Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #376674 > unrolled thread

Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-20 12:22 -0800
    Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 12:31 -0800
      Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 21:37 +0100
        Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 13:50 -0800
    Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Stzepan Zdrobněliny <stzepan282@guadalajara.org> - 2016-02-20 20:33 +0000
    Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-02-20 19:12 -0600
      Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-20 17:45 -0800
      Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 21:21 -0800
        Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 22:26 -0800
        Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-24 19:13 +1100
          Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 20:19 -0800
            Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-26 21:50 +1100
              Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-02-26 14:08 +0100
                Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators PC <pc468@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-26 13:15 +0000
                  Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-27 11:27 +1100
                    Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators PC <pc468@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-27 01:11 +0000
                      Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-27 12:24 +1100
                Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-27 11:25 +1100
                  Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-02-28 09:47 +0100
              Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-26 06:46 -0800
                Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 17:49 -0800
                  Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 18:21 -0800
                  Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-02-28 12:11 -0800
                    Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-02-28 23:45 -0800
            Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 08:15 -0600
      Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-20 23:13 -0800
        Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-21 01:44 -0800
          Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 10:38 -0800
            Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 10:51 -0800
              Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-21 19:12 -0800
            Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-21 19:04 -0800
              Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 23:53 -0800
                Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 23:54 -0800
                  Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-25 21:12 -0800
                    Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-25 21:24 -0800
                      Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 21:49 -0800
                  Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-25 21:13 -0800
            Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-21 19:09 -0800
              Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-21 19:13 -0800
          Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-21 22:40 -0800
      Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-02-21 18:20 +0100
        Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-02-21 13:25 -0600
          Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-02-21 21:59 +0100
            Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-02-22 10:03 +0100
            Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 09:50 -0600
              Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-02-22 19:41 +0100
                Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Stzepan Zdrobněliny <stzepan282@guadalajara.org> - 2016-02-22 18:45 +0000
                  Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-22 11:09 -0800
                Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-22 10:56 -0800
                Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-02-22 21:12 +0100
                  Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-02-22 21:39 +0000
                    Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-02-22 22:26 -0600
                Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Steven Carlip <carlip@physics.ucdavis.edu> - 2016-02-22 19:45 -0800
                  Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-02-23 05:54 +0100
                    Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Steven Carlip <carlip@physics.ucdavis.edu> - 2016-02-22 22:11 -0800
                      Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-02-24 05:20 +0100
                        Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-23 21:07 -0800
                          Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-23 21:13 -0800
                            Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-23 21:58 -0800
                        Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 21:24 -0800
                        Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-24 08:30 -0600
                          Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-02-24 09:54 -0600
                            Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators PC <pc468@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-24 16:59 +0000
                              Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-02-24 19:30 +0100
                                Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators PC <pc468@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-24 22:11 +0000
                                  Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-24 18:31 -0800
                                    Re: Another Moon Landing PC <pc468@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-25 17:27 +0000
                                      Re: Another Moon Landing Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-25 10:49 -0800
                                        Re: Another Moon Landing PC <pc468@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-25 19:27 +0000
                          Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-02-26 06:05 +0100
                            Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-25 21:22 -0800
                              Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-02-27 01:02 +0100
                                Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-02-28 09:19 +0100
                                  Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-02-28 15:04 +0100
                                    Subduction (was Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-02-28 09:42 -0600
                                      Re: Subduction (was Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators) Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-02-28 17:06 +0000
                                        Re: Subduction (was Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-02-28 18:43 +0100
                                          Re: Subduction (was Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators) Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-02-28 19:40 +0000
                                            Re: Subduction (was Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-02-29 04:06 +0100
                                          Re: Subduction (was Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-02-29 13:56 -0600
                                            Re: Subduction (was Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-03-01 06:45 +0100
                                              Re: Subduction (was Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-03-02 03:04 +0100
                                                Re: Subduction (was Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators) "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 20:49 -0800
                                                  Re: Subduction (was Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-03-02 07:36 +0100
                                                    Re: Subduction (was Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators) "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 22:44 -0800
                                                    Re: Subduction (was Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-03-06 08:58 +0100
                                                Re: Subduction (was Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-02 08:30 -0600
                                        Re: Subduction (was Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators) "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-02-28 21:39 +0100
                            Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 08:22 -0600
                    Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-02-23 17:27 +0000
                      Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 21:58 -0800
                Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-24 20:17 -0600
      Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Jackpol11@hotmail.com - 2016-03-03 16:12 -0500
        Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 19:56 -0800
          Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-03 22:32 -0600
            Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 21:10 -0800
              Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 22:11 -0800
                Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 23:36 -0800
            Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-03-05 06:20 +0100
              Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 09:19 -0600
                Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-03-07 21:38 +0100
        Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-03-04 08:05 +0100
          Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 07:55 -0600
            Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 18:47 -0800
              Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 09:15 -0600
                Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 18:04 -0800
                  Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 07:41 -0600
                    Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 09:01 -0800
                      Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 18:36 -0600
                        Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 19:28 -0800
                          Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 07:19 -0600
                            Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 08:43 -0800
                              Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 08:47 -0800
                        Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-03-09 13:32 -0800
                          Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-03-09 14:37 -0800
                            Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-03-09 18:16 -0800
                              Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-03-11 07:37 -0800
                                Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-03-11 07:52 -0800
            Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-06 18:37 +0000
      Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators alsor@interia.pl - 2016-03-05 12:33 -0800
        Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 16:42 -0800
          Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Helene Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-06 00:54 +0000
            Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 22:36 -0800
              Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Helene Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-06 12:39 +0000
                Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Helene Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-06 14:40 +0000
          Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 09:23 -0600

Page 1 of 7  [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7  Next page →

#376674 — Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators

http://www.newkerala.com/news/2016/fullnews-23659.html 
 "On September 14, 2015, the LIGO (Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory) observed a "chirp" lasting about a fifth of a second (GW150914). Analyses of the signal suggest that it was produced by the cataclysmic collision of two black holes a billion light years away. This was probably the verification of the most dramatic prediction of Albert Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. Accordingly, we ought to have a critical look at the relevant experiment before we finally incorporate this great achievement into the body of scientific knowledge. (...) There is also something which appears to be too fortuitous about GW150914, as noted by the distinguished Indian astrophysicist Dr. Abhas Mitra: Given that the radius of Earth is 6,370 km, we can calculate the linear distance between the LIGO detectors at Livingstone and Hanford at around 2,500 Km. Because this distance is absolutely negligible compared with the distance to the origin of GW150914 (1.3 billion light years), both detectors should see the event almost simultaneously. There should be a delay of a few microseconds at most if both detectors received the signal from the sky above. However, the actual delay of seven milliseconds was very much larger, and is possible only if the source was almost perfectly aligned with a straight line joining Livingstone and Hanford."

Pentcho Valev

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#376675

On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 12:22:37 PM UTC-8, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> http://www.newkerala.com/news/2016/fullnews-23659.html 
>  "On September 14, 2015, the LIGO (Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory) observed a "chirp" lasting about a fifth of a second (GW150914). Analyses of the signal suggest that it was produced by the cataclysmic collision of two black holes a billion light years away. This was probably the verification of the most dramatic prediction of Albert Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. Accordingly, we ought to have a critical look at the relevant experiment before we finally incorporate this great achievement into the body of scientific knowledge. (...) There is also something which appears to be too fortuitous about GW150914, as noted by the distinguished Indian astrophysicist Dr. Abhas Mitra: Given that the radius of Earth is 6,370 km, we can calculate the linear distance between the LIGO detectors at Livingstone and Hanford at around 2,500 Km. Because this distance is absolutely negligible compared with the distance to the origin of GW150914 (1.3 billion light years), both detectors should see the event almost simultaneously. There should be a delay of a few microseconds at most if both detectors received the signal from the sky above. However, the actual delay of seven milliseconds was very much larger, and is possible only if the source was almost perfectly aligned with a straight line joining Livingstone and Hanford."
> 
> Pentcho Valev

You mean a "light speed source", 
because gravity is instantaneous.

Rather, the quoted author may have 
meant that.

Yes, that does seem rather odd.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#376677

Dne 20/02/2016 v 21:31 Ross A. Finlayson napsal(a):

> 
> You mean a "light speed source", 
> because gravity is instantaneous.

It is not instantaneous in GR.
It was in Newton gravity.

-- 
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#376681

On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 12:37:17 PM UTC-8, Poutnik wrote:
> Dne 20/02/2016 v 21:31 Ross A. Finlayson napsal(a):
> 
> > 
> > You mean a "light speed source", 
> > because gravity is instantaneous.
> 
> It is not instantaneous in GR.
> It was in Newton gravity.
> 
> -- 
> Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Information doesn't travel faster than 
light (and is usually enough at best about 
half as fast on the Internet or other 
conducting channels of digital signals), 
but gravity's effect is instantaneous 
(and constant, and continuous).

Yes, the signal timing and its being 
identical does seem rather odd then 
in terms of extrapolating the source.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#376676

Pentcho Valev wrote:

> There should be a
>  delay of a few microseconds at most if both detectors received the
>  signal from the sky above. However, the actual delay of seven
>  milliseconds was very much larger, and is possible only if the source
>  was almost perfectly aligned with a straight line joining Livingstone
>  and Hanford."

And therefore the probability for this is infinitesimally zero.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#376711

On 2/20/16 2/20/16   2:22 PM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> http://www.newkerala.com/news/2016/fullnews-23659.html "On September 14,
> 2015, the LIGO (Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory) observed
> a "chirp" lasting about a fifth of a second (GW150914). Analyses of the
> signal suggest that it was produced by the cataclysmic collision of two black
> holes a billion light years away. This was probably the verification of the
> most dramatic prediction of Albert Einstein's General Theory of Relativity.
> Accordingly, we ought to have a critical look at the relevant experiment
> before we finally incorporate this great achievement into the body of
> scientific knowledge. (...) There is also something which appears to be too
> fortuitous about GW150914, as noted by the distinguished Indian
> astrophysicist Dr. Abhas Mitra: Given that the radius of Earth is 6,370 km,
> we can calculate the linear distance between the LIGO detectors at
> Livingstone and Hanford at around 2,500 Km. Because this distance is
> absolutely negligible compared with the distance to the origin of GW150914
> (1.3 billion light years), both detectors should see the event almost
> simultaneously. There should be a delay of a few microseconds at most if both
> detectors received the signal from the sky above. However, the actual delay
> of seven milliseconds was very much larger, and is possible only if the
> source was almost perfectly aligned with a straight line joining Livingstone
> and Hanford."

It's remarkable how silly Valev can be, and how flagrantly he disregards simple 
facts. Apparently neither he nor Mitra can actually do arithmetic.

Fact 1: the Hanford and Livingston detectors are 3002 km apart.

Fact 2: in GR, gravitational waves travel with local speed c. This is not only 
in vacuum, but also inside normal matter.

Fact 3: the source of a gravitational wave is not at all constrained to be "from 
the sky above" (as Mitra assumes) -- unlike light, gravitational waves pass 
right through the earth, and the source could be anywhere in the universe, in 
almost any direction from earth (their detectors do not have isotropic response).

Fact 4: the flight time of a gravitational wave between Hanford and Livingston 
could be as small as zero (source located at the zenith), and as long as 10 ms 
(source located along the line between the detectors -- that's 3002 km / c).

Fact 5: The actual delay was about 7 ms. Now look at the locus in the sky where 
they think it's most likely the source was located. It's not a point, nor a 
disk, it is part of an annulus (not the entire annulus because their detectors 
are not sensitive in some directions); the thickness of the annulus is related 
to their errorbars. That annulus is centered on the line between the detectors, 
and has radius such that the propagation time between the detectors is 7 ms 
within their errorbar (as observed). (Had the flight time been measured to be 10 
ms, the locus would have been a disk centered on that line, but their detectors 
are not very sensitive along that line.)


It's remarkable how much time and effort Valev wastes in posting nonsense.


     Note to readers: Pentcho Valev is among the most persistent idiots
     around here. He has been repeating this nonsense for many years,
     without any attempt to learn the subject he tries to write about.
     I reply to him only occasionally, as a service to readers who may
     not recognize his mistakes. He has proven himself to be unable
     and unwilling to learn anything.


Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#376712

On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 7:12:52 PM UTC-6, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 2/20/16 2/20/16   2:22 PM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > http://www.newkerala.com/news/2016/fullnews-23659.html "On September 14,
> > 2015, the LIGO (Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory) observed
> > a "chirp" lasting about a fifth of a second (GW150914). Analyses of the
> > signal suggest that it was produced by the cataclysmic collision of two black
> > holes a billion light years away. This was probably the verification of the
> > most dramatic prediction of Albert Einstein's General Theory of Relativity.
> > Accordingly, we ought to have a critical look at the relevant experiment
> > before we finally incorporate this great achievement into the body of
> > scientific knowledge. (...) There is also something which appears to be too
> > fortuitous about GW150914, as noted by the distinguished Indian
> > astrophysicist Dr. Abhas Mitra: Given that the radius of Earth is 6,370 km,
> > we can calculate the linear distance between the LIGO detectors at
> > Livingstone and Hanford at around 2,500 Km. Because this distance is
> > absolutely negligible compared with the distance to the origin of GW150914
> > (1.3 billion light years), both detectors should see the event almost
> > simultaneously. There should be a delay of a few microseconds at most if both
> > detectors received the signal from the sky above. However, the actual delay
> > of seven milliseconds was very much larger, and is possible only if the
> > source was almost perfectly aligned with a straight line joining Livingstone
> > and Hanford."
> 
> It's remarkable how silly Valev can be, and how flagrantly he disregards simple 
> facts. Apparently neither he nor Mitra can actually do arithmetic.
> 
> Fact 1: the Hanford and Livingston detectors are 3002 km apart.
> 
> Fact 2: in GR, gravitational waves travel with local speed c. This is not only 
> in vacuum, but also inside normal matter.
> 
> Fact 3: the source of a gravitational wave is not at all constrained to be "from 
> the sky above" (as Mitra assumes) -- unlike light, gravitational waves pass 
> right through the earth, and the source could be anywhere in the universe, in 
> almost any direction from earth (their detectors do not have isotropic response).
> 
> Fact 4: the flight time of a gravitational wave between Hanford and Livingston 
> could be as small as zero (source located at the zenith), and as long as 10 ms 
> (source located along the line between the detectors -- that's 3002 km / c).
> 
> Fact 5: The actual delay was about 7 ms. Now look at the locus in the sky where 
> they think it's most likely the source was located. It's not a point, nor a 
> disk, it is part of an annulus (not the entire annulus because their detectors 
> are not sensitive in some directions); the thickness of the annulus is related 
> to their errorbars. That annulus is centered on the line between the detectors, 
> and has radius such that the propagation time between the detectors is 7 ms 
> within their errorbar (as observed). (Had the flight time been measured to be 10 
> ms, the locus would have been a disk centered on that line, but their detectors 
> are not very sensitive along that line.)
> 
> 
> It's remarkable how much time and effort Valev wastes in posting nonsense.
> 
> 
>      Note to readers: Pentcho Valev is among the most persistent idiots
>      around here. He has been repeating this nonsense for many years,
>      without any attempt to learn the subject he tries to write about.
>      I reply to him only occasionally, as a service to readers who may
>      not recognize his mistakes. He has proven himself to be unable
>      and unwilling to learn anything.
> 
> 
> Tom Roberts

Fact 2: in GR, gravitational waves travel with local speed c. This is not only 
in vacuum, but also inside normal matter. 

OK ... Even More evidence Gravitational Energy is not "energy" But "Increased Entropy" of the System 

Measured Vacuum Impedance IS Isotropic As Proven by MMX 

 Isotropic radiation has the same intensity regardless of the direction of measurement, and an isotropic field exerts the same action regardless of how the test particle is oriented.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#376725

On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 5:12:52 PM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 2/20/16 2/20/16   2:22 PM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > http://www.newkerala.com/news/2016/fullnews-23659.html "On September 14,
> > 2015, the LIGO (Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory) observed
> > a "chirp" lasting about a fifth of a second (GW150914). Analyses of the
> > signal suggest that it was produced by the cataclysmic collision of two black
> > holes a billion light years away. This was probably the verification of the
> > most dramatic prediction of Albert Einstein's General Theory of Relativity.
> > Accordingly, we ought to have a critical look at the relevant experiment
> > before we finally incorporate this great achievement into the body of
> > scientific knowledge. (...) There is also something which appears to be too
> > fortuitous about GW150914, as noted by the distinguished Indian
> > astrophysicist Dr. Abhas Mitra: Given that the radius of Earth is 6,370 km,
> > we can calculate the linear distance between the LIGO detectors at
> > Livingstone and Hanford at around 2,500 Km. Because this distance is
> > absolutely negligible compared with the distance to the origin of GW150914
> > (1.3 billion light years), both detectors should see the event almost
> > simultaneously. There should be a delay of a few microseconds at most if both
> > detectors received the signal from the sky above. However, the actual delay
> > of seven milliseconds was very much larger, and is possible only if the
> > source was almost perfectly aligned with a straight line joining Livingstone
> > and Hanford."
> 
> It's remarkable how silly Valev can be, and how flagrantly he disregards simple 
> facts. Apparently neither he nor Mitra can actually do arithmetic.
> 
> Fact 1: the Hanford and Livingston detectors are 3002 km apart.
> 
> Fact 2: in GR, gravitational waves travel with local speed c. This is not only 
> in vacuum, but also inside normal matter.
> 
> Fact 3: the source of a gravitational wave is not at all constrained to be "from 
> the sky above" (as Mitra assumes) -- unlike light, gravitational waves pass 
> right through the earth, and the source could be anywhere in the universe, in 
> almost any direction from earth (their detectors do not have isotropic response).
> 
> Fact 4: the flight time of a gravitational wave between Hanford and Livingston 
> could be as small as zero (source located at the zenith), and as long as 10 ms 
> (source located along the line between the detectors -- that's 3002 km / c).
> 
> Fact 5: The actual delay was about 7 ms. Now look at the locus in the sky where 
> they think it's most likely the source was located. It's not a point, nor a 
> disk, it is part of an annulus (not the entire annulus because their detectors 
> are not sensitive in some directions); the thickness of the annulus is related 
> to their errorbars. That annulus is centered on the line between the detectors, 
> and has radius such that the propagation time between the detectors is 7 ms 
> within their errorbar (as observed). (Had the flight time been measured to be 10 
> ms, the locus would have been a disk centered on that line, but their detectors 
> are not very sensitive along that line.)
> 
> 
> It's remarkable how much time and effort Valev wastes in posting nonsense.
> 
> 
>      Note to readers: Pentcho Valev is among the most persistent idiots
>      around here. He has been repeating this nonsense for many years,
>      without any attempt to learn the subject he tries to write about.
>      I reply to him only occasionally, as a service to readers who may
>      not recognize his mistakes. He has proven himself to be unable
>      and unwilling to learn anything.
> 
> 
> Tom Roberts

Of course that 3002 km is the linear distance, not the 
great circle distance, not the 2500 km linear distance 
mentioned in the article, right.

"The interferometers are located in fairly isolated 
areas of Washington (LIGO Hanford) and Louisiana (LIGO 
Livingston), and separated by 3,002 km (1,865 miles)."
 -- https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/WA/page/facilities

http://tjpeiffer.com/crowflies.html

That 3002 or so is as the crow flies, not linear 
distance between the two installations through 
the Erf (as would be used to compute its possible 
origin given its theoretical source and etcetera).

(Here "Erf" is a colloquialism for the "Earth".)

Gravity isn't bound by light speed, just all the 
massy objects as bring gravity to effect are.  
This impulse or spike is like where two binary 
pulsars observe each other thus bind each other 
to 0.5 c, and so on and so forth in the spacetime 
wheel, until such point as their collapse and 
combination is highly energetic, here combining 
those two reference frames and releasing a 
significant amount of gravitational change to 
all the other frames.  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#376729

On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 9:21:17 PM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 5:12:52 PM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote:
> > On 2/20/16 2/20/16   2:22 PM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > > http://www.newkerala.com/news/2016/fullnews-23659.html "On September 14,
> > > 2015, the LIGO (Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory) observed
> > > a "chirp" lasting about a fifth of a second (GW150914). Analyses of the
> > > signal suggest that it was produced by the cataclysmic collision of two black
> > > holes a billion light years away. This was probably the verification of the
> > > most dramatic prediction of Albert Einstein's General Theory of Relativity.
> > > Accordingly, we ought to have a critical look at the relevant experiment
> > > before we finally incorporate this great achievement into the body of
> > > scientific knowledge. (...) There is also something which appears to be too
> > > fortuitous about GW150914, as noted by the distinguished Indian
> > > astrophysicist Dr. Abhas Mitra: Given that the radius of Earth is 6,370 km,
> > > we can calculate the linear distance between the LIGO detectors at
> > > Livingstone and Hanford at around 2,500 Km. Because this distance is
> > > absolutely negligible compared with the distance to the origin of GW150914
> > > (1.3 billion light years), both detectors should see the event almost
> > > simultaneously. There should be a delay of a few microseconds at most if both
> > > detectors received the signal from the sky above. However, the actual delay
> > > of seven milliseconds was very much larger, and is possible only if the
> > > source was almost perfectly aligned with a straight line joining Livingstone
> > > and Hanford."
> > 
> > It's remarkable how silly Valev can be, and how flagrantly he disregards simple 
> > facts. Apparently neither he nor Mitra can actually do arithmetic.
> > 
> > Fact 1: the Hanford and Livingston detectors are 3002 km apart.
> > 
> > Fact 2: in GR, gravitational waves travel with local speed c. This is not only 
> > in vacuum, but also inside normal matter.
> > 
> > Fact 3: the source of a gravitational wave is not at all constrained to be "from 
> > the sky above" (as Mitra assumes) -- unlike light, gravitational waves pass 
> > right through the earth, and the source could be anywhere in the universe, in 
> > almost any direction from earth (their detectors do not have isotropic response).
> > 
> > Fact 4: the flight time of a gravitational wave between Hanford and Livingston 
> > could be as small as zero (source located at the zenith), and as long as 10 ms 
> > (source located along the line between the detectors -- that's 3002 km / c).
> > 
> > Fact 5: The actual delay was about 7 ms. Now look at the locus in the sky where 
> > they think it's most likely the source was located. It's not a point, nor a 
> > disk, it is part of an annulus (not the entire annulus because their detectors 
> > are not sensitive in some directions); the thickness of the annulus is related 
> > to their errorbars. That annulus is centered on the line between the detectors, 
> > and has radius such that the propagation time between the detectors is 7 ms 
> > within their errorbar (as observed). (Had the flight time been measured to be 10 
> > ms, the locus would have been a disk centered on that line, but their detectors 
> > are not very sensitive along that line.)
> > 
> > 
> > It's remarkable how much time and effort Valev wastes in posting nonsense.
> > 
> > 
> >      Note to readers: Pentcho Valev is among the most persistent idiots
> >      around here. He has been repeating this nonsense for many years,
> >      without any attempt to learn the subject he tries to write about.
> >      I reply to him only occasionally, as a service to readers who may
> >      not recognize his mistakes. He has proven himself to be unable
> >      and unwilling to learn anything.
> > 
> > 
> > Tom Roberts
> 
> Of course that 3002 km is the linear distance, not the 
> great circle distance, not the 2500 km linear distance 
> mentioned in the article, right.
> 
> "The interferometers are located in fairly isolated 
> areas of Washington (LIGO Hanford) and Louisiana (LIGO 
> Livingston), and separated by 3,002 km (1,865 miles)."
>  -- https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/WA/page/facilities
> 
> http://tjpeiffer.com/crowflies.html
> 
> That 3002 or so is as the crow flies, not linear 
> distance between the two installations through 
> the Erf (as would be used to compute its possible 
> origin given its theoretical source and etcetera).
> 
> (Here "Erf" is a colloquialism for the "Earth".)
> 
> Gravity isn't bound by light speed, just all the 
> massy objects as bring gravity to effect are.  
> This impulse or spike is like where two binary 
> pulsars observe each other thus bind each other 
> to 0.5 c, and so on and so forth in the spacetime 
> wheel, until such point as their collapse and 
> combination is highly energetic, here combining 
> those two reference frames and releasing a 
> significant amount of gravitational change to 
> all the other frames.

If they have fiber-optic Internet 
it can get there not much slower 
than 3*10^6 m / 3*10^8 m/s ~ 10ms.

Having a line right through the 
Earth does cut some of the distance 
there.

Maybe they should've synchronized 
their clocks from the GPS satellites.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#377020

On 21/02/2016 4:21 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 5:12:52 PM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote:
>> On 2/20/16 2/20/16   2:22 PM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>>> http://www.newkerala.com/news/2016/fullnews-23659.html "On September 14,
>>> 2015, the LIGO (Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory) observed
>>> a "chirp" lasting about a fifth of a second (GW150914). Analyses of the
>>> signal suggest that it was produced by the cataclysmic collision of two black
>>> holes a billion light years away. This was probably the verification of the
>>> most dramatic prediction of Albert Einstein's General Theory of Relativity.
>>> Accordingly, we ought to have a critical look at the relevant experiment
>>> before we finally incorporate this great achievement into the body of
>>> scientific knowledge. (...) There is also something which appears to be too
>>> fortuitous about GW150914, as noted by the distinguished Indian
>>> astrophysicist Dr. Abhas Mitra: Given that the radius of Earth is 6,370 km,
>>> we can calculate the linear distance between the LIGO detectors at
>>> Livingstone and Hanford at around 2,500 Km. Because this distance is
>>> absolutely negligible compared with the distance to the origin of GW150914
>>> (1.3 billion light years), both detectors should see the event almost
>>> simultaneously. There should be a delay of a few microseconds at most if both
>>> detectors received the signal from the sky above. However, the actual delay
>>> of seven milliseconds was very much larger, and is possible only if the
>>> source was almost perfectly aligned with a straight line joining Livingstone
>>> and Hanford."
>>
>> It's remarkable how silly Valev can be, and how flagrantly he disregards simple
>> facts. Apparently neither he nor Mitra can actually do arithmetic.
>>
>> Fact 1: the Hanford and Livingston detectors are 3002 km apart.
>>
>> Fact 2: in GR, gravitational waves travel with local speed c. This is not only
>> in vacuum, but also inside normal matter.
>>
>> Fact 3: the source of a gravitational wave is not at all constrained to be "from
>> the sky above" (as Mitra assumes) -- unlike light, gravitational waves pass
>> right through the earth, and the source could be anywhere in the universe, in
>> almost any direction from earth (their detectors do not have isotropic response).
>>
>> Fact 4: the flight time of a gravitational wave between Hanford and Livingston
>> could be as small as zero (source located at the zenith), and as long as 10 ms
>> (source located along the line between the detectors -- that's 3002 km / c).
>>
>> Fact 5: The actual delay was about 7 ms. Now look at the locus in the sky where
>> they think it's most likely the source was located. It's not a point, nor a
>> disk, it is part of an annulus (not the entire annulus because their detectors
>> are not sensitive in some directions); the thickness of the annulus is related
>> to their errorbars. That annulus is centered on the line between the detectors,
>> and has radius such that the propagation time between the detectors is 7 ms
>> within their errorbar (as observed). (Had the flight time been measured to be 10
>> ms, the locus would have been a disk centered on that line, but their detectors
>> are not very sensitive along that line.)
>>
>>
>> It's remarkable how much time and effort Valev wastes in posting nonsense.
>>
>>
>>       Note to readers: Pentcho Valev is among the most persistent idiots
>>       around here. He has been repeating this nonsense for many years,
>>       without any attempt to learn the subject he tries to write about.
>>       I reply to him only occasionally, as a service to readers who may
>>       not recognize his mistakes. He has proven himself to be unable
>>       and unwilling to learn anything.
>>
>>
>> Tom Roberts
>
> Of course that 3002 km is the linear distance, not the
> great circle distance, not the 2500 km linear distance
> mentioned in the article, right.
>
> "The interferometers are located in fairly isolated
> areas of Washington (LIGO Hanford) and Louisiana (LIGO
> Livingston), and separated by 3,002 km (1,865 miles)."
>   -- https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/WA/page/facilities
>
> http://tjpeiffer.com/crowflies.html
>
> That 3002 or so is as the crow flies, not linear
> distance between the two installations through
> the Erf (as would be used to compute its possible
> origin given its theoretical source and etcetera).

It appears to be the linear distance, though the difference between the 
linear distance and the great circle distance is not that great - a few 
tens of kilometres only. Where the number 2500 came from is anyone's guess.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#377153

On Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 12:13:13 AM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 21/02/2016 4:21 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 5:12:52 PM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote:
> >> On 2/20/16 2/20/16   2:22 PM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> >>> http://www.newkerala.com/news/2016/fullnews-23659.html "On September 14,
> >>> 2015, the LIGO (Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory) observed
> >>> a "chirp" lasting about a fifth of a second (GW150914). Analyses of the
> >>> signal suggest that it was produced by the cataclysmic collision of two black
> >>> holes a billion light years away. This was probably the verification of the
> >>> most dramatic prediction of Albert Einstein's General Theory of Relativity.
> >>> Accordingly, we ought to have a critical look at the relevant experiment
> >>> before we finally incorporate this great achievement into the body of
> >>> scientific knowledge. (...) There is also something which appears to be too
> >>> fortuitous about GW150914, as noted by the distinguished Indian
> >>> astrophysicist Dr. Abhas Mitra: Given that the radius of Earth is 6,370 km,
> >>> we can calculate the linear distance between the LIGO detectors at
> >>> Livingstone and Hanford at around 2,500 Km. Because this distance is
> >>> absolutely negligible compared with the distance to the origin of GW150914
> >>> (1.3 billion light years), both detectors should see the event almost
> >>> simultaneously. There should be a delay of a few microseconds at most if both
> >>> detectors received the signal from the sky above. However, the actual delay
> >>> of seven milliseconds was very much larger, and is possible only if the
> >>> source was almost perfectly aligned with a straight line joining Livingstone
> >>> and Hanford."
> >>
> >> It's remarkable how silly Valev can be, and how flagrantly he disregards simple
> >> facts. Apparently neither he nor Mitra can actually do arithmetic.
> >>
> >> Fact 1: the Hanford and Livingston detectors are 3002 km apart.
> >>
> >> Fact 2: in GR, gravitational waves travel with local speed c. This is not only
> >> in vacuum, but also inside normal matter.
> >>
> >> Fact 3: the source of a gravitational wave is not at all constrained to be "from
> >> the sky above" (as Mitra assumes) -- unlike light, gravitational waves pass
> >> right through the earth, and the source could be anywhere in the universe, in
> >> almost any direction from earth (their detectors do not have isotropic response).
> >>
> >> Fact 4: the flight time of a gravitational wave between Hanford and Livingston
> >> could be as small as zero (source located at the zenith), and as long as 10 ms
> >> (source located along the line between the detectors -- that's 3002 km / c).
> >>
> >> Fact 5: The actual delay was about 7 ms. Now look at the locus in the sky where
> >> they think it's most likely the source was located. It's not a point, nor a
> >> disk, it is part of an annulus (not the entire annulus because their detectors
> >> are not sensitive in some directions); the thickness of the annulus is related
> >> to their errorbars. That annulus is centered on the line between the detectors,
> >> and has radius such that the propagation time between the detectors is 7 ms
> >> within their errorbar (as observed). (Had the flight time been measured to be 10
> >> ms, the locus would have been a disk centered on that line, but their detectors
> >> are not very sensitive along that line.)
> >>
> >>
> >> It's remarkable how much time and effort Valev wastes in posting nonsense.
> >>
> >>
> >>       Note to readers: Pentcho Valev is among the most persistent idiots
> >>       around here. He has been repeating this nonsense for many years,
> >>       without any attempt to learn the subject he tries to write about.
> >>       I reply to him only occasionally, as a service to readers who may
> >>       not recognize his mistakes. He has proven himself to be unable
> >>       and unwilling to learn anything.
> >>
> >>
> >> Tom Roberts
> >
> > Of course that 3002 km is the linear distance, not the
> > great circle distance, not the 2500 km linear distance
> > mentioned in the article, right.
> >
> > "The interferometers are located in fairly isolated
> > areas of Washington (LIGO Hanford) and Louisiana (LIGO
> > Livingston), and separated by 3,002 km (1,865 miles)."
> >   -- https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/WA/page/facilities
> >
> > http://tjpeiffer.com/crowflies.html
> >
> > That 3002 or so is as the crow flies, not linear
> > distance between the two installations through
> > the Erf (as would be used to compute its possible
> > origin given its theoretical source and etcetera).
> 
> It appears to be the linear distance, though the difference between the 
> linear distance and the great circle distance is not that great - a few 
> tens of kilometres only. Where the number 2500 came from is anyone's guess.
> 
> Sylvia.

Louisiana is quite far over the horizon from Hanford.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#377177

On 26/02/2016 3:19 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 12:13:13 AM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 21/02/2016 4:21 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
>>> On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 5:12:52 PM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote:
>>>> On 2/20/16 2/20/16   2:22 PM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>>>>> http://www.newkerala.com/news/2016/fullnews-23659.html "On September 14,
>>>>> 2015, the LIGO (Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory) observed
>>>>> a "chirp" lasting about a fifth of a second (GW150914). Analyses of the
>>>>> signal suggest that it was produced by the cataclysmic collision of two black
>>>>> holes a billion light years away. This was probably the verification of the
>>>>> most dramatic prediction of Albert Einstein's General Theory of Relativity.
>>>>> Accordingly, we ought to have a critical look at the relevant experiment
>>>>> before we finally incorporate this great achievement into the body of
>>>>> scientific knowledge. (...) There is also something which appears to be too
>>>>> fortuitous about GW150914, as noted by the distinguished Indian
>>>>> astrophysicist Dr. Abhas Mitra: Given that the radius of Earth is 6,370 km,
>>>>> we can calculate the linear distance between the LIGO detectors at
>>>>> Livingstone and Hanford at around 2,500 Km. Because this distance is
>>>>> absolutely negligible compared with the distance to the origin of GW150914
>>>>> (1.3 billion light years), both detectors should see the event almost
>>>>> simultaneously. There should be a delay of a few microseconds at most if both
>>>>> detectors received the signal from the sky above. However, the actual delay
>>>>> of seven milliseconds was very much larger, and is possible only if the
>>>>> source was almost perfectly aligned with a straight line joining Livingstone
>>>>> and Hanford."
>>>>
>>>> It's remarkable how silly Valev can be, and how flagrantly he disregards simple
>>>> facts. Apparently neither he nor Mitra can actually do arithmetic.
>>>>
>>>> Fact 1: the Hanford and Livingston detectors are 3002 km apart.
>>>>
>>>> Fact 2: in GR, gravitational waves travel with local speed c. This is not only
>>>> in vacuum, but also inside normal matter.
>>>>
>>>> Fact 3: the source of a gravitational wave is not at all constrained to be "from
>>>> the sky above" (as Mitra assumes) -- unlike light, gravitational waves pass
>>>> right through the earth, and the source could be anywhere in the universe, in
>>>> almost any direction from earth (their detectors do not have isotropic response).
>>>>
>>>> Fact 4: the flight time of a gravitational wave between Hanford and Livingston
>>>> could be as small as zero (source located at the zenith), and as long as 10 ms
>>>> (source located along the line between the detectors -- that's 3002 km / c).
>>>>
>>>> Fact 5: The actual delay was about 7 ms. Now look at the locus in the sky where
>>>> they think it's most likely the source was located. It's not a point, nor a
>>>> disk, it is part of an annulus (not the entire annulus because their detectors
>>>> are not sensitive in some directions); the thickness of the annulus is related
>>>> to their errorbars. That annulus is centered on the line between the detectors,
>>>> and has radius such that the propagation time between the detectors is 7 ms
>>>> within their errorbar (as observed). (Had the flight time been measured to be 10
>>>> ms, the locus would have been a disk centered on that line, but their detectors
>>>> are not very sensitive along that line.)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's remarkable how much time and effort Valev wastes in posting nonsense.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        Note to readers: Pentcho Valev is among the most persistent idiots
>>>>        around here. He has been repeating this nonsense for many years,
>>>>        without any attempt to learn the subject he tries to write about.
>>>>        I reply to him only occasionally, as a service to readers who may
>>>>        not recognize his mistakes. He has proven himself to be unable
>>>>        and unwilling to learn anything.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Tom Roberts
>>>
>>> Of course that 3002 km is the linear distance, not the
>>> great circle distance, not the 2500 km linear distance
>>> mentioned in the article, right.
>>>
>>> "The interferometers are located in fairly isolated
>>> areas of Washington (LIGO Hanford) and Louisiana (LIGO
>>> Livingston), and separated by 3,002 km (1,865 miles)."
>>>    -- https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/WA/page/facilities
>>>
>>> http://tjpeiffer.com/crowflies.html
>>>
>>> That 3002 or so is as the crow flies, not linear
>>> distance between the two installations through
>>> the Erf (as would be used to compute its possible
>>> origin given its theoretical source and etcetera).
>>
>> It appears to be the linear distance, though the difference between the
>> linear distance and the great circle distance is not that great - a few
>> tens of kilometres only. Where the number 2500 came from is anyone's guess.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> Louisiana is quite far over the horizon from Hanford.
>
>

The arc subtends an angle of about 27 degrees.

The cosine of half that is about 0.973, with the result that the arc and 
the chord are very similar in length.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#377188

On 26.02.2016 11:50, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 26/02/2016 3:19 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
>> On Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 12:13:13 AM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>> On 21/02/2016 4:21 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Of course that 3002 km is the linear distance, not the
>>>> great circle distance, not the 2500 km linear distance
>>>> mentioned in the article, right.
>>>>
>>>> "The interferometers are located in fairly isolated
>>>> areas of Washington (LIGO Hanford) and Louisiana (LIGO
>>>> Livingston), and separated by 3,002 km (1,865 miles)."
>>>>    -- https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/WA/page/facilities
>>>>
>>>> http://tjpeiffer.com/crowflies.html
>>>>
>>>> That 3002 or so is as the crow flies, not linear
>>>> distance between the two installations through
>>>> the Erf (as would be used to compute its possible
>>>> origin given its theoretical source and etcetera).
>>>
>>> It appears to be the linear distance, though the difference between the
>>> linear distance and the great circle distance is not that great - a few
>>> tens of kilometres only. Where the number 2500 came from is anyone's
>>> guess.
>>>
>>> Sylvia.
>>
>> Louisiana is quite far over the horizon from Hanford.
>>
>>
>
> The arc subtends an angle of about 27 degrees.
>
> The cosine of half that is about 0.973, with the result that the arc and
> the chord are very similar in length.
>
> Sylvia.

chord/arc = (2*sin(27))/(2*pi*27/360)= 0.9908

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#377189

Paul B. Andersen wrote:

>> The arc subtends an angle of about 27 degrees.
>>
>> The cosine of half that is about 0.973, with the result that the arc
>> and the chord are very similar in length.
>>
>> Sylvia.
> 
> chord/arc = (2*sin(27))/(2*pi*27/360)= 0.9908

0.9907

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#377301

On 27/02/2016 12:15 AM, PC wrote:
> Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>
>>> The arc subtends an angle of about 27 degrees.
>>>
>>> The cosine of half that is about 0.973, with the result that the arc
>>> and the chord are very similar in length.
>>>
>>> Sylvia.
>>
>> chord/arc = (2*sin(27))/(2*pi*27/360)= 0.9908
>
> 0.9907
>

Paul correctly rounded it up to four decimal places.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#377303

Sylvia Else wrote:

> On 27/02/2016 12:15 AM, PC wrote:
>> Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>
>>>> The arc subtends an angle of about 27 degrees.
>>>>
>>>> The cosine of half that is about 0.973, with the result that the arc
>>>> and the chord are very similar in length.
>>>>
>>>> Sylvia.
>>>
>>> chord/arc = (2*sin(27))/(2*pi*27/360)= 0.9908
>>
>> 0.9907
>>
> Paul correctly rounded it up to four decimal places. Sylvia.

YOu mean "incorrectly".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#377306

On 27/02/2016 12:11 PM, PC wrote:
> Sylvia Else wrote:
>
>> On 27/02/2016 12:15 AM, PC wrote:
>>> Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>
>>>>> The arc subtends an angle of about 27 degrees.
>>>>>
>>>>> The cosine of half that is about 0.973, with the result that the arc
>>>>> and the chord are very similar in length.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sylvia.
>>>>
>>>> chord/arc = (2*sin(27))/(2*pi*27/360)= 0.9908
>>>
>>> 0.9907
>>>
>> Paul correctly rounded it up to four decimal places. Sylvia.
>
> YOu mean "incorrectly".
>

The fifth decimal digit is a 7. Since that's not less than 5, when the 
number is rounded to four decimal places, the fourth decimal digit is 
increased by 1, so that the result is as close as it can be to the true 
value.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#377299

On 27/02/2016 12:08 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> On 26.02.2016 11:50, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 26/02/2016 3:19 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 12:13:13 AM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>> On 21/02/2016 4:21 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course that 3002 km is the linear distance, not the
>>>>> great circle distance, not the 2500 km linear distance
>>>>> mentioned in the article, right.
>>>>>
>>>>> "The interferometers are located in fairly isolated
>>>>> areas of Washington (LIGO Hanford) and Louisiana (LIGO
>>>>> Livingston), and separated by 3,002 km (1,865 miles)."
>>>>>    -- https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/WA/page/facilities
>>>>>
>>>>> http://tjpeiffer.com/crowflies.html
>>>>>
>>>>> That 3002 or so is as the crow flies, not linear
>>>>> distance between the two installations through
>>>>> the Erf (as would be used to compute its possible
>>>>> origin given its theoretical source and etcetera).
>>>>
>>>> It appears to be the linear distance, though the difference between the
>>>> linear distance and the great circle distance is not that great - a few
>>>> tens of kilometres only. Where the number 2500 came from is anyone's
>>>> guess.
>>>>
>>>> Sylvia.
>>>
>>> Louisiana is quite far over the horizon from Hanford.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The arc subtends an angle of about 27 degrees.
>>
>> The cosine of half that is about 0.973, with the result that the arc and
>> the chord are very similar in length.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> chord/arc = (2*sin(27))/(2*pi*27/360)= 0.9908
>

Yes, I shouldn't try to do trigonometry in my head.

But the first 27 needs to be divided by 2, which you appear to have done 
in the calculation - just transcribed it incorrectly.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#377388

On 27.02.2016 01:25, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 27/02/2016 12:08 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> On 26.02.2016 11:50, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>
>>> The arc subtends an angle of about 27 degrees.
>>>
>>> The cosine of half that is about 0.973, with the result that the arc and
>>> the chord are very similar in length.
>>>
>>> Sylvia.
>>
>> chord/arc = (2*sin(27))/(2*pi*27/360)= 0.9908
>>
>
> Yes, I shouldn't try to do trigonometry in my head.
>
> But the first 27 needs to be divided by 2, which you appear to have done
> in the calculation - just transcribed it incorrectly.
>
> Sylvia.
>

Indeed. Typo.
chord/arc = (2*sin(27/2))/(2*pi*27/360)= 0.9908

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#377199

On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 12:50:13 PM UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote:
> 
> the arc and 
> the chord are very similar in length.

Yes.  For arc 3002 km and radius 6371 km, the chord is 2976 km. That is, the difference between the great-circle distance and the linear distance is insignificant.

I should have calculated it but took the result of Mitra and Ratcliffe for granted.

Pentcho Valev

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 7  [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web