Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #376674 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-02-20 12:22 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-03-07 09:23 -0600 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 126 — 22 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
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 6 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 Next page →
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-07 21:38 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <dk6769Fhg7nU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #378139 |
Am 07.03.2016 16:19, schrieb Odd Bodkin: >>> Analogy: if you use two rulers to measure the width of a desk, >>> one parallel to its front edge, and one inclined relative to >>> that edge, you will get two different values for the width. >>> >> >> I would not agree to this use of the term 'measurement'. >> >> To measure something is not the same as reading some values from a >> display. >> >> Measurement of the width of a table requires definition of the term >> 'width of table', before the measuring device is set into operation. >> >> The device delivers some values, which could be read out from its >> display. But the value on the display is not the measurement, if that is >> not use according to the definition of the feature to measure. >> >> >> TH > > I beg your pardon?! By your rules, I would only be able to measure > things that are big enough to see and small enough that I can span it > with my measuring instruments. > > If I measure the width of a pulse on an oscilloscope, you're going to > claim that's not a measurement of the duration of the pulse? You need to define 'duration of a pulse# before you can measure it. Tom used the example 'width of a table, measured with inclination of the ruler'. That should make the table's width larger. Quote: >>> Analogy: if you use two rulers to measure the width of a desk, >>> one parallel to its front edge, and one inclined relative to >>> that edge, you will get two different values for the width. I wrote: NO! you won't get a different measurement of 'width of table', but a different reading from that ruler. These things are NOT the same. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-04 08:05 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <djsqeqF3oi6U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #377820 |
Am 03.03.2016 22:12, schrieb Jackpol11@hotmail.com: >>> 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. >> >> Tom Roberts > Given that there was a time delay of 7 ms and a land separation of > 10ms, even you should be able to construct a modus operandi. Once > again it appears that just your sarcasm is not enough . You appear to > have no idea where the wave originated. Try to follow this simple > diagram: > > Draw a horizontal line from a to b, marked 10 ms.land separation. > Draw 2 parallel rays at some convenient angle, A,to the right, from > the horizontal, from a and from b marking the event's paths. > Erect a perpendicular from point b, cutting the first path. > Mark the opposite end of the new triangle as 7ms. time delay. > Now we can write > cos A = 7/10, from which > A = 45 deg > We conclude that the event came from an elevation angle of 45°. This > means also that its strength is .7 of the "full-on" value. > There doesn't seem to be any reason to the calculate arc and chord > lengths. Thou c as speed of these waves is a plausible assumption, the velocity is actually unknown. Since the velocity could have other values (from zero to infinity), we could have another directions, too. Other possibilities: the signal does not stem from cosmic sources (e.g. from US black ops) influences from other dimensions /universes/aliens ... does not measure gravity (-waves) fraud technical malfunction human errors ... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-04 07:55 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <nbc43f$17n0$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #377865 |
On 3/4/2016 1:05 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > Thou c as speed of these waves is a plausible assumption, the velocity > is actually unknown. > > Since the velocity could have other values (from zero to infinity), we > could have another directions, too. > Yes, this is certainly possible. The location of the source of the signal was based on the presumption that, since GR made a good prediction of the signal of black holes merging, then GR's other prediction that gravity travels with speed c is also correct. > > > Other possibilities: > the signal does not stem from cosmic sources (e.g. from US black ops) > influences from other dimensions /universes/aliens ... > does not measure gravity (-waves) > fraud > technical malfunction > human errors > ... > > > TH But this is ALWAYS true. For ANY scientific measurement or ANY experimental test of a theory, one can imagine that the result was the result of some other explanation. Let's take an example. Back in 1846, Le Verrier made a number of numerical calculations using Newtonian celestial mechanics and observations of the location of Uranus in the night sky, and he predicted not only the existence of a new planet but its location in the sky. When people then looked, Neptune was discovered to be right there. Now, you can suppose that Le Verrier had made some mistakes in his calculations, that there were spots on the telescope lenses, that the observing astronomers had conducted bulk fraud because they wanted to preserve Le Verrier's reputation, that there is something there but that it's not Neptune and whatever is there just accidentally in the same place bad calculations said it would be. The question is whether those are LIKELY. When one imagines, for example, that a theory that has made a number of rather stunningly validated predictions in other arenas, but that the prediction of gravitational waves is wrong and the matching signal is instead caused by aliens from other dimensions, then I really have to ask, "Is that REALLY more likely than GR being right again?" -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-04 18:47 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <dbf5a86b-b62f-49fd-b695-43e937632933@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #377878 |
On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 5:54:59 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 3/4/2016 1:05 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > > Thou c as speed of these waves is a plausible assumption, the velocity > > is actually unknown. > > > > Since the velocity could have other values (from zero to infinity), we > > could have another directions, too. > > > > Yes, this is certainly possible. The location of the source of the > signal was based on the presumption that, since GR made a good > prediction of the signal of black holes merging, then GR's other > prediction that gravity travels with speed c is also correct. > > > > > > > Other possibilities: > > the signal does not stem from cosmic sources (e.g. from US black ops) > > influences from other dimensions /universes/aliens ... > > does not measure gravity (-waves) > > fraud > > technical malfunction > > human errors > > ... > > > > > > TH > > But this is ALWAYS true. For ANY scientific measurement or ANY > experimental test of a theory, one can imagine that the result was the > result of some other explanation. > > Let's take an example. Back in 1846, Le Verrier made a number of > numerical calculations using Newtonian celestial mechanics and > observations of the location of Uranus in the night sky, and he > predicted not only the existence of a new planet but its location in the > sky. When people then looked, Neptune was discovered to be right there. > Now, you can suppose that Le Verrier had made some mistakes in his > calculations, that there were spots on the telescope lenses, that the > observing astronomers had conducted bulk fraud because they wanted to > preserve Le Verrier's reputation, that there is something there but that > it's not Neptune and whatever is there just accidentally in the same > place bad calculations said it would be. > > The question is whether those are LIKELY. > > When one imagines, for example, that a theory that has made a number of > rather stunningly validated predictions in other arenas, but that the > prediction of gravitational waves is wrong and the matching signal is > instead caused by aliens from other dimensions, then I really have to > ask, "Is that REALLY more likely than GR being right again?" > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables OB - after your post there, that would be: "Is that REALLY more likely than GR not being wrong again?" If you want to be falsifying that, then you should find the corresponding laboratory experiment first (the dual black hole system that putatively collided, or what), then correlate that with the event detected on the other channel (via the gravity wave). Here your argument along the lines of that "it's certainly possible that in the entire universe and here in a particular direction that we might not be able to see anyways, that an ideal configuration matching the result of our detection so existed and is now gone". So, GW150914 is just the blips on the scope, on the ground, not an eclipse that arrived at the same time as the blips. That it fits a possible configuration for which classical or GR might have something to say (that is where, this gravity wave could be classical mechanics "not being wrong again"), that the configuration actually exists is falsifiable only after it's discovered already. Back to then that the gravity wave would be constant in amplitude or magnitude thus that a secondary computation would be agreeing (up to scale or precision) with the also gross "light speed across the universe correlation", this is where the scientists should know given that they have made some stimulus of the event of a given magnitude, what there to expect on the apparatus then here that the strong expectation is that those two directional pointers will match.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-07 09:15 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <nbk5tv$1bl3$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #377920 |
On 3/4/2016 8:47 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 5:54:59 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 3/4/2016 1:05 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > > OB - after your post there, that would be: > "Is that REALLY more likely than GR not being wrong again?" > > If you want to be falsifying that, then you should > find the corresponding laboratory experiment first > (the dual black hole system that putatively collided, > or what), then correlate that with the event detected > on the other channel (via the gravity wave). Here your > argument along the lines of that "it's certainly possible > that in the entire universe and here in a particular direction > that we might not be able to see anyways, that an ideal > configuration matching the result of our detection so > existed and is now gone". > I really don't think so. We do not demand to see a living dinosaur to believe that they existed. All that's needed is some distinctive signature that indicates that they once did: Stones in the form of bones and eggs, footprints in solidified sediment. By your lights, we should demand to have something living that correlates to those fossils, so that we can tie the cause and effect together definitively. By your lights, we should suspect that fossils can be caused by things other than dinosaurs until we have this cause and effect solidified. But we don't do that, do we? The fossils are all we need to believe in dinosaurs. With gravitational waves, same thing. Distinctive signature. INFERRED cause. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-07 18:04 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <27fb5756-0226-4508-a803-9226fa44becf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378137 |
On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 7:15:15 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 3/4/2016 8:47 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 5:54:59 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 3/4/2016 1:05 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > > > > > OB - after your post there, that would be: > > "Is that REALLY more likely than GR not being wrong again?" > > > > If you want to be falsifying that, then you should > > find the corresponding laboratory experiment first > > (the dual black hole system that putatively collided, > > or what), then correlate that with the event detected > > on the other channel (via the gravity wave). Here your > > argument along the lines of that "it's certainly possible > > that in the entire universe and here in a particular direction > > that we might not be able to see anyways, that an ideal > > configuration matching the result of our detection so > > existed and is now gone". > > > > I really don't think so. We do not demand to see a living dinosaur to > believe that they existed. All that's needed is some distinctive > signature that indicates that they once did: Stones in the form of bones > and eggs, footprints in solidified sediment. By your lights, we should > demand to have something living that correlates to those fossils, so > that we can tie the cause and effect together definitively. By your > lights, we should suspect that fossils can be caused by things other > than dinosaurs until we have this cause and effect solidified. But we > don't do that, do we? The fossils are all we need to believe in dinosaurs. > > With gravitational waves, same thing. Distinctive signature. INFERRED cause. > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables Perhaps more apt as metaphor (and metaphor eventually fails) is one frozen depression that could be a footprint from ~250M years ago. Besides that we have fossilized skeletons of many varieties of dinosaurs (and DNA and other material as so survives from that era in otherwise preserved form), we don't have any other corroboration of the faint thud that was GW150914. Really though I'm more interested in your opinion of whether the transform of the received impulse, in the 3 directionally-sensitive detection axes, to the equal-size amplitude for each, provides another experimental direction to search for evidence of something then that this gravitational wave should predict. If so then where is it in the analysis and if not then where is it in the analysis.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-08 07:41 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <nbmkpr$jad$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #378234 |
On 3/7/2016 8:04 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > If so then where is it in the analysis and if not > then where is it in the analysis. I really don't think it's the LIGO team's obligation to provide experimental evidence from something other than their detector that would provide additional corroboration of the event that produced the signal. Now, if OTHER teams should be able to provide that in a separate paper, then great. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-08 09:01 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <fc4b5350-b1ce-435d-b857-c88c5f5d45dc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378264 |
On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 5:41:23 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 3/7/2016 8:04 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > If so then where is it in the analysis and if not > > then where is it in the analysis. > > I really don't think it's the LIGO team's obligation to provide > experimental evidence from something other than their detector that > would provide additional corroboration of the event that produced the > signal. Now, if OTHER teams should be able to provide that in a separate > paper, then great. > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables The evidence _would_ be from their detector - it's the analysis or lack thereof that surely they would examine as worth the time. Here, "surely" is conditioned by that the "amplitude" of the gravity wave (basically its absolute variation in its impulse) is identical to all observers. Now if we're all acclaiming the sound origin of gravitational waves theoretically, then it should be clear how and why these putative origins of a putative system would have these putative properties, here whether or not the "change" as measurable at all, of the gravity wave, would be the same to all observers (here under attenuation, as one might have that the gravitational wave attenuates proportionally to its volume of influence). So, how big are these waves?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-08 18:36 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <nbnr6e$jrh$5@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #378280 |
On 3/8/2016 11:01 AM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 5:41:23 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 3/7/2016 8:04 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: >>> If so then where is it in the analysis and if not >>> then where is it in the analysis. >> >> I really don't think it's the LIGO team's obligation to provide >> experimental evidence from something other than their detector that >> would provide additional corroboration of the event that produced the >> signal. Now, if OTHER teams should be able to provide that in a separate >> paper, then great. >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > The evidence _would_ be from their detector - > it's the analysis or lack thereof that surely > they would examine as worth the time. And what would you expect that additional evidence to consist of? > > > Here, "surely" is conditioned by that the > "amplitude" of the gravity wave (basically > its absolute variation in its impulse) is > identical to all observers. > > Now if we're all acclaiming the sound origin > of gravitational waves theoretically, then it > should be clear how and why these putative > origins of a putative system would have these > putative properties, here whether or not the > "change" as measurable at all, of the gravity > wave, would be the same to all observers (here > under attenuation, as one might have that the > gravitational wave attenuates proportionally > to its volume of influence). > > So, how big are these waves? > The change in length of the arms due to the oscillation is about the size of the proton. The energy release of the waves was 5.3E+47 joules, which is about what you would get by converting ALL of the mass of three average stars to energy -- an enormous amount. Even more impressive is that the peak power output was (briefly) 3.6E+49 watts, which is more than the total fusion output of all the stars in the visible universe combined. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-08 19:28 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ee027cec-6ec6-493e-9771-a1c209a7b8fa@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378316 |
On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 4:36:34 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 3/8/2016 11:01 AM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 5:41:23 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 3/7/2016 8:04 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > >>> If so then where is it in the analysis and if not > >>> then where is it in the analysis. > >> > >> I really don't think it's the LIGO team's obligation to provide > >> experimental evidence from something other than their detector that > >> would provide additional corroboration of the event that produced the > >> signal. Now, if OTHER teams should be able to provide that in a separate > >> paper, then great. > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > The evidence _would_ be from their detector - > > it's the analysis or lack thereof that surely > > they would examine as worth the time. > > And what would you expect that additional evidence to consist of? > > > > > > > Here, "surely" is conditioned by that the > > "amplitude" of the gravity wave (basically > > its absolute variation in its impulse) is > > identical to all observers. > > > > Now if we're all acclaiming the sound origin > > of gravitational waves theoretically, then it > > should be clear how and why these putative > > origins of a putative system would have these > > putative properties, here whether or not the > > "change" as measurable at all, of the gravity > > wave, would be the same to all observers (here > > under attenuation, as one might have that the > > gravitational wave attenuates proportionally > > to its volume of influence). > > > > So, how big are these waves? > > > > The change in length of the arms due to the oscillation is about the > size of the proton. > > The energy release of the waves was 5.3E+47 joules, which is about what > you would get by converting ALL of the mass of three average stars to > energy -- an enormous amount. Even more impressive is that the peak > power output was (briefly) 3.6E+49 watts, which is more than the total > fusion output of all the stars in the visible universe combined. > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables Oh. I was under the impression that the oscillation would be large enough that it was statistically probable that it was not zero. If they are down to "proton length", I was not knowing that that clock was precise down to less than c / Length_arm. = ~ 3E8 m/s / 1E3m ~= 3E5 unit/s. I guess I'm wondering, how many units is the oscillation at each of the arms, in the most precise estimate given the clock, and call this a_1, a_2, a_3 in axes x_1, x_2, x_3. Then, what transformation sees that b_1 = b_2 = b_3 in e1, e2, e3 (local space coordinate vector basis). f(a_1 x_1, a_2 x_2, a_3 x_3) = (be_1, be_2, be_3) This is where, the x_i's are not collinear, so, they form a vector basis, here that it would transform to the orthonormal vector basis e1, e2, e3 with the constant amplitude of oscillation. Would that so derive the transform so that x_i to e_i sees then that the transform is a rotation and reflects from x_1 x_2 x_3 the direction, of the event? Assumptions: 1) in a region as small as the Earth, the wave has a constant amplitude 2) arms 1, 2, 3 are non-collinear 3) arms 1, 2, 3 are at cross enough terms 4) arms 1, 2, 3 are not totally different lengths (in orders of magnitude) 5) (arms 1, 2, 3 form a numerical vector space) 6) the precision of the clocks has that the amplitude measured at 1, 2, 3, is at least several units of the measurable amplitude There results a transform to e1, e2, e3 with constant amplitude? Hmm, if the amplitude is transverse then the coordinates b are (1, 0, 0), where then e1 is in the direction to the source. Then this is using the analytic properties of the amplitude of the detected event instead of the synthetic properties of light-speed propagation of the event, to find the direction(s), which should be the same.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 07:19 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <nbp7si$h5v$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #378326 |
On 3/8/2016 9:28 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 4:36:34 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 3/8/2016 11:01 AM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: >>> On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 5:41:23 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 3/7/2016 8:04 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: >>>>> If so then where is it in the analysis and if not >>>>> then where is it in the analysis. >>>> >>>> I really don't think it's the LIGO team's obligation to provide >>>> experimental evidence from something other than their detector that >>>> would provide additional corroboration of the event that produced the >>>> signal. Now, if OTHER teams should be able to provide that in a separate >>>> paper, then great. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> >>> The evidence _would_ be from their detector - >>> it's the analysis or lack thereof that surely >>> they would examine as worth the time. >> >> And what would you expect that additional evidence to consist of? >> >>> >>> >>> Here, "surely" is conditioned by that the >>> "amplitude" of the gravity wave (basically >>> its absolute variation in its impulse) is >>> identical to all observers. >>> >>> Now if we're all acclaiming the sound origin >>> of gravitational waves theoretically, then it >>> should be clear how and why these putative >>> origins of a putative system would have these >>> putative properties, here whether or not the >>> "change" as measurable at all, of the gravity >>> wave, would be the same to all observers (here >>> under attenuation, as one might have that the >>> gravitational wave attenuates proportionally >>> to its volume of influence). >>> >>> So, how big are these waves? >>> >> >> The change in length of the arms due to the oscillation is about the >> size of the proton. >> >> The energy release of the waves was 5.3E+47 joules, which is about what >> you would get by converting ALL of the mass of three average stars to >> energy -- an enormous amount. Even more impressive is that the peak >> power output was (briefly) 3.6E+49 watts, which is more than the total >> fusion output of all the stars in the visible universe combined. >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > Oh. I was under the impression that the oscillation > would be large enough that it was statistically > probable that it was not zero. And that is the case. This is a 5-sigma effect, which means that the probability that the oscillation is not zero is 99.99994%. For the details of the sensitivity of the apparatus, the references to the papers from the LIGO team are given even in Wiki articles and are easy to fetch from there. > If they are down > to "proton length", I was not knowing that that clock > was precise down to less than c / Length_arm. = > ~ 3E8 m/s / 1E3m ~= 3E5 unit/s. I guess I'm wondering, > how many units is the oscillation at each of the arms, > in the most precise estimate given the clock, and call > this a_1, a_2, a_3 in axes x_1, x_2, x_3. Then, what > transformation sees that b_1 = b_2 = b_3 in e1, e2, e3 > (local space coordinate vector basis). > > f(a_1 x_1, a_2 x_2, a_3 x_3) = (be_1, be_2, be_3) > > This is where, the x_i's are not collinear, so, > they form a vector basis, here that it would > transform to the orthonormal vector basis e1, e2, e3 > with the constant amplitude of oscillation. > > Would that so derive the transform so that > x_i to e_i sees then that the transform is a > rotation and reflects from x_1 x_2 x_3 the > direction, of the event? > > Assumptions: > 1) in a region as small as the Earth, the > wave has a constant amplitude > 2) arms 1, 2, 3 are non-collinear > 3) arms 1, 2, 3 are at cross enough terms > 4) arms 1, 2, 3 are not totally different lengths > (in orders of magnitude) > 5) (arms 1, 2, 3 form a numerical vector space) > 6) the precision of the clocks has that the > amplitude measured at 1, 2, 3, is at least several > units of the measurable amplitude > > There results a transform to e1, e2, e3 with constant > amplitude? > > Hmm, if the amplitude is transverse then the > coordinates b are (1, 0, 0), where then e1 is > in the direction to the source. > > Then this is using the analytic properties of > the amplitude of the detected event instead of > the synthetic properties of light-speed propagation > of the event, to find the direction(s), which > should be the same. > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-11 08:43 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <87274443-3b9a-46ad-9610-04461861c6cb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378366 |
On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 5:19:22 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 3/8/2016 9:28 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 4:36:34 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 3/8/2016 11:01 AM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > >>> On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 5:41:23 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 3/7/2016 8:04 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > >>>>> If so then where is it in the analysis and if not > >>>>> then where is it in the analysis. > >>>> > >>>> I really don't think it's the LIGO team's obligation to provide > >>>> experimental evidence from something other than their detector that > >>>> would provide additional corroboration of the event that produced the > >>>> signal. Now, if OTHER teams should be able to provide that in a separate > >>>> paper, then great. > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>> > >>> The evidence _would_ be from their detector - > >>> it's the analysis or lack thereof that surely > >>> they would examine as worth the time. > >> > >> And what would you expect that additional evidence to consist of? > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> Here, "surely" is conditioned by that the > >>> "amplitude" of the gravity wave (basically > >>> its absolute variation in its impulse) is > >>> identical to all observers. > >>> > >>> Now if we're all acclaiming the sound origin > >>> of gravitational waves theoretically, then it > >>> should be clear how and why these putative > >>> origins of a putative system would have these > >>> putative properties, here whether or not the > >>> "change" as measurable at all, of the gravity > >>> wave, would be the same to all observers (here > >>> under attenuation, as one might have that the > >>> gravitational wave attenuates proportionally > >>> to its volume of influence). > >>> > >>> So, how big are these waves? > >>> > >> > >> The change in length of the arms due to the oscillation is about the > >> size of the proton. > >> > >> The energy release of the waves was 5.3E+47 joules, which is about what > >> you would get by converting ALL of the mass of three average stars to > >> energy -- an enormous amount. Even more impressive is that the peak > >> power output was (briefly) 3.6E+49 watts, which is more than the total > >> fusion output of all the stars in the visible universe combined. > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > Oh. I was under the impression that the oscillation > > would be large enough that it was statistically > > probable that it was not zero. > > And that is the case. This is a 5-sigma effect, which means that the > probability that the oscillation is not zero is 99.99994%. > > For the details of the sensitivity of the apparatus, the references to > the papers from the LIGO team are given even in Wiki articles and are > easy to fetch from there. > > > If they are down > > to "proton length", I was not knowing that that clock > > was precise down to less than c / Length_arm. = > > ~ 3E8 m/s / 1E3m ~= 3E5 unit/s. I guess I'm wondering, > > how many units is the oscillation at each of the arms, > > in the most precise estimate given the clock, and call > > this a_1, a_2, a_3 in axes x_1, x_2, x_3. Then, what > > transformation sees that b_1 = b_2 = b_3 in e1, e2, e3 > > (local space coordinate vector basis). > > > > f(a_1 x_1, a_2 x_2, a_3 x_3) = (be_1, be_2, be_3) > > > > This is where, the x_i's are not collinear, so, > > they form a vector basis, here that it would > > transform to the orthonormal vector basis e1, e2, e3 > > with the constant amplitude of oscillation. > > > > Would that so derive the transform so that > > x_i to e_i sees then that the transform is a > > rotation and reflects from x_1 x_2 x_3 the > > direction, of the event? > > > > Assumptions: > > 1) in a region as small as the Earth, the > > wave has a constant amplitude > > 2) arms 1, 2, 3 are non-collinear > > 3) arms 1, 2, 3 are at cross enough terms > > 4) arms 1, 2, 3 are not totally different lengths > > (in orders of magnitude) > > 5) (arms 1, 2, 3 form a numerical vector space) > > 6) the precision of the clocks has that the > > amplitude measured at 1, 2, 3, is at least several > > units of the measurable amplitude > > > > There results a transform to e1, e2, e3 with constant > > amplitude? > > > > Hmm, if the amplitude is transverse then the > > coordinates b are (1, 0, 0), where then e1 is > > in the direction to the source. > > > > Then this is using the analytic properties of > > the amplitude of the detected event instead of > > the synthetic properties of light-speed propagation > > of the event, to find the direction(s), which > > should be the same. > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables I've seen a few derivations of the gross direction of a putative event given the distance between the sites and timing of the data, but no derivation of the gross direction of a putative event given the directions of the arms and offset of the measurement in the arms. They should quite completely match, or at least, not differ. Those who say "GR was right", science just says "GR is not wrong", they don't know they're not scientists (or not talking to scientists, and no lie is "noble", or rather, science is "not wrong"). So, quite looking forward to the analysis that given the directions of the arm and the amplitudes of their events, should corroborate the "timing direction". Because that would validate my good faith in the design of the experiment. Where it doesn't match, that's more interesting than if it does.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-11 08:47 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <72031c8f-f846-4f76-b856-53667f6e9b6a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378588 |
On Friday, March 11, 2016 at 8:43:10 AM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 5:19:22 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > On 3/8/2016 9:28 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 4:36:34 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > >> On 3/8/2016 11:01 AM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > >>> On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 5:41:23 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > >>>> On 3/7/2016 8:04 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > >>>>> If so then where is it in the analysis and if not > > >>>>> then where is it in the analysis. > > >>>> > > >>>> I really don't think it's the LIGO team's obligation to provide > > >>>> experimental evidence from something other than their detector that > > >>>> would provide additional corroboration of the event that produced the > > >>>> signal. Now, if OTHER teams should be able to provide that in a separate > > >>>> paper, then great. > > >>>> > > >>>> -- > > >>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > >>> > > >>> The evidence _would_ be from their detector - > > >>> it's the analysis or lack thereof that surely > > >>> they would examine as worth the time. > > >> > > >> And what would you expect that additional evidence to consist of? > > >> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Here, "surely" is conditioned by that the > > >>> "amplitude" of the gravity wave (basically > > >>> its absolute variation in its impulse) is > > >>> identical to all observers. > > >>> > > >>> Now if we're all acclaiming the sound origin > > >>> of gravitational waves theoretically, then it > > >>> should be clear how and why these putative > > >>> origins of a putative system would have these > > >>> putative properties, here whether or not the > > >>> "change" as measurable at all, of the gravity > > >>> wave, would be the same to all observers (here > > >>> under attenuation, as one might have that the > > >>> gravitational wave attenuates proportionally > > >>> to its volume of influence). > > >>> > > >>> So, how big are these waves? > > >>> > > >> > > >> The change in length of the arms due to the oscillation is about the > > >> size of the proton. > > >> > > >> The energy release of the waves was 5.3E+47 joules, which is about what > > >> you would get by converting ALL of the mass of three average stars to > > >> energy -- an enormous amount. Even more impressive is that the peak > > >> power output was (briefly) 3.6E+49 watts, which is more than the total > > >> fusion output of all the stars in the visible universe combined. > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > > > Oh. I was under the impression that the oscillation > > > would be large enough that it was statistically > > > probable that it was not zero. > > > > And that is the case. This is a 5-sigma effect, which means that the > > probability that the oscillation is not zero is 99.99994%. > > > > For the details of the sensitivity of the apparatus, the references to > > the papers from the LIGO team are given even in Wiki articles and are > > easy to fetch from there. > > > > > If they are down > > > to "proton length", I was not knowing that that clock > > > was precise down to less than c / Length_arm. = > > > ~ 3E8 m/s / 1E3m ~= 3E5 unit/s. I guess I'm wondering, > > > how many units is the oscillation at each of the arms, > > > in the most precise estimate given the clock, and call > > > this a_1, a_2, a_3 in axes x_1, x_2, x_3. Then, what > > > transformation sees that b_1 = b_2 = b_3 in e1, e2, e3 > > > (local space coordinate vector basis). > > > > > > f(a_1 x_1, a_2 x_2, a_3 x_3) = (be_1, be_2, be_3) > > > > > > This is where, the x_i's are not collinear, so, > > > they form a vector basis, here that it would > > > transform to the orthonormal vector basis e1, e2, e3 > > > with the constant amplitude of oscillation. > > > > > > Would that so derive the transform so that > > > x_i to e_i sees then that the transform is a > > > rotation and reflects from x_1 x_2 x_3 the > > > direction, of the event? > > > > > > Assumptions: > > > 1) in a region as small as the Earth, the > > > wave has a constant amplitude > > > 2) arms 1, 2, 3 are non-collinear > > > 3) arms 1, 2, 3 are at cross enough terms > > > 4) arms 1, 2, 3 are not totally different lengths > > > (in orders of magnitude) > > > 5) (arms 1, 2, 3 form a numerical vector space) > > > 6) the precision of the clocks has that the > > > amplitude measured at 1, 2, 3, is at least several > > > units of the measurable amplitude > > > > > > There results a transform to e1, e2, e3 with constant > > > amplitude? > > > > > > Hmm, if the amplitude is transverse then the > > > coordinates b are (1, 0, 0), where then e1 is > > > in the direction to the source. > > > > > > Then this is using the analytic properties of > > > the amplitude of the detected event instead of > > > the synthetic properties of light-speed propagation > > > of the event, to find the direction(s), which > > > should be the same. > > > > > > > > > -- > > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > I've seen a few derivations of the gross direction > of a putative event given the distance between the > sites and timing of the data, but no derivation of > the gross direction of a putative event given the > directions of the arms and offset of the measurement > in the arms. > > They should quite completely match, or at least, > not differ. > > > > Those who say "GR was right", science just says > "GR is not wrong", they don't know they're not > scientists (or not talking to scientists, and > no lie is "noble", or rather, science is "not wrong"). > > > So, quite looking forward to the analysis that > given the directions of the arm and the amplitudes > of their events, should corroborate the "timing > direction". Because that would validate my good > faith in the design of the experiment. Where it > doesn't match, that's more interesting than if it > does. "Funded by the National Science Foundation, LIGO is an international resource for both physics and astrophysics."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 13:32 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d70af48f-4a1d-44c9-a840-b81db9dd8f56@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378316 |
The change in length of the arms due to the oscillation is about the size of the proton. The energy release of the waves was 5.3E+47 joules, which is about what you would get by converting ALL of the mass of three average stars to energy -- an enormous amount. Even more impressive is that the peak power output was (briefly) 3.6E+49 watts, which is more than the total fusion output of all the stars in the visible universe combined. 3.6E+49 watts Leaving the system (universe)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 14:37 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2117a181-9acc-4758-ae2a-b0fe4fb022ea@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378422 |
The change in length of the arms due to the oscillation is about the size of the proton. The energy release of the waves was 5.3E+47 joules, which is about what you would get by converting ALL of the mass of three average stars to energy -- an enormous amount. Even more impressive is that the peak power output was (briefly) 3.6E+49 watts, which is more than the total fusion output of all the stars in the visible universe combined. 3.6E+49 watts Leaving the system (universe) What jiggling LIGO measured was the rest pushing against earth as 3 solar mass exited the universe (1/spherically) centered at the merger site
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 18:16 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <57b79c5d-abb8-4c1f-a23e-3b60c3fa2900@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378435 |
The jiggling LIGO measured was the rest of the universe pushing inward against earth as 3 solar mass exited the universe (1/spherically) centered at the merger Inverse square 1/(4pi * r^2)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-11 07:37 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3314c178-963a-44a3-a642-dfa7f70fb38d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378441 |
((((4 * pi * (1.93400e+13^2)) / (4 * pi * (695 500^2))) * G) / 137) / 376.730313 = 0.999905473 (Surface area of heliopause*G)/ (surface area of Sun*FSC*impedance of the vacuum)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-11 07:52 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7f906d87-a8cd-4867-ae75-326b373e941f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378582 |
(Mass or matter or entropy) leaving the heliopause to never return will be emitted from the surface of the Sun as energy... Magnified a bit though. Closed universe An object traveling for a long enough (distance/time) directly away from its origin , eventually passing back through its original starting point.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-06 18:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nbhtdi$1097$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #377878 |
On Fri, 04 Mar 2016 07:55:05 -0600, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 3/4/2016 1:05 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Thou c as speed of these waves is a plausible assumption, the velocity >> is actually unknown. >> >> Since the velocity could have other values (from zero to infinity), we >> could have another directions, too. >> >> > Yes, this is certainly possible. The location of the source of the > signal was based on the presumption that, since GR made a good > prediction of the signal of black holes merging, then GR's other > prediction that gravity travels with speed c is also correct. One can only smile at Bodkin's logic. A sudden disturbance in any field will create a wave according to every known theory. Attempts to associate this latest achievement with the name Einstein reveal more about the nature of the conspiracy and the desperation of its perpetrators than anything else. >> Other possibilities: >> the signal does not stem from cosmic sources (e.g. from US black ops) >> influences from other dimensions /universes/aliens ... >> does not measure gravity (-waves) >> fraud technical malfunction human errors ... >> >> >> TH > > But this is ALWAYS true. For ANY scientific measurement or ANY > experimental test of a theory, one can imagine that the result was the > result of some other explanation. > > Let's take an example. Back in 1846, Le Verrier made a number of > numerical calculations using Newtonian celestial mechanics and > observations of the location of Uranus in the night sky, and he > predicted not only the existence of a new planet but its location in the > sky. When people then looked, Neptune was discovered to be right there. > Now, you can suppose that Le Verrier had made some mistakes in his > calculations, that there were spots on the telescope lenses, that the > observing astronomers had conducted bulk fraud because they wanted to > preserve Le Verrier's reputation, that there is something there but that > it's not Neptune and whatever is there just accidentally in the same > place bad calculations said it would be. > > The question is whether those are LIKELY. > > When one imagines, for example, that a theory that has made a number of > rather stunningly validated predictions in other arenas, but that the > prediction of gravitational waves is wrong and the matching signal is > instead caused by aliens from other dimensions, then I really have to > ask, "Is that REALLY more likely than GR being right again?" There is nothing in the LIGO discovery that is unique to Einstein's pathetic theory. The conspirators simply pounce on any opportunity to link his name with anything new as a pure publicity stunt. Other examples of their tactics are the GPS, Sagnac effect, Shapiro delay, the MMX, relativistic 'mass increase' and the atomic bomb, etc, etc. If a name is repeatedly associated with any new topics of interest, no matter how irrelevant or false that association is, it will eventually become almost impossible for anyone to claim that there is no association at all. All religions have traditionally used that kind of psychological tactic to entice unsuspecting victims into their pool of monetary donors.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-05 12:33 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b54d9d35-d032-4d32-9ce5-05f7338e4da8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #376711 |
W dniu niedziela, 21 lutego 2016 02:12:52 UTC+1 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał: > Fact 2: in GR, gravitational waves travel with local speed c. This is not only in vacuum, but also inside normal matter. Nonsense. There must be simpy: c - v... due to the relative motion of a source. The speed c is only am averrage, ie. the two-way speed = c... measured in any local frame.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web