Gravitational waves detected from second pair of colliding black holes

Gravitational waves detected from second pair of colliding black holes
This image depicts two black holes just moments before they collided and merged with each other, releasing energy in the form of gravitational waves. On Dec. 26, 2015, after traveling for 1.4 billion years, the waves reached Earth and set off the twin LIGO detectors. This marks the second time that LIGO has detected gravitational waves, providing further confirmation of Einstein's general theory of relativity and securing the future of gravitational wave astronomy as a fundamentally new way to observe the universe. The black holes were 14 and 8 times the mass of the sun (L-R), and merged to form a new black hole 21 times the mass of the sun. An additional sun's worth of mass was transformed and released in the form of gravitational energy. Credit: Numerical Simulations: S. Ossokine and A. Buonanno, Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics, and the Simulating eXtreme Spacetime (SXS) project. Scientific Visualization: T. Dietrich and R. Haas, Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics.

On December 26, 2015 at 03:38:53 UTC, scientists observed gravitational waves—ripples in the fabric of spacetime—for the second time.

The were detected by both of the twin Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) detectors, located in Livingston, Louisiana, and Hanford, Washington, USA.

The LIGO Observatories are funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF), and were conceived, built, and are operated by Caltech and MIT. The discovery, accepted for publication in the journal Physical Review Letters, was made by the LIGO Scientific Collaboration (which includes the GEO Collaboration and the Australian Consortium for Interferometric Gravitational Astronomy) and the Virgo Collaboration using data from the two LIGO detectors.

Gravitational waves carry information about their origins and about the nature of gravity that cannot otherwise be obtained, and physicists have concluded that these gravitational waves were produced during the final moments of the merger of two —14 and 8 times the mass of the sun—to produce a single, more massive spinning black hole that is 21 times the mass of the sun.

"It is very significant that these black holes were much less massive than those observed in the first detection," says Gabriela González, LIGO Scientific Collaboration (LSC) spokesperson and professor of physics and astronomy at Louisiana State University. "Because of their lighter masses compared to the first detection, they spent more time—about one second—in the sensitive band of the detectors. It is a promising start to mapping the populations of black holes in our universe."

During the merger, which occurred approximately 1.4 billion years ago, a quantity of energy roughly equivalent to the mass of the sun was converted into gravitational waves. The detected signal comes from the last 27 orbits of the black holes before their merger. Based on the arrival time of the signals—with the Livingston detector measuring the waves 1.1 milliseconds before the Hanford detector—the position of the source in the sky can be roughly determined.

"In the near future, Virgo, the European interferometer, will join a growing network of gravitational wave detectors, which work together with ground-based telescopes that follow-up on the signals," notes Fulvio Ricci, the Virgo Collaboration spokesperson, a physicist at Istituto Nazionale di Nucleare (INFN) and professor at Sapienza University of Rome. "The three interferometers together will permit a far better localization in the sky of the signals."

The first detection of gravitational waves, announced on February 11, 2016, was a milestone in physics and astronomy; it confirmed a major prediction of Albert Einstein's 1915 general theory of relativity, and marked the beginning of the new field of gravitational-wave astronomy.

Comparing ‘chirps’ from black holes. The best-fit models of LIGO’s gravitational-wave signals are converted into sounds. The first sound is from modeled gravitational waves detected by LIGO Dec. 26, 2015, when two black holes merged. This is then compared to the first-ever gravitational waves detected by LIGO Sept. 14, 2015, when two higher-mass black holes merged. This sequence is repeated. The pitch of both signals is then increased, allowing them to be heard more easily, and this sequence is also repeated. Animation credit: LIGO

The second discovery "has truly put the 'O' for Observatory in LIGO," says Caltech's Albert Lazzarini, deputy director of the LIGO Laboratory. "With detections of two strong events in the four months of our first observing run, we can begin to make predictions about how often we might be hearing gravitational waves in the future. LIGO is bringing us a new way to observe some of the darkest yet most energetic events in our universe."

"We are starting to get a glimpse of the kind of new astrophysical information that can only come from gravitational wave detectors," says MIT's David Shoemaker, who led the Advanced LIGO detector construction program.

Both discoveries were made possible by the enhanced capabilities of Advanced LIGO, a major upgrade that increases the sensitivity of the instruments compared to the first generation LIGO detectors, enabling a large increase in the volume of the universe probed

"With the advent of Advanced LIGO, we anticipated researchers would eventually succeed at detecting unexpected phenomena, but these two detections thus far have surpassed our expectations," says NSF Director France A. Córdova. "NSF's 40-year investment in this foundational research is already yielding new information about the nature of the dark universe."

Advanced LIGO's next data-taking run will begin this fall. By then, further improvements in detector sensitivity are expected to allow LIGO to reach as much as 1.5 to 2 times more of the volume of the universe. The Virgo detector is expected to join in the latter half of the upcoming observing run.

LIGO research is carried out by the LIGO Scientific Collaboration (LSC), a group of more than 1,000 scientists from universities around the United States and in 14 other countries. More than 90 universities and research institutes in the LSC develop detector technology and analyze data; approximately 250 students are strong contributing members of the collaboration. The LSC detector network includes the LIGO interferometers and the GEO600 detector.

Virgo research is carried out by the Virgo Collaboration, consisting of more than 250 physicists and engineers belonging to 19 different European research groups: 6 from Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) in France; 8 from the Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare (INFN) in Italy; 2 in The Netherlands with Nikhef; the MTA Wigner RCP in Hungary; the POLGRAW group in Poland and the European Gravitational Observatory (EGO), the laboratory hosting the Virgo detector near Pisa in Italy.

Einstein 100 - Theory of General Relativity

Explore further

Announcement Thursday on Einstein's gravitational waves

More information: The research paper, "GW151226: Observation of Gravitational Waves from a 22 Solar-mass Binary Black Hole Coalescence," by the LIGO Scientific Collaboration and the Virgo Collaboration, has been accepted for publication in the journal Physical Review Letters.
Journal information: Physical Review Letters

Citation: Gravitational waves detected from second pair of colliding black holes (2016, June 15) retrieved 22 May 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2016-06-gravitational-pair-colliding-black-holes.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
4669 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Jun 15, 2016
And in other news, a GRB was detected nearly simultaneously, again.

Jun 15, 2016
And in other news, a GRB was detected nearly simultaneously, again.

Your source?
If so, it adds weight to the hypothesis that GW's travel at speed of light...

Jun 15, 2016
live cast about GW's on second link... might be missing it
first is great too

http://news.mit.e...-meeting

https://iframe.da...c/268750

Jun 15, 2016
Thanks Stump! I'm watching the second link now. Nice to catch it live.

Jun 15, 2016
Yep, not a fluke. And not that uncommon, either, if we can see two in four months.

Jun 15, 2016
http://phys.org/n...ark.html
Maybe dark matter will turn out to be a little more mundane than some were thinking.......

Jun 15, 2016
There was no GRB catalogued that day.

Jun 15, 2016
Again, it's always so worth asking people for patience with science. Prior to the Higgs Discovery, so many cranks here were on and on about how we hadn't found it yet. Then we did. But it wasn't enough data for them. Then there was more.

Same with GWs. First the cranks were crowing about how no one ever saw a GW, so they can't possibly be real. Then "Well they only saw one in September of last year, so must be a fluke." Science takes time. Note that this observation is December of last year. Data analysis takes time. Especially because, unlike crank claims, scientists are generally looking to not be proved wrong, so they do a lot of "could this be something else" investigation before releasing the result.

Jun 15, 2016
There was no GRB catalogued that day.

So - you mean CD85 pulled something out of his ass (again) and stated it as fact?!?!?
Shocking! Say it ain't so...

Jun 15, 2016
This is the second one of these today, @shavera. They finally finished analysis of an uncommon meteorite they found in a Swedish slate quarry a couple of years ago, and the first comment on the article was "it's the same article as two years ago." Sigh.

Real scientists don't announce results until they're carefully checked for errors, and the more startling, unusual, or ground-breaking the results, the longer it takes. It often takes years. Patience, people, patience.

Jun 15, 2016
For those who missed the live webcast, here is the archived version of it https://aas.org/m...webcasts

Note you have to click on the fifth link bellow the first yellow marker.

Jun 15, 2016
Thanks Stump! I'm watching the second link now. Nice to catch it live.
@Enthusiastic Fool
you're welcome... i had to leave just after i posted the link, so i missed out

.

.

Thanks @TechnoCreed for that link... those who missed the live cast can now watch it

.

.

Real scientists don't announce results until they're carefully checked for errors, and the more startling, unusual, or ground-breaking the results, the longer it takes
@DaSchneib
@Shavera
Unlike pseudoscience
when they get proven wrong it's all a Mainstream science conspiracy
or they try to justify their beliefs with old out-of-date quotes that don't apply
or simply delete it off their page and never speak of it again like the thunderdolt site
or they make more sh*t up and call it "science" despite never coming close to the same constraints of the scientific method

IOW- they act like fanatical religious zealots


Jun 15, 2016
There was no GRB catalogued that day

You mean the sensors didn't just happen to be pointing in the right direction that day. Just so happened last time. Being the one (only) other detection of these so called GW'so coincided with a GRB, I'm not that far out on the limb to say this one likely did too.

Jun 16, 2016
I'm not that far out on the limb to say
in other words... you have no evidence so you are making a claim based upon your belief or faith in something...

that is, by definition, preaching a religion... not science

so, do you have anything other than your faith and belief in this?
you know... something that science and others can actually validate?
no?

so... if you can't prove your faith
and you don't have evidence to support the claim
why should it be considered scientific or even worth listening to?

"one of the cornerstones of the scientific method:
the claim + physical evidence supporting claim + it must be compatible with observation & past validated knowledge

dismissal of a baseless claim is not prejudice or wrong, it is required by the scientific method"

Jun 16, 2016
And in other news, a GRB was detected nearly simultaneously, again.

Your source?
If so, it adds weight to the hypothesis that GW's travel at speed of light...
- WhydG

LOL I see that you still don't recognize sarcasm or tongue-in-cheek even when it's so obvious.

Jun 16, 2016
As the National Science Foundation is funded mostly by American taxpayers, it should require a return on our forcefully-taken tax money by seeing results more often, rather than 'a little here, a little there'; then take some time out to bask in the sunshine of public recognition and fame; and demand patience from the commoners who know practically nothing of the hard work and study that scientists are said to perform. Waiting several months before a repeat performance is done is time not well spent. Much greater enhancements also means more funding required just to discover a random chirp. Is this listening in ongoing or not? The article did not explain.

Jun 16, 2016
I was getting worried that they hadn't seen any further events since the first. It doesn't compute that they'd be so lucky as to spot one so soon followed by a whole lot of nothing.
- ogg_ogg
I agree. In fact, according to the illustrations of GWs that were produced, there should be more than one "chirp" rather than just one and then nothing. Even if it took that first one over a billion years to reach Earth, there should be other "waves" to follow the first one in a regularly occurring pattern. Such a massive disturbance in the cosmos as two BH colliding, then merging, should produce waves similar to Zephir's pond analogy (modified).
When the wave hit Earth and it just happened to be expected to arrive, although time of arrival was unknown, all forms of detection should have been kept online, so that any that followed would be detected also.
Did they shut it down (LIGO) soon after the first was detected?

Jun 16, 2016
There was no GRB catalogued that day

You mean the sensors didn't just happen to be pointing in the right direction that day. Just so happened last time. Being the one (only) other detection of these so called GW'so coincided with a GRB, I'm not that far out on the limb to say this one likely did too.
- CD

It does seem strange that this new GW wasn't quickly followed by a GRB as happened with the last GW. They were SO eager to inform that the GRB also occurred very quickly.
Either --
1. the GRB did not happen this time, or
2. the scientists forgot to mention that the GRB also happened, or
3. the GW wasn't accompanied by a GRB and they are trying to figure out why, or
4. the scientists are hoping that folks will forget about the first and only GRB and be happy with the GW.
Perhaps in the next several days, a news report stating another GRB was also detected, but that they decided not to divulge that piece of information - for whatever reason.
:)


Jun 16, 2016
You mean the sensors didn't just happen to be pointing in the right direction that day. Just so happened last time. Being the one (only) other detection of these so called GW'so coincided with a GRB, I'm not that far out on the limb to say this one likely did too.


Firstly no, GRB triggers are all sky. Fermi was not pointing at the GW error box when it happened, hence why they couldn't use the main instrument and why they could not constrain the direction. The only way there could have been a GRB which was not detected this time is if all 4 major GRB missions were on the other side of the Earth at the time. This isn't the case as Fermi and INTEGRAL were on opposite sides of the Earth at the time.

The Fermi "detection" was very low significance and wasn't trigger as a GRB for this reason. The non-detection from INTEGRAL rules out the Fermi claim from being from GW150914. And you didn't claim it was "likely", you stated it as a fact.

Jun 16, 2016
Theoretical black holes are just that , as long as there is another magnetic mechanical possibility of the mass and structure that's not been disproven, they are theoretical, for instance if its a mass of positrons and electrons, then two mass's in a high velocity kinetic collision will lose 33 percent of those charged particles being ejected in the consolidation of those two charged particle mass's and that would mean charged particles magnetic waves are producing the gravity ie= magnetic waves you detect charged particle waves with their own gravity from its mass

Jun 16, 2016
Untill you can prove singularity charged particles exist then singularity mass doesn't exist, even in the quantum particle world you classify those quantum parts as neutral,positive, and negative particles but there is a magnetic mechanical possibility that the neutral, classified as no charge is actually an equal charge (balanced) and the positive particle is a dominant positive and a minor negative in quantum mass and the negative classified particle is a dominant negative and minor positive charge in quantum mass , that their constructions are balanced or unbalanced, inside the laws of magnetics even the neutrino is a balanced charged particle

Jun 16, 2016
Even the possibility that anti matter does not exist that all particles are balanced or unbalanced in this dimension, that's there opposite

Jun 16, 2016
As long as you can't rule out the possibility that CCM is not charged particle mass made of quantum constructions of positrons and electrons held in magnetic charged bonds of magnetic compression ,then black holes will continue to be theoretical mass

Jun 16, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jun 16, 2016
I wish they'd stop calling shock waves gravitational waves. They're just trying to save face. Why are they not detecting the dynamics of the gravitational interaction of the planets and moons? They should be seeing those gravitational waves 100% of the time, but no, apparently only "when black holes collide".

GW theories are based on the premise that GW's operate at light speed, whereas in reality the speed of light is the upper limit only to the speed of light. Gravity is instantaneous. If you ask for proof, I will point to the evidence that LIGO is silent 99% of the time, therefor GW's don't exist.

Jun 16, 2016
Chris Reave every thing they find they try to put that in their SCM of Einstein, that's there bullseye they draw ,no thinking outside the bullseye , of any other mechanical or magnetic possibilities please

Jun 16, 2016
Its like the days of Copernicus back then the model was it only takes the sun day to orbit around earths single point, and all other objects, now they have a new single point the big bang

Jun 16, 2016
GRB triggers are all sky. Fermi was not pointing at the GW error box when it happened
I was wondering: if there was something like a collimated, jet-like burst that then hit a nearby giant molecular cloud (say 50±20 light-hours distant from the coalescence), turning the cloud into a burst of gamma rays in all directions, then maybe GRB 20151228B has about a 20-30% chance of being associated? It was detected by Swift about 67 hours after GW151226, in the direction of the constellation Pisces (galactic lat:80.86, lon:+45.31), which is pretty close to the 50% contour line on the sky localization – see the Skymap Viewer. (Move mouse pointer over skymap to match coordinates with GRB 20151228B's to see its location.)

Jun 16, 2016
Careful, everyone. :)

Said gravitational wave claimed to have quadrupole effects on a-LIGO quadrupole-effects-detector setup from more than a BILLION light years away.

BUT...from link: https://van.physi...p?id=204
The quadrupole moment does give gravitational fields, but they fall off much faster as you leave the object than does the main monopole field, which falls as the square of the distance from the center. The quadrupole field falls as the fourth power of the distance.


So, claim that 'quadrupole effect' gravitational disturbance 'wave' can travel this far or be 'detected' by a-LIGO setup, is scientifically UN-tenable, according to known science.

Cheers. :)

PS: 'MONOpolar' gravitational-well/gradient 'variations' across space travel ALONG with associated mass-energy features/radiations (stars/Photons/Neutrinos etc); but any such g-w 'signals' from Billion+ LYs away would be SWAMPED by 'nearby' Solar Sys/Milky Way dynamics 'signals'.

Jun 17, 2016
I was wondering: if there was something like a collimated, jet-like burst that then hit a nearby giant molecular cloud (say 50±20 light-hours distant from the coalescence),
I think here you mean a collimated jet-like burst specifically of gravity radiation, and I assume you're thinking along the axis of the coalescence plane, not in or even near the plane. I have to point out here that if a significant amount of the gravity energy were dissipated along or near the axis and we were on or near the plane, and this weren't accounted for in the calculations, then some of those calculations could be incorrect. I'd be interested to see one or more of the astrophysicists we have on hear weigh in on this.

turning the cloud into a burst of gamma rays in all directions,
I don't have a clear picture of the mechanics of this. What sort(s) of interaction(s) do you have in mind?

[contd]

Jun 17, 2016
[contd]
then maybe GRB 20151228B has about a 20-30% chance of being associated?
Assuming a reasonable mechanism for the gamma rays from the cloud, I would think that it's less than 20-30%, more on the order of single digits or less. This merely from the argument of how much angular area there is for such a closely collimated jet to cover, vs. how wide it's likely to be. But I'm just sticking a wet finger up in the wind like you so I'm interested if you agree or not.

Nice toy link, and an interesting speculation to bounce around. This is what I come here for.

Jun 17, 2016
length contraction and prolongation of beams of the interferometer is pure unproved speculation.........
https://www.resea...traction

Jun 17, 2016
Maybe if you could spell length when you put the link up.

Just sayin'.

It's the little things, ya know?

Jun 17, 2016
GW vibrations have origin in variable energy density of quantum vacuum which changes its permittivity and permeability. This changes the speed of light in the beams of the interferometer. Changes of beams length are pure illusion. 

Is the gravitational vibration after the merging of supermassive objects meaningful? - ResearchGate. Available from: https://www.resea...aningful [accessed Jun 17, 2016].

Jun 17, 2016
Otto_Szucks:

"[M]odern technological [and scientific] advances are not imposed problems; they are instead examples of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy.

The joke of the Texas Sharpshooter is that he fires his gun many times into a barn door, then draws a target over the bullet holes, with the bulls-eye over the closest cluster of bullet holes.

In other words, the Texas Sharpshooter makes it look as if he had been aiming at the bulls-eye and had hit it, when in fact he drew the bulls-eye only after he took the shots.

Modern science and engineering is like that.(..)."
- Chris_Reeve

Understood and agreed.
We all know that Black Holes are still indeterminate as fact. But WHAT IF instead of TWO BHs merging together, ONE BH split into TWO BHs? If they both had the same charge, they would repel each other, whereas if one was + and the other was - they would merge together.
But I am more interested in the possibility of a BH splitting in two, similar to amoeba.


Jun 17, 2016
GW vibrations have origin in variable energy density of quantum vacuum
What's "variable energy density of [the] quantum vacuum?" And what makes it change only where the LIGO is?

which changes its permittivity and permeability
Now, that's a neat trick, changing the permittivity and permeability of the vacuum. Tell me, given we can measure the permittivity and permeability of various material objects, did it ever strike you that we might be able to measure them for the vacuum as well? And did you ever consider that this might be a good lab experiment that a college student might be asked to complete?

So, let me ask, where is the data to prove your claim of varying permittivity and permeability of the vacuum? Which if it existed would probably be measured ten thousand times a year or so by college students?

Never mind being measured with extraordinary accuracy by the US NIST.

Jun 17, 2016
If they both had the same charge
Astronomical black holes, like most astronomical objects, have no charge.

You do realize that the ratio between the EM and gravity forces is on the order of 10³⁹, right? That means it would take 10³⁹ electrons of mass to make a force equal to the force of the charge of one electron. It's a bit better for protons; it's like 10³⁶ for them.

Oh and BTW you do also realize that if there were any charge involved, the equations of GRT would fail to correctly predict phenomena. The math wouldn't work, and we'd know it because, for example, Gravity Probe B checked all that stuff and also checked for charges. Kinda hard to screw that up if you do it that exactly.

Chandrasekhar's Limit is pretty hard to get around, but when it gets down to the Hulse-Taylor test on a binary pulsar there's really nowhere to hide any more.
[contd]

Jun 17, 2016
[contd]
The real problem with all this EU crap is that the EFE are so incredibly simple and obvious. They are to most physicists the equivalent of what E=mc² is to most people. An incredibly small and simple set of equations that describe so much. A really convincingly good theory is elegant.

Then there's consilience. So many disciplines are involved in testing GRT that we have learned a very great deal simply by achieving the accuracy and precision needed to do the tests. All of these different disciplines must mesh precisely in order for us to see what we see around us; it could so easily be different, but then the math wouldn't be elegant. The best theories are very, very simple. And very, very consilient.

F=ma
A line segment joining a planet and the Sun sweeps out equal areas during equal intervals of time.
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
pV = nRT
ΔxΔp ≥ ħ/2
[contd]

Jun 17, 2016
[contd]
In short, if there were any sort of EM contribution to the force of gravity, it would be obvious in the form of the EFE. And if it were not there, then the EFE wouldn't correctly describe the Hulse-Taylor pulsar observation, nor would it correctly describe the detection of gravity waves at LIGO; the wave train would have very different characteristics.

The game is over, children; LIGO worked, and we saw what our theory said we would. Hulse-Taylor was sufficient for relativity, but for Schwarzchild we needed LIGO and we got it. You can pretend all you like but we went and looked and there's no electricity there. Get over it.

Jun 17, 2016
turning the cloud into a burst of gamma rays in all directions,

I don't have a clear picture of the mechanics of this. What sort(s) of interaction(s) do you have in mind?
Nothing exotic, just something like a jet, similar to a blazar, or an active galactic nucleus or quasar on a smaller scale... I guess the energy released or radiated specifically from the black holes is only in the form of gravitational waves, so if black holes were the only things present during the merger then there would probably be no associated GRB. I was also trying to think of a realistic scenario for possible delays between the merger event and detection of a GRB in the vicinity. Glad you liked the Skymap Viewer, it is pretty cool.

Jun 17, 2016
something like a jet, similar to a blazar, or an active galactic nucleus or quasar on a smaller scale...
I think we're talking about gravitomagnetic effects here, rather than something material like an AGN jet/quasar. That doesn't throw it out though... since we're just speculating. ;)

I guess the energy released or radiated specifically from the black holes is only in the form of gravitational waves, so if black holes were the only things present during the merger then there would probably be no associated GRB.
Well, there's a bit more to it, so let me mull it over for a while. I'll keep this thread open in a tab so it doesn't fall off the edge of the Earth.

I was also trying to think of a realistic scenario for possible delays between the merger event and detection of a GRB in the vicinity.
Yeah, like I said lemme think on it.

Jun 17, 2016
Hi Protoplasmix, Da Schneib, Phys1, EMP-9 etc.

Until you address what I pointed out in my previous post, and which is supported by your own (Protoplasmix's) link, then all your discussion re quadrupole effect gravitational waves/detection (from Billions of Lyrs away) is effectively discussing anti-KNOWN-science beliefs instead of objective scientifically tenable discourse of real/physical events/possibilities.

Your collective silence on what I pointed out (as supported by known science quoted/linked) does lead one to question your collective dedication to actual objective thinking/science discourse. Is there any other cogent and objective reason you don't address that 'elephant in the room' I pointed out?

Why not do that FIRST?...instead of UNCRITICALLY believing/promulgating alleged a-LIGO 'detection' claim/setup etc; which are PATENTLY DUBIOUS according to KNOWN science, even before 'runs/analyses' were done?

That 'elephant in the room' makes it all GIGO. Address it. :)

Jun 17, 2016
You state this with 100% confidence, yet you offer no proof.
I am convinced that all your claims are wrong.
Take your argument (question?):
"Why are they not detecting the dynamics of the gravitational interaction of the planets and moons?"
If you had done the math you would not have asked.
You state this with 100% confidence yet you do not back up your declarations with proof.

Show me the math, you little show-off.

Jun 17, 2016
so if black holes were the only things present during the merger then there would probably be no associated GRB

Just knee-jerking here: but if both BHs have a charge then that would be one hell of a dynamo come the end (revolving around one another at half the speed of light...holy crap. Any kind of matter - and if it's even just a bit of dust - in the vicinity might get a kick out of that. if that slams into anything else that would create some fireworks.
Depending on distance (e.g. a common accretion disc) that could lead to a delay in the range of seconds to hours.

Jun 17, 2016
OK @Proto, so I think there should be some frame dragging type gravitomagnetic effects that should extend out in the plane of rotation; I expect those would show up in the bulk of the gravity waves. But there should also be some geodetic effects, and at least some of those should show up along the rotation axis.

Unfortunately I don't know enough GRT to get any idea how strong these effects would be, particularly not in the strong field sector an event like coalescing black holes would be in. We'd need a real relativist to run the numbers. And unless I miss my guess the relativist would need some serious computing support.

In addition, because our ability to focus gamma rays is not very good, and satellite telescopes aren't very quick to react, I doubt we will have a chance to check this out anytime soon. But I can't rule your speculation out, certainly not trivially.

It was very interesting to think about, though!

Jun 17, 2016
@antialias, I would expect the frame dragging and geodetic effects to militate toward aligning the spin planes of the black holes with the plane of rotation of the holes' orbits. As with @Proto's speculations, I can't really quantify how strong such effects would be. But it could have an effect on any charges present on either hole.

As far as charge itself, it's a very interesting point. However, I would have expected either or both holes having a charge to throw the calculations off and result in a detectable signature in the gravity waves, so I would rate this as pretty unlikely.

Jun 17, 2016
"You can pretend all you like but we went and looked and there's no electricity there. Get over it. "
----------------------------------

Sorry, Da Schneib, but they looked with the Hubble and found the cord.

Jun 17, 2016
@gkam, OK, that was funny.

Jun 17, 2016
@RC, most folks have you on ignore. You can talk to me if you like :)

Jun 18, 2016
@Da Schneib

When the distance to the event is given, how is Hubbles Constant factored into the calculations? For example the first event was claimed to have taken place 1.3 billion light years away, how long would it take for the signal to reach us factoring in the rate of universal expansion between the observer and event? If the answer is 1.3 billion light years, then obviously the event occurred at a lesser distance I'm guessing because of the expansion that would have taken place during the travel time of the signal. Is the estimated mass of the event, given by the experiment, derived from the strength of the signal detected using the inverse square law? How far away was the event from us when it happened? Is the 1.3 billion light years, the time it took for the signal to reach us, or is it the actual distance to the event at the time of detection?

Jun 18, 2016
Hi TehDog. :)
most folks have you on ignore. You can talk to me if you like :)
Nah. They SAY they have me on ignore, but actually they can read it all (including my highlighting/quoting Protoplasmix's OWN reference supporting my longstanding point).

They don't have the honesty/fortitude to face the point raised; because it would show how SILLY and ILLOGICAL and AGAINST KNOWN SCIENCE those claims of 'detecting' quadrupole effect g-w from a distance of BILLION LIGHT YEARS plus are; when even Protoplasmix's OWN link tells them WHY such a quadupolar g-w effect from that distance FADES OUT at the rate of the FOURTH POWER of distance!

So it could NOT have been detected as claimed by the a-LIGO setup at such distance from supposed source. :)

Mate, it's time to realize that your 'chat buddies' have been WRONG and me CORRECT on the SCIENCE all along; on MANY fronts, not just this g-w stuff.

Failure to admit their error is hard. But they MUST if they're to LEARN. Cheers. :)

Jun 18, 2016
@Nikstlitselpmur, in general the coordinates used (particularly in a popular science article) are those of the distance at the time the signal was emitted, in the local current time rest frame of Earth. So I would expect that the site where these black holes merged was 1.3 billion light years from where Earth is now, 1.3 billion years ago, and I would expect that site is farther away now than it was then due to the Hubble flow. I'd need to calculate to figure out how much.

There are other coordinates (called comoving and proper distance) that are used in cosmology, which take the Hubble constant into account, but these introduce confusion because they give answers for long distances that seem to imply that objects are farther away than light could have moved over the age of the universe, and these are used in a technical cosmological setting.

[contd]

Jun 18, 2016
[contd]
Finally there is redshift itself, that is, the raw observed redshift of the source as we see it now. This is commonly used for sources that are in distant galaxies and have experienced redshift due to their motion relative to us at the time of emission.

Incidentally the first type of coordinates are called "luminosity distance." You will note that this is given in the arXiv copy of the paper available here: http://arxiv.org/...06.04855 and you will also note that redshift is also given. So to answer your question directly, the site was 1.3 billion light years away 1.3 billion years ago.

Now, the masses are calculated by the characteristics of the wavetrain, not simply the intensity of the signal. How exactly is covered in the paper mostly by reference to other papers, and I'm sorry but I'm too lazy to go look it all up. Error bars are given.

Jun 18, 2016
The party is somewhat spoiled! Follow the "futurehuman" in the Guardian:
https://www.thegu...les-ligo

Jun 18, 2016
Some out of the box questions
1. Gravitation has been interpreted as curvature of spacetime. If the gravitational field is weak, far in "empty" space, it will be practically flat. How would be a gravitational wave look like there: will it be oscillating beyond zero curvature, i.e. between a negative and a positive curvature? 2. Or are gravitational waves not an oscillation of the gravitational field, but of spacetime itself: so spacetime is stretched and compressed as a SPACETIME wave comes through? 3. If spacetime is impacted, why do the actual spacetime wave detectors only measure space distortions and could one not detect the spacetime waves with clocks only?

Jun 18, 2016
Pretty good questions, @Dispro.

1. Gravitation has been interpreted as curvature of spacetime. If the gravitational field is weak, far in "empty" space, it will be practically flat. How would be a gravitational wave look like there: will it be oscillating beyond zero curvature, i.e. between a negative and a positive curvature?
Well, there are more terms in the Einstein Field Equations than just curvature of spacetime by mass; specifically, there's the cosmological term. This term offsets the curvature from zero. So the oscillations will be around that offset, not around zero. Keeping that in mind, the approximate answer to your question is "Yes."

2. Or are gravitational waves not an oscillation of the gravitational field, but of spacetime itself: so spacetime is stretched and compressed as a SPACETIME wave comes through?
That's not actually an "or." It's just another way of looking at the same thing.

[contd]

Jun 18, 2016
[contd]
3. If spacetime is impacted, why do the actual spacetime wave detectors only measure space distortions and could one not detect the spacetime waves with clocks only?
Theoretically yes, but the distortions in time are too small for our clocks to detect reliably, but the distortions in space are more readily detectable and especially so since we get more total distortion for a longer baseline which is not possible with clocks.

In fact, there is a hunt on for the detection of gravity waves in the timing of millisecond pulsars, but the noise is currently too high. They're working on that.

Jun 18, 2016
Gthx for those quick fixes!

Dark regards!

Jun 18, 2016
So, claim that 'quadrupole effect' gravitational disturbance 'wave' can travel this far or be 'detected' by a-LIGO setup, is scientifically UN-tenable, according to known science.


Your statement is ignorant of the principles of the LIGO experiments and equipment. The proportionality of decay of quadropole signals to the 4th power of the distance is not an absolute disqualifier to detection. The aLIGO instrument is a limited device, and can detect only the most powerful manifestations of gravitational quadropole moment: supernovae and compact binary inspirals. The breathtaking intentionality of aLIGO is entirely different than, say, accidentally discovering gamma ray flashes from lightning storms, or delusions and scams like N Rays or e-cat.

Nah. They SAY they have me on ignore, but actually ...


That sounds delusional or narcissistic, you know?

Jun 18, 2016

1. Gravitation has been interpreted as curvature of spacetime. If the gravitational field is weak, far in "empty" space, it will be practically flat. How would be a gravitational wave look like there: will it be oscillating beyond zero curvature, i.e. between a negative and a positive curvature?


My limited understanding is that gravity has no effect on Gravitational waves, as they are comprised of sub atomic particles of gravitational radiation, or bosons. The very fact that the waves can escape the gravity of the merging blackholes would seem to indicate that the curvature of spacetime produced by mass has no effect on Gravitational Radiation. Which also seems to suggest that space does not curve, rather is distorted in some sort of field in the presence of mass.

Jun 18, 2016
How would be a gravitational wave look like there: will it be oscillating beyond zero curvature

Just to add to DaSchneib's answer:

The total curvature experienced is based on the volumen integral over the enclosed mass/energy. So if you look at a space that, say, contains the Earth you get a positive value (because the Earth has mass).

A part of a gravitational wave travelling outward does not enclose a mass. So if you take, say, a cubic kilometer of space where a gravitational wave travels through (or just a cubic kilometer very close, but outside the Earth) then the volume integral of the enclosing mass is zero (ignoring cosmological constant/dark energy for the moment).

This does NOT mean the curvature EVERYWHERE is zero. You can have - as in the case of gravitational wave or Earth orbit - stretching in one direction and compression in another which sums out to zero over the inspected volume.

Jun 18, 2016
My limited understanding is that gravity has no effect on Gravitational waves, as they are comprised of sub atomic particles of gravitational radiation, or bosons. The very fact that the waves can escape the gravity of the merging blackholes would seem to indicate that the curvature of spacetime produced by mass has no effect on Gravitational Radiation.
I think you've got some misconceptions about gravity. What I think you're trying to say here is that the force of gravity doesn't retard gravity waves; but this is a confusion of different representations of gravity, and I'll also note that the force of gravity doesn't retard light waves either. In both cases, however, it does affect their frequencies.

It's necessary to stop here and point out that the reason we perceive a force of gravity is because of the curvature (or distortion, if you prefer, see below) of spacetime. The action of the force is the result of the curvature.
[contd]

Jun 18, 2016
[contd]
In addition it's important to note that these gravity waves do not originate inside the black holes. There is, therefore, no reason to talk about them not being able to escape since they are not from inside the event horizon.

Which also seems to suggest that space does not curve, rather is distorted in some sort of field in the presence of mass.
You say "distorted," I say "curved," we both mean the same thing.

Jun 18, 2016
[contd]
In addition it's important to note that these gravity waves do not originate inside the black holes. There is, therefore, no reason to talk about them not being able to escape since they are not from inside the event horizon.

Which also seems to suggest that space does not curve, rather is distorted in some sort of field in the presence of mass.
You say "distorted," I say "curved," we both mean the same thing.


I would suggest a distorted field which results from time dilation, giving the illusion of curved spacetime, As for the gravity produced by the blackhole, it is well established I believe that the gravity well from a black hole extends far beyond the event horizon. The merger of the two black holes results in a black hole of a lesser mass than the sum of it's constituent parts, where did that mass go? I believe it is converted to radiation in the form of gravitational particles or Bosons, so something has escaped, evidenced by the lesser mass .

Jun 18, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
I have you on ignore all of the time, but when I am not logged in I still saw your polite question.
Thanks for confirming that others DO read my posts despite saying they have me on ignore.
You wonder how quadrupolar GW are detected when the quadrupolar GW field falls off with r^-4. Answer: radiation energy always falls off like r^-2
No, I wasn't "wondering", I knew. The current mathematical-physicist treatments/perspectives/conclusions/interpretations are 'superficial'.

CONSIDER: If quadrupolar 'oscillations' of such alleged 'g-w-radiation' DO fade quickly per r^-4; then THEREAFTER that alleged 'g-w-radiation' reduces to MONOPOLAR; and such 'monopolar' g-w-radiation' had to have travelled BILLION+ LYrs to a-LIGO setup which is NOT designed to discern THOSE from NEARER/STRONGER monopolar g-w dynamics from NORMAL closer-sourced SS/Milky Way etc gravitational dynamics 'signals' which would SWAMP any such a-LIGO 'signal' from BILLION+ LYrs away! See? :)

Jun 18, 2016
You say "distorted," I say "curved," we both mean the same thing.
I would suggest a distorted field which results from time dilation, giving the illusion of curved spacetime,
That's in disagreement with GRT. The EFE's first two terms both contain 4-tensors which denote the curvature of space and time as a single thing. Both are curved. That's leaving aside the stress-energy tensor.

As for the gravity produced by the blackhole, it is well established I believe that the gravity well from a black hole extends far beyond the event horizon.
Sure; but it's also true of, say, Earth.

The merger of the two black holes results in a black hole of a lesser mass than the sum of it's constituent parts, where did that mass go? I believe it is converted to radiation in the form of gravitational particles or Bosons, so something has escaped, evidenced by the lesser mass.
Sure. But I don't see what your point is.

Jun 18, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
I have you on ignore all of the time, but when I am not logged in I still saw your polite question.
Thanks for confirming that others DO read my posts despite saying they have me on ignore.


Well how you are Really-Skippy? If the humans and scientists have you on the ignore, I will fool around with you for a little awhile. I am not really very busy until the "Hell On Wheels" show comes on, this is it's last season. Have you seen it over there in Australia? It is about building the first transcontinental railroad here. They play pretty loose with the literary license but the story line is good.

Jun 18, 2016
Hi Uncle Ira. :)

Have you evolved any honesty/intelligence which is greater than that of the bot-voting-program that has got the better of you for some time now? :)

Anyhow..
Hi Phys1. :)
I have you on ignore all of the time, but when I am not logged in I still saw your polite question
Thanks for confirming that others DO read my posts despite saying they have me on ignore
If the humans and scientists have you on the ignore, I will fool around with you for a little awhile. I am not really very busy until the "Hell On Wheels" show comes on, this is it's last season
Nah, they read my posts; but as with their BICEP2 fail/error, they are afraid to face my point made re a-LIGO. Although, as you can see from the exchange you just quoted, Phys1 did have the honesty, courage and politeness to respond manfully like a real scientist. Kudos Phys1. :)

I'm 67yrs. Transportation History/Technology Research one of many interests. I probably know more about it than you. :)

Jun 18, 2016
@ Da Schneib

"Sure. But I don't see what your point is."

It was a rebuttal to you assertion, about them not being able to escape since they are not from inside the event horizon.
Gravitational waves are subatomic particles of gravitational radiation. "Gravitational Radiation is to gravity what light is to electromagnetism. " I though Hawking showed that BH's lose mass from the escape of radiation, and would eventually evaporate, which seems to disprove that just because something is inside the event horizon it can never escape.


Jun 18, 2016
Hi Uncle Ira. :)

Have you evolved any honesty/intelligence which is greater than that of the bot-voting-program that has got the better of you for some time now? :)
Yeah, I am fine, Thanks for asking.

Nah, they read my posts; but as with their BICEP2 fail/error, they are afraid to face my point made re a-LIGO. Although, as you can see from the exchange you just quoted, Phys1 did have the honesty, courage and politeness to respond manfully like a real scientist.
He explained that it was the accident because he was not signed on the computer physorg connection.

Kudos Phys1. :)
I am pretty sure he was mocking you Cher.

I'm 67yrs. Transportation History/Technology Research one of many interests.
Yeah me too. I am 38 years old not 67 and have always been interested in mechanical things. I guess that is why I like my job so much.

I probably know more about it than you.
I am not surprised at all to hear that.

Jun 18, 2016
Hi Uncle Ira. :)
Have you evolved any honesty/intelligence which is greater than that of the bot-voting-program that has got the better of you for some time now? :)
Yeah, I am fine,
You're "fine" with your bot-voting-program being smarter, more honest than its user (you)? Ok. :)
Nah, they read my posts; but as with their BICEP2 fail/error, they are afraid to face my point made re a-LIGO. ... Phys1 did have the honesty, courage and politeness to respond manfully like a real scientist.
He explained that it was the accident because he was not signed on the computer physorg connection.
We all "not signed in"...until we do. Focus! :)
I'm 67yrs. Transportation History/Technology Research one of many interests.
I am 38 years old not 67 and have always been interested in mechanical things. I guess that is why I like my job so much.
Enjoy! :)
I probably know more about it than you.
I am not surprised at all to hear that.
Nor am I, mate. :)

Jun 18, 2016
Hi Uncle Ira. :)
Hi again and how you are again? I'm still fine me.

We all "not signed in"...until we do. Focus! :)
Non Cher, that is wrong. I've got a really smart super duper CIA grade NASA approved computer that automatic signs me in to the phyorg when I turn him on and open the physorg. All I do is click on the physorg link and when it pops up, there is my name right up there at the top of the page. It's got a little shadow man up on the right and says Uncle Ira. I am sure most of the peoples have computers to do that too. It asked me if I wanted to be always signed in on this computer a long time ago, and I say "yeah, let's do that since it is my computer and nobody else uses him". That's was years ago and I have not signed in again yet.

I probably know more about it than you.
I am not surprised at all to hear that.
Nor am I, mate.


Well why you would be? You are the one who said it.

Jun 18, 2016
Hi Protoplasmix, Da Schneib, Phys1, EMP-9 etc. ...
They don't have the honesty/fortitude to face the point raised; because it would show how SILLY and ILLOGICAL and AGAINST KNOWN SCIENCE those claims of 'detecting' quadrupole effect g-w from a distance of BILLION LIGHT YEARS plus are; when even Protoplasmix's OWN link tells them WHY such a quadupolar g-w effect from that distance FADES OUT at the rate of the FOURTH POWER of distance!
RealityCheck, it's not enough to know just part of the science.

Here's more of the "known science":
maybe start here: GW antenna sensitivity
or here: Luminosity in GWs
or at the beginning of the review if you need to.

Jun 18, 2016
"Sure. But I don't see what your point is."
It was a rebuttal to you assertion, about them not being able to escape since they are not from inside the event horizon.
But it doesn't help with that because you forgot to show they're coming from inside the event horizon.

Gravitational waves are subatomic particles of gravitational radiation.
Yes, but that still doesn't prove they came from inside the event horizon.

"Gravitational Radiation is to gravity what light is to electromagnetism." I though Hawking showed that BH's lose mass from the escape of radiation, and would eventually evaporate, which seems to disprove that just because something is inside the event horizon it can never escape.
Sure, but that has nothing to do with two black holes orbiting each other and generating gravity waves. In fact, you don't even need black holes; we think we will see gravity wave signatures from coalescences of pairs of orbiting neutron stars, too, eventually.

Jun 18, 2016
Hi Uncle Ira. :)
We all "not signed in"...until we do. Focus! :)
Non Cher, ...All I do is click on the physorg link and when it pops up, there is my name right up there at the top of the page. It's got a little shadow man up on the right and says Uncle Ira. I am sure most of the peoples have computers to do that too. It asked me if I wanted to be always signed in on this computer...
Explains your bot-voting fiasco! So, when you say it's "too much trouble" to 'lose' that Uncle Ira login and re-register as Uncle Ira (Rebooted), you mean you are INCAPABLE of UNTICKING a BOX and RE-signing as Uncle Ira (Rebooted) username without the idiot-bot-voting-program?! Uh-huh.:)
I probably know more about it than you.
I am not surprised at all to hear that.
Nor am I, mate.
Well why you would be? You are the one who said
I wasn't surprised to hear that you weren't surprised to hear that I probably knew more about it than you. Comprende? :)

Jun 18, 2016
Hi Uncle Ira. :)
Hi and how you are another again? Still fine and dandy again, thanks for asking again.

Comprende? :)
Not really. But nobody does with you so it's okay, I still like you. But Cher, I got to run because of my television show I told about up there. Maybe Captain-Skippy will come around to fool around with you since the humans and scientists seem like they are still ignoring you.

See you later matey.

Jun 18, 2016
Hi Protoplasmix. :)
RealityCheck, it's not enough to know just part of the science.

Here's more of the "known science":
maybe start here: http://relativity...370004.5
or at the beginning of the review if you need to.
Thanks for your polite response and links. Be aware that I have long been aware and understanding of all that. The point reduces to the case that over BILLION+ light years distance the QUADRUPOLAR component is DEAD...leaving only the normal MONOPOLAR effects like ordinary gravity-well gradients effects propagating ALONG with their parent body/energy feature that is producing/carrying it at LESS than lightspeed across the SS/Milky Way etc...all of which would swamp any MONOPOLAR signal from so far away.

Hence unlikely a-LIGO detected such from so far away. For, like CMB observations/techniques/treatments/analyses etc, the MORE 'sensitive' the setup, the MORE subject to 'artifact/noise'.

Cheers. :)

Jun 18, 2016
Hi Uncle Ira. :)
Comprende? :)
Not really. But nobody does with you so it's okay, I still like you. But Cher, I got to run because of my television show I told about up there. Maybe Captain-Skippy will come around to fool around with you since the humans and scientists seem like they are still ignoring you. "Nobody", you say? Is that in your opinion as PO bot-voting-idiot? Uh-Huh.

Science discourse is not about personal "likes" or "dislikes". Haven't you twigged to even that bit yet?

Didn't you say you can record that show?

And Phys1, Protoplasmix have responded, as you can see from their above posts to me. Are you now implying that they are neither humans nor scientists? If you're not, then your assumption/suggestion there is irretrievably flawed. Maybe you should take some lessons in logic from your bot...it seems to be smart enough to have got the better of you so far, as your previous posts indicate. :)

Enjoy that show, mate. Let me know how it ends (humor).

Jun 18, 2016
Reformatting previous:
Hi Uncle Ira. :)
Comprende? :)
Not really. But nobody does with you so it's okay, I still like you. But Cher, I got to run because of my television show I told about up there. Maybe Captain-Skippy will come around to fool around with you since the humans and scientists seem like they are still ignoring you.
"Nobody", you say? Is that in your opinion as a bot-voting-idiot on a science site? Uh-Huh.

Science discourse not about personal "likes" or "dislikes".

Didn't you say you could record that show?

And Phys1, Protoplasmix have responded, as you can see from their above posts to me. Are you now implying that they are neither humans nor scientists? If not, then your assumption/suggestion there is irretrievably flawed. Maybe you should take some lessons in logic from your bot...it seems to be smart enough to have got the better of you so far, as your previous posts indicate. :)

Enjoy that TV show, mate. Let me know how it ends (/HUMOR). :)

Jun 19, 2016
The point reduces to the case that over BILLION+ light years distance the QUADRUPOLAR component is DEAD
The point actually reduces to a BH-BH merger shining brighter than the entire visible universe (briefly) in radiated power. Did you read the luminosity link? The specific answer to your question is:

"While the stationary tidal force due to the Newtonian potential ϕ of a self-gravitating source at distance r falls of as ∇∇ϕ ~ 1/r³, the tidal force due to the wave amplitude h that it emits at wavelength λ decreases as ∇∇h ~ 1/rλ². Therefore the stationary coulomb gravitational potential is the dominant tidal force close to the gravitating body (in the near zone where r ≤ λ). However, in the far zone (r >> λ) the tidal effect of the waves is much stronger."

And it can be found in 2.1 Gravitational field vs gravitational waves in the review.

Jun 19, 2016
If they both had the same charge
Astronomical black holes, like most astronomical objects, have no charge.

...ratio between the EM and gravity forces is on the order of 10³⁹, right? That means it would take 10³⁹ electrons of mass to make a force equal to the force of the charge of one electron. It's a bit better for protons; it's like 10³⁶ for them.

Oh and BTW you do also realize that if there were any charge involved, the equations of GRT would fail to correctly predict phenomena. The math wouldn't work, and we'd know it because, for example, Gravity Probe B checked all that stuff and also checked for charges. Kinda hard to screw that up if you do it that exactly.
- DShneib

I was referring to one BH splitting into two...not two merging. I doubt that ALL BHs are the same with no charge. The data is not complete wrt charge or no charge. How many BHs did you say were examined to date?

Jun 19, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jun 19, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jun 19, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jun 19, 2016
The problem these folks are having is the difference between the field strength of a quandupole moment and the radiation it emits if it changes in time.

The field of a quadrupole moment falls off as the fourth power of distance; the radiation it emits if it changes in time does not, like all radiation it falls off as the square of distance, the famous "inverse square" law.

@Phys1 is correct, the inverse square law exists because of conservation of energy; it also exists because the surface area of a sphere varies as the square of its radius.

Jun 19, 2016
To demonstrate this, let's consider an instantaneous snapshot of two orbiting black holes and a sphere surrounding them.

There are two compact regions on the sphere opposite each black hole where the gravity is strongest; these are the maxima of the field; the "poles." There is a region forming a ring around the "equator" of the sphere (equidistant from the maxima) where the field is mimimal (the gravity field of each black hole cancels the other's). This is the standard quadrupole field.

Now consider the two black holes orbiting. At any point on the sphere in the plane of the orbit, the field intensity will vary twice in each orbit; to a maximum as a black hole passes opposite it, and to a minimum as the ring passes it, and again for the other black hole and the other side of the ring. It is these changes from minimum to maximum that generate the radiation.
[contd]

Jun 19, 2016
[contd]
Now back to our instantaneous snapshot, we see that the intensity of the gravity field varies between the poles and the equator as the cosine of the angle between poles and equator. At half the angular distance, then, the maximum will be 0.707 of the difference between the pole maxima and the ring minimum; at one-third, it will be 0.866; at two-thirds, it will be 0.5. Thus, going back to our orbiting frame, the gravitational radiation in these directions will vary by a cosine law on the angle from the orbital plane.

It's important to note here that most of the sphere (the zone from 0 to 60 degrees inclination to the orbital plane) will exhibit half or more of the gravitational radiation. Thus, most likely (2/3 of the time for a randomly oriented orbital plane) we will see half or more of the radiation intensity that we would see in the orbital plane.

The proof is geometrical. Linear approximations (the norm) are inevitably incorrect.

Jun 19, 2016
Articles from just the past week:

http://phys.org/n...ies.html
http://phys.org/n...s_1.html
http://phys.org/n...sar.html
http://www.dailym...eks.html

What I find most interesting is the relation between all of these news stories(Apologies for the Daily Mail link--only place I've seen this reported).
If you read them all, they seem to be describing aspects of the same principle-- the emission of quantized energy both into the Visible universe and into the Invisible.I begin to wonder how this relates to our understanding of DE/DM and the accelerating expansion of SpaceTime.

Also, I wonder in what other ways this energy might be put to work.

"Winds up just like a spring" is a very illustrative analogy, both figuratively AND literally, I suspect.

Jun 19, 2016
@Caliban, Daily Fail link forgiven. This is a very interesting piece of technology but off-topic in this thread; nevertheless, it appears to be confirmed experimentally. I haven't been commenting because it seemed obvious to me once the physics was confirmed and that was months (most of a year) ago.

Please apply the principles you see to the case in this article; I doubt you just chose to post that here randomly. ;)

Jun 19, 2016
Hi Protoplasmix. :) Thanks for the polite on-question response. Much appreciated. :)
The point reduces to the case that over BILLION+ light years distance the QUADRUPOLAR component is DEAD
The point actually reduces to a BH-BH merger shining brighter than the entire visible universe (briefly) in radiated power. Did you read the luminosity link?
The estimates/techniques used are fraught with HUGE error bars due to small/noisy data set and unknown intervening factors which make the whole exercise futile maths fantasies/conclusions. Ie, GIGO.

...However, in the far zone (r >> λ) the tidal effect of the waves is much stronger.".[/q)
Such facile maths assumption/techniques are flawed when treating/modeling Gravitational Waves 'signatures' of 'alleged 'sources/process' so distant. It's the BICEP2 'syndrome' all over again, but with 'adjusted' maths/models/assumptions applied for a-LIGO 'measurement setup/analysis 'theory/modeling construct'.

[cont...]

Jun 19, 2016
[...cont]@Protoplasmix:

Such 'exercise' in maths manipulation/assumptions omit important factors/physics; such as:

- Luminosity techniques for Gravitational Waves NOT like E-M radiation; hence NOT reliable because circuitous assumption of grav wave BEFORE 'observation/measurement' MODEL applied based on that assumption/model. GIGO potential HUGE.

- Recall that GR implies a 'spacetime' manifested 'pressure', UNLIKE that of E-M 'solitonic' feature/pressure 'force'; so the grav-wave is NOT 'cohesive' enough to remain as 'described' in the 'mathematical model' used/assumed to 'SELF-SELECT/PRE-INTERPRET a-LIGO 'inputs'. Hence HUGE GIGO 'exercise/results' from the very start.

- Alleged g-w 'RADIATION' ENERGY would be subject to HUMONGOUS REDSHIFTING while leaving HUGELY STRONG grav-well of the 60+ stellar mass BH Binary system; thus exacerbating even more the usual 'power/integrity dissipation' of alleged quadrupolar/monopolar g-w.

Facile maths/assumptions/modeling = GIGO. :)

Jun 19, 2016
Hi Phys1. Thanks for maintaining politeness and focus on-question/point. Much appreciated.
@RC
Your statements so far were demonstrated to be wrong.
Could you maintain interest in your narrative by saying something that is demonstrated to be right?
Thanks.
Please see my post to Protoplasmix above. It highlights just SOME of the obvious flaws which such exercises are inevitably subject to when dealing with 'signals' so far across the 'mixmaster' that is the intervening expanse of space/processes. Implicit belief that maths treatments as used will somehow 'correct/compensate' etc for the REALITY EFFECTS experienced DURING TRANSIT by what is 'observed here' from BILLIONS of LYrs away 'there', is naive to the point of silliness, and is NOT rigorous science at all, but rather self-fulfilling 'exercises' in 'circuity' and egotistical 'self-delusion' of being 'rigorously scientific'.

Reminder of REAL problem of implict belief in such maths/models 'exercises': BICEP2 fiasco.

Jun 19, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
@RC
What do all these caps, slashes and quotes mean, RC?
Your typography is deeply worrying.
Who can take serious such a post?
The reason for such is to limit the scope of possible misconstruing by trolls intent of derailing the discussion with side-tracking semantics and the usual tactics of accusations based on strawmen. If your scientific curiosity/objectivity is so 'fragile' a thing that you will be put off by 'style' rather than concentrating on getting the substance, then maybe you should reconsider your chosen profession....since that profession requires you to examine and 'translate' etc all sorts of ideas/expressions and styles of communications from a variety of global contributors to the literature/discussion.

Take your time and read without being sidetracked by such inconsequential 'style' factors. Tease out the context/meaning. Only then can you claim to be objective and genuine in discussion with those whom you may disagree with. Try it. :)

Jun 19, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
@RC In a sense the BICEP2 was not a fiasco. The error was spotted and the conclusions withdrawn. Science demonstrated self correction potential.
So, "in a sense" makes it all right? Mate, you KNOW that the whole thing was a publish-or-perish' attempt at 'flying under the radar' long enough to beat the Planck team (they even used some 'data' obtained SNEAKILY from a Planck conference presentation; and it did them no good). Then they kept publicly STANDING BY THEIR CLAIM even after I and other 'non-mainstream' commentators pointed out the FLAWS. It took them months to finally admit they had not been rigorous at all; but rather SLOPPY and after 'personal glory' of Nobel Prize like fame of being 'the first' to 'confirm' primordial g-w in CMB observations.

Even hypothesis that BB 'quantum fluctuations' were suposedly magnified by INFLATION is totally silly; because any such would have SMOOTHED OUT any such to undiscernability above quantum fluctuations NOW. :)

Jun 19, 2016
@RC doesn't get the whole thing about making mistakes and withdrawing your paper. It would never acknowledge a mistake. It doesn't have the courage to admit making one.

Jun 20, 2016
Be aware that I have long been aware and understanding of all that.
I'll be aware of that just as soon as you demonstrate it. So far, you've demonstrated that, during one of the greatest achievements in physics and astronomy, you have an awareness just vague enough to characterize it all as garbage out from garbage in. That position is diametrically opposed an "understanding of all that."

During the first historic detection, they were literally just getting warmed up. When it comes to acquiring the necessary experimental data to formulate a theory of everything, you've already rejected it – in favor of a dreaded interstellar "mixmaster" effect, no less, and words-slash-phrases for readers to tease some meaning from...

Jun 20, 2016
Gravitational waves were theorized as far back as 1898 by Sir Oliver Lodge, so I'm having a hard time accepting that they were first postulated by Einstein.

Jun 20, 2016
Lodge didn't have a theory; he had a conjecture. A theory takes math and the math for gravity waves is relativity.

Say, isn't that one of the Electric Universe things, how Oliver Lodge invented gravity and stuff?

Just askin'.

Oh and BTW Oliver Lodge speculated about gravitational lensing, not gravity waves. And he did it in 1919, not 1898.

Jun 20, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)
@RC doesn't get the whole thing about making mistakes and withdrawing your paper. It would never acknowledge a mistake. It doesn't have the courage to admit making one.
What is it about THEY STILL STOOD BY THEIR CLAIM FOR MONTHS *AFTER* I and other 'non-mainstream' INDEPENDENT SCIENTISTS pointed out their many flaws in many categories, that you and other uncritical mainstream 'believers' DON'T YET GET, mate?

NO amount of excuses will REWRITE what happened in that 'mathematical scientist group exercise' of an analytical fiasco fundamentally flawed from the start.

That you and others STILL in-denial and pretendig everythig went OK as per the scientific method, at ANY stage, is disturbingly familiar to RELIGIOUS fervor/faith in the face of REALITY as it transpired.

Please stop with the in-denial syndrome; and stop attacking the messenger of the 'inconvenient facts'.

You of all posters should have learned not to try that with ME, mate. Learn. :)

Jun 20, 2016
Hi Proto. :)
Be aware that I have long been aware and understanding of all that.
I'll be aware of that just as soon as you demonstrate it. So far, you've demonstrated that, during one of the greatest achievements in physics and astronomy, you have an awareness just vague enough to characterize it all as garbage out from garbage in. That position is diametrically opposed an "understanding of all that." During the first historic detection, they were literally just getting warmed up. When it comes to acquiring the necessary experimental data to formulate a theory of everything, you've already rejected it – in favor of a dreaded interstellar "mixmaster" effect, no less, and words-slash-phrases for readers to tease some meaning from..
"Vague"? Didn't you read my response to you/Phys1? I explained EXACTLY where the SUBTLE issues are in g-w and suchlike 'exercises'. Address them first before you again say I'm "vague". And later, I may, if I have time, mention more. :)

Jun 20, 2016
Lodge didn't have a theory; he had a conjecture. A theory takes math and the math for gravity waves is relativity.

Say, isn't that one of the Electric Universe things, how Oliver Lodge invented gravity and stuff?

Just askin'.

Oh and BTW Oliver Lodge speculated about gravitational lensing, not gravity waves. And he did it in 1919, not 1898.


Not according to my sources, "Physics in the Nineteenth Century" Page 164 So I'm going to go out on a limb here and argue the nineteenth century predates 1916. Also see "The Tiger and the Shark" Bruce Wheaton

Jun 20, 2016
Noticed I didn't get a comment on the whole EU thing.

Bye now.

Jun 20, 2016


Say, isn't that one of the Electric Universe things, how Oliver Lodge invented gravity and stuff?



BTW wasn't Einsteins 1905 paper titled "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" speaking of the Electric Universe thing.?

Jun 20, 2016
Hi Da Schneib (and Phys1, Proto et al). :)

Since you brought up the EU stuff, and since I am an impartial observer of your collective rebuttals of a particular EU claim as expressed in the past by Hannes Alfven and cantdrive, can any of you answer the question I asked torbjorn_b_g_larsson in thread:

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

It had to do with why can a BH have a 'charge' but a star cannot (according to what you collectively have stated in rebutals to cantdrive/Hannes when they claim that our sun does have a 'charge'). Anyway, you can read my post to torbjorn_b_g_larsson therein (he has for some reason not been as eager as usual to make his opinion known; or maybe he has missed my post to him). As an impartial observer, I would appreciate it greatly if those who make/refute claim re charge/no-charge on astro bodies would clarify the issue/claims/counterclaims. Thanks a bunch chaps. :)


Jun 20, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
In a sense the BICEP2 was not a fiasco. The error was spotted and the conclusions withdrawn. Science demonstrated self correction potential.
So, "in a sense" makes it all right?
Did I say that ? No I did not. Mistakes are made. This one was removed by the scientific community.
No mate, the relevant 'scientific community' ('mainstream' cosmology physicists/mathematicians) haven't even BEGUN to 'remove' the flaws which underlie all such G-W/CMB etc 'analysis/interpretation/modeling/conclusion 'maths exercises'. The BICEP2 fiasco merely brought it all out so everyone can no longer deny that the literature/ has been insidiously tainted by flawed assumptions/flawed 'peer review accepted' papers/work based on BB/Inflation/Expansion/CMB maths treatments/models that do NOT represent reality. Too many cosmology elders/acolytes 'personally invested' in 'faith' (in the maths instead of in the objective reality/scientific method) to model GR correctly. :)

Jun 20, 2016
PS: @ Phys1.

Did you see my aside post above (addressed to Da Schneib; and to you and Proto et al), asking (as an impartial observer of the EU/Anti-EU discussion claims/counterclaims) for an answer to the question I asked torbjorn_b_g_larsson in thread:

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

torbjorn_b_g_larsson seems to have missed it. As a strident anti-EU critic on this particular issue between yourselves and cantdrive et al, could you and Proto/Da Schneib answer that question FOR torbjorn_b_g_larsson, just to clear up that issue for me? Thanks mate(ys). :)

Jun 20, 2016
@RC "torbjorn_b_g_larsson therein (he has for some reason not been as eager as usual to make his opinion known; or maybe he has missed my post to him)."

My conjecture. They have you on ignore. I expect Ira will be along to explain things.
Me, I feel the need to play some DOOM 2 :)

(JGaaP stuff coming along well, you'll be in it, great control subject :)


Jun 20, 2016
@ Dog-Skippy. How you are? I am good me.

My conjecture. They have you on ignore.
Yeah that is what I am conjecturing too.

I expect Ira will be along to explain things.
I try to explain to him yesterday, but he told me that he was impossible to ignore.

It must be that charming way HE likes to TELL everybody that 'them/they' got everything all wrong and he is/was/will be/forever/always/about everything CORRECT all along. That is pretty hard to ignore. That's the only way he gets anybody to talk to him. You ever notice anybody talk with him in a normal peaceful conversational way? He never did notice that either.

Jun 20, 2016
Hi TehDog. :)
My conjecture. They have you on ignore. I expect Ira will be along to explain things.
Me, I feel the need to play some DOOM 2 :)
That's an excuse 'deniers' use to deny. We know it's not true, since people who say they have me on ignore can still see my posts; as you can see from said peoples' responses to my posts. :)

Nice try, though, Dog, to avoid reading/comprehending what my question to torbjorn was about and why it needed to be asked by an impartial observer (me). If you can ever get past yur ego-tripping cheap shots, you might actually learn something about real science (and FYI: no, playing DOOM2 is NOT 'doing science'). :)
JGaaP stuff coming along well, you'll be in it, great control subject :)
I have been performing such Internet Experiments for DECADE before you 'discovered' such. Has it even occurred to you that you (& 'friends') have been interesting 'subjects' in my Internet Experiments for some time now? No? It wouldn't, 'lab rats'. :)

Jun 20, 2016
Hi Uncle Ira :)
It must be that charming way HE [RC] likes to TELL everybody that 'them/they' got everything all wrong and he is/was/will be/forever/always/about everything CORRECT all along. That is pretty hard to ignore. That's the only way he gets anybody to talk to him. You ever notice anybody talk with him in a normal peaceful conversational way? He never did notice that either.
When they tell you they are ignoring but then respond, it should be obvious that they are not ignoring at all, only evading. Now, Uncle Ira, or should I use the formal Internet Experiment 'label name' I have for you: "Lab Rat No 14" (you were not the first lab rat in my Internet Experiments; you came on the scene quite late in the piece; nevertheless you are a very 'special' lab rat for having the distinction of being intellectually inferior to that bot-voting-program which you admit has got the better of you for so long now that you think it's "fine" being dumber than your bot). :)

Jun 20, 2016
@ Dog-Skippy. How you are? I am good me.

Good to hear :)
Me, I'm waiting for some good cycling weather, been too wet or too windy for weeks, getting antsy :)
Looks like I rattled a cage, wonder if he's got a pet name for me?
Ooh, 7 lines, passes my requirement for inclusion.

"...my Internet Experiments for some time now?..."
Yeah, heard that before...

Jun 20, 2016
"(and FYI: no, playing DOOM2 is NOT 'doing science')"
Well of course not, it's for fun.
Bloody hell, just realised, I first played it about 20 years ago...

Jun 21, 2016
Stephen J. Crothers: A Critical Analysis of
@epoxy / ZEPHIR

http://www.mathem...008.html

http://www.mathem...ews.html

http://www.mathem...508.html

http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2009/06/some-preliminary-comments-on-crothers.html

http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2009/12/paper-illustrating-more-of-crothers.html

.

"...my Internet Experiments
@TehDog
dont get your hopes up
all he really proved was that the moderation and ban-hammer (on SciForums and Sapo's Joint) work very well to keep out the cranks and idiots

and they wouldn't let him back on again (was banned twice at SciForums: as realitycheck and undefined... for exactly the same reasons! plus all his attempted socks trying to fool the mods, which weren't even worth keeping on the ban list - LOL)
http://www.scifor...banlist/

Jun 21, 2016
DOOM2
@TeHDog
ever tried Wolfenstein? LOL

OLD old school

.

.

evading
nope. ignoring
maybe not "on ignore" per the site, just ignoring you because you aren't able to actually post scientific content or supply evidence for your claims

perfect example is your rant above
The BICEP2 fiasco...blah blah bullshit blah
more than 2000 posts and you still have yet, to date actually state what the 4 fatal and other 4 flaws you "saw" in the study and papers linked there

not one comment other than your continued insistence you were right... about what?
Who knows!

you still can't tell anyone what you saw to prove you were right, therefore you are a blatant lying *sshole, which is why we ignore you mostly

you're easy to prove wrong

you also are incompetent on basic stuff, like liar-kam, full-of-bs, and benji

proof:
http://phys.org/n...les.html

PS
don't bother posting to me, i ignore you usually
LMFAO

Jun 21, 2016
RealityCheck

I'm a dumb layman / lurker /reader etc.

If they didn't detect gravity waves due to the distance from the source being scientifically untenable, what did they detect?

Jun 21, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jun 21, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jun 21, 2016
Hi TehDog. :)
Looks like I rattled a cage, wonder if he's got a pet name for me?
No, mate; you are the lab 'pet'. Unusually shiny white fur, pink little eyes. You didn't meet the stringent 'pathetic idiocy' criteria for the Internet Experiments Lab Rats complement I have gathered since 2005. I couldn't bear to euthanize such a 'cutesy little thing', so I keep you around as a reminder of what a 'normal average-idiot-level rat' is like. As a 'control' of sorts, Pet. :)
Ooh, 7 lines, passes my requirement for inclusion.
Who can ignore such a shiny furred, cutesy, little pink-eyed rat like you, Pet?
"...my Internet Experiments for some time now?..."
Yeah, heard that before...
They've been going since 2005 when I joined the OLD Physorg before the split to physforum (remainder; now defunct?) and (this) PhysOrg News.

Obviously you, as the lab 'pet', Pet (aka TehDog), haven't been aware that you have been part of my Internet Experiments 'scene' too. :)

Jun 21, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jun 21, 2016
Hi TransmissionDump. :)
If they didn't detect gravity waves due to the distance from the source being scientifically untenable, what did they detect?
The a-LIGO setup involves a host of 'engineering' and 'systemic parameter refining' etc etc which aims to identify and minimize 'noise' from all the gravitational perturbations from the moving gravity wells within our Solar System and our galaxy and beyond. Also the system has to minimize the perturbations of the physical vibrations from all sorts of environmental factors. The procedures which they employ involve much assumption, modeling and direct/indirect intervention almost daily at each of the two a-LIGOs themselves and also between them.

So: What were 'signals' representing; what analysis 'artifacts' potential was there from daily 'direct/indirect interventions' etc to calibrate/allow for 'parametric instabilitis/feedbacks' etc?

BICEP2 showed: naive/non-rigorous maths-rich/data poor 'exercises/claims' are 'iffy'. :)

Jun 21, 2016
Hi KFG. :)
GUTEN TAG...RC!
Guten Tag Lab Rat No 15! Welcome to my Internet Experiments Lab. You are in the "Reserve" cage in case one of the other Lab Rats drop dead in their cage from an incurable case of extreme idiocy which is an ever present occupational hazard for lab rats in an idiocy experiment maze. Meanwhile, enjoy your free lab rat food, wasser and wheel, mein kleiner freund (sorry mate, I couldn't recall the german for 'food' and wheel'). Cheers. :)

Jun 21, 2016
which aims to identify and minimize 'noise' from all the gravitational perturbations from the moving gravity wells within our Solar System and our galaxy and beyond.
Errrr, no.

It's just the vibrations from environmental factors. And there aren't any "analysis artifacts;" it's extremely well isolated: https://www.ligo....solation That way they don't have to do a bunch of calculations to eliminate vibration. No analysis, no analysis artifacts. See how that works? This is pretty duh since they've been talking about vibration isolation on LIGO since it was first built. It's not done with simulations. They use physical hardware.

Effects from gravitational perturbations with long periods like @RC describes can't be detected by LIGO. Most of them have periods near a day because, you know, that's how long it takes the Earth to rotate once. That's pretty duh if you think about it for a moment.

@RC, stop making stuff up.

Jun 21, 2016
Hi BiteMe. :)
RealityCheck 1.5 /5 (8) Jun 18, 2016

I'm 67yrs
Right, then. You're dotty.
Age is my excuse, what's yours for being even more so? :)

I hope I enter my dotage with more grace.
Too late, you achieved 'dotage condition' much earlier than you expected; and grace has been apparently distinctly lacking in your whole psyche and manners since your childhood, mate. :)

PS: Must be galling for you to be outdone at your own game by someone supposedly in their 'dotage', hey BM? Mate, in future don't dish it out if you can't take it. :)

Jun 21, 2016
When they tell you they are ignoring but then respond, it should be obvious that they are not ignoring at all, only evading.

Most people just scroll thru braggadocio... Responding is just not worth the time...
Now, Uncle Ira, or should I use the formal Internet Experiment 'label name' I have for you: "Lab Rat No 14" (you were not the first lab rat in my Internet Experiments; you came on the scene quite late in the piece; nevertheless you are a very 'special' lab rat for having the distinction of being intellectually inferior to that bot-voting-program which you admit has got the better of you for so long now that you think it's "fine" being dumber than your bot). :)

You're sounding like Dr. Evil...
[edit]
Ira, that was Priceless...:-)

Jun 21, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)
@RC, stop making stuff up.
Haven't you learned not to make unfounded accusations at me yet? How many times do I have to educate you before you learn I don't "make stuff up" as you keep trying on?

Remember when you didnt know about:
- plasmoids in Sun etc;
- NON-Keplerian Orbital regimes;
- problems with the 'Distance Ladder' technique/extrapolation to cosmological distances

...and so on.

How many times do you have to be brought up-to-date before you open your mouth and prove you are incompetent and not up to the known science let alone the original thinking going beyond the orthodoxy.

Da Schneib, put a cork in it unless you want to blow all the good work you have been putting into the discussions lately. In future, don't jump to ego-tripping accusations if you aren't in the know yourself, ok? Good luck,mate. :)

Jun 21, 2016
Hi Whyde. :)
When they tell you they are ignoring but then respond, it should be obvious that they are not ignoring at all, only evading.
Most people just scroll thru braggadocio... Responding is just not worth the time...
A very 'convenient' characterization of actual information posts there, Whyde. You have been too long in the company of evaders and deniers of inconvenient facts, mate. My posts outlined/highlighted real physics problems with the current status quo re cosmology, maths, physics 'exercises' and claims etc. It's spelt out, but they don't want to 'see' it because they are 'offended' by 'style' and 'person' involved? What sort of scientists and thinkers are they if they are 'put off' their objective learning by inconsequential style factors? What is this new generation of scientists and thinkers on about: self-satisfied to parrot and believe and ignore and evade just because it's 'too hard' to find the gems amongst the dross? Lazy/Spoilt brats. :)

Jun 21, 2016
I'm sorry, really, really sorry, but;

https://www.youtu...DrA7tJFk

I blame WG.... (ducks and runs for cover)

Jun 21, 2016
PS: @Whyde:
[edit]
Ira, that was Priceless...:-)
Yeah, priceless idiocy. You seem impressed by an internet lab rat's bot-voting idiocy, but sniff at being educated on the correct science by someone you have taken personal dislike to? Now that's what is called being even dumber than the dumb cluck you are impressed by, Whyde. Quit while you still have some sense of proportion, mate. You are losing it more and more with every such cheap shot against me and every '5' for an idiot dumber than his bot. Wake up to yourself, 'artist'. Sooner than later would be good. :)

Jun 21, 2016
Haven't you learned not to make unfounded accusations at me yet?
It's not unfounded.

https://www.ligo....solation

Jun 21, 2016
"Obviously you, as the lab 'pet', Pet (aka TehDog), haven't been aware that you have been part of my Internet Experiments 'scene' too. :)"

:)

Look a little deeper...

http://hitchhiker...iki/Mice


Jun 21, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)
Haven't you learned not to make unfounded accusations at me yet
It's not unfounded.
Of course they are unfounded, in my case, because they have always been proven to be so whenever you have made them.

For the latest example of why your accusations are always founded in your own ignorance and facile approach to understanding the reality:
Effects from gravitational perturbations with long periods like @RC describes can't be detected by LIGO. Most of them have periods near a day because, you know, that's how long it takes the Earth to rotate once.
See? You didn't consider the INTERSECTING/INTERACTING gravity well patterns producing BOTH regular AND irregular 'chirps' signals which would be picked up by a-LIGO setup due to Earth rotation AND solar system wide dynamical "MIXING' of gravity well domains producing random 'mixed chirps' signals which would swamp any alleged gravitational wave chirps from BILLIONS of LYrs away!

See your problem? :)

Jun 21, 2016
Of course they are unfounded
No, they're not.

https://www.ligo....solation

Jun 21, 2016
Hi TehDog. :)
Obviously you, as the lab 'pet', Pet (aka TehDog), haven't been aware that you have been part of my Internet Experiments 'scene' too. :)


:)

Look a little deeper...

http://hitchhiker...iki/Mice

Yeah, I tried MICE as experimental subjects for the idiocy maze runs initially, but they were too smart. You Lab Rat types fit the bill nicely. Not as smart as the mice, and don't even know you are part of an experiment to test just how much Lab Rat idiocy the maze run will stand before having to be upgraded to Extreme Idiocy Maze configuration (much like upgrades to LIGO and CERN, hey!). Anyhow, enjoy your games and movies while the real scientists get on with the job and occasionally take you lab rats for a picnic with the 'mice folk' outdoors. :)

Jun 21, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)
Of course they are unfounded
No, they're not.

https://www.ligo....solation
You didn't address/missed the obvious flaws I pointed out for you. Typical. It's the BICEP2 'uncritical believers' fiasco all over again, but in spades. Go back to sleep in your ego-land, mate. :)

Jun 21, 2016
You didn't address/missed the obvious flaws
I don't have to.

You do.

https://www.ligo....solation

Jun 21, 2016
It's the BICEP2 'uncritical believers' fiasco all over again, but in spades.
So how many more detections will it take until you realize how wrong you've been? It's two after just getting started. In addition to those, there's also a candidate event: LVT151012, "It was recovered with a network signal-to-noise ratio of 9.7 and a significance of 1.7 sigma. The candidate event was detected in data from the LIGO Hanford and LIGO Livingston observatories."

Now's your chance to participate in the science, Mr. Know-and-understand-it-all, and tell us what you come up with: LIGO Open Science Center.

Jun 22, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)
You didn't address/missed the obvious flaws
I don't have to.

You do.
It's not about the vibrations per se, it's about the WHOLE SETUP and the daily engineering/compensatory 'inputs' necessary to keep even a semblance of parametric stability to minimize artifacts as I pointed out is all too likely due to the many factors and 'signals' which I already pointed out to you were above and beyond what your/their facile 'modeling' and 'analytical treatments' don't even realize is CONTAMINATING the alleged 'chirps' signals from billions of LYrs way. Until you/they address what I just explained to you above about the SS/closer random/regular 'chirps' signals produced by NORMAL interacting moving gravity wells etc, you/they are lost in GIGO country and maths delusion of 'scientific rigor and high sigma confidence' claims.

Get real and stop evading what I pointed out for your benefit, Mate.

Don't just LINK. THINK. :)

Jun 22, 2016
It's not about the vibrations per se, it's about the WHOLE SETUP and the daily engineering
You do understand that engineering is all about applying physics, right?

Meanwhile, what "compensatory inputs" are you talking about? Let's see some evidence of this.

And you don't get the point of the models; they're models of what they ***expect to see***. In other words, the hypothesis is that if GRT is correct, then they will see vibrations ***just like what they saw here***.

Hypothesis that successfully predicts == theory.

Welcome to the Scientific Method. Duhhh ummmm.

Jun 22, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)

Didn't you realize the whole point/process for such detection setups is compensatory/cancellation procedures/inputs which try to avoid artifacts from random fluctuations and feedback which is INHERENT is such setups/instruments etc? Look up in LIGO site about parametric instabilities/excursions etc. Also about the many and varied mechanical and non-mechanical (real time analysis and post-analysis mathematical 'treatments' of the 'data set etc) techniques for accomplishing even a semblance of 'lock' and 'stability' and 'acceptability of signal output' for even a DAY, let alone longer!

Da Schneib, mate, in many encounters with you, you give impression of only just now 'catching up on your reading' on many aspects in physics, cosmology, analytical techniques etc. I am NOT here to give you a degree course in all of it. I just concentrate on certain issues of particular interest for the moment/discussion. Avoid bluster/accusation from your not knowing yet. :)

Jun 22, 2016
I'm sorry, really, really sorry, but;

https://www.youtu...DrA7tJFk

I blame WG.... (ducks and runs for cover)

Waitaminut - I invented the question mark.....

Jun 22, 2016
Hi Proto. :)
It's the BICEP2 'uncritical believers' fiasco all over again, but in spades.
So how many more detections will it take until you realize how wrong you've been? It's two after just getting started. In addition to those, there's also a candidate event: LVT151012, "It was recovered with a network signal-to-noise ratio of 9.7 and a significance of 1.7 sigma. The candidate event was detected in data from the LIGO Hanford and LIGO Livingston observatories."
Please read my posts above to Da Schneib; they provide relevant background as to 'significance' assessment reliability with the data/techniques etc used. I touched upon some of the serious aspects yet to be overcome. Also note that the 'second/subsequent' so-called 'detection' was also from that first run which is still 'iffy' as I pointed out.

I have much more to point out, but will have to wait my complete ToE publication. In meantime, I shall, for those who may have missed them, itemize...

[cont...]

Jun 22, 2016
PS: @Whyde:
[edit]
Ira, that was Priceless...:-)
Yeah, priceless idiocy. You seem impressed by an internet lab rat's bot-voting idiocy, but sniff at being educated on the correct science by someone you have taken personal dislike to? Now that's what is called being even dumber than the dumb cluck you are impressed by, Whyde. Quit while you still have some sense of proportion, mate.

1. The fact that Ira created a user name of "Lab Rat 14" was pricelessly humorous.
2. You don't actually believe there is a voting bot program, do you?
3. I don't dislike you, RC. Or even your "style". Just not impressed by your manner, is all...
And - not impressed by your repetitive reference to a forthcoming ToE...

Jun 22, 2016
Didn't you realize the whole point/process for such detection setups is compensatory/cancellation procedures/inputs which try to avoid artifacts from random fluctuations and feedback which is INHERENT is such setups/instruments etc?
And here I thought it was, you know, lasers and mirrors. Like, an interferometer. That's what, ummm, you know, the "LI" in LIGO is: Laser Interferometer. That's the input.

It's an experiment, you idiot, not a simulation.

You're making stuff up again because you don't understand how it works.

Let me remind you, since you seem to have forgotten again: https://www.ligo....solation

I don't see any simulations there.

Jun 22, 2016
[...cont] @Proto.

...itemize one MORE observation which cast doubt on the reliability of the whole culture/assumptions behind these 'exercises' depending on the bbang, Inflation, distance ladder and maths modeling etc of data sets which may be being incorrectly interpreted due to longstanding early FLAWED 'accepeted by peer review' papers/work which has bult into the cosmology practice and desogns/analysis all sorts of fundamental mistakes which subsequent 'exercises' merely compound because all these prior mistakes have been built into the subsequent 'observational/analytical/interpretive construct' at the start:

* Hulse-Taylor 'Binary Neutron Star' interpretation of HOW it loses energy: ie, they go straight to "Gravitational Wave Energy Loss" instead of realizing that their electro-MAGNETIC FIELDS are strong/contain a LOT of energy which during the binary dynamics 'friction' between their e-Magnetic fields causes orbital period to decrease/radiate e-m NOT g-w, energy! :)

Jun 22, 2016
PS @ Proto.

If once we consider that energy loss from gravitational system binary dynamics CAN and most probably IS mostly e-m in cases of extreme massed bodies like Neutron Stars/Black Hole Features orbiting ever closer to each other, then the whole assumptive cascade built from going to 'gravitational wave energy radiation' becomes suspect. There is much more in my complete ToE publication to come. That and all the snippets I have been pointing out about the potential flaws in the relevant gigo exercises we have been discussing re Big Bang, Inflation, CMB, new/old stars and star clusters, continuing recycling via humongous polar jets, suspect 'distance ladder' reliability, newly discovered fact that local conditions/materials/dynamics create a VARIABLE RANGE of supernovae luminosities/detectabilities etc which make the old 'standard candle' naivete' almost 'quaint' in cosmological culture/literature.

Anyhow, I just haven't time for more; my complete ToE work awaits. :)

Jun 22, 2016
Hi Whyde. :)
@Whyde:
Ira, that was Priceless...:-)
...You seem impressed by an internet lab rat's bot-voting idiocy, but sniff at being educated on the correct science by someone you have taken personal dislike to?...
1. The fact that Ira created a user name of "Lab Rat 14" was pricelessly humorous.
Less "humor", more "science and integrity" would be better, Whyde.
2. You don't actually believe there is a voting bot program, do you?
The old physorg de-activated their Feedback function because of internet troll ratings/comment BOTS. But if Ira is not using a bot, then his Metric Skewing' so called 'Karma" downvoting behavior is even more CALCULATINGLY malignant than a bot.
3. I don't dislike you, RC. Or even your "style". Just not impressed by your manner, is all...
Ok. Nor I you. And your impressions proven flawed/biased since you upvote metrics-skewing idiots on a science site. And my mentions of ToE are low-key and responding to others mentions. :)

Jun 22, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)
Didn't you realize the whole point/process for such detection setups is compensatory/cancellation procedures/inputs which try to avoid artifacts from random fluctuations and feedback which is INHERENT is such...?
And here I thought it was, you know, lasers and mirrors. Like, an interferometer. That's what, ummm, you know, the "LI" in LIGO is: Laser Interferometer. That's the input.

It's an experiment, you idiot, not a simulation.

You're making stuff up again because you don't understand how it works.
What are you on about? I'm talking of prior/concurrent analysis/modeling involved in whole exercise/experiment method/apparatus LIGO is designed/constructed to comply with for its function.

And LIGO setup is MORE, much MORE, than just mirrors, lasers. If it is to work at all it must be surrounded by all sorts of ancillary systems for parametric satbility etc etc etc considerations/requirements. Learn/Know, before 'mouthing off' at me, mate. :)

Jun 22, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jun 22, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jun 22, 2016
So, now it's Bong The Muffin 'applying' for Lab Rat No 16 position. :)
RealityCheck 1 /5 (1) 2 hours ago

Anyhow, I just haven't time for more; my complete ToE work awaits. :)


Those must be some really nasty long yellow blighters. I can do mine in about 10 minutes.

And then he goes on to spew two more times.

Less "humor", more "science and integrity" would be better, Whyde


WTF do you know about "science and integrity"???

Your penchant for buggering dingos is neither. Or your nasty toes.
Do you spell your foot toe as ToE? I can see where you might confuse yourself, you Muffin. :)
Protoplasmix 5 /5 (2) 3 hours ago

So how many more detections will it take until you realize how wrong you've been?
NaN. His statements are not falsifiable. Hell, they're not even coherent.
Yet there it all is for all to read and test against known science. But you wouldn't know anything about real science/scientific method, lab rat (aka Muffin). :)

Jun 22, 2016
Hey Reality, another question mate,

Please correct me if I'm wrong as this is how I understand it.

I'm just trying to get in my head how a bunch of clever people used a rather lovely formula developed by a very intelligent fella to predict:
* grav waves should exist,
* they should look like this [insert whatever a grav wave looks like according to GRT]

So off they went and built a machine to look for and detect them.
Then not long after they switched it on it detected two signals from two different sources which fitted the selection criteria.

What are the chances of some random noise / introduced fluctuation / perturbations etc. etc.
looking exactly like the signal which, as I understand it, this very expensive machine was designed to detect and in both cases give a location and masses of the BH mergers?


Jun 22, 2016
If it is to work at all it must be surrounded by all sorts of ancillary systems for parametric satbility
Yep.

https://www.ligo....solation

Jun 22, 2016
What are the chances of some random noise / introduced fluctuation / perturbations etc. etc.
looking exactly like the signal

The first signal was discovered with 5 sigma confidence.

This means the chance that this was a fluke detection (a so-called "false positive") is one in 3.5 million.

(Note that in less stringent fields - e.g. medicine - the threshold for calling something a discovery is at a false-positive rate of 1 in 20)

Jun 22, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)
If it is to work at all it must be surrounded by all sorts of ancillary systems for parametric satbility
Yep.

https://www.ligo....solation
So, unless you are claiming PERFECT and INFALLIBLE design/practice and inputs/outputs of the system ITSELF, then you must see that such complex and varied ancillary systems/processes are a HUGE POTENTIAL and LIKELY source of flawed data/analysis etc, as I already outlined.

So, mate, your repeated LINKING without THINKING is not sufficient to claim you are being correct or objective about the reality involved in the whole 'exercise'.

Next time, before you link without realizing what it all really means for the real situation and it's gigo potential, try to actually consider everything that could and usually does go wrong with such complex and convoluted detection/analysis etc models, treaments and techniques that may be flawed due to limitations and flawed assumptions etc BUILT IN. :)

Jun 22, 2016
Hi antialias. :)
The first signal was discovered with 5 sigma confidence. This means the chance that this was a fluke detection (a so-called "false positive") is one in 3.5 million.
Mate, didn't you learn anything from your uncritical acceptance/belief in such 'sigma' claims when that BICEP2 fiasco claimed high confidence based on patently flawed and confirmation biased assumptions, analysis and interpretations/modeling?

What use is a 'sigma' that has no basis in fact to support its 'value' assigned by a flawed 'exercise' from go to whoa? Please stop and take my CAUTION to you/everyone (you ignored/attacked me and so got egg all over your face during that Bicep2 case).

Learn instead of just going on like 'business as usual' uncritical acceptance/belief in obviously flawed 'exercises', 'results', 'claims' which are riddled with potential gigo at all stages for a long time now.

So, be cautious, circumspect now; wait until all the scrutiny 'dust' has settled. Cheers. :)

Jun 22, 2016
Hi TransmissionDump. :)
I'm just trying to get in my head how a bunch of clever people used a rather lovely formula developed by a very intelligent fella to predict:
* grav waves should exist,
* they should look like this [insert whatever a grav wave looks like according to GRT]

So off they went and built a machine to look for and detect them.
Then not long after they switched it on it detected two signals from two different sources which fitted the selection criteria.

What are the chances of some random noise / introduced fluctuation / perturbations etc. etc.
looking exactly like the signal which,...
Recall Bicep2 fiasco, and then paraphrase/apply your query to that context; thusly:

"What were the chances of some random signal which 'matched' expected/modeled/assumed signal?"

It's called CONFIRMATION BIAS. Please also see my posts to Da Schneib and antilalias (and my posts elsewhere) re problems/flaws/bias etc INHERENT in a-LIGO, certain other, 'exercises'. :)

Jun 22, 2016
Just read about BICEP2

Oops.... poor buggers.

So as I understand it now, LIGO detected signals to (as AA put it) 5 sigma which is about the same confidence level as the Higgs boson signal discovery.. they hit 4.9 or something if I recall and the signals LIGO is looking for are quite different to the ones BICEP2 were hunting.

So there is an element albeit a very small one that these GW signals are caused by something else which is what you're focussing on? That 1 part in 3.5 million or so?

Jun 22, 2016
So, unless you are claiming PERFECT and INFALLIBLE design/practice and inputs/outputs of the system ITSELF
@antialias stated it perfectly. I will add that this equates to one false detection in 200,000 years, and that's only for the first event; add the second within such a short period and both the sigma value and the amount of time to see two such events in such a short period are increased significantly.

Last but not least, the point of all the processing is not to "massage the data;" it's to throw data away if there is any sign of a problem with it. For example, the paths of the lasers are constantly monitored, and if there's any sign of deviation due to, for example, a fluctuation in the laser output, or some mechanical fault in the vibration suppression machinery, then all the data surrounding that is simply discarded. Events that happen at only one of the detectors are also thrown away.

Basically your fables about data being massaged in are fictional.

Jun 22, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jun 22, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)
@antialias stated it perfectly.
Did you read my response to antialias's naive trust in 'sigma' values which may be GIGO?

Re your naive trust in highly vulnerable observational/analytical methods/executions...

LIGO involves constant 'system inputs' within/between LIGOs to maintain 'lock' etc to even make it 'work' at all, as I explained.

Huge GIGO/ARTIFACT potential.

Pre/concurrent/post mathematical/theoretical modeling/analysis construct/assumptions involved many 'steps', phases' and varied 'unknowns' and 'data limitation' issues.

Huge GIGO/ARTIFACT potential.

And 'data selection/discard' parameters/criteria were highly dependent on modeling/theoretical PRIOR ASSUMPTIONS as to ( a ) the 'expected' chirp 'profile' of a hypothetically modeled 'BH merger' and ( b) the assumption that Gravitational wave 'radiation' and 'detection' was possible 'as modelled' this far away.

Huge GIGO/ARTIFACT potential.

Said GIGO/ARTIFACT potentials MOUNT UP. :)

Jun 22, 2016
Hi BongTheMuffin. :)
So, now it's Bong The Muffin 'applying' for Lab Rat No 16 position. :)


I was talking to proto, you dotty codger. The only thing I have to say to you is that I'm contacting NSW Department of Family & Community Services and express my concerns about you. Yes, about me. You made disparaging claims which required effective response.

And does Phys1 'approve' of your intent to stalk/harass etc PO members in the manner you outlined? I think not, because he believes such behavior is insane. I agree.

You're an obvious ignoramus on the net; who cares not a whit for either science objectivity or fairness. You're no different from many of the other Lab Rats being studied longterm via my longstanding Internet Experiments since 2005. Look in the mirror to see what you characterize others as, Muffin.

Seriously, idiot, don't dish it out and then squeal like a stuck Lab Rat when someone dishes it back to you with extra helpings. Do better with your life. :)

Jun 22, 2016
Hi TransmissionDump. :)
Just read about BICEP2

Oops.... poor buggers.

So as I understand it now, LIGO detected signals to (as AA put it) 5 sigma which is about the same confidence level as the Higgs boson signal discovery.. they hit 4.9 or something if I recall and the signals LIGO is looking for are quite different to the ones BICEP2 were hunting.
Yes, poor buggers tried it on; got caught. Anyhow..

BICEP2 setup looked for 'signal' of PRIMORDIAL not RECENT grav-waves. Specifically for B-mode oscillations 'signal' in CMB; which their assumptions/theory claimed would result from PRIMORDIAL 'QUANTUM' GRAVITATIONAL PERTURBATIONS at beginning of hypothesized Big Bang that would have been 'magnified' to detectability NOW by 'spacetime' INFLATION phase.

That 'exercise' was based on WRONG LOGIC; since IF such BB-quantum fluctuations occurred, and then Inflation occurred, those PRIMORDIAL perturbations/waves would have been SMOOTHED OUT into NON-detectability by NOW.

[cont]

Jun 22, 2016
Did you read my response to antialias's naive trust in 'sigma' values which may be GIGO?
Show how right here:

https://www.ligo....solation

This is an experiment, you see. Another of those things you don't understand.

Jun 22, 2016
[...cont] @ TransmissionDump.

Moreover, that BICEP2 exercise was using much the same 'mathematical techniques' to 'analyse' and model etc etc. Naturally they also built in their 'expectations' based on theory about g-ws and mergers which were subject to great CONFIRMATION BIASED 'groupthink self-deluding' GIGO due to all the steps of assumptions and treatments etc etc from go to whoa in such an 'exercise'.

Similar SYNDROME may be indicated in LIGO groupthink self-delusion' GIGO vulnerable 'set' of maths, theory, models, expectations etc etc (as already outlined elsewhere).

You can see, even though 'signals' and setup different from Bicep2 setup/signals, much the same flawed assumptions/analytica/modeling FLAWS have been BUILT INTO LIGO 'observational/analysis constrict' designed/performed as LIGO (which involves even MORE sources of GIGO/ARTIFACTS than Bicep2...because of all the ancillary/overlaying technical/mathematical INTERVENTION/SELECTION unavoidable!

Caution! :)

Jun 22, 2016
You're still schoolyarding, @RC. It makes you very vulnerable. I'm surprised you don't seem to be able to see it yourself.

Jun 22, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)
Did you read my response to antialias's naive trust in 'sigma' values which may be GIGO?
Show how right here:

https://www.ligo....solation

This is an experiment, you see....

Bicep2 was ALSO "an experiment"...

...and what happened THERE?!

Have you twigged to the reality implications yet for all such gigo/artifact vulnerable CONFIRMATION BIASED 'execises' yet?

Are you trying to be defined by your inanity now? Wake up to yourself; use your critical faculties instead of repeating default 'linking without thinking' tactics to deny/evade the obvious.

A 'sigma' is not some 'holy sign from above'. This is not religion. Any 'sigma' value arrived at must have logial/real/trustworthy BASIS for being 'as claimed'.

See? Analysis methods/exercises OBVIOUSLY RIPE for GIGO/ARTIFACTS are NOT sound 'basis' for deriving reliable 'sigma'; and mere 'claims' to it being so don't make them so.

Get it, mate? :)

Jun 22, 2016
HI Da Schneib. :)
You're still schoolyarding, @RC. It makes you very vulnerable. I'm surprised you don't seem to be able to see it yourself.
There you go, tactics gain. You are losing, mate. I have posted many facts and observations which YOU hadn't even considered let alone realized the import of in the field in question. Just like the many other times you have failed to appreciate what is being told you for your benefit and understanding. Why does it take your usual trajectory of unfounded boasts and accusations etc etc, followed by eventual inevitable realization that you have been proved wanting and not-up-to-speed about that which you sounded so confident about even though you knew less than me...every time so far. It's in the record, everyone has seen it but you seem to forget/deny it all. How can you keep doing that without serious effects on your psyche? Or maybe there are serious effects....since you seem unable to break that tactics/denial habit. Stop it. :)

Jun 22, 2016
Huge GIGO/ARTIFACT potential.

Said GIGO/ARTIFACT potentials MOUNT UP. :)

Same could be said for the 70 yr old mind....

Jun 22, 2016
Hi Whyde. :)
Huge GIGO/ARTIFACT potential. Said GIGO/ARTIFACT potentials MOUNT UP. :)
Same could be said for the 70 yr old mind..
That's what Scientific Method was invented for; to eliminate the personal parameters/subjectivity from the process of gaining and understanding OBJECTIVE scientifically derived knowledge. :)

Re age, I'm prepared to bet that my 67-yr old brain/mind is much more alert/objective and knowledgeable about the science and objective reality than many 'young whippersnappers' here.

That's what doing scrupulously objective independent scientifically sound research and comprehension since age 9 yrs old does for a brain/mind prepared to go the extra mile applying the Scientific Method without bias and personal/mercenary publish or perish or other science/comprehension-compromising motivations and imperatives.

Anyway, just because you are 70 yrs old, you needn't despair. You are in good company here. And you probably wiser than most off-line! :)

Jun 23, 2016
Anyway, just because you are 70 yrs old, you needn't despair. You are in good company here. And you probably wiser than most off-line! :)

Only 62. Thought YOU were 70...
You seem overly suspicious of "mainstream" science -
kinda like me and lawyers....

Jun 23, 2016
Hi Whyde. :)
Anyway, just because you are 70 yrs old, you needn't despair. You are in good company here. And you probably wiser than most off-line! :)

Only 62. Thought YOU were 70...
You seem overly suspicious of "mainstream" science -
kinda like me and lawyers..
What, only 62? You young whippersnapper you! I'm 67 and don't regret a year of it, since I have been doing what I wanted to do despite all the usual family/life stuff that fate throws at one. And I am not overly suspicious of mainstream as such; just overly suspicious of anyone and everything that purports to be 'science' and 'reliable' when it is not. The Scientific Method applied scupulously demands such critical approach to assessment/comprehension of what passes across one's ken before accepting/rejecting same according to its validity/merits when tested against objective reality. Anyhow, how about you; have you been doing what you wanted to do with your life (again, allowing for family etc)?

Jun 23, 2016
What, only 62? You young whippersnapper you! I'm 67 and don't regret a year of it, since I have been doing what I wanted to do despite all the usual family/life stuff that fate throws at one. And I am not overly suspicious of mainstream as such; just overly suspicious of anyone and everything that purports to be 'science' and 'reliable' when it is not. The Scientific Method applied scupulously demands such critical approach to assessment/comprehension of what passes across one's ken before accepting/rejecting same according to its validity/merits when tested against objective reality. Anyhow, how about you; have you been doing what you wanted to do with your life (again, allowing for family etc)?

Yes, INCLUDING family.
And there ya go, proving that you (re)invented the "/", again... Stop throwing it in everyone's face like that...
Ya don't see me doing it with question marks...

Jun 23, 2016
Hi Whyde. :)
Anyhow, how about you; have you been doing what you wanted to do with your life (again, allowing for family etc)?
Yes, INCLUDING family
Great! Lucky 'old guys', we two! And I'm sure you also humbly appreciate your great good luck as much as I do mine. Cheers. :)
And there ya go, proving that you (re)invented the "/", again... Stop throwing it in everyone's face like that... Ya don't see me doing it with question marks...
What can I say? (Oops, sorry for infringing your intellectual property re "?" like that, mate!).

PS: If you think I have been throwing it in people's faces now, you should have seen me using "/" and "..." years ago. Shocker! Much less now; but still room for improvement on that front. The limited text here is very annoying at 1000 char. If it was 10% more I think I might get away with dispensing such contraction/association/continuation...etc writing devices altogether (oh hell, I just did it again! Sorry.).

Thanks, mate. :)

Jun 23, 2016
BICEP2: They published (which is the way to make stuff open to constructive criticism) and other groups criticized it. then the original group corrected their statement. That's a perfect example how science works.

RC, Here's an example how science doesn't work:
- Hiding an unpublished (and likely unwritten) TOE from inspection (although by your own announcement it should have been out years ago..so either you're a liar, a fraud or scared shitless that it doesn't hold up)
- making unspecified claims why BICEP2 was flawed (what was it? 8 reasons?) and when pressed nmot producing a single one. (which again makes you a liar, a fraud or scared shitless your 'flaws' don't hold up)

Liar? Fraud? Scared?
My money is on all three.

Jun 23, 2016
Bicep2
You're changing the subject.

Jun 23, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)
Bicep2
You're changing the subject.
The subject is FLAWS built into 'exercises' which use maths/modeling assumptions and 'nalysis techniques' which are fraught with GIGO potential from the very start to the very finish and the conclusions and claims. In the LIGO case the flaws and problems are COMPOUNDED even more because of all the complex and constant intervention needed, in pre-analysis and post analusis and in the actual mechanical apparatus requirement to get/maintain lock and overall parametric stability. I explained all these to you before. That you still think the 'subject' has 'changed' is what indicates you are NOT listening objectively, and so are in denial and using tactics like that to avoid reviewing/considering it all objectively irrespective of who has told you of the flaws/problems. Mate, take a breather and rid yourself of all that ego, animosity and personal/reading bias. Just BE objective, impartial; and read, not ignore. :)

Jun 23, 2016
Hi antialias. :)
BICEP2: They published ... ... perfect example how science works.

RC, Here's...how science doesn't work:

- Hiding an unpublished (and likely unwritten) TOE from inspection (although by your own announcement it should have been out years ago..

- making unspecified claims why BICEP2 was flawed....

Liar? Fraud? Scared?
My money is on all three.
Then you'd lose your money, anti. :)

My ToE isn't out yet because (apart from other life/work reasons) I also decided to create the Reality-based MATHS to go with it. It takes time. (and it's NOT "unwritten"; some of your 'friends' KNOW that).

And Bicep2 team/exercise used sneaky/improper 'short cuts', flawed assumptions, confirmation biased 'analysis' etc.

It was OBVIOUS. I cautioned you/all to check for yourselves.

You ignored/attacked me; preferring instead to accept/believe them uncritically; and used it to 'bash cranks'.

And I HAVE pointed out what/where flaws were. You 'miss' it all. :)

Jun 23, 2016
The subject is FLAWS
No, the subject is LIGO.

You're changing the subject.

Jun 23, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)
The subject is FLAWS
No, the subject is LIGO....
...and its FLAWS, as already explained to you but you ignored it and so keep making smart aleck but non-sequitur claims about the subject as well.

You're changing the subject.
Look again. Read instead of ignore. Be objective impartial instead of whatever it is you have been doing that makes your responses so....well, you know...

You can do good work, but are let down by your penchant for belligerant and unfounded accusations and kneejerking etc etc, as already well pointed out here and elsewhere. Take a breather and learn from your recent 'lessons'....and don't ignore/attack when people are trying to HELP YOU become even more informed than you are already. Ok?

Cheers...and Peace. :)

Jun 23, 2016
@ Everybody. If you get tired of the Really-Skippy butting in with his disrespecting the humans and scientists, I can help with that.

If you set your Moron-Postum-Meter to 1.5 or 2.0 he will disappear and he can only talk to Obama's-Socks-Skippy and glam-Skippy and vito-mix-Skippy then, Everybody with their Moron-Postum-Meter is set like he is not even in the room. It's a service I provide for free to the humans and scientists and don't take any money for doing it.

That goes double for any new peoples when you happen in. You really don't want to start up with Really-Skippy because just keeps going and going and going with same old foolishment.

Jun 23, 2016
Hi Everybody. If you want to construct the perfect "yes men echo chamber" so you only "see and hear" what you want and no troublesome 'inconvenient facts and considerations', then follow the following bot-voting ignoramus's simple guide (and I DO mean "simple"):
@ Everybody. If you get tired of the Really-Skippy butting in with his disrespecting the humans and scientists, I can help with that.

If you set your Moron-Postum-Meter to 1.5 or 2.0 he will disappear and he can only talk to Obama's-Socks-Skippy and glam-Skippy and vito-mix-Skippy then, Everybody with their Moron-Postum-Meter is set like he is not even in the room. It's a service I provide for free to the humans and scientists and don't take any money for doing it.

That goes double for any new peoples when you happen in. You really don't want to start up with Really-Skippy because just keeps going and going and going with same old foolishment.
Now everybody can enjoy The Idiot's Yes Men Echo Chamber! :)

Jun 23, 2016
and its FLAWS
None of which you seem to be able to actually prove exist.

Just sayin'.

Just as a reminder: https://www.ligo....solation

Jun 23, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. You didn't take Uncle Ira advice above. Good. :)

Anyhow, I only had to point out that the potential for gigo was high because of what I already explained to you that you didn't know (or had been told was 'ok to ignore' by those you trusted).

Any objective impartial discourser would allow that would make 'high sigma confidence' of 'discovery' claims appear somewhat less than convincing to an independent scientific observer/scrutinizer.

Example 1: Bicep2 looking for B-mode oscillations (polarization) in the CMB, based on their hypothesis that PRIMORDIAL BB quantum fluctuations would have been 'magnified by Inflation' and be observed in CMB as 'primordial gravitational waves'.

FLAWED. Any such fluctuations would be SMOOTHED. See?

Example 2: a-LIGO looking for RECENT gravitational wave 'chirps' from BILLION lyrs distant 'merger'.

FLAWED: I already explained it'd be SWAMPED by SS/MW random 'chirps' from NORMAL interacting gravity-well dynamics. See?

:)

Jun 23, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. You didn't take Uncle Ira advice above. Good.
It's only a matter of time, and that time will be shorter because you made that comment.

Anyhow, I only had to point out that the potential for gigo was high because of what I already explained to you that you didn't know (or had been told was 'ok to ignore' by those you trusted).
And what, exactly, is that, and where did you say it? Because in this thread, you've already been pwnt for claiming there were some kind of nebulous "computer simulations" that were adding "GIGO" to an experiment that doesn't have any apparent computers in it.

Reminder: https://www.ligo....solation

Your GIGO is handwaving and has no apparent actual existence that you can point to.

Which is about your par for that course.

[contd]

Jun 23, 2016
[contd]
I already explained it'd be SWAMPED by SS/MW random 'chirps' from NORMAL interacting gravity-well dynamics.
First of all, there aren't any "random 'chirps' from NORMAL interacting gravity-well dynamics. If you claim there are, show them; I showed above that normal gravity well dynamics can't show such chirps because their orbital periods are too long.

How many planets, stars, and galaxies do you think there are out there that have orbits that are under a second long, anyway? This is another of those really idiotic things you say all the time. Like I said, the periods of anything else are going to cause "noise" with a period of around one day at the shortest, because that's how long the Earth's rotation period is.

Like I said, handwaving when you don't have the slightest clue how any of it really works.

Jun 23, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)

See? This is what happens when you (as you admitted) don't read others post properly or at all. You 'miss' it all...and then come back with attitude like that. Don't be so emotional and react to my observation as a 'dare' for you to ignore even more/sooner. Don't pick and choose from what the scientific method demands: Constant scrupulous objectivity, attention, impartiality. :)

And again you have promulgated your own misunderstanding. Read properly; you will realize I have NOT said anything about simulations per se; I pointed out ALL the procedures and techniques involved in said 'exercises'. That was it. YOU are the one 'selecting out and fixating on 'simulations' as if that was the only issue. :)

And re NORMAL gravity-well dynamics 'chirps': While individual gravity well motions may be 'long period', the INTERACTION and COINCIDENCE 'chirps' of INNUMERABLE SS/MW 'well' FRONTS 'overlaying' produce SUDDEN 'chirps' at VERTICES moving past LIGO. :)

See now?

Jun 23, 2016
LOL, it thinks I care whether whether I pwnt it just now, or a while ago and it only just now noticed.

Sorry, almost none of those "INTERACTION"s or "COINCIDENCE"s of "FRONTS" are strong enough. In fact, what you propose is rare enough that such could only happen once in 200,000 years.

See above.

Maybe you forgot.

Jun 23, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)
LOL, it thinks I care whether whether I pwnt it just now, or a while ago and it only just now noticed.

Sorry, almost none of those "INTERACTION"s or "COINCIDENCE"s of "FRONTS" are strong enough. In fact, what you propose is rare enough that such could only happen once in 200,000 years. See above. Maybe you forgot.
Where do you get these impressions? :)

Imagine ALL Solar System AND Milky Way 'massive bodies' and their associated gravity wells. Their influence/patterns shift/change across time/space ALL the time.

'Noise' from so MANY INTERACTING would be deafening if you could 'hear' the coincidence-vertices passing by your ear ALL the time, if not from one transient set of coincidences-vertices then another and another...NEVER STOPS, UBIQUITOUS.

a-LIGO is not 'isolated' from such normal, constant VARIETY/RANGE of 'chirps'; many of which may easily produce 'similar' chirps that a-LIGO group 'modeled' as if coming from ONLY BH mergers.

See it now?

Jun 24, 2016
Where do you get these impressions?
From the papers by the scientists, duh.

For example this one: https://www.ligo....mary.pdf

See page 4.

You're posing again.

Jun 24, 2016
Hi Da Schnei
Where do you get these impressions?
From the papers by the scientists, duh. For example this one: https://www.ligo....mary.pdf

See page 4. You're posing again.

You still miss the import of what I explained to you about the chirps from SS/MW coincidence-vertics which are constantly passing by a-LIGO.

They NOT the usual LONG PERIOD patterns which you/they have already covered. These are the gravity-well interactions between MANY Sol Sys/Milky Way bodies whose 'moving' g-well fronts superpose across a-LIGO all the time, and produce sudden chirp patterns of all sorts/range.

Again: NOT normal SS planetary/sun patterns of gravity-well motions known and accounted for as SINGLE SOURCES. These are the UNKNOWN and UBIQUITOUS INNUMERABLE intersecting gravity-well dynamics of a WHOLE Solar system AND Galaxy around us 'overlaying' ALL AT ONCE at 'COMPOUND VERTICES' of intersection. :)

Jun 24, 2016
Bah. "Black hole of the gaps" argument.

200,000 years to see just one such interaction. Reminder: https://www.ligo....mary.pdf

And now we've seen two. In a single year.

We're about done here, I think.

Jun 24, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)
200,000 years to see just one such interaction. Reminder: https://www.ligo....mary.pdf

And now we've seen two. In a single year.
You're on a roll of confirmation biased kneejerks. You are not paying attention to what is being said to you for your benefit. You are not being objective, impartial. This is obvious. It confirm your earlier admissions that you are not a scientist. Why is so intelligent a brain-mind as yours patently is, so intransigent and personally antagonistic to the point of willful obtuseness?

What you have just said is re their 'expected' as 'modeled' probability according to their assumption said chirp was (1) real not artifact of system and (2) that their modeling and approximating of 'rate' of such 'detections' was correct.

First: obviously their 200, 000 yrs 'rate' was WRONG. Yes/No? :)

Second: They have NOT ALLOWED FOR what I explained to you above. :)

See?

Jun 24, 2016
real not artifact of system
Show how. Reminder: https://www.ligo....solation

that their modeling and approximating of 'rate' of such 'detections' was correct
It's correct enough to predict a wave train with characteristics nothing but a black hole can create.

I challenged you to come up with any concrete example, and you couldn't. You've now retreated to a "black hole of the gaps" argument that some sort of confluence of waves from unspecified sources including the Sun, the Moon, the stars, the galaxies, etc., etc., could create two such events close enough to be detected within a year. I'm calling bullsh*t.

This is a complete waste of time and you are predictable and boring.

A quick look at the other thread and then it's bye now.

Jun 24, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)
real not artifact of system
Show how. Reminder: https://www.ligo....solation
We've covered that many times now. You weren't paying attention or not reading properly/at all (as you boasted).
that their modeling and approximating of 'rate' of such 'detections' was correct
It's correct enough to predict a wave train with characteristics nothing but a black hole can create.
I just got through explaining how that is NOT correct since they do not allow for what I explained to you more than once now.
...confluence of waves from unspecified sources including the Sun, the Moon, the stars, the galaxies, etc., could create two such events close enough to be detected within a year. I'm calling bullsh*t.
I just explained how MANY 'chirps' are due to what I explained was ubiquitous constant train of transient g-wells superposition of compound vertices passing a-LIGO positions ALL THE TIME from SS/MW dynamics.

Bye. :)

Jun 25, 2016
We've covered that many times now.
No, I've covered it many times. You have provided absolutely no evidence to back your claims, so you've covered nothing. It's now obvious you never will because you cannot.

they do not allow for what I explained to you more than once now
I posted a source where they cover it. It could happen at most once in 200,000 years, and now we've seen not one but two. That makes your speculation at best once in 400,000 years and since we saw those two within a year, in reality a lot longer than that. As with your claims of inaccuracy in LIGO due to handwaving nonexistent "simulation problems," this claim is completely without evidence, and therefore without merit.

I just explained how MANY 'chirps'
No, you didn't. You made a claim without evidence and without merit and when pressed for evidence retreated to politicking and schoolyarding, demonstrating that you yourself do not believe your claims.

We're done here.

Jun 25, 2016
In the coming months and years, we now know we can expect to see hundreds of these events. The "black hole of the gaps" arguments are about to get trounced decisively. It's going to be fun watching the trolls try to explain that. These types of arguments, where "we've only seen one" or "we've only seen two" "and they might just be anomalies" generally fail, but their proponents always make more and more grandiose claims because they can't accept that they are

just

plain

flat

wrong.

Run away little denier.

Jun 25, 2016
Worth mentioning that seeing two once-in-200,000-years events in a single year has a base probability of around once in 40,000,000,000 (forty billion) years. That's around three or four times the age of the universe. The idea that this less-than-once-in-the-lifetime-of-the-universe event could have just happened in 2015 to explain our observations is ludicrous to say the least.

Yes there are really black holes; yes we really have detected not one but two mergers of black holes. Make up all the just-so stories you like, the rubber has met the road, traction has been achieved, and the rest of the world is moving on while you are spinning your wheels in the mud of philosophy and politics, and ignoring real physics. Good luck with that.

Pro Tip™: if your scenario for how physics could be wrong can only happen once in 40 billion years, get over it.

Jun 25, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)

Such 'certainty'!

Mate, you're all over the shop with delusion that you did anything but 'linking without thinking'.

You missed the import of what I explained that they did NOT cover in their 'long period' normal SS dynamics; which I pointed out was NOT what I was pointing to. Did you even understand how that differs from what YOU have been fixating on which I already allowed for when going on to the more subtle dynamics involved in SS/MW massive bodies gravity-well dynamics which are NOT 'long period' but are of ALL 'periods' due to random SUPERPOSITIONS of MULTIPLE VERTICES of gravity-wells interacting ALL the time sending TRAINS of all sorts of 'chirps' of all sorts of 'profiles' across the a-LIGOs, ALL the time; ANY ONE or 'series' of which could MIMIC BH-merger 'modeled' chirps?

Even the 'expectation' rate is refuted by the claim to have 'detected two' already!

Be more scrupulous, objective, attentive, impartial, comprehending, mate. :)

Jun 26, 2016
IMPORTANT NOTICE::---------WARNING* *WARNING* *WARNING

The site...

https://www.physforum.com/

...is a DANGER to your privacy!

If you attempt to 'log in' by entering your username/password, it will go to UN-CRYPTED page; to be read-off in PLAIN ENGLISH by owner/administrator of that now DEFUNCT site.

* So BEWARE and DON'T ENTER any details or attempt to log in AT ALL on that page! *

That site was OLD "phys.Org" until couple years ago it SOLD its DOMAIN NAME to OUR phys.org NEWS site.

The OLD site, RENAMED "physforum.com", was eventually RELENTLESSLY SABOTAGED by an old MOD-TROLL GANG eventually 'headed/protected by' the complicit/eventual SOLE 'moderator' (rpenner) ably assisted by his 'protected', totally insane, PROFESSIONAL SPAMMER whose system could/did generate HUNDREDS of SOCKPUPPETS for insulting/trolling (as well as spamming).

That recently-made-homeless sock-puppeteer/spammer is NOW ACTIVE HERE...creating sockpuppets at will.

BE AWARE, all! :)

Jun 26, 2016
@ Really-Skippy. How you are? I am good me, tired but good.

Okayeei, I went and tried to take a peek at that place to see what all the fuss is about. They told me to go away and I can't come in. You have anything to do with that?

Jun 26, 2016