How Einsteinians Modify Einstein's Relativity

"The idea is based on modified theories of General Relativity, Einstein's theory of gravity." https://phys.org/news/2017-05-stars-...ack-holes.html

The "modified theories" are deduced from postulates or Einsteinians just juggle with free parameters (fudge factors) - a "fine-tuning" allowing them to predict anything they want? If the latter is the case, the "theories", like the prototype, Einstein's general relativity, are empirical concoctions that are not even wrong.

"Verlinde's calculations fit the new study's observations without resorting to free parameters – essentially values that can be tweaked at will to make theory and observation match. By contrast, says Brouwer, conventional dark matter models need four free parameters to be adjusted to explain the data." https://www.newscientist.com/article...f-dark-matter/

"A fudge factor is an ad hoc quantity introduced into a calculation, formula or model in order to make it fit observations or expectations. Examples include Einstein's Cosmological Constant..."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fudge_factor

"In 1916 Einstein found what he considered a glitch in his new theory of general relativity. His equations showed that the contents of the universe should be moving - either expanding or contracting. But at the time, the universe seemed the very definition of stasis. All the data, facts, and phenomena known in the early 1900s said that the Milky Way was the cosmos itself and that its stars moved slowly, if at all. Einstein had presented the definitive version of the general theory of relativity to the Prussian Academy of Sciences the previous year, and he was not inclined to retract it. So he invented a fudge factor, called lambda, that could function mathematically to hold the universe at a standstill. [...] Lambda, also known as the cosmological constant, has come in handy of late."
http://discovermagazine.com/2004/sep...ters-mistakes/

Ken Croswell, Magnificent Universe, p. 179: "Ever since, the cosmological constant has lived in infamy, a fudge factor concocted merely to make theory agree with observation." http://www.amazon.com/Magnificent-Un.../dp/0684845946

Pentcho Valev

"Cornell professors Saul Teukolsky, astrophysics, and Larry Kidder, astronomy, played an instrumental role in the first detection of gravitational waves, a century after Albert Einstein predicted their existence in his theory of general relativity. [...] The LIGO and Virgo group confirmed that these gravitational waves had come from the collision of black holes by comparing their data with a theoretical model developed at Cornell. Teukolsky and the Cornell-founded Simulation of eXtreme Spacetimes collaboration group have been developing this model since 2000, according to the University." http://cornellsun.com/2016/02/10/cor...of-relativity/

The model was deduced from postulates or it was just a theoretical fake, the counterpart of the subsequent experimental fake? Here is the answer:

"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". [...] 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"." http://www.thenational.ae/arts-life/...s-collide#full

Pentcho Valev

LIGO's 2010 dress rehearsal - "a select few expert administrators" deceived everybody, misled astronomers into wasting time and money on the fake, and "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 2010 LIGO conspirators still did not have "that sophisticated a criminal mind" and "screwed it up a little" but then they improved and in 2015 everything was just fine:

Janna Levin: "It would be very hard to fake a signal without being caught. And I don't think anyone in the collaboration has that sophisticated a criminal mind. In fact, when they did a [deliberate] blind injection during the test run [of the earlier version of LIGO], they screwed it up a little. They got the orientation wrong." http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2016/04/bl...ational-waves/

Einsteinians become fraudsters at an early age:

"In January 2017 - just one year after the dawn of gravitational-wave astronomy - the Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics (Albert Einstein Institute, AEI) has expanded through the addition of a young research team. Led by Dr. Frank Ohme, the Max Planck Independent Research Group "Binary Merger Observations and Numerical Relativity" will study collisions of black holes and neutron stars through sophisticated computer simulations, exploring some the fundamental questions in the new field of gravitational-wave astronomy over the next five years. "When the LIGO instruments detected gravitational waves for the first time on September 14, 2015, we quickly knew that black holes were the source of the signal," says Dr. Frank Ohme, leader of the Max Planck Independent Research Group. "This was only possible because we knew the shape of such signals from theoretical predictions - solutions of Einstein's equations." These equations determine how black holes warp the spacetime around them and thus emit gravitational waves that can be observed with detectors such as LIGO, Virgo, and GEO600."
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Ex...ars_ 999.html

Young Frank Ohme is lying blatantly of course. The theory of black holes is so confused and uncertain that Einstein did not believe they existed, and neither do some contemporary scientists. Also, Einstein's spacetime is so absurd that nowadays most theoreticians reject it, explicitly or implicitly. And yet little Einsteinians in the Albert Einstein Institute managed to model black holes, their collision, the ripples in spacetime the collision produced, and the measurements gloriously matched their calculations?!? The world is gullible but not infinitely gullible:

https://phys.org/news/2014-09-black-holes.html
"Researcher shows that black holes do not exist. Black holes have long captured the public imagination and been the subject of popular culture, from Star Trek to Hollywood. They are the ultimate unknown – the blackest and most dense objects in the universe that do not even let light escape. And as if they weren't bizarre enough to begin with, now add this to the mix: they don't exist. By merging two seemingly conflicting theories, Laura Mersini-Houghton, a physics professor at UNC-Chapel Hill in the College of Arts and Sciences, has proven, mathematically, that black holes can never come into being in the first place."

http://www.nature.com/news/stephen-h...-holes-1.14583
Stephen Hawking: 'There are no black holes'

https://www.gitbook.com/book/jwanczy...mple-2/details
"George Chapline of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, a former teaching assistant of the Nobel Prize winning physicist Richard Feynman asserts, "The picture of gravitational collapse provided by classical general relativity cannot be physically correct because it conflicts with ordinary quantum mechanics." Simply put, Chapline believes that not only do black not exist, but that they cannot exist. [...] Chapline's biggest complaint appears to be that time is relative in the theory of relativity, and the black hole is the most glaring example of this notion. He asserts that quantum physics is only meaningful if time is universal."

https://www.edge.org/response-detail/26563
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.youtube.com/watch?v=U47kyV4TMnE
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://edge.org/response-detail/25477
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..."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...spacetime.html
"Rethinking Einstein: The end of space-time [...] The stumbling block lies with their conflicting views of space and time. As seen by quantum theory, space and time are a static backdrop against which particles move. In Einstein's theories, by contrast, not only are space and time inextricably linked, but the resulting space-time is moulded by the bodies within it. [...] Something has to give in this tussle between general relativity and quantum mechanics, and the smart money says that it's relativity that will be the loser."

Pentcho Valev