A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

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

LIGO's Gravitational Waves: Two Obvious Fakes



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 23rd 19, 09:43 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,462
Default LIGO's Gravitational Waves: Two Obvious Fakes

"On 8:41 am EDT August 17, 2017, LIGO detected a new gravitational wave source, dubbed GW170817 to mark its discovery date. Just two seconds later NASA's Fermi satellite detected a weak pulse of gamma rays from the same location of the sky." https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/2017-30

Two obvious fakes in the above scenario:

Fake 1: Gravitational waves and optical signals came from "the same location" of the sky.

Fake 2: They arrived simultaneously.

"The same location" is absurd. Gamma rays undergo gravitational deflection, and "the same location" implies that gravitational waves are deflected in exactly the same way, which is nonsense of course. LIGO godfathers were quite careless in 2017 - they shouldn't have faked neutron-star-collision gravitational waves. Given the 2017 "same location" fake, any subsequent neutron-star-collision scenario involves an insoluble dilemma:

If "the same location" is reconfirmed, LIGO godfathers will have to explain why gravitational waves undergo exactly the same gravitational deflection as light signals. Hopeless business - the conclusion that LIGO godfathers fake gravitational waves will be unavoidable.

If "the same location" is abandoned and gravitational waves and optical signals start coming from different directions, LIGO godfathers will have to explain how "the same location" occurred in 2017 - again, the conclusion that they fake gravitational waves will be unavoidable.

The simultaneous arrival of optical signals and gravitational waves in the GW170817 case is another obvious fake. Even if gravitational waves existed (they don't), the simultaneous arrival would be absurd, for the following two reasons:

1. That gravitational waves travel at the speed of light was Eddington's 1922 fabrication - nothing to do with Einstein's general relativity:

Arthur Eddington 1922: "The problem of the propagation of disturbances of the gravitational field was investigated by Einstein in 1916, and again in 1918. It has usually been inferred from his discussion that a change in the distribution of matter produces gravitational effects which are propagated with the speed of light; but I think that Einstein really left the question of the speed of propagation rather indefinite. His analysis shows how the co-ordinates must be chosen if it is desired to represent the gravitational potentials as propagated with the speed of light; but there is nothing to indicate that the speed of light appears in the problem, except as the result of this arbitrary choice. [...] Weyl has classified plane gravitational waves into three types, viz.: (1) longitudinal-longitudinal; (2)longitudinal-transverse; (3) transverse-transverse. The present investigation leads to the conclusion that transverse-transverse waves are propagated with the speed of light in all systems of co-ordinates. Waves of the first and second types have no fixed velocity - a result which rouses suspicion as to their objective existence." http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.o...6/268.full.pdf

2. The simultaneous arrival of optical signals and gravitational waves presupposes that the gravitational waves experience Shapiro delay, like optical signals, which is nonsense. This text is fraudulent:

"In general relativity and other metric theories of gravity, though, the Shapiro delay for gravitational waves is expected to be the same as that for light and neutrinos." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapiro_time_delay

Recently LIGO godfathers announced a second "discovery" of neutron-star-collision gravitational waves. They have bypassed "the same location" insoluble dilemma in this fraudulent way:

"But one of LIGO's twin detectors was offline Thursday when the gravitational wave reached Earth, making it hard for astronomers to triangulate exactly where the signal was coming from. That sent astronomers racing to image as many galaxies as they could across a region covering one-quarter of the sky." http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-...n-star-merger/

"In this case, unlike many others, LIGO and Virgo were unable to significantly narrow down the direction in the sky that the waves came from. The researchers could say only that the waves were from a wide region that covers roughly one-quarter of the sky." https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01377-2

Pentcho Valev
Ads
  #2  
Old May 23rd 19, 09:55 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,462
Default LIGO's Gravitational Waves: Two Obvious Fakes

LIGO godfathers look invincible but in the long run they are doomed. The reason is that the speed of light is VARIABLE - Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate is false. Here is a simple demonstration:

Stationary emitter; moving receiver: http://www.einstein-online.info/imag...ector_blue.gif

The speed of the light pulses as measured by the emitter is

c = df

where d is the distance between the pulses and f is the frequency measured by the emitter. The speed of the pulses as measured by the receiver is

c'= df' c

where f' f is the frequency measured by the receiver.

In the quotation below Banesh Hoffmann clearly explains that, "without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations" (as was the case in 1887), the Michelson-Morley experiment proves Newton's variable speed of light, c'=c±v, and disproves the constant (independent of the speed of the emitter) speed of light, c'=c, posited by the ether theory and adopted by Einstein:

Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether. If it was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle? Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous." https://www.amazon.com/Relativity-It.../dp/0486406768

Wikipedia: Newton's variable speed of light, c'=c ± v, explains the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment:

"Emission theory, also called emitter theory or ballistic theory of light, was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, explaining the results of the Michelson–Morley experiment of 1887. [...] The name most often associated with emission theory is Isaac Newton. In his corpuscular theory Newton visualized light "corpuscles" being thrown off from hot bodies at a nominal speed of c with respect to the emitting object, and obeying the usual laws of Newtonian mechanics, and we then expect light to be moving towards us with a speed that is offset by the speed of the distant emitter (c ± v)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory

John Norton: "The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE." http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf

Since the speed of light is variable, Einstein's spacetime doesn't exist, and neither do gravitational waves (ripples in spacetime). Physicists know that:

Nima Arkani-Hamed (06:09): "Almost all of us believe that spacetime doesn't really exist, spacetime is doomed and has to be replaced..." https://youtu.be/U47kyV4TMnE?t=369

"And by making the clock's tick relative - what happens simultaneously for one observer might seem sequential to another - Einstein's theory of special relativity not only destroyed any notion of absolute time but made time equivalent to a dimension in space: the future is already out there waiting for us; we just can't see it until we get there. This view is a logical and metaphysical dead end, says Smolin." http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013...reality-review

"Was Einstein wrong? At least in his understanding of time, Smolin argues, the great theorist of relativity was dead wrong. What is worse, by firmly enshrining his error in scientific orthodoxy, Einstein trapped his successors in insoluble dilemmas..." https://www.amazon.com/Time-Reborn-C.../dp/B00AEGQPFE

Nobel Laureate David Gross observed, "Everyone in string theory is convinced...that spacetime is doomed. But we don't know what it's replaced by." https://www.edge.org/response-detail/26563

What scientific idea is ready for retirement? Steve Giddings: "Spacetime. Physics has always been regarded as playing out on an underlying stage of space and time. Special relativity joined these into spacetime... [...] The apparent need to retire classical spacetime as a fundamental concept is profound..." https://www.edge.org/response-detail/25477

"Rethinking Einstein: The end of space-time. [...] Horava, who is at the University of California, Berkeley, wants to rip this fabric apart and set time and space free from one another in order to come up with a unified theory that reconciles the disparate worlds of quantum mechanics and gravity - one the most pressing challenges to modern physics." https://www.newscientist.com/article...of-space-time/

"We've known for decades that space-time is doomed," says Arkani-Hamed. "We know it is not there in the next version of physics." http://discovermagazine.com/2014/jan...ure-of-physics

So Nima Arkani-Hamed is confident that spacetime "is not there in the next version of physics". Then how about LIGO's ripples in spacetime? Spacetime absent, ripples in spacetime still there, like the grin of the Cheshire cat (triumph of post-sanity science):

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon....1J-7PIffiL.jpg

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
LIGO's Gravitational Waves: Needles in a Haystack or Just Fakes? Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 1 October 19th 17 08:52 AM
Why LIGO's Discovery of Gravitational Waves Is a Fraud Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 1 October 27th 16 11:35 PM
Granting LIGO's Discovery of Gravitational Waves: Why? Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 1 April 1st 16 01:15 PM
Did LIGO Lie About Gravitational Waves? Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 1 February 27th 16 01:39 PM
LIGO's Gravitational Waves: Why the Sloppiness? Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 February 23rd 16 11:48 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:17 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.