Scientists glimpse Einstein's gravitational waves (Update)

February 11, 2016
This image, taken December 14, 2015, shows a Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory (LIGO) optics technician inspec
This image, taken December 14, 2015, shows a Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory (LIGO) optics technician inspecting one of LIGO's core optics (mirrors)

In a landmark discovery for physics and astronomy, scientists said Thursday they have glimpsed the first direct evidence of gravitational waves, ripples in the fabric of space-time that Albert Einstein predicted a century ago.

When two black holes collided some 1.3 billion years ago, the joining of those two great masses sent forth a wobble that hurtled through space and reached Earth on September 14, 2015, when it was picked up by sophisticated instruments, researchers announced.

"Up until now we have been deaf to gravitational waves, but today, we are able to hear them," said David Reitze, executive director of the LIGO Laboratory, at a packed press conference in the US capital.

Reitze and colleagues compared the magnitude of the discovery to Galileo's use of the telescope four centuries ago to open the era of modern astronomy.

"I think we are doing something equally important here today. I think we are opening a window on the universe," Reitze said.

The phenomenon was observed by two US-based underground detectors, designed to pick up tiny vibrations from passing gravitational waves, a project known as the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory, or LIGO.

It took scientists months to verify their data and put it through a process of peer-review before announcing it on Thursday, marking the culmination of decades of efforts by teams around the world including some 1,000 scientists from 16 countries, according to the National Science Foundation, which funded the research.

Gravitational waves themselves have never before been directly measured, though Albert Einstein said a century ago they were out
Gravitational waves themselves have never before been directly measured, though Albert Einstein said a century ago they were out there, according to his theory of general relativity

Strain in space

Gravitational waves are a measure of strain in space, an effect of the motion of large masses that stretches the fabric of space-time—a way of viewing space and time as a single, interweaved continuum.

They travel at the speed of light and cannot be stopped or blocked by anything.

As part of his theory of general relativity, Einstein said space-time could be compared to a net, bowing under the weight of an object.

When objects with mass accelerate, such as when two black holes spiral towards each other, they send gravitational waves out around them at the speed of light, like ripples emanating from a pebble thrown in a pond.

The strongest waves are caused by the most cataclysmic processes known to mankind—black holes coalescing, massive stars exploding, or the very birth of the Universe some 13.8 billion years ago.

While scientists have previously been able to calculate gravitational waves, they had never before seen one directly.

According to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's (MIT) David Shoemaker, the leader of the Advanced LIGO team, it looked just like physicists thought it would.

Wobbling like jelly

"The waveform that we can calculate based on Einstein's theory of 1916 matches exactly what we observed in 2015," Shoemaker told AFP.

"It looked like a chirp, it looked at something that started at low frequencies—for us low frequencies means 20 or 30 hertz, that's like the lowest note on a bass guitar, sweeping very rapidly up over just a fraction of a second... up to 150 hertz or so, sort of near middle C on a piano."

The chirp "corresponded to the orbit of these two black holes getting smaller and smaller, and the speed of the two objects going faster and faster until the two became a single object," he explained.

"And then right at the end of this waveform, we see the wobbling of the final black hole as if it were made of jelly as it settled into a static state."

Underground detectors

The L-shaped LIGO detectors—each about 2.5 miles (four kilometers) long—were conceived and built by researchers at MIT and Caltech.

One is located in Hanford, Washington, and the other is in Livingston, Louisiana. A third advanced detector, called VIRGO, is scheduled to open in Italy later this year. Others are planned for Japan and India in the coming years.

Tuck Stebbins, head of the gravitational astrophysics laboratory at NASA's Goddard Spaceflight Center, described the LIGO detector as the "one of the most complex machines built by humans."

Physicists said the gravitational wave detected at 1651 GMT on September 14 originated in the last fraction of a second before the fusion of two black holes somewhere in the southern sky, though they can't say precisely where.

An analysis by the MIT and Caltech found that the black holes joined about 1.3 billion years ago, and their mass was 29-36 times greater than the Sun.

The wave arrived first at the Louisiana detector, then at the Washington instrument 7.1 milliseconds later.

The two instruments are 1,800 miles (3,000 kilometers) apart, and since both made the same reading, scientists consider their discovery confirmed.

New discoveries ahead

Accolades poured in from across the science world, as experts hailed a discovery that will help better understand the universe.

"This is one of the major moments in astronomy. It's completely transformational," said Alberto Vecchio, professor of astrophysics at the University of Birmingham's School of Physics and Astronomy.

"This expands hugely the way we can observe the cosmos, and the kinds of physics and astrophysics we can do," said professor Sheila Rowan, Director of the University of Glasgow's Institute for Gravitational Research.

Abhay Ashtekar, director of the Institute for Gravitation and the Cosmos at Penn State University, described the discovery as "breathtaking" and said it "will stand out among the major achievements of 21st-century science."

Andrew Coates, professor of physics at University College London, said it was "up there with the Higgs boson, the mass of the neutrino, discovery of the electron, electromagnetism, the Copernican revolution and Newton's laws."

"We can now listen to the universe rather than just look at it," said professor B S Sathyaprakash of Cardiff University. "This window turns on the soundtrack for the universe."

Indirect proof of gravitational waves was found in 1974 through the study of a pulsar and a neutron star. Scientists Russell Hulse and Joseph Taylor won the Nobel Prize for physics for that work in 1993.

Explore further: Announcement Thursday on Einstein's gravitational waves

More information: PRL paper: journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/ … ysRevLett.116.061102

Related Stories

Video: The hunt is on for gravitational waves

December 21, 2015

Gravitational waves are tiny distortions of space-time caused by some of the most violent cosmic events such as colliding black holes. The observation of these 'ripples of space-time' requires exquisitely sophisticated new ...

Gravitational wave rumors ripple through science world

January 12, 2016

Rumors are rippling through the science world that physicists may have detected gravitational waves, a key element of Einstein's theory which if confirmed would be one of the biggest discoveries of our time.

How does an experiment at LIGO actually work?

February 11, 2016

Gravitational waves are mysterious ripples in the fabric of space and time that travel across our universe at the speed of light. Predicted by Einstein exactly 100 years ago, a number of experiments have been searching for ...

Recommended for you

How community structure affects the resilience of a network

June 22, 2018

Network theory is a method for analyzing the connections between nodes in a system. One of the most compelling aspects of network theory is that discoveries related to one field, such as cellular biology, can be abstracted ...

The pho­to­elec­tric ef­fect in stereo

June 22, 2018

In the photoelectric effect, a photon ejects an electron from a material. Researchers at ETH have now used attosecond laser pulses to measure the time evolution of this effect in molecules. From their results they can deduce ...

Water can be very dead, electrically speaking

June 21, 2018

In a study published in Science this week, the researchers describe the dielectric properties of water that is only a few molecules thick. Such water was previously predicted to exhibit a reduced electric response but it ...

111 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

axemaster
4.6 / 5 (21) Feb 11, 2016
I've written a sort of explanation/introduction to the topic for the thread on Reddit. Here's the link, for those who are interested:

https://www.reddi...ontext=3
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (33) Feb 11, 2016
More likely confirmation bias than a true discovery of pseudoscience.
antialias_physorg
3.9 / 5 (24) Feb 11, 2016
I was wondering how long it would take the cranks to cry "conspiracy". Question answered.
SCVGoodToGo
4.1 / 5 (22) Feb 11, 2016
More likely confirmation bias than a true discovery of pseudoscience.


Pot.
Kettle.
Black.
Higgs buzzon
1.9 / 5 (17) Feb 11, 2016
Why this discovery is pushed so hard in sensationalistic way? While I am not questioning existance of gravitational waves i question these results. Why everyone so blindly accept discovery as true? There is no direct evidence. it could be anything.
Uncle Ira
4.4 / 5 (21) Feb 11, 2016
I've written a sort of explanation/introduction to the topic for the thread on Reddit. Here's the link, for those who are interested:

https://www.reddi...ontext=3


axemaster-Skippy. Thanks for taking the time out to write up that thing. It was really easy to read and understand. You should see if the nice peoples at the physorg will put him as an "explainer article". Its better tha Frasier-Cain-Skippy's articles and his are real good.

Thanks again for taking out the time for that.
Sonhouse
4.6 / 5 (10) Feb 11, 2016
I imagine people said the same thing about Marconi when he made radio waves detectable. It is good you are not involved in science.
Captain Stumpy
3.8 / 5 (13) Feb 11, 2016
I've written a sort of explanation/introduction to the topic for the thread on Reddit. Here's the link, for those who are interested:

https://www.reddi...ontext=3
THANKS Axe!

here is another good comment/blog about it
http://www.prepos...at-last/
Noumenon
3.2 / 5 (13) Feb 11, 2016
The wave arrived first at the Louisiana detector, then at the Washington instrument 7.1 milliseconds later.
The two instruments are 1,800 miles (3,000 kilometers) apart,


The gravitational wave must have arrived at an angle of 42.7° from the line joining the two observatories.
Sonhouse
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 11, 2016
That was for Higgs Buzzon.
Sonhouse
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 11, 2016
They will be able to get a much better handle on the direction and such when the third one now under construction in France comes online, triangulation possible then.
promile
Feb 11, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
3.8 / 5 (14) Feb 11, 2016
that finding did come nearly immediately after massive upgrade of LIGO
@promile/ZEPHIR
so?
are you suggesting something?
In particle physics we also don't announce discovery after finding of first particle
1- YOU are not in particle physics
2- particle physics of CERN are a whole lot different that the LIGO experiment
3- http://journals.a...fulltext

read the first few lines of the abstract: see also shavera's post here - http://phys.org/n...ein.html
promile
Feb 11, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (11) Feb 11, 2016
I hope, I'm suggesting pure facts only
@ZEPHIR
pure facts would reference the paper and show a mistake, or at least evidence that contradicts the above... you gave conspiracist ideation, as demonstrated with this gem:
Another question is statistics of cherry picking:
IOW- you are making the same mistake ichi is making, IMHO
I'm glad to see you healthy and in full strength again
thanks.
I hope you are going to push more evidence based argument and not your usual previous argument from faith and aether (sans evidence)

promile
Feb 11, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
promile
Feb 11, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
gculpex
2 / 5 (7) Feb 11, 2016
And to think that Niels Bohr was so close if he had just said matter could produce waves in the form of gravity waves...
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (15) Feb 11, 2016
The conspirationists have enough food for thoughts already: the test procedures at LIGO are highly automatized and organized up to level, that only one person (the chief of the whole cooperation) can actually know, if the test signal has been actually injected or not
@ZEPH
circular logic, argument from ignorance, conspiracist ideation
this tactic is explained here: phys.org/news/2014-10-ironclad-logic-conspiracy-theories.html

just because you want to believe in something doesn't mean it is true any more than wanting to be an astronaut will make you a scientist, pilot, shuttle commander or anything related to NASA

again: evidence based argument is not speculation

BTW- you argued about "textbook appearance" ... what about your "particle physics" training? (sarc/hyperbole)
CERN also predicted signals that later were demonstrated with "textbook" appearances...
promile
Feb 11, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (13) Feb 11, 2016
But the true is, many artifacts of Higgs boson finding at CERN were merely neglected...
!ZEPHIR
artifacts that did not meet the criteria (not singular "criterion") were dismissed because of the stringent requirements of search and acceptance of the "5 sigma", not because it wasn't accurate
they sought signals that were exact enough to validate, and none of the other signals invalidate NOR refute the Higgs evidence
The "five sigmas" criterion of acceptation is flexible....
this is called speculation and you've not provided evidence of it, therefore it is simply argument from ignorance as well as conspiracist ideation for the sake of a belief that can't be supported with evidence
IOW- you can't prove it, so you use circular reasoning and support your belief with opinion or speculation, therefore it has the same validity as saying you can prove you're a toyota because you own a garage
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (11) Feb 11, 2016
@zeph cont'd
none of the other signals invalidate NOR refute the Higgs evidence
in fact, the whole reason for the criteria was to weed out excessive noise as well as production of other particles

you don't go to a baseball game and require each player to have their own baseball and keep it in their pocket (i would have used soccer/football as an example, which is more prevalent in your area, but you can't fit the ball in your pocket)
same thing: you don't want to prove heavy metals exist when you seek the Higgs...you just want the HIGGS evidence

that means you ignore certain things that are irrelevant (like aether theory- unproven, falsified, and also no evidence supporting it)

the same thing happens in crime scene investigation: you have 20 witnesses with 20 stories all differing in many ways - that means you take relevant data (the stuff that IS the same) and work out the details with other methods (validation, etc)
promile
Feb 11, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (12) Feb 11, 2016
Captain Stumpy 1 / 5 (1)
@ZEPHIR
downrating a valid comment with your sock army will not make your own comment any more valid (especially when you can't provide evidence supporting your claims or beliefs)

just like your continued up-rating of your own profile with your sock army doesn't make your arguments more valid or give them credibility

the key is (and always will be) evidence

you have none, you give none, and your evidence that you try to promote is either self reference, argument from ignorance, or simply circular reasoning and conspiracist ideation

when you can present an argument with valid evidence, you can make a better argument for your beliefs... troll-rating and sock armies only prove that you are still arguing about a faith, NOT from evidence

nice to see you haven't changed at all

too bad you will never understand the basics of science
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (12) Feb 11, 2016
Nobody doubts the existence of Higgs particle, but...
@ZEPH
and again, READ THE FREAKIN ARTICLE
...but there can be other explanations...
there CAN be other explanations of gravity and rainbows too (see reg mundy or leprechauns)... but evidence is where the reality is at
The researchers' analysis does not debunk the possibility that CERN has discovered the Higgs particle...
Mads Toudal Frandsen believes that more data from CERN will probably be able to determine if it was a Higgs or a techni-higgs particle. If CERN gets an even more powerful accelerator, it will in principle be able to observe techni-quarks directly
and i will say it again... THIS IS HOW SCIENCE WORKS

until there is evidence debunking the Higgs or PROVING the latter (techno), the best explanation is the one that the 5 sigma signal produced... therefore, the evidence says it was the Higgs

EVIDENCE = keyword
promile
Feb 11, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antigoracle
1.3 / 5 (14) Feb 11, 2016
detected at 1651 GMT on September 14

Hmm.... did anyone else feel it?
Did they bother to check for any other radiation emitted as a result of these black holes colliding?
promile
Feb 11, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
shavera
4.8 / 5 (13) Feb 11, 2016
Also, from the press conference, they were only able to suggest about 500-600 square degrees of sky that the signal could originate from. like 1/6 of the whole sky. Impossible to scan the whole thing.

They suggested that once Japan, as the 4th detector, comes online, they may be able to pin it down to 5-10 square degrees, much more manageable for other astronomical searches.
Captain Stumpy
3.8 / 5 (15) Feb 11, 2016
As far as I can interpret what is being said about the numbers, I think that is entirely plausible. Maybe the Higgs boson is fictitious!
@ZEPHIR
re-quoting this to make points:
1- PLAUSIBLE does not mean it is overwhelming evidence
2- MAYBE does not mean "it is"... it means it is PLAUSIBLE (hence the first use of the word)
also note, this is just ONE reason that CERN and others are still working... because fundamental research drives everything (and i mean everything, as it underlies all the work being done, and if one thing is falsified, it can affect everything)

scientists must be skeptics in their profession, so your argument is invalid (and wrong)
mostly because scientists compete to prove each other wrong (i gave you evidence of that already, but here is a simple refresher: https://www.youtu...bQIlu4mk )
d0nkey
5 / 5 (13) Feb 11, 2016
It is quite a shame really... there could be some really good scientific dialog here if ichi, promile, etc had their soap boxes taken away...
Nikstlitselpmur
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 11, 2016
detected at 1651 GMT on September 14

Hmm.... did anyone else feel it?


Yeah I was on my hoverboard and reached mach two when it swept through.
Sonhouse
3.5 / 5 (4) Feb 12, 2016
I wonder if engineering teams can get the physical size of the detectors down to something possible to be portable with the same sensitivity. I also wonder if Carver Mead's theory of G4V gravity has been blown out of the water now that, apparently, Einstein's waves have been detected.

I did not see any indication of this in the news. The two theories gives wildly different versions of what the behavior of gravity waves would look like to the detectors and I read that scientists involved with LIGO considered both possibilities in the detector stages.

Has anyone heard anything about this? It sounds like the implication is Einstein wins but not sure.
antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 12, 2016
I wonder if engineering teams can get the physical size of the detectors down to something possible to be portable with the same sensitivity.

There's tricks to get the length down (e.g. the german Geo600 detector uses a double laser path which effectively ups the length from the real 600m to a virtual 1200m length).
But there's only so much you can do to miniaturize the stuff needed to keep noise/vibrations out. Certainly this will not become a portable device in the near/middling future. If anything these things will become larger to up the sensitivity.
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (9) Feb 12, 2016
Also, from the press conference, they were only able to suggest about 500-600 square degrees of sky that the signal could originate from. like 1/6 of the whole sky. Impossible to scan the whole thing.

According to this:
http://phys.org/n...nal.html
it's also pretty unlikely that there is anything to see in the EM spectrum.

We probably will have to wait for a neutron star/black hole or neutron star/neutron star merger to get a bright flash (the latter are supposedly associated with one particular class of gamma ray bursts).

But since the masses of these are significantly below the black hole merger we just saw the gravitational wave signal is going to be that much harder to detect. Either the sensitivity of LIGO must be increased again or we'll have to wait until the space based instrument gets launched (eLisa in about 2034...with a HUGE baseline of 1 million km and searches in a different frequency range).

Mark Thomas
1.3 / 5 (12) Feb 12, 2016
"They travel at the speed of light and cannot be stopped or blocked by anything."

What about destructive interference with another gravity wave with the same frequency and opposite phase?

Another often repeated wrong statement is the manta that nothing can escape a black hole. In this case the mass equivalent of 3 suns escaped these black holes as gravity waves. That is a heck of a lot of escaping in my book. Of course Hawking radiation is also escaping.
Noumenon
3.3 / 5 (12) Feb 12, 2016
@Mark

The Hawking radiation doesn't actually escape from the BH. What occurs is one pair of virtual particle falls in while the other escapes; the one that fell in annihilates one already inside the BH, causing it to "evaporate".

Gravitational waves don't actually come from "inside" the BH, but from the dynamics of whatever is going on,.... loss of orbital distance from emitting GW,... or two BH merging...
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (7) Feb 12, 2016
What about destructive interference

While it is possible that you could have two such events completely in line with one another (and Earth) and exactly out of phase with respect to the stretching/compression that is phantastically unlikely since one characteristic of such an event (if not THE characteristic) is the "chirp" (i.e. the increase in frequency.) To have that synchronized perfectly would be incredibly rare.

It'd be like "can the light of star A destructivley interfere with the light of star B if star A could shine through star B?"...yes it could. Probabilities for this would be so low that you would need a googleplex of universes for it to happen for one second.

In this case the mass equivalent of 3 suns escaped these black holes as gravity waves.

That gravity can emanate from a black hole is not news. Otherwise black holes would not have any gravitational attraction at all. Spacetime (warping) is not bound by light geodesics.
antialias_physorg
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 12, 2016
But seriously, it's really cool that that only thing that can escape the gravity of a BH is....gravity.

Since gravity isn't a particle but a distortion of spacetime that's not a problem. Gravity only works on massive particles. So 'emanating' is a bit misleading. There's nothing 'coming out' (though gravity waves can pass through black holes or other masses without problems. Gravity isn't subject to gravity. Mass is subject to gravity. It's like light in that one respect. You can superpose any amount of photons and they will do just fine and be on their merry way.)

Well...and some light

No light. As Noumenon rightly points out: Hawking radiation is created near (but outside) the event horizon. Nothing passes the event horizon from the inside out in this. (Also note that Hawking radiation is not light but particles)
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (6) Feb 12, 2016
What about destructive interference with another gravity wave with the same frequency and opposite phase?
Sure, for that to happen, the detectors would have to be stationed at the exact midpoint between two identical systems whose orbital periods are exactly 90° out of phase. Kind of analogous to a Lagrange point.
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (4) Feb 12, 2016
Another often repeated wrong statement is the manta that nothing can escape a black hole. In this case the mass equivalent of 3 suns escaped these black holes as gravity waves.
I think you need to consider the binding energy of the system, i.e., the gravitational potential energy of two objects is always less in a bound system. And each object also has its own binding energy (a portion of their total mass), and so it's the energy from angular momentum doing work on the geometry of spacetime that gets radiated outwards from the system in the form of gravitational waves. It's a great question, and if anyone can provide the correct/better answer, thanks in advance.
(edit - see also AA's comments)
AGreatWhopper
4.4 / 5 (13) Feb 12, 2016
It is quite a shame really... there could be some really good scientific dialog here if ichi, promile, etc had their soap boxes taken away...


I'd like to take their pulse away. And sterilize their parents.
antigoresockpuppet
4 / 5 (8) Feb 12, 2016
antigoracle 1.5 / 5 (8) 22 hours ago

Hmm.... did anyone else feel it?
Did they bother to check for any other radiation emitted as a result of these black holes colliding?


Sugar Daddy has to ask because he was going down on me when they detected it. It's how he flosses after eating.
antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 12, 2016
Sure, for that to happen, the detectors would have to be stationed at the exact midpoint between two identical systems whose orbital periods are exactly 90° out of phase. Kind of analogous to a Lagrange point.

Heh...you are right. I just realized that my in-line setup wouldn't even work, because the system further away would have to have a higher amplitude...which in turn would mean a greater mass...which in turn would mean that the first derivative of the frequency (the chirp) would be different. So there would be no possibility for the chirps to be perfectly in phase throughout the whole signal.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (7) Feb 12, 2016
We can hurt phys.org in their income by blocking ads until they remove the pests.
I prefer https://www.ublock.org

The moron says....
SLOOHCox
3 / 5 (10) Feb 12, 2016
We can hurt phys.org in their income by blocking ads until they remove the pests.


Yes, YES, YES!!!

Hey, antirational, that's a mirror, not a computer monitor. idiot.
Mark Thomas
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 12, 2016
antialias_physorg: "Nothing passes the event horizon from the inside out in this."

Wrong. Here is what the LIGO folks at CalTech wrote:

"Based on the observed signals, LIGO scientists estimate that the black holes for this event were about 29 and 36 times the mass of the sun, and the event took place 1.3 billion years ago. About 3 times the mass of the sun was converted into gravitational waves in a fraction of a second—with a peak power output about 50 times that of the whole visible universe."

https://www.ligo....20160211

The total mass of the black holes was reduced from 65 suns equivalent to 62 suns equivalent. Three (3) suns equivalent mass was removed from the black holes, converted into energy, transmitted many light years past their event horizons as gravitational waves, then their arrival here was detected on September 14th, 2015, and announced February 11, 2016.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (6) Feb 12, 2016
Wrong. Here is what the LIGO folks at CalTech wrote:

Yes. I heard it at he conference and read the paper, too. No mass passed the event horizon. Part of the energy contents of the black holes was converted into the gravitational wave.

The event horizon is the part where no massive particle - no matter how fast it is - can pass. Even light cannot pass. No mass or radiation did pass it.

Gravity (spacetime curvature) is not subject to this limit. It's not a particle (though you can model it as one - the graviton - but that is not the same thing as saying it is one)
Mark Thomas
1 / 5 (8) Feb 12, 2016
Noumenon, your description is essentially correct as I understand it, and science writers often write the black hole "evaporates," but as I am sure you appreciate this is not a phase change from liquid to gas. Setting aside how Hawking Radiation works, the net effect is to "evaporate" or reduce the mass of the black hole. So the NET EFFECT is mass is being removed from the black hole.

We now have two mechanisms for reducing mass of a black hole, unless you think you are smarter than Hawking and/or the good folks at CalTech.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Feb 12, 2016
So the NET EFFECT is mass is being removed from the black hole.

This is not the same as "massive particles pass the event horizon"

We now have two mechanisms for reducing mass of a black hole

Sort of...because the mass reduction during a merger always means that you end up with a larger black hole. So black holes will not cease to be around due to mergers alone - no matter how many of those mergers happen.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Feb 12, 2016
It should respond to gravity in the same way as light.

It's like light is with light: Photons aren't affected by other photons. They superpose.
One gravitational source superposes on another. The warping you get is the addition of the two - not a "warped addition of both fields under each other's influence".

How can a black hole be accelerated by external force anyway ?

Gravity is curvature of spacetime. That looks like a force but it really isn't. E.g. orbits of planets are masses (like the Earth) moving straight in a warped spacetime.

We model this as ellipses in an unwarped/cartesian spacetime. Which is why we have to introduce forces to make it work the same way. Warping and force are dual representations - you can use either. But they ARE not the same. Because, as you point out, a BH could not be accelerated by an external force. But it CAN move in a warped spacetime AS IF it were accelerated by an external force in a cartesian spacetime.
Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (10) Feb 12, 2016
That is correct phys1. Gravity is caused by and effected by mass-energy,.... which means also the energy of gravitational waves. It is why the Einstein field equations are non-linear.

There is bit of a problem with determing the energy of gravity waves locally, but in principle the above is true,.... whatever energy (and mass via E=mc^2) can be represented in the stress-energy tensor is proportional to the space-time curvature (contracted Riemann tensor).

Maxwell's equations are linear so no photon-photon interaction their,... but I vaguely recall in QED it is possible....
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (9) Feb 12, 2016
...."no photon-photon interaction [there]."
AlbertPierrepointOBE
1.3 / 5 (12) Feb 12, 2016
It is quite a shame really... there could be some really good scientific dialog here if ichi, promile, etc had their soap boxes taken away...


I'd like to take their pulse away. And sterilize their parents.


That's my department, but, speaking as an expert, I can tell you that would be a waste of perfectly good rope.
AlbertPierrepointOBE
1.7 / 5 (12) Feb 12, 2016
We can hurt phys.org in their income by blocking ads until they remove the pests.


And what's with the slew of tracking cookies and adblade adverts? 11 tracking cookies, scammer adverts and loads of trolls. Hmmmmm...
AlbertPierrepointOBE
1.7 / 5 (12) Feb 12, 2016
cantdrive85 1.1 / 5 (28) Feb 11, 2016
More likely confirmation bias than a true discovery of pseudoscience.


We really need to meet up in a professional capacity.
RealityCheck
5 / 5 (8) Feb 12, 2016
Hi antialias. :)

In your reply to Phys1, you wrote:
It's like light is with light: Photons aren't affected by other photons. They superpose.
One gravitational source superposes on another. The warping you get is the addition of the two - not a "warped addition of both fields under each other's influence".
Can you clarify your meaning by also explaining it in the context of this excerpt from another recent PO news item...

http://phys.org/n...ons.html

...wherein they say this...
The light-field synthesizer works by combining several pulses of light brought together but slightly out of phase, allowing for canceling and ultimately, a single very short pulse.


It appears to contradict what you just wrote to Phys1. Could you please clarify why it is not? Thanks in advance. :)
RealityCheck
4.6 / 5 (9) Feb 12, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
antialias is right about light. what you describe is interference not interaction.
Yes,mate, I know the difference. But it raises the question of what happens when destructive interference occurs between the light/photon streams? Does the erstwhile 'momentum-energy' return to the energy-space 'field', or does it create a new 'wave-particle' entity which is not observable? Or does it add to the longer wavelength CMB background noise? And so on. And in any case, interference is a form of interaction, else no changes at all would arise as in that linked process. I would prefer a more in-depth clarification as to what the difference is in fact rather than just in semantics. I will wait/check tomorrow for antialia's clarification, if you don't mind, mate. Thanks anyway for your polite response. Cheers. :)
antigoracle
1 / 5 (3) Feb 13, 2016
@antigoracle
Not you, you belong with the pests.

So says the parasite.
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 13, 2016
The reasoning why I think gravity waves (or if you model them as gravitons) aren't bent by gravity fields but just superpose is that if they were bent a black hole could not have a gravity field as no gravity/graviton could escape its event horizon.
In such a model two black holes wouldn't orbit each other as measured by the signal (actually nothing would orbit a black hole)
promile
Feb 13, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
AGreatWhopper
3.5 / 5 (11) Feb 13, 2016
We can hurt phys.org in their income by blocking ads until they remove the pests.


And what's with the slew of tracking cookies and adblade adverts? 11 tracking cookies, scammer adverts and loads of trolls. Hmmmmm...


And now the pimps are doubling down with screen-over adverts. Can there be any doubt about where their head is at? Hint: the same place antirational pulls his pearls of wisdumb from.

That is proof, if any still is needed, about what I've said about the site vis a vis revenue and principles many times. Those that still disagree, did you ever think they'd go to the kind of adverts you see on porn and file sharing sites? Predictive validity...should count for something here.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (12) Feb 13, 2016
The reasoning why I think gravity waves (or if you model them as gravitons) aren't bent by gravity fields but just superpose is that if they were bent a black hole could not have a gravity field as no gravity/graviton could escape its event horizon.


I think the problem is in thinking gravity escapes the black hole. Nothing escapes the BH to reach out and grab things. The gravitation that is felt, is on account of the curvature of the space-time. This is caused by mass-energy and is NOT explained by GR, dynamically. IOW, GR merely equates in proportion the curvature of space-time and the presences of mass-energy.

What form the mass-energy comes in is entirely irrelevant to GR. If it can be formed into a tensor [stress-energy tensor], then it can be added to the right hand of the equation, in principal,.... though is a problem to determine as a stress-energy tensor, as gravity is represented in the metric.
Noumenon
4.2 / 5 (10) Feb 13, 2016

There is a lot of troll rating sock puppets from some coward hiding under his desk, lately,.... pongobongo, maloderousmiscreant, Fake Mike_Masson, iamsmarterthanyou, GoshURStupid,... can phys.org degenerate any further?

did you ever think they'd go to the kind of adverts you see on porn and file sharing sites?


I believe the adverts are dynamic and based on your own search history. :)
Zorcon
4.1 / 5 (9) Feb 13, 2016
More likely confirmation bias than a true discovery of pseudoscience.


Pot.
Kettle.
Black.

Nonsense. Cantdrive85 always confirms his data by comparing at least 3 copies of the bible. The odds of 3 copies matching by chance are infinitesimal.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 13, 2016
We can help PO to better itself, by blocking the ads until the clean up.
@phys
the ads can be blocked with adblock ( https://adblockplus.org/ or http://www.tomsgu...ons.html )

or you can use a HOST file

or you can pay PO for the privilege of ad-free reading of the science
(as well as pseudoscience, crackpot-ery, religious nutcrack-ery, dogmatic adherence to debunked or falsified beliefs like eu and aether, as well as spam ads posted in the comments on how you can make $1000 per second sitting in your basement)

or you can find a few other ways... like using a text only format (sometimes it is useful for speed, bandwidth, annoyances, etc to disable graphics)
Vietvet
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 13, 2016
Adblock at PO is only a temporary fix. Eventually you'll get a notice that they know you're using Adblock and request you disable it. Ignore the warning and eventually you'll be prevented from
logging on. I speak from experience.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 13, 2016
Adblock at PO is only a temporary fix.
@V
Yup. same thing happened here

i use a HOST file and disabled all my graphics (not a fan of pics anyway... and i only click on relevant graphics, like in studies, so... meh)

i have zero prob's with ad's... i see none at all, ever, on any site
Noumenon
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 13, 2016
With the Ignore-feature, the only way one could be affected by cranks and trolls is through the rating system. PO will never get a dime from me with that now redundant and childish system in place.

Captain Stumpy
2.8 / 5 (6) Feb 13, 2016
..the only way one could be affected by cranks and trolls is through the rating system...
@nou
you admitted to creating socks, therefore, as part of the problem, it stands to reason that the problem you call " that now redundant and childish system in place" is directly your own fault (and others like you)

not only as an advocate (for whatever reasoning)
but also as an active part of the problem with the socks

the only way you can get rid of said "redundant and childish system" is through moderation and strict adherence to a well published code of conduct like the posting guidelines (which you and most people ignore anymore)

therefore your post is hypocrisy at it's most blatant, IMHO

until someone begins a letter/other campaign to regain moderation, it will continue
until the site actually requires adherence to the posting rules, it will remain

but that won't happen because of the revenue the cranks bring in (be it padded counts or whatever)
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (9) Feb 14, 2016
I sense some exasperation about the lack of moderation. There is a possible solution to your concerns. Has anybody other than me ever thought about a moderating comity? If we could get enough adherences to some democratically constructed moderating system, I am sure we would be able to create the conditions for a little more science and civilities. We might also get some attention from Physorg. For this to work, we need some method of intervention, I think the ignore button is a limited tool but used wisely might be sufficient; nobody would enjoy to be massively put on ignore.

Some reactions to this idea would be highly appreciated.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (8) Feb 14, 2016
With the Ignore-feature, the only way one could be affected by cranks and trolls is through the rating system.


you admitted to creating socks, therefore, as part of the problem,


You were told that I do so to counter invalid ratings, and to undermine their efforts, as a counter response only. I have ONE such sock. In the past I have been in rating wars with FrankHerbert, but only in defense.

The purpose of the rating-system is ultimately to prevent one from seeing your post once it falls below the above threshold,.... but people are using the system to 'register their disagreement' as in facebook [which makes no sense] or as an troll-attack because they don't like the person.

Aren't you engaging cranks in prolonged arguments, instead of using the ignore-function? By doing so, you are part of the problem. The solution to cranks is either to correct them factually, or place them on ignore.
Old_C_Code
2.3 / 5 (10) Feb 14, 2016
Trolls? hehe, The only articles that get a lot of comments (i.e. opinions) are on controversial subjects like: theoretical physics, astronomy, and climate science. Other topics rarely hit double digits in comments. Evolution from the creationist buffoons surely does too.

Sorry to interfere with your PRETEND peer review.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (6) Feb 14, 2016
If we could get enough adherences to some democratically constructed moderating system... We might also get some attention from Physorg
@Techno
i've suggested a few things like that directly to PO, including the use of current posters as free moderation (to alleviate the strain of financial output)
problem is, your idea would also (as of now) require a secondary site for communication/collusion purposes

it might work for basic trolls, but the fanatics don't go away that easily- see: zeph, the eu crowd, aliens, iron sun, etc
they simply re-spawn as another sock (or an army of socks)

without the means of deletion or forced compliance to a code (guideline) then the fanatic wins, so to speak

also- none of the "ignoring" will address the pseudoscience and teach nooB's or the scientifically illiterate how to think critically and ask for evidence or validation of said "claims"

however, perhaps a concentrated letter campaign to the site requesting moderation?
Captain Stumpy
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 14, 2016
You were told that I do so to counter invalid ratings, and to undermine their efforts, as a counter response only...but only in defense
@Nou
yes, i was told... problem is: that is also the same excuse zephir and the other "fanatics" use, so... which was my point
as for the rating system: it is not specified "how" to use it, and there are no rules governing it's use, therefore your argument is really subjective to your belief on how it should be used, isn't it?
The solution to cranks
WHY do i engage cranks?
i've already given the reason multiple times, nou... you should remember

there is a purpose to what i do here on PO (most of the time- with the rare exception)
Noumenon
3.3 / 5 (10) Feb 14, 2016
By engaging cranks you effectively multiply their posts. Don't feed the cranks, they will only come back for more.

without the means of deletion or forced compliance to a code (guideline) then the fanatic wins, so to speak


You break those rules as much as the cranks,... because you end up enaging them, and not the article.

Further, there is nothing wrong with general discussion. The Ignore function is far better than subjectively deleting posts. I was posting here back when there was a "moderator", who routinely demonstrated that a lack of his knowledge gets sound posts deleted, which was worse than leaving a crank post in place,... to be ignored by free choice.

Crank posts can't possibly harm you unless you voluntarily read them. If you want to "save the innocent children" then the cranks can be USED to explain science, WHY they are wrong.

Captain Stumpy
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 14, 2016
addendum @Nou
The purpose of the rating-system
and yet, by carefully monitoring what you have been rating, i see that you are simply using the rating system for exact same purpose that you decry as "makes no sense" or "as an troll-attack because they don't like the person"

more hypocrisy?

is that the standard for a philosopher or are you outside the norm?

why is it one should listen to you pontificate when you demonstrate (repeatedly) that you don't even abide by your own personal set of rules?

that is what is called "evidence"
it demonstrates that you are not here for anything other than to "troll-attack because they don't like the person", generate socks for manipulation of the ratings or present/support your own perspective & generally force your opinion down people's throats...

so much for "correct them factually, or place them on ignore"
why am i not on your ignore list, anyway? given your "ratings" tactics...???
Noumenon
3.5 / 5 (8) Feb 14, 2016
without the means of deletion or forced compliance to a code (guideline) then the fanatic wins, so to speak


He will simply repost, or create a new account. He only wins when he is given an audience and when he is given rating-capability,... the former is solved via the ignore-option,... the latter is in need of change.

Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (4) Feb 14, 2016
@nou cont'd
Don't feed the cranks
none of the "ignoring" (etc) will address the pseudoscience and teach nooB's or the scientifically illiterate how to think critically and ask for evidence or validation of said "claims"
You break those rules as much as the cranks
for a valid purpose, yes, i do sometimes break those rules
there is nothing wrong with general discussion
never said there was... problems come about when discussion turns to "my opinion is factual", like the eu, zeph, philo's, etc
I was posting ...there was a "moderator", who routinely demonstrated that a lack of his knowledge ...deleted
i also gave PO a means to address moderator abuse, BTW
there is a tactic that can be used to not only get moderation, but also to not allow moderators to delete valid good posts
I even suggested certain posters (yourself included -but only for certain topics, BTW)

like i said, i volunteered a great method to PO, perhaps you should join the cause
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 14, 2016
also- none of the "ignoring" will address the pseudoscience and teach nooB's or the scientifically illiterate how to think critically and ask for evidence or validation of said "claims"


Why would the scientifically illiterate be reading a science news site? They must be interested in science and thus already know the basics of how objective knowledge is acquired.

Further as you have been told,.... Hypothesis and Postulates are entirely valid and ubiquitous in science, even despite lack of evidence.

Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 14, 2016
@Nou
@everyone interested

there is a simple solution using current known posters who are educated

request PO establish my list as primary and secondary moderators with a PO (only) administrator

the simple explanation:
using a point system based upon a physical yearly posting history which follows the guidelines and ranking the infractions...

Secondary moderators do most of the work: moderation, warn, research, post.. they submit recommendations for temp/perma-bans to the primaries

primary mods come from the secondary and are the "tribunal" for self policing and require a quorum for punishment - 2 of 3 votes, or best yet, 3 of 5 (they also must have an odd number for a tiebreaker)

the PO ADMIN only acts upon the recommendations of the primary MODS, thus freeing a LOT of the reading, research and only making them act upon known threats
(IP bans work too... but only for static IP's)
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 14, 2016
An IP ban should take care of that.
@Phys
only for static IP's or people who don't know how to use anonymizers and proxies
both of which people like zeph and a lot of trolls are adept at

.
Why would the scientifically illiterate be reading a science news site?
@Nou
to learn
My grandchildren used to frequent the site (in school) but PO has been locked out of the school servers and can't be used anymore because of the kids using eu arguments, religion, iron sun etc links for school education projects
Hypothesis and Postulates are entirely valid and ubiquitous in science
i've never had a problem with them stated as such... it is when they state them as fact like the eu, plasma cos, zeph, wade AKA baudrunner, davidW the "life is most important" idiot

then it comes down to evidence

Noumenon
3.2 / 5 (5) Feb 14, 2016
Unnecessarily complicated CS. Just use the Ignore function, do what Phys1 does (list the known cranks occasionally), and disable the rating-system.

and yet, by carefully monitoring what you have been rating, i see that you are simply using the rating system for exact same purpose that you decry as "makes no sense" or "as an troll-attack because they don't like the person"


There was no logical reason for you and your uprater-vietvet to rate my above posts a 1. It makes no sense, as it was my valid opinion. They didn't deserve a 2 or a 3? Are you making up your own standard? Do you not see the problem? Who is qualified to rate another post? The troll-raters I listed above don't even have any posts, they exist solely to down rate and cause friction by doing so.

Noumenon
3.5 / 5 (6) Feb 14, 2016
it demonstrates that you are not here for anything other than to "troll-attack because they don't like the person", generate socks for manipulation of the ratings or present/support your own perspective & generally force your opinion down people's throats...


This is a disruptive ad hominem attack, just as your rating me a 1 above is.

In fact, I have posted far more than you on mainstream physics here, and hold no alternative theories except mainstream physics back by experimental facts.

Like anyone else, I can't possible force my opinion onto anyone unless they voluntarily read my posts and accept the argument presented.

Captain Stumpy
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 14, 2016
Unnecessarily complicated CS. Just use the Ignore function, do what Phys1 does (list the known cranks occasionally), and disable the rating-system
@Nou
i've been using a similar system for years (sans the ignore) and it's done... nothing

the point of my system is thus:
1- it's free for PO with minimal fuss (permission for MODS)
2- it is FAIR
3- it can address MOD issues (self policing)
4- it still leaves PO ultimately in charge of everything, including bans
it is not complicated, it is a fair, workable easy system that uses volunteers of the already posting educated people here to share knowledge, science and open discourse (the purpose of the site)
There was no logical reason for you and your uprater-vietvet to rate my above posts a 1
yes there was
again: why am i here on PO?
Do you not see the problem?
far better than you... i am actually studying it

PS
the system i proposed (and the MODS) would alleviate the problem, BTW

Captain Stumpy
2.6 / 5 (7) Feb 14, 2016
This is a disruptive ad hominem attack
@Nou
ad hominem... maybe
it is a "Hypothesis and Postulate" that i supported with evidence and i am not the only one who thinks that way, hence your defensive position to your 1 rating
...just as your rating me a 1 above is.
is it ad hominem to vote?
feeling a mite defensive?
https://www.psych...ttle-ego

In fact, I have posted far more than you on physics here
and?
you have also posted far more opinion or interpretation that is not supported by evidence
(must i link those arguments?)

i honestly feel that if more people would get behind the suggested above system with the people i suggested to MOD, this would not be an issue at all

the voting could be removed entirely

leave the ignore, though...
Captain Stumpy
2.3 / 5 (7) Feb 14, 2016
PS to nou
They didn't deserve a 2 or a 3?
some people are simple
they either agree (5star) or disagree (1star)
and sometimes it would simply draw out a long OT troll baiting flame war to discuss WHY the disagreement to certain things, therefore they ignore the 2-4star ratings

no, i am not one of those
BUT
sometimes i do use it for what i am doing or to test the waters and seek validation of a theory or postulate (already elaborated expansively on PO) ... psychology is difficult
bluehigh
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 14, 2016
So if phys.org decided that Noumenon should be a moderator ..

Captain Stumpy
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 14, 2016
So if phys.org decided that Noumenon should be a moderator ...
@blue
try reading the whole conversation, blue, instead of trolling and baiting for a flame contest

i actually suggested Nou as a MOD

or did you miss that?
here, let me repeat it - i sent this to Nou
i also gave PO a means to address moderator abuse, BTW
there is a tactic that can be used to not only get moderation, but also to not allow moderators to delete valid good posts
I even suggested certain posters (yourself included -but only for certain topics, BTW)
like i said, i volunteered a great method to PO, perhaps you should join the cause

see yall in a bit... time to eat
Noumenon
3.9 / 5 (8) Feb 14, 2016
So if phys.org decided that Noumenon should be a moderator ..



I wouldn't be thought-police, nor elevate the standard of discussion to that of a scientific journal, as phys.org is simply a news site, and I know the difference between a hypothesis, a theory, and a experiment which may be independent of theory.

I would only disable the rating-system, and allow readers to use the Ignore option, or better yet make use of cranks to explain mainstream physics.

The problem with getting into thought-policing is that it presupposes that the thought-police are more knowledgable than then supposed offender.

For example, I have made comments about QM and interpretations that some less knowledgeable posters object to merely on the basis of it resembling "philosophy", not realizing the validity of the subject of epistemology to science especially QM and GR and its history. Would these less knowledgeable thought-police delete those posts?

Noumenon
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 14, 2016
Well, good luck getting that through to phys.org, Stumpy.

I will support you as long as the rating system is disabled as well, to remove any possible way of being effected by trolls,... and consideration is given to each post individually rather than 'who they are',... as some cranks here actually have some interesting things to post wrt mainstream science.

Noumenon
4 / 5 (7) Feb 14, 2016
As can be seen, everyone of my posts in this thread has been troll-rated by some half-wit hiding under their desk, despite that most of my posts here were purely factual.

Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 14, 2016
@N
Why do you care ?


I don't care about ratings which is why I want the system disabled.

I care that the system is infected by trolls, yet is still operational to give a false impression of the value of ones post, and is generally misused.

antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Feb 14, 2016
Adblock at PO is only a temporary fix. Eventually you'll get a notice that they know you're using Adblock and request you disable it. Ignore the warning and eventually you'll be prevented from
logging on.

I dunno. I've been using Adblock since I joined an never had problems logging on. I just get tow red lines at the top complaining about it (and about me blocking cookies whith Ghostery addon).
bluehigh
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 14, 2016
i actually suggested Nou as a MOD or did you miss that? - CS


I did read it but it didn't register as genuine. Don't get ya knickers in a knot.

Phys.org is a News site. It's not a scientific journal. It's not intended as an educational resource.

If you don't enjoy the comments and don't want the advertising that pays for this sites existence, then remember to close the door on your way out.

Noumenon
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 14, 2016
@bluehigh
I certainly do not enjoy your comments.
So why don't you beat it yourself?


But yet you voluntarily read them? :)

I think you idea of posting a list of cranks is the best one I've read suggested here. That, plus the Ignore-option solution.
bluehigh
2 / 5 (4) Feb 14, 2016
I wouldn't be thought-police ... - Noumenon


Captain, just so you can keep your stalking system accurate, I am rating this comment a 5.
Not to be against you and not that I necessarily agree with him. It's just a good comment.

It kinda does show the weakness in the ratings system when I feel a need to explain.

Then again I often get 1st out of the top 5 (1/5) so I can't complain!

Hope that helps.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (6) Feb 15, 2016
I wouldn't be thought-police
@Nou
having a moderator is not thought police any more than using "Robert's Rules of Order" to govern a meeting is thought police... it is a necesarry function to insure the governance of order doesn't take an RC twist, or degrade into arguments over who's unprovable conjecture is real, like the typical eu or creationist arguments
I will support you as long as the rating system is disabled
1- the rating system is only functional because there is NO moderation, so it should be disabled with mods
2- you should copy/paste the above outline (and suggest your own moderators for subjects as well) and e-mail it to the site (contact button)
in fact, everyone should, IMHO
troll-rated
as far as i can tell, gosh... & imsmarter... seem to be Benni or someone with a similar agenda
without a post to compare syntax etc, it is difficult... but it seems to always uprate benni and zeph

something to consider
Captain Stumpy
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 15, 2016
I did read it but it didn't register as genuine
@blue
it was... just because i don't particularly like his tactics doesn't mean i can respect his knowledge
Phys.org is a News site. It's not a scientific journal
1- didn't say it was a journal
2- it's a clearing house for news
3- PO is the one who set the guidelines (formerly the rules), not i
If you don't enjoy the comments and don't want the advertising that pays for this sites existence, then remember to close the door on your way out
and if you're going to stick your head up your bum and ignore what is being said (historically as well as above) then perhaps you should stick to other conversations?
I am rating this comment a 5
i gave it a 4, but it is also a little off

i am not asking for thought police but moderation (see above reply to Nou re: roberts rules)
and yes, the rating system is flawed, but mostly because of the abuse and lack of moderation
WITH moderation it can be disabled
Captain Stumpy
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 15, 2016
@blue cont'd
just so you can keep your stalking system accurate
really?
and you seemed to be rational tonight - sigh

historically, i had a couple posts deleted... they were the "post the sock army of zeph" comments to make others aware (we maintain a comprehensive list elsewhere)

the problems with the "list of cranks" method:
1- sheer volume of cranks and socks
2- doesn't do anything (self gratification only, like the rating system)
3- you can't usually get them deleted/banned for mass disruption - and that is only when PO is feeling magnanimous (tested and verified already)

with the above method you have:
1- rules
2- options for violators and the most prolific crackpots
3- reporting/policing MODS
4- PO still in charge
5- FREE with minimal adaptation of the site

cranks are not thinkers: they're here to troll or seeking acolytes (and there are plenty of other sites for that)
that is NOT conducive to science or critical thinking
AGreatWhopper
3.1 / 5 (7) Feb 16, 2016
Old_C_Code2 /5 (9) Feb 14, 2016
Trolls? hehe, The only articles that get a lot of comments (i.e. opinions) are on controversial subjects like: theoretical physics, astronomy, and climate science. Other topics rarely hit double digits in comments. Evolution from the creationist buffoons surely does too.


Wonderful. Old Sea Cod claims there are no trolls. Let's get our terms straight.

1). The ignorant. These are just stupid people. No overall hypothesis, just stupid talking points. Eg. bluehigh
2). Cranks. Megalomaniac losers who alone know the secret to many things but are not appreciated by the scientific mainstream. Most the irritants on here fit into this group.
3). Trolls. People who usually don't even read the article and post comments ONLY to provoke a negative emotional reaction. They like to hear you scream. Eg. cantdrive, antigoracle
AGreatWhopper
2.4 / 5 (7) Feb 16, 2016
A proper response, imho, is:

The ignorant: Polite correction. If they persist they become category 2 or 3.
Cranks: Block them.
Trolls: Report and block them and if you get the opportunity beat some courtesy into their fool heads.

I guess you could also add a fourth category, the mentally ill. That pretty much amounts to being self absorbed, at least here. From gkam's pathetic attempts at ego validation to Otto's fighting his mirror image to Stumpy's crusade to feed trolls. It's about 50/50, but the interesting voices are far exceeded by the ululation of the other half.
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (5) Feb 16, 2016
but the interesting voices are far exceeded by the ululation of the other half.
Coherent information is perceptible well below ambient noise level. I must say that sometimes this noise can become overwhelming. Thankfully, we have the ignore user function to keep it at a reasonable level.

In the spirit of the first detection of gravitational waves, here is a game that present an interesting analogy to this http://www.blackh...ter.org/
promile
Feb 16, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Feb 16, 2016
Stumpy's crusade to feed trolls
@whopper
no... my crusade is to understand why people can't accept evidence...

well...and to get rid of pseudoscience and religion

I had considered burning them at the stake, but ... CO2 and the whole warming issue meant that i couldn't get a burn permit
(intentional ironic hyperbole)
bluehigh
5 / 5 (2) Feb 17, 2016
Captain, let's burn some witches!

Who are you who are so wise in the ways of science? - Bedevere


Read here how logic and science can derive evidence.

http://www.montyp...cene.php

Or watch the clip.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g

Take it easy now mate ... It's a bit of silliness, just for fun.

If looks like a duck ...

Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 17, 2016
Captain, let's burn some witches!
@Blue
so... if she weighs as much as a duck ..she's made of wood, and therefore...A WITCH!
ROTFLMFAO

it is my wife's absolute favourite MP scene and one of my personal fav's as well (Although i do have certain other loves, like the parrot sketch, how not to hide, the cheese shop or this one:
https://www.youtu...Qp-q1Y1s - Fish Slapping Dance)
viko_mx
1 / 5 (2) Feb 17, 2016
I was not a direct participant in this experiment in order to know how he actually flowed. Read what served to the public by sensationalists.
From these articles devoted to the subject I did not understand what are the coordinates of the newly formed black hole as metaphysicians with their instruments are "detected?" by gravitational ripples of space-time, whatever it means. Probably this newly formed blach hole is close enough to us to be enough strong the signal from this hypothetical event and sicentists to be able to detect it impact to the physical environment. If is far it means that this experiment can be repeated constantly, because the GR theory supported by metaphysicians claims that black holes are mass phenomenon in the universe and constantly merge with one another in different points in the universe.
viko_mx
1 / 5 (2) Feb 17, 2016
But if these space-time ripples are out there, can be seen with optical telescopes that observe the space constantly 24 hours a day 365 days in year. How these telesocpes have not detected these rippels is a complete mystery.
When you ask the supporters of GR how can be defined the order in the universe without absolutes which to synchronize the physical properties of the building blocks of matter in distant from one another points and to ensure that the speeds of their physical interactions are the same, there is deafening silence. They just know that they can no and so do not try. They capitulated intellectually and emotionally before this challenge.
promile
Feb 17, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
2.8 / 5 (5) Feb 18, 2016
@viko_mx: We are observing gravitational waves as a flashes from pulsars according to dense aether model
@zeph
of course, you could also say that the flashes were angelic flatulence or satanic testicular emissions too as it also holds the exact same credibility as dense aether and has the exact same level of evidence supporting it...

but what would be the point as neither the above nor your own speculations bring any credible evidence to the table for a good discourse?

it is akin to random interjections of OT toilet humour during an x-mas mass at the Vatican...

what is the purpose of you continually referring to a debunked falsified religious belief?

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.