2017-02-08 04:57:50 UTC
"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."