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

Insane Physics: Glorious Ripples in Nonexistent Spacetime



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 15th 17, 06:58 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,541
Default Insane Physics: Glorious Ripples in Nonexistent Spacetime

"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

Only LIGO's ripples in space-time will be there, like the Cheshire cat smile? The idiocies of physics are immeasurably greater than, say, the flat-earth idiocies.

Nowadays almost all theoreticians find Einstein's spacetime unacceptable but continue to worship both the underlying premise, Einstein's false constant-speed-of-light postulate, and the ripples in spacetime "discovered" by LIGO conspirators:

Nima Arkani-Hamed (06:09): "Almost all of us believe that space-time doesn't really exist, space-time is doomed and has to be replaced by some more primitive building blocks." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U47kyV4TMnE

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

"Splitting Time from Space - New Quantum Theory Topples Einstein's Spacetime. Buzz about a quantum gravity theory that sends space and time back to their Newtonian roots." https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...me-from-space/

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/

Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light, p. 250: "Lee [Smolin] and I discussed these paradoxes at great length for many months, starting in January 2001. We would meet in cafés in South Kensington or Holland Park to mull over the problem. THE ROOT OF ALL THE EVIL WAS CLEARLY SPECIAL RELATIVITY. All these paradoxes resulted from well known effects such as length contraction, time dilation, or E=mc^2, all basic predictions of special relativity. And all denied the possibility of establishing a well-defined border, common to all observers, capable of containing new quantum gravitational effects." http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Sp.../dp/0738205257

"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

"[George] Ellis is up against one of the most successful theories in physics: special relativity. It revealed that there's no such thing as objective simultaneity. [...] Rescuing an objective "now" is a daunting task." https://www.newscientist.com/article...wards-in-time/

Brian Greene: "Special relativity in some sense is surely wrong." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uVZEg9gxM8

"...says John Norton, a philosopher based at the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Norton is hesitant to express it, but his instinct - and the consensus in physics - seems to be that space and time exist on their own. The trouble with this idea, though, is that it doesn't sit well with relativity, which describes space-time as a malleable fabric whose geometry can be changed by the gravity of stars, planets and matter." https://www.newscientist.com/article...-universe-tick

Perimeter Institute: "Quantum mechanics has one thing, time, which is absolute. But general relativity tells us that space and time are both dynamical so there is a big contradiction there. So the question is, can quantum gravity be formulated in a context where quantum mechanics still has absolute time?" https://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/re...essons-quantum

Pentcho Valev
Ads
  #2  
Old October 15th 17, 10:56 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,541
Default Insane Physics: Glorious Ripples in Nonexistent Spacetime

In the post-truth world repeating inconvenient facts is pointless and even counterproductive - the standard who-cares reaction gets combined with an increasing anger. Still let me try once again to call the attention to two facts which in a different world would be fatal for LIGO conspirators.

1. LIGO's detections are MODEL-INDEPENDENT, that is, LIGO conspirators don't use theoretically calculated waveforms in detecting 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

Rana Adhikari, professor of Physics at Caltech and a member of the LIGO team: "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/

This proves unequivocally that LIGO conspirators are FAKING, not detecting, gravitational wave signals - otherwise we will have to accept that they are able to to find a needle in a haystack without even knowing the colour of the needle:

"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/

2. There is absurd noise correlation in LIGO's "detections", swept under the carpet by LIGO conspirators. This means that LIGO conspirators either fake the signals and, due to clumsiness, correlate both signal and noise, or have no idea what they are detecting and how to deal with it:

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
  #3  
Old October 16th 17, 10:18 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,541
Default Insane Physics: Glorious Ripples in Nonexistent Spacetime

"Scientists observe gravitational waves from neutron star crash over 100 million years ago. Some 130 million years ago, in a nearby galaxy, two neutron stars collided. The cataclysmic crash produced gravitational waves, ripples in the fabric of spacetime that traveled across the universe. On August 17, along with hundreds of other collaborators around the globe, assistant professor of physics Marcelle Soares-Santos finally got to see them. The finding remained under wraps until today when it was officially announced by the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) and Virgo..." http://www.brandeis.edu/now/2017/oct...s-neutron.html

Spacetime doesn't exist, as most theoreticians now admit, so LIGO's detection of "ripples in spacetime" can only be believed in a post-truth ("post-sanity" is more precise) world. LIGO conspirators faked this signal - the problem is who informed them about the cosmic event. GOTO conspirators?

http://negrjp.fotoblog.uol.com.br/im...0819051851.jpg

Pentcho Valev
  #4  
Old October 16th 17, 05:34 PM posted to sci.astro
R.T.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default Insane Physics: Glorious Ripples in Nonexistent Spacetime

On Monday, 16 October 2017 10:18:16 UTC+1, Pentcho Valev wrote:
"Scientists observe gravitational waves from neutron star crash over 100 million years ago. Some 130 million years ago, in a nearby galaxy, two neutron stars collided. The cataclysmic crash produced gravitational waves, ripples in the fabric of spacetime that traveled across the universe. On August 17, along with hundreds of other collaborators around the globe, assistant professor of physics Marcelle Soares-Santos finally got to see them. The finding remained under wraps until today when it was officially announced by the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) and Virgo...." http://www.brandeis.edu/now/2017/oct...s-neutron.html

Spacetime doesn't exist, as most theoreticians now admit, so LIGO's detection of "ripples in spacetime" can only be believed in a post-truth ("post-sanity" is more precise) world. LIGO conspirators faked this signal - the problem is who informed them about the cosmic event. GOTO conspirators?

http://negrjp.fotoblog.uol.com.br/im...0819051851.jpg

Pentcho Valev


Hard to get all the relevant information on the latest imaginary gravitational wave detection.
But none so ridiculous as the apparent "detection" by the Virgo detector in Italy confirming
the LIGO detection. Which itself only was seen in one of the two US. detectors.
(Although apparently later a signal was 'found' in the other LIGO detector).Supposedly Virgo
"Detected" the signal, but then it turns out it didn't actually detect it. But rather it didn't detect it!
But because it has a so called 'blind spot' they assumed that there must have been a signal
coming from that specific direction, seeing as the didn't actually detect anything!!
Hence we have the absurd situation where a non detection of a signal has confirmed
the existence of a signal coming from guess where? The Virgo detectors blind spot.


 




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
Wrinkles in spacetime gloriously discovered but spacetime itself doesnot exist Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 1 January 5th 17 11:45 PM
Ripples in spacetime do exist but spacetime itself doesn't Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 0 June 25th 16 12:27 PM
the LIGO laser interferometer detected spacetime ripples Notroll2016 Misc 0 June 24th 16 09:53 PM
Discrete spacetime vs. continuous spacetime in Relativity Yousuf Khan[_2_] Astronomy Misc 15 June 23rd 14 07:54 PM
PHYSICS: A GLORIOUS NON-ENTITY? Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 5 November 22nd 07 10:38 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:41 AM.


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.