Does LIGO Fraud Mark the End of Our Civilization?
6 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Does LIGO Fraud Mark the End of Our Civilization?

Pentcho Valev
Bibhas De: "A wake for our civilization (weep for her!). Folks, they have started dismantling our civilization. Try and explain this to your children. Be sure to have ready an answer when they ask: "Why didn't you stop this, Daddy?" https://dreamheron.wordpress.com/2017/1 ... pforher/
Bibhas De may be right  the fraud is OBVIOUS and yet there are not even hints in that direction, let alone straightforward criticism.
An exception (after publishing this, Kiriushcheva disappeared from the discussions):
"Einstein believed in neither gravitational waves nor black holes. [...] Dr Natalia Kiriushcheva, a theoretical and computational physicist at the University of Western Ontario (UWO), Canada, says that while it was Einstein who initiated the gravitational waves theory in a paper in June 1916, it was an addendum to his theory of general relativity and by 1936, he had concluded that such things did not exist. Furthermore  as a paper published by Einstein in the Annals of Mathematics in October, 1939 made clear, he also rejected the possibility of black holes. [...] On September 16, 2010, a false signal  a socalled "blind injection"  was fed into both the Ligo and Virgo systems as part of an exercise to "test ... detection capabilities". At the time, the vast majority of the hundreds of scientists working on the equipment had no idea that they were being fed a dummy signal. The truth was not revealed until March the following year, by which time several papers about the supposed sensational discovery of gravitational waves were poised for publication. "While the scientists were disappointed that the discovery was not real, the success of the analysis was a compelling demonstration of the collaboration's readiness to detect gravitational waves," Ligo reported at the time. But take a look at the visualisation of the faked signal, says Dr Kiriushcheva, and compare it to the image apparently showing the collision of the twin black holes, seen on the second page of the recentlypublished discovery paper. "They look very, very similar," she says. "It means that they knew exactly what they wanted to get and this is suspicious for us: when you know what you want to get from science, usually you can get it." The apparent similarity is more curious because the faked event purported to show not a collision between two black holes, but the gravitational waves created by a neutron star spiralling into a black hole. The signals appear so similar, in fact, that Dr Kiriushcheva questions whether the "true" signal might actually have been an echo of the fake, "stored in the computer system from when they turned off the equipment five years before"." http://www.thenational.ae/artslife/the ... llide#full
Natalia Kiriushcheva: "What is shown on this picture? The equation on this page is what will be left from Einstein's equations of General Relativity (GR) after linearization. i.e. after a certain assumption is imposed: the gravitational field is considered weak (is it a correct assumption for two black holes?). Moreover, this equation is similar to the wave equation of the Maxwell theory that (after some additional manipulations) describes propagation of electromagnetic waves in the absence of sources (absence of any source, including a system of two black holes!). Einstein pointed out in this paper that its result is not general, it is valid only under assumption that the gravitational field is weak and only linear coordinate transformations (a linearized version of the general coordinate transformations of GR) can be applied to these (linearized) equations. Einstein also did not predict in this paper "that two celestial bodies in orbit will generate invisible ripples in spacetime that experts call gravitational waves", as BI claims. He was talking about "the system" that radiates energy, without specifying what kind of system it is." https://gravityattraction.wordpress.com ... volvement/
The crucial questions are:
Does Einstein's general relativity predict that gravitational waves travel at the speed of light? Does it predict how the Shapiro delay for gravitational waves compares with the Shapiro delay for light?
Kiriushcheva's analysis suggests that the answer to both questions is 'no'. According to Arthur Eddington, Einstein's general relativity says nothing about the speed of gravitational waves, let alone their Shapiro timedelay:
Arthur Eddington: "The statement that in the relativity theory gravitational waves are propagated with the speed of light has, I believe, been based entirely upon the foregoing investigation; but it will be seen that it is only true in a very conventional sense. If coordinates are chosen so as to satisfy a certain condition which has no very clear geometrical importance, the speed is that of light; if the coordinates are slightly different the speed is altogether different from that of light. The result stands or falls by the choice of coordinates and, so far as can be judged, the coordinates here used were purposely introduced in order to obtain the simplification which results from representing the propagation as occurring with the speed of light. The argument thus follows a vicious circle." The Mathematical Theory of Relativity, pp. 130131 https://www.amazon.com/MathematicalThe ... 0521091659
So what is the a priori probability that the gravitational waves (if they exist) arrive simultaneously with the optical signal? Answer: Zero.
That is, if, in the neutron star case, LIGO's fabrication involved different times of arrival, that would at least have sounded realistic. The claim that the gravitational waves and the optical signal arrived at exactly the same time, which implies that they not only travel at the same speed but also experience the same Shapiro delay, unequivocally proves that LIGO conspirators just faked the gravitational wave signals.
Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev
Another exception:
Sabine Hossenfelder: "Was It All Just Noise? Independent Analysis Casts Doubt On LIGO's Detections. A team of five researchers  James Creswell, Sebastian von Hausegger, Andrew D. Jackson, Hao Liu, and Pavel Naselsky  from the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen, presented their own analysis of the openly available LIGO data. And, unlike the LIGO collaboration itself, they come to a disturbing conclusion: that these gravitational waves might not be signals at all, but rather patterns in the noise that have hoodwinked even the best scientists working on this puzzle. [...] A few weeks ago, Andrew Jackson presented his results in Munich. A member of the local physics faculty (who'd rather not be named) finds the results "quite disturbing" and hopes that the collaboration will take the criticism of the Danes to heart. "Until LIGO will provide clear scientific(!) explanation why these findings are wrong, I would say the result of the paper to some extent invalidates the reliability of the LIGO discovery." https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswith ... etections/
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 reevaluated with a more careful consideration of noise properties." http://www.nbi.ku.dk/gravitationalwave ... 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/gravitationalwave ... ment2.html
The noise correlation is OBVIOUSLY fatal  LIGO project should have been immediately terminated and an interrogation should have begun. Instead, the posttruth Nobel Committee immediately gave the Nobel Prize to LIGO fraudsters.
Andrew Jackson and his team, just like Natalia Kiriushcheva, disappeared from the discussions. Sabine Hossenfelder, doublethinker like any other Einsteinian, repented, sang a dithyramb to LIGO godfathers, and saved herself:
Sabine Hossenfelder: "Einstein's theory of general relativity, where gravity is caused by the curvature of spacetime, is awesome. It has been confirmed to an incredible level of precision, extending to fifteen significant figures in some cases. One of its most amazing predictions is the existence of gravitational waves: small disturbances in spacetime that travel freely. These very waves are now detected regularly by the LIGO/VIRGO experiments." https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswith ... uldsolve/
Pentcho Valev
Sabine Hossenfelder: "Was It All Just Noise? Independent Analysis Casts Doubt On LIGO's Detections. A team of five researchers  James Creswell, Sebastian von Hausegger, Andrew D. Jackson, Hao Liu, and Pavel Naselsky  from the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen, presented their own analysis of the openly available LIGO data. And, unlike the LIGO collaboration itself, they come to a disturbing conclusion: that these gravitational waves might not be signals at all, but rather patterns in the noise that have hoodwinked even the best scientists working on this puzzle. [...] A few weeks ago, Andrew Jackson presented his results in Munich. A member of the local physics faculty (who'd rather not be named) finds the results "quite disturbing" and hopes that the collaboration will take the criticism of the Danes to heart. "Until LIGO will provide clear scientific(!) explanation why these findings are wrong, I would say the result of the paper to some extent invalidates the reliability of the LIGO discovery." https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswith ... etections/
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 reevaluated with a more careful consideration of noise properties." http://www.nbi.ku.dk/gravitationalwave ... 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/gravitationalwave ... ment2.html
The noise correlation is OBVIOUSLY fatal  LIGO project should have been immediately terminated and an interrogation should have begun. Instead, the posttruth Nobel Committee immediately gave the Nobel Prize to LIGO fraudsters.
Andrew Jackson and his team, just like Natalia Kiriushcheva, disappeared from the discussions. Sabine Hossenfelder, doublethinker like any other Einsteinian, repented, sang a dithyramb to LIGO godfathers, and saved herself:
Sabine Hossenfelder: "Einstein's theory of general relativity, where gravity is caused by the curvature of spacetime, is awesome. It has been confirmed to an incredible level of precision, extending to fifteen significant figures in some cases. One of its most amazing predictions is the existence of gravitational waves: small disturbances in spacetime that travel freely. These very waves are now detected regularly by the LIGO/VIRGO experiments." https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswith ... uldsolve/
Pentcho Valev

Anonymous
Wow, aren't you a little drama queen.
Bibhas De: "A wake for our civilization (weep for her!). Folks, they have started dismantling our civilization. Try and explain this to your children. Be sure to have ready an answer when they ask: "Why didn't you stop this, Daddy?" https://dreamheron.wordpress.com/2017/1 ... pforher/
Bibhas De may be right  the fraud is OBVIOUS and yet there are not even hints in that direction, let alone straightforward criticism.
An exception (after publishing this, Kiriushcheva disappeared from the discussions):
"Einstein believed in neither gravitational waves nor black holes. [...] Dr Natalia Kiriushcheva, a theoretical and computational physicist at the University of Western Ontario (UWO), Canada, says that while it was Einstein who initiated the gravitational waves theory in a paper in June 1916, it was an addendum to his theory of general relativity and by 1936, he had concluded that such things did not exist. Furthermore  as a paper published by Einstein in the Annals of Mathematics in October, 1939 made clear, he also rejected the possibility of black holes. [...] On September 16, 2010, a false signal  a socalled "blind injection"  was fed into both the Ligo and Virgo systems as part of an exercise to "test ... detection capabilities". At the time, the vast majority of the hundreds of scientists working on the equipment had no idea that they were being fed a dummy signal. The truth was not revealed until March the following year, by which time several papers about the supposed sensational discovery of gravitational waves were poised for publication. "While the scientists were disappointed that the discovery was not real, the success of the analysis was a compelling demonstration of the collaboration's readiness to detect gravitational waves," Ligo reported at the time. But take a look at the visualisation of the faked signal, says Dr Kiriushcheva, and compare it to the image apparently showing the collision of the twin black holes, seen on the second page of the recentlypublished discovery paper. "They look very, very similar," she says. "It means that they knew exactly what they wanted to get and this is suspicious for us: when you know what you want to get from science, usually you can get it." The apparent similarity is more curious because the faked event purported to show not a collision between two black holes, but the gravitational waves created by a neutron star spiralling into a black hole. The signals appear so similar, in fact, that Dr Kiriushcheva questions whether the "true" signal might actually have been an echo of the fake, "stored in the computer system from when they turned off the equipment five years before"." http://www.thenational.ae/artslife/the ... llide#full
Natalia Kiriushcheva: "What is shown on this picture? The equation on this page is what will be left from Einstein's equations of General Relativity (GR) after linearization. i.e. after a certain assumption is imposed: the gravitational field is considered weak (is it a correct assumption for two black holes?). Moreover, this equation is similar to the wave equation of the Maxwell theory that (after some additional manipulations) describes propagation of electromagnetic waves in the absence of sources (absence of any source, including a system of two black holes!). Einstein pointed out in this paper that its result is not general, it is valid only under assumption that the gravitational field is weak and only linear coordinate transformations (a linearized version of the general coordinate transformations of GR) can be applied to these (linearized) equations. Einstein also did not predict in this paper "that two celestial bodies in orbit will generate invisible ripples in spacetime that experts call gravitational waves", as BI claims. He was talking about "the system" that radiates energy, without specifying what kind of system it is." https://gravityattraction.wordpress.com ... volvement/
The crucial questions are:
Does Einstein's general relativity predict that gravitational waves travel at the speed of light? Does it predict how the Shapiro delay for gravitational waves compares with the Shapiro delay for light?
Kiriushcheva's analysis suggests that the answer to both questions is 'no'. According to Arthur Eddington, Einstein's general relativity says nothing about the speed of gravitational waves, let alone their Shapiro timedelay:
Arthur Eddington: "The statement that in the relativity theory gravitational waves are propagated with the speed of light has, I believe, been based entirely upon the foregoing investigation; but it will be seen that it is only true in a very conventional sense. If coordinates are chosen so as to satisfy a certain condition which has no very clear geometrical importance, the speed is that of light; if the coordinates are slightly different the speed is altogether different from that of light. The result stands or falls by the choice of coordinates and, so far as can be judged, the coordinates here used were purposely introduced in order to obtain the simplification which results from representing the propagation as occurring with the speed of light. The argument thus follows a vicious circle." The Mathematical Theory of Relativity, pp. 130131 https://www.amazon.com/MathematicalThe ... 0521091659
So what is the a priori probability that the gravitational waves (if they exist) arrive simultaneously with the optical signal? Answer: Zero.
That is, if, in the neutron star case, LIGO's fabrication involved different times of arrival, that would at least have sounded realistic. The claim that the gravitational waves and the optical signal arrived at exactly the same time, which implies that they not only travel at the same speed but also experience the same Shapiro delay, unequivocally proves that LIGO conspirators just faked the gravitational wave signals.
Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev
LIGO conspirators explain that detecting gravitational waves without theoretical underpinning is impossible  calculated waveforms tell them the colour of the needle in the haystack:
Bibhas De: "A wake for our civilization (weep for her!). Folks, they have started dismantling our civilization. Try and explain this to your children. Be sure to have ready an answer when they ask: "Why didn't you stop this, Daddy?" https://dreamheron.wordpress.com/2017/1 ... pforher/
Bibhas De may be right  the fraud is OBVIOUS and yet there are not even hints in that direction, let alone straightforward criticism.
An exception (after publishing this, Kiriushcheva disappeared from the discussions):
"Einstein believed in neither gravitational waves nor black holes. [...] Dr Natalia Kiriushcheva, a theoretical and computational physicist at the University of Western Ontario (UWO), Canada, says that while it was Einstein who initiated the gravitational waves theory in a paper in June 1916, it was an addendum to his theory of general relativity and by 1936, he had concluded that such things did not exist. Furthermore  as a paper published by Einstein in the Annals of Mathematics in October, 1939 made clear, he also rejected the possibility of black holes. [...] On September 16, 2010, a false signal  a socalled "blind injection"  was fed into both the Ligo and Virgo systems as part of an exercise to "test ... detection capabilities". At the time, the vast majority of the hundreds of scientists working on the equipment had no idea that they were being fed a dummy signal. The truth was not revealed until March the following year, by which time several papers about the supposed sensational discovery of gravitational waves were poised for publication. "While the scientists were disappointed that the discovery was not real, the success of the analysis was a compelling demonstration of the collaboration's readiness to detect gravitational waves," Ligo reported at the time. But take a look at the visualisation of the faked signal, says Dr Kiriushcheva, and compare it to the image apparently showing the collision of the twin black holes, seen on the second page of the recentlypublished discovery paper. "They look very, very similar," she says. "It means that they knew exactly what they wanted to get and this is suspicious for us: when you know what you want to get from science, usually you can get it." The apparent similarity is more curious because the faked event purported to show not a collision between two black holes, but the gravitational waves created by a neutron star spiralling into a black hole. The signals appear so similar, in fact, that Dr Kiriushcheva questions whether the "true" signal might actually have been an echo of the fake, "stored in the computer system from when they turned off the equipment five years before"." http://www.thenational.ae/artslife/the ... llide#full
Natalia Kiriushcheva: "What is shown on this picture? The equation on this page is what will be left from Einstein's equations of General Relativity (GR) after linearization. i.e. after a certain assumption is imposed: the gravitational field is considered weak (is it a correct assumption for two black holes?). Moreover, this equation is similar to the wave equation of the Maxwell theory that (after some additional manipulations) describes propagation of electromagnetic waves in the absence of sources (absence of any source, including a system of two black holes!). Einstein pointed out in this paper that its result is not general, it is valid only under assumption that the gravitational field is weak and only linear coordinate transformations (a linearized version of the general coordinate transformations of GR) can be applied to these (linearized) equations. Einstein also did not predict in this paper "that two celestial bodies in orbit will generate invisible ripples in spacetime that experts call gravitational waves", as BI claims. He was talking about "the system" that radiates energy, without specifying what kind of system it is." https://gravityattraction.wordpress.com ... volvement/
The crucial questions are:
Does Einstein's general relativity predict that gravitational waves travel at the speed of light? Does it predict how the Shapiro delay for gravitational waves compares with the Shapiro delay for light?
Kiriushcheva's analysis suggests that the answer to both questions is 'no'. According to Arthur Eddington, Einstein's general relativity says nothing about the speed of gravitational waves, let alone their Shapiro timedelay:
Arthur Eddington: "The statement that in the relativity theory gravitational waves are propagated with the speed of light has, I believe, been based entirely upon the foregoing investigation; but it will be seen that it is only true in a very conventional sense. If coordinates are chosen so as to satisfy a certain condition which has no very clear geometrical importance, the speed is that of light; if the coordinates are slightly different the speed is altogether different from that of light. The result stands or falls by the choice of coordinates and, so far as can be judged, the coordinates here used were purposely introduced in order to obtain the simplification which results from representing the propagation as occurring with the speed of light. The argument thus follows a vicious circle." The Mathematical Theory of Relativity, pp. 130131 https://www.amazon.com/MathematicalThe ... 0521091659
So what is the a priori probability that the gravitational waves (if they exist) arrive simultaneously with the optical signal? Answer: Zero.
That is, if, in the neutron star case, LIGO's fabrication involved different times of arrival, that would at least have sounded realistic. The claim that the gravitational waves and the optical signal arrived at exactly the same time, which implies that they not only travel at the same speed but also experience the same Shapiro delay, unequivocally proves that LIGO conspirators just faked the gravitational wave signals.
Pentcho Valev
"The team was largely responsible for conducting simulations of black hole collisions on highperformance supercomputers, which were required because of the complexity of the equations and necessity for absolute precision. They computed gravitational waveform, the shape of the signals for which LIGO searches. The U of T researchers banked thousands of collisions to create "pattern templates," giving scientists a better idea of what to look for and how to interpret their findings. "If you know the shape of the signal you're looking for, it's like knowing the colour of a needle in a haystack. It's easier to find," Pfeiffer explained in an interview with U of T News last year. The pattern templates also make the research more efficient by telling scientists right away whether they have observed a significant event." http://news.artsci.utoronto.ca/allnews ... nalwaves/
The Nobel Committee knew that LIGO conspirators didn't use waveforms in detecting gravitational wave signals, which could only mean that the signals were simply faked:
The Nobel Committee for Physics: "While these waveforms provide a reasonable match, further important improvements are obtained using numerical methods that are very computationally intensive [23]. The analytical methods are crucial to producing the big library of template waveforms used by LIGO. While the waveforms produced in this way are necessary for determining the detailed properties of the objects involved, as well as identifying weak signals, they were not essential for the very first detection of GW150914. This was a modelindependent detection of a gravitationalwave transient." https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes ... ze2017.pdf
We all live in the posttruth world, don't we?
Pentcho Valev

Anonymous
We all live in the posttruth world, don't we?
Bibhas De: "A wake for our civilization (weep for her!). Folks, they have started dismantling our civilization. Try and explain this to your children. Be sure to have ready an answer when they ask: "Why didn't you stop this, Daddy?" https://dreamheron.wordpress.com/2017/1 ... pforher/
Bibhas De may be right  the fraud is OBVIOUS and yet there are not even hints in that direction, let alone straightforward criticism.
An exception (after publishing this, Kiriushcheva disappeared from the discussions):
"Einstein believed in neither gravitational waves nor black holes. [...] Dr Natalia Kiriushcheva, a theoretical and computational physicist at the University of Western Ontario (UWO), Canada, says that while it was Einstein who initiated the gravitational waves theory in a paper in June 1916, it was an addendum to his theory of general relativity and by 1936, he had concluded that such things did not exist. Furthermore  as a paper published by Einstein in the Annals of Mathematics in October, 1939 made clear, he also rejected the possibility of black holes. [...] On September 16, 2010, a false signal  a socalled "blind injection"  was fed into both the Ligo and Virgo systems as part of an exercise to "test ... detection capabilities". At the time, the vast majority of the hundreds of scientists working on the equipment had no idea that they were being fed a dummy signal. The truth was not revealed until March the following year, by which time several papers about the supposed sensational discovery of gravitational waves were poised for publication. "While the scientists were disappointed that the discovery was not real, the success of the analysis was a compelling demonstration of the collaboration's readiness to detect gravitational waves," Ligo reported at the time. But take a look at the visualisation of the faked signal, says Dr Kiriushcheva, and compare it to the image apparently showing the collision of the twin black holes, seen on the second page of the recentlypublished discovery paper. "They look very, very similar," she says. "It means that they knew exactly what they wanted to get and this is suspicious for us: when you know what you want to get from science, usually you can get it." The apparent similarity is more curious because the faked event purported to show not a collision between two black holes, but the gravitational waves created by a neutron star spiralling into a black hole. The signals appear so similar, in fact, that Dr Kiriushcheva questions whether the "true" signal might actually have been an echo of the fake, "stored in the computer system from when they turned off the equipment five years before"." http://www.thenational.ae/artslife/the ... llide#full
Natalia Kiriushcheva: "What is shown on this picture? The equation on this page is what will be left from Einstein's equations of General Relativity (GR) after linearization. i.e. after a certain assumption is imposed: the gravitational field is considered weak (is it a correct assumption for two black holes?). Moreover, this equation is similar to the wave equation of the Maxwell theory that (after some additional manipulations) describes propagation of electromagnetic waves in the absence of sources (absence of any source, including a system of two black holes!). Einstein pointed out in this paper that its result is not general, it is valid only under assumption that the gravitational field is weak and only linear coordinate transformations (a linearized version of the general coordinate transformations of GR) can be applied to these (linearized) equations. Einstein also did not predict in this paper "that two celestial bodies in orbit will generate invisible ripples in spacetime that experts call gravitational waves", as BI claims. He was talking about "the system" that radiates energy, without specifying what kind of system it is." https://gravityattraction.wordpress.com ... volvement/
The crucial questions are:
Does Einstein's general relativity predict that gravitational waves travel at the speed of light? Does it predict how the Shapiro delay for gravitational waves compares with the Shapiro delay for light?
Kiriushcheva's analysis suggests that the answer to both questions is 'no'. According to Arthur Eddington, Einstein's general relativity says nothing about the speed of gravitational waves, let alone their Shapiro timedelay:
Arthur Eddington: "The statement that in the relativity theory gravitational waves are propagated with the speed of light has, I believe, been based entirely upon the foregoing investigation; but it will be seen that it is only true in a very conventional sense. If coordinates are chosen so as to satisfy a certain condition which has no very clear geometrical importance, the speed is that of light; if the coordinates are slightly different the speed is altogether different from that of light. The result stands or falls by the choice of coordinates and, so far as can be judged, the coordinates here used were purposely introduced in order to obtain the simplification which results from representing the propagation as occurring with the speed of light. The argument thus follows a vicious circle." The Mathematical Theory of Relativity, pp. 130131 https://www.amazon.com/MathematicalThe ... 0521091659
So what is the a priori probability that the gravitational waves (if they exist) arrive simultaneously with the optical signal? Answer: Zero.
That is, if, in the neutron star case, LIGO's fabrication involved different times of arrival, that would at least have sounded realistic. The claim that the gravitational waves and the optical signal arrived at exactly the same time, which implies that they not only travel at the same speed but also experience the same Shapiro delay, unequivocally proves that LIGO conspirators just faked the gravitational wave signals.
Pentcho Valev
No, you just have reading comprehension problems. Try to read this again
"While the waveforms produced in this way are necessary for determining the detailed properties of the objects involved, as well as identifying weak signals, they were not essential for the very first detection of GW150914. This was a modelindependent detection of a gravitationalwave transient."

Pentcho Valev
The posttruth world is so insensitive to both truth and lie that LIGO conspirators can safely contradict one another. Some explain that detecting gravitational waves without theoretical underpinning is impossible, others claim the opposite (all of them are lying of course  the signals were faked, not detected):
Bibhas De: "A wake for our civilization (weep for her!). Folks, they have started dismantling our civilization. Try and explain this to your children. Be sure to have ready an answer when they ask: "Why didn't you stop this, Daddy?" https://dreamheron.wordpress.com/2017/1 ... pforher/
Bibhas De may be right  the fraud is OBVIOUS and yet there are not even hints in that direction, let alone straightforward criticism.
An exception (after publishing this, Kiriushcheva disappeared from the discussions):
"Einstein believed in neither gravitational waves nor black holes. [...] Dr Natalia Kiriushcheva, a theoretical and computational physicist at the University of Western Ontario (UWO), Canada, says that while it was Einstein who initiated the gravitational waves theory in a paper in June 1916, it was an addendum to his theory of general relativity and by 1936, he had concluded that such things did not exist. Furthermore  as a paper published by Einstein in the Annals of Mathematics in October, 1939 made clear, he also rejected the possibility of black holes. [...] On September 16, 2010, a false signal  a socalled "blind injection"  was fed into both the Ligo and Virgo systems as part of an exercise to "test ... detection capabilities". At the time, the vast majority of the hundreds of scientists working on the equipment had no idea that they were being fed a dummy signal. The truth was not revealed until March the following year, by which time several papers about the supposed sensational discovery of gravitational waves were poised for publication. "While the scientists were disappointed that the discovery was not real, the success of the analysis was a compelling demonstration of the collaboration's readiness to detect gravitational waves," Ligo reported at the time. But take a look at the visualisation of the faked signal, says Dr Kiriushcheva, and compare it to the image apparently showing the collision of the twin black holes, seen on the second page of the recentlypublished discovery paper. "They look very, very similar," she says. "It means that they knew exactly what they wanted to get and this is suspicious for us: when you know what you want to get from science, usually you can get it." The apparent similarity is more curious because the faked event purported to show not a collision between two black holes, but the gravitational waves created by a neutron star spiralling into a black hole. The signals appear so similar, in fact, that Dr Kiriushcheva questions whether the "true" signal might actually have been an echo of the fake, "stored in the computer system from when they turned off the equipment five years before"." http://www.thenational.ae/artslife/the ... llide#full
Natalia Kiriushcheva: "What is shown on this picture? The equation on this page is what will be left from Einstein's equations of General Relativity (GR) after linearization. i.e. after a certain assumption is imposed: the gravitational field is considered weak (is it a correct assumption for two black holes?). Moreover, this equation is similar to the wave equation of the Maxwell theory that (after some additional manipulations) describes propagation of electromagnetic waves in the absence of sources (absence of any source, including a system of two black holes!). Einstein pointed out in this paper that its result is not general, it is valid only under assumption that the gravitational field is weak and only linear coordinate transformations (a linearized version of the general coordinate transformations of GR) can be applied to these (linearized) equations. Einstein also did not predict in this paper "that two celestial bodies in orbit will generate invisible ripples in spacetime that experts call gravitational waves", as BI claims. He was talking about "the system" that radiates energy, without specifying what kind of system it is." https://gravityattraction.wordpress.com ... volvement/
The crucial questions are:
Does Einstein's general relativity predict that gravitational waves travel at the speed of light? Does it predict how the Shapiro delay for gravitational waves compares with the Shapiro delay for light?
Kiriushcheva's analysis suggests that the answer to both questions is 'no'. According to Arthur Eddington, Einstein's general relativity says nothing about the speed of gravitational waves, let alone their Shapiro timedelay:
Arthur Eddington: "The statement that in the relativity theory gravitational waves are propagated with the speed of light has, I believe, been based entirely upon the foregoing investigation; but it will be seen that it is only true in a very conventional sense. If coordinates are chosen so as to satisfy a certain condition which has no very clear geometrical importance, the speed is that of light; if the coordinates are slightly different the speed is altogether different from that of light. The result stands or falls by the choice of coordinates and, so far as can be judged, the coordinates here used were purposely introduced in order to obtain the simplification which results from representing the propagation as occurring with the speed of light. The argument thus follows a vicious circle." The Mathematical Theory of Relativity, pp. 130131 https://www.amazon.com/MathematicalThe ... 0521091659
So what is the a priori probability that the gravitational waves (if they exist) arrive simultaneously with the optical signal? Answer: Zero.
That is, if, in the neutron star case, LIGO's fabrication involved different times of arrival, that would at least have sounded realistic. The claim that the gravitational waves and the optical signal arrived at exactly the same time, which implies that they not only travel at the same speed but also experience the same Shapiro delay, unequivocally proves that LIGO conspirators just faked the gravitational wave signals.
Pentcho Valev
"The team was largely responsible for conducting simulations of black hole collisions on highperformance supercomputers, which were required because of the complexity of the equations and necessity for absolute precision. They computed gravitational waveform, the shape of the signals for which LIGO searches. The U of T researchers banked thousands of collisions to create "pattern templates," giving scientists a better idea of what to look for and how to interpret their findings. "If you know the shape of the signal you're looking for, it's like knowing the colour of a needle in a haystack. It's easier to find," Pfeiffer explained in an interview with U of T News last year. The pattern templates also make the research more efficient by telling scientists right away whether they have observed a significant event." http://news.artsci.utoronto.ca/allnews ... nalwaves/
Rana Adhikari, professor of Physics at Caltech and a member of the LIGO team: "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 spacetime 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/thetechni ... iofligo/
Pentcho Valev