RE: Gravitational waves - from proposals to observations
A man is amazingly arranged, if he does not understand something or does not know, then he must explain this. As a result, we get something theoretical and close to fiction. Nothing with reality in common.
If gravity is a wave, then it is natural to assume that this is radiation. What is the logic of the process: the effects of radiation? Firstly, because from and to us it can not be a source of attraction in any way. In the second, it must also act on the body to repel, but it attracts. Probably all the above mentioned gentlemen think that this radiation first swept past our planet (I do not know if it's possible already and the speed was calculated), then it stops abruptly, turns around and starts pushing our planet to the sun.
Miracles and only.
Data (i.e. reality) confirmed everything. So I am afraid that everything above is correct. By the way, waves are not only radiation (or electromagnetism).
As for the proven fact, I will tell you an anecdote. Before Hegel came the news that the theory of universal gravitation suggested Newton a falling apple.
Hegel, these are the same tricks of the same subject!
Pretty business. First, because of this apple, we are expelled from paradise.
Then Paris inadvertently holds out the wrong apple
the Trojan War begins.
This is the third case - a bad omen for the philosophical sciences ....
Hegel: "And the crowd was captivated by Newton's teaching about gravity ... especially thanks to a miserable anecdote about how Newton saw the falling apple ... completely forgetting that the apple had already once served as the beginning of disasters for the entire human race, and then the cause for the death of Troy - an omen for the philosophical sciences "
Source Hegel. On the orbits of planets. Philosophical dissertation. I'm not going to say the exact page, I have a Russian edition p.252.
With waves there is also no logic. When you talk about a wave, what comes first is a wave on the water. Most likely from there the concept of this and it came. When I see a wave, I understand that the wave is a form of the body. The same shape as a ball or cube or a pyramid. Wave is not defining anything, but describing. A wave can not be something material. It is only an adjective to objects. Just like the ball is wooden or metal. Just the ball does not tell us anything. Just a wave without a foundation is nothing. And the second moment. For some reason it is believed that the wave is a movement. A wave is a form. And the wave on the water, water does not move. If it is displaced then very small distances. We just think that the wave is running up against us, in fact, water does not come to us. If such quantities of water moved towards the shore, then the banks would not have existed long ago, it would have been washed away.
Another waveform we can observe if two people retook the rope and will wave the wave. The rope does not break from our hands. Of course not. Everything is in its place.
I'll save the question. Why then a wave is used to describe the motion. If the wave is a form of manifestation and can not explain to us the source of its creation.
If the wave is not moving forward, but only a form of oscillation. How to describe the impact between two bodies at a distance.
Well, waves are very logical to me. And to many others as well. To make it short, is it because you don't find them logical that they do not exist?
Here, we have well-defined theoretical frameworks (electromagnetism, quantum mechanics, non-linear optics, general relativity, etc.) that have been tested experimentally. Predictions match observations. No matter you like it or not for this or that reason, it works and waves are all over he place.
Just one little thing: matter waves exist. Please check any quantum physics textbook. Wave-particle duality lies at the basic of the quantum world (and all particle and nuclear physics experiments run for more than one century) . Once again, you may not like it, but the theory predicts things that are confirmed experimentally. So, until proved wrong, it is there.
Why do not waves exist? There are, only the word wave is an adjective, which describes the object. Object can be anything you like.
And it is quite true that this is the theory. And the THEORY is proven, but who has proved the existence of waves? The theory and assumption for me are different things.
In conclusion: my goal is not to argue with you and I'm not against theories. But if initially it is not right to perceive reality, then eventually it will accumulate with such "facts" that it will be difficult to correct later. Try to retrain a person who is not properly taught something to his childhood.
And the fact that you call the waves around us is just the reaction of something to the effect. As I said before, threw a stone into the water got fat. The impact of stone. The reaction of the shape and state of the water has changed. But you can not separate a wave from water, or you can ... except theoretically and in quantum physics using the dualism of concepts.
Physics is more than words. Physics aims to describe reality, make predictions about the results of any experiment (in the broad sense) that should be carried out. Whilst waves were originally connected to fluid dynamics, the concept is more general and applies to varied fields.
For instance, one hears sound. Sound is a vibration that propagates and that our brain materalizes somehow. It is thus a wave. In the physics sense of it. I am sure you would not argue that sound does not exist.
PS: I am fine with the arguing/no arguing part. We are jus chatting and there is nothing wrong with that :)