Theoreticians Are Greater Fraudsters Than Experimentalists

"Too many researchers make up or massage their data, says Timothy D. Clark. Late last month, a US physicist began a jail sentence for scientific fraud.. Darin Kinion took funds for research on quantum computing but did not carry out the work he claimed; instead, he invented the data that the research supposedly produced. Scientists like to think that such blatant dishonesty is rare, but I myself have witnessed several serious cases of scientific misconduct, from major data manipulation to outright fabrication. Most have gone unpunished — in fact, it has been disheartening to see the culprits lauded. It makes little sense for fraudsters to fabricate mediocre data. Their falsehoods generate outstanding stories, which result in high-profile publications and a disproportionately large chunk of the funding pie." http://www.nature.com/news/science-l...iments-1.21432

My comment in Natu

Theoreticians are the most ingenious fraudsters - without massaging data, they can convince the world that an experiment has proved the opposite of what it has actually proved. So in 1887 (prior to FitzGerald and Lorentz advancing the ad hoc length contraction hypothesis) the Michelson-Morley experiment unequivocally confirmed the variable speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory of light and refuted the constant (independent of the speed of the light source) speed of light predicted by the ether theory and later adopted by Einstein as his special relativity's second postulate ("the light postulate"). By introducing idiotic fudge factors (length contraction, time dilation) Lorentz, FitzGerald and Einstein made the experiment confirm the constant speed of light and refute the variable!

Nowadays ninety-nine percent of the Einsteinians teach the lie (that the Michelson-Morley experiment has gloriously proved the constancy of the speed of light) and the few sources that tell the truth have no influence on the brainwashed world:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory
"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)."

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that contradicts the light postulate."

http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92: "There are various remarks to be made about this second principle. For instance, if it is so obvious, how could it turn out to be part of a revolution - especially when the first principle is also a natural one? 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."

The same story goes with the Pound-Rebka experiment. It has proved the variation of the speed of light in a gravitational field predicted by Newton's emission theory of light, but the brainwashed world should believe that the experiment has proved gravitational time dilation, a miraculous effect fabricated by Einstein in 1911. Brainwashing is so advanced that sometimes Einsteinians can safely amuse themselves by telling the truth (knowing that no dangerous question will come from the thoughtless audience):

http://www.einstein-online.info/spot...t_white_dwarfs
Albert Einstein Institute: "One of the three classical tests for general relativity is the gravitational redshift of light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation. However, in contrast to the other two tests - the gravitational deflection of light and the relativistic perihelion shift -, you do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices. (...) The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 1960-65 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..."

Pentcho Valev

My second comment in Natu

Sometimes theoreticians and experimentalists combine efforts in producing extremely profitable fraud. Recently LIGO conspirators fabricated a detailed and totally new prediction of black hole collisions and resulting gravitational waves (Einstein regarded both black holes and gravitational waves as nonexistent) and then faked the gravitational wave signal accordingly. They did not fake neutron star gravitational waves, despite the fact that neutron star mergers are far more likely than black hole mergers:

"What surprised the LIGO collaboration instead was the nature of what they'd detected. Of the various gravitational-wave-producers that LIGO might observe - the kind that disturb space-time to such an extent that LIGO could register the aftershock - the collision of binary black holes was perhaps the least likely. Supernovae, neutron stars, colliding neutron stars: These were what the LIGO collaboration foresaw as far more common candidates." http://www.lastwordonnothing.com/201...m-wow-to-yawn/

"Advanced LIGO is likely to observe mergers of double neutron star (NS/NS) binaries at a rate of a few to a few hundred per year; and black-hole/neutron-star (BH/NS) binaries perhaps in a comparable range of rates." Benjamin J. Owen Pennsylvania State University, Endorsed by: David H. Reitze (University of Florida), Stanley E. Whitcomb (LIGO-Caltech) http://www8.nationalacademies.org/ss...ay.aspx?id=146

"Just over a year ago, LIGO detected its first gravitational-wave signal: GW150914, produced when two black holes merged. While we didn't expect to see any sort of light-based signal from this merger, we could expect to see transient electromagnetic signatures in the case of a neutron star-black hole merger or a neutron star-neutron star merger - in the form of a kilonova or a short gamma-ray burst. While we haven't yet detected any mergers involving neutron stars, LIGO has the sensitivity to make these detections..." http://aasnova.org/2016/10/26/narrow...ve-detections/

Neutron stars are "far more common candidates" and yet LIGO conspirators haven't reported even weak and inconclusive signals - which could be compared with Integral's data and become valid evidence in the end. In other words, faking black hole waves is safe and profitable while faking neutron star waves is dangerous – Integral may expose the fraud:

"Models predict that the merging of two stellar-mass black holes would not produce light at any wavelength, but if one or two neutron stars were involved in the process, then a characteristic signature should be observable across the electromagnetic spectrum. Another possible source of gravitational waves would be an asymmetric supernova explosion, also known to emit light over a range of wavelengths. [...] Integral is sensitive to transient sources of high-energy emission over the whole sky, and thus a team of scientists searched through its data, seeking signs of a sudden burst of hard X-rays or gamma rays that might have been recorded at the same time as the gravitational waves were detected. "We searched through all the available Integral data, but did not find any indication of high-energy emission associated with the LIGO detection,"..." http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Sp..._bl ack_holes

Conclusion: Gravitational waves don't exist. LIGO's 2015 "discovery" was a fake – the dress rehearsal took place in 2010:

"Finally, how do you know you are doing something correctly if you have never done it before? That was a concerning question during Initial LIGO since we had never detected a gravitational wave before. How do we know our data analyses are not missing them? And, when we do detect one, how do we know that the science we have extracted from the signal is reliable? The answer is to do 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/po...-not-a-failure

Note that in 2010 "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"!

Pentcho Valev