Sunday, May 29, 2016

Why LIGO Is a Scam

New: Why Steven Carlip Is Mistaken about the Speed of Gravity or Why LIGO Is Still a Scam


In this article, I argue that the billion-dollar LIGO project that recently claimed to have detected gravitational waves from the collision of two black holes located more than a billion light years from earth is nothing but a scam to defraud the public. I argue that gravitational waves cannot exist because they are based on the false assumption that changes in gravity propagate at the speed of light. I further argue that the spacetime model is wrong because it is a block universe in which nothing happens and that gravity is a nonlocal or instantaneous phenomenon related to the law of the conservation of energy.

Stable Planetary Orbits or Newton Was Right

In spite of the incessant propaganda over the last century from the general relativity camp, gravity is an instantaneous or nonlocal phenomenon, just as Isaac Newton assumed. If changes in gravity traveled at the speed of light, as relativists claim, Newtonian gravity equations would not work at all and all planetary orbits would become unstable. There would be no planetary systems orbiting stars and there would be no galaxies. The reason is that it would take more than eight minutes for changes (caused by its motion around the Milky Way galaxy) in the sun's gravity to reach the earth and even longer for the more distant planets. So the earth's orbit around the sun would depend on where the sun was eight minutes ago, the time it takes changes in the gravitational field to reach the earth, and not on where it is now. This is not observed. As it is, Newtonian gravity is extremely accurate in predicting the orbits and positions of the planets. Minor effects that Newton could not have known about, such as clock slowing, are negligible. This is a fact. (see LaPlace calculation of the speed of gravity.)

Conservation of Symmetry

There is another reason, equally damning, that gravity must be instantaneous. It has to do with symmetry. Symmetry is an inherent part of the way the universe works. The conservation of symmetry is as much a law of nature as the conservation of momentum or energy. Geometry would not work without it. Conservation laws are nonlocal, meaning that they act over any distance, as if distance did not exist.

In spite of all the relativist claims regarding spacetime curvature (more on this later), gravity is undeniably caused by an energy deficit due to local violations in the conservation of energy. The deficit occurs when many particles (both massive and massless) exist at a particular location.

I have a hypothesis as to why the deficit happens but suffice it to say, for now, that it is the reason that clocks slow down in the presence of gravity. Regardless of the cause of the deficit, nature tries to eliminate it by moving energy, in the form of both massive and massless particles, toward the location of the deficit. Of course, it can never eliminate it because adding more matter results in even more violations.

The law of symmetry dictates that the shape of the gravitational field must be symmetrical around the source of the deficit, i.e., as perfectly spherical as possible. By analogy, the shape of the electric field around an electron must also be symmetrical. Otherwise, there would be a violation of symmetry. But if changes in the gravitational field propagated at c, as the physics community claims, it would create a non-symmetrical field around the source as it moves. This would be in violation of the conservation of symmetry, which is not allowed. Hence physicists are either wrong or lying about gravity.

Einstein's Block Universe in which Nothing Happens

Relativists claim that gravity is the curvature of spacetime caused by massive bodies. But is this true? The surprising and inconvenient fact is that nothing can move in spacetime because a time dimension, as I explained in the previous post, makes motion impossible. This alone falsifies the spacetime model. In Conjectures and Refutations (pdf), Karl Popper called spacetime, Einstein's block universe in which nothing happens. He even compared Einstein to Parmenides of Elea who, along with his more famous student, Zeno, maintained that nothing changes. Not even wrong. Here's a partial quote (emphasis added):
At the same time I realized that such myths may be developed, and become testable; that historically speaking all — or very nearly all — scientific theories originate from myths, and that a myth may contain important anticipations of scientific theories. Examples are Empedocles' theory of evolution by trial and error, or Parmenides' myth of the unchanging block universe in which nothing ever happens and which, if we add another dimension, becomes Einstein's block universe (in which, too, nothing ever happens, since everything is, four-dimensionally speaking, determined and laid down from the beginning).
Einstein's block universe is a thorn on the side of relativists. How many times have we read about the magic properties of spacetime and how bodies travel along their geodesics in spacetime? How many times have we heard how matter curves spacetime and how the curvature of spacetime affects the motion of bodies? Only to find out that it was all a bunch of lies. Many physicists know about these things but they rarely mention them because it makes them look stupid. Besides, why rock the boat that you are riding in?

LIGO Fraud

If gravity is instantaneous (there can be no doubt about it, in my view), then LIGO must be a scam, a fraud perpetrated on an unsuspecting public to the tune of billions of dollars. Of course, the public who pays the salaries of LIGO physicists and funds their expensive projects has no way to verify their claims. But sooner or later, the chickens will come home to roost. Wait for it.

Addendum (6/2/16):

Relativity Implicitly Assumes Instant Communication while Explicitly Forbidding it

Relativists will, of course, reply with an argument that I have heard many times before. They will claim that I do not understand general relativity theory and that GR addresses my concern about the finite speed of gravity. They will argue that, by some unknown magic, the sun communicates information regarding its velocity relative to the earth and all other bodies in the universe. This way, the other bodies can somehow (more magic) read the information and more or less guess where the sun is even though they receive the information some time after it was sent. Of course, they decline to explain how this information is encoded, transmitted and how the other bodies detect it. That's the magic part. This part of the theory is somehow immune to falsification. Not very scientific, if you ask me. But it gets worse, much worse.

It is a laughably self-contradicting argument simply because there is no way that the sun can "know" about its velocity relative to any other body so as to transmit it to any of them. The problem has to do with the word ‘relative’. It is a problem with all observer-centric, relativity-based, local theories because the word ‘relative’ implies instantaneous knowledge between distant bodies even though such knowledge is forbidden by the local nature of the theory: nothing can move faster than the speed of light. So general relativists are breaking their own rule. On the one hand, they are saying that information must travel at or below the speed of light and this is why changes in gravity must travel at the speed of light. On the other hand, they are using instantaneous information to determine the relative velocity between distant bodies. This is not even wrong.

The argument is so stupid and so painfully contrived that I declined to address it when I first wrote the article. But I have since seen it repeated elsewhere on the web and I could not let it go without a refutation. This is the kind of crap that the public is forced to support with their hard earned money.

Steven Carlip's Aberration and the Speed of Gravity

Relativity proponent Steven Carlip wrote a paper (Aberration and the Speed of Gravity) in 1999 that supposedly laid the problem to rest. In the paper's abstract he writes (emphasis added):

"By evaluating the gravitational effect of an accelerating mass, I show that aberration in general relativity is almost exactly canceled by velocity-dependent interactions, permitting cg=c."

Ironically, Carlip's use of the phrase "velocity-dependent interactions" in the abstract immediately refutes his argument that information about the sun's velocity relative to the earth or any other body can be determined in the sun's frame of reference and communicated to other bodies. This would have to assume the existence of either absolute motion/position or instantaneous communication between distant bodies, both of which the theory forbids. The fact that such crackpottery can make it past peer review shows that relativity physics is not about science. It is strictly about politics. Einstein's physics is now a full-fledged religion and political movement.

New: Why Steven Carlip Is Mistaken about the Speed of Gravity or Why LIGO Is Still a Scam

Addendum (6/4/16):

Infinite Regress and the Graviton

Let us assume for the sake of argument that the relativist hypothesis is correct. In order to communicate information about its relative velocity to other bodies, a massive object would have to encode it in a particle which would then travel at the speed of light out into space. Physicists call this particle, the graviton. The problem with the use of a mediating particle as the carrier of the gravitational force is that gravity, unlike the other forces, affects everything the same way. This includes the gravitons themselves. This immediately introduces an infinite self-referential regress that throws a giant monkey wrench into the works. It is an insurmountable problem. But don't tell quantum gravity physicists about it. The graviton idea is one of their most beloved pet theories.

Parlor Tricks

But that is not all. Since physicists cannot account for the self-energy of the graviton, they have to use one of their favorite parlor tricks to explain away the obvious violation of the conservation of energy: physics via labeling. Just call the graviton "virtual" et voila! Problem solved. It is embarrassing, to say the least.

The All-Seeing Nonlocal Universe

The only alternative is that there is no graviton. We are now back to Newtonian physics which makes no assumptions about the mechanism of gravity. If so, how can the gravitational force be communicated to other bodies? The answer is that there is no communication. Gravity is an instantaneous or nonlocal phenomenon. Everything "feels" or "sees" the gravity of everything else instantly. Distance is a perceptual illusion. The universe is one and all-seeing. Or, to borrow a Biblical metaphor, everything is "full of eyes".

See Also

Aberration and the Speed of Gravity (Carlip)
Does Gravity Travel at the Speed of Light? (Carlip)
Why Steven Carlip Is Mistaken about the Speed of Gravity or Why LIGO Is Still a Scam
Relativity Implicitly Assumes Instant Communication at a Distance While Explicitly Forbidding It
Why Space (Distance) Is an Illusion
How to Falsify Einstein's Physics, For Dummies
How Einstein Shot Physics in the Foot
Nasty Little Truth About Spacetime Physics
Why Einstein's Physics Is Crap
Physicists Don't Know Shit
Nothing Can Move in Spacetime
Physics: The Problem with Motion
Why Gravitational Waves Are Nonsense
Physics: The Surprisingly Simple Reason that the Speed of Light Is the Fastest Possible Speed and that Particle Decay Is Probabilistic


dashxdr said...

I certainly am no fan of LIGO, and I tend to consider it an example of corrupt "science" at its absolute best. My take on it is if there were gravity waves they wouldn't be so rare and difficult to detect. I believe what the "scientists" using LIGO did was to pore over mounds of data until they eventually found a statistical anomoly that satisfied their requirements: It had to confirm their sacred theory and it had to pass the smell test, which means it had to pass 1+ years of peer review without anyone calling "bull***t!" But I'm not interested enough to learn more detail. I'm happy with my assumptions...

Regarding conservation laws: I don't agree that they must be nonlocal. I believe the physics of our universe are entirely local. There's no need for nonlocality to explain anything.

I don't agree that gravity is instantaneous. I don't mind the earth being influenced by where the sun was 8+ minutes ago. It would still settle down into a stable orbit.

I'm tending not to believe in general relitivity, but I do buy into special relativity. I just don't believe space is warped, nor do I think the observed evidence demands that matter causes space to curve. It's just a model that "caught on". Sure, some think it's beautiful. But that doesn't prove it's a true explanation of the underlying machinery.

Nowadays I prefer an approach where the universe has an absolute energy limit at each point in space. All interactions between neighboring points are scaled by the difference between the local energy total and the maximum value. Do you see? As we approach peak energy all physical processes slow down to 0, so it is impossible to actually achieve the maximum energy level.

Near a massive object there will necessarily be a gradient in the local energy scaler field. Consider the side of an object closest to the massive object. The progression of physical processes (or time moving forward) must occur at a slower pace than on the side furthest from the massive object. It's not a hard stretch of the imagination to postulate the forces on the body would not balance out, and there would be a net force pushing the object towards the massive object (voila! Gravity!). And we don't require any curvature of space at all.

Finally: Why is there a problem with the universe being "frozen" in time, when you consider it in 4 dimensions? Consider a DVD. Encoded on the dvd is an entire movie, from start to finish. But when you play it back one frame at a time we perceive movement and activity. But the entire history of the movie is stored on the DVD. Why can't the universe be just like that? It could be entirely deterministic, and so given its state at any instant one could step forward one unit of time to the next instant. So you could just crank the thing forward forever, writing down each instant, one after another. You'd end up with a static, complete record of the universe's history.

It seems to me that our universe must be finite, and if it is finite and if it is deterministic, then at some point in the distant future its state must loop. Just like a random number generator seed, once the seed cycles back around to a previous value, the whole sequence just plays out again, and again, and again. I have no problem with our universe being like that.

At least for the time being it's all new to us!

Louis Savain said...

Thanks for the comment.

You are mistaken about the speed of gravity. The earth's orbit would not be stable if gravity were not instantaneous. This was proven mathematically over two centuries ago by French mathematician and astronomer Pierre-Simon de Laplace in 1805. Laplace calculated that the speed of gravity must be at least 7×10^6 times the speed of light in order for the noon to stay in orbit around the earth. He was arguing against the Newtonian speculation that gravity could be due to some sort of flux emanating from massive bodies. More recently, Van Flandern refined the calculations and concluded that the speed of gravity must be millions of time the speed of light in order to prevent orbital degeneration.

Relativists are aware of this and have tried to explain it away with a stupid hypothesis according to which the sun broadcasts its velocity relative to the earth at the speed of light. As I've explained, this is not even wrong since the sun could not have any knowledge of its velocity relative to anything in the solar system. This would require an instantaneous communication between the earth and the sun, the very thing that general relativity forbids. It boggles the mind how relativists can get away with such blatant crackpottery. Politics rules everything in this world of lies.

As far as determinism is concerned, it makes no sense to accept a block universe in which nothing happens while at the same observing motion in that world. Determinism is illogical precisely because there is no time dimension. I've explained this in several articles.

As far as nonlocality is concerned, there can be no doubt about it. I've also explained why space is an illusion elsewhere on this blog.


CONCERNING ABSOLUTES, first, let's say that an "absolute" 4 dimensional environment exists. It is composed of 3 spatial dimensions, and one time dimension.

Secondly, let's say that "absolute" motion goes on within this 4D environment, and that all objects share the exact same magnitude of this absolute motion. And, if this magnitude of motion was spatial only, it would always be measured as being c, the speed of light.

Thus, all that can be changed, is the direction of travel within this absolute 4D environment. Also, rotation occurs simultaneously with this change of direction, just like a bus rotates as it changes its spatial direction of travel.

Now if you analyze the outcome of such an "Absolute" setting, you end up independently discovering Special Relativity(SR), and you also independently derive all of the SR mathematical equations.

See it for yourself at ....

Benish said...

I agree that there are many reasons to be skeptical of the whole LIGO enterprise and its worship of General Relativity. But I am similarly unimpressed by skeptics and dissidents because they tend mostly to quibble about matters of interpretation and fail to propose an empirical test that would--even to the satisfaction of the Standard Modelers--prove that the Standard Model is seriously wrong.

Even the most logical reasoning that highlights the faulty concepts in the "Standard Model" will fade to obscurity as long as the Standard Modelers are driving the bandwagon. Thus Tommy Gold observed:

"Once a herd has been established in a subject, it can only be broken by the most crass confrontation with opposing evidence."

Nevertheless, I think it is possible to go beyond reasoning, to find the "crass opposing evidence" that even herd members would see as meaning that they've been busted. Even the Standard Modelers would see that, after they get over their embarrassment, they'd have a party with some newly revealed truth about the Universe.

It needs to be pointed out that both the herd and its critics tend to focus on some extreme regime of monetary expense, technological grandeur, and tiny, if even measurable effects. Neither group has seen fit to test their theories under their noses, where they have not yet looked.

In 1632 Galileo proposed a test of gravity that would realize the common textbook problem of dropping a test object into a hole through the center of a larger body. Perhaps the simplest conceivable gravity experiment, it remains to be performed. The two bodies never collide; nor are they given any extraneous energy (such as to put one of them into a circular orbit). The apparatus may therefore be called a Small Low-Energy Non-Collider.

General Relativity is often touted as having been thoroughly tested on scales up to the size of the Solar System. This is only true, however, for that domain OVER the surfaces of the bodies involved. General Relativity's INTERIOR solution (derived by Schwarzschild in 1916) predicts that clock rates decrease to a minimum at the center of the source mass. Nobody has ever explained what the surrounding matter must DO to make such clocks slow down.

I predict that the rate of the clock at the center is actually a maximum, which corresponds to a prediction for the falling test object that disagrees even with Newton's prediction. The test is doable in an Earthbased laboratory (with a modified Cavendish balance) or in an orbiting satellite.

Instead of quibbling about inconsequentialities or evidence dreamed about being found in some far off decimal point, why not carry on as responsible scientists by finishing the search for clues within our immediate reach? Clues that may have the weight of a big surprise in the first or zeroth decimal place? Why not urge those who have the resources to do so to build and operate humanity's very first Small Low-Energy Non-Collider?

Mike said...

The speed of gravity, or rather the influence of gravity must be instantaneous. If the sun were to pop out of existence in a millisecond all the bodies orbiting it would begin moving tangentially away from the point where the sun used to exist the very moment it vanished. This can be shown with a rather crude experiment rather easily. Tether a ball to a pole with a length of string. Now shoot the ball with enough force so that it will pull the string taught and follow a circular "orbit" around the pole. Then cut the string. There is no delay before the ball flies off tangentially away from the path it was forced to follow due to the string's hold on it. Orbiting planets would move in an identical manner if their "pole" point was removed of its influence. It is ridiculous to think there would be a delay equal to that of c for the orbiting bodies to respond to such an event! It takes at least two objects for gravity to be relevant in the first place so if one of those objects vanished so would its gravitational effect on the system it was occupying.

Anonymous said...

@Mike: regarding "Then cut the string. There is no delay before the ball flies off tangentially away from the path it was forced to follow due to the string's hold on it"

You're either completely clueless or trolling. Of course there is a delay... The delay is equal to the length of the string (between the cutting point and the ball) divided by the speed of propagation of forces (i.e. the speed of sound) in the string (which depends on the material the string is made of). You can very easily measure that delay in an experiment filming with a high speed camera.

Louis Savain said...

Benish wrote: I agree that there are many reasons to be skeptical of the whole LIGO enterprise and its worship of General Relativity. But I am similarly unimpressed by skeptics and dissidents because they tend mostly to quibble about matters of interpretation and fail to propose an empirical test that would--even to the satisfaction of the Standard Modelers--prove that the Standard Model is seriously wrong.

There is a simple and rock-solid observation that debunks general relativity. Everyone knows about it but overlooks its importance. Both Newtonian gravity and general relativity use the inverse square law. This means that gravity is precisely spherical around a spherical homogenous mass. The inverse square law would not hold if gravity propagated at a finite speed as required by GR. It would be elongated at the rear of a moving body and flattened at the front. This is not observed because experimental results confirm the inverse square law.

We are being duped by powers in high places to the tune of billions of dollars. This must stop.

Mike said...

To anonymous commenter, The example was for visualization purposes. What I said after the ball on a string statement is the meat of my point. Gravity requires at least two bodies with mass to be relevant. Remove one and it's gravitational influence is removed with it the instant it is gone. Learn to think critically.

Benish said...

Louis Savain wrote: "There is a simple and rock-solid observation that debunks general relativity. Everyone knows about it but overlooks its importance."

This may well be true. It is nevertheless being overlooked. This is what I mean by quibbling over matters of interpretation. Standard theorists get away with their interpretation. An experiment yet remains to be done whose result, I suggest, could both contradict General Relativity AND be impossible to overlook; impossible to get away with misinterpreting.

The biggest blind-spot in all of our knowledge of gravity is (effectively) beneath our feet, inside every body of matter. Gravity-induced radial motion through the centers of massive bodies has never been observed. Arguments that relate the common Newtonian prediction for this experiment to the corresponding clock rate prediction of General Relativity may be found here:

The apparatus needed to expose this blind-spot may be called a Small Low-Energy Non-Collider. Galileo proposed the idea in 1632. That the prediction has not yet been tested is, it seems to me, a flagrant, ongoing insult to the ideals of science -- no matter what the ultimate result proves to be.