Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #591612 > unrolled thread
| Started by | mapou001@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-08-02 00:03 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-08-05 18:25 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 90 — 11 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Fight the LIGO fraud. Sign this Petition mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-08-02 00:03 -0700
Misconceptions about LIGO (was: Fight the LIGO fraud. Sign this Petition) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-08-02 12:40 +0200
Re: Misconceptions about LIGO Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-08-02 12:58 +0200
Misconceptions about LIGO (was: Fight the LIGO fraud. Sign this Petition) jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-02 04:09 -0700
Re: Misconceptions about LIGO Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-08-02 14:32 +0200
Re: Misconceptions about LIGO jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-03 01:48 -0700
Re: Misconceptions about LIGO Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 07:51 -0500
Re: Misconceptions about LIGO jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-04 08:36 -0700
Re: Misconceptions about LIGO Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-04 11:20 -0500
Re: Misconceptions about LIGO jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-05 01:08 -0700
Re: Misconceptions about LIGO Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 08:04 -0500
Re: Misconceptions about LIGO Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-08-04 20:48 +0200
Re: Misconceptions about LIGO LIGO Fraud Investigator <mapou001@gmail.com> - 2016-08-04 12:30 -0700
Re: Misconceptions about LIGO john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-04 14:13 -0700
Re: Misconceptions about LIGO moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-04 22:04 +0000
Re: Misconceptions about LIGO Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 07:30 -0500
Re: Misconceptions about LIGO john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 06:00 -0700
Re: Misconceptions about LIGO Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 08:11 -0500
Re: Misconceptions about LIGO john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 06:15 -0700
Re: Misconceptions about LIGO Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 11:27 -0500
Re: Misconceptions about LIGO benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-05 16:22 -0400
Re: Misconceptions about LIGO Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 15:42 -0500
Re: Misconceptions about LIGO benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-05 19:31 -0400
Re: Misconceptions about LIGO LIGO Fraud Investigator <mapou001@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 17:30 -0700
Re: Misconceptions about LIGO The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-08-05 22:21 -0700
Re: Misconceptions about LIGO LIGO Fraud Investigator <mapou001@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 23:05 -0700
Re: Misconceptions about LIGO Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-06 17:32 -0500
Re: Misconceptions about LIGO Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-07 13:31 -0500
Re: Misconceptions about LIGO benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-08 18:22 -0400
Re: Misconceptions about LIGO john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 16:47 -0700
Re: Misconceptions about LIGO Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-06 17:31 -0500
Re: Misconceptions about LIGO The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-08-05 22:20 -0700
Re: Misconceptions about LIGO The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-08-06 10:21 -0700
Re: Misconceptions about LIGO The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-08-06 10:39 -0700
Re: Misconceptions about LIGO john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 10:37 -0700
Re: Misconceptions about LIGO Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 13:20 -0500
Re: Misconceptions about LIGO Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 13:25 -0500
Re: Misconceptions about LIGO john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 11:48 -0700
Re: Misconceptions about LIGO Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-08-05 20:48 +0200
Re: Misconceptions about LIGO john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 11:55 -0700
Re: Misconceptions about LIGO Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 15:15 -0500
Re: Misconceptions about LIGO Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 15:09 -0500
Re: Misconceptions about LIGO benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-05 16:26 -0400
Re: Misconceptions about LIGO Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 15:45 -0500
Re: Misconceptions about LIGO john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 15:32 -0700
Re: Misconceptions about LIGO Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-07 13:32 -0500
Re: Misconceptions about LIGO john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-07 13:57 -0700
Re: Misconceptions about LIGO john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-07 14:17 -0700
Re: Misconceptions about LIGO benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-08 18:37 -0400
Re: Misconceptions about LIGO benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-08 18:24 -0400
Re: Misconceptions about LIGO benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-05 19:35 -0400
Re: Misconceptions about LIGO Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-07 13:32 -0500
Re: Misconceptions about LIGO jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-05 01:42 -0700
Re: Misconceptions about LIGO poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-08-04 23:21 -0700
Re: Misconceptions about LIGO (was: Fight the LIGO fraud. Sign this Petition) poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-08-04 23:16 -0700
Re: Misconceptions about LIGO Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 07:04 -0500
Re: Misconceptions about LIGO (was: Fight the LIGO fraud. Sign this Petition) mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-08-02 10:35 -0700
Re: Misconceptions about LIGO Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-08-03 21:32 +0200
Re: Misconceptions about LIGO LIGO Fraud Investigator <mapou001@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 13:16 -0700
Re: Misconceptions about LIGO Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 17:06 -0500
Re: Misconceptions about LIGO mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-08-03 15:39 -0700
Re: Misconceptions about LIGO Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 21:25 -0500
Re: Misconceptions about LIGO LIGO Fraud Investigator <mapou001@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 21:29 -0700
Re: Misconceptions about LIGO Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-04 07:58 -0500
Re: Misconceptions about LIGO john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-04 06:07 -0700
Re: Misconceptions about LIGO Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-04 08:20 -0500
Re: Misconceptions about LIGO john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-04 06:48 -0700
Re: Misconceptions about LIGO john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-04 07:16 -0700
Re: Misconceptions about LIGO moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-04 14:51 +0000
Re: Misconceptions about LIGO john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-04 09:08 -0700
Re: Misconceptions about LIGO moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-04 16:39 +0000
Re: Misconceptions about LIGO Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 07:20 -0500
Re: Misconceptions about LIGO poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-08-04 23:28 -0700
Re: Misconceptions about LIGO poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-08-05 05:26 -0700
Re: Misconceptions about LIGO Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-04 11:14 -0500
Re: Misconceptions about LIGO poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-08-04 23:23 -0700
Re: Misconceptions about LIGO Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-08-05 20:49 +0200
Re: Misconceptions about LIGO Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 07:02 -0500
Re: Misconceptions about LIGO john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 05:12 -0700
Re: Misconceptions about LIGO LIGO Fraud Investigator <mapou001@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 12:50 -0700
Re: Misconceptions about LIGO Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 15:28 -0500
Re: Misconceptions about LIGO LIGO Fraud Investigator <mapou001@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 19:35 -0700
Re: Misconceptions about LIGO john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 20:55 -0700
Re: Misconceptions about LIGO Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 10:45 -0500
Re: Misconceptions about LIGO LIGO Fraud Investigator <mapou001@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 12:21 -0700
Re: Fight the LIGO fraud. Sign this Petition "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-08-02 11:10 -0700
Re: Fight the LIGO fraud. Sign this Petition john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-02 11:21 -0700
Re: Fight the LIGO fraud. Sign this Petition poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-08-04 23:12 -0700
Re: Fight the LIGO fraud. Sign this Petition Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 07:31 -0500
Re: Fight the LIGO fraud. Sign this Petition "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 18:25 -0700
Page 1 of 5 [1] 2 3 4 5 Next page →
| From | mapou001@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-02 00:03 -0700 |
| Subject | Fight the LIGO fraud. Sign this Petition |
| Message-ID | <33b9439d-684c-4211-837d-032c37e8e19c@googlegroups.com> |
PETITION: Prof. Karsten Danzmann, please answer 3 questions on the measurement of gravitational waves in connection with the LIGO Experiment. https://www.change.org/p/prof-karsten-danzmann-beantworten-sie-bitte-3-fragen-über-das-ligo-experiment Don't let the lying and thieving assholes win. Fight them with all your strength.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-02 12:40 +0200 |
| Subject | Misconceptions about LIGO (was: Fight the LIGO fraud. Sign this Petition) |
| Message-ID | <2135367.jE0xQCEvom@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #591612 |
mapou001@gmail.com wrote:
> PETITION: Prof. Karsten Danzmann, please answer 3 questions on the
> measurement of gravitational waves in connection with the LIGO Experiment.
>
> https://www.change.org/p/prof-karsten-danzmann-beantworten-sie-bitte-3-fragen-über-das-ligo-experiment
>
>
> Don't let the lying and thieving assholes win. Fight them with all your
> strength.
Let it be noted that the petitioner is
<http://www.crankwatch.com/wiki/index.php/Jocelyne_Lopez>, a Frenchwoman and
“physics layman” (Physiklaie) now “living in Germany”, who, according to
that reference, has been trolling “several German-speaking Web fora since
about 2003“, and whose “blog has been banned” repeatedly by service
providers due to “a lot of insults, denials, antisemitism, and severe
violations of personal rights in them”. See the reference for details.
(The Google Translate translation of that Web site from German into English
is, as usual, inadequate, but should be sufficient for the dedicated
English-speaking reader to tell where the motivation for that petition comes
from.)
Some of her ridiculous "physical" statements include these on light
(translated by me, emphasis by me):
“[…] Light does exist, but you could say that in only exists in very few
places in nature. Because *light is not created in the universe* [sic!],
light is only created in our eyes. Light does not exist outside
our eyes, or, IOW, light is invisible outside our eyes.
[…]
This shows, paradoxically, that light is mostly invisible. The photons
or impulses that *are created* by the innumerable light sources *in the
universe* [sic!] do move […] but we do not see their motion; their motion
is not perceptible and not observable by us, we only see the few [sic!]
that accidentally hit our retina and only let light be created in our
eyes. Without the existence of the retina of observers, the universe is
completely dark, there is no light there.”
As for the "petition" itself:
“[…] There are, however, very great doubts in the international scientific
community as to whether the measurement accuracy required to register
gravitational waves can be achieved at all by current measurement
techniques and technology: […]”
What does she dream of at night? Being a physics laywoman, how can she even
know about what the consensus in the “international scientific community” is
or what the “current measurement techniques and technology” are? There is
no evidence available (and she certainly does not provide any) that there
would be doubt among scientists that this precision can be achieved;
precisely *because* of the size of the detector that was *built* so that
this precision could be achieved, and the diligence involved in eliminating
other causes for the results.
“On 14th Sept. 2015, during a period of approx. 0.2 seconds, the LIGO
detectors are supposed to have registered a displacement of the 40 kg
mirror of the interferometer by 10^(-18) m due to the pressure of a
gravitational wave stemming from the fusion of two black holes at a
distance of 1.3 billion light years.”
From which we can clearly see that she has absolutely no clue what she is
talking about.
First of all, it was not that "the mirrors were displaced", but the 4 km
long arms of the detectors were shortened and lengthened; there are full
mirrors at the end of each arm and semipermeable mirrors where the arms are
crossing, to deflect the *laser light* into the detector unit.
It was not the "pressure" of a gravitational wave that "displaced mirrors",
but a gravitational wave is a propagating *spacetime distortion* that
*changes the length of objects when it passes through them*. As a result,
the laser light travels a longer or shorter distance than if the
gravitational wave would not pass through the experiment, and because light
is an *electromagnetic* *wave*, the pattern of interfering rays of laser
light changes. (And laser light created by commercially available lasers
can have wavelengths down to 157 nm = 1.57 × 10⁻⁷ m. Put simply, the
wavelength is the distance from one crest of a wave to the next one.)
*That* is what was observed, and since all other known phenomena to cause
that change could be excluded, the cause had to be a gravitational wave.
Further analysis then showed where the wave must have come from.
That LIGO consists of *two* detectors *several thousand kilometers apart*
(in Livingson, LA, and Hanford, CT) is an additional bonus, because that
allows one to see that the gravitational waves actually traveled (all at
the speed of light) from the source to one detector, through it, from it
to the other one, through that, and on in the universe.
See also: <http://www.ligo.org/science/faq.php>
--
PointedEars
Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-02 12:58 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Misconceptions about LIGO |
| Message-ID | <2073858.NG923GbCHz@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #591619 |
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > That LIGO consists of *two* detectors *several thousand kilometers apart* > (in Livingson, LA, and Hanford, CT) That’s _Livingston_ (LA), and _Hanford (WA)_, of course. [I confused this with Hartford (CT) for some reason.] JFTR: The shortest *driving* distance between the two LIGO sites is, according to Google Maps, 2350 mi ≈ 3781.949 km. Shortest walking distance, which should come close to the flying distance, is 2310 mi ≈ 3717.575 km. Gravitational waves would have to travel less than that since they can travel *through* the Earth. <https://www.google.ch/maps/dir/LIGO+Hanford+Observatory,+N+Route+10, +Richland,+Washington,+USA/LIGO+Livingston,+Ligo+Road,+Livingston, +Louisiana,+USA/@38.1079767,-114.0889323,5z/data=!4m15!4m14!1m5!1m1! 1s0x54985dc1a03257c3:0x70ac2e7c3e7fc470!2m2!1d-119.4075695!2d46.4551926!1m5! 1m1!1s0x8626e835b7d97141:0x7f7b0db13ffa9864!2m2!1d-90.7742062!2d30.5629972! 3e0!5i2> > is an additional bonus, because that allows one to see that the > gravitational waves actually traveled (all at the speed of light) from the > source to one detector, through it, from it to the other one, through > that, and on in the universe. > > See also: <http://www.ligo.org/science/faq.php> -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-02 04:09 -0700 |
| Subject | Misconceptions about LIGO (was: Fight the LIGO fraud. Sign this Petition) |
| Message-ID | <ad912c03-f24a-442d-8f58-b1b7f6292af3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #591619 |
Thomas Lahn wrote... > It was not the "pressure" of a gravitational wave that "displaced mirrors", but a gravitational wave is a propagating *spacetime distortion* that *changes the length of objects when it passes through them*. As a result, the laser light travels a longer or shorter distance than if the gravitational wave would not pass through the experiment, … You are propagating a falsehood. It is only an assumption that a gravitational wave was detected. In fact the designers of the template matching software admit that in each detector billions of potential candidates are recorded. Not three. And these billions are essentially from any source, most local to the detectors. That includes seismic events, and sources such as construction noises etc. Furthermore these billions of chirps all have the requisite profile of the theoretical profile predicted for a merging black hole pair. The only thing that makes each of these billions of chirps observed in each detector a potential 'gravitational wave'...is if a similar shaped profile in the same frequency range is seen in both detectors within the theoretical time limit of milliseconds dictated by GR. In other words there are many more, thousands even millions of events detected in both detectors that match the profile of a theoretical BH merger. But these occur outside the time limit and therefore cannot be attributed to a merging event. The conclusion can only be that the two events "detected" so far are more likely to be coincidental local seismic events. After all if you are looking at billions of similar shaped chirps caused by local seismic events in each detector. The chances are that one or two in a few billion will occur within milliseconds in both detectors. It is a fantasy that these are caused by gravitational waves.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-02 14:32 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Misconceptions about LIGO |
| Message-ID | <735098717.0ifERbkFSE@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #591621 |
jay moseley wrote: > Thomas Lahn wrote... >> It was not the "pressure" of a gravitational wave that "displaced >> mirrors", but a gravitational wave is a propagating *spacetime >> distortion* that *changes the length of objects when it passes through >> them*. As a result, the laser light travels a longer or shorter distance >> than if the gravitational wave would not pass through the experiment, … > > You are propagating a falsehood. I am propagating the truth. You and your crackpot sidekicks are propagating not just one falsehood, but several, about this and other experiments. > It is only an assumption that a gravitational wave was detected. Yes, an assumption *supported by experimental evidence*. That’s science. Someone does the math, and makes a prediction from that, so they have a physical theory. Sometime, somewhere, someone will put that theory to the test. The amazing thing here is that due to the extreme sensitivity required, not only it took 100 years from the prediction to the test, but that the test actually confirmed the prediction. > In fact the designers of the template matching software admit > that in each detector billions of potential candidates are recorded. You say that as if it were a bad thing. How can you not realize that this shows exactly the good quality of the technique and technology involved? > Not three. Nobody but you claimed three. > And these billions are essentially from any source, most local to the > detectors. That includes seismic events, and sources > such as construction noises etc. Not true. In particular, seismic events can be excluded because of the way the mirrors are set up. Put simply, they are *hanging in the air*, so that they are *isolated from unwanted vibrations* such as from seismic events. And “construction noises” – give me a break. Do you even know where the two sites are? I entreat you to listen *carefully* to and look *carefully* at Dr. David Reitze’s explanation of how the experiment works; in particular the part after he says “but you’re not done yet”: <https://youtu.be/aEPIwEJmZyE?list=PLkrz6hkCfdHiFHxrFGkCSDPwMmN-PSysT&t=1605> > Furthermore these billions of chirps all have the requisite profile of the > theoretical profile predicted for a merging black hole pair. No, they don’t. The chirps, produced from playing the gravitational wave as if it were a sound wave, are unique to such an event. Not only because of the form of the signal, but also because of the delay. Seismic waves, for example, do not travel at the speed of light. > In other words there are many more, thousands even millions of > events detected in both detectors that match the profile of a theoretical > BH merger. But these occur outside the time limit and therefore cannot > be attributed to a merging event. Nonsense. > The conclusion can only be that the two events "detected" so far are > more likely to be coincidental local seismic events. If seismic events *in particular* had not been *carefully* excluded by the experiment setup. Unfortunately, you have no clue what you are talking about. > It is a fantasy that these are caused by gravitational waves. Given the diligence with which LSC got to work, it has to be considered a fantasy concocted by crackpots instead that it could be anything *other* than gravitational waves. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-03 01:48 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Misconceptions about LIGO |
| Message-ID | <9f0666e1-fc7b-4701-934c-cce6b05da0cf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #591631 |
Thomas Lahn wrote... >> > Furthermore these billions of chirps all have the requisite profile of the > theoretical profile predicted for a merging black hole pair. >No, they don’t. The chirps, produced from playing the gravitational wave as if it were a sound wave, are unique to such an event. Not only because of the >form of the signal, but also because of the delay. Seismic waves, for example, do not travel at the speed of light. If a chirp is recorded in one detector that matches a merger profile. (There are billions detected in each detector). What does the speed of light have to do with it? You seem to not understand what is being detected at LIGO. They are detecting billions of chirps in each detector. None of those chirps has any information about how fast they arrived at the detector. Contrary to your delusion. It is only when the template software finds a match within a small timeframe of two similar chirps do the theorists then posit that possibly this coincidence could be from a BH merger. Assumption only. Do your homework. >> In other words there are many more, thousands even millions of > events detected in both detectors that match the profile of a theoretical > BH merger. >>But these occur outside the time limit and therefore cannot > be attributed to a merging event. >Nonsense. You should do your research first. Then type. You have no proof to back up your argument. Call LIGO and ask to talk to the template designers. They will tell you what I just told you. >> The conclusion can only be that the two events "detected" so far are > more likely to be coincidental local seismic events. >If seismic events *in particular* had not been *carefully* excluded by the experiment setup. Unfortunately, you have no clue what you are talking about. If you believe that seismic events, local events or any physical disturbance from earth or even solar events are excluded, dont send me an hour long youtube video and say your proof is somewhere in that video. Send me the relevent quote/text and a link to the source that confirms that LIGO detectors are incapable of responding to any local disturbances. And then explain what exactly causes all those BILLIONS of individual chirps detected in each detector that *do* have the trademark chirp profile of a BH merger but do not have a corresponding twin in the other detector in the millisecond time frame neccesary for a BH merger.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-03 07:51 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Misconceptions about LIGO |
| Message-ID | <nnspbs$1o91$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #591743 |
On 8/3/2016 3:48 AM, jay moseley wrote: > If a chirp is recorded in one detector that matches a merger profile. > (There are billions detected in each detector). What does the speed of light > have to do with it? It doesn't. But it's a simple likelihood problem. It's a calculable and MEASURABLE background. The issue is very simple: How likely is it that there are two completely independent seismic events that 1. have identical signal profiles (where "identical" is determined by cuts), and 2. occur within 10ms of each other. As mentioned previously, it is relatively straightforward to both calculate and directly measure this background rate from NONgravitational sources. It's once per several tens of thousands of years, according to the authors and their published data and analysis. So if you see events that happen at a rate that is a lot larger than that, you can be confident you are seeing signal, not background. This is the straightforward experimental business of determining signal/noise background, precisely so that you gain some certainty that what you are seeing in an event is signal and not background. Every single discovery experiment from the neutrino to the W to the top quark to the Higgs has followed the same analysis. > You seem to not understand what is being detected at LIGO. > They are detecting billions of chirps in each detector. None of those > chirps has any information about how fast they arrived at the detector. > Contrary to your delusion. > It is only when the template software finds a match within a small timeframe > of two similar chirps do the theorists then posit that possibly this coincidence > could be from a BH merger. > Assumption only. > Do your homework. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-04 08:36 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Misconceptions about LIGO |
| Message-ID | <bf3ee666-3525-4be3-b1b0-a79161875c10@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #591747 |
Odd wrote... > It doesn't. But it's a simple likelihood problem. It's a calculable and MEASURABLE background. >The issue is very simple: How likely is it that there are two completely independent seismic events that 1. have identical signal profiles (where "identical" is >determined by cuts), and 2. occur within 10ms of each other.? Maybe you will be able to answer your own question then. Considering that AFTER most local disturbances have been removed there are still 100s of billions of candidate chirps detected in * each detector * over a period of about 3 months. Then what are the chances that two chirps occur (one in each detector) within a period of 10ms? Depending on what values one inputs thats on average at least 1 simulataneous detection in both detectors every 10ms. Just from random events not related to any specific theoretical model like GR. Considering over three months thats millions of potential candidate *simulataneous* chirps just from random coincidences within a 10 ms time window. Its not surprising once you narrow the search with tighter defined Intensity and frequency parameters you can still get 3 closer matches over 3 months. JUST from random coincidence in a 10 ms time window
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-04 11:20 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Misconceptions about LIGO |
| Message-ID | <nnvq06$1pkj$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #591873 |
On 8/4/2016 10:36 AM, jay moseley wrote: > Odd wrote... >> It doesn't. But it's a simple likelihood problem. It's a calculable and MEASURABLE background. > >> The issue is very simple: How likely is it that there are two completely independent seismic >> events that 1. have identical signal profiles (where "identical" is >determined by cuts), and >> 2. occur within 10ms of each other.? > > Maybe you will be able to answer your own question then. > Considering that AFTER most local disturbances have been removed Yes, by noise reduction. > there > are still 100s of billions of candidate chirps detected in * each detector * > over a period of about 3 months. Then what are the chances that two > chirps occur (one in each detector) within a period of 10ms? Yes, this is what was answered. > > Depending on what values one inputs thats on average at least > 1 simulataneous detection in both detectors every 10ms. No, don't think so. Refer to the paper where those rates are actually MEASURED. The rate at which you get an accidental coincidence of seismic chirps that could potentially mimic the gravitational signal is once every 40,000 years. None of your bullshit now and the vigorous waving of your hands that it HAS to be higher than that. Go read the paper to find out why it's NOT higher than that. > Just from random events not related to any specific theoretical > model like GR. > Considering over three months thats millions of potential > candidate *simulataneous* chirps just from random coincidences > within a 10 ms time window. > Its not surprising once you narrow the search with tighter defined > Intensity and frequency parameters you can still get 3 closer matches > over 3 months. JUST from random coincidence in a 10 ms time window -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-05 01:08 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Misconceptions about LIGO |
| Message-ID | <52d37c76-a329-4f1f-88ac-ef933309ef17@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #591880 |
Odd wrote... > No, don't think so. Refer to the paper where those rates are actually MEASURED. >The rate at which you get an accidental coincidence of seismic chirps that could potentially mimic the gravitational signal is once every 40,000 years Maybe your paper pretends theory predicts once every 40,000 years for a random detection. But I was discussing facts not fiction. Facts are that each detector detects 100 of billions of candidate chirps in *each detector* over the detection period of a few months. Contact the LIGO template software team. They will confirm this. If you do even a rough calculation thats at least a hundred candidate chirps detected in *each detector* every 10 ms! Not one every 40,000 years! Do your maths. Consider that if the the detection period were over 3 months with 750,000,000 seperate 10 ms batches, each 10ms having 100 candidate chirps detected in both detectors. Thats 100*750,000,000 potential coincidences occuring from both detectors over three months within the prerequisite 10 ms time parameter. Not too hard then to only match those with very close profiles and end up with just three *coincidental* chirps detected over three months. If you just look at the facts and do your maths then you can see that the three "gravitational wave detections" were in fact 3 coincidental detections of similar shaped chirps in both detectors taken from a potential total of trillions of coincidental detections.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-05 08:04 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Misconceptions about LIGO |
| Message-ID | <no22sc$5op$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #591942 |
On 8/5/2016 3:08 AM, jay moseley wrote: > Odd wrote... >> No, don't think so. Refer to the paper where those rates are actually MEASURED. > >> The rate at which you get an accidental coincidence of seismic chirps that could >> potentially mimic the gravitational signal is once every 40,000 years > > Maybe your paper pretends theory predicts once every 40,000 years > for a random detection. No. The once every 40,000 years is not a prediction of general relativity. It is a result of a MEASUREMENT of the noise rate in the detectors. That's the point. This is a basic experimental technique, which you are apparently oblivious to. It goes like this. 1. A true signal would appear in two detectors within 10 ms. 2. So you know that any fake signals would be separated by MORE than 10 ms. So start looking for what you KNOW is background. 3. The way you do that is to time shift the stream of noise in one detector by MORE than 10 ms, and then try to find things that LOOK like signal but you KNOW are not signal. 4. MEASURE the rate at which this happens. > But I was discussing facts not fiction. > Facts are that each detector detects 100 of billions of candidate chirps in > *each detector* over the detection period of a few months. > Contact the LIGO template software team. They will confirm this. > > If you do even a rough calculation thats at least a hundred > candidate chirps detected in *each detector* every 10 ms! > Not one every 40,000 years! Do your maths. You have not done this correctly. See the correct approach above. If you want to know what's wrong with yours, here's a start. First of all, the chirp lasts 100 ms or so, so when you say a back-of-envelope calculation tells you there are at least a hundred of these chirps inside every 10ms window, that's 1000 chirps overlapping in 100ms. You don't see a problem recognizing a chirp at that rate? > Consider that if the the detection period were over 3 months with > 750,000,000 seperate 10 ms batches, each 10ms having 100 candidate > chirps detected in both detectors. Thats 100*750,000,000 potential > coincidences occuring from both detectors over three months within > the prerequisite 10 ms time parameter. > Not too hard then to only match those with very close profiles and end up > with just three *coincidental* chirps detected over three months. > If you just look at the facts and do your maths then you can see > that the three "gravitational wave detections" were in fact 3 coincidental > detections of similar shaped chirps in both detectors taken from a potential > total of trillions of coincidental detections. > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-04 20:48 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Misconceptions about LIGO |
| Message-ID | <1769010.oMNUckLgyt@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #591747 |
Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 8/3/2016 3:48 AM, jay moseley wrote:
>> If a chirp is recorded in one detector that matches a merger profile.
>> (There are billions detected in each detector).
No, there are not. As you can read e.g. in the GEO 600 scientist’s
considerate response to Mrs. Lopez first request (which was rather
reasonable compared to what followed from her), there is (in terms of sound,
see below) continuous “noise” that is far from such a "chirp" (which is
unsurprising given the literally astronomical circumstances required to
create such a "chirp").
>> What does the speed of light have to do with it?
>
> It doesn't.
Yes, it does.
If this unique "chirp" (again, it really were the discrete changes in a
laser beam interference pattern over a discrete period of time, only
*presented* as a sound chirp to the general public because *that was thought
easier for them to understand*) is detected at one (LIGO) site and the
*same* "chirp" is detected at another site after precisely the time that it
takes light to travel from the first site to the second; then, because
Einstein’s theory of gravitational waves of 1916 includes the prediction
that gravitational waves (as *all* spacetime distortions) propagate at the
speed of light (as that is the limit for the propagation of information in
both special and general relativity), then that is strong indication that
what was detected was a phenomenon that propagated at the speed of light.
Since it could not have been light itself (i.e. an *electromagnetic* wave),
and if all other causes can be excluded (and they could), then the only
possibility that remains is the observation of the propagation of a
spacetime distortion, a gravitational wave, between the two (LIGO) sites.
For an analogy that should be easy to understand by laymen, consider a water
wave instead:
You have two meter-sticks standing perpendicular to the lakebed/seabed at
some known distance from each other. You are at the first meter-stick. You
mark the height of the water on the stick at specific times. When a water
wave passes by, you mark the water height rising with time, then falling, in
a pattern that is unique to the form of the wave.
Now suppose you are not alone. There is another equally capable person
doing the marks for the other meter-stick. If the other person does
approximately the same marks as you, but each of them some *equal* time
later than yours, and that delay corresponds to a time interval in which a
water wave could have traveled from your meter-stick to theirs, or vice-
versa, and you know that neither of you nor anyone else have created a
considerable wave, then you can say with great confidence that the two of
you have observed the propagation of a water distortion, a water wave,
between the two meter-sticks.
“When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then
whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”
—Sherlock Holmes in A. C. Doyle's
“The Adventure of the Blanched Soldier”
> But it's a simple likelihood problem.
Not only.
> It's a calculable and MEASURABLE background.
>
> The issue is very simple: How likely is it that there are two completely
> independent seismic events that
> 1. have identical signal profiles (where "identical" is determined by
> cuts), and
> 2. occur within 10ms of each other.
There are other facts to consider:
1. Seismic events are _not_ locally restricted either. Seismic events such
as earthquakes cause seismic waves traveling outward from the location of
the event (usually underground). We know that seismic waves travel
through Terra’s layers, through rock and through the mantle; they were
instrumental in discovering the inner composition of the planet (they
travel slower in solids than in liquids).
If there had been two independent seismic events, then the seismic waves
caused by either event would have traveled not only to the other LIGO
site, where it would have caused (assuming that the LIGO scientists were
as uninformed as some people here to not consider that possibility) an
*additional* change in the other detector’s interference pattern, too;
it would have been detected by seismic observations stations, at least in
the vicinity of the LIGO site(s). And the seismic waves would have
arrived later there than what was actually measured because seismic waves
do not travel at the speed of light (299 792 458 m∕s), but only up to
13'000 m∕s (on Terra).
2. Seismic events cause seismic waves with much greater amplitudes at or
near the epicentrum than what was measured.
Bottom line: It *cannot* have been two independent seismic events.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seismic_wave>
F'up2 <news:sci.physics.relativity>
--
PointedEars
Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | LIGO Fraud Investigator <mapou001@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-04 12:30 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Misconceptions about LIGO |
| Message-ID | <15cf747e-bda2-44ba-9d7b-3f0d62f2b92c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #591886 |
On Thursday, August 4, 2016 at 11:48:39 AM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > [crap] > > Bottom line: It *cannot* have been two independent seismic events. Of course not. Both detections were fraudulent fake injections. Only a clueless ass kisser like you can claim otherwise. ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahahaha...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-04 14:13 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Misconceptions about LIGO |
| Message-ID | <d397410e-cf34-44cf-8533-1f4a1f0c86dc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #591896 |
Have to agree. Gravitational waves are NONSENSE propagated by those who think math is reality and have never taken a logic class. So you can memorize and regurgitate math nonsense/ so what??? HOW does matter "warp" Space???? Retards. Especially Mikey, who seems to have something against spinny things- like the Earth, all planets, all stars, all galaxies, all BHs (yep, no non-spinning ones- they ARE spin). Retard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-04 22:04 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Misconceptions about LIGO |
| Message-ID | <no0e53$hno$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #591913 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >galaxies, all BHs (yep, no non-spinning >ones- they ARE spin). >Retard Yes, that description of black holes sure is retarded. Black holes are spinning _what_, John?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-05 07:30 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Misconceptions about LIGO |
| Message-ID | <no20s7$2gq$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #591896 |
On 8/4/2016 2:30 PM, LIGO Fraud Investigator wrote: > On Thursday, August 4, 2016 at 11:48:39 AM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> [crap] >> >> Bottom line: It *cannot* have been two independent seismic events. > > Of course not. Both detections were fraudulent fake injections. Only a clueless ass kisser like you can claim otherwise. So, just to confirm the level of insanity here. You are saying that the only honorable intellectual position someone can take is to assume that everyone else is cheating. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-05 06:00 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Misconceptions about LIGO |
| Message-ID | <23497c48-205d-4685-8062-f551d0df6312@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #591953 |
Off said " So, just to confirm the level of insanity here. You are saying that the only honorable intellectual position someone can take is to assume that everyone else is cheating. " Exactly. ALL people claiming to have seen aliens or alien craft, INCLUDING government scientists and CIA agents who recant on their deathbeds, are LYING. The only safe thing to do is hide in your 'nym hole
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-05 08:11 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Misconceptions about LIGO |
| Message-ID | <no238q$6gg$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #591955 |
On 8/5/2016 8:00 AM, john wrote: > Off said > " > So, just to confirm the level of insanity here. > > You are saying that the only honorable intellectual position someone can > take is to assume that everyone else is cheating. " > > Exactly. ALL people claiming to have seen > aliens or alien craft, INCLUDING government > scientists and CIA agents who recant on > their deathbeds, are LYING. Here are the three cases again: 1. Telling the truth 2. Lying and defrauding 3. Fooled by a lie or a fraud Remember the hundreds of people who listened to "War of the Worlds" on the radio and swore they smelled smoke and poison gas and heard screams and death rays outside their homes. Even though it was a deliberate fiction and there was no poison gas, smoke, screams or death rays. Now, tell me again John that this kind of fringe hysteria just doesn't happen. > > The only safe thing to do is hide in > your 'nym hole > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-05 06:15 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Misconceptions about LIGO |
| Message-ID | <e8e3cfeb-90c9-44f6-83a7-c5c0a0a607c4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #591958 |
Off Hide in your 'nym hole. Cover your head. FRAUD HAS HAPPENED. Therefore, EVERYONE is suspect. Except, of course, the government and LIGO
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-05 11:27 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Misconceptions about LIGO |
| Message-ID | <no2epq$pns$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #591959 |
On 8/5/2016 8:15 AM, john wrote: > Off > Hide in your 'nym hole. > Cover your head. > FRAUD HAS HAPPENED. > Therefore, EVERYONE is suspect. OK, John. So because there has been lying, everyone lies about everything -- so says Ben Jacoby too. You trust no one. Especially not big orgs, like government and medicine and science, where everyone is a notorious liar. This is called paranoia. > Except, of course, the government > and LIGO > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 5 [1] 2 3 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web