Crucial Questions About LIGO's Gravitational Waves

Natalia Kiriushcheva: "What is shown on this picture? The equation on this page is what will be left from Einstein's equations of General Relativity (GR) after linearization. i.e. after a certain assumption is imposed: the gravitational field is considered weak (is it a correct assumption for two black holes?). Moreover, this equation is similar to the wave equation of the Maxwell theory that (after some additional manipulations) describes propagation of electromagnetic waves in the absence of sources (absence of any source, including a system of two black holes!). Einstein pointed out in this paper that its result is not general, it is valid only under assumption that the gravitational field is weak and only linear coordinate transformations (a linearized version of the general coordinate transformations of GR) can be applied to these (linearized) equations. Einstein also did not predict in this paper "that two celestial bodies in orbit will generate invisible ripples in spacetime that experts call gravitational waves", as BI claims. He was talking about "the system" that radiates energy, without specifying what kind of system it is." https://gravityattraction.wordpress....s-involvement/

The crucial questions a

Does Einstein's general relativity predict that gravitational waves travel at the speed of light? Does it predict how the Shapiro delay for gravitational waves compares with the Shapiro delay for light?

Kiriushcheva's analysis suggests that the answer to both questions is 'no'. This is confirmed from the most authoritative source. According to Arthur Eddington, Einstein's general relativity says nothing about the speed of gravitational waves, let alone their Shapiro time-delay:

Arthur Eddington: "The statement that in the relativity theory gravitational waves are propagated with the speed of light has, I believe, been based entirely upon the foregoing investigation; but it will be seen that it is only true in a very conventional sense. If coordinates are chosen so as to satisfy a certain condition which has no very clear geometrical importance, the speed is that of light; if the coordinates are slightly different the speed is altogether different from that of light. The result stands or falls by the choice of coordinates and, so far as can be judged, the coordinates here used were purposely introduced in order to obtain the simplification which results from representing the propagation as occurring with the speed of light. The argument thus follows a vicious circle." The Mathematical Theory of Relativity, pp. 130-131 https://www.amazon.com/Mathematical-.../dp/0521091659

So what is the a priori probability that the gravitational waves (if they exist) arrive simultaneously with the optical signal? Answer: Zero.

That is, if, in the neutron star case, LIGO's fabrication involved different times of arrival, that would at least have sounded realistic. The claim that the gravitational waves and the optical signal arrived at exactly the same time, which implies that they not only travel at the same speed but also experience the same Shapiro delay, unequivocally proves that LIGO conspirators just faked the gravitational wave signals.

Pentcho Valev

LIGO conspirators stared at each other and asked: "Did you do it?" "Did you do it?" All of them answered 'no' and that meant that the detection was real, not fake:

Rana Adhikari, professor of Physics at Caltech and a member of the LIGO team: "The peak frequency of that signal happens to be at the frequency where the detector is the most sensitive. What are the chances that nature would engineer a signal right in our sweet spot? [...] I didn't believe it. But then I went through and with a lot of other people we examined all of the different conspiracy theories we had for how the signal could have been faked, like someone was mad and tried to do it, someone hacked in and changed our software, someone came in and pushed something, and they had someone else on the phone at the other site who pushed something the same way, and set up devices....If I made a gadget that made a little thing (signal) like that I could hide it underneath someplace and cover it with some aluminum foil or trash. And so, we had people walk around physically, with a flashlight, and look around everywhere for hidden conspiracy devices that would be sneakily putting in fake signals....Maybe someone's career will be made by this so they just get desperate and unethical and then they spend a year building a really maniacal plan to somehow do this and evade everybody. Eventually we came to the conclusion that there was only maybe like five or six people left in our whole thousand person collaboration who had enough know-how to do all these things. So we all just stared at each other for a while and said "Did you do it?" "Did you do it?"....You'd need at least two people to do it.One person alone wouldn't have been able to arrange it. And so I would say by two or three weeks after the detection I was pretty convinced it was real." http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1189807/pg1

In 2010 LIGO conspirators were careless - didn't stare at each other and didn't ask "Did you do it?" "Did you do it?". As a result, a few "expert administrators" deceived everybody, misled astronomers into wasting time and money on the fake, and "this became particularly useful starting in September 2015":

"...a blind injection test where only a select few expert administrators are able to put a fake signal in the data, maintaining strict confidentiality.. They did just that in the early morning hours of 16 September 2010. Automated data analyses alerted us to an extraordinary event within eight minutes of data collection, and within 45 minutes we had our astronomer colleagues with optical telescopes imaging the area we estimated the gravitational wave to have come from. Since it came from the direction of the Canis Major constellation, this event picked up the nickname of the "Big Dog Event". For months we worked on vetting this candidate gravitational wave detection, extracting parameters that described the source, and even wrote a paper. Finally, at the next collaboration meeting, after all the work had been cataloged and we voted unanimously to publish the paper the next day. However, it was revealed immediately after the vote to be an injection and that our estimated parameters for the simulated source were accurate. Again, there was no detection, but we learned a great deal about our abilities to know when we detected a gravitational wave and that we can do science with the data.. This became particularly useful starting in September 2015." https://www..researchgate.net/blog/p...-not-a-failure

Pentcho Valev

LIGO conspirators imposed total crimestop on the (fatal for them) noise correlation problem, and the scientific community obeyed:

"Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity." https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/orw...hapter2.9.html

Sabine Hossenfelder: "Was It All Just Noise? Independent Analysis Casts Doubt On LIGO's Detections. A team of five researchers - James Creswell, Sebastian von Hausegger, Andrew D. Jackson, Hao Liu, and Pavel Naselsky - from the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen, presented their own analysis of the openly available LIGO data. And, unlike the LIGO collaboration itself, they come to a disturbing conclusion: that these gravitational waves might not be signals at all, but rather patterns in the noise that have hoodwinked even the best scientists working on this puzzle. [...] A few weeks ago, Andrew Jackson presented his results in Munich. A member of the local physics faculty (who'd rather not be named) finds the results "quite disturbing" and hopes that the collaboration will take the criticism of the Danes to heart. "Until LIGO will provide clear scientific(!) explanation why these findings are wrong, I would say the result of the paper to some extent invalidates the reliability of the LIGO discovery." https://www.forbes.com/sites/startsw...os-detections/

James Creswell, Sebastian von Hausegger, Andrew D. Jackson, Hao Liu, Pavel Naselsky, June 27, 2017: "As a member of the LIGO collaboration, Ian Harry states that he "tried to reproduce the results quoted in 'On the time lags of the LIGO signals'", but that he "[could] not reproduce the correlations claimed in section 3". Subsequent discussions with Ian Harry have revealed that this failure was due to several errors in his code. After necessary corrections were made, his script reproduces our results. His published version was subsequently updated. [...] It would appear that the 7 ms time delay associated with the GW150914 signal is also an intrinsic property of the noise. The purpose in having two independent detectors is precisely to ensure that, after sufficient cleaning, the only genuine correlations between them will be due to gravitational wave effects. The results presented here suggest this level of cleaning has not yet been obtained and that the identification of the GW events needs to be re-evaluated with a more careful consideration of noise properties." http://www.nbi.ku.dk/gravitational-w...nal-waves.html

James Creswell, Sebastian von Hausegger, Andrew D. Jackson, Hao Liu, Pavel Naselsky, August 21, 2017: "In view of unsubstantiated claims of errors in our calculations, we appreciated the opportunity to go through our respective codes together - line by line when necessary - until agreement was reached. This check did not lead to revisions in the results of calculations reported in versions 1 and 2 of arXiv:1706.04191 or in the version of our paper published in JCAP. It did result in changes to the codes used by our visitors [LIGO conspirators]. [...] In light of the above, our view should be clear: We believe that LIGO has not yet attained acceptable standards of data cleaning. Since we regard proof of suitable cleaning as a mandatory prerequisite for any meaningful comparison with specific astrophysical models of GW events, we continue to regard LIGO's claims of GW discovery as interesting but premature." http://www.nbi.ku.dk/gravitational-w...-comment2.html

Pentcho Valev