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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #476699 > unrolled thread

Simultaneous Arrival of Optical Signals and Gravitational Waves in LIGO's GW170817 Experiment

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

Contents

  Simultaneous Arrival of Optical Signals and Gravitational Waves in LIGO's GW170817 Experiment Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2018-11-10 02:09 -0800
    Simultaneous Arrival of Optical Signals and Gravitational Waves in LIGO's GW170817 Experiment "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-11-10 04:06 -0800
    Re: Simultaneous Arrival of Optical Signals and Gravitational Waves in LIGO's GW170817 Experiment Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-10 14:56 +0100
    Re: Simultaneous Arrival of Optical Signals and Gravitational Waves in LIGO's GW170817 Experiment Gaston Castaneda <ucpp@java2osw.np> - 2018-11-10 20:10 +0000
    Re: Simultaneous Arrival of Optical Signals and Gravitational Waves in LIGO's GW170817 Experiment Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2018-11-11 02:03 -0800
      Re: Simultaneous Arrival of Optical Signals and Gravitational Waves in LIGO's GW170817 Experiment Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-11 12:18 +0100
        Re: Simultaneous Arrival of Optical Signals and Gravitational Waves in LIGO's GW170817 Experiment mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-11 03:25 -0800
      Re: Simultaneous Arrival of Optical Signals and Gravitational Waves in LIGO's GW170817 Experiment "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-11-11 03:51 -0800
        Re: Simultaneous Arrival of Optical Signals and Gravitational Waves in LIGO's GW170817 Experiment Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-11 13:19 +0100
          Re: Simultaneous Arrival of Optical Signals and Gravitational Waves in LIGO's GW170817 Experiment mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-11 04:30 -0800
          Re: Simultaneous Arrival of Optical Signals and Gravitational Waves in LIGO's GW170817 Experiment Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-11-11 08:51 -0600
            Re: Simultaneous Arrival of Optical Signals and Gravitational Waves in LIGO's GW170817 Experiment Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-11 16:14 +0100
              Re: Simultaneous Arrival of Optical Signals and Gravitational Waves in LIGO's GW170817 Experiment moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-11 16:11 +0000
              Re: Simultaneous Arrival of Optical Signals and Gravitational Waves in LIGO's GW170817 Experiment Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-11-12 00:31 -0600
      Re: Simultaneous Arrival of Optical Signals and Gravitational Waves in LIGO's GW170817 Experiment Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2018-11-12 01:04 -0800
    Re: Simultaneous Arrival of Optical Signals and Gravitational Waves in LIGO's GW170817 Experiment Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-14 12:24 +0000

#476699 — Simultaneous Arrival of Optical Signals and Gravitational Waves in LIGO's GW170817 Experiment

That (some, not all) gravitational waves travel at the speed of light was Eddington's 1922 fabrication (nothing to do with Einstein's general relativity): http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/royprsa/102/716/268.full.pdf

Also, the simultaneous arrival of optical signals and gravitational waves (if the latter exist; actually they don't) in LIGO's GW170817 experiment can only be discussed if the gravitational waves experience Shapiro delay, which is nonsense of course. (Does Einstein's relativity predict Shapiro delay for gravitational waves?)

Conclusion: LIGO conspirators obviously FAKED the simultaneous arrival of optical signals and gravitational waves in the GW170817 (neutron-star-collision) experiment.

Pentcho Valev

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#476703

c is the rate of Causality 

Gravitational Waves are Admittedly Sonic disturbances of the medium 

If there is no Aether, how can something that isn’t there “WAVE or reverberate”?

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

#476717

Pentcho Valev wrote:

> That (some, not all) gravitational waves travel at the speed of light was
> Eddington's 1922 fabrication (nothing to do with Einstein's general
> relativity): 
> <http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/royprsa/102/716/268.full.pdf>

Utter nonsense.

,-<https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol6-trans/213>
|
| Session of the physical-mathematical class on June 22, 1916
|
| Approximative Integration of the Field Equations of Gravitation
| by A. Einstein
|
| […]

Cf. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equations>

    [Note that you can (now?) click the title to switch from the official
     translation into English of the 1990s to the (German) original and
     vice-versa.]

,-<https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol6-trans/217>
|
| […]
|
| §2. Plane Gravitational Waves
|
| It follows from equations (6) and (9) that gravitational fields always
| propagate with velocity 1, i.e., with the velocity of light. Plane
| gravitational waves, traveling along the positive X-axis, can therefore
| be found by setting
|
|   γ'µν = a_µν f(x₁ + i x₄) = a_µν f(x − t).
|
| […]

> […] Conclusion […]

/Ex falso quodlibet./

-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#476730

Pentcho Valev wrote:

> Conclusion: LIGO conspirators obviously FAKED the simultaneous arrival
> of optical signals and gravitational waves in the GW170817
> (neutron-star-collision) experiment.

Worse is that those "detections" are not repeatable under any 
circumstances. The scientific term for it is "pure bullshit".

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

#476764

Gravitational waves (ripples in spacetime) don't exist because spacetime doesn't exist, and spacetime doesn't exist because the speed of light is VARIABLE:

Stationary light source; moving receiver:  http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_detector_blue.gif 

(Website:  http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/doppler.html) 

The speed of the light pulses relative to the source is 

c = df 

where d is the distance between the pulses and f is the frequency measured by the source. The speed of the pulses relative to the receiver is 

c'= df' > c 

where f' > f is the frequency measured by the receiver.

In Einstein's schizophrenic world scientists repudiate spacetime but worship the underlying premise, Einstein's false constant-speed-of-light postulate, and LIGO's "ripples in spacetime":

Nima Arkani-Hamed (06:09): "Almost all of us believe that space-time doesn't really exist, space-time is doomed and has to be replaced..."  https://youtu.be/U47kyV4TMnE?t=369

"We've known for decades that space-time is doomed," says Arkani-Hamed. "We know it is not there in the next version of physics."  http://discovermagazine.com/2014/jan-feb/10-shaping-the-future-of-physics 

Nobel Laureate David Gross observed, "Everyone in string theory is convinced...that spacetime is doomed. But we don't know what it's replaced by."  https://www.edge.org/response-detail/26563 

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..."  https://www.edge.org/response-detail/25477 

"Rethinking Einstein: The end of space-time. [...] Horava, who is at the University of California, Berkeley, wants to rip this fabric apart and set time and space free from one another in order to come up with a unified theory that reconciles the disparate worlds of quantum mechanics and gravity - one the most pressing challenges to modern physics."  https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727721-200-rethinking-einstein-the-end-of-space-time/ 

Pentcho Valev

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

#476766

Pentcho Valev wrote:
> Gravitational waves (ripples in spacetime) don't exist because spacetime
> doesn't exist, [more nonsense]

Observable reality confirms special and general relativity, and proves you
wrong:

<https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=TQ_oW6PyJNHjkgW2x4vADg&q=gravitational+lensing&oq=gravitational+lensing&gs_l=img.3..0i67k1j0l9.3315.3315.0.3942.1.1.0.0.0.0.389.389.3-1.1.0....0...1c.1.64.img..0.1.387....0.ldvzv0ZxuN4>

<http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html>

(among many other examples)

-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#476768

On Sunday, 11 November 2018 12:18:24 UTC+1, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn  wrote:
> Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > Gravitational waves (ripples in spacetime) don't exist because spacetime
> > doesn't exist, [more nonsense]
> 
> Observable reality confirms special and general relativity


Unfortunately, only to some fanatic morons.

> , and proves you wrong:

Even your moronic gurus could explain you id doesn't.

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

#476769

Pentcho Valev escrito 

Gravitational waves (ripples in spacetime) don't exist because spacetime doesn't exist, and spacetime doesn't exist because the speed of light is VARIABLE: 

NO....

The speed of light is constant and the (energy of photons is variable)

Also the speed of light is (the rate of CAUSALITY)

With (A Variable  Speed Of Light), there would be no reality or universe. 

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

#476770

David (Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:

> The speed of light is constant and the (energy of photons is variable)

Partially true (cf. below).  As for the latter, E_γ = ℎ f, and for *the
same* photon, its observed frequency f_o depends on the relative motion of
detector and source (where f_r is emitted) – when moving on the same lines,

  f_o = f_s √((1 − v/c)/(1 + v/c))

–, where the motion of detector and source away from each other is signified
with a positive speed v (relativistic Doppler effect).

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler_effect#Motion_along_the_line_of_sight>

Also, a photon can interact with matter and give off a part of its energy in
in inelastic scattering (e.g. Raman or Compton scattering), which results in
the scattered light/radiation to have a lower frequency and therefore less
energy than the light/incident radiation.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scattering#Electromagnetic_scattering>

> Also the speed of light is (the rate of CAUSALITY)
> 
> With (A Variable  Speed Of Light), there would be no reality or universe. 

The speed of light *is* variable, but only as variable (inhomogeneous) as
the medium through which light travels.  In perfect vacuum or in a
homogeneous medium, the speed of light is constant and the same in all
directions (isotropic).

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#In_a_medium>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refractive_index#Microscopic_explanation>

-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#476772

On Sunday, 11 November 2018 13:19:32 UTC+1, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn  wrote:

> The speed of light *is* variable, but only as variable (inhomogeneous) as
> the medium through which light travels.  In perfect vacuum or in a
> homogeneous medium, the speed of light is constant and the same in all
> directions (isotropic).

Even your idiot guru was unable to hold such an idiocy
for long and his GR shit has rejected it.

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

#476774

On 11/11/18 6:19 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> [...] for *the same* photon, [...]
> Also, a photon can interact with matter and give off a part of its energy in
> in inelastic scattering (e.g. Raman or Compton scattering), [...]

This is problematic for several reasons:
  1) One cannot possibly identify "the same" photon, because photons are
     Bosons.
  2) The only vertex in QED consists of one photon and two electron legs,
     so any photon that interacts is either absorbed or emitted. That
     means that for any photon interaction, the incoming/initial photon
     is destroyed and a different/new photon is emitted. But see (1) --
     the overall amplitude must be symmetrized over all external photon
     legs (which intermixes them all). See also (3).
  3) Many Feynman diagrams contribute to any process, and one cannot
     identify external photon legs among them, so discussing "this"
     photon or "that" photon only makes sense in the context of a
     single diagram, which is NOT the whole process. See (1) and (2).
  4) One cannot observe any photon twice because observation requires an
     interaction -- see (2).

The problem is in your wording, and attempting to discuss individual 
photons. One can discuss this only in terms of light beams (consisting 
of many, many photons) and probabilities of scattering and interacting.

That's why I STRONGLY suggest that people around here not attempt to 
discuss photons, but rather light beams or rays. Light beams and light 
rays can be modeled classically, via either geometrical or wave optics 
(two approximations to classical electrodynamics). The quantum aspects 
of light are beyond the ken of most people around here.

For light from distant astronomical objects observed on earth, the 
probability of scattering is very small, until it enters the atmosphere. 
We are fortunate that for visible light the scattering in the atmosphere 
is rare, and peaked strongly forward, so the images of stars are 
broadened only slightly. If this were not true, astronomy as we know it 
would be impossible. (This is not happenstance, as our eyes have been 
formed via evolution, and our imaging instruments have been developed to 
mimic our eyes.)

Tom Roberts

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

#476776

Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 11/11/18 6:19 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> [...] for *the same* photon, [...]
>> Also, a photon can interact with matter and give off a part of its energy in
>> in inelastic scattering (e.g. Raman or Compton scattering), [...]
> 
> This is problematic for several reasons:
>   1) One cannot possibly identify "the same" photon, because photons are
>      Bosons.

Irrelevant.  This was not the description of an experimental setup.  Stop
trying to impose your interpretations on the world.

> For light from distant astronomical objects observed on earth, the 
> probability of scattering is very small, until it enters the atmosphere. 
> We are fortunate that for visible light the scattering in the atmosphere 
> is rare,

Complete nonsense.  The sky assumes colors from bluish to reddish, and lunar
eclipses are reddish, because there is *a lot* of scattering of visible
light by the atmosphere.  Even the night sky turns blue in long exposure
photography.

-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#476786

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> writes:

>Tom Roberts wrote:
>> On 11/11/18 6:19 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> [...] for *the same* photon, [...]
>>> Also, a photon can interact with matter and give off a part of its energy in
>>> in inelastic scattering (e.g. Raman or Compton scattering), [...]
>> 
>> This is problematic for several reasons:
>>   1) One cannot possibly identify "the same" photon, because photons are
>>      Bosons.

>Irrelevant.  This was not the description of an experimental setup.  Stop
>trying to impose your interpretations on the world.

But if it's part of the Bose-Einstein statistics for bosons (I don't know)
then it is true.

>> For light from distant astronomical objects observed on earth, the 
>> probability of scattering is very small, until it enters the atmosphere. 
>> We are fortunate that for visible light the scattering in the atmosphere 
>> is rare,

>Complete nonsense.  The sky assumes colors from bluish to reddish, and lunar
>eclipses are reddish, because there is *a lot* of scattering of visible
>light by the atmosphere.  Even the night sky turns blue in long exposure
>photography.

The point seems to have been that MOST light is not scattered at all. 
Because of this, we see individual stars, and we see a yellowish sun and a
blue sky, not a brilliant white sky with no discernable solar disk, or 
stars.

Also the scattering is something like proportional to f^4, very frequency
dependent. Which is why the sky is blue and the sun is reddish at sunset
and lunar eclipses are reddish.

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

#476851

On 11/11/18 9:14 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Tom Roberts wrote:
>> On 11/11/18 6:19 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> [...] for *the same* photon, [...]
>>> Also, a photon can interact with matter and give off a part of its energy in
>>> in inelastic scattering (e.g. Raman or Compton scattering), [...]
>>
>> This is problematic for several reasons:
>>    1) One cannot possibly identify "the same" photon, because photons are
>>       Bosons.
> 
> Irrelevant.  This was not the description of an experimental setup.  Stop
> trying to impose your interpretations on the world.

This is not "my interpretation", this is an important and essential 
aspect of the quantum mechanics of identical Bosons.
>> For light from distant astronomical objects observed on earth, the
>> probability of scattering is very small, until it enters the atmosphere.
>> We are fortunate that for visible light the scattering in the atmosphere
>> is rare,
> 
> Complete nonsense.  The sky assumes colors from bluish to reddish, and lunar
> eclipses are reddish, because there is *a lot* of scattering of visible
> light by the atmosphere.  Even the night sky turns blue in long exposure
> photography.

What I said is true. Look up at night and LOOK at the stars. Are their 
images smaller than the resolution of the best telescopes? Is there dark 
space between isolated stars? Are the great majority of them white? If 
there was "*a lot*" of scattering they would look very different. That 
was my point: scattered starlight doesn't fill in the spaces between 
stars, doesn't make their images significantly larger, and doesn't make 
major changes in their color; yes, atmospheric effects are much larger 
near the horizon (e.g. lunar eclipses).

The daytime sky is blue because there is A LITTLE scattering of 
sunlight, which overwhelms the light from the stars. Compare the 
intensity of light from the sky away from the sun to the intensity 
looking at the sun: there is an ENORMOUS ratio because there is so 
little scattering. Yes, for light paths near the horizon there is 
considerably more scattering (and absorption), but that does not affect 
most astronomy.

I repeat my main point: don't attempt to discuss photons, because 
quantum effects are important and you clearly don't understand them. 
Discuss light rays and light beams instead, which can be accurately 
modeled classically (geometric or wave optics). Note this is ALWAYS true 
for discussions about the speed of light, which is how this thread started.

Tom Roberts

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

#476859

LIGO conspirators don't detect anything - they FAKE gravitational waves. There were rehearsals - secretly injecting false signals, informing the world about a great discovery, studying the reactions, finally fixing noticed Achilles heels. The dress rehearsal occurred in 2010:

"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

LIGO's 2010 dress rehearsal: A few "expert administrators" injected a false signal and deceived everybody, misled astronomers into wasting time and money on the fake, and, gloriously, "this became particularly useful starting in September 2015":

"...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

Pentcho Valev

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

#477055

On 10/11/2018 10:09, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> That (some, not all) gravitational waves travel at the speed of light was Eddington's 1922 fabrication (nothing to do with Einstein's general relativity): http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/royprsa/102/716/268.full.pdf


"1. The problem of the propagation of disturbances of the gravitational 
field
was investigated by Einstein in 1916, and again in 1918.* It has usually
been inferred from his discussion that a change in the distribution of 
matter
produces gravitational effects which are propagated with the speed of light;
but I think that Einstein really left the question of the speed of 
propagation
rather indefinite. His analysis shows how the co-ordinates must be chosen if
it is desired to represent the gravitational potentials as propagated 
with the
speed of light; but there is nothing to indicate that the speed of light 
appears
in the problem, except as the result of this arbitrary choice." Eddington

Good man himself eh!


> Also, the simultaneous arrival of optical signals and gravitational waves (if the latter exist; actually they don't) in LIGO's GW170817 experiment can only be discussed if the gravitational waves experience Shapiro delay, which is nonsense of course. (Does Einstein's relativity predict Shapiro delay for gravitational waves?)
> 
> Conclusion: LIGO conspirators obviously FAKED the simultaneous arrival of optical signals and gravitational waves in the GW170817 (neutron-star-collision) experiment.

I did not know that Pentcho, but i could believe it. Hafele and Keating 
most certainly FAKED their results eh!

keith stein

> Pentcho Valev
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web