Gravity wave detection with atomic clocks

March 6, 2017
Gravity wave detection with atomic clocks
Illustration of gravitational waves produced by two orbiting black holes. CfA scientists have described a sensitive new method for detecting gravitational waves. Credit: Henze/NASA

The recent detection of gravitation waves (GW) from the merger of two black holes of about thirty solar-masses each with the ground-based LIGO facility has generated renewed enthusiasm for developing even more sensitive measurement techniques. Ground-based GW instruments have widely spaced sensors that can detect sub-microscopic changes in their separation—better than one part in a billion trillion, They suffer, however, from the noise produced by small ground tremors—vibrations from natural or man-made sources that ripple through the precisely tuned detectors. The vibrations most difficult to compensate for are those that change relatively slowly, at frequencies around once a second or less, yet astronomers predict that GW sources producing these slow variations should be interesting and abundant, from compact stellar-mass binary stars to gravitational events in the early universe.

The CfA has long been renowned for its laboratory work producing some of the best precision devices in the world. In particular are its timekeeping hydrogen-maser clocks, used by NASA to track its satellites as well as by radio astronomers around the world to make precision measurements of cosmic phenomena using Very Long Baseline Interferometry. The CfA maser group has continued to develop advanced clock technologies over the years, and to turn them into new tools to probe the heavens, including recently the so-called "laser-combs" for ultraprecise measurement of stellar velocity shifts induced by extrasolar planets.

CfA scientists Igor Pokovski, Nick Langellier, and Ron Walsworth and two colleagues have published a new GW detector concept to study in particular the low frequency GWs. Their technique precisely measures not the separation of the sensors but their minuscule motions via the Doppler effect as a gravitational waves passes by. The device uses a finely controlled laser and precise atomic clocks mounted in two satellites (unlike other space GW concepts that require three satellites, this system needs only two). The technology for this capability requires only realistic improvements to implement, and offers an important extension to current GW systems.

Explore further: LIGO back online, ready for more discoveries

More information: S. Kolkowitz et al. Gravitational wave detection with optical lattice atomic clocks, Physical Review D (2016). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.94.124043

Related Stories

LIGO back online, ready for more discoveries

December 1, 2016

Today (November 30), scientists restarted the twin detectors of LIGO, the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory, after making several improvements to the system. Over the last year, they have made enhancements ...

LIGO expected to detect more binary black hole mergers

January 9, 2017

The Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory (LIGO) broke the news almost one year ago about the first-ever direct observation of gravitational waves. Now, LIGO scientists hope that this year could yield even more ...

Optical clock technology tested in space for first time

November 17, 2016

For the first time, an optical clock has traveled to space, surviving harsh rocket launch conditions and successfully operating under the microgravity that would be experienced on a satellite. This demonstration brings optical ...

Making waves in spacetime

July 22, 2016

Waves on Earth's oceans move in endless rhythm along sandy beaches. Another kind of wave ripples to our planet from distant black holes in the universe.

Recommended for you

Dawn of a galactic collision

December 14, 2017

A riot of colour and light dances through this peculiarly shaped galaxy, NGC 5256. Its smoke-like plumes are flung out in all directions and the bright core illuminates the chaotic regions of gas and dust swirling through ...

42 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

RNP
5 / 5 (6) Mar 06, 2017
An open access copy of the paper can be found here: https://arxiv.org...1859.pdf
bschott
2 / 5 (4) Mar 06, 2017
The device uses a finely controlled laser and precise atomic clocks mounted in two satellites (unlike other space GW concepts that require three satellites, this system needs only two). The technology for this capability requires only realistic improvements to implement, and offers an important extension to current GW systems.


Two synchronized atomic clocks linked by laser. Where have I heard that before?
Osiris1
not rated yet Mar 06, 2017
They say the longer the legs of the device, the more sensitive. Picture a space based array of sensors whose points present as a precise cube clock and quantum computer controlled sensors at the vertices and with edges 10,000,000Km long connecting the vertices in 'imaginary lines from vertice to vertice adjacent each at (pi/2 raduans). Now all coordinated by another quantum computer maybe based on either the Moon or Phobos, moon of Mars where there is more space...or Earth to do it cheap. All commo in quantum machines involving non local entanglements. Quite sensitive using these clocks.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 06, 2017
Hi bschott.:)
The device uses a finely controlled laser and precise atomic clocks mounted in two satellites (unlike other space GW concepts that require three satellites, this system needs only two). The technology for this capability requires only realistic improvements to implement, and offers an important extension to current GW systems.


Two synchronized atomic clocks linked by laser. Where have I heard that before?
Yes; and I recall well how badly some here treated you and your very scientifically/technically logical/feasible suggestion!

PS: Whoever w the TITLE of this thread should have written "Gravitational wave " not "gravity waves".

PPS: While we're on this subject, I made a post to you in a recent thread of a PO article which you might also be interested in reading:

Read more at: https://phys.org/...html#jCp

Cheers; and keep the polite, on-topic comments and ideas coming, mate! :)

RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 06, 2017
Hi bschott. :)
The device uses a finely controlled laser and precise atomic clocks mounted in two satellites (unlike other space GW concepts that require three satellites, this system needs only two). The technology for this capability requires only realistic improvements to implement, and offers an important extension to current GW systems.


Two synchronized atomic clocks linked by laser. Where have I heard that before?
Yes; and I recall well how badly some here treated you and your very scientifically/technically logical/feasible suggestion!

PS: Whoever wrote TITLE to this thread should have written "Gravitational wave " not "gravity wave".

PPS: While we're on this subject, the other day I made a post to you in a recent thread of a PO article which you might also be interested in reading:

https://phys.org/...html#jCp

Cheers; and keep the polite, on-topic comments and ideas coming, mate! :)
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 06, 2017
Oops; pressed quote instead of edit; too late to remove first post; my apologies for that duplication. :)
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Mar 07, 2017
:)
@fodera head the insipid deranged pseudoscience trolling idiot
Yes; and I recall well how badly some here treated you and your very scientifically/technically logical/feasible suggestion!
he was treated badly because he specifically said
I asked if any of the networks of atomic clocks picked up the wave LIGO supposedly detected
this suggests many things... but also it suggests the existing system was capable of actually tracking or measuring things "sensitive to strains around 1e-18 m" (see: ESA "Data_transmission_between_European_satellites_using_laser_light" article )

if you want to comment about something, you should first know WTF you are commenting about - otherwise you make stupid false claims like above

FOAD
:)

.

.

Two synchronized atomic clocks linked by laser. Where have I heard that before?
@BS
sorry for the 1
i meant to give a 3

Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Mar 07, 2017
The device uses a finely controlled laser and precise atomic clocks mounted in two satellites (unlike other space GW concepts that require three satellites, this system needs only two). The technology for this capability requires only realistic improvements to implement, and offers an important extension to current GW systems.


Two synchronized atomic clocks linked by laser. Where have I heard that before?

where?
this suggests many things... but also it suggests the existing system was capable of actually tracking or measuring things "sensitive to strains around 1e-18 m" (see: ESA "Data_transmission_between_European_satellites_using_laser_light" article )

It has to initially TUNED to those wavelengths first...

Quantum Magician
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 07, 2017
Two synchronized atomic clocks linked by laser. Where have I heard that before?

Umm.. can't help you there.. I have no idea where you might have heard it (maybe forgot to take your medicine some day?), but it is certainly not what this article/paper is "talking" about either.

Certainly nothing like you have proposed in earlier debates, and neither is the targeted frequency range - being in the "sub-Hz" department, whereas the LIGO signal was more about milli-seconds.

In this very case, the clocks are used as refference for dopler-shift measurements, and it has nothing to do with comparing/evaluating "clock-drift" caused by the waves itself - as was proposed by You earlier.

How you always find ways to embarrass yourself, never ceases to amaze me..

Now try with something more on-topic :-)
bschott
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 07, 2017
Umm.. can't help you there..

I know...it's clear from the rest of your...words.
Certainly nothing like you have proposed in earlier debates,

Synchronized atomic clocks were EXACTLY what I proposed and suggested any two already synchronized and networked together would have become unsynchronized as a result of a passing wave. (the laser linkage came into the conversation because geostationary satellites are already linked to ground stations this way)
and neither is the targeted frequency range

Apparently a "quantum magician" has no clue how an atomic clock would be affected by a gravitational wave, and how this would manifest if it was synchronized with another one. Perhaps you should try to be a quantum student instead....
How you always find ways to embarrass yourself, never ceases to amaze me..

Says the quantum magician who doesn't understand synchronized quantum oscillations.
When you understand something...come back and show us.
bschott
2 / 5 (4) Mar 07, 2017
It has to initially TUNED to those wavelengths first...


No Whyd, it doesn't. What seemed to go over everyones head in the last debate and apparently still is, is that the oscillation frequency of the atomic clocks is not important as long as they are synchronized. The frequency is so small that any passing wave which is a distortion of spacetime as relativity describes would alter the frequency of a single oscillation of one clock before it could alter the other...thus throwing them out of sync.
In this very case, the clocks are used as refference for dopler-shift measurements, and it has nothing to do with comparing/evaluating "clock-drift" caused by the waves itself - as was proposed by You earlier.

The nonsense comment above misses the entire functional detection mechanism which is the loss of synchronization between the clocks.
bschott
1 / 5 (3) Mar 07, 2017
if you want to comment about something, you should first know WTF you are commenting about - otherwise you make stupid false claims like above

If you don't understand the functional detection mechanism as explained above I would suggest doing a little reading about what a gravitational wave is supposed to "be" and how atomic clocks function. Since this is "new"...you will have to think about it as there is no reference material out there for you to fall back on....it actually relies on understanding how things work.
I asked if any of the networks of atomic clocks picked up the wave LIGO supposedly detected
this suggests many things... but also it suggests the existing system was capable of actually tracking or measuring things

Any network of synchronized atomic clocks should have demonstrated what I posted above unless the GW somehow hit all the clocks simultaneously...almost impossible....but not quite.
RNP
5 / 5 (4) Mar 07, 2017
@bschott
Your statement:
I proposed and suggested any two already synchronized and networked together would have become unsynchronized as a result of a passing wave......


directly contradicts the abstract of the paper which states:

"A synchronized two-clock comparison between the satellites will be sensitive to the effective Doppler shifts induced by incident GWs at a level competitive with other proposed space-based GW detectors,.."

and the paper itself which says:

"A plus-polarized gravitational wave propagating along the z-axis induces relative motion between the two free masses (see Appendix A), which can be detected using a clock comparison measurement protocol."

I.e. The system measures the Doppler shift in the linking laser due to the passing GW.
There is no loss of sychronization in the clocks.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Mar 07, 2017

No Whyd, it doesn't. What seemed to go over everyones head in the last debate and apparently still is, is that the oscillation frequency of the atomic clocks is not important as long as they are synchronized. The frequency is so small that any passing wave which is a distortion of spacetime as relativity describes would alter the frequency of a single oscillation of one clock before it could alter the other...thus throwing them out of sync.

The time between them being OUT of sync would then equal the size of the gravitational wave... because the gravity wave would(should, actually) throw the 2nd one into resync with the 1st... interesting...
Physical positioning in the vertical with respect to the direction of the wave would seem to be in order then...

Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Mar 07, 2017
Physical positioning in the vertical with....

I meant in perpendicular...
bschott
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 07, 2017
I.e. The system measures the Doppler shift in the linking laser due to the passing GW.
There is no loss of sychronization in the clocks.

That is the LIGO detection mechanism as well, just now satellite based. I am not disputing this portion of the paper in this comment section. Ironically, this is a math based point I am trying to get across. The frequency oscillations of the 2 atomic clocks are smaller than the wavelength of the GW, the effect of a wave through "spacetime" would either lengthen or shorten one of clocks oscillations before it could effect the other clock because of the oscillation frequency. If the oscillation frequency were longer than the GW wavelength, the wave could pass and not visibly effect the oscillations at all. In order to discuss this, you have to understand that. Do you?

Now if a physicist can explain how that is incorrect in the context of relativity I would be happy to dialogue about it.

bschott
3 / 5 (2) Mar 07, 2017
The time between them being OUT of sync would then equal the size of the gravitational wave... because the gravity wave would(should, actually) throw the 2nd one into resync with the 1st... interesting...
Physical positioning in the vertical with respect to the direction of the wave would seem to be in order then...

Well done Whyd ! If GW's manifest as theorized, it is actually impossible for synchronized atomic clocks to NOT show that a GW passed by...and yes...there is a minimum angle of perpendicularity that is required in relation to the GW for this to work.

But I like it a lot better for reliable detection than a change in relative distance between free floating objects as sensed by a Doppler shift. Or ground based ones for that matter given the size of the shift.

RNP
5 / 5 (7) Mar 07, 2017
@bschott
Now if a physicist can explain how that is incorrect in the context of relativity I would be happy to dialogue about it.


The effect that you refer to is MINISCULE. Consider, even the Earth's gravitational field produces time dilation effects so small that experiments to detect it requires experiments with accurate atomic clocks operating at different altitude for several hours. A gravitational wave involves an effective field is less ~trillionth of the Earths field. The effect it causes is therefore undetectable, even with modern atomic clocks
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 07, 2017
If you don't understand the functional detection mechanism as explained above I would suggest doing a little reading about what a gravitational wave is supposed to "be" and how atomic clocks function
@bs
1- that was to RC -not you
BUT
2- considering your comments on the other threads, i would suggest you doing the research, as it was perfectly clear who wasn't able to understand the mechanisms/info
Since this is "new"...you will have to think about it as there is no reference material out there for you to fall back on....it actually relies on understanding how things work
this hasn't been done before - true
but this was not the point you were making either

you wanted to know why current satellites didn't pick up the signal - but then completely ignored the math, evidence, or anything else because you were absolutely sure everyone was wrong but you

IOW - you went all Spanish Inquisition on everyone while being completely ignorant yourself
bschott
3 / 5 (2) Mar 07, 2017
@bschott
Consider, even the Earth's gravitational field produces time dilation effects so small.....

If we are talking about "size" of the distortion...it is a temporal distortion which effects the "length of time" something takes to happen.
A gravitational wave involves an effective field is less ~trillionth of the Earths field. The effect it causes is therefore undetectable, even with modern atomic clocks

The strength of the waves field is irrelevant, that the wave exists is all that matters. A distortion of time itself in the form of a gravitational wave that lasted for .2 seconds according to LIGO would throw synchronized atomic clocks out of sync due to a distortion lasting for the noted duration. At 9 billion OSC/s, if the physics is correct about them, they would HAVE to. You aren't considering the correct variables.
bschott
5 / 5 (1) Mar 07, 2017
you wanted to know why current satellites didn't pick up the signal

I initially wanted to know why atomic clock networks didn't register the signal which is what we are talking about here, the satellites came into play when the distance between LIGO sensors was tabled so I found a system where 2 synchronized atomic clocks were spaced further apart. (Geostationary satellite/ground station)
that was to RC -not you

You quoted me and made your statement underneath it Stump, I thought it was directed at me. Sorry.
but then completely ignored the math, evidence, or anything else because you were absolutely sure everyone was wrong but you

As I pointed out to RNP above, the only variables are .2 second signal duration, a phenomenon that effects space time directly and the oscillation period for two synchronized atomic clocks. It really is that simple Stump....an effect which distorts time will best be detected by a change in one aspect of a synchronous system.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 07, 2017
@Bschott
I initially wanted to know why atomic clock networks didn't register the signal which is what we are talking about here
what method would the atomic clocks use?

while you are at it, please show the timing, monitoring, method and details on how the atomic clock would have detailed and reported this anomalous distortion in the data or servers for the technicians to review

when you get through that, as noted by others in that conversation with specifics in IT, signals and more, then you might get the point they were trying to make WRT why it was not registered...

and that is put nicely even though this (and more) was driven home repeatedly on the other threads
I thought it was directed at me
apology accepted
it was to show RC the point - not that i have any hopes for intellectual discourse from said troll

RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Mar 07, 2017
Hi Stumpy! :)
@Bschott
I initially wanted to know why atomic clock networks didn't register the signal which is what we are talking about here
what method would the atomic clocks use?..while you are at it, please show the timing, monitoring, method and details on how the atomic clock would have detailed and reported this anomalous distortion in the data or servers for the technicians to review....
Stumpy, in the original relevant thread bschott explained it to you, but you wouldn't listen; you just kept attacking while ignoring it. It's in the "blips"; if those blips were noted by the various systems and made available, it would indicate there was an 'event' (no detailed parameters as to distance/direction, just that it happened per se), and would be further evidence to back LIGO claims. NO more than that was suggested by bschott.
...not that i have any hopes for intellectual discourse..
Your insults, trolling, lies and bot-voting is so "intellectual". :)
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 07, 2017
Hi Stumpy! :)
@hi fedora headed pseudoscience idiot trolling POS liar
TL;DR

considering you can't post links or references, nor were there any present to validate your claims, then we can see that your post is no different than your delusional BS claims about BICEP

so quit wasting characters

IOW - links/references or STFU

and FOAD or ANHERO when you get some free time from saving us all from climate change

thanks
:)
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Mar 07, 2017
Hi Stumpy! :)
@hi fedora headed pseudoscience idiot trolling POS liar
TL;DR
So "intellectual" address line/insults. :)
considering you can't post links or references, nor were there any present to validate your claims, then we can see that your post is no different than your delusional BS claims about BICEP2
Science discourse presupposes one's interlocutors are at least glancingly familiar with the known science/logics involved; links would be superfluous when pointing out that known science/logics. That Bicep2 'team' obviously IGNORED even the known science/logics, let alone the Scientific Method principles/requirements. I merely suggested caution, and that you check out their 'work' and 'claims' for yourself....instead of just 'believing' then proceeding to 'bash cranks' with such obviously flawed 'science'. But you/others didn't listen; preferring to attack the messenger...which is why you ended up with egg on your faces. You/they looked so "intellectual"! :)
Uncle Ira
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 07, 2017
links would be superfluous when pointing out that known science/logics
They would be if you could find any. I suppose the reason that they are so hard for you find to find is because you specialize in known psuedoscience/illogics.

And that just goes to confirm I have been proven correct all along, you got the serious mental conditions.
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Mar 07, 2017
Hi Ira! :)

links would be superfluous when pointing out that known science/logics
They would be if you could find any. I suppose the reason that they are so hard for you find to find is because you specialize in known psuedoscience/illogics.

And that just goes to confirm I have been proven correct all along, you got the serious mental conditions.
The mental condition exhibited by a bot-voting ignoramus is more a problem than the 'mental condition' which respects and adheres to the scientific method and points out the flaws without fear or favor based on personal considerations. It was the failed Bicep2 'team' and their 'believers' here at PO at the time, that demonstrated the mental condition of NOT respecting/following the scientific method.

Thanks, Ira, for the opportunity to again point out certain posters' 'mental condition' that leads them to troll, stalk, lie, bot-vote and anti-science 'thinking/believing' (y'all know who you are!). :)

Cheers! :)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Mar 07, 2017
Well done Whyd ! If GW's manifest as theorized, it is actually impossible for synchronized atomic clocks to NOT show that a GW passed by...and yes...there is a minimum angle of perpendicularity that is required in relation to the GW for this to work.

(roughly 30 degrees either side of dead on, I'm guessin'..)
So... what would you anticipate as a deviation of rate?
My "however" is this;
I'm thinking we'd prob'ly need a clock rate MUCH higher than cesium to see any significant deviation...
And they'd have to be synced TO eachother, not just with...
And... Inasmuch as "gravity wave" is expressed in motion (of matter), I'd be more inclined to rely on a (REALLY BIG) wide field positional deviation array. A super-sensitive GPS "cloud", if you will.
Although our resolution is doubtful for something so small in scale, maybe we could start by look for tiny deviations in our own GPS system...
swordsman
1 / 5 (1) Mar 13, 2017
The pictorial of the "gravity waves" illustrates wave patterns that are strikingly similar to that of electromagnetic waves. This would imply coherent electromagnetic waves. In turn, this could mean wave patterns generated by a coherent source. I would dig deeper before reaching far out conclusions, and not rely to heavily on old, obsolete theories, such as that of Einstein.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Mar 13, 2017
I'm thinking we'd prob'ly need a clock rate MUCH higher than cesium to see any significant deviation

The rate isn't the problem. The signal is in the difference between the clocks. For this you 'just' need stable clocks. The frequency at which they tick doesn't matter from a mathematical point of view.

From a physics point of view the faster 'clocks' tend to be more stable - or at the very least it is statistically easier to show that they are.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Mar 14, 2017
Hi antialias. :)
[Whydening Gyre said:]I'm thinking we'd prob'ly need a clock rate MUCH higher than cesium to see any significant deviation
[antialias said:]The rate isn't the problem. The signal is in the difference between the clocks. For this you 'just' need stable clocks. The frequency at which they tick doesn't matter from a mathematical point of view.

From a physics point of view the faster 'clocks' tend to be more stable - or at the very least it is statistically easier to show that they are.
So, antialias, are you now no longer opposing bschott's original [ https://phys.org/...ina.html ] and above suggestion/arguments?...using said clocks/communications systems for gravitational waves detection via cumulative 'blips' counts record showing said 'difference" in clocks/comm-system used? If so, perhaps Quantum Magician, Stumpy et al should now apologize for being so unreasonable in their insults/opposition then & above? :)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Mar 14, 2017
The pictorial of the "gravity waves" illustrates wave patterns that are strikingly similar to that of electromagnetic waves. This would imply coherent electromagnetic waves. In turn, this could mean wave patterns generated by a coherent source. I would dig deeper before reaching far out conclusions, and not rely to heavily on old, obsolete theories, such as that of Einstein.

Einstein's theory on relativity is not and never will be obsolete. It will always be an (large) integral part of the whole pie.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 14, 2017
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

OK guys, this is the acid test of who actually follows objectivity, impartiality and fairness principles/ethics of Scientific Method/Discourse.

CASE:

bschott was perfectly entitled to put his 'using clocks' suggestion; and was perfectly scientifically/feasibly correct. But certain posters (you know who you are!) raised unreasonable objections and proceeded to insult him and sabotage an otherwise fruitful scientific/logical discussion. Now that bschott has been vindicated (by mainstream proponents of approaches/experiments similar/identical to bschott's suggested approaches/experiments), it is time for those in question (who 'claim' to respect Science method/discourse principles/ethics) to make sincere apologies to bschott (and Forum) for their unreasoning opposition/insults to what was always obviously a good scientific/logical suggestion from bschott.

If those in question do not apologise sincerely to bschott (and Forum) in this case...why not?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Mar 14, 2017
bschott was perfectly entitled to put his 'using clocks' suggestion; and was perfectly scientifically/feasibly correct. But certain posters (you know who you are!) raised unreasonable objections ... Now that bschott has been vindicated (by mainstream proponents of approaches/experiments similar/identical to bschott's suggested approaches/experiments), it is time for those in question ... to make sincere apologies to bschott (and Forum) for their unreasoning opposition/insults to what was always obviously a good scientific/logical suggestion from bschott.

If those in question do not apologise sincerely to bschott (and Forum) in this case...why not?

Well, RC, I did not insult nor raise unreasonable objections.
If you took time to notice, I'm the one giving him 5's -
For being a valuable part of the discussion.
Case closed.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 14, 2017
Hi Whyde.:)
bschott was perfectly entitled to put his 'using clocks' suggestion; and was perfectly scientifically/feasibly correct. But certain posters (you know who you are!) raised unreasonable objections ... Now that bschott has been vindicated (by mainstream proponents of approaches/experiments similar/identical to bschott's suggested approaches/experiments), it is time for those in question ... to make sincere apologies to bschott (and Forum) for their unreasoning opposition/insults to what was always obviously a good scientific/logical suggestion from bschott.

If those in question do not apologise sincerely to bschott (and Forum) in this case...why not?
Well, RC, I did not insult nor raise unreasonable objections....Case closed.
Who said you did, mate? Not me! I wrote:
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN...certain posters...(you know who you are!)
Note also addressees of my related posts. :)

Case isn't "closed" until those in question apologize to bschott/Forum. :)
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 15, 2017
@idiot f*ckwad earthling cult lying POS pseudoscience troll :)
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
:)
1- please show where i downrated BS above when his argument was valid - i 5starred him more than a few times, you illiterate idiot
:0
2- because you're f*cking stupid, you should actually read my point MAR 07, which is relevant to this discussion (this will help you: http://www.readingbear.org/ )
:0
3- this is still OT as you're misrepresenting the argument from another thread which is not the exact same argument as above, you moron
:0
4- reported for strawman, misrepresentation, lying and trolling/baiting

:)

PS - you have no right to ask for anything considering your continued refusal to link, reference or demonstrate the 4 fatal flaws in BICEP
you've waster over 6 million characters with your lies and libel - and counting
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 15, 2017
Hi Stumpy. :)

Now don't keep evading the necessary, mate. :)

My post to antialias was prompted by his tacit admission that the original clock blips etc approach/suggestion was valid. I even linked to original thread...

https://phys.org/...ina.html

...wherein you attacked/insulted him unreasonably/unscientifically.

In this thread as well, you still nitpick to avoid apologizing to him for your past nastiness towards him/his idea. Quantum Magician above perpetuated the same nastiness which you perpetrated in that other thread (see what 'role model standard' you set?....nasty; and encouraging/enabling it in others who 'just believe' the insults/attacks you have been posting for so long now).

Anyhow, as I asked antialias above, I now ask you: Are you now agreeing that bschott's original idea/approach was scientifically sound and technically feasible suggestion? And if so, will you now apologize for your unreasoning insults/attacks? :)
Uncle Ira
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 15, 2017
Case isn't "closed" until,,,,,,,,

,,,,, every last living person on earth writes in their own blood: "Really-Skippy was proven CORRECT all ALONG".

And since we all know Really-Skippy, we all know the case will never be closed.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 15, 2017
Hi Ira.:)

Now that is very decent of you to apologize to me for you being wrong and me right on Bicep2 instance (and all the rest). Apology accepted. :)

However, the above 'case' referred to is the one where Stumpy et al were wrong and insulting to bschott personally; and to his perfectly scientifically sound/technically feasible original suggestion re the clock blips etc approach to detecting gravity waves as a corroborating/supporting evidence for a-ligo detection claims.

Therefore an apology remains to be given by those involved in the unreasoning insults/attacks on him and his suggestion, especially since mainstream (and lately antialias above) now are seriously considering/admitting similar/identical approach as suggested by bschott.

So, go to it, those in question (re bschott still being owed an apology)....and demonstrate you can be objective scientists/decent gentlemen/ladies! :)
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 16, 2017
@idiot f*ckwad earthling cult lying POS pseudoscience troll :)
...wherein you attacked/insulted him unreasonably/unscientifically
no, i didn't, you illiterate ignorant inept moronic POS liar
and that is clear above

i even quoted the problem from the original thread where he was denigrated for his argument - which was not the same thread you linked, you idiot

your link was another thread entirely, and no one is denigrating him in said thread which makes your post either really stupid, or you're drunk

logic isn't your strong point - & now reading isn't

its not like no one can just re-read the thread and see for themselves
just because you're inept doesn't mean everyone else is just as stupid as you
FOAD
:)
and reported for strawman, misrepresentation, lying and trolling/baiting
:)
until you can actually post your BICEP 4 fatal flaws you will be reported for pseudoscience and stupidity

feel free to continue posting and get the last word in, idiot girl!
:)
gkam
1 / 5 (3) Mar 16, 2017
"@idiot f*ckwad earthling cult lying POS pseudoscience troll :)"
-----------------------------------

Why don't you outgrow this nasty stuff?

Are you thirteen years old?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Mar 17, 2017
Hi Stumpy.

Oh my, you really need to grow up/calm down.

Re your YEARS of ad nauseum...
"Reported" etc tactics
...how many years does it take for you to 'take the hint' that PO is ignoring your OBVIOUSLY hypocritical/personal agendas-motivated "reported" etc tactics.

Why, is PO ignoring you?...look at your posts/behavior, Stumpy; you'll see why. If you still can't see it, here's some clues:

- Have you ever "reported" your 'buddy' Uncle Ira for admitted trolling, employing a bot-voting program ON A SCIENCE SITE?

No? Why not?

- Have you ever "reported" your other 'buddies' whenever they were egregiously WRONG both on the science and the behavior?

No? Why not?

- Have you ever "reported" YOURSELF for your offending/insulting/disrespectful manner of addressing other members; and for posting interminable 'clutter' of irrelevant/poisonous trolling/sabotaging noise/lies?

No? Why not?

It's obvious "Why not?", Stumpy. You cant see it? Everyone else can. Pity.

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

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