Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the blogger are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Pentcho Valev: on 8/5/16 at 16:50pm UTC, wrote LIGO fraudsters believe that the gullible world is more gullible than it...

Akinbo Ojo: on 8/3/16 at 12:28pm UTC, wrote Apologies for the error in the links. Pentcho's link is error free. The...

alena lis: on 8/2/16 at 9:07am UTC, wrote The video doesn't work

James Putnam: on 8/1/16 at 21:41pm UTC, wrote I signed it. Pentcho's link works.

Pentcho Valev: on 8/1/16 at 19:08pm UTC, wrote Akinbo, I signed the petition. The links you have given don't work (at...

Akinbo Ojo: on 8/1/16 at 17:06pm UTC, wrote Even though I secretly desire that LIGO genuinely finds something, for the...

Pentcho Valev: on 6/26/16 at 16:17pm UTC, wrote LIGO conspirators: Black Holes Yes, Neutron Stars No Corey S. Powell:...

Steve Agnew: on 6/18/16 at 5:38am UTC, wrote Now with the second black hole merger gravity wave chirp, it is no wonder...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Georgina Woodward: "Re. my "Arms affected by mechanical forces..." There is the force at the..." in Bonus Koan: Distant...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in First Things First: The...

Steve Dufourny: "Lie groups, there are SU(N),SO(N),Sp(N), and the exceptional G_2, F_4, E_6,..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...

Steve Agnew: "There might indeed be a way to measure free will just like there is a way..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...

Robert McEachern: "Real measurements of what? Bell's theorem is a mathematical theorem, not a..." in The Physics of...

Lorraine Ford: "People like Susan Schneider and Max Tegmark are barking up the wrong tree. ..." in Designing the Mind: Susan...

Georgina Woodward: "I've tried to show that the spinning motion is not absolute (as the term is..." in Bonus Koan: Distant...

Steve Agnew: "Here is a nice slide from Gu's talk that shows the superposition of..." in Memory, Causality and...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.


FQXi BLOGS
August 20, 2019

CATEGORY: Blog [back]
TOPIC: LIGO to Make a Gravitational Waves Announcement on Thursday 11 Feb 2016 [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

FQXi Administrator Zeeya Merali wrote on Feb. 10, 2016 @ 16:18 GMT
Updated 4:15pm Feb 11: Congratulations to the LIGO collaboration for successfully detecting gravitational waves from the merger of two black holes. Follow @FQXi on Twitter for live updates.

I’m opening this thread as a place to watch and discuss Thursday’s big announcement from the LIGO collaboration about the hunt for gravitational waves from the merger of black holes. The press conference takes place at 3:30pm GMT, 4:30pm CET, 10:30am ET, 7:30am PT. You can watch the live stream here:



Sabine Hossenfelder has some nice background on gravitational waves over at Backreaction. At New Scientist, there’s a nice diagram using NASA’S WMAP image of the cosmic microwave background to attempt to located where a possible gravitational wave signal may have been found, accompanying an article by Joshua Sokol.

There are a host of other good articles out there—so feel free to link to any good ones that you find in the comments below.

See you tomorrow!

Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the forum administrator

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Feb. 10, 2016 @ 17:39 GMT
LIGO's incredible organization: Three persons are entitled to fabricate a false signal and if they decide not to tell the truth, nobody, not even LIGO members, will ever reveal the fraud:

"Physicists have for months been buzzing about the possible detection of gravitational waves — a finding that would confirm one of the key predictions of Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity. (...) But the rumoured signal could also be the result of a deliberate drill. Three members of the LIGO team have access to systems that can secretly nudge the mirrors and simulate all the hallmarks of an astrophysical phenomenon — a procedure called a 'blind injection'. Only when researchers are ready to reveal that they have spotted something will the blind-injection team announce whether it has created a deliberate signal."

"After all the rumours over the past few months I certainly expect them to announce a detection at this point,” said Alberto Sesana, a researcher at the University of Birmingham’s Gravitational Wave Group. “We have to bear in mind that LIGO is one experiment and the only one that can detect such sources. If they claim to have detected gravitational waves, it cannot be confirmed by another instrument, and that is always an issue."

Pentcho Valev

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

FQXi Administrator Zeeya Merali replied on Feb. 10, 2016 @ 18:05 GMT
Hi Pentcho,

Thanks for linking to those two interesting articles from Nature and the Guardian. I agree that the blind injection sounds odd, at first, but I don't think the people behind it would let it be announced as a genuine signal -- so it shouldn't ever get to the "fraud" stage. I think they are open about this as part of the process because it is just a drill to test the system.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Feb. 10, 2016 @ 18:35 GMT
"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."

So initially the world was deceived ("astronomers, who searched for a counterpart with other telescopes") but then the three LIGO conspirators may have found the reaction too dangerous and in the end the fake was declared to be a fake. This time things may be different - no serious danger and the fake becomes... yes, truth.

Pentcho Valev

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Feb. 11, 2016 @ 09:04 GMT
Hello dear Ms Merali,

I have a suggestion,on LinkedIn, FQXI could improve the system on LinkedIn, you know, me I make your pub on LinkedIn in saying that it is a very relevant Platform.You could have more persons for the essay contest about the observer.In all case FQXi evolves like all and the sharing of sciences are important.Regards and congratulations.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

FQXi Administrator Zeeya Merali replied on Feb. 11, 2016 @ 22:19 GMT
That's a good idea Steve. I've never thought about LinkedIn and FQXi, but we probably should.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 12, 2016 @ 10:53 GMT
It is important to make synergies between people.Linkedin is a beautiful Platform with an important number of members.I have made your pub :) about the contest and this Platform Fqxi where we can share relevant ideas and thoughts.Thanks for that, you permit to thinkers to discuss in a total transparence, it is a real revolution for the global sciences community.Fqxi will evolve still ......

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 12, 2016 @ 18:45 GMT
I see a member when we write Fqxi on LinkedIn,apparently there is a member.It could be well to make a group with publications.You coul improve your marketing and publicity and stratégies.I am persuaded that a lot of scientists shall like on LinkedIn.Regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Feb. 11, 2016 @ 20:34 GMT
Though this result comes as no surprise to relativists, congratulations to the LIGO team for laying to rest doubts of the reality of spacetime.

By the way, the methodology of fault-insertion is a brilliant pre-emption of 'fraud' charges.

Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate


Domenico Oricchio wrote on Feb. 12, 2016 @ 00:58 GMT
A new era in astronomy.

I imagine dozens of observers to triangulate positions, to give warning to traditional observers.

Is it possible using a synthetic aperture imaging (Earth rotation and multiple observatories) to get a coarse image of the emission point?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Feb. 12, 2016 @ 05:44 GMT
A great experimental result, if any remaining doubts are answered. The caution is because the recent much-ballyhooed BICEP result from Antarctica confirming Inflation turned out to be noise from solar system dust - I forgot the exact details.

In any case, while LIGO confirms the predictions of Einstein's General Relativity, it does not mean that there is not a completely different fundamental explanation for gravity: Space and time as dimensions may not flex and stretch as in Special Relativity, as the theory embedded in GR assumes. Gravity may well be described by a changing density potential of the vacuum, as Eddington speculated in the early 1920's , an idea I used in my own Beautiful Universe theory. The physical results are the same, but are reached by far more realistic basic assumptions using much simpler mathematics - that of propagation of light through media of variable refractive indices.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Akinbo Ojo wrote on Feb. 12, 2016 @ 10:36 GMT
Well done to the LIGO team on their efforts on the assumption that they are not doing what is called "working to the answer", i.e. having an answer already and twisting and turning the figures to fit into it.

However it appears strange to be looking far afield for supportive evidence for a theory, when some evidence at home that contradict SR from which the theory developed are not...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Agnew replied on Feb. 12, 2016 @ 18:12 GMT
You are correct in saying that there are more ways to explain gravity waves than just GR. Any quantum gravity will necessarily also result in gravity waves and so gravity waves are not really surprising. Measuring them with LIGO now appears certain that is a great result.

As long as an aether theory is consistent with the principles of both gravity and charge, there will be gravity waves as well. It is apparent to me though that one must choose between aether and space because space is a limited notion and does not represent inside of black holes or smaller than the Planck scale while aether represents all of the universe.

I agree that we need more local gravity experiments and the LISA Pathfinder is now in position at L1 and will release its gold/platinum cubes in three days. This experiment should be even more exciting than LIGO...depending on the noise reduction, LISA may be able to measure the same chirps as LIGO...and of course LISA may reveal also the decoherence rate of the universe.

LISA Pathfinder

LIGO now provides a signature chirp and rumors are that there are 8 other much noisier events recorded over the 106 day run. With increasing sensitivity still coming, LIGO should yield about one event every 10 days or so. Now that the Yb lattice clock is so stable, it should be possible to use six precision clocks as a gravity telescope in a six-sided cube to measure the same LIGO chirps and provide both direction and polarization.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Feb. 13, 2016 @ 09:14 GMT
Dear Akinbo thank you for taking my comments seriously enough to quote! It will be great if mainstream and highly educated physicists check our theories and models in their own way. In my experience however very few are willing to go on a limb to consider theories that propose fundamentally new approaches. Questioning Einstein et al apparently comes at a great price!

I have yet to read Sabine's essay but let me answer two of your questions according to my theory Beautiful Universe (BU):

1- Motion relative to what? In BU nothing exists other than a lattice of nodes exchanging angular momentum without themselves moving relative to each other. Think of a display screen where images 'move' but not the LED's making up the screen. The analogy is incomplete because the nodes exchange energy with their neighbors- there is only self-assembly and no software!

2- There is no time dimension in BU and space itself emerges from the nodes. So the universe is absolute and there is no spacetime distortion and basically no observers needed - only a variable speed of light according to local node density. And yes, both gravity and light are made of the same "stuff" : the energy of the lattice expressed in node rotation. I believe gravity travels at less than c in its own gravitational field if you can imagine that! I need to think more about your interesting comments in point 3.

Thanks again.

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Feb. 13, 2016 @ 09:35 GMT
LISA Pathfinder should be a more revealing experiment.

With all the available technology, like recreating a high vacuum environment in space, the measurement of light velocity in such environments is an important step towards putting our physics right. Many in the mainstream have betrayed Einstein who told us that velocity of light is a function of position in the gravitational field....

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Feb. 13, 2016 @ 09:21 GMT
I cannot resist the impulse to share with you all a painting I finished today after two week's work. I called it "Gravitational Wave " for reasons explained in the comment on YouTube. There I explain some more about my views gravitational waves.

Here is a video of the painting

Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate


Akinbo Ojo wrote on Feb. 14, 2016 @ 19:26 GMT
FOUNDATIONAL ANSWERS THAT MAY HAVE BEEN OVERLOOKED IN THE ADVANCED LIGO ANNOUNCEMENT

The February 11, 2016 announcement has come and gone. Although an experiment to investigate classical physics, assuming what was found is correct what is the implication for QUANTUM PHYSICS?

Essentially what was found is this: a line can alternately stretch and shorten as a vibratory...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Agnew replied on Feb. 15, 2016 @ 20:33 GMT
Of course, the LIGO chirp is also the result of the different time delays between the two photon paths as clocks. Mass-energy equivalence demands that there are also mass changes for each interferometer arm and a gravity wave is simply another manifestation of the same gravity effects on time and matter that have been repeatedly measured.

The matter-time interpretation does not depend on the nature of spatial dilation at all and so the speed of light simply emerges from the nature of spacetime in GR. Space is simply whatever it need to be to make the strain tensor work the way that it is supposed to work. If you have another strain tensor, then you will get a different kind of space, but it is really time and matter that decide how the universe works, not space.

The real crux of the LIGO chirp is in the superposition of the event horizons because it is from the detail of changes in the event horizon superposition that a quantum gravity will need to emerge. The LIGO chirp has provided a window into the nature of the event horizon and therefore into the true natures of black holes.

What happens with the superposition of two event horizons is truly where the black hole as an aether condensate will show how the universe really works. Such understanding will need another one or two orders of magnitude S/N, but it does appear as though that is coming...

Black hole superpositions that take hours and days instead of 0.01 s will be especially important since those longer superpositions will involve the nature of decoherence time as well as atomic time.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on Feb. 15, 2016 @ 21:03 GMT
Steve,

It reads as though you are referring to *super-imposed* regions, while using the word 'superposition' which in the strict definition of limitation on terminology in QM would mean that the event horizons are coherently existant everywhere at once. Care to disambiguate? [ classically speaking, 'quantum' can simply mean 'to quantify' ] jrc

p.s. classically I have encountered a two magnitudal discrepancy also, and only recently have pondered if it might resolve from our methodology in permittivity vs. permeability being mutually exclusive; the mathematical product of the 'c' proportion of either is in opposite sign, so the product is |-c^2| which as an absolute value must be accounted for somewhere.

Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

Steve Agnew replied on Feb. 16, 2016 @ 03:57 GMT
Actually, I did use the term superposition very purposely. Where exactly is an event horizon except everywhere at once? Time is stopped, space is no longer extensive, and a host of other odditites that science has accepted as normal.

Does reality include phase coherence or not? If it does, then superposition is simply a part of reality. If objects are only real and ballistic, then maybe phase coherence has not meaning. Right now, phase coherence seems to represent reality much better than classical ballistics. So Superposition is simply a part of reality and to argue otherwise is to rail against the windmills of La Mancha...

...and the first LISA test mass was released and is free...free at last. The second test mass will be released shortly and then the hope is that a few months of measurements will reveal many of the mysteries of aether.

First test mass released...

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John R. Cox wrote on Feb. 15, 2016 @ 19:52 GMT
I can trust Sabine Hossenfelder to know what she is talking about, especially in that she will also say what her limit of study currently is. Because while speculative conjecture from cursory readings about highly evolved advanced studies in physics might be fun, the essential background knowledge of how 2600 years of doggedly accumulated knowledge necessary for any understanding cannot be gained 'from the top, down' subjective inferrences to invent a mental imagery which cannot be supported by deductive logic.

To suppose an inductive argument can suffice to essentially negate an essential element in GR, yet conclude what LIGO has corroborated of long held prediction in GR, is due to 'an aetherspace' of a purely unsupported personal equation which excludes a continuum of abstract infinite points, fails scientific discipline simply because it denies that any metaphysical description of the energetic dynamism observed is inherent to the tensor calculus employed in GR. The TENSOR is a vector of Stress:Energy, and definitively allows spatial expansion (and hence also, energy) in applications of GR which incorporate the Cosmological Constant. Call that 'aetherspace', metaphysically. GO TO: http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dar
k-energy [If you can't trust NASA to know what they are talking about then maybe the Moon Landing was faked too, eh?] Propounding an alternative rationale must stand on it's own, and does Not issue license to corrupt the theoretical regime which is, so far, successful. jrc

Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Feb. 16, 2016 @ 09:36 GMT
It is good to listen to what everyone has to say, including Sabine. But when it comes to trust, I suggest that Newton and Einstein are more to be trusted in their reasoning. I have quoted Einstein severally to show that some of what he said is different from what some of his supporters are claiming today and anytime he wins, they appropriate the victory and exclaim, "Einstein is right again!",...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Robert H McEachern replied on Feb. 16, 2016 @ 13:28 GMT
Transverse waves can occur in non-Newtonian fluids, like jello.

Rob McEachern

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Feb. 16, 2016 @ 14:26 GMT
Had to go searching what 'Jello' means...

What I found, "...what we have is a mixture of solid and liquid. When it's hot, then it is a solid suspended in a liquid. When it's cold, it's a liquid suspended in a solid. Thus it is classified as a colloidal suspension rather than as being either solid or liquid" and "So jello is a sort of semi-rigid structure suspended in a liquid".

Perhaps, George Stokes 19th century "silly putty" model would make a come back after the recent back slapping is over and the necessary medium properties for transverse wave propagation come to be considered. Certainly, non-Newtonian fluids must be on the menu, jello is one, silly putty another.

Akinbo

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Feb. 18, 2016 @ 16:49 GMT
Schizophrenia: Hailing Gravitational Waves, Rejecting Spacetime

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..."

Nima...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Feb. 19, 2016 @ 19:31 GMT
Even if gravitational waves existed (they don't), there would be no benefit for Einstein's predictions. See this:

"Around 1936, Einstein wrote to his close friend Max Born telling him that, together with Nathan Rosen, he had arrived at the interesting result that gravitational waves did not exist, though they had been assumed a certainty to the first approximation. He finally had found a mistake in his 1936 paper with Rosen and believed that gravitational waves do exist. However, in 1938, Einstein again obtained the result that there could be no gravitational waves!"

Pentcho Valev

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Feb. 20, 2016 @ 17:00 GMT
"The LIGO detection didn't prove the existence of gravitational waves"

"Playing devil's advocate on the 'discovery' of gravitational waves"

"Last week the billion-dollar LIGO project announced the discovery of gravitational waves. It is interesting to examine the very absurd double standard followed by mainstream science when it comes to instantly accepting announcements such as this (based on a single rather questionable observational occurrence) while rejecting evidence for phenomena that is based on decades of experiments."

Pentcho Valev

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Feb. 20, 2016 @ 19:11 GMT
Interesting links. The scepticism expressed is very healthy. I guess the LIGO team needs to do further work on their claim.

In my opinion, the scepticism made by the distinguished Indian astrophysicist Dr. Abhas Mitra seems to be the most damning, most of the others referring to technological causes. Dr Mitra has observed that given the distance to the claimed cataclysmic event GW150914, 1.3 billion light years away and in comparison the relatively infinitesimal distance between the two observatories, Livinstone and Hanford (~2500km apart), the reception of the signal should be virtually simultaneous between the two locations, at most a few microseconds.

But a delay between both locations of 7 milliseconds is reported. This appears to be evidence of working to an answer because Livinstone and Hanford are 7 light milli-seconds apart. Suggesting that the signal first arrived at Livinstone and then travelled in a straight line to Hanford rather than travelling to both sources from a distant location above, which given the immense distance would virtually be a straight line due to parallax. It is like being able to see Livinstone and Hanford as two different locations when viewed from 1.3 billion light years away. The resolution of signal arrival time therefore appears flawed and suggests a cooking of the books unless explained.

Akinbo

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Robert H McEachern replied on Feb. 20, 2016 @ 22:34 GMT
Akinbo,

Because the earth is a sphere, a plane wave striking the earth, will arrive at the "pole" (the tangent point of the earth and the arriving plane of the signal) and the "equator", at different times; the time difference can be as large as the radius of the earth, divided by the speed of light = 6,400 km/300,000 km/sec = 21 milliseconds.

Rob McEachern

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Feb. 24, 2016 @ 10:26 GMT
Just As Einstein Predicted?

"Massachusetts Institute of Technology President Rafael Reif speaks during a news conference about an experiment at the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory, or LIGO, that resulted in the discovery of gravitational waves, during a presentation on the school's campus, in Cambridge, Mass., Thursday, Feb. 11, 2016. In a blockbuster announcement,...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Feb. 24, 2016 @ 13:09 GMT
Unbelievable:

Luboš 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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Feb. 24, 2016 @ 18:49 GMT
What's unbelievable is that you continue your cut-and-paste spamming.

I'll try to explain test methodology as best I can, having spent part of my career in test and evaluation for the military:

The final evaluation of a project is verification. In order to verify, step by step procedures are carefully gone over for errors. One part of the procedure is often for someone outside the verification team to insert a "fault" signal for the team to find. Because the verification team knows neither if there is a fault or where, when they find it exactly where it was inserted, this validates their capacity to discern between true and false signals. So there is practically no chance that this result is wrong.

As much as you hate to admit Einstein was right -- he was. Get over it.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 25, 2016 @ 03:05 GMT
Tom,

Let's avoid premature conclusions. The argument of Mitra and Ratcliffe, picked up by Pentcho, seems to be rather serious. Rob and Akinbo didn't persuade me of the opposite.

If the linear distance between the two locations is as little as just 2500 km and the wave propagates with c, then the difference between the two times of flight must be located between 0 and 8.33 ms.

Therefore, a measured time difference of 7 ms is not impossible but about as unlikely as also is the reported peculiarity that the signal of concern occurred so far just once and immediately after the begin of measurement.

I recall BICEP and other flops.

++++

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Feb. 25, 2016 @ 16:33 GMT
There is some truth to their claims..

I got to know Hilton Ratcliffe fairly well, when we were stuck in an airport together after CCC-2. He is an affable fellow, and earnest in his views that the mainstream Cosmology community has got some things cockeyed, but his reputation as a rebel is well-deserved. Some of his views hold water, and others not so much. Part of his appeal is from showing people that there are serious scientists who don't cotton to the mainstream view and have worthwhile insights.

As for Abhas Mitra; he is also earnest and gets a few things right, that the consensus followers would rather ignore. Calling them MECOs instead of Black Holes might be more accurate to fact. Unfortunately; he has been cut off from the rest of the community, to an overly large degree - so he spends too much of his time backed into a corner and defending a radical view, rather than learning enough more, or connecting with other researchers who do, to take some of those half-baked ideas all the way to a fully-working theory.

So while I love both Hilton and Abhas as people, and respect their views as scientists, I don't think either one has a definitive understanding. I saw the inspiraling binary black hole simulation at FFP10, which convinced me that the signal they were looking for is very distinctive and hard to mistake for something else. That said; there is no proof in their result that the two supermassive objects which merged are indeed black holes per se. We'll need many more results before we can make that determination

Warm Regards,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Feb. 25, 2016 @ 08:26 GMT
Testimony of Dr. David Reitze, Executive Director LIGO Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Before the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Science, Space and Technology, on Unlocking the Secrets of the Universe: Gravitational Waves, February 24, 2016: "Let me now turn to the science of LIGO. This is what excites us the most! General relativity tells us that space-time is warped,...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Feb. 25, 2016 @ 17:08 GMT
You are correct Pentcho..

Einstein never quite settled on the idea that gravitational waves should exist, although he suggested the possibility on several occasions. He remained childlike, always learning and always questioning, until the very end. It is indeed more accurate to say that he doubted their existence, and wondered if they could be detected, rather than saying it the way Reitze did. We should follow Einstein's example, to constantly be questioning, refining, and re-checking our assumptions, rather than glorifying our own conclusions by falsely ascribing that belief to Albert.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Feb. 25, 2016 @ 18:02 GMT
These particular assumptions have been questioned, refined, checked, and re-checked for the past 100 years. The whole foundation of relativity depends on a unified spacetime, which has been verified for special relativity, and is indisputable as 'ripples of spacetime' in general relativity.

What must be understood when questioning relativity is that special relativity is entirely contained within its postulates -- there is no 'tweaking' that can be done. The general relativity verification reinforces that result. All the noise from contrarians that fails to account for the completeness of the theory is irrelevant tongue wagging.

The theory survives intact, or it does not. Reitze has it right.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Feb. 25, 2016 @ 18:34 GMT
"a unified spacetime, which has been verified for special relativity"

It hasn't. Actually most theoreticians reject it, more or less explicitly:

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...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Feb. 26, 2016 @ 15:43 GMT
Variable Speed of Light, No Gravitational Waves

David Tong: "The rocket has height h. It starts from rest, and moves with constant acceleration g. Light emitted from the top of the rocket is received below. By this time, the rocket is travelling at speed v=gt=gh/c. This gives rise to the Doppler effect. (Neglecting relativistic effects). f'=f(1+v/c)=f(1+gh/c^2), where f' is received frequency and f is emitted frequency."

Since f=c/λ (λ is the wavelength), we have

f' = f(1+v/c) = (c+v)/λ

where c'=c+v is the speed of the light relative to the receiver (the bottom of the rocket).

Clearly the speed of light (relative to the receiver) varies with the speed of the receiver, in violation of Einstein's relativity. This means that David Tong's subsequent derivation of gravitational time dilation is invalid. There is no gravitational time dilation, and accordingly there are no gravitational waves.

Pentcho Valev

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Feb. 26, 2016 @ 16:17 GMT
You should have learned by now that c is constant in every inertial frame. The time dilation effect assures that c' vanishes when translated to a different frame.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Feb. 26, 2016 @ 16:41 GMT
"You should have learned by now that c is constant in every inertial frame."

Impossible. When the observer starts moving with speed v towards the light source, the frequency he measures shifts from f=c/λ to f'=(c+v)/λ. The speed of the light relative to the moving observer is

c' = λf' = c+v

That is, the speed of light (relative to the observer) varies with the speed of the observer, in violation of Einstein's relativity.

David Tong's analysis above (implicitly) says the same but you don't understand it, do you?

Pentcho Valev

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on Feb. 26, 2016 @ 17:42 GMT
'...the speed of light (relative to the observer) varies with the speed of the observer,' .... 'you don't understand it, do you?'

Admittedly, no. Perhaps you could clarify by example.

Let Newton pass a beam of sunlight through a prism in his room, and put another on D.T.'s rocket so that when it is in space up to speed heading toward the sun, the tip of the nosecone is jettisoned to allow a beam of sunlight to pass through that prism. Now the speed of light relative to the rocket prism is faster than relative to the prism in Newton's room. What do the spectrums projected from the prisms look like? How does the 'blueshifted' rocket prism spectrum differ from the stationary prism spectrum? Seriously, I can't recall you specifically explaining that. jrc

Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Feb. 26, 2016 @ 18:50 GMT
Did LIGO Lie About Gravitational Waves?

"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."

That LIGO bosses deceived LIGO members is strange, to say the least. That LIGO bosses deceived astronomers and made them waste time and money is unbelievable. Was the 2010 event a failed (for some reasons) prototype of the recent glorious achievement of LIGO?

Pentcho Valev

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Feb. 26, 2016 @ 19:03 GMT
Uh, that was a successful test event!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Feb. 27, 2016 @ 10:09 GMT
As Tom pointed out in one of his posts, false positives are important in experiments such as this. But assuming the LIGO bosses were not being mischievous and indeed LIGO detected something, what was detected is that a line is not a dead thing, but can respond by shortening and extending when stimulated.

Whether the signal originated from black holes colliding or from MECOs (massive eternally colliding objects) is a matter of conjecture. Above the din of celebration and arguments is a whisper from the 4km line between the mirrors that it is not a dead thing. If it is agreed that such a message has been whispered the implications for classical and quantum physics will need to be confronted given the pervasiveness of lines. There is a line between the earth and the sun (classical) and also between the electron and atomic nucleus (quantum).

I will be posting hypothesis in this regard soon.

Akinbo

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Feb. 27, 2016 @ 13:45 GMT
LIGO's most blatant lie:

"The LIGO researchers even worried that a member of their own team had faked it. “They decided it would have to be somebody who really understood the instrument well enough and the data well enough,” Harrison said. “And they found all such people and interviewed them and determined that in fact NOBODY HAD ANY MOTIVATION TO DO THIS.”"

Pentcho Valev

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Feb. 27, 2016 @ 08:20 GMT
Hi all,

Tom,Eckard,....and if we created a new algebra.More universal and spherical,how can I invent this algebra, the spherical algebras.It is always after all a question of good domains, laws,and limits.A finite serie of course cannot be infinite for example.The aim is to normalise my theory of spherisation with determinism,the lagrangian can be inserted and other algebras can be superimposed.Have you an indea dear thinkers?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Feb. 27, 2016 @ 18:16 GMT
Variable Speed of Light, No Gravitational Waves (2)

Clever Einsteinians know that there is no gravitational time dilation:

Banesh Hoffmann: "In an accelerated sky laboratory, and therefore also in the corresponding earth laboratory, the frequence of arrival of light pulses is lower than the ticking rate of the upper clocks even though all the clocks go at the same rate. (...) As a...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on Feb. 27, 2016 @ 18:59 GMT
Pentcho,

In accord with addition of velocities as determinant of arrival time is dependent on there being an observable difference that is measurable in the spectrum refracted by a prism. Yet you never cite experimental evidence of what that observable difference is by which Doppler shift is detected. Describe what the observable difference is between the spectrum displayed by a prism at rest relative to the source, and that displayed by a prism in motion relative to a source, that can be measured. Otherwise you are only proving addition and subtraction are arithmetic properties. jrc

Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Feb. 27, 2016 @ 20:08 GMT
Pentcho,

I have challenged you before and I challenge you again to give unambiguous experimental reference to your claim that light speed or frequency increases as it falls. You will find otherwise.

Akinbo

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Akinbo Ojo wrote on Feb. 27, 2016 @ 19:43 GMT
From the LIGO News Release

"At each observatory, the two-and-a-half-mile (4-km) long L-shaped LIGO interferometer uses laser light split into two beams that travel back and forth down the arms (four-foot diameter tubes kept under a near-perfect vacuum). The beams are used to monitor THE DISTANCE between mirrors precisely positioned at the ends of the arms..."

As well as from...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on Feb. 27, 2016 @ 20:17 GMT
Akinbo,

The key word is *effectively*, meaning the *relativistic* spacetime effect. There is no monotonous time parameter in operation of the observation or calculable results. It is NOT "linetime discontinuity", it is *spacetime continuum*. But never mind, infer from preference as you will. What you are arguing is the Decartes Mechanical Universe that Newton's calculus deposed. Others might wish to get a concise study guide of what lead up to Special Relativity by going to:

http://www.spectroscopyonline.com/timeline-atomic-spectro
scopy/?id=&pageID=1&sk=&date=

though that is not a complete history, J.J. Thomson's assistant F.W. Aston and the advances with the mass spectrograph beginning 4 years after the introduction of General Relativity, is not listed. Arguing 'arrival time' and 'delay time' without consulting the literature of how Doppler Shift in EMR is observable, and how that observability was discovered as first noted by Wm. Wollaston in 1802, is nonacademic. jrc

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on Feb. 27, 2016 @ 20:58 GMT
Akinbo,

I don't share your fatal attraction to infinity. An 'infinite number of points' is an entirely subjective abstraction. A shorter length has infinite points and a longer length has infinite points. You introduce finiteness by imagining that extension and distension alters the 'number' of abstract zero dimensionless points. Then you contradict by saying the same line is indivisible. Makes me kind of glad I had been left for dead when I was 18, the first thing that goes from oxygen depletion when blood flow stops, is the sense of any awareness of the passage of time. Forget all that 'white light' stuff, the mind has a self protection from memory and its really the residual of 'blinding pain'. jrc

p.s.; Do not go gentle into that good night, Old age should burn and rage at close of day; Rage, rage against the dying of the light. - Dylan Thomas

Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Feb. 28, 2016 @ 10:30 GMT
If I am not mistaken it is you and Tom that are in love with infinity not me. To rephrase your statement to what I mean, "You introduce finiteness by imagining that extension and distension alters the 'number' of NON-ABSTRACT, NON-ZERO DIMENSIONLESS points".

And there is no contradiction. What I mean is that the line is not divisible ad infinitum. I suspect, at the Planck scale there is a limit to divisibility.

Divisibility though is an abstract mental process. Physically, and by definition the line is not actually divisible. Dedekind and C.S. Peirce (I thank Eckard for pointing the latter to me) have written about the contradictions to be encountered when a line is to be physically divided as nothing on the line can be cut in two.

On the light prism you use to support the postulate of constant light speed in your discussion with Pentcho, I need to give it some thought before supporting or countering the analogy. It makes sense on the surface though.

Akinbo

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Feb. 27, 2016 @ 22:55 GMT
"If you'd asked Einstein, he would have told you that time is another dimension, much like the three dimensions of space. Together they knit together to create a spacetime fabric that pervades the universe. This notion of time as a dynamic, flexible dimension forms the basis of his immensely successful general theory of relativity, which explains how gravity manifests on cosmic scales as matter warps spacetime. On the other hand, however, the equally celebrated theory of quantum mechanics, which governs the nanoscale behavior of atoms and subatomic particles, says that time is unaffected by the presence of matter, serving as an absolute background reference clock against which motion can be measured."

Do those who believe in quantum mechanics hail LIGO's "discovery" of gravitational waves? Yes, yes, yes! There is money for everybody.

"...says John Norton, a philosopher based at the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Norton is hesitant to express it, but his instinct - and the consensus in physics - seems to be that space and time exist on their own. The trouble with this idea, though, is that it doesn't sit well with relativity, which describes space-time as a malleable fabric whose geometry can be changed by the gravity of stars, planets and matter."

The consensus in physics is that space and time are independent of gravity? Yet gravitational waves do exist? LIGO's discovery is great?

Pentcho Valev

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Feb. 28, 2016 @ 16:06 GMT
"In Einstein's general theory of relativity, time depends locally on gravity; in standard quantum theory, time is global - all clocks "tick" uniformly."

Then the gravitational waves "discovered" by LIGO disprove standard quantum theory? Einsteinians? Quantum theorists?

"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."

Is now quantum mechanics the loser, after LIGO so gloriously "discovered" gravitational waves? Einsteinians? Quantum theorists? Two Einsteinians and one quantum theorist.

Pentcho Valev

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on Feb. 28, 2016 @ 16:35 GMT
"smart money" in 2008 was on supply side economics being sustainable. It's not.

Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Feb. 28, 2016 @ 17:31 GMT
I am sure not only Luboš Motl but all informed scientists now know the truth about LIGO's "discovery" (note the emoticon at the end of Motl's text):

Luboš 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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Mar. 2, 2016 @ 16:45 GMT
"Around 1936, Einstein wrote to his close friend Max Born telling him that, together with Nathan Rosen, he had arrived at the interesting result that gravitational waves did not exist, though they had been assumed a certainty to the first approximation. He finally had found a mistake in his 1936 paper with Rosen and believed that gravitational waves do exist. However, in 1938, Einstein again...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Mar. 3, 2016 @ 16:21 GMT
"Even though general relativity predicts black holes, Einstein always denied their existence." J.B. Kennedy, Space, Time and Einstein: An Introduction, p. 189.

General relativity is an empirical model - it can predict anything. So it can predict both existence and non-existence of black holes. Einstein preferred "non-existence" but LIGO folks disagree. Тhey know general relativity even predicts important features of black holes - LIGO folks were somehow able to extract those features from gravitational waves.

""There are no gravitational waves ... " ... "Plane gravitational waves, traveling along the positive X-axis, can therefore be found ... " ... " ... gravitational waves do not exist ... " ... "Do gravitational waves exist?" ... "It turns out that rigorous solutions exist ... " These are the words of Albert Einstein. For 20 years he equivocated about gravitational waves, unsure whether these undulations in the fabric of space and time were predicted or ruled out by his revolutionary 1915 theory of general relativity. For all the theory's conceptual elegance -- it revealed gravity to be the effect of curves in "space-time" -- its mathematics was enormously complex."

Einstein equivocated but LIGO folks don't. According to them, general relativity not only predicts the existence of gravitational waves - it even gives minute detail about them. And the detailed predictions were gloriously confirmed, LIGO folks honestly and proudly say.

Pentcho Valev

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Gary D. Simpson wrote on Mar. 3, 2016 @ 00:15 GMT
Is it just me or are we about due for an essay contest topic? Seems like the submissions were all already in by this time last year ....

Regards,

Gary Simpson

Houston, Tx

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Gary D. Simpson replied on Mar. 7, 2016 @ 19:44 GMT
I hear crickets chirping.

g

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on Mar. 7, 2016 @ 22:15 GMT
Gary,

Clicking the *contests* block shows a blank page with a note that announcement will be made 'soon'.

Whatever the topic, I hope there is an angle for you to expand your thinking on application of quaternion algebra to GR, and of particular interest to me, the curious relationship of the inverse square law to the natural exponential function. Regards, jrc

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Gary D. Simpson replied on Mar. 8, 2016 @ 03:48 GMT
Thanks John. Yes, I have been to the page you mention. It has indicated "soon" for quite some time. And thank you ... yes, I hope to be able to present some interesting findings if the topic allows.

Chirp Chirp,

Gary Simpson

Houston, Tx

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Mar. 4, 2016 @ 16:31 GMT
Did LIGO Kill Quantum Mechanics?

Unless one is insane, one cannot believe in quantum mechanics and at the same time hail LIGO's "discovery" of gravitational waves. Simply because if gravitational waves, a manifestation of space-time bending caused by matter, do exist, quantum mechanics is just wrong:

"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."

"In Einstein's general theory of relativity, time depends locally on gravity; in standard quantum theory, time is global - all clocks "tick" uniformly."

"If you'd asked Einstein, he would have told you that time is another dimension, much like the three dimensions of space. Together they knit together to create a spacetime fabric that pervades the universe. This notion of time as a dynamic, flexible dimension forms the basis of his immensely successful general theory of relativity, which explains how gravity manifests on cosmic scales as matter warps spacetime. On the other hand, however, the equally celebrated theory of quantum mechanics, which governs the nanoscale behavior of atoms and subatomic particles, says that time is unaffected by the presence of matter, serving as an absolute background reference clock against which motion can be measured."

Pentcho Valev

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Mar. 6, 2016 @ 16:22 GMT
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? Or does time have to give. The answer, yes or no, is interesting. If the answer is no, then perhaps some experiment can probe whether or not time is absolute?"

The experiment is already a fact: Gravitational waves discovered by LIGO showed that "space and time are both dynamical" so quantum mechanics in its present version will have to be discarded. Unless... LIGO's discovery is a fraud.

Pentcho Valev

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Mar. 7, 2016 @ 08:21 GMT
"LIGO showed that space and time are both dynamical"

LIGO did not show this. LIGO showed a variation in length (objective). What causes this is speculated (subjective).

Facts are sacred, comments are free. Everyone is free to speculate on the nature of the origin or cause. But what is found by measurement is not a subject of speculation.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Akinbo Ojo wrote on Mar. 5, 2016 @ 16:12 GMT
A source, an astronomical distance away sent a message to recipients on earth, two lines, one living at Livingston and the other resident at Hanford. According to the February 11, 2016 LIGO announcement, the recipients nodded in acknowledgement when they received the message.

While some may wonder about the nature of the source, and yet others about the nature of the message, it is probably more important to know the nature of the recipient. This is because modern physics is built on the assumption that the recipient was long dead and buried since the Platonic era, and only remained in physics as fictitious; a 'nothing', by virtue of which it was continuous and infinitely divisible; a mere relational concept incapable of acting or being acted upon.

Now that this long thought dead thing nodded on receiving a message, shaking its head 10-18m to the right and again to the left, the physics based on continuous structures may be in mortal danger, as a line is now capable of being acted upon (presumably by a wave), and it has in turn acted on the mirrors placed at its ends.

As Einstein envisaged in 1954, "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics"

Has LIGO driven a dagger into the heart of modern physics? This is certainly an unintended consequence. Are we now to start rebuilding physics on discrete, rather than continuous structures like kids playing with LEGO?

Again, Einstein has shown himself to be far more visionary and not as dogmatic as some of his supporters. He it was who against all advice also said prophetically in his Leiden speech that a line of space has physical qualities.

Let the games begin!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on Mar. 5, 2016 @ 19:56 GMT
For a few years following the end of WWII, the United States held a monopoly on nuclear weapons which at the beginning of that war had neither the theoretical science or the necessary supply of materielle to produce. Purely from the position of relative safety from invasion, the U.S. garnered control of research and development and jealously guarded that advantage against even its allies during...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Mar. 6, 2016 @ 11:34 GMT
Interesting war time story about Bohr...

Given the LIGO announcement, it has become necessary for theoretical physics to address the question whether an arbitrary analytical construct can stretch 10-18m above and contract 10-18m below its original 4km length, in response to stimulus.

That is, whether an arbitrary analytical construct can be acted upon (presumably by a wave), and whether in turn this arbitrary analytical construct can act on mirrors placed at its ends to make them move towards each other and away from each other, analogous to mirrors placed at the end of a spring.

Answering this question will throw light on the mentioned items left incomplete in Albert Einstein's quest for a Unified Field Theory such as whether what we assume mathematically concerning if space and time have any physical scale is correct.

Akinbo

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Mar. 8, 2016 @ 16:00 GMT
The LIGO system is fraudulent by design:

"The LIGO team includes a small group of people whose job is to create blind injections—bogus evidence of a gravitational wave—as a way of keeping the scientists on their toes. Although everyone knew who the four people in that group were, “we didn’t know what, when, or whether,” Gabriela González, the collaboration’s spokeswoman, said....

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Mar. 8, 2016 @ 19:08 GMT
Still playing 'heads I win, tails you lose,' eh?

If the LIGO result turns out fraudulent, you look like a prophet. If it doesn't? -- oh well. You didn't risk anything.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Mar. 10, 2016 @ 15:06 GMT
"It was, said the director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, which has invested US$1 billion (Dh3.67bn) in the project, "one of history's greatest scientific discoveries". Cue unquestioning celebratory headlines around the world. In the ensuing excitement, even US president Barack Obama found time to Tweet "Einstein was right!". Only, he wasn't. Einstein believed in neither gravitational waves nor black holes. While there are few theoretical or experimental physicists who would dispute Einstein's immense significance to their field - his 1915 general theory of relativity nailed gravity and is the foundation of all modern astrophysics - a handful of scientists outside the Ligo magic circle have expressed scepticism about the discovery."

Pentcho Valev

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Mar. 10, 2016 @ 18:45 GMT
More from the link...

But, according to the Ligo paper, the observations were made by the twin observatories on September 14, 2015. The problem with this, says Dr Kiriushcheva, is that this was four days before the detectors began their first “observing run".

There is no mention of this in the discovery paper.

Ligo’s twin observatories, fitted with upgraded detectors, had undergone a five-year rebuild and, according to the organisation’s records, did not start their “first official ‘observing run’" until 8am on September 18, 2015 – four days after the historic detection of gravitational waves.

In the weeks leading up to the run, both interferometers had been “operating in engineering mode" as technicians had been “work[ing] to refine the instrument to prepare it for official data collection duties".

Surely this meant that, by Ligo’s own terms, optimal conditions for the experiment were not in place when the waves were detected?

Not so, says Peter Shawhan, a professor at the University of Maryland and a Ligo spokesman.

“The last actual adjustments to the detectors were made on September 11, so we have stable, well-calibrated data from September 12 onward," he told The National.

Ligo had “decided not to write about that detail" in the main paper but it was “described briefly" in a companion paper – Characterisation of transient noise in Advanced LIGO relevant to gravitational wave signal GW150914 – which went unreported amid the global acclaim.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Mar. 10, 2016 @ 18:57 GMT
Each of these identical “laser interferometers" consists of two 4km long tunnels, set at 90 degrees to each other. A laser beam is split and fired through the two tunnels, bouncing off a mirror at the end and then back to a mirror at the start. The distance each beam travels is precisely the same – until, in theory, a passing gravitational wave, minutely distorting space as it passes at the speed of light, affects the length of first one and then the other.

This is further validation for the null findings of the Michelson-Morley experiment that the motion of the earth has no influence on arrival times for light beams on earth surface (special relativity postulate). In contrast to light beams received on earth surface from more distant sources like the GPS and other sources like Pulsars, Lunar laser ranging, etc (in contradiction to the SR postulate that it applies to ALL optical phenomena).

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Mar. 12, 2016 @ 16:06 GMT
Einsteinian Schizophrenia: Hailing Gravitational Waves, Rejecting Spacetime

"Experts to Congress: Gravitational Waves Discovery Will Help Science, Humanity. On Feb. 18, members of the LIGO Scientific Collaboration (LSC) testified before Congress about the Feb. 11 announcement that the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) had directly detected gravitational waves —...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Mar. 13, 2016 @ 18:06 GMT
"Scientists from the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (Ligo) are reportedly set to make fresh announcements about a new set of discoveries, only two weeks after producing evidence confirming the existence of Einstein's gravitational waves. Ligo lab experts say they may have detected some of the universes 'most violent events' which potentially include black hole clashes and...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Eckard Blumschein wrote on Mar. 14, 2016 @ 03:27 GMT
Alert Einstein is a funny typo, not as bad as Einstein's anus mirabilis.

++++

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Mar. 14, 2016 @ 19:20 GMT
Ah yes..

We can all be glad we did not write a headline about the historic LEGO announcement.

In good faith,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Mar. 14, 2016 @ 21:49 GMT
Steve Giddings enthusiastically hails gravitational waves, the ripples of spacetime, but rejects the spacetime itself:

"Professors of Physics Steve Giddings and George Horowitz as well as Kavli Institute For Theoretical Physics Director Lars Bildsten discuss the recent confirmation of gravitational waves."

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..."

Pentcho Valev

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Mar. 15, 2016 @ 16:36 GMT
David Reitze Theorized What Einstein Could Not?

"Scientists from the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (Ligo) are reportedly set to make fresh announcements about a new set of discoveries, only two weeks after producing evidence confirming the existence of Einstein's gravitational waves. Ligo lab experts say they may have detected some of the universes 'most violent...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Mar. 18, 2016 @ 11:40 GMT
David Reitze Theorized What Einstein Could Not? (2)

"One of the biggest challenges with detecting gravitational waves is pulling the signal out of the noise. Even strong gravitational waves such as those from two merging black holes are incredibly faint, and there are lots of sources of gravitational noise. So to help distinguish a real signal from the noise you need to know what a real...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Mar. 19, 2016 @ 17:43 GMT
LIGO's incredible "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...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Amrit Srecko Sorli wrote on Mar. 22, 2016 @ 13:56 GMT
LIGO did not respect fundamental methodology of physics which is following:

1. Observation of given phenomena

2. Building of theoretical model of the phenomena

3. Experimental prove or disprove of phenomena. 

The fact is that GW were not observed yet. LIGO started with

2. Equations which show that GW are causing length contraction of length prolongation. This is only theoretical model which do not assure that GW exist. 

On the base of 2  LIGO did experiment where interference pattern of laser light is observed which means 3. There is absolutely no direct relation between interference pattern 3 and prediction of the model of length variation of beams of interferometer 2. 

LIGO now on the base of 3 says that 1 exists which is pure nonsense. Popper would turn in grave seeing all that makeup physics, Max Planck and Einstein too. This research of LIGO is pure example of failure of scientific methodology which will enter the history of physics. 

Can gravitational waves move in time? - ResearchGate. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_gravitational_waves_mo
ve_in_time#56f14d0bdc332d4bcd2144a3 [accessed Mar 22, 2016].

attachments: Energy__Mass__Gravity_Theory.pdf

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Mar. 22, 2016 @ 16:00 GMT
Why Gravitational Waves Cannot Exist

The existence of gravitational waves crucially depends on the following prediction:

Hanoch Gutfreund: "The general theory of relativity predicts that time progresses slower in a stronger gravitational field than in a weaker one."

Actually the prediction is much more absurd than that: General relativity predicts that gravitational time...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Mar. 25, 2016 @ 16:45 GMT
Inconstant Speed of Light (End of Einstein)

"Researchers at the University of Ottawa observed that twisted light in a vacuum travels slower than the universal physical constant established as the speed of light by Einstein's theory of relativity. (...) If it's possible to slow the speed of light by altering its structure, it may also be possible to speed up light. The researchers are now...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Gary D. Simpson replied on Mar. 25, 2016 @ 20:07 GMT
Pentcho,

For the experiments where the velocity of light was altered, was there any discussion regarding the resulting momentum of the photons? Same question regarding resulting photon spin.

Best Regards,

Gary Simpson

Houston, Tx

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Mar. 27, 2016 @ 13:19 GMT
"For the experiments where the velocity of light was altered, was there any discussion regarding the resulting momentum of the photons?"

There wasn't. Inconstant-speed-of-light (or faster-than-light) observations are never discussed in detail and get quickly forgotten. There are countless of them: the explanation is usually mysterious and gives some silly reason why Einstein's relativity is...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Mar. 27, 2016 @ 19:05 GMT
No discovery of gravitational waves should be granted because the organization and atmosphere of LIGO are unscientific, to say the least:

"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...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 27, 2016 @ 19:34 GMT
It is not complicated to understand that general relativity and special are correct.Mass CURVES space time in evolution.Einstein theory and its postulates are correct.Two mass ,important affect the luminerous aether so we have a signal.It is simple.It is just a tool to class the evolution of our matter and energy .It is totally illogic to tell this about the general relativity.

SPHERES CURVE SPACE TIME.............. SPHERISATION AND GRAVITATION ARE NATURAL.These waves are logic simply.I don't understnd why you insist about this.It is not because a photon cannot pass c that a particle of gravitation, cannot.It is different simply when we considder particles of gravitation which aren't bosons.You must differenciate the gravitational waves with the waves of gravitation implied by the gravitational aethere with particles speeder than c.The gravitational sphere ,aether gravit.is more important than the photonic sphere.Now the aim isto find a way to analyse these particles.The lumin aether is it affected by this gravitational aether, the ask is there? can we light these particles with light to see them knowing that they are smaller and speeder.A real puzzle.Don't loose your time with these things.Focus on new things.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Mar. 30, 2016 @ 16:06 GMT
LIGO conspirators will have to "discover" only black-hole-merger gravitational waves in the future - "discovering" gravitational waves produced by a different source would be too dangerous:

"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...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Agnew wrote on Apr. 1, 2016 @ 03:38 GMT
The only thing worse than someone with little technical ability is someone who consistently clogs the blog with replies to their own groundless comments. If someone else does not reply, that then means that whatever you have blogged makes little sense.

Making little sense is usually what most people try to avoid and so we each live our lives trying to make some sense out of the chaos. For those that seem to make a life out of chaos, please remember that there are others that like to see a lot more sense in the cosmos and not chaos...

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 1, 2016 @ 07:45 GMT
Mr Agbew,could you tell to FQXi and friends ,Zeeya and Mr Tegmark and Mr Aguirre that my LinkedIn is hacked.It is irritating.I don'tknow who is it ?They check my LinkedIn.What I msut do ?I am not good in computing :)

Ps harmony indeed is general, fortunally furthermore :)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 1, 2016 @ 07:45 GMT
Mr Agnew, sorry

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Amrit Srecko Sorli wrote on Apr. 1, 2016 @ 06:33 GMT
Is the methodology of LIGO gravitational waves discovery right?

In physics the experiment is only proving the mathematical model of the observed phenomena. For example formula of free fall: F=mg is proved by the experiments which prove the mathematical model. The experiment is not proving existence of hypothetical phenomena which were not observed yet. CERN discovery of Higgs boson does not prove the existence of Higgs field and interference pattern obtained by LIGO does not prove the existence of gravitational waves. Both these discoveries only confirm mathematical models (which might be wrong) of hypothetical phenomena which remain non-observed. Is discovery of GW first April “joke”?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Apr. 4, 2016 @ 17:10 GMT
An interesting question in StackExchange:

"The second paragraph of the LIGO publication talks about the "final moments of the black hole merger" and figure 3 assigns a time scale of less than a second for this to happen. This suggest that black holes merging is a split-second event like two cars crashing into each other. How does this fit with the derivation that an object falling into a black whole will take forever to reach the event horizon --- at least when measured in our frame of reference? Should this not even more be the case for one black hole falling into the other? I would have thought that in particular the "final moments" are stretched out to infinity. Can someone explain the particular meaning of these 0.45 seconds mentioned in the graph?"

Let's see what answers Einsteinians will give.

Pentcho Valev

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Apr. 4, 2016 @ 19:38 GMT
Page 404 Not Found

This question was voluntarily removed by its author.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Apr. 7, 2016 @ 14:30 GMT
LIGO conspirators are getting even more enigmatic:

"Prior to the landmark experiments that led to the detection of gravitational waves, researchers believed that there was likely a very nearly constant stream of background gravitational noise moving through the cosmos, generated by black holes and neutron stars merging, but had lacked any physical data that might allow them to estimate how...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Apr. 11, 2016 @ 12:00 GMT
LIGO in trouble?

Gravitational Waves, Black Holes and the Nature of the Cosmos, Event Date: Sunday, Apr. 10, 2016 at 2 pm, Speaker: Dr. Janna Levin, Tickets: $50 per individual (includes a reserved seat, autographed copy of the guest’s book, hors d’oeuvres and wine).

In case you missed earlier post: Janna Levin livestream today 2pm PST talking about black holes & gravity waves https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hoa8obIWDOc&feature=youtu.be


Yesterday Janna Levin's talk was still advertised on youtube, there was a countdown video, but now there is nothing. Instead, the following article was published an hour ago:

"How Joe Weber's gravity ripples turned out to be all noise" by Janna Levin. "This past February [2016], physicists working on the LIGO experiment reported the discovery of gravitational waves, spacetime ripples predicted by Einstein’s general theory of relativity. It was instantly hailed as a sure bet for a Nobel Prize. But 47 years earlier, a now-forgotten pioneer wowed the world with exactly the same claim."

Pentcho Valev

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Apr. 12, 2016 @ 16:48 GMT
LIGO Conspirators Know No Limits

" But LIGO heard another suspect gravitational wave signal that got less attention. Though it wasn't as strong, it looked promising. An analysis of that event, labeled LVT151012, has shown with 90 percent certainty that it also came from a pair of colliding black holes. That's not sufficient for scientists to deem it a "detection," but the LIGO team is...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Apr. 13, 2016 @ 19:19 GMT
"Am I the only one that is doubtful of LIGO’s detection of gravitational wave GW150914?"

Peter Hahn · Northern Alberta Institute of Technology:

Reasons NOT to doubt GW150914:

1. Because the LIGO team reported it as a valid detection.

Reasons to doubt GW150914:

1. The signal occurred during the Engineering Run, not the Observational Run.

2. The signal was quoted as “too good to be true”, "unexpectedly loud" and "unexpectedly perfect".

3. No confirmation from Virgo since it was not operational.

4. No confirmation from GEO600 because the signal just happened to peak in a dead zone.

5. No infrared signals from VISTA.

6. No gamma rays from Swift, Integral or Fermi GBM.

7. No neutrinos from IceCube and ANTARES.

8. No visible light detected from the Dark Energy Camera (DECam).

9. No visible light detected from the Pan-STARRS Telescope.

Looks like this was a one-time event that could very well be a lucky fluke or a fake. I guess the next step is to patiently wait for the LIGO team to search through the four months of O1 data to see if they can find other sources of gravitational wave signals such as the kind from rapidly rotating neutron stars! [end of quotation]

Pentcho Valev

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 13, 2016 @ 20:37 GMT
Hi Mr Valev,

I am going to explain you really what are these waves.We know that we have supermassive BH cenral to galaxies like in our milky way.We know also that the special relativity and the general relativity are correct in their prédictions.Now we know also with our cosmological Tools that our universe evolves,we see the past and so we can class the evolution of galaxies.It is a simple application of the special relativity.So we can see in the past the different motions of galaxies and sometimes two galaxies collide.Now we have so a classment of évolutions of these galaxies and also we can calculae the time to arrive for these waves.So we have probablities and calculs implying the time of arrival of waves,because we know when they collide and where compared with us.It is simply a logic of our relativity.Now we know also the mass and the velocities of these BH , so we have all the parameters to synchronize these wave in the good wave lenght.Mass curves spacetime and the luminerous aetherpermits to have a fluid Under c , and the fréquences take all their meaning.I don't understand your obstinacy against the evidence of our relativity.It is a tool in fact simply, it permits to class the evolution of cosmological sphères .And we could furthermore correlate withthe centra cosmological BH of the universal sphere where alltruns around.It is possible also tocalculate the parameters knowing that this center does not move .....Two aethers can be superimposed.

foodfor thought....

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Apr. 15, 2016 @ 15:10 GMT
"You know, there's a small group of LIGO "truthers" out there, convinced it's all just one big conspiracy by fame-hungry scientists to hoodwink the public.

Janna Levin: No! Really? That's hysterical. This detection was much louder than anyone expected. LIGO heard it clear as day. If anything it's too clear.

So clear that the LIGO collaboration seriously considered the possibility...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Apr. 19, 2016 @ 15:00 GMT
Integral did not confirm the gamma-ray burst allegedly measured by Fermi but Valerie Connaughton couldn't care less. For her, "this is a tantalizing discovery with a low chance of being a false alarm", and with a high chance to boost her career:

"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...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on May. 2, 2016 @ 19:06 GMT
Why Are LIGO Conspirators Silent?

Peter Hahn · Northern Alberta Institute of Technology: "Am I the only one that is doubtful of LIGO’s detection of gravitational wave GW150914? (...) Looks like this was a one-time event that could very well be a lucky fluke or a fake. I guess the next step is to patiently wait for the LIGO team to search through the four months of O1 data to see if they...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on May. 5, 2016 @ 19:34 GMT
Dance of the Blessed Spirits in Einstein's World

Dance of the blessed spirits in Gluck's world:

Gluck - Orfeo ed Euridice - Dance of the Blessed Spirits

Dance of the blessed spirits in Einstein's world:

NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON Gravitational Wave Dance

Pentcho Valev

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on May. 30, 2016 @ 17:26 GMT
Why LIGO Cannot Fake Neutron Star Gravitational Waves

LIGO conspirators have announced no detection of gravitational waves from neutron stars so far, although everybody is/was expecting it:

Peter Hahn, Northern Alberta Institute of Technology: "Am I the only one that is doubtful of LIGO’s detection of gravitational wave GW150914? [...] Looks like this was a one-time event that...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jun. 3, 2016 @ 14:22 GMT
LIGO conspirators will not "discover" gravitational waves accompanied by light emissions before the Fermi team and the INTEGRAL team take part in the conspiracy. Now the situation is too dangerous - the fraud committed by the Fermi team was so easily exposed:

"Optical telescopes didn’t see anything, as expected. Merging black holes weren’t anticipated to emit any light, unlike merging...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jun. 15, 2016 @ 18:46 GMT
So LIGO conspirators are not going to fake gravitational waves from binary neutron stars, judging from what they said at the press conference (faking black hole gravitational waves brings enough money anyway). The reason why they are so cautious is explained in my two postings above.

Pentcho Valev

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jun. 16, 2016 @ 08:44 GMT
Frankly it becomes bizare there.What is the problem, the cold war rebegins ? If now the sciences community is like that ,it is really sad there because sciences are there to imrpove and to harmonise in applicating the universal laws with universalism.LIGO is logic respecting the special and general relativity.The proofs are there and people cannot lie about a discovery like this one.That has no sense.It is time to stop the ironical game between countries .A time for all, there we don't improve due to this competition.This money and investiments and this competition put our global system in a wall.And the most imrpessing is that people insists with different psychological stratégies.Now frankly it is irritating these persons everywhere blocking and stopping the global harmonious evolution.And if the big powers of gas and oils are not ok ,there so there is a big problem.Because with or without the approvements of business men without consciousness this planet will change and the oils and gas it is finished.Tesla enterprise is an example.The relevance if they are not ok for a global harmonisation,so they must understand that them also they are going to loose all.These bad systems with billions of money must be harmonised.We are going to the globalisation in a pure altruism and universalism.If people are not ok with that so it is the war agianst the bad in all countries.The bad systems are everywhere because money makes money simply and that this planet has been too much nice with the bad systems.We cannot laugh.It is serious there,this planet dies my friends due to a minority of unconscious.China USA please take your responsabilities now.Regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Jun. 16, 2016 @ 19:39 GMT
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:

The Perfect Gravitational Wave

Pentcho Valev

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Jun. 26, 2016 @ 16:17 GMT
LIGO conspirators: Black Holes Yes, Neutron Stars No

Corey S. Powell: "Upgraded gravitational-wave detectors will soon pick up 3 black hole collisions every day!"

How about neutron star collisions? They were much more likely once:

"What surprised the LIGO collaboration instead was the nature of what they’d detected. Of the various gravitational-wave-producers that LIGO...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Akinbo Ojo wrote on Aug. 1, 2016 @ 17:06 GMT
Even though I secretly desire that LIGO genuinely finds something, for the sake of transparency in theoretical physics I have signed this PETITION started by Jocelyn Lopez

You may also read this Open Letter to the Nobel Committee for Physics 2016 by W.W. Engelhardt.

This has nothing to do with whether or not General relativity is a correct theory but a lot to do with ethics in theoretical and experimental physics.

Join me to sign the petition if you similarly desire transparency.

Akinbo

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Aug. 1, 2016 @ 19:08 GMT
Akinbo,

I signed the petition. The links you have given don't work (at least with me) so I am giving the link to the petition again:

Prof. Karsten Danzmann, please answer 3 questions on the measurement of gravitational waves in connection with the LIGO Experiment.

Pentcho Valev

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

James A Putnam replied on Aug. 1, 2016 @ 21:41 GMT
I signed it. Pentcho's link works.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Aug. 3, 2016 @ 12:28 GMT
Apologies for the error in the links. Pentcho's link is error free.

The error to the link to Open Letter to the Nobel Committee for Physics 2016 by W.W. Engelhardt is also corrected.

Akinbo

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


alena lis wrote on Aug. 2, 2016 @ 09:07 GMT
The video doesn't work

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Aug. 5, 2016 @ 16:50 GMT
LIGO fraudsters believe that the gullible world is more gullible than it really is:

"Last February, scientists made the groundbreaking discovery of gravitational waves produced by two colliding black holes. Now researchers are expecting to detect similar gravitational wave signals in the near future from collisions involving neutron stars—for example, the merging of two neutron stars to...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.