LIGO's Gravitational Waves : Fake, Not Illusion

Dec 27, 2022
Visit site
New Scientist: "There was never much doubt that we would observe gravitational waves sooner or later. This rhythmic squeezing and stretching of space and time is a natural consequence of one of science’s most well-established theories, Einstein’s general relativity. So when we built a machine capable of observing the waves, it seemed that it would be only a matter of time before a detection. In point of fact, it took two days. The Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory collaboration, better known as LIGO, switched on its upgraded detectors on 12 September 2015. Within 48 hours, it had made its first detection. It took a few months before the researchers were confident enough in the signal to announce a discovery. Headlines around the world soon heralded one of the greatest scientific breakthroughs of the past century. In 2017, a Nobel prize followed. Five other waves have since been spotted. Or have they? That’s the question asked by a group of physicists who have done their own analysis of the data. “We believe that LIGO has failed to make a convincing case for the detection of any gravitational wave event,” says Andrew Jackson, the group’s spokesperson. According to them, the breakthrough was nothing of the sort: it was all an illusion."

Not even an illusion. Just fake:

"But the greatest confirmation that the speed of gravity equals the speed of light comes from the 2017 observation of a kilonova: the inspiral and merger of two neutron stars. A spectacular example of multi-messenger astronomy, a gravitational wave signal arrived first, recorded in both the LIGO and Virgo detectors. Then, 1.7 seconds later, the first electromagnetic (light) signal arrived: the high-energy gamma rays from the explosive cataclysm...Of course, we think that these two speeds are exactly identical. The speed of gravity should equal the speed of light so long as both gravitational waves and photons have no rest mass associated with them. The 1.7 second delay is very likely explained by the fact that gravitational waves pass through matter unperturbed, while light..."

"Gravitational waves pass through matter unperturbed, while light" is BLOCKED OR DEFLECTED BY MATTER, isn't it? That's what Einsteinians used to teach:

"Unlike light, gravitational waves don’t care about matter in any way. You can pass gravitational waves through the vacuum of space, through a lens, prism, or other material, or even through the solid Earth itself, and they will continue to propagate at the speed of gravity."

But LIGO fakers carelessly announced near-simultaneous arrival of gravitational waves and photons, "from the same location of the sky", which means that gravitational waves and photons travelled hand in hand (same gravitationally deflected path, same speed, same passage or blocked passage through matter):

"On 8:41 am EDT August 17, 2017, LIGO detected a new gravitational wave source, dubbed GW170817 to mark its discovery date. Just two seconds later NASA's Fermi satellite detected a weak pulse of gamma rays from the same location of the sky."

Now Einsteinians have the difficult task to camouflage LIGO fakers' gaffe. For instance, they desperately try to convince the world that gravitational waves and photons undergo the same gravitational deflection:

"We establish at high confidence (significantly greater than 5σ) that the gravitational waves of GW 170817 underwent gravitational deflection to arrive within 1.7 seconds of the photons."

LIGO fakers also realized that the hand-in-hand travel of gravitational waves and photons is an extremely dangerous Achilles heel, and informed the brainwashed scientific community that GW 170817 was the first and last time an electromagnetic counterpart was detected. No electromagnetic counterparts anymore:

"The first such observation, which took place in August of 2017, made history for being the first time that both gravitational waves and light were detected from the same cosmic event. The April 25 merger, by contrast, did not result in any light being detected."

"You might wonder why we haven’t seen knockout detections of electromagnetic radiation accompanying gravitational waves since the August 2017 discovery. Unfortunately, we probably just got lucky that time. “It was nearby, well-localized in space, and had everything going for it,” Berger said."

"The first binary neutron star to be discovered in GWs, GW170817, came with a bright electromagnetic counterpart...Unfortunately most binary mergers, and in particular binary black hole (BBH) mergers, do not have associated electromagnetic counterparts."
Dec 27, 2022
Visit site
"Special relativity is based on the observation that the speed of light is always the same, independently of who measures it, or how fast the source of the light is moving with respect to the observer. Einstein demonstrated that as an immediate consequence, space and time can no longer be independent, but should rather be considered a new joint entity called "spacetime."

So spacetime and LIGO's gravitational waves (ripples in spacetime) do not exist if the speed of light is not "always the same". It is obviously not the same for the stationary observer and the moving observer here:


The speed of the light pulses relative to the stationary observer is

c = df

where d is the distance between subsequent pulses and f is the frequency at the stationary observer. The speed of the pulses relative to the moving observer is

c'= df' > c

The speed of light VARIES with the speed of the emitter, as posited by Newton's theory


and unequivocally proved by the Michelson-Morley experiment:

"Emission theory, also called emitter theory or ballistic theory of light, was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, explaining the results of the Michelson–Morley experiment of 1887...The name most often associated with emission theory is Isaac Newton. In his corpuscular theory Newton visualized light "corpuscles" being thrown off from hot bodies at a nominal speed of c with respect to the emitting object, and obeying the usual laws of Newtonian mechanics, and we then expect light to be moving towards us with a speed that is offset by the speed of the distant emitter (c ± v)."

Banesh Hoffmann, Einstein's co-author, admits that, originally ("without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations"), the Michelson-Morley experiment was compatible with Newton's variable speed of light, c'=c±v, and incompatible with the constant speed of light, c'=c:

"Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether." Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92


May 10, 2021
Visit site
The question is how can physicists continue to delude themselves so profigately, what is the ethos behind such blind conjecture? A sensitivity of 1/10,000th the diameter of a proton! When no-one has as yet managed to see even an atom is surely stretching the limits of credibility? Where does wave -particle duality come into all this? Surely, the proton mus deign to show itself in particle form in order for it to be measured. Also, since measurement on the scale of a proton must also lend itself to wave-particle duality? More questions, very few answers. I will just state that this kind of 'manifest on demand' behaviour of particles, (and measurements) is conevenient to say the least.
Last edited: