Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Will LIGO Announce Discovery of Gravitational Waves?
49 views
Skip to first unread message
Pentcho Valev
Feb 5, 2016, 1:35:46 PM2/5/16
to
Of course LIGO will "discover" gravitational waves sooner or later. Einstein's relativity cannot survive unless experimental fraud regularly boosts it. Eddington's 1919 fraud, Eddington and Adams' 1925 fraud, Pound and Rebka's 1960 fraud, Alväger's 1964 fraud, Hafele and Keating's 1971 fraud... the list is long. Just an example:
http://preterism.ning.com/forum/topics/can-we-trust-the-data
"Consider the case of astronomer Walter Adams. In 1925 he tested Einstein's theory of relativity by measuring the red shift of the binary companion of Sirius, brightest star in the sky. Einstein's theory predicted a red shift of six parts in a hundred thousand; Adams found just such an effect. A triumph for relativity. However, in 1971, with updated estimates of the mass and radius of Sirius, it was found that the predicted red shift should have been much larger - 28 parts in a hundred thousand. Later observations of the red shift did indeed measure this amount, showing that Adams' observations were flawed. He "saw" what he had expected to see."
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AAS...21530404H
"In January 1924 Arthur Eddington wrote to Walter S. Adams at the Mt. Wilson Observatory suggesting a measurement of the "Einstein shift" in Sirius B and providing an estimate of its magnitude. Adams' 1925 published results agreed remarkably well with Eddington's estimate. Initially this achievement was hailed as the third empirical test of General Relativity (after Mercury's anomalous perihelion advance and the 1919 measurement of the deflection of starlight). It has been known for some time that both Eddington's estimate and Adams' measurement underestimated the true Sirius B gravitational redshift by a factor of four."
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1980QJRAS..21..246H
"...Eddington asked Adams to attempt the measurement. (...) ...Adams reported an average differential redshift of nineteen kilometers per second, very nearly the predicted gravitational redshift. Eddington was delighted with the result... (...) In 1928 Joseph Moore at the Lick Observatory measured differences between the redshifts of Sirius and Sirius B... (...) ...the average was nineteen kilometers per second, precisely what Adams had reported. (...) More seriously damaging to the reputation of Adams and Moore is the measurement in the 1960s at Mount Wilson by Jesse Greenstein, J.Oke, and H.Shipman. They found a differential redshift for Sirius B of roughly eighty kilometers per second."
http://irfu.cea.fr/Phocea/file.php?file=Ast/2774/RELATIVITE-052-456.pdf
Jean-Marc Bonnet-Bidaud: "Le monde entier a cru pendant plus de cinquante ans à une théorie non vérifiée. Car, nous le savons aujourd'hui, les premières preuves, issues notamment d'une célèbre éclipse de 1919, n'en étaient pas. Elles reposaient en partie sur des manipulations peu avouables visant à obtenir un résultat connu à l'avance, et sur des mesures entachées d'incertitudes, quand il ne s'agissait pas de fraudes caractérisées. (...) Autour de l'étoile brillante Sirius, on découvre une petite étoile, Sirius B, à la fois très chaude et très faiblement lumineuse. Pour expliquer ces deux particularités, il faut supposer que l'étoile est aussi massive que le Soleil et aussi petite qu'une planète comme la Terre. C'est Eddington lui-même qui aboutit à cette conclusion dont il voit vite l'intérêt : avec de telles caractéristiques, ces naines blanches sont extrêmement denses et leur gravité très puissante. Le décalage vers le rouge de la gravitation est donc 100 fois plus élevé que sur le Soleil. Une occasion inespérée pour mesurer enfin quelque chose d'appréciable. Eddington s'adresse aussitôt à Walter Adams, directeur de l'observatoire du mont Wilson, en Californie, afin que le télescope de 2,5 m de diamètre Hooker entreprenne les vérifications. Selon ses estimations, basées sur une température de 8 000 degrés de Sirius B, mesurée par Adams lui-même, le décalage vers le rouge prédit par la relativité, en s'élevant à 20 km/s, devrait être facilement mesurable. Adams mobilise d'urgence le grand télescope et expose 28 plaques photographiques pour réaliser la mesure. Son rapport, publié le 18 mai 1925, est très confus car il mesure des vitesses allant de 2 à 33 km/s. Mais, par le jeu de corrections arbitraires dont personne ne comprendra jamais la logique, le décalage passe finalement à 21 km/s, plus tard corrigé à 19 km/s, et Eddington de conclure : "Les résultats peuvent être considérés comme fournissant une preuve directe de la validité du troisième test de la théorie de la relativité générale." Adams et Eddington se congratulent, ils viennent encore de "prouver" Einstein. Ce résultat, pourtant faux, ne sera pas remis en cause avant 1971. Manque de chance effectivement, la première mesure de température de Sirius B était largement inexacte : au lieu des 8 000 degrés envisagés par Eddington, l'étoile fait en réalité près de 30 000 degrés. Elle est donc beaucoup plus petite, sa gravité est plus intense et le décalage vers le rouge mesurable est de 89 km/s. C'est ce qu'aurait dû trouver Adams sur ses plaques s'il n'avait pas été "influencé" par le calcul erroné d'Eddington. L'écart est tellement flagrant que la suspicion de fraude a bien été envisagée."
Pentcho Valev
http://preterism.ning.com/forum/topics/can-we-trust-the-data
"Consider the case of astronomer Walter Adams. In 1925 he tested Einstein's theory of relativity by measuring the red shift of the binary companion of Sirius, brightest star in the sky. Einstein's theory predicted a red shift of six parts in a hundred thousand; Adams found just such an effect. A triumph for relativity. However, in 1971, with updated estimates of the mass and radius of Sirius, it was found that the predicted red shift should have been much larger - 28 parts in a hundred thousand. Later observations of the red shift did indeed measure this amount, showing that Adams' observations were flawed. He "saw" what he had expected to see."
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AAS...21530404H
"In January 1924 Arthur Eddington wrote to Walter S. Adams at the Mt. Wilson Observatory suggesting a measurement of the "Einstein shift" in Sirius B and providing an estimate of its magnitude. Adams' 1925 published results agreed remarkably well with Eddington's estimate. Initially this achievement was hailed as the third empirical test of General Relativity (after Mercury's anomalous perihelion advance and the 1919 measurement of the deflection of starlight). It has been known for some time that both Eddington's estimate and Adams' measurement underestimated the true Sirius B gravitational redshift by a factor of four."
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1980QJRAS..21..246H
"...Eddington asked Adams to attempt the measurement. (...) ...Adams reported an average differential redshift of nineteen kilometers per second, very nearly the predicted gravitational redshift. Eddington was delighted with the result... (...) In 1928 Joseph Moore at the Lick Observatory measured differences between the redshifts of Sirius and Sirius B... (...) ...the average was nineteen kilometers per second, precisely what Adams had reported. (...) More seriously damaging to the reputation of Adams and Moore is the measurement in the 1960s at Mount Wilson by Jesse Greenstein, J.Oke, and H.Shipman. They found a differential redshift for Sirius B of roughly eighty kilometers per second."
http://irfu.cea.fr/Phocea/file.php?file=Ast/2774/RELATIVITE-052-456.pdf
Jean-Marc Bonnet-Bidaud: "Le monde entier a cru pendant plus de cinquante ans à une théorie non vérifiée. Car, nous le savons aujourd'hui, les premières preuves, issues notamment d'une célèbre éclipse de 1919, n'en étaient pas. Elles reposaient en partie sur des manipulations peu avouables visant à obtenir un résultat connu à l'avance, et sur des mesures entachées d'incertitudes, quand il ne s'agissait pas de fraudes caractérisées. (...) Autour de l'étoile brillante Sirius, on découvre une petite étoile, Sirius B, à la fois très chaude et très faiblement lumineuse. Pour expliquer ces deux particularités, il faut supposer que l'étoile est aussi massive que le Soleil et aussi petite qu'une planète comme la Terre. C'est Eddington lui-même qui aboutit à cette conclusion dont il voit vite l'intérêt : avec de telles caractéristiques, ces naines blanches sont extrêmement denses et leur gravité très puissante. Le décalage vers le rouge de la gravitation est donc 100 fois plus élevé que sur le Soleil. Une occasion inespérée pour mesurer enfin quelque chose d'appréciable. Eddington s'adresse aussitôt à Walter Adams, directeur de l'observatoire du mont Wilson, en Californie, afin que le télescope de 2,5 m de diamètre Hooker entreprenne les vérifications. Selon ses estimations, basées sur une température de 8 000 degrés de Sirius B, mesurée par Adams lui-même, le décalage vers le rouge prédit par la relativité, en s'élevant à 20 km/s, devrait être facilement mesurable. Adams mobilise d'urgence le grand télescope et expose 28 plaques photographiques pour réaliser la mesure. Son rapport, publié le 18 mai 1925, est très confus car il mesure des vitesses allant de 2 à 33 km/s. Mais, par le jeu de corrections arbitraires dont personne ne comprendra jamais la logique, le décalage passe finalement à 21 km/s, plus tard corrigé à 19 km/s, et Eddington de conclure : "Les résultats peuvent être considérés comme fournissant une preuve directe de la validité du troisième test de la théorie de la relativité générale." Adams et Eddington se congratulent, ils viennent encore de "prouver" Einstein. Ce résultat, pourtant faux, ne sera pas remis en cause avant 1971. Manque de chance effectivement, la première mesure de température de Sirius B était largement inexacte : au lieu des 8 000 degrés envisagés par Eddington, l'étoile fait en réalité près de 30 000 degrés. Elle est donc beaucoup plus petite, sa gravité est plus intense et le décalage vers le rouge mesurable est de 89 km/s. C'est ce qu'aurait dû trouver Adams sur ses plaques s'il n'avait pas été "influencé" par le calcul erroné d'Eddington. L'écart est tellement flagrant que la suspicion de fraude a bien été envisagée."
Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
Feb 6, 2016, 3:22:27 AM2/6/16
to
The Pound and Rebka's fraud:
https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/a10758.html
"So far, GR has made the following specific predictions: (...) 3...Clocks run slower in strong gravitational fields. This was confirmed by Robert Pound and George Rebka at Harvard University in 1959, and by Robert Vessot in the 1960's and 70's using high-precession hydrogen maser clocks flown on jet planes and on satellites."
Actually there was no confirmation, as Einsteinians themselves admit:
http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/redshift_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
https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/a10758.html
"So far, GR has made the following specific predictions: (...) 3...Clocks run slower in strong gravitational fields. This was confirmed by Robert Pound and George Rebka at Harvard University in 1959, and by Robert Vessot in the 1960's and 70's using high-precession hydrogen maser clocks flown on jet planes and on satellites."
Actually there was no confirmation, as Einsteinians themselves admit:
http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/redshift_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
Pentcho Valev
Feb 6, 2016, 7:01:00 AM2/6/16
to
The classical fraud in the relativistic world: The Michelson-Morley experiment confirms Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-mrj1qrCFk
Why Does E=mc2?: (And Why Should We Care?), Brian Cox, Jeff Forshaw, p. 91: "...Maxwell's brilliant synthesis of the experimental results of Faraday and others strongly suggested that the speed of light should be the same for all observers. This conclusion was supported by the experimental result of Michelson and Morley, and taken at face value by Einstein."
http://www.lecture-notes.co.uk/susskind/special-relativity/lecture-1/principles-of-special-relativity/
Leonard Susskind: "One of the predictions of Maxwell's equations is that the velocity of electromagnetic waves, or light, is always measured to have the same value, regardless of the frame in which it is measured. (...) So, in Galilean relativity, we have c'=c-v and the speed of light in the moving frame should be slower than in the stationary frame, directly contradicting Maxwell. Scientists before Einstein thought that Galilean relativity was correct and so supposed that there had to exist a special, universal frame (called the aether) in which Maxwell's equations would be correct. However, over time and many experiments (including Michelson-Morley) it was shown that the speed of light did not depend on the velocity of the observer measuring it, so that c'=c."
http://fr.scribd.com/doc/232184286/neil-degrasse-tyson-death-by-black-hole-and-other-ies-v5-0-pdf
Neil deGrasse Tyson: "Beginning in 1905, investigations into the behavior of light got positively spooky. That year, Einstein published his special theory of relativity, in which he ratcheted up M & M's null result to an audacious level. The speed of light in empty space, he declared, is a universal constant, no matter the speed of the light-emitting source or the speed of the person doing the measuring."
http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Speed-Light-Speculation/dp/0738205257
Faster Than the Speed of Light, Joao Magueijo: "A missile fired from a plane moves faster than one fired from the ground because the plane's speed adds to the missile's speed. If I throw something forward on a moving train, its speed with respect to the platform is the speed of that object plus that of the train. You might think that the same should happen to light: Light flashed from a train should travel faster. However, what the Michelson-Morley experiments showed was that this was not the case: Light always moves stubbornly at the same speed. This means that if I take a light ray and ask several observers moving with respect to each other to measure the speed of this light ray, they will all agree on the same apparent speed!"
http://www.pourlascience.fr/ewb_pages/f/fiche-article-la-disparition-du-temps-en-relativite-26042.php
Marc Lachièze-Rey: "Mais au cours du XIXe siècle, diverses expériences, et notamment celle de Michelson et Morley, ont convaincu les physiciens que la vitesse de la lumière dans le vide est invariante. En particulier, la vitesse de la lumière ne s'ajoute ni ne se retranche à celle de sa source si celle-ci est en mouvement."
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,993018,00.html
Stephen Hawking: "So if you were traveling in the same direction as the light, you would expect that its speed would appear to be lower, and if you were traveling in the opposite direction to the light, that its speed would appear to be higher. Yet a series of experiments failed to find any evidence for differences in speed due to motion through the ether. The most careful and accurate of these experiments was carried out by Albert Michelson and Edward Morley at the Case Institute in Cleveland, Ohio, in 1887......It was as if light always traveled at the same speed relative to you, no matter how you were moving."
http://www.elisabrune.com/pdf/Jumeaux.pdf
Jean-Pierre Luminet: "La vitesse de la lumière dans le vide est la même pour tous les observateurs, quel que soit leur état de mouvement - il s'agit d'un principe dont Einstein est parti pour construire sa théorie, et d'un fait observé dans les célèbres expériences de Michelson et Morley."
Note that today's Einsteinians ("later writers" in John Norton's text below) "almost universally" mislead people into believing that the Michelson-Morley experiment supports Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate:
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "In addition to his work as editor of the Einstein papers in finding source material, Stachel assembled the many small clues that reveal Einstein's serious consideration of an emission theory of light; and he gave us the crucial insight that Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support for the light postulate of special relativity. Even today, this point needs emphasis. The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."
Pentcho Valev
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-mrj1qrCFk
Why Does E=mc2?: (And Why Should We Care?), Brian Cox, Jeff Forshaw, p. 91: "...Maxwell's brilliant synthesis of the experimental results of Faraday and others strongly suggested that the speed of light should be the same for all observers. This conclusion was supported by the experimental result of Michelson and Morley, and taken at face value by Einstein."
http://www.lecture-notes.co.uk/susskind/special-relativity/lecture-1/principles-of-special-relativity/
Leonard Susskind: "One of the predictions of Maxwell's equations is that the velocity of electromagnetic waves, or light, is always measured to have the same value, regardless of the frame in which it is measured. (...) So, in Galilean relativity, we have c'=c-v and the speed of light in the moving frame should be slower than in the stationary frame, directly contradicting Maxwell. Scientists before Einstein thought that Galilean relativity was correct and so supposed that there had to exist a special, universal frame (called the aether) in which Maxwell's equations would be correct. However, over time and many experiments (including Michelson-Morley) it was shown that the speed of light did not depend on the velocity of the observer measuring it, so that c'=c."
http://fr.scribd.com/doc/232184286/neil-degrasse-tyson-death-by-black-hole-and-other-ies-v5-0-pdf
Neil deGrasse Tyson: "Beginning in 1905, investigations into the behavior of light got positively spooky. That year, Einstein published his special theory of relativity, in which he ratcheted up M & M's null result to an audacious level. The speed of light in empty space, he declared, is a universal constant, no matter the speed of the light-emitting source or the speed of the person doing the measuring."
http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Speed-Light-Speculation/dp/0738205257
Faster Than the Speed of Light, Joao Magueijo: "A missile fired from a plane moves faster than one fired from the ground because the plane's speed adds to the missile's speed. If I throw something forward on a moving train, its speed with respect to the platform is the speed of that object plus that of the train. You might think that the same should happen to light: Light flashed from a train should travel faster. However, what the Michelson-Morley experiments showed was that this was not the case: Light always moves stubbornly at the same speed. This means that if I take a light ray and ask several observers moving with respect to each other to measure the speed of this light ray, they will all agree on the same apparent speed!"
http://www.pourlascience.fr/ewb_pages/f/fiche-article-la-disparition-du-temps-en-relativite-26042.php
Marc Lachièze-Rey: "Mais au cours du XIXe siècle, diverses expériences, et notamment celle de Michelson et Morley, ont convaincu les physiciens que la vitesse de la lumière dans le vide est invariante. En particulier, la vitesse de la lumière ne s'ajoute ni ne se retranche à celle de sa source si celle-ci est en mouvement."
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,993018,00.html
Stephen Hawking: "So if you were traveling in the same direction as the light, you would expect that its speed would appear to be lower, and if you were traveling in the opposite direction to the light, that its speed would appear to be higher. Yet a series of experiments failed to find any evidence for differences in speed due to motion through the ether. The most careful and accurate of these experiments was carried out by Albert Michelson and Edward Morley at the Case Institute in Cleveland, Ohio, in 1887......It was as if light always traveled at the same speed relative to you, no matter how you were moving."
http://www.elisabrune.com/pdf/Jumeaux.pdf
Jean-Pierre Luminet: "La vitesse de la lumière dans le vide est la même pour tous les observateurs, quel que soit leur état de mouvement - il s'agit d'un principe dont Einstein est parti pour construire sa théorie, et d'un fait observé dans les célèbres expériences de Michelson et Morley."
Note that today's Einsteinians ("later writers" in John Norton's text below) "almost universally" mislead people into believing that the Michelson-Morley experiment supports Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate:
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "In addition to his work as editor of the Einstein papers in finding source material, Stachel assembled the many small clues that reveal Einstein's serious consideration of an emission theory of light; and he gave us the crucial insight that Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support for the light postulate of special relativity. Even today, this point needs emphasis. The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."
Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
Feb 6, 2016, 2:37:38 PM2/6/16
to
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/02/woohoo-email-stokes-rumor-gravitational-waves-have-been-spotted
"According to Burgess's email, which found its way onto Twitter as an image attached to a tweet from one of his colleagues, LIGO researchers have seen two black holes, of 29 and 36 solar masses, swirling together and merging. The statistical significance of the signal is supposedly very high, exceeding the "five-sigma" standard that physicists use to distinguish evidence strong enough to claim discovery."
http://motls.blogspot.bg/2016/02/ligo-wows-bh-masses-3629-to-62-suns-51.html
"And by Thursday, do train the English words "inspiral", "merger", and "ringdown" because what we will be told will be spectacular. They will claim to possess the confidence level 5.1 sigma, detection by both LIGO apparatuses, and a correct time delay between them. The masses of the black holes will be 36 and 29 solar masses at the beginning; and 62 for the resulting black hole. The reconstructed orbital speed will be almost exactly the speed of light. As a bonus, they will also observe the "ringdown to Kerr" at the end. Woohoo!"
Hmm... Gravitational waves brought such a precise information even though scientists don't know what black holes are or even whether they exist at all?
http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/physics/highlights/7034-1.html
Nature: "Black holes are staples of science fiction and many think astronomers have observed them indirectly. But according to a physicist at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, these awesome breaches in space-time do not and indeed cannot exist."
http://phys.org/news/2014-09-black-holes.html
"By merging two seemingly conflicting theories, Laura Mersini-Houghton, a physics professor at UNC-Chapel Hill in the College of Arts and Sciences, has proven, mathematically, that black holes can never come into being in the first place. The work not only forces scientists to reimagine the fabric of space-time, but also rethink the origins of the universe."
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/01/140127-black-hole-stephen-hawking-firewall-space-astronomy/
"No Black Holes Exist, Says Stephen Hawking--At Least Not Like We Think"
http://discovermagazine.com/2015/april/20-no-such-thing-as-a-black-hole
"No Such Thing as a Black Hole? New theories question just about everything we thought we knew about nature's bottomless pits."
Pentcho Valev
"According to Burgess's email, which found its way onto Twitter as an image attached to a tweet from one of his colleagues, LIGO researchers have seen two black holes, of 29 and 36 solar masses, swirling together and merging. The statistical significance of the signal is supposedly very high, exceeding the "five-sigma" standard that physicists use to distinguish evidence strong enough to claim discovery."
http://motls.blogspot.bg/2016/02/ligo-wows-bh-masses-3629-to-62-suns-51.html
"And by Thursday, do train the English words "inspiral", "merger", and "ringdown" because what we will be told will be spectacular. They will claim to possess the confidence level 5.1 sigma, detection by both LIGO apparatuses, and a correct time delay between them. The masses of the black holes will be 36 and 29 solar masses at the beginning; and 62 for the resulting black hole. The reconstructed orbital speed will be almost exactly the speed of light. As a bonus, they will also observe the "ringdown to Kerr" at the end. Woohoo!"
Hmm... Gravitational waves brought such a precise information even though scientists don't know what black holes are or even whether they exist at all?
http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/physics/highlights/7034-1.html
Nature: "Black holes are staples of science fiction and many think astronomers have observed them indirectly. But according to a physicist at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, these awesome breaches in space-time do not and indeed cannot exist."
http://phys.org/news/2014-09-black-holes.html
"By merging two seemingly conflicting theories, Laura Mersini-Houghton, a physics professor at UNC-Chapel Hill in the College of Arts and Sciences, has proven, mathematically, that black holes can never come into being in the first place. The work not only forces scientists to reimagine the fabric of space-time, but also rethink the origins of the universe."
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/01/140127-black-hole-stephen-hawking-firewall-space-astronomy/
"No Black Holes Exist, Says Stephen Hawking--At Least Not Like We Think"
http://discovermagazine.com/2015/april/20-no-such-thing-as-a-black-hole
"No Such Thing as a Black Hole? New theories question just about everything we thought we knew about nature's bottomless pits."
Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
Feb 7, 2016, 5:19:31 AM2/7/16
to
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/02/woohoo-email-stokes-rumor-gravitational-waves-have-been-spotted
Comments by "secondthought": "Now the good question is what it is meant by "gravitational waves" here. If it is a general-relativistic "ripple of spacetime" (whatever the author meant by that) then it doesn't make much physical sense because every textbook on general relativity says that the gravitational "field" described by a metric tensor doesn't have a well-defined stress-energy tensor (unlike the electromagnetic field), therefore the source-independent wave of such a "field" would be an object without a well-defined energy (unlike the electromagnetic wave). Therefore, what they probably detected is the change of gravity which came from a change of mass of that binary system. But this is almost trivial thing - any change of mass of a gravitating object causes changes in forces acting on surrounding objects. (...) In general relativity, the multipole perturbations of the gravitational potential is not necessarily the gravitational wave (even if they have anyhow oscillating nature). For instance, tides on Earth is a visible cyclic effect caused by the Moon which is orbiting around not on circle but on ellipse (hence the changes in the gravity force between E. and M.). Therefore, what is the point of building interferometers to search for the similar effect from distant objects (except that the variations of the gravitational force between E. and that binary black-hole system are due to the variations of the mass of the latter, not distance between) if we are observing tides every day? It just proves that those folks have built some sensitive equipment to detect the small perturbations of gravity force on Earth from distant objects but there is no fundamental discovery here - it is just sophisticated versions of the wooden rulers that are measuring the height of sea tides."
Pentcho Valev
Comments by "secondthought": "Now the good question is what it is meant by "gravitational waves" here. If it is a general-relativistic "ripple of spacetime" (whatever the author meant by that) then it doesn't make much physical sense because every textbook on general relativity says that the gravitational "field" described by a metric tensor doesn't have a well-defined stress-energy tensor (unlike the electromagnetic field), therefore the source-independent wave of such a "field" would be an object without a well-defined energy (unlike the electromagnetic wave). Therefore, what they probably detected is the change of gravity which came from a change of mass of that binary system. But this is almost trivial thing - any change of mass of a gravitating object causes changes in forces acting on surrounding objects. (...) In general relativity, the multipole perturbations of the gravitational potential is not necessarily the gravitational wave (even if they have anyhow oscillating nature). For instance, tides on Earth is a visible cyclic effect caused by the Moon which is orbiting around not on circle but on ellipse (hence the changes in the gravity force between E. and M.). Therefore, what is the point of building interferometers to search for the similar effect from distant objects (except that the variations of the gravitational force between E. and that binary black-hole system are due to the variations of the mass of the latter, not distance between) if we are observing tides every day? It just proves that those folks have built some sensitive equipment to detect the small perturbations of gravity force on Earth from distant objects but there is no fundamental discovery here - it is just sophisticated versions of the wooden rulers that are measuring the height of sea tides."
Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
Feb 8, 2016, 2:43:56 AM2/8/16
to
http://www.techinsider.io/gravitational-wave-nature-ligo-february-11-2016-2
"Einstein's most incredible prediction may be proven right on February 11 -- or a wild rumor debunked (...) Tech Insider was also warned that a lot of the rumors circulating are patently wrong and "laughable," but our source would not elaborate further. (...) LIGO spokesperson Gaby Gonzalez responded to Tech Insider's query but would not confirm or deny any of the rumors. Tech Insider also reached out to Nature and Columbia University for comment but didn't hear back from them in time for publication."
Gaby Gonzalez, Nature and Columbia University could at least have dispersed those rumors that are "patently wrong and laughable" but... there is no bad publicity. All participants in the agiotage will get their fair share.
Pentcho Valev
"Einstein's most incredible prediction may be proven right on February 11 -- or a wild rumor debunked (...) Tech Insider was also warned that a lot of the rumors circulating are patently wrong and "laughable," but our source would not elaborate further. (...) LIGO spokesperson Gaby Gonzalez responded to Tech Insider's query but would not confirm or deny any of the rumors. Tech Insider also reached out to Nature and Columbia University for comment but didn't hear back from them in time for publication."
Gaby Gonzalez, Nature and Columbia University could at least have dispersed those rumors that are "patently wrong and laughable" but... there is no bad publicity. All participants in the agiotage will get their fair share.
Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
Feb 8, 2016, 3:28:52 PM2/8/16
to
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/02/woohoo-email-stokes-rumor-gravitational-waves-have-been-spotted
Comment by secondthought: "I hope that folks in this business are not starting to juggle with definitions and call everything they were able to detect "the gravitational wave"."
Why not? This cannot be a problem in Einstein's world. Similarly, Pound and Rebka called "gravitational time dilation" the gravitational redshift caused by the Newtonian acceleration of photons:
http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/redshift_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..." x
Pentcho Valev
Comment by secondthought: "I hope that folks in this business are not starting to juggle with definitions and call everything they were able to detect "the gravitational wave"."
Why not? This cannot be a problem in Einstein's world. Similarly, Pound and Rebka called "gravitational time dilation" the gravitational redshift caused by the Newtonian acceleration of photons:
http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/redshift_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..." x
Pentcho Valev
intro...@gmail.com
Feb 23, 2016, 5:58:15 AM2/23/16
to
intro...@gmail.com
Feb 29, 2016, 3:22:47 PM2/29/16
to
0 new messages