Discussion:
The Nobel Committee Involved in LIGO Conspiracy
Add Reply
Pentcho Valev
2017-11-15 15:22:03 UTC
Réponse
Permalink
Raw Message
If the Nobel committee had discussed, or at least mentioned, the fatal noise correlation problem, accusations of wrongdoing would be difficult to prove. Their silence however unequivocally shows that, yes, the Nobel committee is involved in LIGO conspiracy:

Sabine Hossenfelder: "Was It All Just Noise? Independent Analysis Casts Doubt On LIGO's Detections. A team of five researchers - James Creswell, Sebastian von Hausegger, Andrew D. Jackson, Hao Liu, and Pavel Naselsky - from the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen, presented their own analysis of the openly available LIGO data. And, unlike the LIGO collaboration itself, they come to a disturbing conclusion: that these gravitational waves might not be signals at all, but rather patterns in the noise that have hoodwinked even the best scientists working on this puzzle. [...] A few weeks ago, Andrew Jackson presented his results in Munich. A member of the local physics faculty (who'd rather not be named) finds the results "quite disturbing" and hopes that the collaboration will take the criticism of the Danes to heart. "Until LIGO will provide clear scientific(!) explanation why these findings are wrong, I would say the result of the paper to some extent invalidates the reliability of the LIGO discovery." [...] This is a Nobel-worthy discovery and much is at stake. Even the smallest doubt that something is at odds should be erased." https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/06/16/was-it-all-just-noise-independent-analysis-casts-doubt-on-ligos-detections/

Understanding the LIGO gravitational wave event (GW150914). Subtitle: Sommerfeld Theory Colloquium. Speaker: Andrew D. Jackson http://www.physik.uni-muenchen.de/aus_der_fakultaet/kolloquien/asc_kolloquium/archiv_sose17/jackson/video_jackson/index.html

James Creswell, Sebastian von Hausegger, Andrew D. Jackson, Hao Liu, Pavel Naselsky, June 27, 2017: "As a member of the LIGO collaboration, Ian Harry states that he "tried to reproduce the results quoted in 'On the time lags of the LIGO signals'", but that he "[could] not reproduce the correlations claimed in section 3". Subsequent discussions with Ian Harry have revealed that this failure was due to several errors in his code. After necessary corrections were made, his script reproduces our results. His published version was subsequently updated. [...] It would appear that the 7 ms time delay associated with the GW150914 signal is also an intrinsic property of the noise. The purpose in having two independent detectors is precisely to ensure that, after sufficient cleaning, the only genuine correlations between them will be due to gravitational wave effects. The results presented here suggest this level of cleaning has not yet been obtained and that the identification of the GW events needs to be re-evaluated with a more careful consideration of noise properties." http://www.nbi.ku.dk/gravitational-waves/gravitational-waves.html

James Creswell, Sebastian von Hausegger, Andrew D. Jackson, Hao Liu, Pavel Naselsky, August 21, 2017: "In view of unsubstantiated claims of errors in our calculations, we appreciated the opportunity to go through our respective codes together - line by line when necessary - until agreement was reached. This check did not lead to revisions in the results of calculations reported in versions 1 and 2 of arXiv:1706.04191 or in the version of our paper published in JCAP. It did result in changes to the codes used by our visitors [LIGO conspirators]. [...] In light of the above, our view should be clear: We believe that LIGO has not yet attained acceptable standards of data cleaning. Since we regard proof of suitable cleaning as a mandatory prerequisite for any meaningful comparison with specific astrophysical models of GW events, we continue to regard LIGO's claims of GW discovery as interesting but premature." http://www.nbi.ku.dk/gravitational-waves/gravitational-waves-comment2.html

Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
2017-11-15 19:23:35 UTC
Réponse
Permalink
Raw Message
Does Einstein's general relativity predict that gravitational waves travel at the speed of light? Does it predict how the Shapiro delay for gravitational waves compares with the Shapiro delay for light?

The answer to both questions is 'no'. According to Arthur Eddington, Einstein's general relativity says nothing about the speed of gravitational waves, let alone their Shapiro time-delay:

Arthur Eddington: "The statement that in the relativity theory gravitational waves are propagated with the speed of light has, I believe, been based entirely upon the foregoing investigation; but it will be seen that it is only true in a very conventional sense. If coordinates are chosen so as to satisfy a certain condition which has no very clear geometrical importance, the speed is that of light; if the coordinates are slightly different the speed is altogether different from that of light. The result stands or falls by the choice of coordinates and, so far as can be judged, the coordinates here used were purposely introduced in order to obtain the simplification which results from representing the propagation as occurring with the speed of light. The argument thus follows a vicious circle." The Mathematical Theory of Relativity, pp. 130-131 https://www.amazon.com/Mathematical-Theory-Relativity-S-Eddington/dp/0521091659

So what is the a priori probability that the gravitational waves (if they exist) arrive simultaneously with the optical signal? Answer: Zero.

That is, if, in the neutron star case, LIGO's fabrication involved different times of arrival, that would at least have sounded realistic. The claim that the gravitational waves and the optical signal arrived at exactly the same time, which implies that they not only travel at the same speed but also experience the same Shapiro delay, unequivocally proves that LIGO conspirators just faked the gravitational wave signals.

The noise correlation found in LIGO data leads to the same conclusion - LIGO conspirators had no idea what they were "measuring" (faking) and produced signal correlation but also noise correlation that they are unable to explain.

Pentcho Valev

Loading...