Dear Christian Corda,

When I first read your essay, I too thought that you had missed the point of the essay. But after reading your comments I now understand that you simply placed another interpretation on the question and you actually answered extremely well from that perspective. After all, the mindless math did make predictions for over a century, and gave rise to considerable aims and intentions necessary to evaluate the model.

I think it's also relevant to focus as you do on development of the 'mindless math', with logical mistakes made along the way and consequent changes in predictions and interpretations.

So congratulations on finding a unique but relevant perspective and handling it well!

My best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Wilhelmus,

Thanks for your kind words and for thinking that we deserve a high rating. Your sentence "The gravitational waves trembled through the text" is marvelous.

Thanks again and good luck in the Contest.

Cheers, Ch.

Dear Edwin,

Thanks for your comments. We are happy that you understands our interpretation of the question of the Contest and that you like the way we answered from that perspective. We are honored by your congrats.

Thanks again, we wish you good luck in the Contest.

Cheers, Ch.

Hi to you 3,

Mr Corda,

I am happy to see your participation to this contest.Hope you are well.

Congratulations for your relevant papper.

All the best from Belgium

    Hi Steve,

    Nice to re-meet you in FQXi Essay Contest. Thanks for your comments, I am fine. I hope you are well too. We will read, comment and score your Essay soon. Good luck in the Contest.

    Cheers, Ch.

    Nice essay Prof Corda,

    Congratulations on detection of Gravitational Waves. In Novae and supernovae explosions there will be gravitational disturbances and a possibility of GW generation.

    .............................. At this point I want you to ask you to please have a look at my essay, where ...............reproduction of Galaxies in the Universe is described. Dynamic Universe Model is another mathematical model for Universe. Its mathematics show that the movement of masses will be having a purpose or goal, Different Galaxies will be born and die (quench) etc...just have a look at my essay... "Distances, Locations, Ages and Reproduction of Galaxies in our Dynamic Universe" where UGF (Universal Gravitational force) acting on each and every mass, will create a direction and purpose of movement.....

    I think intension is inherited from Universe itself to all Biological systems

    For your information Dynamic Universe model is totally based on experimental results. Here in Dynamic Universe Model Space is Space and time is time in cosmology level or in any level. In the classical general relativity, space and time are convertible in to each other.

    Many papers and books on Dynamic Universe Model were published by the author on unsolved problems of present day Physics, for example 'Absolute Rest frame of reference is not necessary' (1994) , 'Multiple bending of light ray can create many images for one Galaxy: in our dynamic universe', About "SITA" simulations, 'Missing mass in Galaxy is NOT required', "New mathematics tensors without Differential and Integral equations", "Information, Reality and Relics of Cosmic Microwave Background", "Dynamic Universe Model explains the Discrepancies of Very-Long-Baseline Interferometry Observations.", in 2015 'Explaining Formation of Astronomical Jets Using Dynamic Universe Model, 'Explaining Pioneer anomaly', 'Explaining Near luminal velocities in Astronomical jets', 'Observation of super luminal neutrinos', 'Process of quenching in Galaxies due to formation of hole at the center of Galaxy, as its central densemass dries up', "Dynamic Universe Model Predicts the Trajectory of New Horizons Satellite Going to Pluto" etc., are some more papers from the Dynamic Universe model. Four Books also were published. Book1 shows Dynamic Universe Model is singularity free and body to collision free, Book 2, and Book 3 are explanation of equations of Dynamic Universe model. Book 4 deals about prediction and finding of Blue shifted Galaxies in the universe.

    With axioms like... No Isotropy; No Homogeneity; No Space-time continuum; Non-uniform density of matter(Universe is lumpy); No singularities; No collisions between bodies; No Blackholes; No warm holes; No Bigbang; No repulsion between distant Galaxies; Non-empty Universe; No imaginary or negative time axis; No imaginary X, Y, Z axes; No differential and Integral Equations mathematically; No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to General Relativity on any condition; No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models; No many mini Bigbangs; No Missing Mass; No Dark matter; No Dark energy; No Bigbang generated CMB detected; No Multi-verses etc.

    Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true, like Blue shifted Galaxies and no dark matter. Dynamic Universe Model gave many results otherwise difficult to explain

    Have a look at my essay on Dynamic Universe Model and its blog also where all my books and papers are available for free downloading...

    http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/

    Best wishes to your essay.

    For your blessings please................

    =snp. gupta

      You are welcome.I am fine thanks.For the essay,unfortunately I have not made this contest.

      All the best

      Dear Satyavarapu,

      Thanks for your comment with kinds congratulations. I am happy to know that you think that our Essay is nice.

      We will read, comment and score your Essay on Dynamic Universe Model soon. Good luck in the Contest.

      Cheers, Ch.

      There is a lot to like about this paper..

      I had heard the story about Einstein's vacillation, and his ire at the rejection of his GW paper with Rosen - at a GR21 plenary lecture - but this is a great intro for those who did not have that privilege. There is indeed a lot we can learn about or test in theories of gravity, by studying gravitational waves. I too am an advocate that we need to have GW instruments with sufficient sensitivity and bandwidth to discern which cosmological theories work. I got to talk a little with, and Andy Beckwith talked quite extensively with, Paul Steinhardt regarding primordial gravity waves - and how current detectors are not nearly good enough.

      But Strominger's talk at GR21 focused on how even the meager observations to date allow us to constrain our choices of alternative gravity theories. I am somewhat undecided about whether GR, extended relativity theories, modified gravity, or quantum gravity, yields the correct answer. My intuition tells me that strict general relativists try to carry things a bit too far, and end up with unphysical assumptions and false predictions, so there has to be some modification to make gravity work as we see it in nature. Have you seen the recent papers talking about an echo in BH merger GWs? This is supposed to be a signal for quantum gravity, according to the authors. What do you think?

      I have to agree with George Ellis's comment above, that the subject matter is somewhat off topic. But I think, especially after seeing Nathan's comments, that a slight change in the narrative could have brought the subject back into focus. For example; talking about how even Einstein the founder's mind and opinion wandered about the reality of GWs could have made that section work like a charm, to deliver a message of how the wandering led to a goal. But the linkage failed to appear within the body of your paper, so I can only give partial credit for that, in what is otherwise an excellent paper.

      All the Best,

      Jonathan

        Sorry Steve. Then, I hope to re-meet you in next Essay Contest.

        Cheers, Ch.

        Hi dear Jonathan,

        Thanks for your valuable comments.

        On one hand, I agree with your point of view that that strict general relativists try to carry things a bit too far and maybe we need some modification to make gravity work as we see it in nature. On the other hand, solar system tests are extremely precise. Thus, it seems that such a modification of general relativity should be very weak, see this technical paper of mine. Thanks for signaling the recent papers talking about an echo in BH merger GWs, I will read them soon.

        Concerning your and Ellis' criticism on the issue that the subject matter is somewhat off topic, I still emphasize the remarkable observation of Jack Hamilton James. He argues that our Essay is a unique and opposite way into the essay contest. In fact, the other Essays start with the external world and try to show how it produces intention. In our Essay we point out to start with maths and try and work it to fit the external world.

        Cheers, Ch.

        Thank you Very much Corda,

        For your kindness and support.

        Best Regards

        =snp.gupta

        Hi Christian,

        1. You essay is on topic. If I may summarize: Mathematics a lot of hard work = reality

        2. The essay was a fascinating read about the current events and history of gravity waves. And I did not needed aspirin and a nap after reading it! It is not as short as my essay, but that is OK.

        3. I will vote for your essay as many times as it takes to defeat the trolls :)

        4. I stumbled onto a way calculate the precession of Mercury without using GR. Created two papers that were recently published. I did not believe I could make this calculation, and not completely clober GR. Yes, very strange. Would you take a look ....I think it may generate some ideas. I will e-mail to you.

        Thanks for being in the contest.

        Don Limuti

          Hi Don,

          Thanks for your message with kind words. We are honored by your judgment on our Essay. Concerning the way to calculate the precession of Mercury without using GR, I know that there is some way which involves the equivalence principle. In that case, combining the equivalence principle with the precision of solar system tests, the strong implication is that the correct theory of gravity must be GR or some weak modification of GR, independently by the precession of Mercury. In any case, I will reply you by email.

          Cheers,

          Ch.

          Christian, Reza and Nathan,

          I checked out your essay and noted your response to questions about GR connections to the contest theme. I have been following the desire to go beyond observation of the BB with light using GR, and it now seems possible to do this with more resonance with LIGO upgrades and more than 2 stations. Such an achievement certainly connects our parochial world with the ultimate beginning. Perhaps you should have emphasized the ultimate BB potential more.

          Hope you get a chance to check out my approach.

          Regards,

          Jim Hoover

            Hi Jim,

            Thanks for your interesting comments. Concerning the possibility to observing the BB through GWs with LIGO upgrades and more than 2 stations, give a look to this paper of mine.

            Thanks again, I will read, comment and score your Essay soon.

            Cheers, Ch.

            There is something wrong in the link help page today. In any case, here is the paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/1110.1772

            Impressive, Christian. Since I first heard about the LIGO efforts, I have been fascinated by the prospect of breaking the light barrier and detecting what constitutes the BB, perhaps in our lifetime. I have a feeling will not solve the ultimate mystery but open up more pointed questions about our beginnings.

            Jim

            Thanks for your kind words.

            Christian, et al,

            I found your essay clear, well written and nice to read and interesting too. I knew Einstein had changed his mind on GW's (and many things) but not quite how much! OK the links with the topic were a touch homeopathic, but frankly I blame the topic, pregnant with quintupletaly poor assumptions and able to link to anything in physics!

            On GW's. I agree they exist and further that they are indeed a 'no brainer' and, this may shock, but I long ago designed a detector which still works perfectly. You tell me if you think it's flawed; I use water but must point out your analogy IS flawed as in space there's no 'surface' or medium interface on which the waves may form. I was then a bit disappointed you didn't get into what GW's 'ARE', which I consider best described simply as 'fluctuations in gravitational potential' due to positional changes (normally orbital) of the massive bodies. Do say if you think that's wrong, but I found definition important for detection.

            The set up? It uses the 'large elephant' scenario; There's always a large elephant in the room nobody has noticed; So practically; take a large volume of fluid with a long 'arm' length, then pass a massive body above it, slowly and repeatedly. Sure enough I find a detectable change in level and even a 'flow' corresponding to the motions. Using TWO massive bodies, together, opposite or orthogonally, and at different distances modifies the level and flow in a predictable manner. I have sets of 'tidal prediction' tables, not always precise but very good approximations. You can get copies here; gravity wave tidal predictions.

            The large set up and gauge is outside my office, with a max height range of 5.8m when in conjunction and peak flow of 3.1knots. It did need bodies the size of a star and small moon and the liquid volume of the North Sea and Atlantic to get that scale of change, but smaller works too. In the Med the max is some 1.5m (which Venitians are thankful for!)

            What I'm pointing out is that this really is exactly the SAME effect as the fluctuating potentials from two BINARY AGN's (or 'black holes' in old money). It's just so familiar and BIG it becomes invisible as we habitually don't apply fully evolved brain power to seeing it!

            In fact rather like the classical derivation of QM predictions in my essay!

            If you fancy collaborating on a paper I'm up for it, but it may be too shocking for the LIGO lot! Anyway very well written and thank you for the greater definition of history. Another top score coming to counter the non-reader trolling with 1's (I've now reached double figures!)

            Very Best

            Peter