2017-10-08 08:37:55 UTC
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 . 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."