave, with unambiguous conviction. That would mean that the people he worked with knew it was a wave as well. How did this not leak back out to academia?, as many of those working on this 'project' must have been extremely well rooted in academic circles.

originally posted by: charlyv
The one thing about Lazar, is that he said it was a wave, with unambiguous conviction. That would mean that the people he worked with knew it was a wave as well. How did this not leak back out to academia?, as many of those working on this 'project' must have been extremely well rooted in academic circles.

Please deny it with particle physics math if you prefer.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Alien Abduct
No.
Mass distorts space-time. Gravity is an effect of that distortion. Relative differences in the flow of time are another.

Are you saying that you can not have gravity without mass? Do you suppose an advanced civilization could warp/distort space-time with some sort of machine say for the purpose of interstellar travel?

I think that is possible and I would call it gravity and they would not be using large masses to do it.

We have no examples of gravity without mass and no evidenced theory that describes how gravity may occur without mass.

The theory that explains the relationship between mass and gravity has been known for quite a while and is supported with lots of evidence.

Large amounts of energy also have mass (in the form of momentum, as explained in equation by Einstein). This is termed: 'mass-energy equivalence' in physics.

So I'd say it's safe to state that you cannot get gravity without mass.

Why would you suggest that an advanced civilization wouldn't use mass for interstellar travel? To my point of view, engineering with vast masses could be expected to be quite the norm for advanced civilisations.

Nature uses mass to move things around and any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from nature.

Your wrong Einsteinian law of gravity involves a complicated combination of momentum and energy, in which mass does not explicitly appear. This is why Einstein’s version of gravity even pulls on things like light, which is made from photons that have no mass at all. Even gravitational waves are massless contrary to your belief and can be formed by two objects orbiting one another. Since everything in the universe is in motion, so everything in the universe exerts a gravitational effect on everything else.

Mass turns out to be much more complicated than we thought. For example the Higs field gives mass to certain particles and not others.For example photons, gluons and if gravitons exist have zero mass. But i wont go into mass right now its late byt lets just say gravity can and does exist without mass, And the key is momentum and energy. By the way when figuring out gravity there are a total of 10 variables at each point in space-time.

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Alien Abduct
No.
Mass distorts space-time. Gravity is an effect of that distortion. Relative differences in the flow of time are another.

Are you saying that you can not have gravity without mass? Do you suppose an advanced civilization could warp/distort space-time with some sort of machine say for the purpose of interstellar travel?

I think that is possible and I would call it gravity and they would not be using large masses to do it.

We have no examples of gravity without mass and no evidenced theory that describes how gravity may occur without mass.

The theory that explains the relationship between mass and gravity has been known for quite a while and is supported with lots of evidence.

Large amounts of energy also have mass (in the form of momentum, as explained in equation by Einstein). This is termed: 'mass-energy equivalence' in physics.

So I'd say it's safe to state that you cannot get gravity without mass.

Why would you suggest that an advanced civilization wouldn't use mass for interstellar travel? To my point of view, engineering with vast masses could be expected to be quite the norm for advanced civilisations.

Nature uses mass to move things around and any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from nature.

Your wrong Einsteinian law of gravity involves a complicated combination of momentum and energy, in which mass does not explicitly appear. This is why Einstein’s version of gravity even pulls on things like light, which is made from photons that have no mass at all. Even gravitational waves are massless contrary to your belief and can be formed by two objects orbiting one another. Since everything in the universe is in motion, so everything in the universe exerts a gravitational effect on everything else.

Mass turns out to be much more complicated than we thought. For example the Higs field gives mass to certain particles and not others.For example photons, gluons and if gravitons exist have zero mass. But i wont go into mass right now its late byt lets just say gravity can and does exist without mass, And the key is momentum and energy. By the way when figuring out gravity there are a total of 10 variables at each point in space-time.

According to GR