LIGO's Oct. 16 Announcement

"At a news conference at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology yesterday, co-prizewinner Rainer Weiss said the collaboration will make another exciting announcement on Oct. 16, but he wouldn't say what it was. [...] "I can't tell you any more than I did," he said. "I'll tell you why: It's not fair to the people that prepared it all. I was giving you a teaser, like a circus, a guy who stands in front of the circus show." [...] Scientists anticipate that LIGO will detect gravitational waves from pairs of neutron stars...." https://www.seeker.com/space/astroph...cted-on-oct-16

How can LIGO conspirators "detect" nonexistent neutron star gravitational waves and the "discovery" be confirmed by astronomers? GOTO conspirators should not be forgotten:

"The Gravitational-wave Optical Transient Observer (GOTO) was inaugurated at Warwick's astronomical observing facility in the Roque de los Muchachos Observatory of the Instituto de AstrofÃ*sica de Canarias on La Palma, Canary Islands, on 3 July 2017. GOTO is an autonomous, intelligent telescope, which will search for unusual activity in the sky, following alerts from gravitational wave detectors - such as the Advanced Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (aLIGO), which recently secured the first direct detections of gravitational waves." http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/newsandeve...for_detecting/

"This is where the GOTO project comes in: it is set up to react swiftly to any indication of a possible gravity-wave event emanating from the LIGO and VIRGO facilities, point at the area of sky where the signal is believed to have originated, and look for any sudden changes." http://optics.org/news/8/7/7

Actually things go the other way around. LIGO will react swiftly to an indication of a possible neutron star event emanating from GOTO (or some other astronomical facility involved in the conspiracy) and will produce a fake. This fake, as in the case of black holes, is experimentally and theoretically irrefutable - the cosmic event is unique and the fake has no theoretical underpinning:

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/

Pentcho Valev

Gravitational waves (ripples in spacetime) don't exist because spacetime doesn't exist:

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

And spacetime doesn't exist because the underlying premise, Einstein's constant-speed-of-light postulate, is false:

"Special relativity is based on the observation that the speed of light is always the same, independently of who measures it, or how fast the source of the light is moving with respect to the observer. Einstein demonstrated that as an immediate consequence, space and time can no longer be independent, but should rather be considered a new joint entity called "spacetime." http://community.bowdoin.edu/news/20...rs-of-gravity/

Is the speed of light "always the same, independently of who measures it"? Of course not - even Einstein knew that this is nonsense:

John Stachel: "But this seems to be nonsense. How can it happen that the speed of light relative to an observer cannot be increased or decreased if that observer moves towards or away from a light beam? Einstein states that he wrestled with this problem over a lengthy period of time, to the point of despair." http://www.aip.org/history/exhibits/...relativity.htm

In the quotation below, the statement "four pulses are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses" means that the speed of light is VARIABLE - the speed of the pulses relative to the receiver (observer) is greater than their speed relative to the source, in violation of Einstein's relativity:

http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/doppler
Albert Einstein Institute: "The frequency of a wave-like signal - such as sound or light - depends on the movement of the sender and of the receiver. This is known as the Doppler effect. [...] Here is an animation of the receiver moving towards the source:

Stationary receiver: http://www.einstein-online.info/imag...ler_static.gif

Moving receiver: http://www.einstein-online.info/imag...ector_blue.gif

By observing the two indicator lights, you can see for yourself that, once more, there is a blue-shift - the pulse frequency measured at the receiver is somewhat higher than the frequency with which the pulses are sent out. This time, the distances between subsequent pulses are not affected, but still there is a frequency shift: As the receiver moves towards each pulse, the time until pulse and receiver meet up is shortened. In this particular animation, which has the receiver moving towards the source at one third the speed of the pulses themselves, four pulses are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses." [END OF QUOTATION]

Pentcho Valev

No optical counterpart to LIGO's black hole gravitational waves, even though there ought to be some:

"With just the two LIGO detections, the uncertainty area measured some 1,160 square degrees on the sky," says Shoemaker. "By adding the Virgo data, this could be brought down to just 60 square degrees." Mind you, 60 square degrees still covers a lot of sky - the full Moon covers about a quarter of one square degree. But a reduction from 1160 down to 60 remains a huge improvement. Optical telescopes have not yet seen anything unusual in the target area, but ... maybe next time. (Can one see, as by incoming light, two colliding black holes - the result of which, besides gravitational waves, is one bigger black hole? Unclear. You can never see a black hole itself, of course, because not even light can escape one, but lots of matter might be orbiting around, spiraling into, either (or both) of the doomed smaller black holes - and what happens to that matter should be visually spectacular. If/when LIGO and its ilk detect/localize two neutron stars colliding? That event certainly should put on a great show - if we happen to deduce where to look.)" http://blog.edwardmlerner.com/2017/1...lack-hole.html

Yes, fake gravitational wave signals corresponding to some optically observed event could save LIGO conspirators for a while, but here the conspiracy becomes difficult and dangerous - there are too many independent observers. LIGO conspirators will certainly screw up - they already did in the much simpler black hole case:

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