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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #385967 > unrolled thread

The Gravitational Wave Hoax and Einstein's Spacetime

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

Contents

  The Gravitational Wave Hoax and Einstein's Spacetime Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-16 00:30 -0700
    Re: The Gravitational Wave Hoax and Einstein's Spacetime JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-16 00:35 -0700
      Re: The Gravitational Wave Hoax and Einstein's Spacetime Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-18 10:09 -0700
        Re: The Gravitational Wave Hoax and Einstein's Spacetime Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-20 03:16 -0700
    Re: The Gravitational Wave Hoax and Einstein's Spacetime Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2016-06-16 10:24 +0200
      Re: The Gravitational Wave Hoax and Einstein's Spacetime "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-06-16 11:24 +0200
        Re: The Gravitational Wave Hoax and Einstein's Spacetime Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-06-18 00:17 +0200
    Re: The Gravitational Wave Hoax and Einstein's Spacetime Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-16 05:31 -0700
      Re: The Gravitational Wave Hoax and Einstein's Spacetime Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-16 09:35 -0700
      Re: The Gravitational Wave Hoax and Einstein's Spacetime JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-16 10:46 -0700
      Re: The Gravitational Wave Hoax and Einstein's Spacetime Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-16 12:30 -0700
        Re: The Gravitational Wave Hoax and Einstein's Spacetime "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-16 12:55 -0700
          Re: The Gravitational Wave Hoax and Einstein's Spacetime "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-16 13:06 -0700
            Re: The Gravitational Wave Hoax and Einstein's Spacetime "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-16 14:20 -0700
              Re: The Gravitational Wave Hoax and Einstein's Spacetime "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-16 14:31 -0700
              Re: The Gravitational Wave Hoax and Einstein's Spacetime "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-16 15:09 -0700
                Re: The Gravitational Wave Hoax and Einstein's Spacetime "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-16 15:22 -0700
                  Re: The Gravitational Wave Hoax and Einstein's Spacetime "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-16 17:08 -0700
                  Re: The Gravitational Wave Hoax and Einstein's Spacetime "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-16 17:18 -0700
                    Re: The Gravitational Wave Hoax and Einstein's Spacetime "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-16 17:59 -0700
                      Re: The Gravitational Wave Hoax and Einstein's Spacetime "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-16 18:07 -0700
                        Re: The Gravitational Wave Hoax and Einstein's Spacetime "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-16 18:12 -0700
    Re: The Gravitational Wave Hoax and Einstein's Spacetime The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-17 01:05 -0700
      Re: The Gravitational Wave Hoax and Einstein's Spacetime "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-17 05:33 -0700
      Re: The Gravitational Wave Hoax and Einstein's Spacetime The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-17 10:03 -0700
        Re: The Gravitational Wave Hoax and Einstein's Spacetime The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-18 12:40 -0700
          Re: The Gravitational Wave Hoax and Einstein's Spacetime The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-19 12:22 -0700
            Re: The Gravitational Wave Hoax and Einstein's Spacetime Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-19 15:27 -0700

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#385967 — The Gravitational Wave Hoax and Einstein's Spacetime

The gravitational wave hoax made the situation in today's science even more schizophrenic. On the one hand, scientists know that spacetime, the absurd consequence of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate, is fatally strangling physics. On the other, they are forced to hail the ripples in the nonexistent spacetime gloriously "discovered" by LIGO conspirators:

https://edge.org/response-detail/25477 
 What scientific idea is ready for retirement? Steve Giddings: "Spacetime. Physics has always been regarded as playing out on an underlying stage of space and time. Special relativity joined these into spacetime... (...) The apparent need to retire classical spacetime as a fundamental concept is profound..."

http://www.news.ucsb.edu/2016/016562/einstein-revolution 
 " In celebration of Einstein’s birthday, physicists reflect on the German-born scientist’s work and its impact on the field and on everyday life. “We have good reason to believe general relativity is not a complete theory and, in particular, that it’s going to break down in the context of describing black holes,” said UCSB physics professor Steve Giddings. “That’s very much an important problem in physics today. “The direct observation of gravitational waves from colliding black holes really constrains the possible departures from general relativity that we know are there and limits where modifications can be made,” he continued. “But the discovery is still spectacular and its announcement was one of those moments in science that you live for.” "

The following quotations clearly show that Einstein's relativity should be immediately discarded:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U47kyV4TMnE 
 Nima Arkani-Hamed (06:11): "Almost all of us believe that space-time doesn't really exist, space-time is doomed and has to be replaced by some more primitive building blocks." 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727721.200-rethinking-einstein-the-end-of-spacetime.html 
 "Rethinking Einstein: The end of space-time (...) The stumbling block lies with their conflicting views of space and time. As seen by quantum theory, space and time are a static backdrop against which particles move. In Einstein's theories, by contrast, not only are space and time inextricably linked, but the resulting space-time is moulded by the bodies within it. (...) Something has to give in this tussle between general relativity and quantum mechanics, and the smart money says that it's relativity that will be the loser."

https://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/research/conferences/convergence/roundtable-discussion-questions/what-are-lessons-quantum 
 Perimeter Institute: "Quantum mechanics has one thing, time, which is absolute. But general relativity tells us that space and time are both dynamical so there is a big contradiction there. So the question is, can quantum gravity be formulated in a context where quantum mechanics still has absolute time?" 

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/08/05/science.aac6498 
 "In Einstein's general theory of relativity, time depends locally on gravity; in standard quantum theory, time is global - all clocks "tick" uniformly." 

http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0610057.pdf 
 "One one hand, time in quantum mechanics is a Newtonian time, i.e., an absolute time. In fact, the two main methods of quantization, namely, canonical quantization method due to Dirac and Feynman's path integral method are based on classical constraints which become operators annihilating the physical states, and on the sum over all possible classical trajectories, respectively. Therefore, both quantization methods rely on the Newton global and absolute time. (...) The transition to (special) relativistic quantum field theories can be realized by replacing the unique absolute Newtonian time by a set of timelike parameters associated to the naturally distinguished family of relativistic inertial frames." 

http://www.hindawi.com/journals/isrn/2013/509316/ 
 "In quantum mechanics, time is absolute. The parameter occurring in the Schrödinger equation has been directly inherited from Newtonian mechanics and is not turned into an operator. In quantum field theory, time by itself is no longer absolute, but the four-dimensional spacetime is; it constitutes the fixed background structure on which the dynamical fields act. GR is of a very different nature. According to the Einstein equations (2), spacetime is dynamical, acting in a complicated manner with energy momentum of matter and with itself. The concepts of time (spacetime) in quantum theory and GR are thus drastically different and cannot both be fundamentally true."

Pentcho Valev

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#385969

On Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 12:30:56 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> The gravitational wave hoax

There is no "gravitational wave hoax".

The rest of your post is junk.

--
Jan

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

#386147

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2077458-i-was-one-of-the-first-to-know-gravitational-waves-are-real/ 
 "But the LIGO team is infamous for testing its system by inserting fake signals that are only revealed to be false at the last minute."

This may be infamous but if you want to successfully fake the nonexistent gravitational waves and make an awful lot of money, rehearsals are needed. Here is the dress rehearsal:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2076754-latest-rumour-of-gravitational-waves-is-probably-true-this-time/ 
 "In 2010, before LIGO had been upgraded to its present sensitivity, a textbook chirp that looked like two black holes colliding came through. The team drafted a paper and sent maps of where the signal may have come from to astronomers, who searched for a counterpart with other telescopes. There was just one problem: the signal was a fake deliberately injected into the data stream to make sure the team would be able to spot a real one. The dramatic opening of a sealed envelope revealed that fact to 300 team members in the room, with 100 more watching via a video link." [Note that in 2010 not only LIGO members were deceived - astronomers all over the world were misled into wasting time and money and looking for the nonexistent black hole collision.]

Pentcho Valev

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

#386280

A somewhat sloppy refutation of LIGO's "discovery" but the arguments of LIGO conspirators are not less sloppy (you cannot argue rigorously when the opponent is slapdash):

http://file.scirp.org/pdf/JMP_2016062014272089.pdf 
 Xiaochun Mei, Ping Yu, Did LIGO Really Detect Gravitational Waves? Journal of Modern Physics, 2016, 7, 1098-1104

Pentcho Valev

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

#385973

On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 00:30:54 -0700 (PDT), Pentcho Valev
<pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote:

>The gravitational wave hoax made the situation in today's science even more schizophrenic. On the one hand, scientists know that spacetime, the absurd consequence of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate, is fatally strangling physics. On the other, they are forced to hail the ripples in the nonexistent spacetime gloriously "discovered" by LIGO conspirators:
>
>https://edge.org/response-detail/25477 
> What scientific idea is ready for retirement? Steve Giddings: "Spacetime. Physics has always been regarded as playing out on an underlying stage of space and time. Special relativity joined these into spacetime... (...) The apparent need to retire classical spacetime as a fundamental concept is profound..."
>
>http://www.news.ucsb.edu/2016/016562/einstein-revolution 
> " In celebration of Einstein’s birthday, physicists reflect on the German-born scientist’s work and its impact on the field and on everyday life. “We have good reason to believe general relativity is not a complete theory and, in particular, that it’s going to break down in the context of describing black holes,” said UCSB physics professor Steve Giddings. “That’s very much an important problem in physics today. “The direct observation of gravitational waves from colliding black holes really constrains the possible departures from general relativity that we know are there and limits where modifications can be made,” he continued. “But the discovery is still spectacular and its announcement was one of those moments in science that you live for.” "
>
>The following quotations clearly show that Einstein's relativity should be immediately discarded:
>
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U47kyV4TMnE 
> Nima Arkani-Hamed (06:11): "Almost all of us believe that space-time doesn't really exist, space-time is doomed and has to be replaced by some more primitive building blocks." 
>
>http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727721.200-rethinking-einstein-the-end-of-spacetime.html 
> "Rethinking Einstein: The end of space-time (...) The stumbling block lies with their conflicting views of space and time. As seen by quantum theory, space and time are a static backdrop against which particles move. In Einstein's theories, by contrast, not only are space and time inextricably linked, but the resulting space-time is moulded by the bodies within it. (...) Something has to give in this tussle between general relativity and quantum mechanics, and the smart money says that it's relativity that will be the loser."
>
>https://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/research/conferences/convergence/roundtable-discussion-questions/what-are-lessons-quantum 
> Perimeter Institute: "Quantum mechanics has one thing, time, which is absolute. But general relativity tells us that space and time are both dynamical so there is a big contradiction there. So the question is, can quantum gravity be formulated in a context where quantum mechanics still has absolute time?" 
>
>http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/08/05/science.aac6498 
> "In Einstein's general theory of relativity, time depends locally on gravity; in standard quantum theory, time is global - all clocks "tick" uniformly." 
>
>http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0610057.pdf 
> "One one hand, time in quantum mechanics is a Newtonian time, i.e., an absolute time. In fact, the two main methods of quantization, namely, canonical quantization method due to Dirac and Feynman's path integral method are based on classical constraints which become operators annihilating the physical states, and on the sum over all possible classical trajectories, respectively. Therefore, both quantization methods rely on the Newton global and absolute time. (...) The transition to (special) relativistic quantum field theories can be realized by replacing the unique absolute Newtonian time by a set of timelike parameters associated to the naturally distinguished family of relativistic inertial frames." 
>
>http://www.hindawi.com/journals/isrn/2013/509316/ 
> "In quantum mechanics, time is absolute. The parameter occurring in the Schrödinger equation has been directly inherited from Newtonian mechanics and is not turned into an operator. In quantum field theory, time by itself is no longer absolute, but the four-dimensional spacetime is; it constitutes the fixed background structure on which the dynamical fields act. GR is of a very different nature. According to the Einstein equations (2), spacetime is dynamical, acting in a complicated manner with energy momentum of matter and with itself. The concepts of time (spacetime) in quantum theory and GR are thus drastically different and cannot both be fundamentally true."
>
>Pentcho Valev

Good News for Pentcho:

http://news.mit.edu/2016/second-time-ligo-detects-gravitational-waves-0615

You can stop now posting your bullshit.

w.

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

#385974

On 16.06.2016 10:24, Helmut Wabnig wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 00:30:54 -0700 (PDT), Pentcho Valev
> <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> The gravitational wave hoax made the situation in today's science even more schizophrenic. On the one hand, scientists know that spacetime, the absurd consequence of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate, is fatally strangling physics. On the other, they are forced to hail the ripples in the nonexistent spacetime gloriously "discovered" by LIGO conspirators:
>>
>> https://edge.org/response-detail/25477
>> What scientific idea is ready for retirement? Steve Giddings: "Spacetime. Physics has always been regarded as playing out on an underlying stage of space and time. Special relativity joined these into spacetime... (...) The apparent need to retire classical spacetime as a fundamental concept is profound..."
>>
>> http://www.news.ucsb.edu/2016/016562/einstein-revolution
>> " In celebration of Einstein’s birthday, physicists reflect on the German-born scientist’s work and its impact on the field and on everyday life. “We have good reason to believe general relativity is not a complete theory and, in particular, that it’s going to break down in the context of describing black holes,” said UCSB physics professor Steve Giddings. “That’s very much an important problem in physics today. “The direct observation of gravitational waves from colliding black holes really constrains the possible departures from general relativity that we know are there and limits where modifications can be made,” he continued. “But the discovery is still spectacular and its announcement was one of those moments in science that you live for.” "
>>
>> The following quotations clearly show that Einstein's relativity should be immediately discarded:
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U47kyV4TMnE
>> Nima Arkani-Hamed (06:11): "Almost all of us believe that space-time doesn't really exist, space-time is doomed and has to be replaced by some more primitive building blocks."
>>
>> http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727721.200-rethinking-einstein-the-end-of-spacetime.html
>> "Rethinking Einstein: The end of space-time (...) The stumbling block lies with their conflicting views of space and time. As seen by quantum theory, space and time are a static backdrop against which particles move. In Einstein's theories, by contrast, not only are space and time inextricably linked, but the resulting space-time is moulded by the bodies within it. (...) Something has to give in this tussle between general relativity and quantum mechanics, and the smart money says that it's relativity that will be the loser."
>>
>> https://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/research/conferences/convergence/roundtable-discussion-questions/what-are-lessons-quantum
>> Perimeter Institute: "Quantum mechanics has one thing, time, which is absolute. But general relativity tells us that space and time are both dynamical so there is a big contradiction there. So the question is, can quantum gravity be formulated in a context where quantum mechanics still has absolute time?"
>>
>> http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/08/05/science.aac6498
>> "In Einstein's general theory of relativity, time depends locally on gravity; in standard quantum theory, time is global - all clocks "tick" uniformly."
>>
>> http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0610057.pdf
>> "One one hand, time in quantum mechanics is a Newtonian time, i.e., an absolute time. In fact, the two main methods of quantization, namely, canonical quantization method due to Dirac and Feynman's path integral method are based on classical constraints which become operators annihilating the physical states, and on the sum over all possible classical trajectories, respectively. Therefore, both quantization methods rely on the Newton global and absolute time. (...) The transition to (special) relativistic quantum field theories can be realized by replacing the unique absolute Newtonian time by a set of timelike parameters associated to the naturally distinguished family of relativistic inertial frames."
>>
>> http://www.hindawi.com/journals/isrn/2013/509316/
>> "In quantum mechanics, time is absolute. The parameter occurring in the Schrödinger equation has been directly inherited from Newtonian mechanics and is not turned into an operator. In quantum field theory, time by itself is no longer absolute, but the four-dimensional spacetime is; it constitutes the fixed background structure on which the dynamical fields act. GR is of a very different nature. According to the Einstein equations (2), spacetime is dynamical, acting in a complicated manner with energy momentum of matter and with itself. The concepts of time (spacetime) in quantum theory and GR are thus drastically different and cannot both be fundamentally true."
>>
>> Pentcho Valev
>
> Good News for Pentcho:
>
> http://news.mit.edu/2016/second-time-ligo-detects-gravitational-waves-0615
>
> You can stop now posting your bullshit.
>
> w.

http://journals.aps.org/prl/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.241103


-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

#386094

Paul B. Andersen wrote:

> http://journals.aps.org/prl/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.241103

404-compliant.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#385981

In Einstein schizophrenic world the following thriller is called "science": 

http://nautil.us/issue/34/adaptation/the-gravity-wave-hunter 
 "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." 

The quotations below suggest that the hacker who performed the triple blind experiment had already rehearsed it in 2010, then had taken five years to improve the procedure, and on September 9th 2015, five days before the first "detection", was already thinking what he would buy for the Nobel prize: 

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2076754-latest-rumour-of-gravitational-waves-is-probably-true-this-time/ 
 "In 2010, before LIGO had been upgraded to its present sensitivity, a textbook chirp that looked like two black holes colliding came through. The team drafted a paper and sent maps of where the signal may have come from to astronomers, who searched for a counterpart with other telescopes. There was just one problem: the signal was a fake deliberately injected into the data stream to make sure the team would be able to spot a real one. The dramatic opening of a sealed envelope revealed that fact to 300 team members in the room, with 100 more watching via a video link." [Note that in 2010 not only LIGO members were deceived - astronomers all over the world were misled into wasting time and money and looking for the non-existent black hole collision.] 

http://motls.blogspot.bg/2016/02/ligo-journal-servers-behind-scenes.html 
 Lubos Motl: " On September 9th, the LIGO folks were already convinced that they would discover the waves soon. Some of them were thinking what they would buy for the Nobel prize and all of them had to make an online vote about the journal where the discovery should be published. It has to be Physical Review Letters because PRL (published by the APS) is the best journal for the Nobel-prize-caliber papers, the LIGO members decided. Five days later, Advanced LIGO made the discovery. Four more days later, as you know, they officially started Advanced LIGO. ;-) " 

Pentcho Valev

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

#385986

http://www.lastwordonnothing.com/2016/06/16/getting-from-wow-to-yawn/ 
 "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."

There is a third "detection", LVT151012, - again colliding black holes. And David Reitze said at the 15th of June press conference that detecting gravitational waves from neutron stars is unlikely - now and in the future. Reitze's problem is obvious - while faking black hole gravitational waves can remain unpunished, faking neutron star gravitational waves can be exposed by alternative observations and is therefore too dangerous. Reitze does not want to be in the position of the Fermi scientists whose fraud was quickly revealed:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/04/19/99-8-wrong-how-nasas-fermi-scientists-are-fooling-themselves-about-gamma-rays-from-black-holes/ 
 " How NASA's Fermi Scientists Are (Probably) Fooling Themselves About Gamma Rays From Black Holes (...) And finally, there’s a competing satellite programme — the European Space Agency’s INTEGRAL satellite — that definitively saw no high-energy signal associated with the LIGO event. In a paper published last month in the prestigious Astrophysical Journal Letters, lead author Volodymyr Savchenko concluded the following, “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 
 "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," says Volodymyr Savchenko of the François Arago Centre in Paris, France. Volodymyr is the lead author of a paper reporting the results, published today in Astrophysical Journal Letters. (...) Subsequent analysis of the LIGO data has shown that the gravitational waves were produced by a pair of coalescing black holes, each with a mass roughly 30 times that of our Sun, located about 1.3 billion light years away. Scientists do not expect to see any significant emission of light at any wavelength from such events, and thus Integral's null detection is consistent with this scenario. (...) The only exception was the Gamma-Ray Burst Monitor on NASA's Fermi Gamma-Ray Space Telescope, which observed what appears to be a sudden burst of gamma rays about 0.4 seconds after the gravitational waves were detected. The burst lasted about one second and came from a region of the sky that overlaps with the strip identified by LIGO. This detection sparked a bounty of theoretical investigations, proposing possible scenarios in which two merging black holes of stellar mass could indeed have released gamma rays along with the gravitational waves. However, if this gamma-ray flare had had a cosmic origin, either linked to the LIGO gravitational wave source or to any other astrophysical phenomenon in the Universe, it should have been detected by Integral as well. The absence of any such detection by both instruments on Integral suggests that the measurement from Fermi could be unrelated to the gravitational wave detection."

Pentcho Valev

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

#385989

On Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 5:31:35 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> In Einstein schizophrenic world the following thriller is called "science": 

In your schizophrenic world your posts have a "content".

--
Jan

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

#385998

It seems Einsteinians have realized that the gravitational wave hoax will be uncovered sooner or later and are preparing, very subtly, the world for the shock:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9wlBiRbbKs 
 The Perfect Gravitational Wave

Pentcho Valev

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

#386000

1/r^2

Two merging black holes of (m1+m2) = 65 solar masses radiate away 3.0 solar mass in 0.25 seconds 


http://www.ligo.org/science/Publication-GW150914/index.php


The energy released by the binary as it spiralled together and merged was immense, with the energy of 3.0+0.5
−0.5 c2 solar masses (5.3+0.9
−0.8×10^47 joules) in total radiated as gravitational waves, reaching a peak emission rate of about 3.6+0.5
−0.4×10^49 watts – a level greater than the combined power of all light radiated by all the stars in the observable universe.


pi/(4pi*5) = 0.05
3.1416/62.8318530718

The LOST 3 solar masses is equivalent to the whole universe being large in Relation to the radius of the event horizon created by a 62.8 solar mass black hole 

In radiating 3 solar masses, the 62.8 solar mass black hole "Moved Away" from the rest of the universe by making the universe BIGGER by changing the (rate time passes in the entire universe).

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

#386001

The LOST 3 solar masses is equivalent to the whole universe being (larger) in Relation to the radius of the event horizon created by a 62.8 solar mass black hole 

In radiating 3 solar masses, the 62.8 solar mass black hole "Moved Away" from the rest of the universe by making the universe BIGGER by changing the (rate time passes in the entire universe). 

The merger merger lowered the vacuum impedance of the entire universe, ( lowering the speed of light & red shifting all light ) by (increasing the span of one second) 

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

#386004

((3.347241547e+66 eV) * (((4 * pi) / 3) * ((191.82700 - 185.92500)^3))) / (((4 * pi) / 3) * (1.41907926e25^3)) = (3.8581144e-26 joules per cubic meter) here on earth 


(3.347241547e+66 eV) * (((4 * pi) / 3) * ((191.82700 - 185.92500)^3)) = (4.61831624e+50 joules per cubic meter) there at the merger 1.5 billion Lyrs away. 

1 / ((4.61831624e+50 / 3.8581144e-26)^0.5) = 9.1399899e-39

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

#386005

((3.347241547e+66 eV) * (((4 * pi) / 3) * ((191.82700 - 185.92500)^3))) / (((4 * pi) / 3) * (1.41907926e25^3)) 


(3.347241547e+66 eV) * (((4 * pi) / 3) * ((191.82700 - 185.92500)^3)) 

1/(2.88252629877E+69/2.40804562095E-07)^(1/2) = 9.13998990571E-39

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

#386009

((191.827 meter - 185.925 meter )) = horizon radius change from 65 to 62 solar mass change

(5.96700e+30 kg) / ((1.41907926e25 meters)^2) = 2.9630756 × 10^-20 kg / m2

1 / (((5.96700e+30 kg) / ((1.41907926e25 meters)^2)) * (c^2)) = 375.505119 s2 / kg


1 / ((5.96700e+30 kg) / (((1.41907926e25 meters) / c)^2)) = 375.505119 s2 / kg

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

#386010

(4.61831624e+50 joules) per (cubic meter) =
4.61831624e+50 pascals

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

#386017

(4.16123648e-14 joules) per (cubic meter) = 
4.16123648 × 10^-14 pascals 

4.63 * 10^-31 kg /meter^3 = 4.16123648 × 10^-14 pascals 

4.16123648e-14 joules = 259723 eV per meter^3 

(4.61831624e+50 joules) per (cubic meter) = 
4.61831624e+50 pascals 


(((4.16123648e-14 * 4.61831624e+50)^0.5) / c) * G = 0.975941392

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

#386018

4.61831624e+50 N/m^2

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

#386019

CMBR per meter^3 = 4.19169e-14 joules

1 / (((4.19169e-14 pascals) / ((4 * pi * (10^(-7)))^2)) / 10) = 376.730317 m s2 / kg

1 / (((4.19169e-14 joules) / ((4 * pi * (10^(-7)))^2)) / 10) = 376.730317 m-2 kg-1 s2

1 / (((4.19169e-14 newtons) / ((4 * pi * (10^(-7)))^2)) / 10) = 376.730317 m-1 kg-1 s2

4.61831624e+50 Joules per meter^3

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

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

csiph-web