Big Science and the Impossibility of Gravitational Waves | Space News

Welcome to Space News from
the Electric Universe, brought to you by The
Thunderbolts Project™ at In part one of this presentation, physicist
Wal Thornhill began his analysis of the recent award of the
Nobel Prize in Physics to scientists for their
contributions to the so-called “detection of
gravitational waves.” While science media has shown
exactly zero skepticism of the gravitational
waves pronouncements, Thornhill discussed some of the
foundational mathematical problems that preclude the
claimed detection of “two black holes colliding and producing
ripples in the fabric of space-time.” Today, Thornhill explores another
fundamental cosmological question, and that is the existence
of the required medium for the communication of electromagnetic
waves in the “vacuum of space”. A medium, called the ether. Wal Thornhill: Physics used to
be called Natural Philosophy in more scientifically
productive centuries. So-called “modern science” is
largerly bootstrapped techology built on scientific principles
that were around before Einstein. Einstein himself warned that pure mathematics
can not claim to be natural or philosophical and at the end of his life expressed
grave doubts that his work would endure. Meanwhile his devotees raised him
to sainthood, ingnored his caution and became mesmerized by the
computer screens and chalkboards covered with inscrutable
math symbols. Einstein was a dreamer who largerly
originated this century old mathematical mess by imagining
perception is reality. That’s like saying of someone
who is moving away from you that their space is shrinking and
their watch is ticking more slowly. But relativity theory allows the
departing person to say the same of you. Einstein, with his theory of
relativity, removed absolute standards by making length
and time rubbery and a matter of arbitrary choice
of moving frames of reference, which cannot be equivalent if we
are to define energy and mass. Another fundamental
error of Einstein’s has prevented a more mundane explanation
for the chirp signals from LIGO. Einstein discarded the medium for the
transmission of waves in a vacuum — called the aether — which is essential for Maxwell’s
theory of electromagnetism and to explain the dielectric
properties of the vacuum. It’s impossible to wave nothing! Light must have an electrically
polarizable medium, an aether. Having a universal medium discards
Einstein’s principle of the equivalence of inertial frames of reference and
the constancy of the speed of light. Why is this important? Because the huge LIGO vacuum
chambers are full of aether and the design assumes the speed of
light to be a universal constant! Let’s look at LIGO. Weiss devised the approach to
gravitational-wave detection in 1967, during lesson planning for a relativity
course he was teaching at MIT. And I quote, “You’d… make a right triangle of
objects, floating freely in a vacuum,” Weiss told his students,
according to a 2000 interview. “And we’d send light beams between
them and then be able to figure out, ‘What does the gravitational wave do to the time
it takes light to go between those things?” Gravitational waves due to merging
black holes definitely don’t exist. Natural philosophy (physics) suggests simply that a disturbance
traveling through the aether inside the 4 kilometer LIGO arms may be one way to produce a ‘chirp’
signal in the LIGO system. This raises serious questions
for the future of science and the usefulness of prize
giving as a motivator. Weiss and Thorne are two of three
physicists known as the troika, the founders of LIGO’s giant twin detectors in
Livingston, Louisiana and in Hanford, Washington. The third troika member, Ronald
Drever, died on 7th March this year. Before Drever’s
passing in March, the troika won the $3-million Special
Breakthrough Prize in Fundamental Physics; the $500,000 Gruber
Foundation Cosmology Prize; the 1.2-million Shaw
Prize in Astronomy; and the $1-million Kavli
Prize in Astrophysics. These and other Nobel
Prize winners of the past have seriously warped
our sense of reality. The public will have spent $1.1 billion
providing super-expensive gadgets to detect the grin of the
Cosmic Cheshire Cat, to mathematical gamers
posing as physicists. Like the scientists
wasting billions of euros on the Large Hadron Collider to
find the imaginary Higgs Boson, they had to find something
to save their credibility. Government funded, institutionalized BIG
SCIENCE is not working in the 21st century! The rewards, the lack of critical
scrutiny (trust us, we’re the experts), and suppression of dissenting voices
have to be seriously investigated because we are about to waste
a great deal more money. It is reported that the
European Space Agency is planning a multibillion-dollar probe
to be launched in about 17 years that would look for
gravitational waves from space. Weiss hopes astronomers will learn
more about nuclear physics, states of matter, how
heavy elements are made and detect information
from, and I quote, “…the very moment when the
universe came out of nothingness… We expect surprises,” he said. “There has to be surprises.” The real surprise, is how anyone can
claim to be a physicist and say, “…the universe came
out of nothingness.” That isn’t physics! One of the dissenting
voices, Dr. Harold Aspden, an outstanding British theoretical physicist,
electrical engineer and inventor wrote, “Until the scientific world
recovers its good sense and takes another look at
the mysteries of our cosmos with the aether in mind
and Einstein ignored, we really have no hope of
inspiring future science students and gaining a better
understanding of the phenomena which dominate, indeed
constitute, our very existence.” The galling thing is that
the Electric Universe already has a real model
of how gravity works and it answers simply most
of the real questions. We are now testing some of
these models experimentally. Perversely, it is found that
government funding hinders innovation because research is concentrated
on the current preoccupations of those who direct
research grants. We rely not on the government but on
benefactors and public donations. It’s the Renaissance
model of doing science. Research has found that science
seems to follow the innovation, not the other way around. The practical tinkerers
find something, then science is employed to work
out why what they’ve found works. The innovative Thunderbolts Project is
an outstanding example of this approach with the distinguishing feature of having a
coherent cosmology to direct the tinkerers. What hope is there
for the future? History shows that paradigm
shifts come from individuals, often from outside the
affected discipline. Today those in organizations that have
access to science journals and the media and who have the most to
lose from a paradigm shift suppress such claims or attempt to
assimilate the ideas surreptitiously. Nobel prizes have notoriously
been awarded to those ‘insiders’ who develop an ‘outsiders’ idea. How can we find these innovators
outside the academic system? Chris Reeve suggests in his
online Controversies of Science, which I highly recommend, “This is a world where we are
dependent upon the experts for any announcement
of our new paradigm. Yet the experts are
the very people who stand to lose the most
by such an announcement.” He then asked the question, “What would a paradigm change
actually look like?… ” and Chris answers, “The correct answer is that, assuming
you’re not an actual academic, there’s no real guarantee that you’d actually
see our new paradigm emerging at all… if there was some exciting new
scientific era just around the corner, we’d never know it.” This, of course, applies to the
Electric Universe paradigm. Chris then offers a
solution through, “a science futures market where people can
wager bets on well-crafted, specific, time-limited scientific
predictions. Science futures markets have the
potential to expose scientific dogma that’s become embedded
within science journalism. They can help us to identify
impending paradigm changes, as they reward those who are
paying attention sufficiently to understand that the data is deviating
from the carefully-managed message we get from mainstream science.” I wish such a market had
been around decades ago, given the success of the many unique specific
predictions of the Electric Universe when measured against the continual
surprises for big bang cosmology! Instead of cramming
heads with ‘facts’ we need documentation of science
controversies, past and present, to be accessible to the
public and teachers so that students can be
trained in critical thinking. So-called “evidence based science” can
then be seen to be special pleading. One scientist’s fact can
be another’s fiction. That’s the basis of debunking. Learning this together
with the ideas, context and personalities involved
in earlier science debates allows one to see whatpersuaded
crucial verdicts in the past and to realize how often those decisions
had little to do with the science and more to do with beliefs,
politics and influence. Understanding those debates
is also perhaps the best way to inspire anyone to participate in
science criticism and discovery. There’s so much data and so little
understanding of that data. We must stop funding and rewarding the
religious belief expressed by Galileo that mathematics is
the language of God, that the mathematical mind can
deduce the true laws of nature, that the mathematical mind alone would
lead to true knowledge of reality. Until we do, science remains
a religious belief system. For continuous updates on Space
News from the Electric Universe stay tuned to