LIGO: Water water everywhere, but not a drop to drink.

[Michael Mozina]

It's bad enough that the LCDM model relies almost exclusively upon "invisible/dark" matter, to the tune of 95 percent of the universe. To add insult to injury, however, even their newest "craze" around gravitational waves requires complete and unwavering faith in the "unseen" (in the sky) merger events between two completely unseen (in the sky) entities. With the single exclusion of the one neutron merger event in 2017, there's been no way to correlate any particular so called LIGO "signal" with any particular celestial event observed in the EM spectrum, or in neutrino events.

I stuck my neck out early in this debate by publicly chastising LIGO's scientific methodology. I then accepted the fact, and publicly discussed the fact that the 03 run for LIGO would either prove me wrong repeatedly by repeating multimessenger astronomical events, or LIGO would come up empty in terms of additional "multimessenger" events. As I feared, they came up empty.

As much as I personally support GR theory as a wonderful explanation for gravity, and I "hope" to one day have solid evidence of gravitational waves, and have confidence in our ability to detect them, I just can't overlook all the numerous assumptions that LIGO made with with respect to their claim of these various signals being celestial in origin rather than terrestrial in origin. LIGO expects everyone to believe that they are batting 1000 in terms of figuring out which signals are absolutely, positively celestial in origin vs terrestrial in origin in spite of the fact that numerous 03 events were seen by multiple detectors and were then later reclassified as being terrestrial in origin. They also want us to believe they are infallible on this score,in spite of the fact that LIGO has never fully explained the cause of "blip transient" events or isolated their actual cause.

I'll publicly state for the record again that the 04 run is really make or break time for LIGO, as well as holding the key to determining the legitimacy of my doubts and complaints about LIGO's methodology. LIGO had 50 or so chances in the 03 run to duplicate multimessenger astronomy events, 11 or so of them directly involving neutron stars, and they've got nothing to show for it. 03 is now in the books, and it's been a multimessenger *disaster* for LIGO. The 04 run sure should be an interesting phase in GW wave research. If Kagra is even close to up to speed in terms of it's theoretical maximum sensitivity by the 04 run, Kagra should be able to help isolate the singnal to a much smaller region of the sky, further improving their odds of being able to visually spot the event in EM.

If LIGO cannot deliver a single new instance of multimessenger astronomy in the 03 run and the 04 run, then they really do have some serious explaining to do. LIGO's current "cry GW wolf" routine would have us believe that gravitational wave emitters are always entirely invisible in the EM spectrum, and only once in a blue moon will we ever expect to "see" one. This is now a "backsliding" scale of expectations of truly *epic* proportions.

To be honest I'd really like to believe that some important part of mainstream astronomy theory has something good to offer us at the level of scientific historical accuracy, but unfortunately I don't have a warm fuzzy feeling even about LIGO's most recent "discovery". I think this whole GW "discovery" claim is way too premature. GW wave discoveries should have always been *predicted* upon multimessenger events. Instead the whole concept is being sneaked in through the back door like an invisible thief in the night just like the rest of the 'dark' universe entourage. It's a very dark time for mainstream astronomy IMO.

[Michael Mozina]

https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/blac ... oded-light

"At the center of most galaxies lurks a supermassive black hole. It's surrounded by a swarm of stars and dead stars, including black holes," says co-author K. E. Saavik Ford of the City University of New York (CUNY) Graduate Center, the Borough of Manhattan Community College (BMCC), and the American Museum of Natural History (AMNH). "These objects swarm like angry bees around the monstrous queen bee at the center. They can briefly find gravitational partners and pair up but usually lose their partners quickly to the mad dance. But in a supermassive black hole's disk, the flowing gas converts the mosh pit of the swarm to a classical minuet, organizing the black holes so they can pair up," she says.

Once the black holes merge, the new, now-larger black hole experiences a kick that sends it off in a random direction, and it plows through the gas in the disk. "It is the reaction of the gas to this speeding bullet that creates a bright flare, visible with telescopes," says co-author Barry McKernan, also of the CUNY Graduate Center, BMCC, and AMNH.

Such a flare is predicted to begin days to weeks after the initial splash of gravitational waves produced during the merger. In this case, ZTF did not catch the event right away, but when the scientists went back and looked through archival ZTF images months later, they found a signal that started days after the May 2019 gravitational-wave event. ZTF observed the flare slowly fade over the period of a month.

Emphasis mine.

Ya know,

I've seen special pleading before, and I've seen desperation before, but this pretty much takes the cake. First they claim that evidently all black 'holes are "naked' uncharged' black holes which is why they never emit light enough to see them, and then they dream up a fantastic and incredibly contrived an impossible to believe story out of whole cloth to supposedly explain a *multi-day* delay between a supposed GW event and an EM counterpart. Talk about pure desperation. I guess I'll have to read the paper to see how they rationalized ruling out every other possible cause of the flare near a quasar, but suffice to say this far fetched story is simply lame and irrational. There's literally zero connection between the supposed GW signal and the flare near a quasar than they saw *days* later. This is just sad.

A scientific part of me really hoped that the 03 LIGO run would include numerous examples of multimessenger astronomy, and put my concerns to rest, but instead my worst fears were realized and there was simply no evidence whatsoever in the 03 run that any of the supposed GW wave signals was even celestial in origin. This kind of far fetched "make believe" nonsense just makes me feel sorry for them. If they have to make up such a ridiculous story just to *try* to come up with a multimessenger event, then they're more desperate than I thought.

[Michael Mozina]

https://translate.google.com/translate? ... 59813.html

The news of the discovery of gravitational waves was also received so enthusiastically because a new age of astronomy was expected, in which gravitational waves, together with other telescopes, would provide completely new knowledge about the universe. Quite a few compared this with Galileo's first use of the telescope in 1609. The international community was accordingly excited when the sensitivity of the detectors, which had been so successful for four years, was again considerably improved. You didn't have to be an optimist to expect dozens of sensational events for the O3 exhibition series, which has been running since April 2019. Instead, the result is: nothing.
False positives, a little too often

No signal from the gravitational wave collaboration could be verified independently, instead there were an inexplicably large number of false positives and signals, the credibility of which was subsequently downgraded.

In principle, observation through other telescopes would have been possible for 14 events, but not a single one (!) Could be confirmed. In addition , 19 signals (marked in red) were withdrawn . In some cases, these were initially rated as highly significant, for example the false alarm rate for the signal GW191117j was specified with a false alarm in 28 billion years (!), For GW190822c with one in 5 billion years and for GW200108v with one in one hundred thousand years.

In view of the fact that the series of measurements has not yet been running for a full year, that's a lot of "alarmism". In other words: these calculations were obviously nonsense. How is it that the quality assurance algorithms fail here in such a way?

Also noticeable is the nomenclature, which uses two letters next to the date, which means that, for example, in the event 190814bv on the same day, 67 other signals were already sorted out internally as "disturbances", although they had been registered as gravitational waves by the detectors - By the way, the criteria according to which this happens remains completely opaque. Little confidence arouses the fact that the recall often only took place if it was not confirmed by other possible observations, while one apparently blindly trusts the signals from black holes, which are shown exclusively by gravitational waves.

[Michael Mozina]

I think this particular part of the previous article with respect to the 03 run bears repeating:

No signal from the gravitational wave collaboration could be verified independently, instead there were an inexplicably large number of false positives and signals, the credibility of which was subsequently downgraded.

In principle, observation through other telescopes would have been possible for 14 events, but not a single one (!) Could be confirmed. In addition , 19 signals (marked in red) were withdrawn . In some cases, these were initially rated as highly significant, for example the false alarm rate for the signal GW191117j was specified with a false alarm in 28 billion years (!), For GW190822c with one in 5 billion years and for GW200108v with one in one hundred thousand years.

In view of the fact that the series of measurements has not yet been running for a full year, that's a lot of "alarmism". In other words: these calculations were obviously nonsense. How is it that the quality assurance algorithms fail here in such a way?

Also noticeable is the nomenclature, which uses two letters next to the date, which means that, for example, in the event 190814bv on the same day, 67 other signals were already sorted out internally as "disturbances", although they had been registered as gravitational waves by the detectors - By the way, the criteria according to which this happens remains completely opaque. Little confidence arouses the fact that the recall often only took place if it was not confirmed by other possible observations, while one apparently blindly trusts the signals from black holes, which are shown exclusively by gravitational waves.

It seems to me that a "null result" (local environmental noise) would tend to expect the batting average of LIGO to produce about the same results in the upcoming 04 run as as they did in the 03 run with respect to EM confirmation. In other words, if the so designated "GW signals" are not necessarily celestial in origin, then we wouldn't necessarily expect there to more examples of "multimessenger events" in the 04 run either.

Since LIGO struck out in 03 with respect to multimessenger astronomy, it's attempting to fill it's paper writing time with a focus on larger BH objects in the hope of designating a larger portion of the range of signals as "GW waves".

One wonders how many times LIGO must cry "black hole wolf'" before other astronomers will simply tune them out, and stop wasting their telescope time on fruitless searches.

I'd actually be pleased to have LIGO replicate multimessenger events in 04, but without solid evidence of any physical celestial event in the regions in question, I have no real evidence that so called BH, BH merger events are even "real celestial events".

As Carl Sagan used to say: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". To date I'd say that LIGO's "evidence" as to claims about celestial in origin signals is pretty marginal at best, particularly with a grand total of zero multimessenger events in 03.

The science side of me would love LIGO to be correct about the existence of GW waves, and I'd be happy for LIGO to replicate many additional multimessenger events, but alas the skeptical side of me simply isn't impressed with LIGO's methodology, or their claim as to the cause of any recent signals. I get the feeling that 04 isn't going to be particularly productive for LIGO with respect to multimessenger astronomy.

[Michael Mozina]

I cannot help but wonder about when this process becomes exactly like the Joseph Weber "weber bar" scenario.

If the sensitivity to celestial events is increased with each round of LIGO/Virgo/etc upgrades, then their sensitivity to environmental noise also increases on par with the sensitivity enhancements.

If additional multimessenger events cannot be found in the 04 run, then there is really no evidence that one multimessenger event was anything more than a statistical coincidence, and signals were in fact seconds apart.

Even LIGO's estimates of "one event per x number of years" is for all intents and purposes a highly exaggerated confidence figure which calls all their other confidence figures into question.

The two letter suffix for each "event" designates how many very similar types of signals were observed in one or more detectors that day prior to one being designated a "gravitational wave".

In short this whole process reeks of the Joseph Weber scenario, but the detectors now cost hundreds of billions of dollars and decades to build. Time will tell, but it seems like time is running out for LIGO with respect to multimessenger astronomy. LIGO needs to deliver on their promise of multimessenger astronomy in 04.

[Michael Mozina]

https://medium.com/@aunzicker/five-year ... 22be19319d

[crawler]

Cahill wrote a paper re zener diodes all over Earth detecting a signal within seconds of one of LIGOs famous detections.
https://vixra.org/pdf/1603.0232v1.pdf

Weber's GW detector had little hope of working according to my understanding of LIGOs theory that solids resist being squeezed by a GW -- ie instead of Weber's cylinder suffering a longitudinal strain & hencely ringing, the cylinder would have resisted the strain (hencely little or zero ringing).

I once again draw everyone's attention to the fact that LIGO & Weber rely on the same factoid.
That factoid is that gravity waves ..
(1) Have no effect on the length or dimensions of a solid.
(2) Have lots of effect.
LIGO rely on (1) (but they are happy to assume that GWs will have a very slight affect on dimensions)(ie electric forces holding solids together resist the GWs)(this primarily affects the glass of their lasers).
Weber relied on (2) (ie that his metal bars would ring like hell).

So Weber reckoned that he should get a Nobel, based on (2). And LIGO got a Nobel based on (1).

[Michael Mozina]

Cahill wrote a paper re zener diodes all over Earth detecting a signal within seconds of one of LIGOs famous detections.
https://vixra.org/pdf/1603.0232v1.pdf

Weber's GW detector had little hope of working according to my understanding of LIGOs theory that solids resist being squeezed by a GW -- ie instead of Weber's cylinder suffering a longitudinal strain & hencely ringing, the cylinder would have resisted the strain (hencely little or zero ringing).

I once again draw everyone's attention to the fact that LIGO & Weber rely on the same factoid.
That factoid is that gravity waves ..
(1) Have no effect on the length or dimensions of a solid.
(2) Have lots of effect.
LIGO rely on (1) (but they are happy to assume that GWs will have a very slight affect on dimensions)(ie electric forces holding solids together resist the GWs)(this primarily affects the glass of their lasers).
Weber relied on (2) (ie that his metal bars would ring like hell).

So Weber reckoned that he should get a Nobel, based on (2). And LIGO got a Nobel based on (1).

I'd say that the observation run 4 is "make or break" time for LIGO. If LIGO/Virgo/KAGRA cannot produce multimessenger astronomy in 04, it's going to start to look pretty fishy. 03 taught us that LIGO's "FAR" ratings are meaningless estimates, and have no particular value (S190822c). We also learned that these signals and waveforms are quite *common*, sometimes requiring two letter suffices to designate how many times they are registered each day (S200224ca). Apparently 78 previous signals that day had the same basic waveform, but that one was a 'real' GW event, whereas the previous 78 were not.

The Joseph Weber claims took years to debunk and his detectors were cheap by comparison. It could take decades to fully debunk LIGO's claims as to the origin of these signals.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... _TXe1hKTxi

Supposedly Virgo could become as sensitive in 04 as the LIGO detectors were in 03. KAGRA could even become as sensitive in 04 as LIGO was in 03, although I suspect that figure 1 is relatively optimistic.

[crawler]

The Joseph Weber claims took years to debunk and his detectors were cheap by comparison. It could take decades to fully debunk LIGO's claims as to the origin of these signals.

As the numbers of LIGOs grow they will begin to debunk themselves.
In general as instruments/apparatus/measurements of all kinds get more & more accurate then the Einsteinian Dark Age is doomed.
The times they are a'changin.

However i reckon that the last Einsteinian card to collapse might be Hulse Taylor.
Hulse Taylor is the only STR or GTR factoid that worries me today.
All of the other supposed Einsteinian miracles/proofs are clearly lies. But where is the lie in Hulse Taylor?? Its a worry.
There is a real cause that makes the the Hulse Taylor chirp mimic the/a theoretical gravitational wave chirp.
What is that real cause?? Some kind of severe tidal energy loss??
Anyhow that will have its own thread one day.

[Michael Mozina]

The Joseph Weber claims took years to debunk and his detectors were cheap by comparison. It could take decades to fully debunk LIGO's claims as to the origin of these signals.

As the numbers of LIGOs grow they will begin to debunk themselves.
In general as instruments/apparatus/measurements of all kinds get more & more accurate then the Einsteinian Dark Age is doomed.
The times they are a'changin.

I still think it's a mistake to blame Einstein for the sins of the "dark" proponents. GR is in no way dependent upon the existence of dark nonsense. Only the LCDM model requires such metaphysical garbage.

I do believe that LIGO's claims will eventually go down in flame *without* it having any serious effect on GR theory itself. It's certainly possible to accept the tenets of GR theory without having any faith in LIGO's claims.

[crawler]

The Joseph Weber claims took years to debunk and his detectors were cheap by comparison. It could take decades to fully debunk LIGO's claims as to the origin of these signals.

As the numbers of LIGOs grow they will begin to debunk themselves.
In general as instruments/apparatus/measurements of all kinds get more & more accurate then the Einsteinian Dark Age is doomed.
The times they are a'changin.

I still think it's a mistake to blame Einstein for the sins of the "dark" proponents. GR is in no way dependent upon the existence of dark nonsense. Only the LCDM model requires such metaphysical garbage.

I do believe that LIGO's claims will eventually go down in flame *without* it having any serious effect on GR theory itself. It's certainly possible to accept the tenets of GR theory without having any faith in LIGO's claims.

Einstein did not believe in quadrupolar GWs, or at least he did not believe that GWs carry energy.
But all of Einstein's GTR stuff (& STR stuff) is complete rubbish or in the case of the slowing of light near mass (Shapiro Delay) it is correctish but is based on a false premise (giving an equivalence).
So, Shapiro Delay is the only good thing to come out of GTR (however it is ignored by everyone everywhere)(funny that).
And the behavior of the Hulse Taylor binary is the only bit of GTR that worries me (it doesnt have an obvious reason for why it accords with GTR).

[Michael Mozina]

https://www.ligo.org/scientists/GWEMalerts.php

The LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA collaborations have reviewed the readiness status of the detector improvements and A+/AdV+ modifications in preparation for O4. As of November 2020, the O4 observing run is projected not to begin before June 2022, due to both key procurement delays and COVID-related delays.

Originally the 04 run of LIGO was supposed to begin in the 4th quarter of this year, but it looks like they've pushed the whole run back another full year, in spite of shutting down the 03 run *early* due to Covid. I find it a bit "sketchy" that LIGO is dragging their feet in terms of starting the 04 run, particularly after that *disastrous* 03 run which provided a grand total of *zero* multimessenger events.

It seems to me that the 04 run is pretty much "make or break" for LIGO. They've been making grandiose claims about multimessenger astronomy for many years, but they've been unable to duplicate the one event from 2017, and they don't seem real eager to get the equipment back online and start up the 04 run. I can't help but wonder if they're not starting to panic just a bit.

[crawler]

Many of the steel chain-links in the LIGO theory chain are actually made of rings of baloney.

Even this week i read a paper that reminded us that GTR does not have length contraction it has space contraction. One of LIGO's chain-links says that solids partially resist space contraction. This means that glass etc in their lasers resists the full measure of contraction that might otherwise arise. This then results in a possible signal. Otherwise if we have zero resistance then zero resistance = zero signal. That baloney-ring sinks LIGO without needing any help from other baloney-rings.

Here is a link to a 1996 paper by Peter R Saulson --
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/.../af ... 5ee40d175d...
V. LENGTHS IN COSMOLOGY AND IN LABORATORY PHYSICS
Note that the language we have been using in this paper only makes sense if we imagine that we have standards of length other than either the separations of freely falling test masses or the wavelengths of light waves. We do. A good paradigm of a length standard is a perfectly rigid rod. Such a rod does not change its length in the presence of a gravitational wave, because the arbitrarily strong elastic forces between its parts resist the gravitational force carried by the gravitational wave. As we will see below, we can also use the travel time of light as a reliable ruler under most conditions, in spite of the stretching of light waves that goes on when space expands.

[Michael Mozina]

As the numbers of LIGOs grow they will begin to debunk themselves.

I think that's LIGO's greatest fear by the way. The more GW detectors they bring online, and the more sensitive they become, the more likely it will be that one of two things will happen.

If they're right, they'll likely produce many more examples of multimessenger astronomy, and there will be no doubt at all that what they are detecting are real GW's from real celestial events.

If they're wrong however about the true source of these signals, they'll start to constrain their location to such a small region of the sky that it will be virtually impossible for any random or statistical flukes to occur where a supposed signal lines up properly with any specific celestial event.

I personally think that the 2017 event may have been nothing more than a statistical fluke, a stroke of dumb luck that LIGO used to attempt to justify their claims. In terms of the timing, there was a noticeable and obvious delay between the LIGO signal and a gamma ray signal to start with, and LIGO/Virgo's current limitations in terms of location constraints gives them lots of wiggle room in terms of the location.

As more detectors come online however, and they become more sensitive, LIGO simply won't have the same sort of wiggle room with respect to location that they've had in the past, so even if a supposed GW "signal" happens to correlate pretty well in terms of timing, it probably won't line up correctly in terms of location. It will be less likely that any statistical flukes might become advantageous or useful to LIGO. In short they won't be able to produce additional example of multimessenger astronomy. I think that's their greatest fear right now.

If we look at their dismal track record with respect to multimessenger astronomy during the 03 run, it wasn't pretty. They had quite a few opportunities to produce another example of multimessenger astronomy, and yet they failed miserably to deliver even one additional example. That's not a good sign for LIGO. That has to be disconcerting to them, even if they put on a good public act.

It seems to me that the 04 run is make or break time for LIGO. If they don't start delivering on multimessenger astronomy in 04, I think a lot more people will start to question the scientific legitimacy of their claims. Keep in mind that it took *years* to debunk Joseph Weber's claims about gravitational wave detection, and back then, Weber bars (detectors) were comparatively cheap and easy to build. LIGO detectors in contrast cost hundreds of millions of dollars to build, so it's bound to take quite a bit longer to debunk LIGO's claims, assuming they are simply caused by environmental noise.

[crawler]

I personally think that the 2017 event may have been nothing more than a statistical fluke, a stroke of dumb luck that LIGO used to attempt to justify their claims. In terms of the timing, there was a noticeable and obvious delay between the LIGO signal and a gamma ray signal to start with, and LIGO/Virgo's current limitations in terms of location constraints gives them lots of wiggle room in terms of the location.

Shapiro Delay theory says that all photons suffer the same amount of delay near mass. Therefore gamma rays should not have a different delay. My own photaeno-drag theory for Shapiro Delay says that photons should suffer different delays.

But then i realized that the delay here is in relation to gravity waves, not other photons. I think that LIGO says that GWs are not slowed by the nearness of mass (ie when passing throo the universe-cosmos).

Anyhow one of the worst bits of baloney by LIGO & Einsteinists is that GWs travel at c km/s (apart from the baloney that GWs exist)(& apart from the baloney that GWs carry energy).

Re LIGO & gravity waves. This sillyness will be exposed when more detectors are constructed. Even Einstein had doubts about quadrupolar gravity waves. He certainly didnt believe that GWs could carry energy. It all starts with a silly gedanken ............. Once upon a time forked lightning hit the embankment at a railway station ...... And then........... Once upon a time a man lived in a spacious chest in outer space.......... & then it leads to gravity waves travelling at c km/s. What a disaster. I feel sick.