Discussion:
LIGO Fraud: Model-Independent Detection of Gravitational Waves
(too old to reply)
Pentcho Valev
2017-10-08 08:37:55 UTC
Permalink
Compare the following two texts:

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_prizes/physics/laureates/2017/advanced-physicsprize2017.pdf

"The team was largely responsible for conducting simulations of black hole collisions on high-performance supercomputers, which were required because of the complexity of the equations and necessity for absolute precision. They computed gravitational waveform, the shape of the signals for which LIGO searches. The U of T researchers banked thousands of collisions to create "pattern templates," giving scientists a better idea of what to look for and how to interpret their findings. "If you know the shape of the signal you're looking for, it's like knowing the colour of a needle in a haystack. It's easier to find," Pfeiffer explained in an interview with U of T News last year. The pattern templates also make the research more efficient by telling scientists right away whether they have observed a significant event." http://news.artsci.utoronto.ca/all-news/u-t-scientists-play-part-nobel-prize-winning-research-gravitational-waves/

So LIGO conspirators were looking for a needle in a haystack without even knowing the color of the needle. The fraud is obvious isn't it? LIGO's gravitational waves can only be fake.

LIGO conspirators don't need models and numerical simulations to produce fake gravitational wave signals. According to Rana Adhikari, professor of Physics at Caltech and a member of the LIGO team, LIGO conspirators have no preliminary knowledge about the signals. Adhikari declares: "the only thing that we really know is what we measure":

Rana Adhikari: "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-technical-challenges-of-measuring-gravitational-waves-rana-adhikari-of-ligo/

Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
2017-10-08 13:51:00 UTC
Permalink
This post might be inappropriate. Click to display it.
Pentcho Valev
2017-10-08 16:47:11 UTC
Permalink
This post might be inappropriate. Click to display it.
Pentcho Valev
2017-10-09 08:01:33 UTC
Permalink
There have been honest reactions all along:

"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/the-review/why-albert-einstein-continues-to-make-waves-as-black-holes-collide#full

Natalia Kiriushcheva: "What is shown on this picture? The equation on this page is what will be left from Einstein's equations of General Relativity (GR) after linearization. i.e. after a certain assumption is imposed: the gravitational field is considered weak (is it a correct assumption for two black holes?). Moreover, this equation is similar to the wave equation of the Maxwell theory that (after some additional manipulations) describes propagation of electromagnetic waves in the absence of sources (absence of any source, including a system of two black holes!). Einstein pointed out in this paper that its result is not general, it is valid only under assumption that the gravitational field is weak and only linear coordinate transformations (a linearized version of the general coordinate transformations of GR) can be applied to these (linearized) equations. Einstein also did not predict in this paper "that two celestial bodies in orbit will generate invisible ripples in spacetime that experts call gravitational waves", as BI claims. He was talking about "the system" that radiates energy, without specifying what kind of system it is. Eintein returned to the question whether gravitational waves exist many times during his life. We have already wrote about that on our blog and also in our scientific papers, and will continue to do this with hope to attract attention of (at least) the general public to Einstein and to the 'discovery' that now is attached to his name." https://gravityattraction.wordpress.com/2016/02/18/hard-evidence-of-einsteins-involvement/

Natalia Kiriushcheva hasn't written anything about LIGO fraud since March 2016, despite her promise above. In the post-truth world people telling the truth become unpersons, and that's what happened to Kiriushcheva:

"Withers, however, was already an unperson. He did not exist : he had never existed." https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwell/george/o79n/chapter1.4.html

Pentcho Valev
JanPB
2017-10-10 03:49:29 UTC
Permalink
I'll compare them for you but first send me $100,000 (my standard fee for reviewing
idiocies, e.g. Hollywood movies).

--
Jan
Ielinski Edko
2017-10-10 08:25:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by JanPB
I'll compare them for you but first send me $100,000 (my standard fee
for reviewing idiocies, e.g. Hollywood movies).
Affordable, moon landing six episodes. BIC/SWIFT?
JanPB
2017-10-10 20:27:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ielinski Edko
Post by JanPB
I'll compare them for you but first send me $100,000 (my standard fee
for reviewing idiocies, e.g. Hollywood movies).
Affordable, moon landing six episodes. BIC/SWIFT?
I charge $300,000 for debunking the "Moon hoax" cretinism.

--
Jan
Nos Etrakis
2017-10-11 19:07:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by JanPB
Post by Ielinski Edko
Post by JanPB
I'll compare them for you but first send me $100,000 (my standard fee
for reviewing idiocies, e.g. Hollywood movies).
Affordable, moon landing six episodes. BIC/SWIFT?
I charge $300,000 for debunking the "Moon hoax" cretinism.
Why not for free, the landing, not the hoax. As demanded by the Scientific
Method. We don't know yet it was a landing.
JanPB
2017-10-11 22:19:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nos Etrakis
Post by JanPB
Post by Ielinski Edko
Post by JanPB
I'll compare them for you but first send me $100,000 (my standard fee
for reviewing idiocies, e.g. Hollywood movies).
Affordable, moon landing six episodes. BIC/SWIFT?
I charge $300,000 for debunking the "Moon hoax" cretinism.
Why not for free, the landing, not the hoax. As demanded by the Scientific
Method. We don't know yet it was a landing.
The stupidity never ends.

--
Jan
Nos Etrakis
2017-10-11 23:44:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by JanPB
Post by Nos Etrakis
Post by JanPB
Post by Ielinski Edko
Post by JanPB
I'll compare them for you but first send me $100,000 (my standard
fee for reviewing idiocies, e.g. Hollywood movies).
Affordable, moon landing six episodes. BIC/SWIFT?
I charge $300,000 for debunking the "Moon hoax" cretinism.
Why not for free, the landing, not the hoax. As demanded by the
Scientific Method. We don't know yet it was a landing.
The stupidity never ends.
Don't be so hard with you. Modern Science demands defending your claims,
that you been there and done that. Start now.

n***@gmail.com
2017-10-10 21:22:35 UTC
Permalink
If you believe SR, than gravity waves that propagate at the velocity of light and produce sound waves is acceptable science.
n***@gmail.com
2017-10-11 21:08:05 UTC
Permalink
So Pentcho Valev do you agree that gravity waves do not form sound waves? Valev are you a Russian?
Loading...