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

Groups > sci.physics > #585102 > unrolled thread

The Gravitational Wave Hoax and Einstein's Spacetime

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  The Gravitational Wave Hoax and Einstein's Spacetime Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-16 00:32 -0700
    Re: The Gravitational Wave Hoax and Einstein's Spacetime Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2016-06-16 10:23 +0200
      Re: The Gravitational Wave Hoax and Einstein's Spacetime john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-16 04:43 -0700
        Re: The Gravitational Wave Hoax and Einstein's Spacetime edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-06-16 06:00 -0700
    Re: The Gravitational Wave Hoax and Einstein's Spacetime Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-16 05:33 -0700
      Re: The Gravitational Wave Hoax and Einstein's Spacetime edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-06-16 06:29 -0700
        Re: The Gravitational Wave Hoax and Einstein's Spacetime Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-20 03:20 -0700
          Re: The Gravitational Wave Hoax and Einstein's Spacetime jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-20 10:30 -0700
            Re: The Gravitational Wave Hoax and Einstein's Spacetime Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-20 15:52 -0500
              Re: The Gravitational Wave Hoax and Einstein's Spacetime jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-21 00:57 -0700
                Re: The Gravitational Wave Hoax and Einstein's Spacetime Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-21 08:44 -0500
                  Re: The Gravitational Wave Hoax and Einstein's Spacetime jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-21 10:01 -0700
                    Re: The Gravitational Wave Hoax and Einstein's Spacetime Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-21 13:22 -0500
                      Re: The Gravitational Wave Hoax and Einstein's Spacetime jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-21 12:16 -0700
                        Re: The Gravitational Wave Hoax and Einstein's Spacetime Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-21 14:29 -0500
                          Re: The Gravitational Wave Hoax and Einstein's Spacetime Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-21 13:15 -0700
                            Re: The Gravitational Wave Hoax and Einstein's Spacetime jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-21 14:36 -0700
                              Re: The Gravitational Wave Hoax and Einstein's Spacetime Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-21 16:21 -0700
                          Re: The Gravitational Wave Hoax and Einstein's Spacetime jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-21 15:11 -0700
                            Re: The Gravitational Wave Hoax and Einstein's Spacetime Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-22 07:02 -0500
                              Re: The Gravitational Wave Hoax and Einstein's Spacetime jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-22 14:37 -0700
                                Re: The Gravitational Wave Hoax and Einstein's Spacetime Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-22 16:47 -0500
                                  Re: The Gravitational Wave Hoax and Einstein's Spacetime jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-23 04:30 -0700
                                    Re: The Gravitational Wave Hoax and Einstein's Spacetime Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-23 10:44 -0500
                                  Re: The Gravitational Wave Hoax and Einstein's Spacetime jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-23 05:07 -0700
                                    Re: The Gravitational Wave Hoax and Einstein's Spacetime Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-23 10:48 -0500
                                      Re: The Gravitational Wave Hoax and Einstein's Spacetime xxein1@att.net - 2016-06-24 16:10 -0700
                                      Re: The Gravitational Wave Hoax and Einstein's Spacetime xxein1@att.net - 2016-06-24 15:23 -0700
                                        Re: The Gravitational Wave Hoax and Einstein's Spacetime Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-25 12:50 -0500
                                          Re: The Gravitational Wave Hoax and Einstein's Spacetime xxein1@att.net - 2016-06-25 13:41 -0700
                        Re: The Gravitational Wave Hoax and Einstein's Spacetime moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-21 20:38 +0000
                          Re: The Gravitational Wave Hoax and Einstein's Spacetime jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-21 14:25 -0700
                            Re: The Gravitational Wave Hoax and Einstein's Spacetime Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-22 06:32 -0500
                            Re: The Gravitational Wave Hoax and Einstein's Spacetime moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-22 17:10 +0000
                              Re: The Gravitational Wave Hoax and Einstein's Spacetime jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-22 13:41 -0700
                                Re: The Gravitational Wave Hoax and Einstein's Spacetime Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-22 16:40 -0500
      Re: The Gravitational Wave Hoax and Einstein's Spacetime Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-16 09:40 -0700
        Re: The Gravitational Wave Hoax and Einstein's Spacetime Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-16 13:43 -0700
          Re: The Gravitational Wave Hoax and Einstein's Spacetime Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-18 10:16 -0700
            Re: The Gravitational Wave Hoax and Einstein's Spacetime "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-06-18 11:47 -0700
              Re: The Gravitational Wave Hoax and Einstein's Spacetime "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-06-18 12:39 -0700
    Re: The Gravitational Wave Hoax and Einstein's Spacetime "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-06-19 22:14 -0700

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

#586223

Odd wrote...
>> > Quite the opposite. I would love to get an answer to my question. > I wouldnt have asked it if I felt I didnt want to hear the answer.

>Then why haven't you asked the people who can answer?

Ah! So you admit you dont know. Why are you so sure there arent
any individual chirps in one detector only, when you just admitted 
you dont know if there are or not? 

>> You see, I can already tell from the freely available jpeg graph data > on the LIGO website that there are detections that are similar to > the ringdown in >profile, but only occur in one detector.

>Really? How so? Can you point to what you're seeing in the data?

If you overlay both jpegs you can see many. They arent as  strong as
150914 or 151226 which is why it would be nice to have more data
as jpegs but LIGO inconveniently dont supply data in this format. And 
the other formats dont download for me unless someone can 
give me a research grant like the rest of the papers authors had.
Then I can get the appropriate hardware, software and research flunkeys
to do the job. 
But if you look at 150914 at 0.27 or 0.38 approx. Youll see chirps that are
weaker as Ive already mentioned but clearly only  in Hanford and not Livingston.
And in 151226 you ll see at approx 0.62 a weaker chirp in Livingston 
that is clearly not in Hanford. And a slightly stronger one at the very
right hand of Livingston thats not in Hanford. ( These are the dark blue
frequency Hz Normalized plots at the bottom of the page).
Now of course youll try to argue this isnt sufficient evidence. Maybe not,
but its evidence nonetheless. Right frequencies, right profiles. And
when LIGO supplies jpegs of the data, Ill show you stronger ones.
Untill then you cant rule it out. Especially considering you just admitted
you dont anything about LIGO data or whether or not there are
stronger chirps in the rest of the data.

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

#586227

On 6/22/2016 4:37 PM, jay moseley wrote:
> Odd wrote...
>>>> Quite the opposite. I would love to get an answer to my question.
>>>> I wouldnt have asked it if I felt I didnt want to hear the answer.
>
>> Then why haven't you asked the people who can answer?
>
> Ah! So you admit you dont know. Why are you so sure there arent
> any individual chirps in one detector only, when you just admitted
> you dont know if there are or not?

I didn't say there aren't. I said I can't see any and asked you to point 
out what you think you see in the papers' graphs, which you haven't done.

What I did suggest is that you contact LIGO physicists and ask them how 
they treat chirps that appear in one detector only.

>
>>> You see, I can already tell from the freely available jpeg graph data
> on the LIGO website that there are detections that are similar to
> the ringdown in >profile, but only occur in one detector.
>
>> Really? How so? Can you point to what you're seeing in the data?
>
> If you overlay both jpegs you can see many.

I'm sorry, but can you point to an image file where you can point this 
out? A wiggle is not a ringdown. I'm just trying to understand what you 
think is a "similar ringdown" in one detector.

> They arent as  strong as
> 150914 or 151226 which is why it would be nice to have more data
> as jpegs but LIGO inconveniently dont supply data in this format.

You haven't asked for it. Why do you have a problem asking for it?

> And
> the other formats dont download for me unless someone can
> give me a research grant like the rest of the papers authors had.

What? You don't have $30?

> Then I can get the appropriate hardware, software and research flunkeys
> to do the job.

You need different hardware to download a PDF?

> But if you look at 150914 at 0.27 or 0.38 approx. Youll see chirps that are
> weaker as Ive already mentioned but clearly only  in Hanford and not Livingston.

Those don't look like ringdowns to me.

> And in 151226 you ll see at approx 0.62 a weaker chirp in Livingston
> that is clearly not in Hanford. And a slightly stronger one at the very
> right hand of Livingston thats not in Hanford. ( These are the dark blue
> frequency Hz Normalized plots at the bottom of the page).
> Now of course youll try to argue this isnt sufficient evidence. Maybe not,
> but its evidence nonetheless.

Evidence of WHAT?

There's lots of background noise in these detectors. Part of the art is 
separating signal from background. What you seem to be doing is noticing 
some wiggles that represent noise and saying, see, there's noise! Yes, 
but notice that signals appear in BOTH detectors.

> Right frequencies, right profiles. And
> when LIGO supplies jpegs of the data, Ill show you stronger ones.
> Untill then you cant rule it out. Especially considering you just admitted
> you dont anything about LIGO data or whether or not there are
> stronger chirps in the rest of the data.
>

So ASK. Don't assume they're there until proven otherwise.


-- 

Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#586299

Odd wrote...
> I didn't say there aren't. I said I can't see any and asked you to point out what you think you see in the papers' graphs, which you haven't done.

>What I did suggest is that you contact LIGO physicists and ask them how they treat chirps that appear in one detector only.

> >>> You see, I can already tell from the freely available jpeg graph data > on the LIGO website that there are detections that are similar to > the ringdown in >profile, but only occur in one detector. > >> Really? How so? Can you point to what you're seeing in the data? > > If you overlay both jpegs you can see >many.

>I'm sorry, but can you point to an image file where you can point this out? A wiggle is not a ringdown. I'm just trying to understand what you think is a >similar ringdown" in one detector.

>> They arent as strong as > 150914 or 151226 which is why it would be nice to have more data > as jpegs but LIGO inconveniently dont supply data in this >format.

>You haven't asked for it. Why do you have a problem asking for it

Because Im smart to enough to realize that they wont be able to
supply jpegs of all the six month or so strain data from both
detectors if they dont offer any jpeg download options on their webpage.
I  can gaurantee you are wrong to think I can any data in jpeg format.
Why waste my time going on a wild goose chase for your sake?

They dont supply jpegs on their site. Except for the two detections
and those are only in microsecond lengths. Check the site out yourself.
Where is this imaginary jpeg data download option?

>> And > the other formats dont download for me unless someone can > give me a research grant like the rest of the papers authors had.

> What? You don't have $30?

HA! If you think those guys who wrote those two "gravitational detection"
papers did it for 30$, think again. Let me see.. Lets say minimum 3 guys/
gals physicists on 120,000$ a year each spent 2 weeks each on each paper
to get their name on the headline et al.
Thats 18,000$ right away. Now lets say they used institute or university facilities
computors and software. Thats what, at a guess 1,000$ times 3= 3,000$
at a bare minimum to buy. Now they probably had a few paid flunkeys at 1,500$
a month for 2 months each,  so thats another 6,000$ at least. And
expenses,  lets say another 5,000$ , knowing these type of guys. 
Thats 30,000$ +. Where did you get 30$?

> Then I can get the appropriate hardware, software and research flunkeys > to do the job.

>You need different hardware to download a PDF? 

Are you saying the jpeg data is available in pdf? I missed that
on the site. I dont think that options available but Ill check
again. My apologies if it is. Otherwise no,  my android mobile
is crap at anything except html. And as time goes by less html sites
are openable. Thats free market capitalism for you. Nothing works
for more than a year now unless you pay more money every year.
I need different hardware (pc or apple)to run whatever software one needs to
turn the data into readable strain and frequency graphs. Python was one
name mentioned but Im sure other software with certain minimum
hardware requiremnts are needed to extract the needed data and transfer
to readable graph form. My guess is it will be huge files too. 
What is it?  Six month run at hanford and livingston and they havent 
analysed all the data with their supercomputors.? Must be mega files

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

#586323

On 6/23/2016 6:30 AM, jay moseley wrote:
> Odd wrote...
>> I didn't say there aren't. I said I can't see any and asked you to point out what you think you see
>> in the papers' graphs, which you haven't done.
>
>> What I did suggest is that you contact LIGO physicists and ask them how they treat chirps that appear
>> in one detector only.
>
>>>>> You see, I can already tell from the freely available jpeg graph data
>>>>> on the LIGO website thatthere are detections that are similar to > the ringdown in
>>>> profile, but only occur in one detector. > >> Really? How so? Can you point to what you're seeing
>>>> in the data? > > If you overlay both jpegs you can see >many.
>
>> I'm sorry, but can you point to an image file where you can point this out? A wiggle is not a ringdown.
>> I'm just trying to understand what you think is a >similar ringdown" in one detector.
>
>>> They arent as strong as > 150914 or 151226 which is why it would be nice to have more data > as jpegs
>>> but LIGO inconveniently dont supply data in this >format.
>
>> You haven't asked for it. Why do you have a problem asking for it
>
> Because Im smart to enough to realize that they wont be able to
> supply jpegs

Why do you need jpegs? Why don't you just take data files and use a 
simple spreadsheet program on your computer to plot it?

> of all the six month or so strain data from both
> detectors if they dont offer any jpeg download options on their webpage.

Right, so there may be some data you have to ASK for, rather than 
hunting around on their website. What's your problem with that?

> I  can gaurantee you are wrong to think I can any data in jpeg format.
> Why waste my time going on a wild goose chase for your sake?

This isn't for MY sake. This is so you can get YOUR question answered. 
You won't do any work reaching out to get your questions answered?

>
> They dont supply jpegs on their site. Except for the two detections
> and those are only in microsecond lengths. Check the site out yourself.
> Where is this imaginary jpeg data download option?
>
>>> And > the other formats dont download for me unless someone can
>> > give me a research grant like the rest of the papers authors had.
>
>> What? You don't have $30?
>
> HA! If you think those guys who wrote those two "gravitational detection"
> papers did it for 30$, think again.

You don't need their salary to answer your question. You want access to 
a paper, you say, which is behind a paywall. So you pay for the paper. 
You want access to data. So you reach out to the collaborator

> Let me see.. Lets say minimum 3 guys/
> gals physicists on 120,000$ a year each spent 2 weeks each on each paper
> to get their name on the headline et al.
> Thats 18,000$ right away. Now lets say they used institute or university facilities
> computors and software. Thats what, at a guess 1,000$ times 3= 3,000$
> at a bare minimum to buy. Now they probably had a few paid flunkeys at 1,500$
> a month for 2 months each,  so thats another 6,000$ at least. And
> expenses,  lets say another 5,000$ , knowing these type of guys.
> Thats 30,000$ +. Where did you get 30$?
>
>> Then I can get the appropriate hardware, software and research flunkeys > to do the job.
>
>> You need different hardware to download a PDF?
>
> Are you saying the jpeg data is available in pdf? I missed that
> on the site.

Dude. If you want data, you can get it in an email attachment (say, a 
CSV file) from one of the collaborators. The papers are all available in 
PDF format and they include the graphs.

> I dont think that options available but Ill check
> again. My apologies if it is. Otherwise no,  my android mobile
> is crap at anything except html.

All you have is an Android mobile?

>  And as time goes by less html sites
> are openable. Thats free market capitalism for you. Nothing works
> for more than a year now unless you pay more money every year.
> I need different hardware (pc or apple)to run whatever software one needs to
> turn the data into readable strain and frequency graphs. Python was one
> name mentioned but Im sure other software with certain minimum
> hardware requiremnts are needed to extract the needed data and transfer
> to readable graph form.

I don't think so. Do you know what Python is?

> My guess is it will be huge files too.
> What is it?  Six month run at hanford and livingston and they havent
> analysed all the data with their supercomputors.? Must be mega files
>

So? You don't have any access to a desktop computer and you're trying to 
do everything from an Android cell phone or tablet???

All I'm hearing is excuses.


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#586302

Odd wrote...
> > >>> You see, I can already tell from the freely available jpeg graph data > on the LIGO website that there are detections that are similar to > the ringdown in >profile, but only occur in one detector. > >> Really? How so? Can you point to what you're seeing in the data? > > If you overlay both jpegs you can see >many.

>I'm sorry, but can you point to an image file where you can point this out? A wiggle is not a ringdown. I'm just trying to understand what you think is a >similar ringdown" in one detector.

151226.
Look at the chirp I mentioned thats only in the Livingston data right hand of graph
just right of the peak ofthe official chirp. It isnt in hanford. One can trace back 
a ringdown  profile through other wavelets to the left of it. And most importantly
it is stronger in intensity than all the other parts of the *official ringdown*,  except
the very peak of the official ringdown. In other words its not noise. And it has
the right profile. A log graph like profile seen in the ringdown examples. 
And this potential relativity defying example was found in only a microsecond
of MONTHS of official data. !!!

>> They arent as strong as > 150914 or 151226 which is why it would be nice to have more data > as jpegs but LIGO inconveniently dont supply data in this >format.

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

#586324

On 6/23/2016 7:07 AM, jay moseley wrote:
> Odd wrote...

>> I'm sorry, but can you point to an image file where you can point this out?
> A wiggle is not a ringdown. I'm just trying to understand what you think is a
>similar ringdown" in one detector.
>
> 151226.

That's not an image file. That's a reference to an event.
Here's a paper:
http://journals.aps.org/prl/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.241103
Which figure are you referring to?
If you're not referring to a figure in a paper, then what's the URL of 
the image file you're looking at?

> Look at the chirp I mentioned thats only in the Livingston data right hand of graph
> just right of the peak ofthe official chirp. It isnt in hanford. One can trace back
> a ringdown  profile through other wavelets to the left of it. And most importantly
> it is stronger in intensity than all the other parts of the *official ringdown*,  except
> the very peak of the official ringdown. In other words its not noise. And it has
> the right profile. A log graph like profile seen in the ringdown examples.
> And this potential relativity defying example was found in only a microsecond
> of MONTHS of official data. !!!


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#586426

On Thursday, June 23, 2016 at 11:48:22 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 6/23/2016 7:07 AM, jay moseley wrote:
> > Odd wrote...

xxein:  Comments?
http://file.scirp.org/pdf/JMP_2016062014272089.pdf

Is there any meat with these potatoes?

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

#586427

On Thursday, June 23, 2016 at 11:48:22 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 6/23/2016 7:07 AM, jay moseley wrote:
> > Odd wrote...
> 
> >> I'm sorry, but can you point to an image file where you can point this out?
> > A wiggle is not a ringdown. I'm just trying to understand what you think is a
> >similar ringdown" in one detector.
> >
> > 151226.
> 
> That's not an image file. That's a reference to an event.
> Here's a paper:
> http://journals.aps.org/prl/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.241103
> Which figure are you referring to?
> If you're not referring to a figure in a paper, then what's the URL of 
> the image file you're looking at?
> 
> > Look at the chirp I mentioned thats only in the Livingston data right hand of graph
> > just right of the peak ofthe official chirp. It isnt in hanford. One can trace back
> > a ringdown  profile through other wavelets to the left of it. And most importantly
> > it is stronger in intensity than all the other parts of the *official ringdown*,  except
> > the very peak of the official ringdown. In other words its not noise. And it has
> > the right profile. A log graph like profile seen in the ringdown examples.
> > And this potential relativity defying example was found in only a microsecond
> > of MONTHS of official data. !!!
> 
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

xxein:  Comments.
http://file.scirp.org/pdf/JMP_2016062014272089.pdf

Is there any meat with these potatoes?

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

#586622

On 6/24/2016 5:23 PM, xxein1@att.net wrote:
> On Thursday, June 23, 2016 at 11:48:22 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 6/23/2016 7:07 AM, jay moseley wrote:
>>> Odd wrote...
>>
>>>> I'm sorry, but can you point to an image file where you can point this out?
>>> A wiggle is not a ringdown. I'm just trying to understand what you think is a
>>> similar ringdown" in one detector.
>>>
>>> 151226.
>>
>> That's not an image file. That's a reference to an event.
>> Here's a paper:
>> http://journals.aps.org/prl/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.241103
>> Which figure are you referring to?
>> If you're not referring to a figure in a paper, then what's the URL of
>> the image file you're looking at?
>>
>>> Look at the chirp I mentioned thats only in the Livingston data right hand of graph
>>> just right of the peak ofthe official chirp. It isnt in hanford. One can trace back
>>> a ringdown  profile through other wavelets to the left of it. And most importantly
>>> it is stronger in intensity than all the other parts of the *official ringdown*,  except
>>> the very peak of the official ringdown. In other words its not noise. And it has
>>> the right profile. A log graph like profile seen in the ringdown examples.
>>> And this potential relativity defying example was found in only a microsecond
>>> of MONTHS of official data. !!!
>>
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> xxein:  Comments.
> http://file.scirp.org/pdf/JMP_2016062014272089.pdf
>
> Is there any meat with these potatoes?
>

I looked at that paper. I do not understand (and think it is flat wrong) 
that the predictions of general relativity only apply in a vacuum and 
therefore do not apply on the surface of the earth. This seems to be at 
the heart of this paper, and I don't find it very credible.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#586679

On Saturday, June 25, 2016 at 1:50:03 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 6/24/2016 5:23 PM, xxein1@att.net wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 23, 2016 at 11:48:22 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 6/23/2016 7:07 AM, jay moseley wrote:
> >>> Odd wrote...
> >>
> >>>> I'm sorry, but can you point to an image file where you can point this out?
> >>> A wiggle is not a ringdown. I'm just trying to understand what you think is a
> >>> similar ringdown" in one detector.
> >>>
> >>> 151226.
> >>
> >> That's not an image file. That's a reference to an event.
> >> Here's a paper:
> >> http://journals.aps.org/prl/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.241103
> >> Which figure are you referring to?
> >> If you're not referring to a figure in a paper, then what's the URL of
> >> the image file you're looking at?
> >>
> >>> Look at the chirp I mentioned thats only in the Livingston data right hand of graph
> >>> just right of the peak ofthe official chirp. It isnt in hanford. One can trace back
> >>> a ringdown  profile through other wavelets to the left of it. And most importantly
> >>> it is stronger in intensity than all the other parts of the *official ringdown*,  except
> >>> the very peak of the official ringdown. In other words its not noise. And it has
> >>> the right profile. A log graph like profile seen in the ringdown examples.
> >>> And this potential relativity defying example was found in only a microsecond
> >>> of MONTHS of official data. !!!
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
> > xxein:  Comments.
> > http://file.scirp.org/pdf/JMP_2016062014272089.pdf
> >
> > Is there any meat with these potatoes?
> >
> 
> I looked at that paper. I do not understand (and think it is flat wrong) 
> that the predictions of general relativity only apply in a vacuum and 
> therefore do not apply on the surface of the earth. This seems to be at 
> the heart of this paper, and I don't find it very credible.
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

xxein:  Sensivity?  Em:g?

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

#586064

jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> writes:
>Odd wrote...

>>Have you asked anyone on the LIGO collaboration? If so, whom?

>I asked you here on sci.physics. This is a newsgroup discussing
>physics. And you couldnt answer.

Why would you ask Odd when he has explicitly stated he is not a scientist,
much less a LIGO scientist? He is actually a woodworker.

>Nor has any other relativist

Relativist?

> been
>able to.

Do you really expect real scientists to hang out there? In the unlikely
event they stumble across sci.physics, they'd see all the kooks and say
"F that!" and never return.

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

#586073

Michael Moroney wrote...
>> asked you here on sci.physics. This is a newsgroup discussing >physics. And you couldnt answer.

>Why would you ask Odd when he has explicitly stated he is not a scientist, much less a LIGO scientist? He is actually a woodworker.

Actually I was responding to Petchos post. Odd jumped in and pretended
he knew  something about the subject, which he doesnt of course. Although
Im not  trying to suggest he shouldnt be allowed to discuss physics here
on sci.physics. After all it is a discussion group to discuss physics and  open
to anyone who thinks they might have a valid point to discuss. Even 
woodworkers who think they know something about physics.

>>Nor has any other relativist

>Relativist?

Yes, someone who thinks relativistic models are valid explanations
of observed phenomena. Hence the LIGO connection. LIGO was
apparently built to test relativistic predictions. 

>> been >able to.

>Do you really expect real scientists to hang out there? In the unlikely event they stumble across sci.physics, they'd see all the kooks and say "F that!" and >never return.

Thats funny actually. Nonetheless, here everyone is discussing
LIGO detections for what its worth. And it seemed to me a fair 
point to suggest that if there were detections similar to the 
so called gravitational wave detections but only in one detector.
That it would be pretty hard to explain it as a merging black
hole candidate. Even though it would have the characteristic
ringdown profile. And even harder to explain how something
that was not even possibly a merging system could exhibit 
the so called distinctive profile only possible with a black
hole merging pair. 
Odd cant answer that.  So demands I join LIGO as a collaborator
and discuss it with them to cover up his inabilty to discuss
this possible flaw in LIGO' s assumptions here on sci.physics.

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

#586154

On 6/21/2016 4:25 PM, jay moseley wrote:
> Odd cant answer that.  So demands I join LIGO as a collaborator
> and discuss it with them to cover up his inabilty to discuss
> this possible flaw in LIGO' s assumptions here on sci.physics.

Dude. I never said you should join LIGO as a collaborator. I said you 
have a question that a collaborator on LIGO would be able to answer for 
you, if you chose to contact one. You, however, are balking at that, 
claiming that there would be no point to doing that.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#586178

jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> writes:

>Michael Moroney wrote...

>>Do you really expect real scientists to hang out there? In the unlikely 
>>event they stumble across sci.physics, they'd see all the kooks and say "F 
>>that!" and never return.

>Thats funny actually. Nonetheless, here everyone is discussing
>LIGO detections for what its worth.

Yes, lots of people with interest in science/LIGO are here, but again, why
would you think serious scientists would bother? They will see all the nutty
"theories" and posts with kook trigger words like "Einsteinian" and
"relativist", plus see post after post "proving" Einstein was wrong, and see
that this place is largely the replacement of "green ink" letters of yore
that many got.

> And it seemed to me a fair 
>point to suggest that if there were detections similar to the 
>so called gravitational wave detections but only in one detector.

Yes, that is a good point.  You should contact the LIGO scientists
(none of whom are here AFAIK) and find out about any such events. Be
sure to inquire about testing/fault insertion they may use that could
create known false events.  You should try to get raw data along with
code to convert it to graphs or whatever, as there is more information
in raw data than from what has been extracted from it.


>Odd cant answer that.  So demands I join LIGO as a collaborator
>and discuss it with them to cover up his inabilty to discuss
>this possible flaw in LIGO' s assumptions here on sci.physics.

Odd simply is telling you to contact the people who actually know.
Again, LIGO scientists aren't here at all. Nobody here has any data except
for what is in the published papers posted on the web.

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

#586216

Michael Moroney wrote.
>Yes, that is a good point. You should contact the LIGO scientists (none of whom are here AFAIK) and find out about any such events. Be sure to inquire about testing/fault insertion they may use that could create known false events. You should try to get raw data along with code to convert it to graphs or whatever, as there is more information in raw data than from what has been extracted from it.

Fortunately one can tell from the two papers graphs that ringdown
like detections do only occur in one detector. This isnt possible under
relativistic theory. How many strong chirps vs weak chirps is a 
question Id like to see an answer for too, but not neccesary to place 
merging black hole theory in doubt.
Whats odd is the LIGO researchers have tried to ignore this data.

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

#586226

On 6/22/2016 3:41 PM, jay moseley wrote:
> Michael Moroney wrote.
>> Yes, that is a good point. You should contact the LIGO scientists (none of
>> whom are here AFAIK) and find out about any such events. Be sure to inquire
>> about testing/fault insertion they may use that could create known false events.
>> You should try to get raw data along with code to convert it to graphs or whatever,
>> as there is more information in raw data than from what has been extracted from it.
>
> Fortunately one can tell from the two papers graphs that ringdown
> like detections do only occur in one detector. This isnt possible under
> relativistic theory.

Relativistic theory doesn't predict vibrations from passing trucks, 
either. But on the other hand, you don't expect to see identical 
vibrations from passing trucks at two different sites within a few 
milliseconds.

You mention that you can tell that ring-down detections visible in only 
one detector can be seen in the public. Can you point to what you're 
talking about? I can't see it?

> How many strong chirps vs weak chirps is a
> question Id like to see an answer for too, but not neccesary to place
> merging black hole theory in doubt.
> Whats odd is the LIGO researchers have tried to ignore this data.

Who says they have tried to ignore it?

>
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#585150

http://www.lastwordonnothing.com/2016/06/16/getting-from-wow-to-yawn/ 
 "What surprised the LIGO collaboration instead was the nature of what they’d detected. Of the various gravitational-wave-producers that LIGO might observe—the kind that disturb space-time to such an extent that LIGO could register the aftershock—the collision of binary black holes was perhaps the least likely. Supernovae, neutron stars, colliding neutron stars: These were what the LIGO collaboration foresaw as far more common candidates. And now LIGO has detected a second pair of colliding black holes."

There is a third "detection", LVT151012, - again colliding black holes. And David Reitze said at the 15th of June press conference that detecting gravitational waves from neutron stars is unlikely - now and in the future. Reitze's problem is obvious - while faking black hole gravitational waves can remain unpunished, faking neutron star gravitational waves can be exposed by alternative observations and is therefore too dangerous. Reitze does not want to be in the position of the Fermi scientists whose fraud was quickly revealed:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/04/19/99-8-wrong-how-nasas-fermi-scientists-are-fooling-themselves-about-gamma-rays-from-black-holes/ 
 " How NASA's Fermi Scientists Are (Probably) Fooling Themselves About Gamma Rays From Black Holes (...) And finally, there’s a competing satellite programme — the European Space Agency’s INTEGRAL satellite — that definitively saw no high-energy signal associated with the LIGO event. In a paper published last month in the prestigious Astrophysical Journal Letters, lead author Volodymyr Savchenko concluded the following, “We searched through all the available Integral data, but did not find any indication of high-energy emission associated with the LIGO detection.” "

http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Integral_sets_limits_on_gamma_rays_from_merging_black_holes 
 "Models predict that the merging of two stellar-mass black holes would not produce light at any wavelength, but if one or two neutron stars were involved in the process, then a characteristic signature should be observable across the electromagnetic spectrum. Another possible source of gravitational waves would be an asymmetric supernova explosion, also known to emit light over a range of wavelengths. (...) Integral is sensitive to transient sources of high-energy emission over the whole sky, and thus a team of scientists searched through its data, seeking signs of a sudden burst of hard X-rays or gamma rays that might have been recorded at the same time as the gravitational waves were detected. "We searched through all the available Integral data, but did not find any indication of high-energy emission associated with the LIGO detection," says Volodymyr Savchenko of the François Arago Centre in Paris, France. Volodymyr is the lead author of a paper reporting the results, published today in Astrophysical Journal Letters. (...) Subsequent analysis of the LIGO data has shown that the gravitational waves were produced by a pair of coalescing black holes, each with a mass roughly 30 times that of our Sun, located about 1.3 billion light years away. Scientists do not expect to see any significant emission of light at any wavelength from such events, and thus Integral's null detection is consistent with this scenario. (...) The only exception was the Gamma-Ray Burst Monitor on NASA's Fermi Gamma-Ray Space Telescope, which observed what appears to be a sudden burst of gamma rays about 0.4 seconds after the gravitational waves were detected. The burst lasted about one second and came from a region of the sky that overlaps with the strip identified by LIGO. This detection sparked a bounty of theoretical investigations, proposing possible scenarios in which two merging black holes of stellar mass could indeed have released gamma rays along with the gravitational waves. However, if this gamma-ray flare had had a cosmic origin, either linked to the LIGO gravitational wave source or to any other astrophysical phenomenon in the Universe, it should have been detected by Integral as well. The absence of any such detection by both instruments on Integral suggests that the measurement from Fermi could be unrelated to the gravitational wave detection."

Pentcho Valev

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

#585182

It seems Einsteinians have realized that the gravitational wave hoax will be uncovered sooner or later and are preparing, very subtly, the world for the shock:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9wlBiRbbKs 
 The Perfect Gravitational Wave

Pentcho Valev

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

#585484

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2077458-i-was-one-of-the-first-to-know-gravitational-waves-are-real/ 
 "But the LIGO team is infamous for testing its system by inserting fake signals that are only revealed to be false at the last minute."

This may be infamous but if you want to successfully fake the nonexistent gravitational waves and make an awful lot of money, rehearsals are needed. Here is the dress rehearsal:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2076754-latest-rumour-of-gravitational-waves-is-probably-true-this-time/ 
 "In 2010, before LIGO had been upgraded to its present sensitivity, a textbook chirp that looked like two black holes colliding came through. The team drafted a paper and sent maps of where the signal may have come from to astronomers, who searched for a counterpart with other telescopes. There was just one problem: the signal was a fake deliberately injected into the data stream to make sure the team would be able to spot a real one. The dramatic opening of a sealed envelope revealed that fact to 300 team members in the room, with 100 more watching via a video link." [Note that in 2010 not only LIGO members were deceived - astronomers all over the world were misled into wasting time and money and looking for the nonexistent black hole collision.]

Pentcho Valev

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

#585501

On Saturday, June 18, 2016 at 10:16:22 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> https://www.newscientist.com/article/2077458-i-was-one-of-the-first-to-know-gravitational-waves-are-real/ 
>  "But the LIGO team is infamous for testing its system by inserting fake signals that are only revealed to be false at the last minute."
> 
> This may be infamous but if you want to successfully fake the nonexistent gravitational waves and make an awful lot of money, rehearsals are needed. Here is the dress rehearsal:
> 
> https://www.newscientist.com/article/2076754-latest-rumour-of-gravitational-waves-is-probably-true-this-time/ 
>  "In 2010, before LIGO had been upgraded to its present sensitivity, a textbook chirp that looked like two black holes colliding came through. The team drafted a paper and sent maps of where the signal may have come from to astronomers, who searched for a counterpart with other telescopes. There was just one problem: the signal was a fake deliberately injected into the data stream to make sure the team would be able to spot a real one. The dramatic opening of a sealed envelope revealed that fact to 300 team members in the room, with 100 more watching via a video link." [Note that in 2010 not only LIGO members were deceived - astronomers all over the world were misled into wasting time and money and looking for the nonexistent black hole collision.]
> 
> Pentcho Valev

The only thing real is the 450,000,000 split 1,000 ways.There is no books for sure.There is no gravity waves for sure.There will be no Nobels Its take the $$$$ and run. How come they never mention "GLASS WAX" Seems for that kind of money they do windows. TreBert Ps Sound great finding GWs 1.4 billion LYs away. O ya Just in the right place and time TOO.WOW  Trebert

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

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

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web