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

Blatant Lie: Gravitational Waves Travel at the Speed of Light



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 24th 17, 07:31 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default Blatant Lie: Gravitational Waves Travel at the Speed of Light

Einstein's relativity provides no justification for assuming that gravitational waves travel at the speed of light:

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 probability that the gravitational waves (if they exist) travel exactly at the speed of light? Answer: Zero.

What is the probability that the gravitational waves (if they exist) travel at a speed different from the speed of light? Answer: Unity.

That is, if LIGO conspirators had said that the speed of the gravitational waves was different from the speed of light, that would have sounded realistic. Their claim that the gravitational waves travel exactly at the speed of light unequivocally proves that they just faked the signals. What they have "discovered" was either "blind injection" or suitable extract from the abundant noise:

"Einstein believed in neither gravitational waves nor black holes. [...] Dr Natalia Kiriushcheva, a theoretical and computational physicist at the University of Western Ontario (UWO), Canada, says that while it was Einstein who initiated the gravitational waves theory in a paper in June 1916, it was an addendum to his theory of general relativity and by 1936, he had concluded that such things did not exist. Furthermore - as a paper published by Einstein in the Annals of Mathematics in October, 1939 made clear, he also rejected the possibility of black holes. [...] On September 16, 2010, a false signal - a so-called "blind injection" - was fed into both the Ligo and Virgo systems as part of an exercise to "test ... detection capabilities". At the time, the vast majority of the hundreds of scientists working on the equipment had no idea that they were being fed a dummy signal. The truth was not revealed until March the following year, by which time several papers about the supposed sensational discovery of gravitational waves were poised for publication. "While the scientists were disappointed that the discovery was not real, the success of the analysis was a compelling demonstration of the collaboration's readiness to detect gravitational waves," Ligo reported at the time. But take a look at the visualisation of the faked signal, says Dr Kiriushcheva, and compare it to the image apparently showing the collision of the twin black holes, seen on the second page of the recently-published discovery paper. "They look very, very similar," she says. "It means that they knew exactly what they wanted to get and this is suspicious for us: when you know what you want to get from science, usually you can get it." The apparent similarity is more curious because the faked event purported to show not a collision between two black holes, but the gravitational waves created by a neutron star spiralling into a black hole. The signals appear so similar, in fact, that Dr Kiriushcheva questions whether the "true" signal might actually have been an echo of the fake, "stored in the computer system from when they turned off the equipment five years before"." http://www.thenational.ae/arts-life/...s-collide#full

"Most likely a rat farted in the Livingston tunnel. After that it's easy to find a match in the data from Hanford, VIRGO and fermi considering there are up to a billion matchable events per day for LIGO and probably at least one per second in fermi." https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci....Y/EIOH-8XHAwAJ

"You try to change the subject to avoid admitting that a snr14 trigger in Livingston can be matched to a 6 snr trigger in Hanford purely by random coincidence. Considering that at Hanford * every 10 ms* there is at least one 6snr event triggered. And at VIRGO something like a thousand at 4snr every 10 ms. This latest GW was a random coincidence as much as any real wave detected. And you can't prove otherwise. Any other wavelength observations could have been made in any other part of the sky and revealed imaginary followup data that could be attributed to a random coincidence generated by LIGO.." https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci....Y/V1dTayhOBAAJ

"Nonetheless that event then fails by the same criticism as a false detection. As with all other (imaginary) events which show all GW detections are random coincidence. That cannot be ruled out. In fact it's the only option, unless you are a fantasist. Anyways as I've pointed out to Tom, the 170817 event has serious problems. It isn't detected in VIRGO. As it should be seeing the relative SNR strength in LIGO, the fermi detection was made up, and most importantly... no information regarding delay between the two at LIGO is supplied, or from what I see in the data, observed. In other words your imaginary GW was environmental. Cooked up with data fiddling to look real by a desperate LIGO team." https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci....Y/XCXlsAlDBQAJ

"I also emailed LIGO numerous times with various attempts and *finally* got a long email back from one of the main contributors to the analysing software. They said."..100s of billion detections in each detector at or above 4snr over three months" Email them yourself. You may get a faster response than me but it will be the same. This means, using the well accepted "order of" that your peers accept, that at SNR 6 one gets about 1 million detections in a day or about one per maximum time window permitted by relativistic theory. That's probably why you never get a GW detected that has one detector at more than 6-7. Because it's always possible to match a stronger detection in one detector to at least one snr 6 in the other. By random coincidence between the two detectors in the data. Which means that one cannot rule out random coincidence for all GW 'detections'. Except of course as Gary correctly pointed out GW17817. But this one has problems that make it untenable as a GW detection. For starters...how far apart are the triggers in ms? It's not mentioned in the paper!? Amazing isn't it? And do you want to know why this pivotal piece of information isn't mentioned? Because it's not available in the data. I would say this only proves that it must be environmental. Seeing as it's also unusually long and not detected in VIRGO. At such a SNR strength in LIGO it should have been detected by VIRGO. The lame excuse was... it's in VIRGOs blind spot. And it was such a low 'detection' in Fermi that occurs anyways every few seconds. So low and so frequent that the theorists at LIGO had to trawl through Fermi data around the same time frame and try to pretend a low snr weak blip at that point was an event and not random noise. . And then pretend it's official by announcing it eight hours later as a "trigger"." https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci....Y/E9_w3B1CBQAJ

Pentcho Valev
  #2  
Old October 25th 17, 01:23 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default Blatant Lie: Gravitational Waves Travel at the Speed of Light

Unlike special relativity, Einstein's general relativity is not a deductive theory. It is a not-even-wrong empirical concoction - a malleable combination of ad hoc equations and fudge factors allowing Einsteinians to predict anything they want. Here Arthur Eddington explains how general relativity "predicted" that gravitational waves travel at the speed of light, and how it could have "predicted" any other value:

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, p. 130 https://www.amazon.com/Mathematical-.../dp/0521091659

Below Einstein defines two types of theory - empirical and deductive - and it is unquestionable that the predictions of a deductive theory do matter. The problem is: Do the predictions of an EMPIRICAL theory matter in physics? If not, the implication is that Einstein's general relativity, as an empirical theory, makes no important predictions.

Albert Einstein: "From a systematic theoretical point of view, we may imagine the process of evolution of an empirical science to be a continuous process of induction. Theories are evolved and are expressed in short compass as statements of a large number of individual observations in the form of empirical laws, from which the general laws can be ascertained by comparison. Regarded in this way, the development of a science bears some resemblance to the compilation of a classified catalogue. It is, as it were, a purely empirical enterprise. But this point of view by no means embraces the whole of the actual process ; for it slurs over the important part played by intuition and deductive thought in the development of an exact science. As soon as a science has emerged from its initial stages, theoretical advances are no longer achieved merely by a process of arrangement. Guided by empirical data, the investigator rather develops a system of thought which, in general, is built up logically from a small number of fundamental assumptions, the so-called axioms." https://www.marxists.org/reference/a...ative/ap03.htm

Sabine Hossenfelder describes a deplorable situation in fundamental physics:

Sabine Hossenfelder: "Is The Inflationary Universe A Scientific Theory? Not Anymore. It is this abundance of useless models that gives rise to the criticism that inflation is not a scientific theory. And on that account, the criticism is justified. It's not good scientific practice. It is a practice that, to say it bluntly, has become commonplace because it results in papers, not because it advances science." https://www.forbes.com/sites/startsw...y-not-anymore/

Sabine Hossenfelder (Bee): "The criticism you raise that there are lots of speculative models that have no known relevance for the description of nature has very little to do with string theory but is a general disease of the research area. Lots of theorists produce lots of models that have no chance of ever being tested or ruled out because that's how they earn a living. The smaller the probability of the model being ruled out in their lifetime, the better. It's basic economics. Survival of the 'fittest' resulting in the natural selection of invincible models that can forever be amended." http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=9375

What is going on? Is this a human nature's problem - e.g. bad people of today do things that good people of the past didn't? Of course not. Rather, the scientific method was changed long ago and theoretical physics has not been science since then. The transition was from deductivism to empiricism, or from "deducing the equation" to "guessing the equation":

Richard Feynman (50:07): "Dirac discovered the correct laws for relativity quantum mechanics simply by guessing the equation. The method of guessing the equation seems to be a pretty effective way of guessing new laws." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kd0xTfdt6qw&t=2368s

Actually the anti-deductive movement started with Einstein's general relativity (special relativity was deductive). Einstein and his mathematical friends spent a few years tirelessly "guessing the equation" until "excellent agreement with observation" was reached:

Michel Janssen: "But - as we know from a letter to his friend Conrad Habicht of December 24, 1907 - one of the goals that Einstein set himself early on, was to use his new theory of gravity, whatever it might turn out to be, to explain the discrepancy between the observed motion of the perihelion of the planet Mercury and the motion predicted on the basis of Newtonian gravitational theory. [...] The Einstein-Grossmann theory - also known as the "Entwurf" ("outline") theory after the title of Einstein and Grossmann's paper - is, in fact, already very close to the version of general relativity published in November 1915 and constitutes an enormous advance over Einstein's first attempt at a generalized theory of relativity and theory of gravitation published in 1912. The crucial breakthrough had been that Einstein had recognized that the gravitational field - or, as we would now say, the inertio-gravitational field - should not be described by a variable speed of light as he had attempted in 1912, but by the so-called metric tensor field.. The metric tensor is a mathematical object of 16 components, 10 of which independent, that characterizes the geometry of space and time. In this way, gravity is no longer a force in space and time, but part of the fabric of space and time itself: gravity is part of the inertio-gravitational field. Einstein had turned to Grossmann for help with the difficult and unfamiliar mathematics needed to formulate a theory along these lines. [...] Einstein did not give up the Einstein-Grossmann theory once he had established that it could not fully explain the Mercury anomaly. He continued to work on the theory and never even mentioned the disappointing result of his work with Besso in print. So Einstein did not do what the influential philosopher Sir Karl Popper claimed all good scientists do: once they have found an empirical refutation of their theory, they abandon that theory and go back to the drawing board. [...] On November 4, 1915, he presented a paper to the Berlin Academy officially retracting the Einstein-Grossmann equations and replacing them with new ones. On November 11, a short addendum to this paper followed, once again changing his field equations. A week later, on November 18, Einstein presented the paper containing his celebrated explanation of the perihelion motion of Mercury on the basis of this new theory. Another week later he changed the field equations once more. These are the equations still used today. This last change did not affect the result for the perihelion of Mercury. Besso is not acknowledged in Einstein's paper on the perihelion problem. Apparently, Besso's help with this technical problem had not been as valuable to Einstein as his role as sounding board that had earned Besso the famous acknowledgment in the special relativity paper of 1905. Still, an acknowledgment would have been appropriate. After all, what Einstein had done that week in November, was simply to redo the calculation he had done with Besso in June 1913, using his new field equations instead of the Einstein-Grossmann equations. It is not hard to imagine Einstein's excitement when he inserted the numbers for Mercury into the new expression he found and the result was 43", in excellent agreement with observation." https://netfiles.umn.edu/users/janss...0page/EBms.pdf

"Guessing the equation" is naturally followed by "guessing the fudge factor". In the video below, at 0:57, a fudge factor is added to an equation in an empirical model (Einstein's general relativity), then at 2:16 the fudge factor is removed:

https://www.sciencechannel.com/tv-sh...iggest-blunder
SPACE'S DEEPEST SECRETS Einstein's "Biggest Blunder"

"A fudge factor is an ad hoc quantity introduced into a calculation, formula or model in order to make it fit observations or expectations. Examples include Einstein's Cosmological Constant..." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fudge_factor

Can one add a fudge factor analogous to the cosmological constant to the Lorentz transformation equations? One cannot, and the reason is simple: Special relativity is deductive (even though a false postulate and an invalid argument spoiled it from the very beginning) and fudging is impossible by definition - one has no right to add anything that is not deducible from the postulates.

Nowadays, except for special relativity, theories and models in physics are empirical, non-deductive - they cannot be presented as a set of valid arguments built up logically from a small number of simple axioms (postulates). This makes them unfalsifiable a priori.

"By a theory I shall mean the deductive closure of a set of theoretical postulates together with an appropriate set of auxiliary hypotheses; that is, everything that can be deduced from this set." W. H. Newton-Smith, THE RATIONALITY OF SCIENCE, p. 199 http://cdn.preterhuman.net/texts/tho...%20science.pdf

Only deductive theories (models) can be falsified, either logically or experimentally. That is:

1. Arguments can be checked for validity.

2. The reductio-ad-absurdum procedure can be applied.

3. Showing, experimentally, that a postulate or a deduced consequence is false makes sense - the deductive structure allows one to interpret the falsehood in terms of the whole theory. (In the absence of a deductive structure any detected falsehood or absurdity remains insignificant - one can ignore it or "fix" it in some way, e.g. by introducing a fudge factor.)

The only alternative to deductivism is empiricism - models are essentially equivalent to the "empirical models" defined he

"The objective of curve fitting is to theoretically describe experimental data with a model (function or equation) and to find the parameters associated with this model. Models of primary importance to us are mechanistic models. Mechanistic models are specifically formulated to provide insight into a chemical, biological, or physical process that is thought to govern the phenomenon under study. Parameters derived from mechanistic models are quantitative estimates of real system properties (rate constants, dissociation constants, catalytic velocities etc.). It is important to distinguish mechanistic models from empirical models that are mathematical functions formulated to fit a particular curve but whose parameters do not necessarily correspond to a biological, chemical or physical property." http://collum.chem.cornell.edu/docum...ve_Fitting.pdf

Pentcho Valev
  #3  
Old October 26th 17, 01:20 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default Blatant Lie: Gravitational Waves Travel at the Speed of Light

"To identify a gravitational wave signal, LIGO relies on the combined signal from both detectors. A gravitational wave will travel through each site at a different time, since the signal travels at the speed of light, but the two sites are separated by thousands of kilometers. The signals that arrive should be correlated, but with a characteristic time-lag and an amplitude offset, since they're oriented differently in space (on the surface of the curved Earth) in three dimensions. However, there shouldn't be any such correlation in the noise. At least, that's the idea. The Danish group found, however, that the noise at both detector sites - and puzzlingly, between the two supposedly independent detectors - is also correlated. And worse, the correlation time is similar to the time-lag between the recorded signals, for each of the three so-far confirmed events." https://www.forbes.com/sites/startsw...os-detections/

Why "worse"? This is LIGO's greatest discovery - noise also travels at the speed of light between the two detectors!

The gullible world is incredibly gullible but not infinitely gullible – I expect an investigation of LIGO's blatant fraud to start soon. The Nobel committee knew about the correlated noise so they are part of the conspiracy. The Nobel committee also knew that LIGO's detections (more precisely, fakes) were MODEL-INDEPENDENT, that is, LIGO conspirators didn't use theoretically calculated waveforms in detecting/faking gravitational wave signals:

The Nobel Committee for Physics: "While these waveforms provide a reasonable match, further important improvements are obtained using numerical methods that are very computationally intensive [23]. The analytical methods are crucial to producing the big library of template waveforms used by LIGO. While the waveforms produced in this way are necessary for determining the detailed properties of the objects involved, as well as identifying weak signals, they were not essential for the very first detection of GW150914. This was a model-independent detection of a gravitational-wave transient." https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_pri...sprize2017.pdf

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
Spacetime, Gravitational Waves: Metastases of the Constant-Speed-of-LightMalignancy Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 October 24th 17 07:09 AM
Variable Speed of Light, No Gravitational Waves Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 3 February 28th 16 10:55 AM
Einstein's Gravitational Waves May Set Speed Limit For Pulsar Spin Ron Baalke Astronomy Misc 1 July 3rd 03 08:49 AM
Einstein's Gravitational Waves May Set Speed Limit For Pulsar Spin Ron Baalke Misc 1 July 2nd 03 10:09 PM
Einstein's Gravitational Waves May Set Speed Limit For Pulsar Spin Ron Baalke News 0 July 2nd 03 08:24 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:27 AM.


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.