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

Is NSF Covering Up LIGO Fraud?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 11th 17, 06:45 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default Is NSF Covering Up LIGO Fraud?

Journalists are invited to join the National Science Foundation (NSF) as it brings together scientists from the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) and Virgo collaborations, as well as representatives for some 70 observatories, Monday, Oct. 16, at 10 a.m. EDT at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. The gathering will begin with an overview of new findings from LIGO, Virgo and partners that span the globe, followed by details from telescopes that work with the LIGO and Virgo collaborations to study extreme events in the cosmos. The first detection of gravitational waves, made Sept. 14, 2015 and announced Feb. 11, 2016, was a milestone in physics and astronomy; it confirmed a major prediction of Albert Einstein's 1915 general theory of relativity, and marked the beginning of the new field of gravitational-wave astronomy. Since then, there have been three more confirmed detections, one of which (the most recently announced) was the first confirmed detection seen jointly by both the LIGO and Virgo detectors." https://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.j...=NSF&from=news

Nothing has been detected so far - the noise correlation, swept under the carpet by LIGO conspirators, is fatal for any scientific experiment. NSF should have organized a conference devoted to the noise correlation first:

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
  #2  
Old October 11th 17, 11:58 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default Is NSF Covering Up LIGO Fraud?

According to LIGO conspirators, looking for gravitational waves without theoretical underpinning is pointless; calculated waveforms tell them the colour of the needle in the haystack and things get easier:

"The team was largely responsible for conducting simulations of black hole collisions on high-performance supercomputers, which were required because of the complexity of the equations and necessity for absolute precision. They computed gravitational waveform, the shape of the signals for which LIGO searches. The U of T researchers banked thousands of collisions to create "pattern templates," giving scientists a better idea of what to look for and how to interpret their findings. "If you know the shape of the signal you're looking for, it's like knowing the colour of a needle in a haystack. It's easier to find," Pfeiffer explained in an interview with U of T News last year. The pattern templates also make the research more efficient by telling scientists right away whether they have observed a significant event." http://news.artsci.utoronto.ca/all-n...ational-waves/

The truth is that LIGO conspirators don't use waveforms in detecting (more precisely, 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

According to Rana Adhikari, professor of Physics at Caltech and a member of the LIGO team, LIGO conspirators have no preliminary knowledge about the signals. Adhikari declares: "the only thing that we really know is what we measure. And that's the mantra of the true empirical person":

Rana Adhikari: "You split it in two and you send it in two separate directions, and then when the waves come back, they interfere with each other. And you look at differences in that interference to tell you the difference in how long it took for one beam to go one way, and the other beam to go the other way. The way I said it was really careful there because there's a lot of confusion about the idea of, these are waves and space is bending, and everything is shrinking, and how come the light's not shrinking, and so on. We don't really know. There's no real difference between the ideas of space and time warping. It could be space warping or time warping but the only thing that we really know is what we measure. And that's the mantra of the true empirical person. We sent out the light and the light comes back and interferes, and the pattern changes. And that tells us something about effectively the delay that the light's on. And it could be that the space-time curved so that the light took longer to get there. But you could also imagine that there was a change in the time in one path as opposed to the other instead of the space but it's a mixture of space and time. So it sort of depends on your viewpoint."
https://blog.ycombinator.com/the-tec...ikari-of-ligo/

It is difficult to imagine a more obvious fraud. However in the post-truth world fraud is virtue, and in this sense the Nobel prize given to LIGO conspirators is well-deserved.

Pentcho Valev
  #3  
Old October 12th 17, 09:33 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default Is NSF Covering Up LIGO Fraud?

TOM SHANKS Says: "This does raise the issue of why all this secrecy is necessary. While it's good fun working out what happened maybe someone should tell us! After all, these detectors and telescopes are all publicly funded facilities and maybe their follow-up would be even better had there been less "Omerta". While I appreciate we don't want to be flooded by false detections, I get the feeling that there is some Astro power politics involved in keeping things private. Thank goodness for twitter or we wouldn't know anything!" TELESCOPER Says: "My thoughts exactly! It's all a bit absurd!" https://telescoper.wordpress.com/201...-and-ngc-4993/

So why the absurd secrecy? The cosmic events allegedly producing gravitational waves are unique - the reproducibility of the experiments is zero by definition. There is so much fraud involved in reproducible experiments - here the risk of fraud is immeasurably higher. The only way to reduce this risk is to ensure maximum publicity. All crude data and all detail of LIGO work should be subject to the scrutiny of the scientific community long before the official publication. Nobody could steal the discovery, for obvious reasons.

Instead, LIGO conspirators introduced maximum secrecy, as if their work had been of primary importance to the national security. The scientific community does not protest - in the post-truth world "science" could be anything. Even the following C.S.I. activity is "science":

"I can tell you about Alan Weinstein's reaction, and he's a professor here at Caltech who works on the LIGO experiment. He said when they got the phone calls they were all incredulous because they couldn't believe that it was real. They've been looking for gravitational waves for decades. He said at first he thought that it was a blind injection, that someone had put in a signal and they didn't know about it and so they thought that they were going to have to go through this whole rigmarole again, to find out that at the end of the day it was a hardware injection. Then they thought that maybe it was double blind because no one seemed to know what was going on. Whoever did the injection didn't tell anyone, and this is going to be a big secret, and then eventually it's not going to be a real signal. But then everyone swore that they hadn't done any injections, and so they were starting to think, "oh my gosh, maybe this is real!" And then Alan thought maybe it was a triple blind experiment, and that just means it's a malicious hacker who somehow managed to erase all of their steps and get the perfect gravitational wave signal in the mirror, and then will announce that they've somehow engineered this in a few months, and embarrass the collaboration. But he also claims that a binary black hole merger is much more likely than someone with that level of computer hacking power who is interested in hacking LIGO.." http://nautil.us/issue/34/adaptation...ty-wave-hunter

"Rai said, "Look, we went through every possible scenario for how you would inject a false signal, and tried to do it ourselves." There were only a few people in the entire collaboration with sufficient access and knowledge to do something like that, and they interrogated them all. And you have to physically attach stuff, you can't just do this telepathically, so they looked for little black boxes and things like that. It was like a C.S.I. experiment. So there's no physical evidence. It would be very hard to fake a signal without being caught. And I don't think anyone in the collaboration has that sophisticated a criminal mind. In fact, when they did a [deliberate] blind injection during the test run [of the earlier version of LIGO], they screwed it up a little. They got the orientation wrong." http://www.gizmodo..com.au/2016/04/b...ational-waves/

So in 2010 LIGO conspirators still did not have "that sophisticated a criminal mind" and "screwed it up a little" but then they improved and in 2015 everything was almost fine (there was noise correlation which would be fatal in a different world but we all live in the post-truth world don't we):

"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

Pentcho Valev
  #4  
Old October 13th 17, 01:03 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default Is NSF Covering Up LIGO Fraud?

The most disgusting part of LIGO conspiracy are the rehearsals. Conspirators spread rumors and fake news, study the reactions and fix possible Achilles' heels. Only a brainwashed scientific community can be fooled in this way:

LIGO conspirators: "The LIGO Scientific Collaboration and the Virgo Collaboration completed an end-to-end system test of their detection capabilities at their recent joint collaboration meeting in Arcadia, CA. Analysis of data from LIGO and Virgo's most recent observation run revealed evidence of the elusive signal from a neutron star spiraling into a black hole. The collaboration knew that the "detection" could be a "blind injection" - a fake signal added to the data without telling the analysts, to test the detector and analysis. Nonetheless, the collaboration proceeded under the assumption that the signal was real, and wrote and approved a scientific paper reporting the ground-breaking discovery. A few moments later, according to plan, it was revealed that the signal was indeed a blind injection. 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 and Virgo scientists are looking forward to observations with the advanced detectors which are expected to contain many real signals from the distant reaches of the universe." http://www.ligo.org/news/blind-injection.php

In a world different from our post-truth world it would be obvious that there was no "compelling demonstration of the collaboration's readiness to detect gravitational waves". Rather, there was a compelling demonstration of the collaboration's readiness to accept the fake as the real thing.

The dress rehearsal occurred in 2010. "A select 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
 




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 Fraud: Model-Independent Detection of Gravitational Waves Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 October 9th 17 09:09 AM
LIGO Fraud Inspires Old Einsteinians Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 July 22nd 17 07:47 PM
LIGO's Blind Injection Fraud Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 February 21st 17 01:41 PM
Theoretical Fraud in LIGO Gravitational Waves Business Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 1 February 15th 17 11:22 PM
Why LIGO's Discovery of Gravitational Waves Is a Fraud Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 1 October 27th 16 11:35 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:46 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.