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

Fraud in Physics and the Nobel Prize



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #1  
Old October 12th 20, 10:40 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default Fraud in Physics and the Nobel Prize

In 2017 the Nobel Committee knew about the fatal noise correlation in LIGO's data. These publications appeared a few months before the Nobel Prize date:

https://forbes.com/sites/startswitha...os-detections/

http://nbi.ku.dk/gravitational-waves...nal-waves.html

http://nbi.ku.dk/gravitational-waves...-comment2.html

Still, although there was no solution to the problem (LIGO fakers were hiding and refused to give explanations), the Nobel Committee promptly gave the money to LIGO godfathers.

LIGO's gravitational waves are hopefully the final episode in the century-long series of swindles committed by the Einstein cult (most Einsteinians are silently leaving Einstein's sinking ship nowadays).

"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

"Just two seconds later" and "the same location of the sky" implies that gravitational waves and optical signals traveled hand in hand: same gravitationally deflected path, same speed, same Shapiro delay, equally absorbed (stopped) by cosmic matter. Obvious fraud, isn't it?

The speed of light is VARIABLE AS PER NEWTON, which implies that Einstein's spacetime does not exist and neither do LIGO's gravitational waves (ripples in spacetime). LIGO fakers still feel safe, protected by the all-powerful ideology imposed by the Einstein cult, but in the long run they are doomed..

Obviously variable (Newtonian) speed of light in Doppler:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg7O4rtlwEE

The speed of the light pulses as measured by the stationary observer is

c = df

where d is the distance between the pulses and f is the frequency measured by the stationary observer. The speed of the pulses as measured by the moving observer is

c'= df' c

where f' f is the frequency measured by the moving observer.

Banesh Hoffmann, Einstein's collaborator, admits that, originally ("without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations"), the Michelson-Morley experiment directly proved Newton's variable speed of light and disproved the constant speed of light:

"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

If judged by their speed alone, photons are Newtonian particles. The speed of light VARIES, both in the presence and in the absence of gravity, just as does the speed of ordinary projectiles (e.g. bullets). Actually, this is a proven truth but no one cares (post-truth science):

"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

See more he https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

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
Nobel Prize in Physics should have gone to Plutonium 238 and NOT afrigging blue LED RichA[_1_] Amateur Astronomy 21 October 18th 14 04:06 PM
The science behind Nobel Prize in Physics explained simply Sam Wormley[_2_] Amateur Astronomy 0 October 8th 11 05:30 AM
Nobel prize or academic fraud? [email protected] Astronomy Misc 4 June 7th 08 11:51 PM
Mather and Smoot win Nobel Physics Prize for COBE work Rick Evans Amateur Astronomy 0 October 3rd 06 12:09 PM
The 2004 Nobel Prize in Physics (Forwarded) Andrew Yee Astronomy Misc 0 October 5th 04 04:08 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:12 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.