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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #479789 > unrolled thread

Black hole mergers suddenly started always happening?

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

Contents

  Black hole mergers suddenly started always happening? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-12-13 16:26 -0800
    Re: Black hole mergers suddenly started always happening? Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2018-12-14 17:02 +1100
      Re: Black hole mergers suddenly started always happening? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-12-14 10:19 -0800
        Re: Black hole mergers suddenly started always happening? Scott Richman <sunn@idhnonow.iv> - 2018-12-14 18:48 +0000
        Re: Black hole mergers suddenly started always happening? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-14 19:48 +0000
          Re: Black hole mergers suddenly started always happening? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-12-14 13:35 -0800
            Re: Black hole mergers suddenly started always happening? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-12-14 14:42 -0800
              Re: Black hole mergers suddenly started always happening? RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-19 13:15 -0800
                Re: Black hole mergers suddenly started always happening? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-19 20:34 -0600
                  Re: Black hole mergers suddenly started always happening? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-12-19 23:07 -0800
                    Re: Black hole mergers suddenly started always happening? RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-27 23:41 -0800
                      Re: Black hole mergers suddenly started always happening? "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-12-28 05:32 -0800
                      Re: Black hole mergers suddenly started always happening? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-12-28 13:45 -0800
                      Re: Black hole mergers suddenly started always happening? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-29 01:54 +0100
                        Re: Black hole mergers suddenly started always happening? "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-12-29 06:48 -0800
                    Re: Black hole mergers suddenly started always happening? Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-12-31 15:50 -0800
                      Re: Black hole mergers suddenly started always happening? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-12-31 15:57 -0800
                        Re: Black hole mergers suddenly started always happening? Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2019-01-01 15:57 -0800
                          Re: Black hole mergers suddenly started always happening? maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-01-01 23:27 -0800
                            Re: Black hole mergers suddenly started always happening? Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2019-01-04 20:02 -0800
                              Re: Black hole mergers suddenly started always happening? maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-01-04 23:32 -0800
                                Re: Black hole mergers suddenly started always happening? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2019-01-05 05:42 -0800
                                  Re: Black hole mergers suddenly started always happening? maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-01-05 06:06 -0800
                                    Re: Black hole mergers suddenly started always happening? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2019-01-05 06:49 -0800
                                      Re: Black hole mergers suddenly started always happening? maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-01-05 06:57 -0800
                                        Re: Black hole mergers suddenly started always happening? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2019-01-05 07:08 -0800
                                          Re: Black hole mergers suddenly started always happening? maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-01-05 15:32 -0800
                                            Re: Black hole mergers suddenly started always happening? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2019-01-05 16:12 -0800
                                              Re: Black hole mergers suddenly started always happening? maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-01-05 16:54 -0800
                                                Re: Black hole mergers suddenly started always happening? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2019-01-05 17:05 -0800
                                  Re: Black hole mergers suddenly started always happening? RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2019-01-05 23:30 -0800
                                    Re: Black hole mergers suddenly started always happening? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 02:34 -0800
                                      Re: Black hole mergers suddenly started always happening? RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2019-01-07 09:21 -0800
                                        Re: Black hole mergers suddenly started always happening? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2019-01-07 10:59 -0800
                                Re: Black hole mergers suddenly started always happening? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2019-01-05 09:16 -0500
                Re: Black hole mergers suddenly started always happening? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-12-19 23:45 -0800
                  Re: Black hole mergers suddenly started always happening? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-12-20 10:07 -0500
                    Re: Black hole mergers suddenly started always happening? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-12-20 08:45 -0800
            Re: Black hole mergers suddenly started always happening? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-14 23:26 +0000
              Re: Black hole mergers suddenly started always happening? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-12-15 11:37 -0800
                Re: Black hole mergers suddenly started always happening? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-12-18 12:43 -0800
            Re: Black hole mergers suddenly started always happening? Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-12-31 15:44 -0800
        Re: Black hole mergers suddenly started always happening? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-29 12:00 -0800
          Re: Black hole mergers suddenly started always happening? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-12-30 12:48 -0800
            Re: Black hole mergers suddenly started always happening? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-31 01:57 +0000
              Re: Black hole mergers suddenly started always happening? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-12-30 19:30 -0800
      Re: Black hole mergers suddenly started always happening? "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-12-29 13:23 -0800
        Re: Black hole mergers suddenly started always happening? "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-12-29 13:41 -0800
          Re: Black hole mergers suddenly started always happening? "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-12-29 13:43 -0800
            Re: Black hole mergers suddenly started always happening? "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-12-29 14:29 -0800

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#481081

On Saturday, 5 January 2019 05:02:28 UTC+1, Steve BH  wrote:
> ,>> just a huge burst of neutrons should. These stars averaged 1.37 times the Sun's mass, which is exactly what we calculate for the lower mass of a neutron star. At anything above about 2 or 3 M, we should get a black hole, and indeed all other 29 mergers seen by LIGO/VIRGO have masses larger than that. And they give off NOTHING we can see.<<
> 
> Really? How, precisely, do you know they give off nothing we can see? How do you position these objects in the sky? 
> 
> It's quite interesting. If you have three points on the Earth (2 LIGO detectors and VIRGO in Italy) these are now three points defining a triangle. If the same signal hits each point at different times, the whole system works like GPS, and defines a direction that the signal must have come from. 

With what precision, poor idiot?

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

#481089

On Saturday, January 5, 2019 at 1:32:03 AM UTC-6, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, 5 January 2019 05:02:28 UTC+1, Steve BH  wrote:
> > ,>> just a huge burst of neutrons should. These stars averaged 1.37 times the Sun's mass, which is exactly what we calculate for the lower mass of a neutron star. At anything above about 2 or 3 M, we should get a black hole, and indeed all other 29 mergers seen by LIGO/VIRGO have masses larger than that. And they give off NOTHING we can see.<<
> > 
> > Really? How, precisely, do you know they give off nothing we can see? How do you position these objects in the sky? 
> > 
> > It's quite interesting. If you have three points on the Earth (2 LIGO detectors and VIRGO in Italy) these are now three points defining a triangle. If the same signal hits each point at different times, the whole system works like GPS, and defines a direction that the signal must have come from. 
> 
> With what precision, poor idiot?

Examine this image from the VIRGO website. In addition to timing differences
between the detectors, the detectors exhibit differential sensitivity in
different directions, which enabled even TWO detectors to limit probable
direction to a fraction of the circle which would be defined if the 
detectors were omnidirectional.
http://www.virgo-gw.eu/images/news_o2_catalog.png

The events designated with the suffix "HLV" are events detected jointly
by LIGO and VIRGO. The localization possible with THREE detectors is
vastly improved over that possible with only two detectors.

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

#481092

On Saturday, 5 January 2019 14:42:18 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog  wrote:
> On Saturday, January 5, 2019 at 1:32:03 AM UTC-6, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, 5 January 2019 05:02:28 UTC+1, Steve BH  wrote:
> > > ,>> just a huge burst of neutrons should. These stars averaged 1.37 times the Sun's mass, which is exactly what we calculate for the lower mass of a neutron star. At anything above about 2 or 3 M, we should get a black hole, and indeed all other 29 mergers seen by LIGO/VIRGO have masses larger than that. And they give off NOTHING we can see.<<
> > > 
> > > Really? How, precisely, do you know they give off nothing we can see? How do you position these objects in the sky? 
> > > 
> > > It's quite interesting. If you have three points on the Earth (2 LIGO detectors and VIRGO in Italy) these are now three points defining a triangle. If the same signal hits each point at different times, the whole system works like GPS, and defines a direction that the signal must have come from. 
> > 
> > With what precision, poor idiot?
> 
> Examine this image from the VIRGO website. In addition to timing differences
> between the detectors, the detectors exhibit differential sensitivity in
> different directions, which enabled even TWO detectors to limit probable
> direction to a fraction of the circle which would be defined if the 
> detectors were omnidirectional.
> http://www.virgo-gw.eu/images/news_o2_catalog.png

As expected, the precision is not impressive. I can bet
we see millions of object in these regions. So - again -
what made Steve claiming that there is "nothing we can
see" there?

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

#481097

On Saturday, January 5, 2019 at 8:06:06 AM UTC-6, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, 5 January 2019 14:42:18 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog  wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 5, 2019 at 1:32:03 AM UTC-6, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Saturday, 5 January 2019 05:02:28 UTC+1, Steve BH  wrote:
> > > > ,>> just a huge burst of neutrons should. These stars averaged 1.37 times the Sun's mass, which is exactly what we calculate for the lower mass of a neutron star. At anything above about 2 or 3 M, we should get a black hole, and indeed all other 29 mergers seen by LIGO/VIRGO have masses larger than that. And they give off NOTHING we can see.<<
> > > > 
> > > > Really? How, precisely, do you know they give off nothing we can see? How do you position these objects in the sky? 
> > > > 
> > > > It's quite interesting. If you have three points on the Earth (2 LIGO detectors and VIRGO in Italy) these are now three points defining a triangle. If the same signal hits each point at different times, the whole system works like GPS, and defines a direction that the signal must have come from. 
> > > 
> > > With what precision, poor idiot?
> > 
> > Examine this image from the VIRGO website. In addition to timing differences
> > between the detectors, the detectors exhibit differential sensitivity in
> > different directions, which enabled even TWO detectors to limit probable
> > direction to a fraction of the circle which would be defined if the 
> > detectors were omnidirectional.
> > http://www.virgo-gw.eu/images/news_o2_catalog.png
> 
> As expected, the precision is not impressive. I can bet
> we see millions of object in these regions. So - again -
> what made Steve claiming that there is "nothing we can
> see" there?

We see VERY FEW gamma ray bursts coming from regions as well-defined as
the areas defined by the joint LIGO/VIRGO detectors over a several seconds
period.

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

#481099

On Saturday, 5 January 2019 15:49:07 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog  wrote:
> On Saturday, January 5, 2019 at 8:06:06 AM UTC-6, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, 5 January 2019 14:42:18 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog  wrote:
> > > On Saturday, January 5, 2019 at 1:32:03 AM UTC-6, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, 5 January 2019 05:02:28 UTC+1, Steve BH  wrote:
> > > > > ,>> just a huge burst of neutrons should. These stars averaged 1.37 times the Sun's mass, which is exactly what we calculate for the lower mass of a neutron star. At anything above about 2 or 3 M, we should get a black hole, and indeed all other 29 mergers seen by LIGO/VIRGO have masses larger than that. And they give off NOTHING we can see.<<
> > > > > 
> > > > > Really? How, precisely, do you know they give off nothing we can see? How do you position these objects in the sky? 
> > > > > 
> > > > > It's quite interesting. If you have three points on the Earth (2 LIGO detectors and VIRGO in Italy) these are now three points defining a triangle. If the same signal hits each point at different times, the whole system works like GPS, and defines a direction that the signal must have come from. 
> > > > 
> > > > With what precision, poor idiot?
> > > 
> > > Examine this image from the VIRGO website. In addition to timing differences
> > > between the detectors, the detectors exhibit differential sensitivity in
> > > different directions, which enabled even TWO detectors to limit probable
> > > direction to a fraction of the circle which would be defined if the 
> > > detectors were omnidirectional.
> > > http://www.virgo-gw.eu/images/news_o2_catalog.png
> > 
> > As expected, the precision is not impressive. I can bet
> > we see millions of object in these regions. So - again -
> > what made Steve claiming that there is "nothing we can
> > see" there?
> 
> We see VERY FEW gamma ray bursts 

But poor idiot Steve didn't say "they give no gamma ray 
burst".
Instead he said  "And they give off NOTHING we can see." 

BTW, your famous black holes are outside of our
spacetime, aren't they? 
How do they move in our spacetime when they are
outside?

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

#481100

On Saturday, January 5, 2019 at 8:57:10 AM UTC-6, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, 5 January 2019 15:49:07 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog  wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 5, 2019 at 8:06:06 AM UTC-6, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Saturday, 5 January 2019 14:42:18 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog  wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, January 5, 2019 at 1:32:03 AM UTC-6, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, 5 January 2019 05:02:28 UTC+1, Steve BH  wrote:
> > > > > > ,>> just a huge burst of neutrons should. These stars averaged 1.37 times the Sun's mass, which is exactly what we calculate for the lower mass of a neutron star. At anything above about 2 or 3 M, we should get a black hole, and indeed all other 29 mergers seen by LIGO/VIRGO have masses larger than that. And they give off NOTHING we can see.<<
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Really? How, precisely, do you know they give off nothing we can see? How do you position these objects in the sky? 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > It's quite interesting. If you have three points on the Earth (2 LIGO detectors and VIRGO in Italy) these are now three points defining a triangle. If the same signal hits each point at different times, the whole system works like GPS, and defines a direction that the signal must have come from. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > With what precision, poor idiot?
> > > > 
> > > > Examine this image from the VIRGO website. In addition to timing differences
> > > > between the detectors, the detectors exhibit differential sensitivity in
> > > > different directions, which enabled even TWO detectors to limit probable
> > > > direction to a fraction of the circle which would be defined if the 
> > > > detectors were omnidirectional.
> > > > http://www.virgo-gw.eu/images/news_o2_catalog.png
> > > 
> > > As expected, the precision is not impressive. I can bet
> > > we see millions of object in these regions. So - again -
> > > what made Steve claiming that there is "nothing we can
> > > see" there?
> > 
> > We see VERY FEW gamma ray bursts 
> 
> But poor idiot Steve didn't say "they give no gamma ray 
> burst".
> Instead he said  "And they give off NOTHING we can see." 
> 
> BTW, your famous black holes are outside of our
> spacetime, aren't they? 
> How do they move in our spacetime when they are
> outside?

Gamma ray and visible light signals from the neutron star coalescence.
Nothing from the black hole mergers.

Do you have ABSOLUTELY NO LONG TERM MEMORY facilities whatsoever?

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

#481132

On Saturday, 5 January 2019 16:08:20 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog  wrote:
> On Saturday, January 5, 2019 at 8:57:10 AM UTC-6, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, 5 January 2019 15:49:07 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog  wrote:
> > > On Saturday, January 5, 2019 at 8:06:06 AM UTC-6, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, 5 January 2019 14:42:18 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog  wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, January 5, 2019 at 1:32:03 AM UTC-6, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday, 5 January 2019 05:02:28 UTC+1, Steve BH  wrote:
> > > > > > > ,>> just a huge burst of neutrons should. These stars averaged 1.37 times the Sun's mass, which is exactly what we calculate for the lower mass of a neutron star. At anything above about 2 or 3 M, we should get a black hole, and indeed all other 29 mergers seen by LIGO/VIRGO have masses larger than that. And they give off NOTHING we can see.<<
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Really? How, precisely, do you know they give off nothing we can see? How do you position these objects in the sky? 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > It's quite interesting. If you have three points on the Earth (2 LIGO detectors and VIRGO in Italy) these are now three points defining a triangle. If the same signal hits each point at different times, the whole system works like GPS, and defines a direction that the signal must have come from. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > With what precision, poor idiot?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Examine this image from the VIRGO website. In addition to timing differences
> > > > > between the detectors, the detectors exhibit differential sensitivity in
> > > > > different directions, which enabled even TWO detectors to limit probable
> > > > > direction to a fraction of the circle which would be defined if the 
> > > > > detectors were omnidirectional.
> > > > > http://www.virgo-gw.eu/images/news_o2_catalog.png
> > > > 
> > > > As expected, the precision is not impressive. I can bet
> > > > we see millions of object in these regions. So - again -
> > > > what made Steve claiming that there is "nothing we can
> > > > see" there?
> > > 
> > > We see VERY FEW gamma ray bursts 
> > 
> > But poor idiot Steve didn't say "they give no gamma ray 
> > burst".
> > Instead he said  "And they give off NOTHING we can see." 
> > 
> > BTW, your famous black holes are outside of our
> > spacetime, aren't they? 
> > How do they move in our spacetime when they are
> > outside?
> 
> Gamma ray and visible light signals from the neutron star coalescence.
> Nothing from the black hole mergers.

Of course that it's nothing.

So, How do your "black holes" move being
outside time and outside space?

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

#481136

On Saturday, January 5, 2019 at 5:32:45 PM UTC-6, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, 5 January 2019 16:08:20 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog  wrote:

> > Gamma ray and visible light signals from the neutron star coalescence.
> > Nothing from the black hole mergers.
> 
> Of course that it's nothing.
> 
> So, How do your "black holes" move being
> outside time and outside space?

A favorite trick of yours is to trim off the relevant part of the question
that a person is answering, so as to make the person's answer seem
misguided and nonsensical.

The part of your comment that I was answering was:
|  Steve didn't say "they give no gamma ray burst". Instead he said        .
|  "And they give off NOTHING we can see."                                 .

and my answer to that part of your comment was:
|  Gamma ray and visible light signals from the neutron star coalescence.  .
|  Nothing from the black hole mergers.                                    .

You are just like many other notorious crackpots in that regards. Koobie
and Henry Wilson absolutely *LOVED* tampering with the quote chain.

You have no sense of ethics, in addition to your many other defects.

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

#481140

On Sunday, 6 January 2019 01:12:45 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog  wrote:
> On Saturday, January 5, 2019 at 5:32:45 PM UTC-6, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, 5 January 2019 16:08:20 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog  wrote:
> 
> > > Gamma ray and visible light signals from the neutron star coalescence.
> > > Nothing from the black hole mergers.
> > 
> > Of course that it's nothing.
> > 
> > So, How do your "black holes" move being
> > outside time and outside space?
> 
> A favorite trick of yours is to trim off the relevant part of the question
> that a person is answering, so as to make the person's answer seem
> misguided and nonsensical.
> 
> The part of your comment that I was answering was:
> |  Steve didn't say "they give no gamma ray burst". Instead he said        .
> |  "And they give off NOTHING we can see."                                 .
> 
> and my answer to that part of your comment was:
> |  Gamma ray and visible light signals from the neutron star coalescence.  .
> |  Nothing from the black hole mergers.                                    .
> 
> You are just like many other notorious crackpots in that regards. Koobie
> and Henry Wilson absolutely *LOVED* tampering with the quote chain.
> 
> You have no sense of ethics, in addition to your many other defects.

You know, it's really funny when such a
pierce of shit is talking about ethic.

So, How do your "black holes" move being
outside time and outside space?

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

#481143

On Saturday, January 5, 2019 at 4:54:21 PM UTC-8, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, 6 January 2019 01:12:45 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog  wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 5, 2019 at 5:32:45 PM UTC-6, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Saturday, 5 January 2019 16:08:20 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog  wrote:
> > 
> > > > Gamma ray and visible light signals from the neutron star coalescence.
> > > > Nothing from the black hole mergers.
> > > 
> > > Of course that it's nothing.
> > > 
> > > So, How do your "black holes" move being
> > > outside time and outside space?
> > 
> > A favorite trick of yours is to trim off the relevant part of the question
> > that a person is answering, so as to make the person's answer seem
> > misguided and nonsensical.
> > 
> > The part of your comment that I was answering was:
> > |  Steve didn't say "they give no gamma ray burst". Instead he said        .
> > |  "And they give off NOTHING we can see."                                 .
> > 
> > and my answer to that part of your comment was:
> > |  Gamma ray and visible light signals from the neutron star coalescence.  .
> > |  Nothing from the black hole mergers.                                    .
> > 
> > You are just like many other notorious crackpots in that regards. Koobie
> > and Henry Wilson absolutely *LOVED* tampering with the quote chain.
> > 
> > You have no sense of ethics, in addition to your many other defects.
> 
> You know, it's really funny when such a
> pierce of shit is talking about ethic.
> 
> So, How do your "black holes" move being
> outside time and outside space?

Science doesn't know what it is doing...
It could be caught in a lie with itself.
God creates gravity.

Mitchell Raemsch

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

#481158

On January 5, 2019 Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> The events designated with the suffix "HLV" are events detected jointly
> by LIGO and VIRGO. The localization possible with THREE detectors is
> vastly improved over that possible with only two detectors.

OK, more detectors provide greater localization, a la GPS.  
And greater confidence levels, statistically. 

But still, the apparatus's resolution is down to a hydrogen 
nucleus, astoundingly.  Will they ever improve on that? And 
doesn't that set the ultimate limits on the observable?  
Including, how far back into the past?



--
Rich

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

#481162

On Sunday, January 6, 2019 at 1:30:05 AM UTC-6, RichD wrote:
> On January 5, 2019 Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> > The events designated with the suffix "HLV" are events detected jointly
> > by LIGO and VIRGO. The localization possible with THREE detectors is
> > vastly improved over that possible with only two detectors.
> 
> OK, more detectors provide greater localization, a la GPS.  
> And greater confidence levels, statistically. 
> 
> But still, the apparatus's resolution is down to a hydrogen 
> nucleus, astoundingly.  Will they ever improve on that? And 
> doesn't that set the ultimate limits on the observable?  
> Including, how far back into the past?

Improvements are being planned dependent on the various international
science budgets. Beyond the onboarding of additional detectors as the 
international collaboration expands, they include:

- Use of squeezed light techniques (already being demonstrated at GEO600)
- Improved mirror coatings
- Replacement of glass mirrors with silicon mirrors cooled to liquid
  nitrogen temperatures. This would necessitate replacement of the existing
  lasers with ones with a different wavelength to which silicon is
  transparent.
- Larger instruments, possibly with a different topology.

Here is a white paper on these potential improvements.
https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-T1500290/public

Remember, each doubling in sensitivity will result in a doubling in range
and an eight-fold increase in volume of space that can be monitored. This
is because the instruments are sensitive to the amplitude of the waves
(which goes as 1/r) rather than their intensity (which goes as 1/r^2).

What are the ultimate limits of ground-based instruments? 

I dunno. 

But various of the phenomena that you have referred to in previous posts
will require space-bourne instrumentation because the required frequency
range is different.

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

#481288

On January 6, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
>> OK, more detectors provide greater localization, a la GPS.  
>> And greater confidence levels, statistically. 
>> But still, the apparatus resolution is down to a hydrogen 
> > nucleus, astoundingly.  Will they ever improve on that? And 
> > doesn't that set the ultimate limits on the observable?  
> > Including, how far back into the past?
> 
> Improvements are being planned dependent on the various international
> science budgets. Beyond the onboarding of additional detectors as the 
> international collaboration expands, they include:
> 
> - Use of squeezed light techniques (already being demonstrated at GEO600)

What is?

> - Replacement of glass mirrors with silicon mirrors cooled to liquid
>   nitrogen temperatures. This would necessitate replacement of the existing
>   lasers with ones with a different wavelength to which silicon is
>   transparent.

um, a transparent mirror sort of defeats the purpose - 
 
--
Rich

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

#481292

On Monday, January 7, 2019 at 11:22:01 AM UTC-6, RichD wrote:
> On January 6, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> >> OK, more detectors provide greater localization, a la GPS.  
> >> And greater confidence levels, statistically. 
> >> But still, the apparatus resolution is down to a hydrogen 
> > > nucleus, astoundingly.  Will they ever improve on that? And 
> > > doesn't that set the ultimate limits on the observable?  
> > > Including, how far back into the past?
> > 
> > Improvements are being planned dependent on the various international
> > science budgets. Beyond the onboarding of additional detectors as the 
> > international collaboration expands, they include:
> > 
> > - Use of squeezed light techniques (already being demonstrated at GEO600)
> 
> What is?

GEO600 is a German development center that creates and tests new
technologies that ultimately wind up in LIGO/VIRGO
 
You can look up squeezed light online. The Wikipedia articles are not very
good for introducing the topic, unfortunately.
 
> > - Replacement of glass mirrors with silicon mirrors cooled to liquid
> >   nitrogen temperatures. This would necessitate replacement of the existing
> >   lasers with ones with a different wavelength to which silicon is
> >   transparent.
> 
> um, a transparent mirror sort of defeats the purpose - 

Light needs to both reflect off of and pass through partially reflective
mirrors in the Fabry-Perot optical arrangement.

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

#481095

On 1/5/2019 2:32 AM, maluwozniak@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, 5 January 2019 05:02:28 UTC+1, Steve BH  wrote:
>> ,>> just a huge burst of neutrons should. These stars averaged 1.37 times the Sun's mass, which is exactly what we calculate for the lower mass of a neutron star. At anything above about 2 or 3 M, we should get a black hole, and indeed all other 29 mergers seen by LIGO/VIRGO have masses larger than that. And they give off NOTHING we can see.<<
>>
>> Really? How, precisely, do you know they give off nothing we can see? How do you position these objects in the sky?
>>
>> It's quite interesting. If you have three points on the Earth (2 LIGO detectors and VIRGO in Italy) these are now three points defining a triangle. If the same signal hits each point at different times, the whole system works like GPS, and defines a direction that the signal must have come from.
> 
> With what precision, poor idiot?
> 
Look at the LIGO web site. They have sky diagrams of the locations of 
detected merger events. With only two LIGO detectors they are not very 
precise, potentially coming from fairly large swaths of the sky. With 
VIRGO added it is much more precise, precise enough that they knew where 
to look for an optical/gamma equivalent to the two neutron star event. 
And they found one.

This stuff is really cool.

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

#480285

On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 3:15:40 PM UTC-6, RichD wrote:
> On December 14, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> > This is not the latest info available, but the following curves illustrate
> > the gradual improvements in sensitivity achieved over DECADES of
> > development.
> > https://2.bp.blogspot.com/--e_8UlQw1Z0/T6vwc33JomI/AAAAAAAAAUw/QDpstbJrgq4/s1600/strainCurves.jpg
> > 
> > Each gradual incremental leap in sensitivity required the blood, sweat 
> > and tears of hundreds and hundreds of scientists working to understand 
> > every source of noise, every factor that could prevent LIGO from reaching
> > its design limits.
> 
> What are the ultimate limits?
> Is the current instrumental state of the art the end of the line?

Far from it. Due to various engineering problems, the next O3 science run 
of LIGO/VIRGO will see each separate instrument "only" a few times more
sensitive than for O2, but the full participation of VIRGO in the O3 run
will effectively increase the sensitivity of the full array by an order of
magnitude. This is because various potential detections made by LIGO alone
which would have to be rejected as not being statistically significant, will
be confirmed as real by VIRGO.

For the O2 science run, VIRGO was operational for only 3 1/2 weeks, but
during this limited period, the joint LIGO/VIRGO network detected FIVE
events, more than were detected by LIGO alone over the entire nine months 
of O2.

Also remember that the detection range of LIGO/VIRGO goes as the *FIRST* 
power of its sensitivity. Doubling the sensitivity increases the volume of
observable space by a factor of eight.

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

#480304

On 12/20/2018 2:45 AM, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> Far from it. Due to various engineering problems, the next O3 science run
> of LIGO/VIRGO will see each separate instrument "only" a few times more
> sensitive than for O2, but the full participation of VIRGO in the O3 run
> will effectively increase the sensitivity of the full array by an order of
> magnitude. This is because various potential detections made by LIGO alone
> which would have to be rejected as not being statistically significant, will
> be confirmed as real by VIRGO.
> 
> For the O2 science run, VIRGO was operational for only 3 1/2 weeks, but
> during this limited period, the joint LIGO/VIRGO network detected FIVE
> events, more than were detected by LIGO alone over the entire nine months
> of O2.
> 
So, for a hypothetical event or even for these 5 events, the signals 
LIGO+LIGO would be seen and visible, but the signal/noise ratio would 
have been low enough that it would have been rejected (perhaps 
automatically) but the presence of additional data from VIRGO raised the 
overall S/N to be above the threshold? And this is why so many events 
were detected over such a short period? Is there any way of knowing how 
many LIGO+LIGO only events were detected over a given period of time 
that had a similar S/N as the 5 events? That is ones rejected as S/N 
being too low, but potentially reasonably may have been above the S/N 
floor had VIRGO been involved?

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

#480311

On Thursday, December 20, 2018 at 9:05:36 AM UTC-6, Volney wrote:
> On 12/20/2018 2:45 AM, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> > Far from it. Due to various engineering problems, the next O3 science run
> > of LIGO/VIRGO will see each separate instrument "only" a few times more
> > sensitive than for O2, but the full participation of VIRGO in the O3 run
> > will effectively increase the sensitivity of the full array by an order of
> > magnitude. This is because various potential detections made by LIGO alone
> > which would have to be rejected as not being statistically significant, will
> > be confirmed as real by VIRGO.
> > 
> > For the O2 science run, VIRGO was operational for only 3 1/2 weeks, but
> > during this limited period, the joint LIGO/VIRGO network detected FIVE
> > events, more than were detected by LIGO alone over the entire nine months
> > of O2.
> > 
> So, for a hypothetical event or even for these 5 events, the signals 
> LIGO+LIGO would be seen and visible, but the signal/noise ratio would 
> have been low enough that it would have been rejected (perhaps 
> automatically) but the presence of additional data from VIRGO raised the 
> overall S/N to be above the threshold? And this is why so many events 
> were detected over such a short period? Is there any way of knowing how 
> many LIGO+LIGO only events were detected over a given period of time 
> that had a similar S/N as the 5 events? That is ones rejected as S/N 
> being too low, but potentially reasonably may have been above the S/N 
> floor had VIRGO been involved?

I suppose somebody familiar with the data could come up with a reasonable
estimate, but I myself would not be in a position to provide such an
number, besides saying that there were probably "a whole bunch" of them.

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

#479839

mitchrae3323@gmail.com writes:

>On Friday, December 14, 2018 at 11:48:47 AM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> mitchrae3323@gmail.com writes:
>> 
>> >On Thursday, December 13, 2018 at 10:02:28 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> 
>> >> I don't see what problem you have with it. Previously the technology 
>> >> didn't exist capable of detecting these events. Now it does. It is to be 
>> >> expected that once events are detectable, one will keep detecting them.
>> 
>> >Why would it suddenly start happening all of the time Sylvia?
>> 
>> Why would you think mergers suddenly start happening all of the time?
>> 
>> We see them happening all the time simply because we can now detect them.

>What do you mean Now? Ligo started in 1994.

LIGO operated between 2002 and 2010. It did not detect any unambiguous
signals during that time apparently because it was not sensitive enough.

In 2010 it was shut down for 5 years to be upgraded (Advanced LIGO). This
was now much more sensitive, capturing a discovery almost right away.

>So since when? If not before why immediately after the first measurement?
>If that is the truth.

It was much more sensitive when resuming operation in 2015.

>Why should their speed of happening increase to a maximum after
>first detection?

It simply wasn't sensitive enough at first.

>There are no special waves of gravity...

LIGO has shown that this is false.

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

#479892

On Friday, December 14, 2018 at 3:26:40 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
> mitchrae3323@gmail.com writes:
> 
> >On Friday, December 14, 2018 at 11:48:47 AM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> mitchrae3323@gmail.com writes:
> >> 
> >> >On Thursday, December 13, 2018 at 10:02:28 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >> 
> >> >> I don't see what problem you have with it. Previously the technology 
> >> >> didn't exist capable of detecting these events. Now it does. It is to be 
> >> >> expected that once events are detectable, one will keep detecting them.
> >> 
> >> >Why would it suddenly start happening all of the time Sylvia?
> >> 
> >> Why would you think mergers suddenly start happening all of the time?
> >> 
> >> We see them happening all the time simply because we can now detect them.
> 
> >What do you mean Now? Ligo started in 1994.
> 
> LIGO operated between 2002 and 2010. It did not detect any unambiguous
> signals during that time apparently because it was not sensitive enough.
> 
> In 2010 it was shut down for 5 years to be upgraded (Advanced LIGO). This
> was now much more sensitive, capturing a discovery almost right away.
> 
> >So since when? If not before why immediately after the first measurement?
> >If that is the truth.
> 
> It was much more sensitive when resuming operation in 2015.
> 
> >Why should their speed of happening increase to a maximum after
> >first detection?
> 
> It simply wasn't sensitive enough at first.
> 
> >There are no special waves of gravity...
> 
> LIGO has shown that this is false.

LIGO has nothing. God creates gravity.

Mitchell Raemsch

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

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

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

csiph-web