The Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Topic: Spacetime Deniers Against LIGO Conspirators
Replies: 3   Last Post: Oct 4, 2017 9:10 AM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Pentcho Valev

Posts: 5,902
Registered: 12/13/04
Re: Spacetime Deniers Against LIGO Conspirators
Posted: Oct 4, 2017 9:02 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

LIGO conspirators did not need Einstein's relativity to produce fake gravitational wave signals. According to Rana Adhikari, professor of Physics at Caltech and a member of the LIGO team, LIGO conspirators have no theoretical knowledge about the signals they have measured - Einstein's relativity did not tell them anything. Adhikari declares: "the only thing that we really know is what we measure":

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

Adhikari's confession is staggering. LIGO conspirators, as "true empirical persons", had no idea what they were measuring (faking)! So they produced signal correlation but also noise correlation that they are unable to explain:

James Creswell, Sebastian von Hausegger, Andrew D. Jackson, Hao Liu, Pavel Naselsky, June 27, 2017: "As a member of the LIGO collaboration, Ian Harry states that he "tried to reproduce the results quoted in 'On the time lags of the LIGO signals'", but that he "[could] not reproduce the correlations claimed in section 3". Subsequent discussions with Ian Harry have revealed that this failure was due to several errors in his code. After necessary corrections were made, his script reproduces our results. His published version was subsequently updated. [...] It would appear that the 7 ms time delay associated with the GW150914 signal is also an intrinsic property of the noise. The purpose in having two independent detectors is precisely to ensure that, after sufficient cleaning, the only genuine correlations between them will be due to gravitational wave effects. The results presented here suggest this level of cleaning has not yet been obtained and that the identification of the GW events needs to be re-evaluated with a more careful consideration of noise properties."
http://www.nbi.ku.dk/gravitational-waves/gravitational-waves.html

James Creswell, Sebastian von Hausegger, Andrew D. Jackson, Hao Liu, Pavel Naselsky, August 21, 2017: "In view of unsubstantiated claims of errors in our calculations, we appreciated the opportunity to go through our respective codes together - line by line when necessary - until agreement was reached. This check did not lead to revisions in the results of calculations reported in versions 1 and 2 of arXiv:1706.04191 or in the version of our paper published in JCAP. It did result in changes to the codes used by our visitors [LIGO conspirators]. [...] In light of the above, our view should be clear: We believe that LIGO has not yet attained acceptable standards of data cleaning. Since we regard proof of suitable cleaning as a mandatory prerequisite for any meaningful comparison with specific astrophysical models of GW events, we continue to regard LIGO's claims of GW discovery as interesting but premature."
http://www.nbi.ku.dk/gravitational-waves/gravitational-waves-comment2.html

In a world different from our post-truth world this would mark the end of the LIGO project and the beginning of an interrogation. In the post-truth world the glory of the fraudsters can only increase - if the absurd noise correlation cannot topple them, nothing can! LIGO conspirators felt encouraged and quickly "detected" a fourth black-hole collision - just to remind the Nobel committee members what they should be doing.

Pentcho Valev



Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2017. All Rights Reserved.