Posts Tagged ‘Scientific misconduct’

BOGUS PHYSICS IN WIKIPEDIA

April 28, 2017


wikipedia, dark energy, cosmic inflation, accelerating universe, ligo gravitational waves, ligo India, COBE satellite, cosmic blackbody radiation, cmb, big bang cosmology, bicep2, keck array, asymptotic freedom, gravitational wave observatory

wikipedia, dark energy, cosmic inflation, accelerating universe, ligo gravitational waves, ligo India, COBE satellite, cosmic blackbody radiation, cmb, big bang cosmology, bicep2, keck array, asymptotic freedom, gravitational wave observatory

Why is Bibhas De so pissed off with the physics establishment?!

April 9, 2017

Part of the reason why I am so pissed off with the physics establishment is the following. I consider this collective scientific misconduct by the establishment. So, naturally, when they indiscriminately spawn scam science and fraud science and frou frou science or when they engage in group intellectual masturbation, I am predisposed to exposing them.

In the same timeframe as the above, this is what was going on:

bibhas_de_investigates

So there you have it!

LIGO AND US POLICY ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT (= SCIENCE FRAUD)

November 18, 2016

In the following the text in italic font is the Federal Policy On Research Misconduct as promulgated by the American Physical Society. The text in regular font shows my comments interjected.


FEDERAL POLICY ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT

I. Research Misconduct Defined

Research misconduct is defined as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results.

Fabrication is making up data or results and recording or reporting them.

Based on the operating principle of the existing LIGO instrument, a match between the recorded LIGO output waveform and a theoretically modeled gravitational wave train emanating from a merger of two black holes is no scientific evidence of gravitational wave [1]. Such a match – however impressive it is – is scientifically irrelevant.

The proof that LIGO is observing a gravitational wave requires an independent and simultaneous experimental demonstration that the two LIGO end mirrors are in an entangled mode of actuation – synchronous, equal amplitude and 180 degrees out of phase. Only then the issue of matching the two waveforms becomes scientifically justified, provided the instrument is otherwise faultless (which it is not.)

In other words, LIGO is not a complete scientific instrument concept. A complete instrument concept would measure and report three waveforms: the conventional output waveform they have reported (the “Difference Waveform”, say), and two waveforms showing the “displacement” of the two mirrors. If these two waveforms (“Twin Waveforms”, say) are identical except that one is flipped vertically, then this is the proof that a gravitational wave has passed through. The Difference Waveform now can be used to do the black hole stuff and whatnot.

However, the Difference Waveform is actually a derivative of the Twin Waveforms, and hence the latter waveforms would be the primary LIGO measurements.

To be absolutely clear on this central point about the billion-dollar, multi-decade, thousand-man LIGO observatotry: If LIGO were an instrument that reported only the Twin Waveforms and they were as described above, we have evidence of a gravitational wave; if it reported the Twin Waveforms AND the Difference Waveform, we have evidence of gravitational wave AND black holes merger; if it reported only the Difference Waveform, then we have nothing. Absolutely nothing. This last case is what actually happened.

Finally, for the LIGO instrument the Twin Waveforms may be fundamentally indeterminate, making this concept totally worthless for any purpose.

So the total fabrication here is the false “scientific” premise that a match between the black hole merger theory waveform and the Difference Waveform leads to a simultaneous discovery of gravitational wave AND black holes merger.

Another total fabrication is to aver without any experimental evidence whatsoever that the LIGO instrument can detect displacement of the 30-kg pendulum mass as small as 1/10,000-th the diameter of a proton. The discovery actually rests on this fabrication.

Falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record.

The calibration of the LIGO instrument – which was an essential condition for the discovery – was falsified. No valid calibration data that pertained to the LIGO instrument as it existed and operated at the time of the discovery were ever presented – to this day. Instead, some old and flawed test was dusted and passed off as calibration [1,2]. An uncalibrated scientific research instrument is untrustworthy in all respects, and certainly cannot produce a discovery.

To be absolutely clear on this point: No calibration, no discovery.

Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit.

Not applicable.


Research misconduct does not include honest error or differences of opinion.

We are way past the stage in the scientific process where honest error/mistake could be advanced as a reason for reporting the false discovery.

Seven months have elapsed since the report of the discovery. During this period an enormous amount of scientific documentation of the fault with the discovery has been placed in readily accessible public view.

Had there been the slightest indication that the LIGO team was reviewing this material, it would be another matter. Instead, the raucous partying has continued and grown uninterrupted. The lead LIGO operatives have been anointed, feted, and given enormous amount of moneys to be put in their personal bank accounts. The operatives have publicly accepted all these in the spirit they were given.

In the end, on 11 November 2016, it was announced the LIGO’s official Spokeperson – acting in that capacity – will reaffirm the discovery in its fullest glory [3].


II. Findings of Research Misconduct

A finding of research misconduct requires that:

There be a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community; and

Falsely averring under an elaborate ruse that an instrument was properly calibrated during the discovery is not and accepted practice of the community.

To subsequently refuse to elaborate on this pivotal point when requested to do so is also not an accepted practice [2].

To report a discovery where a mathematically ill-posed problem becomes an experimentally sound problem is not an accepted practice [4].

To report a discovery based on a single detection of a transient signal is not an accepted practice. So solid was this discovery claimed to be that unprecedented demands for an instant Nobel Prize were made in all seriousness, demands that would require the Nobel Foundation to wave its nomination deadline.


The misconduct be committed intentionally, or knowingly, or recklessly; and

Even if the misconduct was unintentional (stemming from what has to be gross and collective incompetence) when the discovery was reported, the failure to retract the discovery and instead to forcefully maintain it made it intentional, knowing and reckless after the fact.

Further example of this recklessness is the US-India LIGO Collaboration which, during the period in question, has been moving aggressively and hurriedly to take such concrete steps as would be difficult to reverse (such as acquiring land for the Indian LIGO).

Also an example of ongoing reckless is the continued “upgrades” of LIGO during the period in question, thus obliterating evidence that could be examined to substantiate the allegations about the instrument as it existed when the discovery was made. This amounts to tampering with evidence. The design should have been frozen as soon as the allegations arose, pending a resolution. These upgrades have now made the two US LIGO stations different [5] – making the situation extremely murky (the two stations needed to be exactly identical.)

(In the case of the recent BICEP2 debacle [9], we have learned that “instrument upgrade” is an euphemism for deep-sixing the botched instrument and moving on, without facing any accountabiliy or accepting any responsibility.)


The allegation be proven by a preponderance of evidence.

Starting immediately after the discovery report and continuing for months, independent scientists have documented evidence of fault with the LIGO discovery. These findings cover various scientific and engineering facets of the discovery. Because the instrument is fundamentally flawed, its symptoms are multi-faceted, and that is why various investigators have described various fatal faults [1, 2,6-8].

It has been placed in evidence that:

(1). The LIGO scientific principle is wrong;
(2). The LIGO instrumentation is flawed;
(3). The LIGO observation was flawed;
(4). The interpretation of LIGO observation was flawed or scammed.

There is also evidence that on the day the gravitational wave was detected, the various uncertainties with LIGO were at a heightened state, and malfunction occurred [6].

There is also circumstantial evidence. Rainer Weiss is the LIGO instrumentation maven. He was also the COBE Satellite instrumentation maven. In fact the two projects overlap in time. The COBE Satellite discovery was a fraud, rooted in the instrumentation. LIGO is an outcome of the same process.

In fact, nothing about LIGO survives that proper scientific scrutiny which the physics establishment was unable or unwilling to provide, and which their watchdogs were happy to look away from. This scrutiny – the preponderance of evidence – in the end was provided by outsiders, gratis.

EXHIBITS

[1] Unchallenged privilege: The billion-dollar trilateral gravitational-wave discovery scam by Bibhas De

[2] Open Letter to the Nobel Committee for Physics 2016

[3] Robert M. Walker Distinguished Lecture

[4] LIGO: Absurdity of Big Physics

[5] Advanced LIGO ramps up, with slight improvements

[6] Letter to the Nobel Committee on LIGO claims for gravitational waves detections GW150914 and GW151226

[7] A detailed critical review of reported event GW150914 that LIGO/VIRGO collaboration announced as gravitational waves and black holes observation

[8] LIGO Experiments Cannot Detect Gravitational Waves by Using Laser Michelson Interferometers

[9] The Falsifiers of the Universe: BIG BANG COSMOLOY: the first fraud in the final frontier by Bibhas De

HOW THEY ACTED: The Executive Office of the President

May 1, 2015

OSTP White House, science fraud, scientific misconduct, John Mather

OSTP White House, science fraud, scientific misconduct, John Mather

THE BIG BANG SCOURGE: Why it must be stopped now

June 11, 2014

John kovac Harvard, chao-lin kuo Stanford, jamie bock Caltech, clem pryke Minnesota, David spergel Princeton, Raphael flauger ias, subir sarkar oxford, megan urry yale, Lawrence krauss Arizona, paul Steinhardt Princeton, Uroš Seljak berkeley, Michael Mortonson berkeley brian koberlein rit, amber miller Columbia, Physical Review Letters

John kovac Harvard, chao-lin kuo Stanford, jamie bock Caltech, clem pryke Minnesota, David spergel Princeton, Raphael flauger ias, subir sarkar oxford, megan urry yale, Lawrence krauss Arizona, paul Steinhardt Princeton, Uroš Seljak berkeley, Michael Mortonson berkeley brian koberlein rit, amber miller Columbia, Physical Review Letters

Big Bang Cosmology, NASA Administrator Charles F. Bolden, NASA Inspector General Paul K. Martin, NSF Director Cora B. Marrett, NSF Director Nominee France A. Córdova, NSF Inspector General Allison Lerner, OSTP Director John P. Holdren, Smithsonian Institution Director Cristián Samper, TIME Magazine managing editor Richard Stengel, scientific american editor-in-chief Mariette DiChristina, National Geographic CEO Gary E. Knell, Keck Foundation, Kavli Foundation, science fraud, scientific misconduct

Big Bang Cosmology, NASA Administrator Charles F. Bolden, NASA Inspector General Paul K. Martin, NSF Director Cora B. Marrett, NSF Director Nominee France A. Córdova, NSF Inspector General Allison Lerner, OSTP Director John P. Holdren, Smithsonian Institution Director Cristián Samper, TIME Magazine managing editor Richard Stengel, scientific american editor-in-chief Mariette DiChristina, National Geographic CEO Gary E. Knell, Keck Foundation, Kavli Foundation, science fraud, scientific misconduct

DR. DIPAK K. DAS (1947-2013)

October 29, 2013

Dr. Dipak K. Das, about whom I have written extensively here, passed away on September 19, 2013.

[Click to enlarge]
Dr. Dipak K. Das (1947-2013)

Dr. Dipak K. Das (1947-2013)
Click here to see the video Dr. Dipak Das replies to allegations of scientific fraud

I believe this video because it was prepared at a time Das was considering a lawsuit against his university. He would have known that this video might figure in the proceedings, and so he would have been legalistically truthful.

Also worth reading is this “epitaph” for Dr. Dipak Das by Bill Sardi. Even this eulogy has been derided because the author Sardi had a business relatioship with Dr. Das. In fact an atmosphere of frenzy was deliberately created where no one would dare say anythig in favor of Dr. Das – alive or dead.

Follow the legalese of Dr. Das’ lawsuit against U Conn Board of Trustees here.

[Click to enlarge]
Dr. Philip Austin of the University of Connecticut is the front man in the conviction of Dr. Dipak Das on charges of science fraud

Dr. Philip Austin of the University of Connecticut is the front man in the conviction of Dr. Dipak Das on charges of science fraud

The Univ of Connecticut 60,0000 page investigative report on Dr. Das is not to be found anywhere on the Internet. A summary report had been posted on the Internet, but then pulled (Why?).

But the response of Dr. Das to this report can be read here. [This has been removed! Try my own copy of it here.] Note that this document misspells the name of Leonard Paplauskas, Associate Vice President for Research Administration, University of Connecticut, School of Medicine. Why would Dr. Das misspell the name of a long-stanging colleague as Leonpard Pasplascus (and some variations)? Another possibility is that the name was altered before uploading the document in order to evade the Search Engines. If you read the document, you will see why.

Oddly, there is very little information about this Paplauskas person on the Internet, given that he was a major university official of long standing. He was brought out of retirement to investigate Dr. Das (Why a retiree?!). About the same time, it seems that he was rehired by the University of Connecticut and put on the payroll! What a coincidence! He seems to be a German-born person. I have found this photo of Leonard P. Paplauskas in his public jazz website where he goes by the name Lenny Paplauskas.

In his web site Paplauskas says he has a Ph. D.(ABD) degree. I don’t know what that is, but an Internnet search suggests ABD = All but Dissertation! Heck, if somebody who does not even have a Ph. D. has to be brought out of retirement to investigate a world-renowned researcher and widely respected scientist, I certainly would be most concerned about what they did to Dr. Das at the University of Connecticut.

Dr. Dipak Das is certainly at fault for lax oversight, giving and receiving gift authorships etc (as he admits himself; in such practices he is certainly not alone). But I am very leery now of the finding of fraud.

[Click to enlarge]
Hounding of Dr. Dipak Das by Robert Crowe of digparty.com and digplanet.com

Hounding of Dr. Dipak Das by Robert Crowe of digparty.com and digplanet.com. Such terrible insults may have cumuluated, helping send Dr. Das to his early end.
Click here to see the video Dr. Dipak Das replies to allegations of scientific fraud

[Click to enlarge]
SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT: John Mather NASA and Dipak Das U Conn

SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT: John Mather NASA and Dipak Das U Conn

SOME EARLIER POSTS I MADE ON DR. DIAPK DAS:

A post made on February 26, 2012:

Dipak K. Das and John C. Mather science fraud
[Click to enlarge]

“Nie blanke” Dr. Dipak K. Das, an Indian-American and “blanke” Dr. John C. Mather, a baseball-hotdog-apple pie-and-chevrolet American.
The John Mather science fraud was exposed in April 2007. Since then, various parties involved have started surreptitiously slinking away from his “discovery”. But in five years’ time there is not a single public acknowledgement or even mention that there was anything the matter with his discovery. Some estúpidos hombres are continuing to fete him loudly. Some hombres muy malos are presenting him as inspiration to children.

A post made on March 8, 2012:

John C. Mather NASA Nobel Prize Laureate science fraud/scientific misconduct

John C. Mather (left) NASA Nobel Prize Laureate science fraud was never publicly acknowledged in five years since it was exposed. There is no public mention that there was anything the matter with his discovery. His fraud is being handled by various parties concerned by slinking away from his “discovery”. Even as this surreptitious back-pedaling is happening, he is being enabled by people in very high places to whoop it up as a high profile celebrity and a NASA icon, and to inspire young people around the world with his own example (including young people in India especially). His completely untenable position as the scientific leader of the next generation space telescope is being continued in order to maintain the cover up. High accolades are continuing to flow his way.
This is the result of a concerted, unstated American policy (as evinced by the participation of members of the US Government and US Congress).
Hard to believe? Well, here is some more hard evidence. Even as this cover up operation is proceeding all ahead one third, the White House asks NASA for assurances that they are compliant on the established Government policies on scientific integrity. NASA answers right back: All shipshape.
This could be good for a few laughs if it were not a very dark matter.
And now about the luckless ones whose backs no one has.
The alleged frauds of Dr. Anil Potti, Dr. Diapk Das and Dr. Bharat Aggarwal (right, top to bottom) – all Indian-Americans, in unconnected research programs – have all been subjected very promptly and with great urgency to zealous investigation and media reporting, as they should be.
Their careers have pretty much ended.

A post made on March 8, 2012:

IN CONCLUSION:

The true intent of the US policy on science fraud/scientific misconduct/scientific integrity clarified

A post made on October 17, 2013:

[Click to enlarge]
Let’s reinstate Anil Potti, Dipak Das and Bharat Aggarwal now that they have paid a terrible price for science fraud, scientific misconduct

Let’s reinstate Anil Potti, Dipak Das and Bharat Aggarwal now that they have paid a terrible price for science fraud, scientific misconduct