LIGO Conspirators: The Most Dishonest Einsteinians
(trop ancien pour répondre)
Pentcho Valev
2017-02-08 04:57:50 UTC
Raw Message
LIGO conspirators' new tactics:

"Now, a few months into the detector's second "advanced" run, team members are scrambling to predict what the signals will look like from even weirder things, so we can recognise what they are coming from when we glimpse them. "We're making a big pile of data, which is what astronomers do, and then we're playing this taxonomy game," Shane Larson of Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois, told New Scientist at the APS meeting at the end of last month. "We go through all the phenomena in space that people have looked at, and we ask 'Could we get a gravitational wave signal from that? Sure! This is what it might look like. This is what we could learn.'" LIGO's second run began on 30 November 2016. On 28 January, the team announced that it had seen two event candidates so far, which matches the expected rate of about one per month. If they turn out to be real events, they will probably be more gravitational waves from merging black holes."

Now LIGO conspirators are going to fake gravitational waves from already observed phenomena. Faking non-black hole, e.g. neutron star, gravitational waves has been dangerous so far - imagine LIGO conspirators stunning the gullible world, getting more millions of dollars, and then INTEGRAL saying no such collision has been detected by their telescopes!

Needless to say, the new hoax needs a lot of rehearsal which will take time, so in the meantime LIGO conspirators will continue to fool the gullible world in the old way - only black hole gravitational waves will be "discovered" (INTEGRAL cannot expose the fraud). LIGO conspirators are perfect at "discovering" black hole gravitational waves - the dress rehearsal took place in 2010:

"Finally, how do you know you are doing something correctly if you have never done it before? That was a concerning question during Initial LIGO since we had never detected a gravitational wave before. How do we know our data analyses are not missing them? And, when we do detect one, how do we know that the science we have extracted from the signal is reliable? The answer is to do 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."

Note that in 2010 "a select few expert administrators" deceived everybody, misled astronomers into wasting time and money on the fake, and "this became particularly useful starting in September 2015"!

Compared to LIGO conspirators, Eddington and his gang were amateur fraudsters:

"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."

"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."

"...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."

Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
2017-02-08 15:09:52 UTC
Raw Message
Arthur Eddington is one of the greatest fraudsters in the history of science but only in terms of the devastation his hoaxes produced (he and Einstein actually killed physics). In terms of skill at lying he was an amateur compared to LIGO conspirators. Even the most faithful Einsteinians know that his famous 1919 confirmation of Einstein's relativity was the result of "massaging":

Brian Greene (6:47) "Eddington's data, with a little bit of massaging, seemed to show that Einstein's ideas were correct.

Actually the massage was a downright fraud:

"The eclipse experiment finally happened in 1919. Eminent British physicist Arthur Eddington declared general relativity a success, catapulting Einstein into fame and onto coffee mugs. In retrospect, it seems that Eddington fudged the results, throwing out photos that showed the wrong outcome. No wonder nobody noticed: At the time of Einstein's death in 1955, scientists still had almost no evidence of general relativity in action."

Sabine Hossenfelder: "As light carries energy and is thus subject of gravitational attraction, a ray of light passing by a massive body should be slightly bent towards it. This is so both in Newton's theory of gravity and in Einstein's, but Einstein's deflection is by a factor two larger than Newton's. (...) As history has it, Eddington's original data actually wasn't good enough to make that claim with certainty. His measurements had huge error bars due to bad weather and he also might have cherry-picked his data because he liked Einstein's theory a little too much. Shame on him."

Frederick Soddy: "Incidentally the attempt to verify this during a recent solar eclipse, provided the world with the most disgusting spectacle perhaps ever witnessed of the lengths to which a preconceived notion can bias what was supposed to be an impartial scientific inquiry. For Eddington, who was one of the party, and ought to have been excluded as an ardent supporter of the theory that was under examination, in his description spoke of the feeling of dismay which ran through the expedition when it appeared at one time that Einstein might be wrong! Remembering that in this particular astronomical investigation, the corrections for the normal errors of observation - due to diffraction, temperature changes, and the like - exceeded by many times the magnitude of the predicted deflection of the star's ray being looked for, one wonders exactly what this sort of "science" is really worth."

New Scientist: Ode to Albert: "Enter another piece of luck for Einstein. We now know that the light-bending effect was actually too small for Eddington to have discerned at that time. Had Eddington not been so receptive to Einstein's theory, he might not have reached such strong conclusions so soon, and the world would have had to wait for more accurate eclipse measurements to confirm general relativity."

Stephen Hawking: "Einsteins prediction of light deflection could not be tested immediately in 1915, because the First World War was in progress, and it was not until 1919 that a British expedition, observing an eclipse from West Africa, showed that light was indeed deflected by the sun, just as predicted by the theory. This proof of a German theory by British scientists was hailed as a great act of reconciliation between the two countries after the war. It is ionic, therefore, that later examination of the photographs taken on that expedition showed the errors were as great as the effect they were trying to measure. Their measurement had been sheer luck, or a case of knowing the result they wanted to get, not an uncommon occurrence in science."

Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
2017-02-10 13:08:43 UTC
Raw Message
LIGO conspirators: "Albert Einstein was aware of Mercury's anomalous  orbit. When his new  theory  seemed complete enough to be applied to the orbit  he did the calculation. There were no free parameters in Einstein's  General Theory  that could be used to adjust it to the correct value. The only relevant inputs were the mass of the Sun and the size and eccentricity of Mercury's  orbit. When Einstein made the calculation, his theory predicted that Mercury should precess around the Sun at precisely the amount of the observed anomaly." https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/system/media_files/binaries/303/original/ligo-educators-guide.pdf

Don't lie, LIGO conspirators! Einstein and his mathematical friends changed and fudged equations countless times with the only purpose to adjust the "theory" to the known in advance result:

Michel Janssen: "But - as we know from a letter to his friend Conrad Habicht of December 24, 1907 - one of the goals that Einstein set himself early on, was to use his new theory of gravity, whatever it might turn out to be, to explain the discrepancy between the observed motion of the perihelion of the planet Mercury and the motion predicted on the basis of Newtonian gravitational theory. [...] The Einstein-Grossmann theory - also known as the "Entwurf" ("outline") theory after the title of Einstein and Grossmann's paper - is, in fact, already very close to the version of general relativity published in November 1915 and constitutes an enormous advance over Einstein's first attempt at a generalized theory of relativity and theory of gravitation published in 1912. The crucial breakthrough had been that Einstein had recognized that the gravitational field - or, as we would now say, the inertio-gravitational field - should not be described by a variable speed of light as he had attempted in 1912, but by the so-called metric tensor field. The metric tensor is a mathematical object of 16 components, 10 of which independent, that characterizes the geometry of space and time. In this way, gravity is no longer a force in space and time, but part of the fabric of space and time itself: gravity is part of the inertio-gravitational field. Einstein had turned to Grossmann for help with the difficult and unfamiliar mathematics needed to formulate a theory along these lines. [...] Einstein did not give up the Einstein-Grossmann theory once he had established that it could not fully explain the Mercury anomaly. He continued to work on the theory and never even mentioned the disappointing result of his work with Besso in print. So Einstein did not do what the influential philosopher Sir Karl Popper claimed all good scientists do: once they have found an empirical refutation of their theory, they abandon that theory and go back to the drawing board. [...] On November 4, 1915, he presented a paper to the Berlin Academy officially retracting the Einstein-Grossmann equations and replacing them with new ones. On November 11, a short addendum to this paper followed, once again changing his field equations. A week later, on November 18, Einstein presented the paper containing his celebrated explanation of the perihelion motion of Mercury on the basis of this new theory. Another week later he changed the field equations once more. These are the equations still used today. This last change did not affect the result for the perihelion of Mercury. Besso is not acknowledged in Einstein's paper on the perihelion problem. Apparently, Besso's help with this technical problem had not been as valuable to Einstein as his role as sounding board that had earned Besso the famous acknowledgment in the special relativity paper of 1905. Still, an acknowledgment would have been appropriate. After all, what Einstein had done that week in November, was simply to redo the calculation he had done with Besso in June 1913, using his new field equations instead of the Einstein-Grossmann equations. It is not hard to imagine Einstein's excitement when he inserted the numbers for Mercury into the new expression he found and the result was 43", in excellent agreement with observation."

Judging from the following publication, LIGO conspirators, you too must have done a lot of adjustment and fudging in order to theoretically fabricate and then fake your gravitational waves:

"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"."

Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
2017-02-11 10:27:16 UTC
Raw Message
"Surprise! LIGO Can Also Make Gravitational Waves" http://www.sciencealert.com/surprise-ligo-can-also-make-gravitational-waves

The above title is imprecise. "Make" should be replaced by "Fake" and "Surprise" and "Also" should be removed.

"Scientific ethics in project LIGO is strongly violated by using the so called blind injection software and hardware procedures. As a result of the excess use of blind injections it is necessary an international independent scientific Committee to be established in order to check in depth the whole LIGO/VIRGO project and PRL as its official publisher journal in order to find what exactly happened on September 14 and December 26, 2015."

Pentcho Valev