Blatant Lie: Gravitational Waves Travel at the Speed of Light

Einstein's relativity provides no justification for assuming that gravitational waves travel at the speed of light:

Arthur Eddington: "The statement that in the relativity theory gravitational waves are propagated with the speed of light has, I believe, been based entirely upon the foregoing investigation; but it will be seen that it is only true in a very conventional sense. If coordinates are chosen so as to satisfy a certain condition which has no very clear geometrical importance, the speed is that of light; if the coordinates are slightly different the speed is altogether different from that of light. The result stands or falls by the choice of coordinates and, so far as can be judged, the coordinates here used were purposely introduced in order to obtain the simplification which results from representing the propagation as occurring with the speed of light. The argument thus follows a vicious circle." The Mathematical Theory of Relativity, pp. 130-131 https://www.amazon.com/Mathematical-.../dp/0521091659

So what is the probability that the gravitational waves (if they exist) travel exactly at the speed of light? Answer: Zero.

What is the probability that the gravitational waves (if they exist) travel at a speed different from the speed of light? Answer: Unity.

That is, if LIGO conspirators had said that the speed of the gravitational waves was different from the speed of light, that would have sounded realistic. Their claim that the gravitational waves travel exactly at the speed of light unequivocally proves that they just faked the signals. What they have "discovered" was either "blind injection" or suitable extract from the abundant noise:

"Einstein believed in neither gravitational waves nor black holes. [...] Dr Natalia Kiriushcheva, a theoretical and computational physicist at the University of Western Ontario (UWO), Canada, says that while it was Einstein who initiated the gravitational waves theory in a paper in June 1916, it was an addendum to his theory of general relativity and by 1936, he had concluded that such things did not exist. Furthermore - as a paper published by Einstein in the Annals of Mathematics in October, 1939 made clear, he also rejected the possibility of black holes. [...] 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". At the time, the vast majority of the hundreds of scientists working on the equipment had no idea that they were being fed a dummy signal. The truth was not revealed until March the following year, by which time several papers about the supposed sensational discovery of gravitational waves were poised for publication. "While the scientists were disappointed that the discovery was not real, the success of the analysis was a compelling demonstration of the collaboration's readiness to detect gravitational waves," Ligo reported at the time. 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

"Most likely a rat farted in the Livingston tunnel. After that it's easy to find a match in the data from Hanford, VIRGO and fermi considering there are up to a billion matchable events per day for LIGO and probably at least one per second in fermi." https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci....Y/EIOH-8XHAwAJ

"You try to change the subject to avoid admitting that a snr14 trigger in Livingston can be matched to a 6 snr trigger in Hanford purely by random coincidence. Considering that at Hanford * every 10 ms* there is at least one 6snr event triggered. And at VIRGO something like a thousand at 4snr every 10 ms. This latest GW was a random coincidence as much as any real wave detected. And you can't prove otherwise. Any other wavelength observations could have been made in any other part of the sky and revealed imaginary followup data that could be attributed to a random coincidence generated by LIGO.." https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci....Y/V1dTayhOBAAJ

"Nonetheless that event then fails by the same criticism as a false detection. As with all other (imaginary) events which show all GW detections are random coincidence. That cannot be ruled out. In fact it's the only option, unless you are a fantasist. Anyways as I've pointed out to Tom, the 170817 event has serious problems. It isn't detected in VIRGO. As it should be seeing the relative SNR strength in LIGO, the fermi detection was made up, and most importantly... no information regarding delay between the two at LIGO is supplied, or from what I see in the data, observed. In other words your imaginary GW was environmental. Cooked up with data fiddling to look real by a desperate LIGO team." https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci....Y/XCXlsAlDBQAJ

"I also emailed LIGO numerous times with various attempts and *finally* got a long email back from one of the main contributors to the analysing software. They said."..100s of billion detections in each detector at or above 4snr over three months" Email them yourself. You may get a faster response than me but it will be the same. This means, using the well accepted "order of" that your peers accept, that at SNR 6 one gets about 1 million detections in a day or about one per maximum time window permitted by relativistic theory. That's probably why you never get a GW detected that has one detector at more than 6-7. Because it's always possible to match a stronger detection in one detector to at least one snr 6 in the other. By random coincidence between the two detectors in the data. Which means that one cannot rule out random coincidence for all GW 'detections'. Except of course as Gary correctly pointed out GW17817. But this one has problems that make it untenable as a GW detection. For starters...how far apart are the triggers in ms? It's not mentioned in the paper!? Amazing isn't it? And do you want to know why this pivotal piece of information isn't mentioned? Because it's not available in the data. I would say this only proves that it must be environmental. Seeing as it's also unusually long and not detected in VIRGO. At such a SNR strength in LIGO it should have been detected by VIRGO. The lame excuse was... it's in VIRGOs blind spot. And it was such a low 'detection' in Fermi that occurs anyways every few seconds. So low and so frequent that the theorists at LIGO had to trawl through Fermi data around the same time frame and try to pretend a low snr weak blip at that point was an event and not random noise. . And then pretend it's official by announcing it eight hours later as a "trigger"." https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci....Y/E9_w3B1CBQAJ

Pentcho Valev