Einstein never predicts gravitational wave come from two black holes merger. He didn’t believe in black hole. Einstein is The Reluctant Father of Black Hole. In Einstein’s manuscript 1916 :”Two celestial bodies in orbit will generate ripples in spacetime”.LIGO’s gravitational waves nothing to do with Einstein.Two celestial bodies in orbit will generate ripples in space time yet to be proven. LIGO doesn’t confirm Albert Einstein’s general relativity.
Einstein’s manuscript 1916 :”Two celestial bodies in orbit will generate ripples in spacetime”
For only the second time in human history, gravitational waves have been directly detected. This time, the merger of two lower mass black holes, of 14 and 8 solar masses, inspiraling and coalescing together, left a signal of 27 orbits spanning more than a second in both twin LIGO detectors, a second unambiguous signal in less than four months’ time.
On September 14, 2015, less than 72 hours after beginning operations, the Advanced LIGO detectors in Washington and Louisiana shocked the world by detecting two large black holes — 36 and 29 solar masses — merging together. The ripples propagating through space were so intense that even from over a billion light years away, the tiny mirrors in the LIGO apparatus shifted by thousandths of the width of a proton, vibrating back and forth ever so slightly over the span of perhaps 200 milliseconds. After months of checking their results, they made the indisputable claim: they had detected gravitational waves for the first time. 101 years after Einstein’s general theory of relativity was proposed, it passed with flying colors its most delicate, intricate test.
The experiment of LIGO has not verified the Einstein’s theory of gravity.
Where Was the Source of Gravitational Waves? According to normal pressures of experiments, we should determine or observe the event of binary black hole merger which really happened in space by some methods at first. For example, the experiment observed optical after glow caused by the material around black holes in merger process. Suppose the speed of gravitational wave is the same as that of light. When the light reached the earth, gravitational waves also arrived and caused stripe changes in interferometers.
The problem was, did LIGO really observe binary black hole merger? The authors read the PRL paper of LIGO but find no word to say they had observed astronomical phenomena about binary black hole merger. They used the method of backward to deduce the event. Based on the signs detected in laser interferometers and the Einstein’s theory of gravity, by fitting them with computer, LIGO declared that the event happened in a distance galaxy 1.3 billion years ago.
Therefore, so-called binary black hole merger is only the result of computer simulation, rather than a really observed event in astronomy and physics. By using so-called matching filter method, LIGO declared to find gravitational waves and binary black hole merger from their waveform library which had been established in advance, rather than find them from sky.
According to the interpretation of LIGO, the experiments verified the gravitational wave theory of Einstein. However, what they observed were only two signs in laser interferometers, without really observing binary black hole merger and 3 solar mass being transformed into gravitational waves, how could they say that the gravitational wave theory of Einstein was verified?(http://file.scirp.org/pdf/JMP_2016062014272089.pdf)
Where Was the Source of Gravitational Waves? According to normal pressures of experiments, we should determine or observe the event of binary black hole merger which really happened in space by some methods at first. For example, the experiment observed optical after glow caused by the material around black holes in merger process. Suppose the speed of gravitational wave is the same as that of light. When the light reached the earth, gravitational waves also arrived and caused stripe changes in interferometers.
The problem was, did LIGO really observe binary black hole merger? The authors read the PRL paper of LIGO but find no word to say they had observed astronomical phenomena about binary black hole merger. They used the method of backward to deduce the event. Based on the signs detected in laser interferometers and the Einstein’s theory of gravity, by fitting them with computer, LIGO declared that the event happened in a distance galaxy 1.3 billion years ago.
Therefore, so-called binary black hole merger is only the result of computer simulation, rather than a really observed event in astronomy and physics. By using so-called matching filter method, LIGO declared to find gravitational waves and binary black hole merger from their waveform library which had been established in advance, rather than find them from sky.
According to the interpretation of LIGO, the experiments verified the gravitational wave theory of Einstein. However, what they observed were only two signs in laser interferometers, without really observing binary black hole merger and 3 solar mass being transformed into gravitational waves, how could they say that the gravitational wave theory of Einstein was verified?(http://file.scirp.org/pdf/JMP_2016062014272089.pdf)
More than 100 years physicists around the world being misled by general relatity !
More than 100 years being misled by general relatity and just live in the world of experiments. Until now we still use Newton’s law of gravity, so far. Black holes and gravitatinal waves do not exist. Einstein’s gravity is nothing about force, it means nothing about energy …..
The problems of general relativity arise when you look at the Universe at very small or at very large scales. So, what’s wrong with general relativity?
In fact, first, general relativity is made based on thought experiment, not the real experiment. Secondly, Einstein’s thought experiments are incomprehensive, illogical, and misleading. Third, Einstein never proved general relativity. Fourth, Einstein ignored the refraction of light and the existing of celestial sphere, that’s why Einstein proposed the test for his hypothesis deflection of light by the Sun isn’t scientific and deeply wrong. Einstein’s proving method need to be examined more thoroughly and need to be taken seriously.
Every hypothesis should first be able to explain the experimental results in order to be taken seriously. But, what if the proving method of a hypothesis is not scientific but not to be taken seriously, althought the first experimental results was error? That is occur in the case of Einstein’s provng method for ‘ The Deflection of Light by the Sun ‘.
Reliable source:
“Einstein proposed therefore, that photographs be taken of the stars immediately bordering the darkened face of the sun during an eclipse and compared with photographs of those same stars made at another time.” (LincolnBarnett, The Universe and Dr. Einstein, London, June 1949, Preface by Albert Einstein Himself, page 78).
The celestial sphere is only applicable at a certain time and at a certain place on which such observation is performed. In scientific exposure of astronomy, the instant observation applies. It means, ‘that photographs be taken of the stars immediately bordering the darkened face of the sun during an eclipse and compared with photographs of those same stars made at another time ‘ isn’t scientific and deeply wrong.
General relativity has been wrong since the beginning. Deflection of light caused by refraction: i.e.astronomical refraction and terrestrial refraction, not gravity.
Actually error in the famous eclipse experiment of 1919, but F.W.Dyson writes: “It seems clear that the effect found must be attributed to the Sun’s gravitational field and not, for example, to the refraction by coronal matter” (F.W.Dyson, F.R.S, A Determination of the Deflection of Light by the Sun’s Gravitational Field, from Observations made at the Total Eclipse of May 29, 1919).
Nobel Committe in 1921 know about this error, that’s why Einstein never received Nobel Prize for relativity.
The new finding about Einstein’s proving method that isn’t scientific and ignored refraction of light, in accordance with— by coincidence — the invention of Professor R. C. Gupta, India, on his paper ‘Bending of Light Near a Star and Gravitational Red/Blue Shift: Alternative Explanation Based on Refraction of Light.'
The problems of general relativity arise when you look at the Universe at very small or at very large scales. So, what’s wrong with general relativity?
In fact, first, general relativity is made based on thought experiment, not the real experiment. Secondly, Einstein’s thought experiments are incomprehensive, illogical, and misleading. Third, Einstein never proved general relativity. Fourth, Einstein ignored the refraction of light and the existing of celestial sphere, that’s why Einstein proposed the test for his hypothesis deflection of light by the Sun isn’t scientific and deeply wrong. Einstein’s proving method need to be examined more thoroughly and need to be taken seriously.
Every hypothesis should first be able to explain the experimental results in order to be taken seriously. But, what if the proving method of a hypothesis is not scientific but not to be taken seriously, althought the first experimental results was error? That is occur in the case of Einstein’s provng method for ‘ The Deflection of Light by the Sun ‘.
Reliable source:
“Einstein proposed therefore, that photographs be taken of the stars immediately bordering the darkened face of the sun during an eclipse and compared with photographs of those same stars made at another time.” (LincolnBarnett, The Universe and Dr. Einstein, London, June 1949, Preface by Albert Einstein Himself, page 78).
The celestial sphere is only applicable at a certain time and at a certain place on which such observation is performed. In scientific exposure of astronomy, the instant observation applies. It means, ‘that photographs be taken of the stars immediately bordering the darkened face of the sun during an eclipse and compared with photographs of those same stars made at another time ‘ isn’t scientific and deeply wrong.
General relativity has been wrong since the beginning. Deflection of light caused by refraction: i.e.astronomical refraction and terrestrial refraction, not gravity.
Actually error in the famous eclipse experiment of 1919, but F.W.Dyson writes: “It seems clear that the effect found must be attributed to the Sun’s gravitational field and not, for example, to the refraction by coronal matter” (F.W.Dyson, F.R.S, A Determination of the Deflection of Light by the Sun’s Gravitational Field, from Observations made at the Total Eclipse of May 29, 1919).
Nobel Committe in 1921 know about this error, that’s why Einstein never received Nobel Prize for relativity.
The new finding about Einstein’s proving method that isn’t scientific and ignored refraction of light, in accordance with— by coincidence — the invention of Professor R. C. Gupta, India, on his paper ‘Bending of Light Near a Star and Gravitational Red/Blue Shift: Alternative Explanation Based on Refraction of Light.'
