Einsteinians: the Best Moneygrubbers in the History of Science

Gravitational waves don't exist - LIGO godfathers FAKE them. In the black-hole-collision scenario the fraud is difficult, even impossible to expose, for obvious reasons. However in the neutron-star-collision scenario the fraud is obvious:

"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

"The same location" is absurd. Gamma rays undergo gravitational deflection - "the same location" implies that gravitational waves are deflected in exactly the same way, which is nonsense. LIGO godfathers were quite careless here.

The simultaneous arrival is another carelessness. Even if gravitational waves existed (they don't), the simultaneous arrival of optical signals and gravitational waves would be impossible, 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 of course.

Conclusion: LIGO godfathers FAKED the gravitational waves in the GW170817 (neutron-star-collision) scenario.

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

(Website: http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/doppler.html)

The speed of the 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 case in 1887), the Michelson-Morley experiment proves Newton's variable speed of light (c'=c±v) and disproves 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

Since the speed of light is variable, Einstein's spacetime doesn't exist, and neither do gravitational waves (ripples in spacetime). Soon LIGO godfathers, together with all other moneygrubbers in Einstein cult, will have to answer "the embarrassing question":

"This paper investigates an alternative possibility: that the critics were right and that the success of Einstein's theory in overcoming them was due to its strengths as an ideology rather than as a science. The clock paradox illustrates how relativity theory does indeed contain inconsistencies that make it scientifically problematic. These same inconsistencies, however, make the theory ideologically powerful. [...] The gatekeepers of professional physics in the universities and research institutes are disinclined to support or employ anyone who raises problems over the elementary inconsistencies of relativity. A winnowing out process has made it very difficult for critics of Einstein to achieve or maintain professional status. Relativists are then able to use the argument of authority to discredit these critics. Were relativists to admit that Einstein may have made a series of elementary logical errors, they would be faced with the embarrassing question of why this had not been noticed earlier. Under these circumstances the marginalisation of antirelativists, unjustified on scientific grounds, is eminently justifiable on grounds of realpolitik. Supporters of relativity theory have protected both the theory and their own reputations by shutting their opponents out of professional discourse. [...] The triumph of relativity theory represents the triumph of ideology not only in the profession of physics bur also in the philosophy of science." Peter Hayes, The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock Paradox https://www.researchgate.net/publica..._Clock_Paradox

Pentcho Valev