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: Self-Evident Fake



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 4th 20, 12:19 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,535
Default LIGO's Gravitational Waves: Self-Evident Fake

"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

A self-evident fake. "Same location" implies that gravitational waves don't move in a straight line to Earth but follow the path of (deflected) gamma rays:

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qim...c53af5ba9.webp

The speed of light is VARIABLE AS PER NEWTON, which implies that space-time doesn't exist and neither do gravitational waves (ripples in space-time). LIGO conspirators look invincible, silence all their critics one way or another, but in the long run they are doomed:

"I want to emphasize that light comes in this form - particles. It is very important to know that light behaves like particles, especially for those of you who have gone to school, where you probably learned something about light behaving like waves. I'm telling you the way it does behave - like particles. You might say that it's just the photomultiplier that detects light as particles, but no, every instrument that has been designed to be sensitive enough to detect weak light has always ended up discovering the same thing: light is made of particles." Richard Feynman, QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter p. 15 https://www.amazon.com/QED-Strange-T.../dp/0691024170

"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." Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92 https://www.amazon.com/Relativity-It.../dp/0486406768

"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

"To see why a deflection of light would be expected, consider Figure 2-17, which shows a beam of light entering an accelerating compartment. Successive positions of the compartment are shown at equal time intervals. Because the compartment is accelerating, the distance it moves in each time interval increases with time. The path of the beam of light, as observed from inside the compartment, is therefore a parabola. But according to the equivalence principle, there is no way to distinguish between an accelerating compartment and one with uniform velocity in a uniform gravitational field. We conclude, therefore, that A BEAM OF LIGHT WILL ACCELERATE IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD AS DO OBJECTS WITH REST MASS. For example, near the surface of Earth light will fall with acceleration 9.8 m/s^2." http://web.pdx.edu/~pmoeck/books/Tipler_Llewellyn.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. Consider a light beam that is travelling away from a gravitational field. Its frequency should shift to lower values. This is known as the gravitational red shift of light." https://courses.physics.illinois.edu...re13/L13r.html

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://www.einstein-online.info/spot...te_dwarfs.html

R. V. Pound and J. L. Snider, Effect of Gravity on Gamma Radiation: "It is not our purpose here to enter into the many-sided discussion of the relationship between the effect under study and general relativity or energy conservation. It is to be noted that no strictly relativistic concepts are involved and the description of the effect as an "apparent weight" of photons is suggestive. The velocity difference predicted is identical to that which a material object would acquire in free fall for a time equal to the time of flight." http://virgo.lal.in2p3.fr/NPAC/relat...iers/pound.pdf

In the Einstein-free version of fundamental physics, Einstein's 1905 nonsensical axiom

"The speed of light is constant"

will be replaced with the correct axiom

"For a given emitter, the wavelength of light is constant".

I have developed the idea in a series of tweets he https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev
Ads
  #2  
Old January 4th 20, 04:33 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,535
Default LIGO's Gravitational Waves: Self-Evident Fake

New Scientist: "Must we topple Einstein to let physics leap forward again?" https://newscientist.com/article/mg2...forward-again/

New Scientist: "Saving time: Physics killed it. Do we need it back? [...] Einstein landed the fatal blow at the turn of the 20th century." https://www.newscientist.com/article...-need-it-back/

New Scientist: "Is it time to free physics from Einstein's legacy?" https://www.newscientist.com/article...steins-legacy/

Technically, "to free physics from Einstein's legacy" is easy - you denounce Einstein's constant-speed-of-light nonsense and relativity, entirely predicated on the nonsense, automatically collapses. The problem is that the idiotic metastases (e.g. time travel, gravitational time dilation) are now inherent in the culture of our civilization - removing them may produce an incurable psychological trauma and greatly accelerate the decline of the civilization. So, paradoxically, obeying the slogan "Divine Einstein Forever" may turn out to be the least harmful strategy:

http://www.everythingimportant.org/E...neEinstein.jpg

"Divine Einstein! No-one's as divine as Albert Einstein not Maxwell, Curie, or Bohr! His fame went glo-bell, he won the Nobel - He should have been given four! No-one's as divine as Albert Einstein, Professor with brains galore! No-one could outshine Professor Einstein! He gave us special relativity, That's always made him a hero to me! No-one's as divine as Albert Einstein, Professor in overdrive!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lE-I2I4i00

Pentcho Valev
  #3  
Old January 5th 20, 04:12 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,535
Default LIGO's Gravitational Waves: Self-Evident Fake

LIGO conspirators don't detect anything - they FAKE gravitational waves. There were grotesque rehearsals - conspirators secretly injected false signals, informed the gullible world about a great discovery, studied scientists' reactions, finally fixed noticed Achilles heels. The dress rehearsal occurred in 2010. A few godfathers ("expert administrators") injected a false signal, deceived everybody and misled astronomers into wasting time and money on the fake. Remarkably, "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

In the physics establishment, only Natalia Kiriushcheva tried to expose the fraud in an unambiguous way but LIGO godfathers immediately turned her into an unperson:

"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"." https://www.thenational.ae/arts-cult...llide-1.188114

"Withers, however, was already an unperson. He did not exist : he had never existed." http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwe...hapter1.4.html

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 Are Obviously Fake Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 0 November 12th 19 12:40 AM
LIGO Godfathers Fake (Don't Detect) Gravitational Waves Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 3 April 27th 19 06:53 AM
LIGO Don't Detect Anything ; They Fake Gravitational Waves Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 February 24th 19 07:52 AM
Why LIGO Conspirators Don't Fake Neutron Star Gravitational Waves Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 June 2nd 17 11:57 PM
Why LIGO Cannot Fake Neutron Star Gravitational Waves Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 June 15th 16 07:54 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:00 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2020 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.