LIGO FAQ with Bibhas De

July 23, 2016

Q: What did LIGO discover?
A: LIGO did not discover anything. To the extent that something actuated LIGO, it was most likely a geomagnetic disturbance.

Q: What about the phenomenal agreement with theoretical prediction?
A: There is no reason why the LIGO observed waveform should match the theoretical waveform, even if LIGO were observing that latter waveform.

Q: Then how would one determine that LIGO is observing gravitational wave?
A: One would have to determine the LIGO instrument transfer function. But it is indeterminate.

Q: So LIGO cannot be used to detect gravitational waves?
A: No.

Q: Did they try to find the instrument transfer function?
A: The closest they came is their calibration experiment. It was an abject failure. In the discovery paper they lied outright and said the instrument had been properly calibrated.

Q: You are saying the instrument was not even calibrated when the two grand discoveries were made?!
A: That is exactly what I am saying.

Q: Lord have mercy! OK, but the waveform observed by LIGO at least represented a geomagnetic waveform?
A: No. Because of their faulty laser-bounce technique, the waveform reported was a highly instrument-corrupted version of the incident signal. The observed waveform is practically useless for any purpose.

Q: And what about this business of teasing out signal from below the noise?
A: It amounts to going to great lengths to dig up a piece of grabage from underneath a pile of garbage.

Q: But the Breakthrough Prize, Shaw Prize, Gruber Prize and Kavli Prize awarding panel members, some of today’s most distinguished physicists, have declared this discovery to be legit!
A: They don’t know which end of LIGO is up.

Q: But will these same people be able to carry the prizegiving momentum right to the Nobel Prize?
A: I would not bet against it.

Q: Why is it that the entire physics establishment – to the last man – supports LIGO while the dissidents are all outside the establishment?
A: Good question.

Q: So what did the American taxpayers get for their billion+ dollars?
A: Sixteen kilometers of stainless steel pipeline.

Q: And what will the Indians get for their tax money?
A: Eight kilometers of stainless steel pipeline.

Q: Where can we read more about this?
A: Wait for my book Unchallenged Privilege due out very soon.

THE HIGH PRIESTS WHO ANOINTED LIGO

ligo_prizegivers

LIGO: Wolfgang Engelhardt’s Letter to Nobel Committee

July 22, 2016

Folks, I had read authoritative media reports that LIGO Nobel Prize would be awarded in 2017 (as the 2016 nomination deadline was missed.) However, I have seen comments to the effect that it is going to be this fall. It is possible that the Nobel Committee will make an exception and waive its own nomination deadline. Other prizes have done that to make the award to LIGO this year.

A LIGO dissident, Wolfgang W. Engelhardt, a physicist retired from the Max-Planck-Institut für Plasmaphysik, had been digging into LIGO science. He developed some most pertinent questions and dutifully submitted them to LIGO. He was insulted:

The questions asked were not answered. Instead the addressee, Prof. Karsten Danzmann, Director at the Albert Einstein Institute and co-author of the publication of the LIGO Experiment, attacked the person of Dr. Wolfgang Engelhardt in an unacceptable way, with insults and defamation. He also announced that he would make no further comment on the LIGO Experiment (Document 16 in the above-linked citizens’ enquiry).

Bild-Wolfgang-Engelhardt
Professor Wolfgang W. Engelhardt

Professor Engelhardt has submitted the following letter to the Nobel Committee for 2016:

Open Letter To The Nobel Committee For Physics 2016

Published on July 1, 2016

Written by Wolfgang Engelhardt

To Professor Olle Inganäs (chaiman),

Dear Professor Inganäs,

On Feb. 11, 2016 the LIGO-team published the paper PRL 116, 061102 (2016): Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger. The experimental proof for the existence of a gravitational wave was announced: Mirrors of 40 kg had been displaced by 10-18 m during fractions of a second as measured with a Michelson-interferometer with 4 km arm length resulting in a strain of 10-21.

Scaling up these data by a factor of 1013 a relative accuracy must have been achieved by a hair’s breadth (10 microns) in relation to the distance to the next fixed star (4 light-years). This is by a factor of 1 Million better than the relative Mössbauer accuracy of 10-15 obtained so far.

Indeed, Rudolf Mössbauer was awarded the Nobel Prize for physics in 1961 for this achievement. In order to substantiate this extraordinary claim, it is absolutely necessary to demonstrate experimentally LIGO’s ability to measure a displacement of 10-18 m that is one thousandth of a proton radius. The reader is assured that the calibration of the system can be achieved by moving the mirrors by such a tiny distance with radiation pressure: “The detector output is calibrated in strain by measuring its response to test mass motion induced by photon pressure from a modulated calibration laser beam [63].” Ref. [63] is an unpublished e-print describing the calibration method by radiation pressure.

Formula (10) gives the calculable connection between displacement and the radiation power of an auxiliary laser shining on the mirror. Unfortunately no data are given as to the laser power, wave form, number of oscillations in order to compare with the documented effect that was exerted on the mirrors by the wave GW150914, as displayed in the “discovery paper”.

An enquiry with the Albert Einstein Institut revealed that such data do not exist. Prof. Karsten Danzmann declared that the calibration procedure is much more complicated than could be expected from the announcement in the discovery paper (http://www.kritikrelativitaetstheorie.de/Anhaenge/Anfrage%20LIGO-Experiment.pdf , document 13).

In order to understand it, one would need to study lengthy technical documents such as arXiv:1007.3973v1 [gr-qc] 22 Jul 2010 which, however, does not present either a calibration curve “mirror displacement versus laser power”. In view of this statement one must conclude that an experimental proof for the claimed accuracy of the system does not exist, certainly none which is intelligible and could be accepted by the scientific public.

It would be easy to move the mirrors by radiation pressure similarly as the gravitational wave did on 15-09-14 , but no data have been published since then that would document this calibration measurement. In view of Prof. Danzmann’s statement one must suspect that LIGO was not calibrated as announced in the discovery paper with the consequence that the claim having detected a gravitational wave is not substantiated experimentally.

It is quite possible that GW150914 was a test signal injected into the system before the science run started. The second “discovery” GW151226 shows a very weak signal that is hardly discernable in the noise as admitted by the authors themselves.

In the early seventies there was a claim by Joe Weber having detected gravitational waves. Repetitions of his measurements by several groups came up with null results. Weber was not awarded a Nobel Prize, a wise decision by the Committee. In the present instance it is not easily possible to repeat independent experiments with interferometers of 4 km arm length.

One should insist, however, that the LIGO-group carries out the calibration as described in their discovery paper and publishes the results. Such data were included in the previous Technical Document LIGO-T030266-00 – D 9/22/03 (https://dcc.ligo.org/public/0027/T030266/000/T030266-00.pdf ) where much higher laser power was applied to achieve measurable displacements. Hence, it is surprising to notice that direct calibration data were not included in Ref. [63] on this far more auspicious occasion. As more events like GW150914 are expected, one should wait and see whether they materialize.

With my best regards,

Wolfgang Engelhardt

LIGO: The proton yardstick

July 2, 2016

LIGO, LIGO proton, LIGO waveform, LIGO gravitational wave, LIGO black hole merger, LIGO scam, LIGO smoking gun, LIGO MIT, LIGO Caltech, NSF, ligo first discovery, ligo second discovery, ligo fraud, ligo scam, ligo india
LIGO fraud
LIGO, LIGO proton, LIGO waveform, LIGO gravitational wave, LIGO black hole merger, LIGO scam, LIGO smoking gun, LIGO MIT, LIGO Caltech, NSF, ligo first discovery, ligo second discovery, ligo fraud, ligo scam, ligo india

For inquiring minds, here is a little textbook tutorial:

LIGO fraud

LIGO: The issue of orientation vs amplitude

June 26, 2016


This is essentially a continuation from the previous post. Refer to the figure there. I realize that I have not explicitly addressed the issue of LIGO antenna orientation in my compact figure.

In the LIGO first discovery, they explained the observed different amplitudes at the two stations as a matter of different orientation of the two detectors with respect to the incoming wave. First the incoming angle was calculated from a time delay of ~ 7 ms between the two stations. Then the amplitude difference was calculated from the orientations.

In the second discovery the wave came in nearly vertically (a time delay of ~ 1.1 ms) and there is no observed difference in amplitude.

But all this is entirely irrelevant.

Actually these LIGO orientation effect calculations are not scientifically justified. The orientation effect depends entirely on what the angular pattern of the LIGO antenna is for gravitational wave. This is a concept similar to that in electromagnetics or acoustics.

LIGO has a directional pattern that depends on the instrument design. There are many reasons why this pattern is not an ideal cosine-type pattern assumed. Generally speaking, when an antenna is much smaller than the wavelength, its pattern tends towards being isotropic.

LIGO gravitational wave wavelength is ~ thousands of kms, and LIGO size is ~ kms.

So do not for a moment believe that the difference in amplitude between the two stations corresponds to LIGO theory.

The difference cannot be an attenuation either. But there is no problem. This is a bogus picture that should not even be discussed. There is nothing here about gravitational wave.

So all this phenomenal agreement between theory and observation covers a multitude of sins, layers upon layers of it.

LIGO FRAUD: More for thinky folks

June 25, 2016


How a comparison of the two scam discoveries brings out the central scam. See more text below:

LIGO , LIGO gravitational wave, LIGO black hole merger, LIGO scam, LIGO smoking gun, LIGO MIT, LIGO Caltech, NSF, ligo first discovery, ligo second discovery, ligo fraud, ligo scam, ligo india
LIGO fraud
LIGO , LIGO gravitational wave, LIGO black hole merger, LIGO scam, LIGO smoking gun, LIGO MIT, LIGO Caltech, NSF, ligo first discovery, ligo second discovery, ligo fraud, ligo scam, ligo india


With the second discovery the LIGO scam was escalated. At the same time a clever plan was hatched: The new discovery would be promulgated in the media largely by new international players, and the original players would stay in the background. That way an image of robust science with international support base would be created.

Note that the LIGO second discovery requires not one but two scientific indulgences. They were desperate to “confirm” the first discovery and show that it was not a “fluke”. So they made the decision to administer to the critics the old one-two punch. First, this business about detecting macroscopic movement to the extent of 1/1000 the diameter of a proton. Second, uncovering and entire black body merger scenario buried in the noise hash. Both indulgences are used in a compounded way for the same discovery, one for the instrumental scam and the other for the digital trickery. You have to simultaneously accept as credible two independent steps that each strain the limit of credibility. Hash(ish) is the operative word. For that is what anyone who promotes this discovery uses. I don’t know who sells the Indulgencia Scientifico and what it costs, but I sure would like to have had a couple of these in my young days.

LINDAU NOBEL 2016: Fraud science and scam science

June 23, 2016


In keeping with their fine tradition, the Lindau Nobel Laureate Meeting in physics is once again helping entrench scam science and fraud science. They are doing so in front of the finest young talent they have selected from around the world. Clearly, the home countries of these young people, the host country Germany, the physics establishment worldwide, the Nobel Foundation whose name gives these meetings stature, and a host of other entities associated with this are all OK with this. These young people will then go unto the world and propagate the lies

This is the abyss of falsification they have dragged your scientific civilization down to. The world has never witnessed such corruption in such high places. They are degrading us all so cleverly that no one notices anymore that anything is amiss.

The past fraudsters are operating with impunity and are helping out new fraudsters. Past scammers are helping out the newbies.

LIGO discovery is a scam, and Smoot has the capacity to understand that scam. Yet he is helping entrench that scam. It makes sense because he is himself a part of Big Bang fraud.

GEORGE SMOOT
Gravitational Waves, Merging Black Holes

ABSTRACT
The recent detection by a LIGO collaboration of gravitational waves from merging binary pair of 30-solar mass black holes is culmination of long efforts.
The trek taken by many individuals in the discovery of gravitational waves is quite stunning and this talk recounts the journey in finding those waves. Since the origin of the idea in the early twentieth century, Einstein predicted them first one hundred years ago in 1916 but that was confused and the theoretical and experimental blunders continued for some time. Efforts for their detection and subsequent discovery also have a long history and include similar confusions. However, we have great confidence in these new results, even though they provide a number of surprises. Most of all they are a stunning confirmation of General Relativity.

Big Bang is the greatest science fraud in human history – and Brian Schmidt is a part of it.

BRIAN SCHMIDT
State of the Universe

ABSTRACT
13.8 Billion years ago, something happened – the Big Bang – which set in motion our expanding Universe. Through the systematic process of science, humanity has managed in a very short time to piece together a comprehensive story of our Universe. In 2016 the vital statistics of the universe – its composition, size, density, shape, and age – are known to remarkable accuracy. But the job is nowhere near done. In my lecture, I will discuss what we know, and what we don’t know about the Universe, and try to guess likely new areas for discovery in the years and decades to come.

FIRST PASS AT LIGO SCAMBOOK BACK COVER

June 23, 2016


A preliminary idea about the back cover of my LIGO scambook. You can see a rough draft of the book taking shape here

THE LIGO SCAM BOOK

LIGO scam book back cover, Caltech, MIT, NSF, ligo gravitational wave, kip thorne ligo, stephen hawking ligo, edward witten ligo, breakthrough prize ligo, gruber prize ligo, shaw prize ligo, kavli prize ligo
LIGO fraud
LIGO scam book back cover, Caltech, MIT, NSF, ligo gravitational wave, kip thorne ligo, stephen hawking ligo, edward witten ligo, breakthrough prize ligo, gruber prize ligo, shaw prize ligo, kavli prize ligo

LIGO SCAMBOOK: Conclusions

June 21, 2016

Excerpts from the current book draft:

To summarize Chapter 4:

CONCLUSION 1: When LIGO reports an observed waveform at the output, there is no way to tell what input waveform this corresponds to. This is the end of the line for LIGO as an instrument of scientific discovery. Kip Thorne’s slipping in of a custom-tailored desired waveform in place of the unknown waveform is a shell game.

CONCLUSION 2: Where there was conducted a controlled experiment with a known input waveform and a corresponding known output waveform, the crucial proof-of-concept waveform comparison was not reported.

CONCLUSION 3: LIGO most definitely did not observe gravitational wave also because the signal it saw was attenuated, substantially and with clear scientific significance, in making its journey’s leg from Washington to Louisiana.

To summarize Chapter 5:

CONCLUSION 4: Rainer Weiss the LIGO instrument pioneer knew from the beginning that LIGO needed protection from the geomagnetic environment. The completed LIGO instrument contains no such protection.

CONCLUSION 5: When the LIGO discovery was reported, only lip service was provided when it came to justifying why the signal was not due to the ubiquitous geomagnetic causes to which LIGO lay totally prone.

CONCLUSION 6: Absolutely no notice was taken of the role of the Earth’s static magnetic field on currents induced in the copious metallic components in LIGO’s innards.

CONCLUSION 7: Simultaneous observation of a signal at two distant stations is a necessary, but not a sufficient, criterion for a gravitational wave. Rainer Weiss argued that such a simultaneity reported by Joseph Weber in 1968 as a discovery of gravitational wave was due to geomagnetic causes.

And an excerpt on dissidents:


But why is it that different people find different things wrong with the same experiment. The answer is simple: When an apple is rotten to the core, you can find fault with its taste, its smell, its looks, its texture, its feel … etc. The LIGO discovery is likewise flawed to the core.

LIGO: The smoking gun

June 20, 2016

LIGO , LIGO gravitational wave, LIGO black hole merger, LIGO scam, LIGO smoking gun, LIGO MIT, LIGO Caltech, NSF
LIGO fraud
LIGO , LIGO gravitational wave, LIGO black hole merger, LIGO scam, LIGO smoking gun, LIGO MIT, LIGO Caltech, NSF

FIRST PASS AT LIGO SCAM BOOK COVER

June 19, 2016


A preliminary idea about the cover of my LIGO scambook. You can see a rough draft of the book taking shape here

THE LIGO SCAM BOOK

LIGO scam book cover, Caltech, MIT, NSF
LIGO fraud
LIGO scam book cover, Caltech, MIT, NSF


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.