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 Nonexistent Gravitational Waves



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 28th 19, 01:00 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,879
Default LIGO's Nonexistent Gravitational Waves

"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 (only two seconds apart).

Arriving from "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 conspirators 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 conspirators will have to explain why gravitational waves undergo exactly the same gravitational deflection as light signals. Hopeless business - the conclusion that LIGO conspirators fake gravitational waves will be unavoidable.

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

The simultaneous arrival of optical signals and gravitational waves in the GW170817 scenario 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:

Obvious fraud: "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 conspirators announced a second "discovery" of neutron-star-collision gravitational waves. The "same location" insoluble dilemma has been bypassed 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 June 29th 19, 10:36 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,879
Default LIGO's Nonexistent Gravitational Waves

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 situation in 1887), the Michelson-Morley experiment is compatible with Newton's variable speed of light, c'=c±v, and incompatible with 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 LIGO's gravitational waves (ripples in spacetime). LIGO conspirators fake them.

Pentcho Valev
  #3  
Old June 29th 19, 05:36 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,879
Default LIGO's Nonexistent Gravitational Waves

LIGO godfathers don't detect anything - they FAKE gravitational waves. There are grotesque rehearsals - godfathers secretly inject false signals, inform the gullible world about a great discovery, study scientists' reactions, finally fix 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 mainstream, only Natalia Kiriushcheva tried to expose the fraud but LIGO godfathers immediately turned her into an unperson (since then mainstream criticism has been toothless):

"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
Nonexistent Gravitational Waves and LIGO Godfathers Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 3 April 26th 19 12:54 AM
Nonexistent Gravitational Waves and LIGO Godfathers Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 1 December 5th 18 06:26 PM
Albert Einstein Institute and Nonexistent Gravitational Waves Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 1 January 25th 17 11:41 AM
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 11:15 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.