Black Hole Spectroscopy and tests of General Relativity with GW 250114

 LIGO: To detect or not to detect. That is the question.“On January 14, 2025, the LIGO detectors [1] recorded the loudest gravitational-wave (GW) signal to date, GW250114_082203 (hereafter GW250114) [2]. The Virgo [3] and KAGRA [4] interferometers were offline at the time.”

Introduction

This above quote from the beginning of a recent paper  Black Hole Spectroscopy and tests of General Relativity with GW 250114 on gravitational waves says it all. Notice only two detectors were recording. Proof positive that Gravitational waves are a fantasy as not a single 3 detector confirmed GW wave detection has ever been made. Despite all the investment in detectors and fanfare about how a 3 or 4 detector network was going to deliver unprecedented new insights into GW theory. Why? Because all the detectors are detecting are random locally generated chirps and the coincidence of two random chirps at two detectors within the necessary millisecond time frame the GW needs is the statistical limit for coincidences due to random accidentals. It is virtually impossible statistically to have 3 qualified random “chirps” occur at detectors within the millisecond time frame window required to confirm a GW, as described in detail here.

Theory

Essentially all detectors are detecting random chirps generated locally. No imaginary gravitational waves are ever detected. It is when two coincidental random locally generated chirps of significant intensity are matched in the short time millisecond time frame prescribed by theorists at two detectors that theorists have tricked themselves into thinking their billion dollar Hanford-Livingstone efforts have detected two imaginary black holes colliding. These 2 chirps are random and probably caused by local traffic etc. A mathematical analysis made here proves this. Yet theorists ignore data and facts and continue to trick themselves that they are verifying General relativity.

The big question they can’t answer is if these are gravitational waves, and a third and forth detector were added to the network in last few years then where are the confirmed 3 or 4 detector GW “detections”? 

There are none. There has never been a 3 detector event with 3 chirps of relatively equal strengths. The closest to a “3 detector event” is when 2 detectors get the random requisite strength coincidence chirps in the necessary time frame and the third only shows a slight almost imperceptible and much smaller almost imaginary blip that is so close to the background noise level as to be a ridiculous excuse for a 3 detector event. Or, the other excuses used are that either only two detectors were online at the time (as is the case here for 250114), or that the third detector was pointing in the wrong direction and couldn’t record any GW!

In other words gravitational waves are a fantasy. 

Rapidly Varying Ionization Features in a Quasi-periodic Eruption: A Homologous Expansion Model for the Spectroscopic Evolution

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/adb972

Once again anything that the Black hole clerics don’t understand, they call a black hole. Or dark energy if they are really desperate. Odd that they’re still at it considering all of the only 3 “images” of supposed ‘black holes’ to date have no accretion discs. Their flimsy excuse is that by some 1/30,000 coincidence all three Black holes images to date are exactly face on to us here on earth. A ‘fact’ even NASA admits is extremely odd and statistically very unlikely. They just can’t admit these images aren’t black holes.

Although one can only speculate on the real nature of the data from another galaxy referred to in this paper cited above, I prefer the variable speed solar Dynamo model to explain the data rather than using the extremely rapid spinning object model as the above cited paper suggests. The variable speed model of the solar Dynamo cycle is a 22 year cycle consisting of two 11 year phases. For 11 years the inner core of the sun rotates faster than its photosphere, and for the next 11 years slower. Etc. 

And this solar Dynamo model can be used to also model other repeating phenomena like quasars and pulsars. In that these repeating bursts in X-ray or other frequencies are signs of a very short time scale slowing down and speeding up of the stars inner core relative to its outer plasma shell.

So why have a model of a massive star spinning multiple times per second when it’s more realistic to suggest that the objects in question are spinning much slower in hours or days. And instead, as the variable speed solar Dynamo style model proposes, have the inner core and outer photosphere both spinning in the same direction but slowing down and speeding up relative to each other over seconds. Less drastic and unrealistic assumptions are made in the solar Dynamo style model. 

But as mentioned above this dynamo cycle is much faster than the suns 22 year cycle and lasts only just days. And thus being much more energetic. Hence the profuse x ray emissions. 

We should be glad our suns cycle is a long 22 year cycle.

Distorted galaxies in deep field images

 Hubble has already shown us images of distorted galaxy formation in deep field images. These incidentally were not initially predicted by the BBT. However theorists now pretend this apparent isotropic evolution in galaxy shapes from the “early universe” to now is all part of the success of the predictive powers of the BBT. Presumably JWST will reveal more of these distorted galaxy shapes in the distant universe.

But can these distortions be explained in a non expanding universe? I believe it can. Using two simple methods. Firstly one must take into account optical distortion. The more distance light travels through the gas and dust filled plasma of the vacuum, the more distorted the images will be. Just as light travelling through an imperfect glass or atmospheric medium distorts light images. And this distortion of course will be isotropic. The second method relies on the simple rule of light speed in a non relativistic model of EMR. Outlined in other pages of this blog on pages like my DeSitter page in this blog. As I have said elsewhere the MMX and Sagnac experiments show us light always travels at c relative to the source. This means that if the source moves relative to the observer or vice versa the speed of light of *all the light that has ever left* the source is always still at c relative to the source. A simple example can be explained as follows: Light propagates away from a source at c. The observer moves in a circle relative to the source. Notice as the observer moves away from the source the measured light speed is slower. And when they travel towards the source the light speed increases. 

Now apply this observation to the early universe. We see a galaxy rotate from our point of view. But from a star at the edge of the galaxies POV, they see earth rotate in the sky. Lightpaths from that star are always travelling at c in a straight line towards the earth relative to the star. Whereas the earth is moving back and forth across these light paths. From the earths POV the light appears to be dragged back and forth across the sky. And the light also appears to slow down and speed up as it arrives here on earth.Even though in fact in the stars frame it is always propagating in straight lines at a constant speed c.

So in the earths frame if one then tracked the path of light from various stars around the edge of the galaxy but always kept the light travelling at c in straight lines relative to each star, then over great cosmological time frames the image of the galaxy would *appear* to warp and bend from the earths point of view. Even though in fact the galaxy itself has not warped and bent.

Black Holes in M87 and Sag A

 Recent news from Event Horizon Telescope consortium is a new discovery of a black hole at sag A in our Milky Way. With an image surprisingly similar to the BH in M87

Notice M87 didn’t have a mandatory accretion disc. The rather disingenuous excuse from NASA is that by some remarkeable coincidence the BH is face on to us. The only angle that an accretion disc wouldn’t show up in observations. I said back then this is a failed image of an imaginary BH with a lousy excuse to legitimise the image not having a mandatory accretion disc. 

Guess what? The BH in sag A also doesn’t have an accretion disc either. And guess what NASA’s excuse is this time? 

“If confirmed this means that from our vantage point we are looking down on Sgr A* and its ring more than we are from side-on, surprisingly similar to EHT's first target M87*.”(NASA)

Another amazing coincidence to back up a failed prediction about Black Holes by theorists? Or just an imaginary BH from a unsubstantiatable theory.