A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Proof That Gravitational Waves Do Not Exist



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 12th 16, 01:52 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default Proof That Gravitational Waves Do Not Exist

Here is an obviously valid argument:

If gravitational time dilation does not exist, then gravitational waves do not exist as well.

The antecedent is true - there is no gravitational time dilation. Scientists measure the gravitational redshift but inform the gullible world that they have proved gravitational time dilation, a miraculous effect fabricated by Einstein in 1911:

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/...ted-precision/
"A new paper co-authored by U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu measures the gravitational redshift, illustrated by the gravity-induced slowing of a clock and sometimes referred to as gravitational time dilation (though users of that term often conflate two separate phenomena), a measurement that jibes with Einstein and that is 10,000 times more precise than its predecessor."

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2...-billion-years
"Einstein's relativity theory states a clock must tick faster at the top of a mountain than at its foot, due to the effects of gravity. "Our performance means that we can measure the gravitational shift when you raise the clock just two centimetres (0.78 inches) on the Earth's surface," said study co-author Jun Ye."

Clever Einsteinians know that the gravitational redshift (blueshift) is not the result of time dilation - it is the result of the variation of the speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory of light:

http://www.einstein-online.info/spot...t_white_dwarfs
Albert Einstein Institute: "One of the three classical tests for general relativity is the gravitational redshift of light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation. However, in contrast to the other two tests - the gravitational deflection of light and the relativistic perihelion shift -, you do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices. (...) The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 1960-65 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..."

http://courses.physics.illinois.edu/...ctures/l13.pdf
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: "Consider a falling object. ITS SPEED INCREASES AS IT IS FALLING. Hence, if we were to associate a frequency with that object the frequency should increase accordingly as it falls to earth. Because of the equivalence between gravitational and inertial mass, WE SHOULD OBSERVE THE SAME EFFECT FOR LIGHT. So lets shine a light beam from the top of a very tall building. If we can measure the frequency shift as the light beam descends the building, we should be able to discern how gravity affects a falling light beam. This was done by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They shone a light from the top of the Jefferson tower at Harvard and measured the frequency shift. The frequency shift was tiny but in agreement with the theoretical prediction."

http://www.printsasia.com/book/relat...ann-0486406768
Banesh Hoffmann: "In an accelerated sky laboratory, and therefore also in the corresponding earth laboratory, the frequence of arrival of light pulses is lower than the ticking rate of the upper clocks even though all the clocks go at the same rate. (...) As a result the experimenter at the ceiling of the sky laboratory will see with his own eyes that the floor clock is going at a slower rate than the ceiling clock - even though, as I have stressed, both are going at the same rate. (...) The gravitational red shift does not arise from changes in the intrinsic rates of clocks. It arises from what befalls light signals as they traverse space and time in the presence of gravitation."

Pentcho Valev
  #2  
Old February 12th 16, 06:35 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default Proof That Gravitational Waves Do Not Exist

https://www.theguardian.com/science/...overy-expected
"People are hugely excited. The rumour is that it's a whopping big signal, in other words, it's unambiguous, and that is fantastic," said Pedro Ferreira, professor of astrophysics at Oxford University, and author of the 2014 book, The Perfect Theory: a century of geniuses and the battle over general relativity."

The so far totally elusive gravitational waves suddenly became "a whopping big signal", so deafening that the Nobel Committee will almost certainly react. The tradition is long-standing - Einstein's relativity cannot survive unless experimental fraud regularly boosts it. Eddington's 1919 fraud, Eddington and Adams' 1925 fraud, Pound and Rebka's 1960 fraud, Alväger's 1964 fraud, Hafele and Keating's 1971 fraud... the list is long. Two examples:

Pound and Rebka's fraud:

https://einstein.stanford.edu/conten...ty/a10758.html
"So far, GR has made the following specific predictions: (...) 3...Clocks run slower in strong gravitational fields. This was confirmed by Robert Pound and George Rebka at Harvard University in 1959, and by Robert Vessot in the 1960's and 70's using high-precession hydrogen maser clocks flown on jet planes and on satellites."

Actually there was no confirmation, as Einsteinians themselves admit:

http://www.einstein-online.info/spot...t_white_dwarfs
Albert Einstein Institute: "One of the three classical tests for general relativity is the gravitational redshift of light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation. However, in contrast to the other two tests - the gravitational deflection of light and the relativistic perihelion shift -, you do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices. (...) The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 1960-65 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..."

Eddington and Adams' 1925 fraud:

http://preterism.ning.com/forum/topi...trust-the-data
"Consider the case of astronomer Walter Adams. In 1925 he tested Einstein's theory of relativity by measuring the red shift of the binary companion of Sirius, brightest star in the sky. Einstein's theory predicted a red shift of six parts in a hundred thousand; Adams found just such an effect. A triumph for relativity. However, in 1971, with updated estimates of the mass and radius of Sirius, it was found that the predicted red shift should have been much larger - 28 parts in a hundred thousand. Later observations of the red shift did indeed measure this amount, showing that Adams' observations were flawed. He "saw" what he had expected to see."

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AAS...21530404H
"In January 1924 Arthur Eddington wrote to Walter S. Adams at the Mt. Wilson Observatory suggesting a measurement of the "Einstein shift" in Sirius B and providing an estimate of its magnitude. Adams' 1925 published results agreed remarkably well with Eddington's estimate. Initially this achievement was hailed as the third empirical test of General Relativity (after Mercury's anomalous perihelion advance and the 1919 measurement of the deflection of starlight). It has been known for some time that both Eddington's estimate and Adams' measurement underestimated the true Sirius B gravitational redshift by a factor of four."

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1980QJRAS..21..246H
"...Eddington asked Adams to attempt the measurement. (...) ...Adams reported an average differential redshift of nineteen kilometers per second, very nearly the predicted gravitational redshift. Eddington was delighted with the result... (...) In 1928 Joseph Moore at the Lick Observatory measured differences between the redshifts of Sirius and Sirius B... (...) ...the average was nineteen kilometers per second, precisely what Adams had reported.. (...) More seriously damaging to the reputation of Adams and Moore is the measurement in the 1960s at Mount Wilson by Jesse Greenstein, J.Oke, and H..Shipman. They found a differential redshift for Sirius B of roughly eighty kilometers per second."

http://irfu.cea.fr/Phocea/file.php?f...TE-052-456.pdf
Jean-Marc Bonnet-Bidaud: "Le monde entier a cru pendant plus de cinquante ans à une théorie non vérifiée. Car, nous le savons aujourd'hui, les premières preuves, issues notamment d'une célèbre éclipse de 1919, n'en étaient pas. Elles reposaient en partie sur des manipulations peu avouables visant à obtenir un résultat connu à l'avance, et sur des mesures entachées d'incertitudes, quand il ne s'agissait pas de fraudes caractérisées. (...) Autour de l'étoile brillante Sirius, on découvre une petite étoile, Sirius B, à la fois très chaude et très faiblement lumineuse. Pour expliquer ces deux particularités, il faut supposer que l'étoile est aussi massive que le Soleil et aussi petite qu'une planète comme la Terre. C'est Eddington lui-même qui aboutit à cette conclusion dont il voit vite l'intérêt : avec de telles caractéristiques, ces naines blanches sont extrêmement denses et leur gravité très puissante. Le décalage vers le rouge de la gravitation est donc 100 fois plus élevé que sur le Soleil. Une occasion inespérée pour mesurer enfin quelque chose d'appréciable. Eddington s'adresse aussitôt à Walter Adams, directeur de l'observatoire du mont Wilson, en Californie, afin que le télescope de 2,5 m de diamètre Hooker entreprenne les vérifications. Selon ses estimations, basées sur une température de 8 000 degrés de Sirius B, mesurée par Adams lui-même, le décalage vers le rouge prédit par la relativité, en s'élevant à 20 km/s, devrait être facilement mesurable. Adams mobilise d'urgence le grand télescope et expose 28 plaques photographiques pour réaliser la mesure. Son rapport, publié le 18 mai 1925, est très confus car il mesure des vitesses allant de 2 à 33 km/s. Mais, par le jeu de corrections arbitraires dont personne ne comprendra jamais la logique, le décalage passe finalement à 21 km/s, plus tard corrigé à 19 km/s, et Eddington de conclure : "Les résultats peuvent être considérés comme fournissant une preuve directe de la validité du troisième test de la théorie de la relativité générale." Adams et Eddington se congratulent, ils viennent encore de "prouver" Einstein. Ce résultat, pourtant faux, ne sera pas remis en cause avant 1971.. Manque de chance effectivement, la première mesure de température de Sirius B était largement inexacte : au lieu des 8 000 degrés envisagés par Eddington, l'étoile fait en réalité près de 30 000 degrés. Elle est donc beaucoup plus petite, sa gravité est plus intense et le décalage vers le rouge mesurable est de 89 km/s. C'est ce qu'aurait dû trouver Adams sur ses plaques s'il n'avait pas été "influencé" par le calcul erroné d'Eddington. L'écart est tellement flagrant que la suspicion de fraude a bien été envisagée."

Pentcho Valev
  #3  
Old February 13th 16, 01:59 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default Proof That Gravitational Waves Do Not Exist

http://gizmodo.com/weve-found-gravit...hat-1755125155
"It was so clean, in fact, that Reitze worried it was too good to be true. So did Alan Weinstein, who heads LIGO Caltech. After all, in the early operational phase of LIGO, project leaders had deliberately inserted false signals into the data to test the rigor of the analysis. Even though his colleagues assured him that this new signal was not a so-called "blind injection" exercise, Weinstein couldn't quite believe it. He wondered if it was the work of a disgruntled member of the LIGO team injecting a false signal into the data as revenge. Or perhaps it was the work of an evil genius. "We cannot rule out the evil genius hypothesis," he deadpanned during a Caltech press conference. "We're doing our best to rule out the evil genius hypothesis. But I like to think a binary black hole collision is more likely.""

So David Reitze and Alan Weinstein cannot rule out the disgruntled member and the evil genius hypotheses, but they "like to think a binary black hole collision is more likely"?!? Is this science?

Pentcho Valev
  #4  
Old February 13th 16, 06:53 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default Proof That Gravitational Waves Do Not Exist

Black holes are elusive objects - no firmly established properties, some scientists even claim they don't exist. Gravitational waves are equally elusive, so the following detailed tale about black holes was told by LIGO conspirators, not by gravitational waves:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/12/sc...-einstein.html
"The frequency of the chirp was too low for neutron stars, the physicists knew. Detailed analysis of its form told a tale of Brobdingnagian activities in a far corner of the universe: the last waltz of a pair of black holes shockingly larger than astrophysicists had been expecting. One of them was 36 times as massive as the sun, the other 29. As they approached the end, at half the speed of light, they were circling each other 250 times a second.. And then the ringing stopped as the two holes coalesced into a single black hole, a trapdoor in space with the equivalent mass of 62 suns. All in a fifth of a second, Earth time."

Pentcho Valev
  #5  
Old February 15th 16, 08:42 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default Proof That Gravitational Waves Do Not Exist

http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative...l-3302584.html
"Gravitational Wave Dicosvery: Fraud or Real; Scientists Leave Device Running Unattended as They Head to Hotel! (...) "My worry was--and you can file this under the fact that we are just paranoid cautious about making a false claim--could somebody have done this maliciously?" he said. "Could somebody have somehow faked a signal in our detector that we didn't know about?" Reitze, Weiss, González, and a handful of others considered who, if anyone, was familiar enough with both the apparatus and the algorithms to have spoofed the system and covered his or her tracks. There were only four candidates, and none of them had a plausible motive. "We grilled those guys," Weiss said. "And no, they didn't do it." Ultimately, he said, "We accepted that the most economical explanation was that it really is a black-hole pair." (...) Schofield was at LIGO's site in Livingston, Louisiana, working with Anamaria Effler, a scientist based there. They'd put in a long day injecting noises from Earth-bound environmental sources to analyze their effects on the sensitive detectors. Rather than shut down the detectors to begin another test, Schofield and Effler chose to leave them operating and get some sleep. (...) From the New Yorker story linked above, it appears the only inviestigation performed on the possibility of malicious signal injection (i.e. faking a signal) was "grilling the those [four] guys". Since the device was left unattended, could other than the four have accessed it?"

Looks like a criminal story doesn't it? Is this science?

Pentcho Valev
  #6  
Old February 20th 16, 10:16 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default Proof That Gravitational Waves Do Not Exist

http://www.wired.com/2016/02/6-thing...ational-waves/
"The LIGO detection didn't prove the existence of gravitational waves"

http://www.newkerala.com/news/2016/fullnews-23659.html
"Playing devil's advocate on the 'discovery' of gravitational waves"

http://arxiv.org/abs/1602.04674
"Around 1936, Einstein wrote to his close friend Max Born telling him that, together with Nathan Rosen, he had arrived at the interesting result that gravitational waves did not exist, though they had been assumed a certainty to the first approximation. He finally had found a mistake in his 1936 paper with Rosen and believed that gravitational waves do exist. However, in 1938, Einstein again obtained the result that there could be no gravitational waves!"

Pentcho Valev
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What are gravitational waves? Sam Wormley[_2_] Amateur Astronomy 32 February 7th 16 04:58 PM
Special Relativity proof Chapt9 Proof that Doppler shift isnonexistent in light-waves #46 Atom Totality theory 5th ed. Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] Astronomy Misc 21 October 13th 11 09:26 PM
Does the 'Gravitational Field' really exist? bkh99 Misc 10 October 24th 09 06:36 PM
Does the 'Gravitational Field' really exist? bkh99 Amateur Astronomy 0 October 18th 09 11:24 PM
Gravitational Waves jonathan Policy 6 November 9th 05 06:46 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:17 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.