Sunil, the LIGO results have passed peer review and Nobel prices have been handed out, so I admire your audacity to question it.

Apart from the absurdly small signal they claim to have measured, I believe there is physical proof that gravitational waves can't be measured by laser interferometry, won't repeat it here, as I have debated this in other questions.

Until I see LIGO observations repeated by independent groups, I remain a sceptic.

After 20 years of funding with nothing to show, the LIGO team would have been under extreme pressure to deliver a result. Simply having the data pass peer review by other scientists does not eliminate fraud, but I hope I am wrong about that.

I was one of the most early critiques of LIGO announcement and critical response questioning it in ResearchGate and drew many people to read it and like the points I raised. Now there is an official confirmation that the announcement was a false trigger. They do not understand Gravity and Space-Time and can’t measure Dark Energy or even Ether.

Now this:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/10/danish-physicists-claim-to-cast-doubt-on-detection-of-gravitational-waves/

And there was another news:

https://www.universetoday.com/127463/did-a-gamma-ray-burst-accompany-ligos-gravitational-wave-detection/

I do not think Black Holes are vacuum inside Event Horizon but just with ordinary but dense mss. They would have detected associated EMF and Particles escaping in the collision.

I heard Boson is also in that category in the Science Community.

I already read similar news. The common LIGO dispute tends to fall into the category of signal being too small to measure or interferometer being the wrong instrument for measuring GW's, my own view being the latter.

My search for the ultimate truth has taken me down the rabbit hole further than I expected and has revealed a Universe with very different origins to that of the standard model.

The existence of gravitational waves is not the issue here, it is the method cooked up by Kip Thorne and his team which I dispute.

GW's are massless disturbances in the ground potential plane that travel at the speed of light along equipotential paths from source to observer, and by definition an observer must be point like (not a 2D L shape), therefore both arms of LIGO always stretch or contract in unison.

The LIGO instrument simply can not detect such waves, regardless of how sensitive it can be made.

To understand my argument you may want to read my paper by the title Ground Potential, which can be found under my profile.

I am against Interfero meter being used from the early days by MM. We do not understand the physical process that goes from Microscopic Atomic Field that causes Gravity.

I read yesterday there is now also a team of Italian scientists questioning the LIGO results, so this will be interesting to follow.

LIGO predicted the location of GW170817 accurately enough for it to be found so the fact that it works is now beyond dispute. There is still discussion of the nature of the waves though.

Sunil, to answer your question, LIGO measures strain, not energy. It's like putting a high impedance voltmeter across a power line, the meter tells you the voltage without drawing power from the line.

The strain is connected with energy density and its prorogation. I agree that LIGO will not "draw" energy - or all components of deformation in energy density volume. So it should have a sensitivity of m-1 dimensions.

How did they triangulate the position? Want to learn.

Strain is the ratio of the change of length divided by the length so is dimensionless.

SKS: How did they triangulate the position?

They use the time of arrival at the sites. If the signal is detected at Livingston and Hanford, the difference in arrival time determines the angle of the signal propagation from the line joining the sites hence an annulus on the sky. I marked up a diagram for another conversation about GW170817 so I've attached that, it may help. The sites are 10 light-milliseconds apart and the signal reached Hanford 3.3 ms later than Livingston.

George, by what mechanism does the length of the LIGO arm change?

Do they take into account the surface topography slope/gradient into account, and how the two LIGO arms at different sites are leveled? I feel there is a line of sight which directs the radial direction and an equi-potential wave front for a Vacuum Sphere. But this wave will be hitting many objects in the Space and create a complex pattern. Finding this wave signal be identical in all LIGO centers is going to be difficult probability wise. And then how did LIGO rule out EMF, Particles and Neutrinos not making through the Space in the arms? How did they rule out that Dark Energy density changes did not happen because of Earth activities. I believe in center of Earth we have a small star like chemistry going on. In Africa they found a Natural Ancient Breeder with negative cycles to no go critical naturally.

George thanks. I could have guessed the triangulation but leveling plane problem puzzles me.

Dear Sunil,

SKS: Do they take into account the surface topography slope/gradient into account,

No, all matter is transparent to gravitational waves.

SKS: how the two LIGO arms at different sites are leveled?

They aren't, the altitude and location need to be known, easy using GPS, but there is no need for them to be at any specific height.

SKS: And then how did LIGO rule out EMF, Particles and Neutrinos not making through the Space in the arms?

EMF is blocked by the steel vacuum tubes, particles do cause some stray reflected light producing background noise but the tubes are kept at a very high vacuum. Neutrinos don't interact with light.

SKS: How did they rule out that Dark Energy density changes did not happen because of Earth activities.

Dark energy only has an effect over millions of light years.

If you meant dark matter, it is called "dark" because it doesn't interact with light at all.

SKS: I believe in center of Earth we have a small star like chemistry going on.

Hydrogen fusion that powers stars needs temperatures above 10 million Kelvin, the core of the Earth is only around 6000K. There is radioactive decay of heavy elements by fission producing some heat and the Oklo natural reaction was also a fission process.

Thanks George. Am aware of these things but by talking they come out clear. My mind is right now deep into Light.

My point was we are not aware of the exact Nature of DE, DM, Neutrino, ZPE and CC and their variations.

There is a wave front that is a tangential surface and its cut different places on earth would be "different" and it would be distorted by other objects in Universe between the BHs that collided and Earth. Ultimately Matter and Energy bend ST Curvature which is different at different points. The only argument against this is Earth is a Singular Point in comparison to the distances involved.

Dear Sunil,

SKS: Am aware of these things but by talking they come out clear.

Yes, it's a good way to refine our understanding.

SKS: Ultimately Matter and Energy bend ST Curvature which is different at different points.

Yes, and gravitational waves will follow that curvature as light does. That means that if they pass close to the Sun, grazing the surface they would be bent by ~1.75 arc-seconds, a very small amount. The mass of the Earth is a third of a million times smaller so any gravitational deflection measured on the surface would be in the micro-arc-second range and completely undetectable.

SKS: My point was we are not aware of the exact Nature of DE, DM, Neutrino, ZPE and CC and their variations.

DE, ZPE and CC all probably refer to the same thing and it has uniform density because the vacuum itself cannot vary spatially, only the contents. Dark matter forms halos with a density that varies over scales larger than the size of the galaxy and the neutrino mass/energy contribution is well known (as an upper limit) and again negligible.

Thanks George. I feel Vacuum of Space is not really homogeneous, monolithic and isometric. Static Vacuum of Space without Bing Bang is but not with the BB.

For example our models, assume Sun and Earth to be monolithic for Gravitational Equations. It takes deeper thinking to understand there is layering. Nothing in Nature is monolithic or discretely discontinuous. But when we see things in Black and White, Dark and Light, etc. we tend to pout them in isolated boxes without drawing a connection between them.

CC and ZPE do not agree with each other. We have no measure on DE or DM.

Dear Sunil,

In pure vacuum, there is nothing to be layered, it has to be homogeneous.

Dark energy is essentially the same as the cosmological constant but says it should contribute as an energy density input while the CC might be on either side of the equation. ZPE should be the same thing but is wrong by so much that our understanding of QM is clearly incomplete.

We do have quite good measures of DM density both on average and in halos, these profiles model that for example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einasto_profile

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navarro%E2%80%93Frenk%E2%80%93White_profile

The bottom line is that the amount of gravitational bending due to these is small and well understood.

George Said

"We do have quite good measures of DM density both on average and in halos"

Seriously, who measured the DM and how ?

DM is a Unicorn, it was invented to explain the galaxy rotation curve anomaly which frankly isn't anomalous at all and I can prove it.

Many people have measured halos Steven, mainly using velocity curves and gravitational lensing. The distribution is well known but there are differences between what is observed and theory, for example look up the "Cuspy Halo Problem".

SS: DM is a Unicorn, it was invented to explain the galaxy rotation curve ..

Wrong, it was proposed to explain the Virial velocity of galaxies in the Virgo Cluster. It has subsequently been confirmed by measurements of the amount of deuterium in very old stars, the early formation of galaxies, gravitational lensing, direct observation of ultra-diffuse galaxies as well as galaxy rotation curves as you mention. If you're going to whine about known facts, at least be aware of the evidence that proves them.

George,

We are getting off the LIGO track here, but basically there is nothing wrong with rotation curves, the only thing wrong as far as I can see is that some imbecile failed to put a negative sign in front of the velocity calculated from the doppler spectrum. There is a perfectly indisputable reason why stars orbit backwards in galaxies.

I did my own modelling to confirm my suspicion (see attached). I had trouble finding any raw mass distribution data for M31 which was not already infested with unicorns, so I did my own analysis by reading off the luminosity from a monochrome image. (ballpark 16 bit measurement)

The only thing I did here was to change the measured doppler velocity to negative.

And for the orbital velocity calculation I used inverse of Newton, i.e.

v(orbital) = √GM/r - √2GM/r

My logic for doing this is that all orbitals are √2/r function of escape velocity.

IMHO scientists are too quick to plug the holes with made up solutions (Unicorns), instead they should think the problem through and look for sensible solutions before inventing stuff.

As they say in the medical profession;

"If you hear the clopper of hoofs, suspect horses, not zebras"

Steven, how does your post address any of the evidence I pointed out other than rotation curves?

SS: .. some imbecile failed to put a negative sign in front of the velocity calculated from the doppler spectrum

The velocity is towards us on one side of the galaxy and away from us on the other. the rotation velocity is half the difference and since it is the magnitude of a rotating vector (i.e. speed, not velocity) it is always unsigned (positive).

SS: stars orbit backwards in galaxies.

A galaxy is just a collection of stars so the direction the stars move defines the rotation of the galaxy. That comment is worthy of "some imbecile".

SS: I did my own analysis by reading off the luminosity from a monochrome image. ... And for the orbital velocity calculation I used inverse of Newton, i.e. v(orbital) = √GM/r - √2GM/r

That's wrong, it would be just

v(orbital) = √(GM/r)

for a single central mass, but you can't use that anyway, you have to integrate M over the whole disc so the maths is more complex.

Disappointing George, you didn't even try to understand this did you?

In an expanding Universe orbiting bodies have negative velocity vectors with respect to observers and positive velocity vectors with respect to the fixed background stars. Think of an orbiting body as the stylus on a turntable, it has positive velocity with respect to the hub, and negative velocity with respect to the rim, but when/if the grooves are ultra fine it looks almost the same from both sides.

Orbits trace out a helix with respect to time, and the velocity vector is a tangent to this helix and therefore has direction.

Once again our universe expands and therefore the tangent vector with respect to us, the observer is negative (pointing away), because the orbit spirals away from us.

Hopefully others will read this and understand that I am presenting a plausible solution to the galaxy rotation curve anomaly and ignore George Dishman the border police of classical dynamics.

Disappointing Steven, you didn't even try to understand this did you?

SS: In an expanding Universe orbiting bodies have negative velocity vectors with respect to observers

Correct, but when astronomers talk about rotation curve of a single galaxy, they mean the speed of the rim relative to the centre of the same galaxy, not a distant observer.

SS: .. the velocity vector is a tangent to this helix and therefore has direction.

Correct, but the rotation speed is the magnitude of the velocity vector and therefore has no direction, it is a positive scalar.

Here's an explanation:

https://www.varsitytutors.com/hotmath/hotmath_help/topics/magnitude-and-direction-of-vectors

George Dishman , You are right, according to classical thinking and Euclidean geometry speed is a scalar and is normally written in positive form, but expanding space isn't Euclidean and at least I believe this is the root of the DM problem.

Let me propose a simple thought experiment, imagine standing on the launch pad at Cape Canaveral and watching a rocket take off into space, what direction does the rocket have with respect to you?

Hopefully you agree it is accelerating away from you, so its velocity is negative and going more negative as the speed increases, after a few minutes it reaches LEO where it circles for a while before firing its rockets a second time in the same direction to initiate a Hohmann transfer, once again the velocity goes more negative, then it does a second burn again in the same direction to reach GSO or whatever orbit it wants to be in.

The bottom line here is that, at no point did the rocket turn around and head back towards you, so there is no reason why we should flip the vector direction, it started off negative and should remain negative.

The only time you should flip the velocity vector is when you change the origin point from the launch pad to the fixed background stars.

Before you argue the point with me, I agree it is perfectly acceptable to use the fixed background stars right from the launch, in which case the velocity remains positive all the way, but then you must also agree that the spectral doppler shift method is wrong, because it measures velocity with respect to the Earth (our launchpad).

My method above fixes this by flipping the velocity and using the inverse of Kepler/Newton and as you can see from the plot, even my very simple modelling produces a better fit to the rotation curve without the need for DM or Halo's.

I hope you follow me on this, because to me this is a very intuitive and simple solution which possibly solves the DM problem.

I suppose one could get deep into this and show using GR how expanding space curves and bla, bla, bla, but why complicate things if you don't have to?

Science is all about discovering new and better answers, not defending the old ones.

Sunil K Srivastava , Sorry it was not my intention to hijack your LIGO thread, I just got side tracked when George started talking about DM. - Steven

Dear Steven,

SS: Let me propose a simple thought experiment, imagine standing on the launch pad at Cape Canaveral and watching a rocket take off into space, what direction does the rocket have with respect to you?

That's a useful analogy. Initially the rocket moves vertically away from me and I can give that some numerical value, for example I might say it is receding from me at +100 m/s or I might say it is coming towards me at -100 m/s. The sign is only meaningful in conjunction with the definition of what constitutes the positive direction.

Now let me extend your analogy to explain what astronomers mean when they talk about a rotation curve.

Suppose on the side of the rocket, there is a cup anemometer like the one pictured and the main axle on which the cup assembly is mounted sticks out horizontally. As the rocket rises, the anemometer is rising rapidly with the rocket but the cups are also spinning rapidly, so a cup on one side of the axle is moving away faster than the rocket while the cup on the opposite side is still moving away from you but more slowly than the rocket. I have two questions for you:

George Dishman

The tangential speed ought to be the average which is (-110+ (-90))/2 = -100 m/s and the angular frequency something like ω = -100/2π(0.1) = -159.1 rps.

This seems to prove my point, was that your intention?

The detectors receive both the loss of orbital energy and the loss of mass. According to LIGO documents the detectors are not able to detect the events that are most likely to occur. They detect the extraordinary events that seldom occur.

Energy is not detected. A change of distance is detected some fraction of a millimeter in 4000 meters by interference pattern of two orthogonal pathways.

Laser light in a squeezed quantum state is required to decrease uncertainty. There was some doubt in the larger research community until LIGO detected a pair of neutron stars colliding close enough to be observed by a number of other technologies.

About loss of mass by a black hole, this is said to be in agreement with Einstein, who never mentioned it. Einstein mentioned the loss of orbital energy which might be detected. Mass loss at high speed was predicted by my modification of Polarizable Vacuum theory before the LIGO publications, and is in reasonable agreement with the LIGO claims.

In popular theories black holes are not predicted to lose mass or anything else.

For the present question the energy wave is not detectable as energy, only in the miniscule deformation of space in one direction compared to another. Then two or three detectors far apart are needed to be confident of the results.

Thank you for answering that Steven, it really helps.

SS: The tangential speed ought to be the average which is (-100+ (-90))/2 = -100 m/s

You have one value and one sign incorrect you should have written:

Vtang = ((-110) - (-90)) / 2 = -10 m/s

SS: and the angular frequency something like ω = -100/2π(0.1) = -159.1 rps.

That should be -15.9 rad/sec but you have the right approach which is what matters.

However, you are describing the difference in speed based on the direction relative to us, not the direction relative to the axle. See the attached diagram, it shows two orientations of the cups and the resulting direction of motion relative to the axle. The blue arrow indicates the velocity of the rocket relative to us, if you want to call that negative, that's fine.

Now look at the red arrow directions and the speeds written against them. I have chosen to call clockwise rotation positive and anti-clockwise rotation negative. The tangential speed is 10m/s in both because speed is a magnitude so unsigned, but the angular velocity is +15.9 rad/sec in the left panel and -15.9 rad/sec in the right panel.

What astronomers talk about in rotation curves is the tangential speed, it is always positive. If you wanted to talk about angular velocity, they define positive rotation as the direction of rotation of the stars around the centre of the galaxy so that is always positive too.

SS: This seems to prove my point, was that your intention?

My intention was to extend your analogy to have a shared image we could discuss. I hope that is the case and this then clears up the confusion over the terminology.

George Dishman

Thanks I agree with your term: Vtang = ((-110) - (-90)) / 2 = -10 m/s

My 100 term was a typo, but you are right the tangential velocity is -10 m/s, so at least we now agree on magnitude and direction.

I don't understand how astronomers can take a doppler measurement from earth, then justify moving the point of origin by several thousand light years and dropping velocity in favour of speed.

Seems astronomers are not playing by the rules.

I question weather there is such a thing as speed, which implies something moving without going anywhere, might be relevant when something has a rigid connection to an axel, but not in the case of galaxies.

My suggestion is that we undo the illegal move made by astronomers and put back the tangential velocity vector, inverting the rotation curve.

We then have to match that with inverse Kepler, which I figure is normal Kepler/newton orbital less escape velocity. This makes sense as V(e) would be an infinitely large orbit.

V(tan) = √(GM/r) - √(2GM/r)

It also happens to be a good fit for M31, so I want to collect more data and try it on other galaxies where we have good data.

Dear Steven,

SS: .. we now agree on magnitude and direction.

Excellent !

SS: I don't understand how astronomers can take a doppler measurement from earth, then justify moving the point of origin by several thousand light years and dropping velocity in favour of speed.

They do that because the speed is dominated by the mass of the galaxy in which the stars reside, other galaxies far away apply only an effect which is common to all within it, so they contribute to the value of the blue arrow but not the red arrows.

In the equation:

v(orbital) = √(GM/r)

the M term is only the mass of the galaxy. That mass is what is being to be found so they infer its value by measuring red arrows, the blue arrow doesn't tell us anything about the mass of that galaxy.

SS: I question weather there is such a thing as speed, which implies something moving without going anywhere, might be relevant when something has a rigid connection to an axel, but not in the case of galaxies.

There is no rigid connection as you say, it is the local gravity within the galaxy that keeps them moving in circles round the galaxy with speed v(orbital), but that is exactly why knowing that tangential speed tells us about the amount of mass in the galaxy.

The point is that this is what astronomers are talking about, so if you want to comment on their results, you need to appreciate that terminology.

Remember also that the above equation is for a point mass (or a uniform sphere), it is not valid for an extended but thin disc and your extra term is just wrong. You need to integrate over the mass density of the disc to get the correct answer.

George Dishman

I suppose we also agree that the anemometer tangential velocity becomes positive when measured from a point in front of the rocket (say the fixed stars).

And I presume we also agree that Kepler observed and recorded planetary motions against the fixed stars.

And since everyone agrees that √(GM/r) is a good approximation of orbital velocity let's agree that it also describes motion against the fixed stars.

Now herein lies the problem...

Astronomers are using doppler shift to measure galaxy rotation and for some silly reason (I won't use the word imbecile) decided to drop the negative sign.

Shocked at how how badly their model fitted the prediction, they immediately go off and invent Dark Matter to solve the problem, but of course it doesn't solve the problem, it created hundreds more problems, just do a search for dark matter.

I admit it is an audacious claim to suggest astronomers all over the world have missed a negative sign, but it sure looks that way to me.

More validation is obviously needed, so I need to find some good data on rotation curves and luminous mass distribution in tabulated form, so I can make some plots.

Dear Steven,

SS: I suppose we also agree that the anemometer tangential velocity becomes positive when measured from a point in front of the rocket (say the fixed stars).

No. Draw a line perpendicular to each of the three red arrows. They cross on the axle. The circular motion is always tangential only when measured from the axle. From a point ahead of the rocket (or anywhere else not on the axis), the motion is sometimes towards the observer, sometimes away and sometimes perpendicular.

SS: And I presume we also agree that Kepler observed and recorded planetary motions against the fixed stars.

Tycho Brahe recorded the angles of the planets from the Earth. Kepler used Brahe's observations but had to convert them into motion relative to the Sun before he could work out his laws. The Sun plays the role of the axis of the anemometer though of course orbits can be elliptical as well as circular.

SS: And since everyone agrees that √(GM/r) is a good approximation of orbital velocity let's agree that it also describes motion against the fixed stars.

No, it is the positive tangential velocity relative to the Sun. The speed relative to any distant star varies as a sine wave around the orbit.

SS: Astronomers are using doppler shift to measure galaxy rotation and for some silly reason ...

You are still failing to understand that to measure the mass of the galaxy, you need to know the tangential speed shown by the red arrows in my diagram. The astronomers are doing that correctly, you are being "silly" because you are not taking account of the circular nature of that motion.

George Dishman

Do you realise that your red arrows can point in the same direction for both positive and negative velocity?

For most orbits the radius barely changes, as such it is virtually impossible to tell visually weather velocity is positive or negative, only because we m=now know that space expands, can we confidently say it is negative.

Take for example our moon, it moves away from the earth at around an inch per year, and it's velocity is negative.

SS: Do you realise that your red arrows can point in the same direction for both positive and negative velocity?

Of course, you have to define which direction is positive or negative, but astronomers are talking about speed, not velocity so it is always positive.

George Dishman

Science is all about researching things we don't understand, and my gut feeling tells me the anomalous rotation curves are due to a problem with the method and not due to DM, so I don't understand it.

My definition of orbital direction of a free falling body is;

If it's on a trajectory that will hit you in the head, it's velocity is positive,

If it's going nowhere (like a wheel on a shaft) its velocity is neutral and

If it's spiralling outwards into space it's direction is negative.

Rather than debating what you believe and what I believe, allow me a few weeks over Christmas to gather some data on galaxy rotation curves and mass distribution, and let's see if my method produces better or worse results than Kepler's.

Earth gravity is about 3 parts per billion different than flat space. LIGO is looking at many orders of magnitude smaller signal. The detectors should respond to moon gravity tides, except that is tuned out. The devices are biased to discover events matching a set of templates, otherwise the noise would hide the signals.

Like the demodulator of a radio, where signal is routinely extracted from 40 decibels of noise, the detectors are tuned to amplify desired components and discard the others.

If gravity is quantized as many researchers believe it is then the postulates of the question would not represent the observable event. All known sources of gravity are quantized. So there is little cause to believe the gravity is not quantized. Example is given for distant stars from where light quanta are received although the average energy flux is too small to overcome uncertainty.

Quantum is a Statistical Sciences of Probabilities with Black Box Approach. It is Ontic but not Epistemological.

Dear Steven,

SS: My definition of orbital direction of a free falling body is;

If it's on a trajectory that will hit you in the head, it's velocity is positive,

When we say that as star is say 10 light years away, we are talking about a radial distance. A star 11 light years away is more distant. Velocity is the rate of change of distance so an object at an increasing distance would have a positive velocity. However, that doesn't really matter because you take the magnitude of the difference of two velocities so the result is always positive.

SS: If it's going nowhere (like a wheel on a shaft) its velocity is neutral

That's the important point, what is discussed by astronomers as a "rotation curves" is the tangential speed of the stars relative to the centre. If you think of a galaxy "like a wheel on a shaft", it is the speed of the rim relative to the axle, the speed of the red arrows in my diagram. The positive direction is defined as the direction in which the stars are orbiting around the galaxy, nothing to do with "towards us" or "away from us".

SS: Rather than debating what you believe and what I believe, allow me a few weeks over Christmas to gather some data on galaxy rotation curves ..

The problem is nothing to do with what either of us believes, you need to stop thinking of motion towards or away from us and understand that all the data you can look up is the speed of rotation relative to the centre of the galaxy in question.

As long as you are failing to understand what numbers are being published, you can't analyse them.

George Dishman

[GD: As long as you are failing to understand what numbers are being published, you can't analyse them.]

Keep an open mind George, let me gather some more data, trust my gut feeling, I suspect the rotation curves are being plotted in the wrong quadrant.

If I have a choice between believing in DM and adding a dash in front of velocity, I prefer the latter ;)

SS: If I have a choice between believing in DM and adding a dash in front of velocity, I prefer the latter ;)

You don't have that choice.

You are arguing about which direction the blue arrows should be called positive.

I am telling you that the published numbers are for the red arrows and that speed is used to find the mass. The value of the blue arrows plays no part in calculating the galaxy mass so you are wasting your time changing its sign.

Try thinking about what I'm saying for a moment, you'll save yourself a lot of pointless work.

George Dishman

[GD: You don't have that choice.]

You are still hooked on the idea that the arrow has to point backwards for the velocity to be negative. This is not the case..., velocity is negative the moment a trajectory results in an increasing radius.

Remember our observer is at the centre.

No need to flip your arrow, just a tiny nudge is all it takes to change the vector.

My audacious claim is that stars spiralling in galaxies are "slightly" moving away from us, and should therefore have their velocity designated (-v)

This applies not only to galaxy rotation curves but also to planets in our solar system, the reason is obvious but that's for another thread.

SS: You are still hooked on the idea that the arrow has to point backwards for the velocity to be negative ....

Your diagram is wrong, see the attached corrected version. The green arrow shows the direction of rotation.

LIGO did not detect gravitational waves or black holes. The secret method of LIGO in 2015 contained the number 250,000 (reported in [1]). No doubt that number has increased since then because its only limits are computer memory and the stamina of computer programmers.

General Relativity cannot localise its gravitational energy [1, 2] so Einstein's gravitational waves do not exist. The speed of propagation of Einstein's alleged waves is in fact entirely coordinate dependent - they do not propagate at the speed of light in vacuum at all [1,2].

General Relativity stands in violation of the usual conservation of energy and momentum of a closed system and is thereby in conflict with a vast array of experiments [1,2]. Einstein's attempts to make GR satisfy the usual conservation laws with his pseudotensor are false because his pseudotensor produces, by contraction, a first-order intrinsic differential invariant [1,2]. The pure mathematicians however, proved in 1900 that first-order intrinsic differential invariants do not exist [1,2].

The mathematical theory of black hole violates the rules of pure mathematics in that it requires the absolute value of a real number to take on negative values [2,3]. Without this violation there are no black holes. Hence, black holes do not exist.

The theory of black holes violates the laws of thermodynamics by making temperature non-intensive and entropy non-extensive [4]. However, temperature is always intensive and uniform mass is always extensive (thereby making Bekenstein-Hawking black hole entropy non-extensive). Hence, black holes, again, do not exist.

REFERENCES

[1] Crothers, S.J., Gravitational Waves: Propagation Speed is Co-ordinate Dependent, Poster Presentation, 2018 April APS Meeting, Columbus, Ohio, presented on 14th April 2018. http://vixra.org/pdf/1804.0399v1.pdf

http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/APR18/Session/F01.62

[2] Crothers, S.J., A Critical Analysis of LIGO's Recent Detection of Gravitational Waves Caused by Merging Black Holes, Hadronic Journal, Vol. 39, 2016, http://vixra.org/pdf/1603.0127v5.pdf

[3] Crothers, S.J., On Corda’s ‘Clarification’ of Schwarzschild’s Solution, Hadronic Journal, Vol. 39, 2016, http://vixra.org/pdf/1602.0221v4.pdf

[4] Robitaille P.-M., Hawking Radiation: A Violation of the Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics, http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/NES18/Session/D01.3

http://vixra.org/pdf/1803.0264v1.pdf

SC: LIGO did not detect gravitational waves ...

LIGO told the optical astronomers where to look for GW170817 and the range to the source. It was found 12 hours later, exactly where they said. You are proven wrong by observation.

George Dishman

Now I see what you are doing wrong, you are transposing the point of reference to infinity (fixed background stars), despite me defining the point of reference as the centre, and placing the observer in the centre.

Essentially there is nothing wrong with your method of defining "all" rotation with respect to infinity, but then there is something wrong with using spectral doppler shift to measure velocity, because it measures from the inside out, so unless you flip the sign your measurement is inverted.

We already proved this argument with the anemometer, so I don't understand why we are still debating this point.

SS: Now I see what you are doing wrong, you are transposing the point of reference to infinity (fixed background stars), despite me defining the point of reference as the centre, and placing the observer in the centre

It's the other way round Steven, I defined all the speeds from the centre of the distant galaxy, seem to want to relate them to a change of radius. I don't know what you are imagining at all, your words bear no relation to my drawing.

SS: We already proved this argument with the anemometer, so I don't understand why we are still debating this point.

Yes, and my latest sketch simply repeats what we agreed, the direction shown by the red arrows around the anemometer is the positive direction. We're debating it again because you have discarded what we agreed.

I think you seem to have some strange idea that the velocity depends on whether the radius is increasing or decreasing but for circular orbits, it is constant. The speed is measured along the tangent to the orbit.

George Dishman

The string test is a definitive proof.

Let the observer hold a spool of string and tie the other end to a point on the radius, if the string becomes longer over time, i.e. unrolls from the spool, the velocity is negative, and likewise if you have to wind in the string to keep it tight, it's velocity is positive.

Anyone want to argue that?

SS: Anyone want to argue that?

What you said is the wrong way round, if the radial distance is R, then dR/dt is positive if the string becomes longer over time.

However, that is totally irrelevant.

Stars orbit round a galaxy at constant radius. The tangential speed tells you the mass. The figures in the databases are measured at right angles to the radius as you showed in your own diagram, what astronomers publish is the value of the arrow you called "speed" and it is graphed against the radius r.

George Dishman

If we maintain that nothing is wrong with the current laws of physics, we also have to live with the fairytales, but the heck, it's almost Christmas and Santa will once again defy gravity, conservation of energy and the speed of light by visiting every child in the world in one day.

If I have some spare time over Christmas I may write a paper and show how backwards orbits are the norm and not the exception.

Steven, "backwards" compared to what?

The direction we call "forwards" is the whatever direction the majority of the stars are moving. If one star in a galaxy is moving in the opposite direction, that could be called "backwards", but it would then be "the exception", not "the norm". The word "norm" relates to the behaviour of the majority.

Before writing any papers, you need to be definitive about what your language means, because at the moment you are giving words a meaning that is the opposite of everyone else. That has nothing to do with any physics.

George Dishman

[GD: The direction we call "forwards" is the whatever direction the majority of the stars are moving.]

Herein might lie the problem, it has to do with the arrow of time, a well known problem in physics. I think everyone intuitively knows that time is a vector and not a scalar, yet there is no widely accepted theory.

In my Ground Potential theory I propose that the arrow of time points in the direction of lower potential, which when you think about it carefully makes sense.

An apple falling from a branch, never fails to arrive in it's own future..., does it?

SS: Herein might lie the problem, it has to do with the arrow of time

No, the question is nothing to do with the arrow of time, simply the direction of motion through space of one star compared to the others in the same galaxy.

SS: I think everyone intuitively knows that time is a vector and not a scalar

No, 'everyone' knows time is a scalar, but we are only talking about the spatial motion and only about the scalar direction of rotation.

Viewed face on, the stars either rotate clockwise or anticlockwise and that is not a vector. The direction of motion of the majority of the stars would intuitively be called "forwards" and opposite direction "backwards".

George Dishman

I thought about this some more and the problem seems quite clear to me now.

The cartesian system of coordinates references a flat plane stretching to infinity and velocity is ALWAYS positive with respect to infinity, so from that point of view your classical thinking is correct.

This being the case, velocity is ALWAYS negative with respect to the observer (observer being the opposite of infinity.

Therefore a measurement obtained by the doppler method is by definition negative.

Dear Steven,

SS: ... cartesian system of coordinates ...

You are wrong again but we are not using Cartesian coordinates, we are using polar, so it doesn't matter.

Do you know the difference between "clockwise" and "anti-clockwise"?

George