Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #432588 > unrolled thread

LIGO Conspirators and Einstein's Relativity

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  LIGO Conspirators and Einstein's Relativity Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2017-09-16 09:12 -0700
    Re: LIGO Conspirators and Einstein's Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-09-16 21:33 -0700
      Re: LIGO Conspirators and Einstein's Relativity Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-17 00:16 -0500
        Re: LIGO Conspirators and Einstein's Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-09-16 22:24 -0700
    Re: LIGO Conspirators and Einstein's Relativity Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2017-09-17 04:16 -0700
      Re: LIGO Conspirators and Einstein's Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-09-19 20:52 -0700
    Re: LIGO Conspirators and Einstein's Relativity Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2017-09-21 14:08 -0700
      Re: LIGO Conspirators and Einstein's Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-09-21 14:18 -0700
        Re: LIGO Conspirators and Einstein's Relativity Kos Etrakis <uar@ksskkwi.ck> - 2017-09-21 21:25 +0000
      Re: LIGO Conspirators and Einstein's Relativity Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2017-09-21 21:53 -0500
        Re: LIGO Conspirators and Einstein's Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-22 13:04 +0200
    Re: LIGO Conspirators and Einstein's Relativity numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-09-21 17:22 -0700

#432588 — LIGO Conspirators and Einstein's Relativity

The theory of black holes is so confused and uncertain that Einstein did not believe they existed, and neither do some contemporary scientists. Also, Einstein's spacetime is so absurd that nowadays most theoreticians reject it, explicitly or implicitly. And yet, according to the mythology, LIGO conspirators used Einstein's relativity to model black holes, their collision, the ripples in spacetime produced, and the measurements gloriously matched the model: 

"Cornell professors Saul Teukolsky, astrophysics, and Larry Kidder, astronomy, played an instrumental role in the first detection of gravitational waves, a century after Albert Einstein predicted their existence in his theory of general relativity. [...] The LIGO and Virgo group confirmed that these gravitational waves had come from the collision of black holes by comparing their data with a theoretical model developed at Cornell. Teukolsky and the Cornell-founded Simulation of eXtreme Spacetimes collaboration group have been developing this model since 2000, according to the University." 
 http://cornellsun.com/2016/02/10/cornell-scientists-validate-einsteins-theory-of-relativity/

However Rana Adhikari, professor of Physics at Caltech and a member of the LIGO team, tells a different story. According to him, LIGO conspirators have no theoretical knowledge about the signals they have measured (Einstein's relativity did not tell them anything) - they only know, empirically, "the delay that the light's on":

Rana Adhikari: "You split it in two and you send it in two separate directions, and then when the waves come back, they interfere with each other. And you look at differences in that interference to tell you the difference in how long it took for one beam to go one way, and the other beam to go the other way. The way I said it was really careful there because there's a lot of confusion about the idea of, these are waves and space is bending, and everything is shrinking, and how come the light's not shrinking, and so on. We don't really know. There's no real difference between the ideas of space and time warping. It could be space warping or time warping but the only thing that we really know is what we measure. And that's the mantra of the true empirical person. We sent out the light and the light comes back and interferes, and the pattern changes. And that tells us something about effectively the delay that the light's on. And it could be that the space-time curved so that the light took longer to get there. But you could also imagine that there was a change in the time in one path as opposed to the other instead of the space but it's a mixture of space and time. So it sort of depends on your viewpoint." 
 https://blog.ycombinator.com/the-technical-challenges-of-measuring-gravitational-waves-rana-adhikari-of-ligo/

Pentcho Valev

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#432649

On Saturday, September 16, 2017 at 9:12:09 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> The theory of black holes is so confused

Confused? How?

> and uncertain that Einstein did not believe they existed,

We don't know many other things in physics models so why do you constantly bark at GR
as if nothing else existed in the world? There are drugs you can take to mitigate obsessive-
compulsive thought patterns, you know. I suggest you look into them.

> and neither do some contemporary scientists.

You don't know nowhere near enough to judge, sorry.

> Also, Einstein's spacetime is so absurd

Yeah yeah yeah, sure. Gobbledygook. Not even wrong.

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#432656

JanPB wrote:
> Pentcho Valev wrote:
> >
> > The theory of black holes is so confused
>
> Confused? How?

It's the metaphor that does it. A solid object isn't *really* a hole.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#432658

On Saturday, September 16, 2017 at 10:16:45 PM UTC-7, Ned Latham wrote:
> JanPB wrote:
> > Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > >
> > > The theory of black holes is so confused
> >
> > Confused? How?
> 
> It's the metaphor that does it. A solid object isn't *really* a hole.

Pentcho is jus talking nonsense.

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#432667

Rana Adhikari: "We don't really know. There's no real difference between the ideas of space and time warping. It could be space warping or time warping but the only thing that we really know is what we measure. And that's the mantra of the true empirical person. We sent out the light and the light comes back and interferes, and the pattern changes. And that tells us something about effectively the delay that the light's on. And it could be that the space-time curved so that the light took longer to get there. But you could also imagine that there was a change in the time in one path as opposed to the other instead of the space but it's a mixture of space and time. So it sort of depends on your viewpoint."  https://blog.ycombinator.com/the-technical-challenges-of-measuring-gravitational-waves-rana-adhikari-of-ligo/

Breathtaking! LIGO conspirators, as "true empirical persons", had no idea what they were measuring or faking and produced signal correlation but also noise correlation that they are unable to explain even now:

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

In a world different from Einstein's schizophrenic world this would mark the end of the LIGO project and the beginning of an interrogation. In Einstein's schizophrenic world the grandeur of the fraudsters can only increase - if the absurd noise correlation cannot topple them, nothing can! LIGO conspirators felt encouraged and quickly "discovered" neutron star gravitational waves (no noise correlation this time). 

Pentcho Valev

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#432982

On Sunday, September 17, 2017 at 4:16:03 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> Rana Adhikari: "We don't really know. There's no real difference between the ideas of space and time warping. 

You have problems, Pentcho.

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#433236

LIGO is based on sound waves that cannot propagate in vacuum.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#433239

On Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 2:08:43 PM UTC-7, Carl Susumu wrote:
> LIGO is based on sound waves that cannot propagate in vacuum.

You have a way with words :-)

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#433241

JanPB wrote:

> On Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 2:08:43 PM UTC-7, Carl Susumu wrote:
>> LIGO is based on sound waves that cannot propagate in vacuum.
> 
> You have a way with words

You both are wrong. Sound waves, if existent in it, easily might 
propagate. The problem you are unable to detect is, that sound waves and 
vacuum are mutual exclusive.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#433281

On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 14:08:40 -0700 (PDT), Carl Susumu
<numbernumber1212@gmail.com> wrote:

> LIGO is based on sound waves that cannot propagate in vacuum.

I think you're referring to LEGO.  Makes just about as much sense either
way, but LEGO comes in a wider variety of colors.  More fun that way.

-- 
Goat

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#433319

“Lofty Goat” wrote:

> […] Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> wrote:
>> LIGO is based on sound waves that cannot propagate in vacuum.
> 
> I think you're referring to LEGO.  Makes just about as much sense either
> way, but LEGO comes in a wider variety of colors.  More fun that way.

LOL

-- 
PointedEars

<https://github.com/PointedEars>
Twitter: @PointedEars2 | Please do not cc me./Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#433264

Sound waves cannot propagate in vacuum since vacuum is void of matter which represents mutual exclusivity. 

 












 

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web