*(Fig.1) Gravitational wave changes the arm by only 1/1000 of a proton ?*

There is a rumor that elusive gravitational wave may have been found in twitter. Unfortunately, the gravitational wave **doesn't** exist. See this.

Physicists should **Not** repeat the same kind of **fraud** as BICEP2.

They must *honestly* admit and reveal Einstein fatal flaws !

First, the gravitational wave is too **weak** to confirm, so very doubtful.

Gravitational wave changes the arm length of LIGO by only a **thousandth** of a proton (= 10^{-18} meter change ) ! ← Too small.

So there are **many** other factors that cause this extremely small change.

This decision to admit *fanciful* gravitational wave is very "**political**", not science !

*(Fig.2) The experimental proof using pulsar (?) is very doubtful.*

It is said that this doubtful gravitation wave was indirectly confimed by observing the pulsar's light signal.

But in fact, this experimental result **lacks** credibility.

This binary pulsar is belived to be two neutron stars.

But the pulsar is too **far** (= 21000 light years ! ) away from the earth to see.

We can observe **only** light pulse change emitted from some *unknown* objects.

They argue the orbital period of this pulsar is 7.7 hours, and its period decreases slightly by **0.000076** seconds per a *year* by emitting gravitational wave.

This too faint change shows the experimental proof of gravitational wave **cannot** be trusted at all.

The light pulse emitted from objects which is 21000 light-year away from the earth is likely to be **affected** by various *dusts* on its long way.

*(Fig.3) Gravitational pseudo-tensor contradicts Einstein relativity. *

Though the media likes to say gravitational wave is one of *predictions* (← ? ) of Einstein relativity, it's a big **lie**.

Gravitational wave is called "pseudo-tensor", which is **not** a true tensor of Einstein relativity. This pseudotensor
vanishes in some coordinate we **choose**.

This means the gravitational wave pseudotensor is NOT a real object.

Why did they have to introduce this absurd gravitational wave ?

In fact, Einstein general relativity **cannot** conserve *energy* ( this p.2 ) !

So they artificially **added** unrelated *pseudo*-tensor (= t ) to the original true tensor T.

Of course, this pseudo-tensor is **not** a true tensor, so many physicists including Einstein **rejected** this gravitational wave.

So the gravitational wave is **NOT** the Einstein's greatest prediction at all !

*(Fig.4) ↓ Reason why gravitational wave is illusion. *

If gravitational wave is "real wave" agreeing with Einstein relativity, it must keep its form independent of any coordinate ( ex. by observer's motion ).

But it **cannot**. In fact, this gravitational wave **vanishes** in some chosen coordinate ( this p.2 ).

This means there is **NO** concept such as "energy conservation" in gravitational wave, so unreal.

*(Fig.5) Pseudotensor has many candidates, cannot predict anything. *

There is **No** restriction in gravitational wave pseudotensor except ( fake ) energy conservation law.

So many different pseudotensors were invented by many physicists ( this p.2 ). You just **choose** a convenient pseudotensor as gravitational wave out of *many* choices.

Of course, different pseudo-tensors give **different** energy values ( this p.3, this p.17 ).

It means gravitational wave pseudotensor has **NO** ability to predict energy values, so useless. And the pulsar's experiment is meaningless.

*(Fig.6) We can freely change the energies of gravitational waves ! *

In general relativity, "gravity" affects the spacetime structure.

So depending on the gravitational coordinate (= cartesian, spherical .. ) we choose, the results **change**.

The most accepted one is Schwarzschild spherical coordinate, as seen in black hole.
But this coordinate is **incompatible** with gravitational waves.

In most coordinates, different gravitational pseudotensors give **different** energy values. Only under **special** coordinate, some of them agree with each other.

See this and this p.12.

This special one is called Kerr-Schild "Cartesian" coordinate ( this p.10 ).

Of course, if gravitational wave is real, its energy must be the same, independent of any chosen coordinate.

Choosing conveninent pseudotensor and coordinate is one of **nonsense** tricks in gravitational waves.

*(Fig.7) They imagine pulsar motion only from the vague light pulse. *

It is said the binary pulsar's motion indirectly proved gravitational wave.

But these pulsars are so **far** away from the earth that we **cannot** see their motions !

They just **imagine** the motions of a pair of pulsars **only** from the *light* pulse.

They argue the light frequency or timing change give the pulsar's orbital period.

In fact, one of these pulsars cannot been seen (= not emit any light pulse ).

So we **don't** know this light frequency change really means **two** pulsars' orbital motions.

The problem is they **cannot** determine the **masses** of two pulsars only from usual Keplerian parameters.

They must estimate their masses using two vague parameters such as orbital precession and relativistic redshift ( this p.10 ).

Estimating all motional parameters ( this p.2 ) is very hard and speculative. It's **no** wonder the light pulse ( this p.3 ) may change on its **long** way by other *unrelated* dusts or something.

*(Fig.8) Orbital period's change is too weak to confirm gravitational wave.*

They argue the orbital period of these pulsars is about *7.7 hours*.

And it decreases by **0.000075** second per **year** by emitting gravitational wave.

This very slight change (= 75 μs / year ) in orbital period is too **small** to believe !

So it's very hard to say this observation proves the gravitational wave.

It's **no** wonder the light pulse changes by **other** factors on its long journey.

*(Fig.9) Pulsar precession is more than 1000 times bigger than wave.*

The point is the orbit of these pulsar is **NOT** closed.

These orbits are precessing at **4** degrees per year, they argue.

Of course, we **cannot** see this pulsar's precession directly !

They just estimate it only from the slight change of the light pulse.

The problem is this precession's effect is more than **1000** times **bigger** than the weak gravitational wave.

To know the precise gravitational wave's effect, we have to define "one round of the closed orbit". But this large precession makes it impossible.

This precession may affects the light frequency (= Doppler ) per revolution. The pulsar is so distant that we **cannot** see their precise motions.

So very slight change in orbital period by gravitational wave is **hidden** in this large precession, and it's very hard to extract it.

So testing general relativity using this too faint gravitational wave is **impossible**.

*(Fig.10) ↓ This graph really proved gravitational wave ?*

You may often see this graph as general relativity prediction of elusive gravitational wave. But in fact, this graph is very **unreliable**.

According to this graph, the "cumulative" period shift is as much as *40 second*, which is much **bigger** than gravitational wave effect (= **75 micro**second / year ).

The reliability of this graph depends on how we know the precise orbital period **without** gravitational wave.

But it's **impossible** to distinguish very weak gravitational wave from the large precession, which prevents us from defining "one round of orbit".

Unless we define the precise circumference of the orbit (← not closed ! ), gravitational wave's effect is hidden in other effect.

*(Fig.11) *

Of course, total energy must be conserved.

The classical energy momentum tensors satisfy energy conservation.

E^{x} means the energy flux in x direction.

The difference in this energy flux is equal to energy change inside the space.

*(Fig.12) Energy-momentum tensor satisfy energy conservation. *

The sum of energy flux in all directions is equal to the total energy change per time. This is called "energy-momentum ( stress-energy ) tensor".

*(Fig.13) *

The problem is that Einstein general relativity **cannot** conserve energy in his tensors.

*(Fig.14) ↓ Artificial pseudotensor is needed to conserve energy. *

So physicists **add** some artificial pseudotensor (= t ) to the original Einstein tensor (= T ) to meet energy conservation law by force.

This pseudotensor (= gravitational wave ) is **NOT** a true tensor.

Because Einstein **true** tensor does **NOT** conserve energy !

*(Fig.15) There are many different pseudotensors. *

The **only** link between pseudotensor and general relativity is Fig.14.

So there are **infinite** kinds of pseudotensors to meet this only condition.

Furthermore, Einstein general relativity allows different kinds of coordinates.

In each pseudotensor and coodinate, different gravitational wave gives **different** energy. So useless.

*(Fig.16) ↓ Artificial coordinate can be chosen.*

In most coordinates, different gravitational pseudotensors give different energy values. Only under **special** corrdinate, some of them agree with each other.

See this and this p.12.

This special one is called Kerr-Schild "Cartesian" coordinate ( this p.10 ).

*(Fig.17) *

Here we show how we can get this graph predicting gravitational wave effect. After the time "t" passed, the periastron has gone around N times.

So the total orbital angle is 2πN ( N is an integer ).

Fig.17 is Taylor expression to the second-order.

The point is "*f*" is orbital *frequency* (= 1/orbital period ) **without** gravitational wave. See this and this p.12.

This graph depends on how we decide this frequency value f which **doesn't** include gravitational wave effect.

But it's **impossible** to remove only faint gravitational wave effect hidden in large precession !

*(Fig.18) *

From Fig.17, we get Fig.18.

And using orbital period P (= 1/f ), we obtain

*(Fig.19) *

Using measured (= fitted ) parameters of this p.2 in pulsar 1913+16,

*(Fig.20) Pulsar B1913+16 parameters.*

We can get the value (= 39 s / 30 years ) of the graph.

This result agrees with this.

*(Fig.21) *

The reliability of this prediction of general relativity completely depends on how we determine orbital frequency f ( or period ) **excluding** gravitational wave.

This gravitational wave effect is **too weak** to believe.

And it is hidden in other large effects such as precession.

See also this.

2016/1/15 updated. Feel free to link to this site.