Discussion:
LIGO Conspirators: Wave or Money Catchers?
(trop ancien pour répondre)
Pentcho Valev
2017-02-02 12:44:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Physics: The wave catchers [...] In an age of strongman politicians and outright despotism, this impassioned call for a "beacon of values" is more important than ever. "We desperately need science to rescue democracy from greed," Collins writes. "We need that even more than we need gravitational wave astronomy." http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v542/n7639/full/542028a.html

LIGO conspirators are greedier and more dishonest than politicians. My comment in Nature:

Neutron star mergers are far more likely than black hole mergers and yet LIGO conspirators haven't reported even weak and inconclusive signals (which could be compared with Integral's data and become valid evidence in the end). In other words, faking black hole waves is safe and profitable while faking neutron star waves is dangerous – Integral may expose the fraud:

"What surprised the LIGO collaboration instead was the nature of what they'd detected. Of the various gravitational-wave-producers that LIGO might observe?the kind that disturb space-time to such an extent that LIGO could register the aftershock?the collision of binary black holes was perhaps the least likely. Supernovae, neutron stars, colliding neutron stars: These were what the LIGO collaboration foresaw as far more common candidates. And now LIGO has detected a second pair of colliding black holes." http://www.lastwordonnothing.com/2016/06/16/getting-from-wow-to-yawn/

"Advanced LIGO is likely to observe mergers of double neutron star (NS/NS) binaries at a rate of a few to a few hundred per year; and black-hole/neutron-star (BH/NS) binaries perhaps in a comparable range of rates." Benjamin J. Owen Pennsylvania State University, Endorsed by: David H. Reitze (University of Florida), Stanley E. Whitcomb (LIGO-Caltech) http://www8.nationalacademies.org/ssbsurvey/DetailFileDisplay.aspx?id=146

"Just over a year ago, LIGO detected its first gravitational-wave signal: GW150914, produced when two black holes merged. While we didn't expect to see any sort of light-based signal from this merger, we could expect to see transient electromagnetic signatures in the case of a neutron star?black hole merger or a neutron star?neutron star merger ? in the form of a kilonova or a short gamma-ray burst. While we haven't yet detected any mergers involving neutron stars, LIGO has the sensitivity to make these detections..." http://aasnova.org/2016/10/26/narrowing-the-search-after-gravitational-wave-detections/

"Models predict that the merging of two stellar-mass black holes would not produce light at any wavelength, but if one or two neutron stars were involved in the process, then a characteristic signature should be observable across the electromagnetic spectrum. Another possible source of gravitational waves would be an asymmetric supernova explosion, also known to emit light over a range of wavelengths. [...] Integral is sensitive to transient sources of high-energy emission over the whole sky, and thus a team of scientists searched through its data, seeking signs of a sudden burst of hard X-rays or gamma rays that might have been recorded at the same time as the gravitational waves were detected. "We searched through all the available Integral data, but did not find any indication of high-energy emission associated with the LIGO detection,"..." http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Integral_sets_limits_on_gamma_rays_from_merging_black_holes

Conclusion: Gravitational waves don't exist. LIGO's 2015 "discovery" was a fake – 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." https://www.researchgate.net/blog/post/a-null-result-is-not-a-failure

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"!

Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
2017-02-03 18:03:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In Einstein's schizophrenic world the following C.S.I. activity is called "science":

"I can tell you about Alan Weinstein’s reaction, and he’s a professor here at Caltech who works on the LIGO experiment. He said when they got the phone calls they were all incredulous because they couldn’t believe that it was real. They’ve been looking for gravitational waves for decades. He said at first he thought that it was a blind injection, that someone had put in a signal and they didn’t know about it and so they thought that they were going to have to go through this whole rigmarole again, to find out that at the end of the day it was a hardware injection. Then they thought that maybe it was double blind because no one seemed to know what was going on. Whoever did the injection didn’t tell anyone, and this is going to be a big secret, and then eventually it’s not going to be a real signal. But then everyone swore that they hadn’t done any injections, and so they were starting to think, “oh my gosh, maybe this is real!” And then Alan thought maybe it was a triple blind experiment, and that just means it’s a malicious hacker who somehow managed to erase all of their steps and get the perfect gravitational wave signal in the mirror, and then will announce that they’ve somehow engineered this in a few months, and embarrass the collaboration. But he also claims that a binary black hole merger is much more likely than someone with that level of computer hacking power who is interested in hacking LIGO." http://nautil.us/issue/34/adaptation/the-gravity-wave-hunter

"Rai said, "Look, we went through every possible scenario for how you would inject a false signal, and tried to do it ourselves." There were only a few people in the entire collaboration with sufficient access and knowledge to do something like that, and they interrogated them all. And you have to physically attach stuff, you can't just do this telepathically, so they looked for little black boxes and things like that. It was like a C.S.I. experiment. So there's no physical evidence. It would be very hard to fake a signal without being caught. And I don't think anyone in the collaboration has that sophisticated a criminal mind. In fact, when they did a [deliberate] blind injection during the test run [of the earlier version of LIGO], they screwed it up a little. They got the orientation wrong." http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2016/04/black-hole-blues-gives-a-ringside-seat-to-discovery-of-gravitational-waves/

So in 2010 LIGO conspirators still did not have "that sophisticated a criminal mind" and "screwed it up a little" but then they improved and in 2015 everything was just fine:

"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"." http://www.thenational.ae/arts-life/the-review/why-albert-einstein-continues-to-make-waves-as-black-holes-collide#full

Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
2017-02-07 12:50:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"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." https://www.newscientist.com/article/2120507-gravitational-wave-detector-prepares-to-peer-into-bizarre-stars/

Aha! The new tactics of LIGO conspirators! Now they 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 stun the gullible world, get more millions of dollars, and then INTEGRAL say 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 fool the gullible world in the old way - only black hole collisions will make them dance:


NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON Gravitational Wave Dance

Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
2017-02-08 16:38:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Now, the 5-year, €23-million (US$24 million) 'Advanced Virgo' overhaul is almost finished: the upgraded lab will be inaugurated on 20 February, although it will be several more weeks before it starts doing science. Together, the twin LIGO machines and Virgo will make more-detailed and more-confident detections than LIGO alone. [...] That precision should improve further when the Kamioka Gravitational Wave Detector, or KAGRA, near Hida City in Japan, joins the gravitational-wave family in 2018. KAGRA's arms are 3 kilometres long, like Virgo's, but two key features aimed at reducing noise will diffentiate it from LIGO and Virgo: it is the first major interferometer to be built underground, and its mirrors will be kept some 20 degrees above absolute zero, not at room temperature. Several years later, another family member should light up: LIGO-India, a replica of the twin LIGO machines. The Indian government has selected a site in Maharashtra state, but construction has yet to begin, says LIGO-India spokesman Tarun Souradeep, a cosmologist at the Inter-University Centre for Astronomy and Astrophysics in Pune." http://www.nature.com/news/ligo-s-underdog-cousin-ready-to-enhance-gravitational-wave-hunt-1.21437

My comment in Nature:

There is a fundamental question that should be resolved before wasting so much money. Einstein's general relativity could be a deductive theory, but it could be an empirical concoction as well, and there is no third alternative:

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/einstein/works/1910s/relative/ap03.htm
Albert Einstein: "From a systematic theoretical point of view, we may imagine the process of evolution of an empirical science to be a continuous process of induction. Theories are evolved and are expressed in short compass as statements of a large number of individual observations in the form of empirical laws, from which the general laws can be ascertained by comparison. Regarded in this way, the development of a science bears some resemblance to the compilation of a classified catalogue. It is, as it were, a purely empirical enterprise. But this point of view by no means embraces the whole of the actual process ; for it slurs over the important part played by intuition and deductive thought in the development of an exact science. As soon as a science has emerged from its initial stages, theoretical advances are no longer achieved merely by a process of arrangement. Guided by empirical data, the investigator rather develops a system of thought which, in general, is built up logically from a small number of fundamental assumptions, the so-called axioms."

If general relativity is a deductive theory, it is potentially able to predict either the existence or the nonexistence of gravitational waves. If it is an empirical concoction, it is not even wrong and cannot predict anything. In the latter case general relativity is analogous to the "empirical models" defined here:

http://collum.chem.cornell.edu/documents/Intro_Curve_Fitting.pdf
"The objective of curve fitting is to theoretically describe experimental data with a model (function or equation) and to find the parameters associated with this model. Models of primary importance to us are mechanistic models. Mechanistic models are specifically formulated to provide insight into a chemical, biological, or physical process that is thought to govern the phenomenon under study. Parameters derived from mechanistic models are quantitative estimates of real system properties (rate constants, dissociation constants, catalytic velocities etc.). It is important to distinguish mechanistic models from empirical models that are mathematical functions formulated to fit a particular curve but whose parameters do not necessarily correspond to a biological, chemical or physical property."

Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
2017-02-10 22:44:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"A first action that LIGO collaboration should immediately adopt in order to repair its credibility controversy, is to stop performing any kind of injections, otherwise a new class of experimental Physics will be created, that of the 'detection' of self-created signals." https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304623546

The new experimental physics is already a fact - LIGO conspirators became millionaires and soon all experimentalists will be moving in that direction.

The new theoretical physics is a fact as well - no experimental confirmation is needed anymore:

http://www.nature.com/news/scientific-method-defend-the-integrity-of-physics-1.16535
George Ellis and Joe Silk: "This year, debates in physics circles took a worrying turn. Faced with difficulties in applying fundamental theories to the observed Universe, some researchers called for a change in how theoretical physics is done. They began to argue - explicitly - that if a theory is sufficiently elegant and explanatory, it need not be tested experimentally, breaking with centuries of philosophical tradition of defining scientific knowledge as empirical."

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/opinion/a-crisis-at-the-edge-of-physics.html
Adam Frank, professor of astrophysics at the University of Rochester, and Marcelo Gleiser, professor of physics and astronomy at Dartmouth College: "A Crisis at the Edge of Physics. Do physicists need empirical evidence to confirm their theories? You may think that the answer is an obvious yes, experimental confirmation being the very heart of science. But a growing controversy at the frontiers of physics and cosmology suggests that the situation is not so simple. (...) ...a mounting concern in fundamental physics: Today, our most ambitious science can seem at odds with the empirical methodology that has historically given the field its credibility."

http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/features/what-happens-when-we-cant-test-scientific-theories
Frank Close, professor of physics at the University of Oxford: "In recent years, however, many physicists have developed theories of great mathematical elegance, but which are beyond the reach of empirical falsification, even in principle. The uncomfortable question that arises is whether they can still be regarded as science. Some scientists are proposing that the definition of what is "scientific" be loosened, while others fear that to do so could open the door for pseudo-scientists or charlatans to mislead the public and claim equal space for their views."

Pentcho Valev

Loading...