The Great ‘gravitational-waves’ hoax debunked




editor’s Note…

Was the “gravitational-wave experiment” worth its $1.1 billion cost to the tax payer ? Is there any substance to the outlandish claims seen across MSM headlines recently about those elusive “gravitational waves” supposedly detected? The answer is, of course, NO.

The detailed rebuttal below proves the whole thing is yet another money-making scam courtesy of government sponsored “science”.


Gravity Waves of Propaganda – the Sequel

By Miles Mathis

The discovery of gravity waves has been announced. Again. In this exposé I will first analyze the mainstream announcements. I will then look at the actual scientific paper, showing you how to read it.

I have to say this for them: these people never quit. If they get caught in one spectacular lie, they just wait a year and a half and come back with another one. I guess they are relying on the short memory of most people, but when I heard this announcement of gravity waves today, I said to myself, “Didn’t they already do this? Didn’t we get a huge announcement of gravity waves in early 2014? Didn’t Alan Guth win a million-dollar prize for that?” In fact, he did. He—along with Alexei Starobinsky and Andre Linde—won the Kavli Prize in July 2014, so 3 million was allegedly paid out.

According to mainstream stories at the time, the proximate cause of these prizes was the discovery of gravity waves by BICEP2 on March 17, 2014. Of course all those stories from 2014 have been rewritten, downplaying the claim of gravity waves and playing up the alleged discovery of cosmic inflation. However, within a few months (after the publication of my rushing paper of March 18) they had to admit this announcement was not only horribly premature, it was flat wrong.

To save face, they claimed that dust in the Milky Way exactly mimicked the signature of gravity waves. This despite having claimed in the peer-reviewed papers in March that they had ruled that out and claiming a positive detection at sigma 7.

A sigma of 7 indicated that BICEP2 only admitted a .0000000001%  chance they were wrong. That’s 1 in 10 billion. Funny, then, that they had to admit they were wrong only a couple of months later. Strange how it always works out that way, whether they are claiming faster-than-light detections, dark matter detections, or whatever.

At the time, we were told BICEP2 beat out their main competitors in the search for gravity waves, the LIGO team. LIGO congratulated the BICEP2 team for their earth-shattering discovery. Well, it is LIGO’s turn now, since they have now claimed a gravity wave detection. Do they have a third team in the wings, I wonder, just in case this one also ends up in ruins?

They had better, because I can already tell the whole thing is manufactured from nothing. The first clue is that the paper is once again hiding behind 1,000 authors. We saw the same thing with the manufactured Higgs detection, which I believe had even more authors than that. The truth doesn’t need such a large bandwagon.

But I knew even before the first clue, since I know gravity waves don’t exist. I assume all these “physicists” know it, too, but the truth doesn’t butter anyone’s bread. Einstein knew it. They admit in the articles that Einstein twice told the world gravity waves don’t exist. They tell you he flip-flopped both times, saying they did exist, but they don’t tell you why Einstein flipped. He flipped under pressure from the mainstream, who didn’t like him telling the truth. We see this all the time in all subjects: someone blows the whistle on some big project, the spooks visit him and twist his arm, and suddenly he changes his mind. This is what happened with Einstein.

Gravity waves can’t be a vindication of General Relativity as they claim, since in General Relativity gravity isn’t a force: it is just curved math. Beyond that, according to Einstein, GR isn’t mediated by particles and has no background. In GR there is no ether, remember? So what are gravity waves supposed to be made of? What is waving? We get no sensible answer to that to this day. Physics today is nothing but a huge pile of ever-growing nonsense. Since I know you can’t detect something that doesn’t exist, I know this detection is manufactured without further study.

Here is all it says concerning that in the announcements: According to the equations physicists have settled on, gravitational waves would compress space in one direction and stretch it in another as they traveled outward. But according to Einstein, there is no space in that sense. According to the stated postulates of GR, space is not something that could be compressed or stretched, since it is neither an ether nor a physical background of any material sort. For Einstein, space could be curved, and it could be curved simply by applying the tensor calculus to it—which already contained the curves. But the tensor calculus has no mechanism for stretching or compressing space.

To say it another way, there is no possible mechanism for gravity to work on space in that way. The theory of gravity waves is outrageously non-mechanical and non-physical. This is why they used to search for gravitons. Although GR also has no use for gravitons—since gravity as curved space does not require a mediating particle—the mainstream used to look for gravitons because they knew they needed them to sell this gravity wave nonsense. To compress space, you need something in the space to be compressed.

With gravitons, you can say that individual gravitons are getting nearer, indicating compression. Compression is then a function of particle densities. But as it is, “compressing space” has no physical meaning. You can’t compress a vacuum, because there is nothing to respond to pressure. It is words without physical content. In this latest announcement, we are told mirrors in the arms of LIGO moved .004 the diameter of a proton, indicating that two black holes were colliding somewhere in the distance. Where? We aren’t told. We are only told that one of them was 36 times as massive as the Sun and the other 29 times as massive. In the collision three Solar masses were released.

Where did they get those numbers? They just made them up out of thin air. OK, but what indication do we have the movement of the mirrors was caused by that rather than anything else? The signal conformed precisely to the predictions of general relativity for black holes as calculated in computer simulations, Dr. Reitze said. Really? That’s all we get? You can see why I now think this is all a joke.

These people don’t even try to fake the scientific method anymore. In that method, you would have to cross off all the other causes of that tiny motion. Since you can’t possibly do that in this case, assigning the motion to hypothetical black holes is just a farce. At The Guardian, it says, The finding completed the scientific arc of prediction, discovery and confirmation: first they calculated what they should be able to detect, then decided what the evidence should look like, and then devised the experiment that clinched the matter. Which is why on Thursday scientists around the world were able to hail the announcement as yet another confirmation of their “standard model” of the cosmos, and the beginning of a new era of discovery. They missed something there, didn’t they? That isn’t the “arc of science”, is it? It is missing a couple of important steps. After deciding what the evidence might look like, they should be required to show that the evidence they have found is coming from the source they claim. That have utterly failed to do that.

There is zero evidence this came from a collision of black holes, and they don’t even try to point to the black hole that was allegedly formed by the collision. In addition, they should be required to show that the evidence found isn’t coming from any other more likely sources.

To start with, how could you possibly damp this machine from all other tiny wiggles? LIGO’s antennae are 2.5 miles long. So in the first instance, it should act like a gigantic seismometer, reacting to every least motion on the surface of the Earth, from whatever cause. Since you could not possibly damp it from that, you would have to monitor seismic activity in another way and subtract it out. Could you do that down to the level of a proton? No.

But even if you could, you would be up against an infinitude of other problems. What about the charge field of the Earth? Even if you don’t believe in the charge field, I can get you here by just renaming it heat. You don’t believe in the heat of the Earth? Well, the heat emitted by the Earth varies over both time and place, so again you would have another large variation you would either have to damp or subtract out. Could you do that down to the level of a proton. No.

LIGO’s antennas are L-shaped, with perpendicular arms 2.5 miles long. Inside each arm, cocooned in layers of steel and concrete, runs the world’s largest bottle of nothing, a vacuum chamber a couple of feet wide containing 2.5 million gallons of empty space. At the end of each arm are mirrors hanging by glass threads, isolated from the bumps and shrieks of the environment better than any Rolls-Royce ever conceived. Does that answer either one of my questions so far? No, it just begs thousands of others. Creating a vacuum chamber is meaningless, either as a matter or damping, seismic effects, or heat effects. The only effects addressed by a vacuum chamber are effects of air moving in the tunnels. Since these long concrete arms are surrounded by earth and air, they must respond to it.

And since the mirrors are connected to the tunnel walls by threads, they will react just as the walls do. This set-up just guarantees that whatever is felt by the walls will be felt by the mirrors. That is the opposite of damping. Given the variability of the Earth’s environment, we should be very surprised to find zero motion of the mirrors in these tunnels. We would expect to see ripples of many sorts, none of them caused by a compression of space or by distant black holes. As just one example, you can’t create a charge vacuum. Even if they empty these tunnels of all ions and molecules, the tunnels will still be stiff with charge.

Why? Many reasons.

One, both charge and heat pass through material, including concrete.

Two, the walls themselves emit charge.

Three, the Earth is recycling charge through its body all the time.

This is what creates the ionosphere, the magnetosphere, and the atmosphere itself. This recycling, though fairly steady, is not a constant. It is determined by input from the Sun, the galactic core, and even by charge returning to the Sun by the big outer planets. All these factors cause variations in the charge field, and it is far more likely this is what we are seeing with LIGO (assuming we aren’t just seeing minor local seismic activity—activity which is itself caused by charge field variations).

You begin to see the enormity of the problem. Remember, mainstream physicists admit to being ignorant of the make-up of 95% of the universe. That is what they call dark matter. Dark matter doesn’t just exist “out there”. It exists everywhere, which means 95% of the matter here on Earth is— or may be—unknown. With an unknown of that size in the local field, how can these physicists know that what they are detecting is distant black holes? It might be dark matter ripples in the tunnel vacuum for all they know. The point is, with an unknown that large, there is simply no way to cross off other possibilities. You cannot cross off dark matter as the cause of this detection if you don’t even know what dark matter is, can you?

In fact, this is probably why they ignore large parts of the scientific method now. With unknowns of that size in the field, they can’t do any sort of theorizing, much less claim detections with a sigma of 7. A sigma of 7 in a field of 95% ignorance is impossible by definition. Now, I have shown that things aren’t really that bad. Since I have shown that dark matter is just charge, I am able to resolve that 95% error and do theory with some amount of confidence. But since they have not figured out what I have figured out, and do not accept my equations, they cannot.

Not only can they not do any sensible theory, they cannot begin to look at other causes of this current detection and subtract them out. If they don’t know about charge recycling by the Earth, they cannot possibly model it and cross it off as the cause of this detection, you see. I am not saying they aren’t detecting something here. I find the antennae interesting, and assume the wiggles are caused by something other than “random” fluctuations. But my first assumption would be these “hiccups” they are detecting are coming up from the belly of the Earth, and are caused by charge variations there.

Or they could be caused by hiccups in the belly of the Sun (or corona), which then cause charge ripples that travel through the Earth. Either way, the likelihood is very high the hiccups are caused locally, and I doubt we will have to look beyond the Sun to find them. In the actual scientific paper, we are told The detectors’ susceptibility to environmental disturbances was quantifed by measuring their response to specially generated magnetic, radio-frequency, acoustic, and vibration excitations.

See, nothing about charge there. Nothing about heat, either. Yes, charge flux normally causes magnetic flux, but only in the presence of ions. Since we are in a vacuum chamber here, there are no ions, so you would expect no magnetic fluxes. But there can still be heavy charge fluctuations, hidden from magnetic detectors by the lack of available ions. Therefore, specially generated magnetic excitations would not rule out charge excitations. This is especially critical since the level of motion being monitored is 10-21, which is in the quantum realm. Charge can interact directly with electrons at that level, with no need to monitor larger ions. It can even excite bound electrons, which are not really ions themselves and which would not show up as magnetism.

Although we are sold the opposite, this new claimed detection is even worse than the last one. In just 18 months, physics has gotten noticeably worse. Compared to this claim, the one in 2014 looks like a miracle of rigor. To try to hide that fact, the new announcements turn up the volume of the horntooting and mention as little of the facts of the experiment as possible. You wouldn’t have thought they could make the PR any louder or less subtle than in 2014, but somehow they have managed it. Instead of just a few famous people telling you it is important, they now have a barrage of video presentations, schooling you on every least facet of fake modern theory—including an Idiot’s Guide to Relativity. They want to lose you in this maze of manufactured details so that you won’t be able to ask sensible questions.

In fact, they have now gone past the sigma 7 bluff. Tim Radford at The Guardian tells us this latest discovery is “unequivocal”. Once this detection is admitted to fail, he may want to look up the meaning of that word. Writers for major newspapers used to be required to know what words meant before they used them. He may also wish to look up the meaning of the word “science”. No detection like this is ever “unequivocal”, since if it were, they wouldn’t need sigmas, would they? Royal Astronomer Martin Rees at The Telegraph is almost as illegible: Sadly it is not unknown for hyped-up scientific claims to be mistaken or exaggerated – claims of particles going faster than light, gravitational waves from the big bang, and so forth. I count myself a hard-to-convince sceptic. But what is being claimed will be the culmination of literally decades of effort by scientists and engineers with high credentials, and this time I expect to be fully convinced.

This hard-to-convince sceptic expects to be fully convinced this time. Shouldn’t he tell us why? He doesn’t, his next sentence being, “This detection is indeed a big deal”. His subtitle for the article is this: Einstein was right – and this announcement is the scientific highlight of the decade. Sounds like a hard-to-convince skeptic to me! His only reason for losing his skepticism would appear to be that “scientists with high credentials” are involved. But weren’t they involved in all the other hoaxes? Yes. Weren’t they involved in BICEP2? Yes.

Alan Guth had bigger cred than Kip Thorne, for instance, which is probably why BICEP2 was initially allowed to scoop LIGO, although LIGO had been at it for far longer. Was Martin Rees skeptical of the 2014 announcement that ended up crashing? If so, I don’t remember seeing his name in the list of vocal critics in March 2014. It is pretty easy for me to remember that entire list, because this is it:

  1. Miles Mathis

I don’t see Martin Rees’ name there next to mine, do you? His name wasn’t there because he is a mainstream physicist/astronomer, and they were all ordered to play along. LIGO was also ordered to play along, which they initially did. It wasn’t until my paper poked a big hole in BICEP2 that a few of these other people felt they could make a peep. Unfortunately, I don’t know that anyone is left to make a peep this time. We may assume some of the discontented in LIGO helped BICEP2 fall, but who will speak out to make LIGO fall? Those that were in BICEP2 can be dismissed as having bad blood, and anyway they have been permanently embarrassed. So we don’t expect to hear from them. Does anyone else have any reason to wish for this LIGO announcement to fail? In my experience, mainstream physics is not a realm of truth-lovers. It is also not a venue that attracts the courageous. But we will have to see. Not everything that is promoted is accepted, so maybe the wheels will continue to turn in ways unknown to me. I honestly would not have guessed that BICEP2 would be admitted to fail— even after I destroyed it—so possibly some hope remains. The midlevels of physics may retain some hidden power.

However that may turn out, this announcement is just more indication to me that the upper levels of physics have become a zombie-physics.

It is made up of thousands of people like this, who will lie right to your face without blinking an eye. Is there any possibility these people believe they have detected gravity waves? To believe that you would have to believe they don’t know the first thing about the scientific method, about the definition of physics, or about anything else. I give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they do know up from down. But that just makes things worse, because it means they aren’t just mistaken, it means they are lying. It means they are trying to pass something by you for money.

It means that physics has devolved to the point where all its name people are flying on fumes. They can’t do real physics, so the only thing left is this highly promoted pretend physics. Just look at that picture. It doesn’t look like they have any problem with that, does it? Zombies. Yes, the world has been taken over by these smiling people—physics-actors playing a part and collecting a paycheck. They may not eat your face off, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t dangerous. They have sucked over one billion dollars from the national treasury via the National Science Foundation.

The LIGO project has been the largest science project of NSF: By mid-September 2015 “the world’s largest gravitational-wave facility” completed a 5-year US$200-million overhaul at a total cost of $620 million.[2][5] LIGO is the largest and most ambitious project ever funded by the NSF. So it is no surprise to find LIGO announcing a detection now. Despite just being a money pit for decades, this huge investment required some sort of actual finding at last. This is why you seem to get conflicting statements from the LIGO pages: we are told LIGO detected nothing for decades, despite a huge team and large investments; then, suddenly, after BICEP2 went down in flames, an overhaul was completed and the antennae immediately got a detection. In the new announcement, they tell us On Sept. 14 [2015], the system had barely finished being calibrated and was in what is called an engineering run at 4 a.m. when a loud signal came through at the Livingston site.

That by itself is the sign of a fudge, since if we do some digging we find that the expensive overhaul only increased sensitivity by four times. Since the initial sensitivity was claimed to be four parts in a billion trillion, increasing that by four times should have been meaningless. That’s not only down to the size of the proton, that is below the size of the electron, which I have shown has a radius of about 10-17m. Do you really believe those mirrors hanging in those tunnels were still down to that level relative to one another, so that they could detect such tiny fluctuations? I don’t. Nothing in any real experiment ever run was ever that still, especially things hanging by threads. I suggest you compare what you are being told here with LIGO to what you are taught about the Cavendish experiment, the Millikan Oil Drop Experiment, and every other similar experiment, old and new.



  • David Lynch

    LIGO was randomly tested with data inserted into the equipment so the scientists would not know if the result was real or not with some excuse as to keep the experiment without bias. So the LIGO team have an experiment where the data they get cannot be known to be a “test” makes perfect sense and all the suckers fell for it.

    “The LIGO Scientific Collaboration and the Virgo Collaboration completed an
    end-to-end system test of their detection capabilities at their recent joint
    collaboration meeting in Arcadia, CA. Analysis of data from LIGO and Virgo’s
    most recent observation run revealed evidence of the elusive signal from a
    neutron star spiraling into a black hole. The collaboration knew that the
    “detection” could be a “blind injection” — a fake signal added to the data
    without telling the analysts, to test the detector and
    analysis. Nonetheless, the collaboration proceeded under the assumption that
    the signal was real, and wrote and approved a scientific paper reporting
    the ground-breaking discovery. A few moments later, according to plan, it
    was revealed that the signal was indeed a blind injection.”

    No matter the outcome of this experiment its designed in such a closed and secretive manner that any positive results are almost certainly fraudulent.

  • Marc Sainte-Marie

    Thanks great SCIENCE, debunking FACT of “..gravitational lensing, which was predicted by Einstein, is an observable fact. / Quantum theory has been proven accurate.” crapola dogma.

  • ZR

    I even contest that gravitational force is a fundemantel force of the universe.

  • Thebuttonfreak

    I’m not fooled by you. Almost everything you said was completely wrong, not to mention completely unsubstantiated. Don’t be fool by the demeanor, he’s a hack.

  • Michael Hansen

    First of all, the author might want to consider the metric. It is an essential part of General Relativity and Gravitational Waves. In essence, it is the metric that changes.
    It might also be a good idea for the author to look up perturbation theory.
    To keep it relatively short. By linearising the Field Equations (setting the energy-momentum tensor T = 0) you can take the D’Lambertian of the equation s_ij and end up with what is known as the Transverse Traceless gauge (TT). Here we have used the entire perturbed metric h_mn (m = mu, n = nu). The D’Lambertian of the perturbed metric is the equation of motion and a wave equation.

    One type of solutions to the TT are the plane waves
    H^TT_mn = C_mn e^(i k_sigma x^sigma)
    where C is a constant symmetric (0,2) tensor and k is the wave vector (equivalent of the wave number).
    In reality you have to apply the full non-linear g_mn = eta_mn + h_mn in order to find how matter couples to the field.
    But here I have already shown that waves are an intricate part of General Relativity.

    I can’t also really decipher whether the author have a problem with computers doing calculations or numerical solutions. Because the models that he is so very much against is nothing more than a computer doing a numerical solution to the field equation. Numerical solutions has been a part of physics all the while we had equations with no real analytical solution. So this is also really silly.
    So what the team at LIGO have done is to create numerical solutions in order to grasp what kind of device they should build. This is actually quite normal and sensible praxis. But since they have had no idea what kind of wave to expect, they most certainly didn’t create a model at first and then found some data that fitted the model.
    The usual praxis is to fit the model at hand to the data. Now, since they knew what kind of wave-progenitors LIGO was sensitive too, they also had some kind of idea what kind of model to apply and since only collisions are strong enough to create waves that we can detect with LIGO, they also knew a priori that it should be a two-body system.

    It takes not more than a simple look at the LIGO site in order to find out that they have applied a very advanced system to remove any unwanted vibrational effect from the system and yet the author claims that one couldn’t insulate from such movements. We have only the authors word for that.
    Second, the author also claims that the system should be sensitive to magnetic interference from the Earth magnetic field, but gives to real argument to why. He can’t even point out exactly what part of the detector is sensitive to this kind of interference. We have again only the authors word for this.
    Lastly, I find it prudent to call the reason-argument. If the author can come to this simple problem, then it seems very unreasonable that the LIGO team wouldn’t have thought about that.
    The author also seems to forget that there are two systems operating at the same time. One in Louisiana and one in Washington. The probability for the two detectors to be sensitive to the exact same interference from outside, in the same manner and the same way, are highly unlikely.
    The author simply doesn’t seem to appreciate that we have the ability to build structures that can dampen outside oscillations to an extremely high degree. As the LIGO page also informs, they apply a host of both passive and active dampening systems. In simple terms, but using material that have very different natural frequencies, the oscillations upen one will be dampened by the other and visa versa. The actual application is of cource much more advanced, but the general idea is the same.

    Lastly the author seems to wants to convince us that he is right by simply stating that he doesn’t believe that the experiment could be sensitive to such a detail. Simply stating that something is false because the person making the claim find it unbelievable is a logical fallacy.
    The systems sensitivity is determined by that of an interferometer and so the author needs to show why an interferometer can’t be sensitive to such small length scales.
    Second, claiming that an upgrade to the sensitivity by a factor of four can’t be responsible for the detection of the GW without giving any reasonable argument to as why, is by no means convincing. The author needs to show, by calculations, why the upgrade couldn’t be responsible for the detection.
    The author also claims several times that modern physics aren’t real physics, that the scientists of today doesn’t do real physics, but nowhere does he give a reasonable argument or even the slightest explanation to what real physics then is.

    • Roger Ramjet

      Nice analysis. You obviously know your stuff. The issue though might be far more simple. The first announcement of gravitational waves in 2014 was shown to have corrupted data. The announcement this year was made after only one detection (the is now a second alleged detection) but is that good science? Is it even science by the strictest definition?

      An article in the Vox questioned 207 scientist about the biggest problems facing science today. Overwhelmingly the responses point to badly designed experiments, flaws in peer review, lack of replicating existing experiments and heavy incentives to publish even with questionable results for access to money. Essentially everything that should make LIGO,s results suspect. Read for yourself here.

    • Michael Occhipinti

      You neglect the KEY point of the article, there’s NOTHING to BEND, or COMPRESS, its empty space, and no experiment, not the Casimir Effect, nor this bogus gravity wave detection, explains exactly WHAT is being perturbed. Virtual particles haven’t been proven to exist, its all mathematical masturbation without sufficient real physics (or sense) being injected into the process. Either physics explains exactly what space IS, what its ‘made up of’, or they have to admit they have some serious basic flaws. Physics can’t even explain how a particle translates from point A to point B.. they know the WHAT, but not the HOW, and certainly not the WHY.

      • Beefy Dog

        Correct. This IS the point of the article. Either Einstein was wrong about “space” being nothing or these physicists are wrong about “space” being something. They both cannot be correct.
        More interesting however, is that if the physicists are correct about “space” then they didn’t detect gravity waves at all (for gravity waves can’t exist w/o GR being correct – a.k.a. Einstein being correct) but some other phenomena (that cannot be shielded from).
        Quantum physicists believe space to be a sea of energy (a quantum foam, so to speak) and they’ve plenty of experimental evidence to suggest this is the case.
        A last note to consider: Both detectors could easily have picked up a local phenomenon simultaneously, by local, I mean within our solar system or local cluster.

  • guruurug

    Does anybody even take scientists seriously these days? Science sold out decades ago to the Corporate Gods.

  • Jonas Paulo Negreiros

    According to General Relativity, a passing gravitational wave can “shrink” objects and change their lengths. On this basis, the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory’s (LIGO) designers used a modified Michelson interferometer, thinking that gravitational waves could be recorded by using laser beam interference to observe the interferometer’s arm variations.

    However, the LIGO detectors have a basic problem: The light fields are also affected by passing gravitational waves.

    Thus, when one gravitational wave “hits” LIGO’s interferometers, it does not only “shrink” the interferometer’s arms, but in fact, distorts its own space-time fabric, also “shrinking” the light beams. This means that no phase difference can be observed in the output of Michelson’s interferometer, thus, gravitational waves cannot be recorded using this kind of equipment.

    Considering this problem, this author believes that the LIGO detectors are not able to detect gravitational waves. However, after more than a decade in operation, without showing any results, in February 2016 the LIGO team announced the first detection of a gravitational wave in GW150914 event, which is supposed to be related to the collision of two black holes.

    Despite the fact that more than 400 physicists say that LIGO’s detection is true, for this author, Einstein’s equivalence principle presents a barrier to the LIGO system’s operation.

    Therefore, this author has accessed the data from the GW150914 event and, by playing “devil’s advocate”, has gone beyond the LIGO team’s basic analysis.

    The results of this analysis, presented in this article, point to the fact that the signals recorded by LIGO at the GW150914 event, cannot originate from the collision of two black holes and is probably the result of random noise sources picked up by the detectors.


    • Michael Hansen

      The author is mixing concepts together in a very problematic fashion. First of all, the very foundation of both General and Special relativity is that the speed of light is constant in a vacuum. Since the LIGO laser-beam operates in a vacuum. This means that the speed of light will be the same, whether there is a gravitational wave or not.
      It is, by the way, the metric itself that changes and hence in a sense, not the length of the tunnel itself. This can be understood this way. Even though we might say that the length of the tunnel itself changes, the “yardstick” by which we measure the length of the tunnel also changes.

      He then use gravitational lensing as an example to how gravity can change the path of light, but this is something completely different. Gravitational lensing is generated by a constant and static relatively strong gravitational field (although we are still in the weak regime) and hence not a fluctuating very weak gravitational wave.

      He then impose an rather unintelligible analysis on the data from LIGO, but doesn’t give any real support to the idea why the result from LIGO couldn’t be a gravitational wave.
      Realistically seen he is begging the question. He postulates that at some point LIGO would most likely find noise rather than a signal and then perform a lengthy analysis in the area where LIGO would probably find noise and then conclude that it is most likely noise LIGO has found.
      He actually acknowledge that LIGO could have found a gravitational wave in the area where LIGO’s team proposed that a gravitational wave has been found.

      • Michael Occhipinti

        If space is ‘compressed’, within the compressed space light should still measure c in a vacuum to any internal observer. If an external observer could obtain that measurement, than the velocity of light would be less than c, no?

      • Michael Occhipinti

        I believe the point he makes clearly is that the amount of deviation is so minute, that you’d never be able to shield the detector from say… a BAZILLON other events.. for starters he didn’t even mention collisions from space dust and micro-meteorites.

  • Rescued By Mary

    I have taken my little girl to LIGO for educational purposes on the third Saturday of the month… I used to ask the staff what happens if the light in the tunnel shortens along with the length of the tunnel itself…???

    Well light has no mass and a constant velocity so that can’t happen, They said…


  • Wolfgang Engelhardt

    The alleged motion of a mirror by 1/1000 of a proton radius results in a phase shift between the two recombining interferometer beams of 2pi 10-18m/10-6m=2pi 10-12. As Ligo is working in destructive interference, the light amplitude in the dark field would be 2pi 10-12 of the light amplitude in the bright field where the interference is constructive. The intensity to be measured is then 36×10-24 times the circulating laser power of 100 kW. Expressing this light intensity as a photon flux one obtains about 20 photons/s, or 4 photons for the merging event. The signal presented to the public with a s/n ratio of 20 is certainly composed of many many more photons.

    The inevitable conclusion is then: We were confronted with a theoretical simulation, not with a real measurement. Can we call this “fraud”? I think we can…

  • John_QPublic
  • John Cook

    Since ‘Gravity Waves’ are supposed to travel at the speed of light we should have seen a flash of light at the same time as this anomaly was detected. If that had been detected they would have SOME justification – but they didn’t – funny how this is not mentioned.
    BTW Einstein was a fraud and plagiarist …
    In my opinion UFO’s prove Faster than light travel and Gravity control are possible, as long as the Standard Theory is believed we will never understand or master either of these things – maybe that is why it is constantly reinforced?

    • Michael Hansen

      Why would we have seen a flash of light? Actually, is has scientific interest to look for radiation in the area where we detect a gravitational wave, but unfortunately the LIGO itself can’t find the exact position of the GW, but only the direction (+/- 180 degree).

  • I couldn’t have said it better myself.

  • frankyburns

    You miss an important point. The LIGO might just be detecting the gravitational “wobble” that Newton also would fully expect as the black holes circle each other, successively coming closer and going farther away from the earth. No surprise to Newton there.

  • Victor Roland Mousaa

    I am an inventor with US patents in the electrcal field… I have studied science all my life for 50 years and know fhis is a money scam… sad… Victor “Roland” Mousaa

  • Good article. We are being ripped off and lied to by crackpots and crooks in high places. The people must rebel against this crime.

  • Cool LIGO callout! You’ll enjoy this blog!

    “Imagine that you are on the LIGO team.

    You “see” a supposed signal of a “binary black hole merger” before you officially turn the LIGO machine on on September 15th 2015.

    You are elated as this means the Nobel Prize, tenure, billions in funding!

    You then turn on the machine.

    You see no other detections nor signals.

    Months go by and no other signals are seen.

    You begin to panic.

    You realize that your window for major publicity and funding is closing fast.

    Five months go by and no other signals are seen.

    Panic sets in.

    You pull the trigger to get massive funding and hopefully billions more in funding.

    You hold a massive press conference on February 11th, hyping only one tiny event.

    The world’s unquestioning useful idiot science bloggers all fall in line, hyping and regurgitating your spurious press releases as the gospel truth.

    Kip Thorne solidifies it all stating that now we will finally be able to observe the pseudoscience of giant cosmic strings born of the pseudoscience of inflation.

    Hundreds of millions of dollars of granting and hiring deciscions are made while hundreds of LIGO members receive tenure and promotions for merely falling in line on a project seeking evidence for a 100-year–old theory which already appears quite correct.

    Another signal is never seen.

    All the faulty blogs and wikipedia pages and tenure and funding deciscions remain, as once done, they are “impossible” to undo, according to the elite.

    The unquestioning regime of billion-dollar corporate science is advanced, giving the middle finger to the lone patent examiner and humble physicists who did far, far more with a pencil, paper, logic, reason, and honor, sans the corporate state’s hype and lies.

    So LIGO, when, if ever, will we see another “signal”?”


  • JonathanH13

    Well said. There are so many questions and problems around their claim that I don’t know where to begin. What I found utterly ridiculous is the audio signal that was played as a representation of the signal they detected. It sounded like a short little whistle. Is that what you would expect two colliding black holes to sound like? These are bodies with the approximate mass of a solar system. You don’t think that their ‘collision’ is going to play out over years, decades or longer?