Big Bang Didn't Happen and...Gravitational Waves Don't Exist

[Pentcho Valev]

NASA Space News: "SHOCKED EVERYONE! The Big Bang May Have NEVER Happened." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJwEYJb7eks

"The Big Bang didn't happen" https://iai.tv/articles/the-big-bang-didnt-happen-auid-2215

"The Universe is not expanding at all...the redshift of light with increasing distance must be caused by some other phenomena – something that happens to the light itself as it travels through space." http://sci-news.com/astronomy/science-universe-not-expanding-01940.html

So this fraud is coming to an end. How about another major Einsteinian fraud, the gravitational waves? In 2018, there was an extraordinary publication in New Scientist:

Michael Brooks: "There was never much doubt that we would observe gravitational waves sooner or later. This rhythmic squeezing and stretching of space and time is a natural consequence of one of science’s most well-established theories, Einstein’s general relativity. So when we built a machine capable of observing the waves, it seemed that it would be only a matter of time before a detection. In point of fact, it took two days. The Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory collaboration, better known as LIGO, switched on its upgraded detectors on 12 September 2015. Within 48 hours, it had made its first detection. It took a few months before the researchers were confident enough in the signal to announce a discovery. Headlines around the world soon heralded one of the greatest scientific breakthroughs of the past century. In 2017, a Nobel prize followed. Five other waves have since been spotted. Or have they? That’s the question asked by a group of physicists who have done their own analysis of the data. “We believe that LIGO has failed to make a convincing case for the detection of any gravitational wave event,” says Andrew Jackson, the group’s spokesperson. According to them, the breakthrough was nothing of the sort: it was all an illusion." https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24032022-600-exclusive-grave-doubts-over-ligos-discovery-of-gravitational-waves/

Immediately after the publication, Michael Brooks, the author, wrote this on Twitter:

"Oh is this out already? If anyone asks, you ain’t seen me, right?" https://twitter.com/DrMichaelBrooks/status/1057634637994815488

Michael Brooks was in no danger. "Illusion" is a red herring suggesting that something HAD been detected - only the interpretation might be wrong.

Nothing had been detected. LIGO's gravitational waves are not an illusion - they are just a fake. In the physics establishment, only Natalia Kiriushcheva found courage to hint at the truth:

"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"." https://www.thenational.ae/arts-culture/why-albert-einstein-continues-to-make-waves-as-black-holes-collide-1.188114

Unlike Michael Brooks, Kiriushcheva immediately disappeared from public debate - the godfathers of the Einstein cult must have converted her into an unperson:

George Orwell: "Withers, however, was already an unperson. He did not exist: he had never existed."

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

Pentcho Valev

[Pentcho Valev]

Spacetime and gravitational waves (ripples in spacetime) don't exist - LIGO's discoveries are fake. 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

"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

"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

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

Pentcho Valev

[Pentcho Valev]

"LIGO India no more?!" https://dreamheron.files.wordpress.com/2022/08/ligo-india.jpg

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

Pentcho Valev

[Lou]

Yes the Big Bang is a hoax. But to say that cosmological redshift is due to
light somehow slowing down as it travels it through a non expanding universe,
as Pentcho, Lerner et al suggest, is also a non starter.
Consider this. Let’s say Eric was right and light slowed down as it left its source.
Slowed down by an as yet unexplained interaction of emr with something in the
vacuum.
Q)What then would be the consequence of light slowing down over cosmological
distances?
A)The distance between wavefronts would have to slowly get smaller, the
farther away from the source the wavefronts are! You can’t avoid this fact.
Because each wavelength emitted is always travelling away from
the source at a slower speed than the next emitted wavelength.

(Do a simulation in a computer of waves leaving a source and slowing down
their speed as they propagate away from the source. You will find the distance
between wavefronts reduces over distance)

And so the end result would be that although this redshifted tired light was
travelling slower than c by the time we see it on earth, because the distance
between wave peaks was also smaller...we would observe the same frequency
of wavefronts as when it was first emitted. So in this slowing down scenario
that Lerner and Petcho suggest...NO Cosmological redshift would be
observed.Yet it is observed. Obviously something is reducing the frequency
of light over distance in a non expanding universe. But not because light
speed slows over distance.