Discussion:
LIGO's Gravitational Waves: Climax of Einstein Fraud
(trop ancien pour répondre)
Pentcho Valev
2020-01-08 00:17:34 UTC
Permalink
"On 8:41 am EDT August 17, 2017, LIGO detected a new gravitational wave source, dubbed GW170817 to mark its discovery date. Just two seconds later NASA's Fermi satellite detected a weak pulse of gamma rays from the same location of the sky." https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/2017-30

A self-evident fake. "Same location" implies that gravitational waves don't move in a straight line to Earth but absurdly follow the path of (deflected) gamma rays:

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-276068269ac78ffbf22ffbdc53af5ba9.webp

Given the 2017 "same location" fake, any subsequent neutron-star-collision scenario involves an insoluble dilemma:

If "same location" is reconfirmed, LIGO conspirators will have to explain why gravitational waves coming straight to Earth somehow vanish in massive objects and only those strictly following the curvy path of the gamma rays gloriously reach LIGO's detectors. Hopeless business - the conclusion that LIGO conspirators fake gravitational waves will be more than obvious.

If "same location" is abandoned and gravitational waves and optical signals start coming from different directions, LIGO conspirators will have to explain how "same location" occurred in 2017 - again, the conclusion that gravitational waves are faked will be more than obvious.

As can be expected, the "same location" insoluble dilemma has been carefully avoided since the GW170817 fake:

"But one of LIGO's twin detectors was offline Thursday when the gravitational wave reached Earth, making it hard for astronomers to triangulate exactly where the signal was coming from. That sent astronomers racing to image as many galaxies as they could across a region covering one-quarter of the sky." http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2019/04/25/breaking-ligo-detects-another-neutron-star-merger/

"In this case, unlike many others, LIGO and Virgo were unable to significantly narrow down the direction in the sky that the waves came from. The researchers could say only that the waves were from a wide region that covers roughly one-quarter of the sky." https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01377-2

"You might wonder why we haven't seen knockout detections of electromagnetic radiation accompanying gravitational waves since the August 2017 discovery. Unfortunately, we probably just got lucky that time. “It was nearby, well-localized in space, and had everything going for it,” Berger said." https://gizmodo.com/mystery-deepens-around-newly-detected-ripples-in-space-1837581646

"The first such observation, which took place in August of 2017, made history for being the first time that both gravitational waves and light were detected from the same cosmic event. The April 25 merger, by contrast, did not result in any light being detected." https://phys.org/news/2020-01-ligo-virgo-gravitational-network-neutron-star.html

Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
2020-01-08 22:56:19 UTC
Permalink
Einstein's space-time and LIGO's gravitational waves (ripples in space-time) don't exist, for the following reason.

Insofar as their speed is concerned, photons are Newtonian particles. The speed of light varies, both in the presence and in the absence of gravity, just as does the speed of ordinary projectiles.

Actually this is a well-established truth but no one cares (post-truth science):

"I want to emphasize that light comes in this form - particles. It is very important to know that light behaves like particles, especially for those of you who have gone to school, where you probably learned something about light behaving like waves. I'm telling you the way it does behave - like particles. You might say that it's just the photomultiplier that detects light as particles, but no, every instrument that has been designed to be sensitive enough to detect weak light has always ended up discovering the same thing: light is made of particles." Richard Feynman, QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter p. 15 https://www.amazon.com/QED-Strange-Theory-Light-Matter/dp/0691024170

"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

"To see why a deflection of light would be expected, consider Figure 2-17, which shows a beam of light entering an accelerating compartment. Successive positions of the compartment are shown at equal time intervals. Because the compartment is accelerating, the distance it moves in each time interval increases with time. The path of the beam of light, as observed from inside the compartment, is therefore a parabola. But according to the equivalence principle, there is no way to distinguish between an accelerating compartment and one with uniform velocity in a uniform gravitational field. We conclude, therefore, that A BEAM OF LIGHT WILL ACCELERATE IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD AS DO OBJECTS WITH REST MASS. For example, near the surface of Earth light will fall with acceleration 9.8 m/s^2." http://web.pdx.edu/~pmoeck/books/Tipler_Llewellyn.pdf

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: "Consider a falling object. ITS SPEED INCREASES AS IT IS FALLING. Hence, if we were to associate a frequency with that object the frequency should increase accordingly as it falls to earth. Because of the equivalence between gravitational and inertial mass, WE SHOULD OBSERVE THE SAME EFFECT FOR LIGHT. So lets shine a light beam from the top of a very tall building. If we can measure the frequency shift as the light beam descends the building, we should be able to discern how gravity affects a falling light beam. This was done by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They shone a light from the top of the Jefferson tower at Harvard and measured the frequency shift. The frequency shift was tiny but in agreement with the theoretical prediction. Consider a light beam that is travelling away from a gravitational field. Its frequency should shift to lower values. This is known as the gravitational red shift of light." https://courses.physics.illinois.edu/phys419/sp2011/lectures/Lecture13/L13r.html

Albert Einstein Institute: "One of the three classical tests for general relativity is the gravitational redshift of light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation. However, in contrast to the other two tests - the gravitational deflection of light and the relativistic perihelion shift -, you do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices. [...] The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 1960-65 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..." https://www.einstein-online.info/en/spotlight/redshift_white_dwarfs/

R. V. Pound and J. L. Snider, Effect of Gravity on Gamma Radiation: "It is not our purpose here to enter into the many-sided discussion of the relationship between the effect under study and general relativity or energy conservation. It is to be noted that no strictly relativistic concepts are involved and the description of the effect as an "apparent weight" of photons is suggestive. The velocity difference predicted is identical to that which a material object would acquire in free fall for a time equal to the time of flight." http://virgo.lal.in2p3.fr/NPAC/relativite_fichiers/pound.pdf

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

Pentcho Valev

Loading...