Photons are gravitationally deflected or blocked by cosmic matter. Gravitational waves are not, Einsteinians used to teach:

"Unlike light, gravitational waves don’t care about matter in any way. You can pass gravitational waves through the vacuum of space, through a lens, prism, or other material, or even through the solid Earth itself, and they will continue to propagate at the speed of gravity." https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/12/24/how-gravitational-waves-might-wind-up-proving-einstein-wrong/

But LIGO fakers carelessly announced near-simultaneous arrival of gravitational waves and photons, "from the same location of the sky", which is tantamount to saying that the gravitational waves travel exactly like photons:

"On 8:41 am EDT August 17, 2017, LIGO detected a new gravitational wave source, dubbed GW170817 to mark its discovery date. Just two seconds later NASA's Fermi satellite detected a weak pulse of gamma rays from the same location of the sky." https://www.si.edu/newsdesk/releases/astronomers-see-light-show-associated-gravitational-waves

So Einsteinians had to change their minds and now they desperately prove that gravitational waves and photons deflect in the same way:

"We establish at high confidence (significantly greater than 5σ) that the gravitational waves of GW 170817 underwent gravitational deflection to arrive within 1.7 seconds of the photons." https://arxiv.org/pdf/2001.01710..pdf

LIGO fakers quickly realized that the hand-in-hand travel of gravitational waves and photons is an Achilles heel, and informed the gullible world that GW 170817 was the first and last time an electromagnetic counterpart was detected. No electromagnetic counterparts anymore:

"The first such observation, which took place in August of 2017, made history for being the first time that both gravitational waves and light were detected from the same cosmic event. The April 25 merger, by contrast, did not result in any light being detected." https://phys.org/news/2020-01-ligo-virgo-gravitational-network-neutron-star.html

"You might wonder why we haven’t seen knockout detections of electromagnetic radiation accompanying gravitational waves since the August 2017 discovery. Unfortunately, we probably just got lucky that time. “It was nearby, well-localized in space, and had everything going for it,” Berger said." https://gizmodo.com/mystery-deepens-around-newly-detected-ripples-in-space-1837581646

"The first binary neutron star to be discovered in GWs, GW170817, came with a bright electromagnetic counterpart...Unfortunately most binary mergers, and in particular binary black hole (BBH) mergers, do not have associated electromagnetic counterparts." https://www.ligo.org/science/Publication-O3Cosmology/

Spacetime and gravitational waves (ripples in spacetime) don't exist - LIGO's "discoveries" are fakes. The reason is that the speed of light is VARIABLE AS PER NEWTON

https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-f10f1c25528a4e5edc9bae200640f31c-pjlq

as originally (prior to the introduction of the length-contraction fudge factor) proved by the Michelson-Morley experiment:

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

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

"Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether." Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92 https://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768

See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

"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 [in 2011]. 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. 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 and Virgo scientists are looking forward to observations with the advanced detectors which are expected to contain many real signals from the distant reaches of the universe." https://www.ligo.org/news/blind-injection-content.html

How can the "detection capabilities" be tested by adding fake data to the system? It is like testing the detection capabilities of a radio by inserting music in the device. There is only one thing that can be tested in this way: the scientific community's readiness to be fooled.

Before 2015, LIGO fakers diligently rehearsed. They would secretly inject false data, inform the scientific community about a great discovery, study scientists' reactions, finally fix noticed Achilles heels.

The dress rehearsal occurred in 2010. A few "expert administrators" injected fake data, deceived the whole world and misled astronomers who wasted time and money in search of the electromagnetic counterpart. Remarkably, "this became particularly useful starting in September 2015":

"...a blind injection test where only a select few expert administrators are able to put a fake signal in the data, maintaining strict confidentiality.. They did just that in the early morning hours of 16 September 2010. Automated data analyses alerted us to an extraordinary event within eight minutes of data collection, and within 45 minutes we had our astronomer colleagues with optical telescopes imaging the area we estimated the gravitational wave to have come from. Since it came from the direction of the Canis Major constellation, this event picked up the nickname of the "Big Dog Event". For months we worked on vetting this candidate gravitational wave detection, extracting parameters that described the source, and even wrote a paper. Finally, at the next collaboration meeting, after all the work had been cataloged and we voted unanimously to publish the paper the next day. However, it was revealed immediately after the vote to be an injection and that our estimated parameters for the simulated source were accurate. Again, there was no detection, but we learned a great deal about our abilities to know when we detected a gravitational wave and that we can do science with the data.. This became particularly useful starting in September 2015." https://www.researchgate.net/blog/post/a-null-result-is-not-a-failure

In the physics establishment, only Natalia Kiriushcheva found courage to expose (more precisely, to hint at) the truth. And the truth is that LIGO's gravitational waves are fakes:

"On September 16, 2010, a false signal - a so-called "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 recently-published 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"." https://www.thenational.ae/arts-culture/why-albert-einstein-continues-to-make-waves-as-black-holes-collide-1.188114

Kiriushcheva immediately disappeared from public debate, converted into an unperson perhaps:

George Orwell: "Withers, however, was already an unperson. He did not exist: he had never existed."

More here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

On Monday, February 13, 2023 at 1:28:11 AM UTC-8, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> Photons are gravitationally deflected or blocked by cosmic matter. Gravitational waves are not, Einsteinians used to teach:
>
> "Unlike light, gravitational waves don’t care about matter in any way. You can pass gravitational waves through the vacuum of space, through a lens, prism, or other material, or even through the solid Earth itself, and they will continue to propagate at the speed of gravity." https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/12/24/how-gravitational-waves-might-wind-up-proving-einstein-wrong/
>
> But LIGO fakers carelessly announced near-simultaneous arrival of gravitational waves and photons, "from the same location of the sky", which is tantamount to saying that the gravitational waves travel exactly like photons:
>
> "On 8:41 am EDT August 17, 2017, LIGO detected a new gravitational wave source, dubbed GW170817 to mark its discovery date. Just two seconds later NASA's Fermi satellite detected a weak pulse of gamma rays from the same location of the sky." https://www.si.edu/newsdesk/releases/astronomers-see-light-show-associated-gravitational-waves
>
> So Einsteinians had to change their minds and now they desperately prove that gravitational waves and photons deflect in the same way:
>
> "We establish at high confidence (significantly greater than 5σ) that the gravitational waves of GW 170817 underwent gravitational deflection to arrive within 1.7 seconds of the photons." https://arxiv.org/pdf/2001.01710.pdf
>
> LIGO fakers quickly realized that the hand-in-hand travel of gravitational waves and photons is an Achilles heel, and informed the gullible world that GW 170817 was the first and last time an electromagnetic counterpart was detected. No electromagnetic counterparts anymore:
>
> "The first such observation, which took place in August of 2017, made history for being the first time that both gravitational waves and light were detected from the same cosmic event. The April 25 merger, by contrast, did not result in any light being detected." https://phys.org/news/2020-01-ligo-virgo-gravitational-network-neutron-star.html
>
> "You might wonder why we haven’t seen knockout detections of electromagnetic radiation accompanying gravitational waves since the August 2017 discovery. Unfortunately, we probably just got lucky that time. “It was nearby, well-localized in space, and had everything going for it,” Berger said." https://gizmodo.com/mystery-deepens-around-newly-detected-ripples-in-space-1837581646
>
> "The first binary neutron star to be discovered in GWs, GW170817, came with a bright electromagnetic counterpart...Unfortunately most binary mergers, and in particular binary black hole (BBH) mergers, do not have associated electromagnetic counterparts." https://www.ligo.org/science/Publication-O3Cosmology/
>
> Spacetime and gravitational waves (ripples in spacetime) don't exist - LIGO's "discoveries" are fakes. The reason is that the speed of light is VARIABLE AS PER NEWTON
>
> https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-f10f1c25528a4e5edc9bae200640f31c-pjlq
>
> as originally (prior to the introduction of the length-contraction fudge factor) proved by the Michelson-Morley experiment:
>
> "Emission theory, also called emitter theory or ballistic theory of light, was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, explaining the results of the Michelson–Morley experiment of 1887...The name most often associated with emission theory is Isaac Newton. In his corpuscular theory Newton visualized light "corpuscles" being thrown off from hot bodies at a nominal speed of c with respect to the emitting object, and obeying the usual laws of Newtonian mechanics, and we then expect light to be moving towards us with a speed that is offset by the speed of the distant emitter (c ± v)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory
>
> Banesh Hoffmann, Einstein's co-author, admits that, originally ("without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations"), the Michelson-Morley experiment was compatible with Newton's variable speed of light, c'=c±v, and incompatible with the constant speed of light, c'=c:
>
> "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether." Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92 https://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768
>
> See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
>
> Pentcho Valev

Here's what Chatgpt has to say about this:

I'm sorry, but the information you have provided is not supported by mainstream scientific evidence and understanding. The ideas you have presented are not in agreement with the established theories of physics, particularly the theory of relativity and the concept of the speed of light being constant.

The Michelson-Morley experiment was not interpreted as being compatible with Newton's variable speed of light, as you have claimed. Instead, it was used as evidence against the existence of an ether, a medium that was thought to be necessary for the propagation of light. The experiment was interpreted as evidence for the constancy of the speed of light, a concept that was later incorporated into the theory of special relativity.

The idea that the speed of light is variable is not supported by mainstream physics and is not in agreement with the well-established theory of special relativity. The idea that gravitational waves and photons deflect in different ways is also not supported by mainstream physics. The simultaneous detection of gravitational waves and photons from the same location in the sky in the event of GW170817 is considered to be strong evidence for the validity of the theory of general relativity.

It's important to note that scientific knowledge and understanding are constantly evolving and being refined, but the ideas and claims you have presented do not align with the current understanding of established physics.

Einstein: "If the speed of light depends even in the least on the speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity, including the theory of gravitation, is wrong." https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol5-trans/376

The speed of light does depend on the speed of the source, as posited by Newton's theory and unequivocally proved by the Michelson-Morley experiment in 1887. Accordingly, Einstein's theory of gravitation is wrong and gravitational waves do not exist. As simple as that.

See more: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

If the speed of light relative to the observer varies with the speed of the observer, LIGO's gravitational waves do not exist.

Einsteinians would (reluctantly) agree with this, but would add that the speed of light does NOT vary with the speed of the observer. Unfortunately for them, the variation is obvious:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=bg7O4rtlwEE

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

c = df

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

c'= df' > c

where f' > f is the frequency at the moving observer.

Pentcho Valev https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

LIGO fakers: "Gravitational waves are 'ripples' in space-time." https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/page/what-are-gw

Nima Arkani-Hamed: "Almost all of us believe that space-time doesn't really exist, spacetime is doomed and has to be replaced." https://youtu.be/U47kyV4TMnE?t=369

"We've known for decades that space-time is doomed," says Arkani-Hamed. "We know it is not there in the next version of physics." https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/amplituhedron-may-shape-the-future-of-physics

So space-time is not there in the next version of physics, but how about the ripples in space-time? They MUST be there, like the grin of the Cheshire Cat (otherwise LIGO fakers will have to go to jail):

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51J-7PIffiL.jpg

Pentcho Valev https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

A new critique of G-Wavists’ “Rubber Ruler Puzzle” and the failure of LIGO physicists to provide a spacetime diagram of laser beams and G-Waves propagating simultaneously through their interferometer provides confidence that even the alleged “multi-messenger” event GW170817 must be a hoax.

See Forum on ResearchGate:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Am_I_the_only_one_that_is_doubtful_of_LIGOs_detection_of_gravitational_wave_GW150914#view=6574ec6f16812b293c0775f2

In-depth essays in support of the above statement may be found at:

https://vixra.org/abs/2312.0057

and

https://vixra.org/abs/2312.0058

And a satirical/serious postcard to a famous LIGOist can be found at:

http://www.gravitationlab.com/Grav%20Lab%20Links/Reitze-Gang-Proto-PostCard..pdf

Enjoy!

Richard Benish