Why Do LIGO Fakers Inject Fake Signals?

6 views
Skip to first unread message

Pentcho Valev

unread,
Aug 31, 2022, 7:56:57 AMAug 31
to
"He [Barry Barish] re-designed the system so that it was easy to inject fake signals." https://kirstenhacker.wordpress.com/2020/09/05/too-many-cooks-spoil-the-soup/

"...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/post/a-null-result-is-not-a-failure

If only the LIGO team was fooled, one could try to accept the explanation that injecting fake signals was helpful in testing the system. The problem is that the whole world was fooled ("within 45 minutes we had our astronomer colleagues with optical telescopes imaging the area we estimated the gravitational wave to have come from"). Clearly the fake-signal events were rehearsals - fakers informed the scientific community about the "discovery", studied scientists' reactions, finally fixed noticed Achilles heels. And the dress rehearsal occurred in 2010. Remarkably, "this became particularly useful starting in September 2015".

Spacetime and gravitational waves (ripples in spacetime) don't exist - LIGO's "discoveries" are fakes. The reason is that the speed of light is VARIABLE AS PER NEWTON, as originally (prior to introducing the length-contraction fudge factor) proved by the Michelson-Morley experiment:

https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-f10f1c25528a4e5edc9bae200640f31c-pjlq

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

"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." Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92 https://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768

See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev

unread,
Sep 2, 2022, 7:53:41 AMSep 2
to
"On 8:41 am EDT August 17, 2017, LIGO detected a new gravitational wave source, dubbed GW170817 to mark its discovery date. Just two seconds later NASA's Fermi satellite detected a weak pulse of gamma rays from the same location of the sky." https://www.si.edu/newsdesk/releases/astronomers-see-light-show-associated-gravitational-waves

"Just two seconds later" and "the same location of the sky" implies that gravitational waves and gamma rays travelled hand in hand: same gravitationally deflected path, same speed, same Shapiro delay; if some cosmic matter blocked gamma rays, it equally blocked the accompanying gravitational waves. Is all that realistic, theoretical physicists?

Theoretical physicists: Who cares?

LIGO fakers: "The fact that the speed of gravitational waves is equal to the speed of electromagnetic waves is simply because they both travel at the speed of information." https://discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/why-does-gravity-travel-at-the-speed-of-light

Is "speed of information" defined in physics, theoretical physicists?

Theoretical physicists: No, but who cares?

More here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages