LIGO and Virgo observatories detect gravitational wave signals from black hole collision

September 27, 2017
Aerial view of the Virgo site showing the Mode-Cleaner building, the Central building, the three kilometer-long west arm and the beginning of the north arm. The other buildings include offices, workshops, computer rooms and the control room of the interferometer. Credit: The Virgo collaboration/CCO 1.0

In August, detectors on two continents recorded gravitational wave signals from a pair of black holes colliding. This discovery, announced today, is the first observation of gravitational waves by three different detectors, marking a new era of greater insights and improved localization of cosmic events now available through globally networked gravitational-wave observatories.

The collision was observed Aug. 14 at 10:30:43 a.m. Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) using the two National Science Foundation (NSF)-funded Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) detectors located in Livingston, Louisiana, and Hanford, Washington, and the Virgo , funded by CNRS and INFN and located near Pisa, Italy.

The detection by the LIGO Scientific Collaboration (LSC) and the Virgo collaboration is the first confirmed gravitational wave signal recorded by the Virgo detector. A paper about the event, a collision designated GW170814, has been accepted for publication in the journal Physical Review Letters.

"Little more than a year and a half ago, NSF announced that its Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory had made the first-ever detection of gravitational waves, which resulted from the collision of two in a galaxy a billion light-years away," said NSF Director France Córdova. "Today, we are delighted to announce the first discovery made in partnership between the Virgo gravitational-wave observatory and the LIGO Scientific Collaboration, the first time a gravitational wave detection was observed by these observatories, located thousands of miles apart. This is an exciting milestone in the growing international scientific effort to unlock the extraordinary mysteries of our universe."

LIGO operates two detector sites -- one near Hanford in eastern Washington, and another near Livingston, Louisiana. The Livingston detector site is pictured here. Credit: LIGO Collaboration

The detected gravitational waves—ripples in space and time—were emitted during the final moments of the merger of two black holes, one with a mass about 31 times that of our sun, the other about 25 times the mass of the sun. The event, located about 1.8 billion light-years away resulted in a spinning black hole with about 53 times the mass of our sun—that means about three solar masses were converted into gravitational-wave energy during the coalescence.

"This is just the beginning of observations with the network enabled by Virgo and LIGO working together," says LSC spokesperson David Shoemaker of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). "With the next observing run planned for fall 2018, we can expect such detections weekly or even more often."

LIGO has transitioned into a second-generation gravitational-wave detector, known as Advanced LIGO, that consists of two identical interferometers. Beginning operations in September 2015, Advanced LIGO has conducted two observing runs. The second observing run, "O2," began Nov. 30, 2016, and ended Aug. 25, 2017.

The Virgo detector, also now a second-generation detector, joined the O2 run Aug. 1, 2017 at 10 a.m. UTC. The real-time detection Aug. 14 was triggered with data from all three LIGO and Virgo instruments.

View of the LIGO detector in Hanford, Washington. LIGO research is carried out by the LIGO Scientific Collaboration, a group of more than 1,000 scientists from universities around the US and 14 other countries. Credit: LIGO Laboratory

"It is wonderful to see a first gravitational-wave signal in our brand new Advanced Virgo detector only two weeks after it officially started taking data," says Jo van den Brand of Nikhef and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, spokesperson of the Virgo collaboration. "That's a great reward after all the work done in the Advanced Virgo project to upgrade the instrument over the past six years."

When an event is detected by a three-detector network, the area in the sky likely to contain the source shrinks significantly, improving distance accuracy. The sky region for GW170814 has a size of only 60 square degrees, more than 10 times smaller than the size using data available from the two LIGO interferometers alone.

"Being able to identify a smaller search region is important, because many compact object mergers—for example those involving neutron stars—are expected to produce broadband electromagnetic emissions in addition to ," says Georgia Tech's Laura Cadonati, deputy spokesperson for the LIGO Scientific Collaboration. "This precision pointing information enabled 25 partner facilities to perform follow-up observations based on the LIGO-Virgo detection, but no counterpart was identified—as expected for black holes."

"With this first joint detection by the Advanced LIGO and Virgo detectors, we have taken one step further into the gravitational-wave cosmos," says Caltech's David H. Reitze, executive director of the LIGO Laboratory. "Virgo brings a powerful new capability to detect and better locate gravitational-wave sources, one that will undoubtedly lead to exciting and unanticipated results in the future."

Explore further: New gravitational wave data analysis now underway

Related Stories

New gravitational wave data analysis now underway

September 21, 2017

Penn State LIGO physicists are members of the LIGO-Virgo collaboration to detect and characterize gravitational waves. The collaboration now is completing a very exciting Second Observing Run that is drawing to a close on ...

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 ...

LIGO detects gravitational waves for third time

June 1, 2017

The Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory (LIGO) has made a third detection of gravitational waves, ripples in space and time, demonstrating that a new window in astronomy has been firmly opened. As was the ...

Recommended for you

NASA telescope studies quirky comet 45P

November 22, 2017

When comet 45P zipped past Earth early in 2017, researchers observing from NASA's Infrared Telescope Facility, or IRTF, in Hawai'i gave the long-time trekker a thorough astronomical checkup. The results help fill in crucial ...

Uncovering the origins of galaxies' halos

November 21, 2017

Using the Subaru Telescope atop Maunakea, researchers have identified 11 dwarf galaxies and two star-containing halos in the outer region of a large spiral galaxy 25 million light-years away from Earth. The findings, published ...

Cassini image mosaic: A farewell to Saturn

November 21, 2017

In a fitting farewell to the planet that had been its home for over 13 years, the Cassini spacecraft took one last, lingering look at Saturn and its splendid rings during the final leg of its journey and snapped a series ...

136 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

anadish
1 / 5 (20) Sep 27, 2017
Neutron stars (with an optical counterpart) needed higher sensitivity on the part of Virgo, so now LIGO-Virgo change their mind and announce another BH merger (very massive because Virgo is less sensitive!) on 14 August 2017. Seems 14 is a very auspicious date ordained by the LIGOD! WHAT A FARCE of signal injection! In legal language it is called an act of "improvement". Congratulations to the spin doctors of LIGO-Virgo, indeed. However, gradually the farcical loom of the Emperor's New Clothes is showing up.
antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (20) Sep 27, 2017
that means about three solar masses were converted into gravitational-wave energy during the coalescence

3 solar masses (which comes out to almost exactly a million times the mass of the Earth)...to energy....in - if it's comparable to the other observed events - about 0.2 seconds.

Every time I read something like this it just boggles the mind.
Cusco
4 / 5 (8) Sep 27, 2017
Every time I read something like this it just boggles the mind.


Indeed. Ordinarily nothing could escape a black hole, and I'm wondering how this happens. Do the two black holes stretch towards each other so that for a moment some portion of them extends beyond the event horizon? Three solar masses is a not inconsiderable percentage of the original two objects to have disappear into energy.
antialias_physorg
4.5 / 5 (16) Sep 27, 2017
Ordinarily nothing could escape a black hole

It's gravity (i.e. warping of spacetime)..not a 'substance' that escapes.
rogerdallas
4.5 / 5 (15) Sep 27, 2017
As we get more and more gravity wave detections, and more and more confirmations of the reality of black holes, the various skeptics will appear more and more crazy. Well, they probably ARE crazy. But I guess they could still be nice people...
Parsec
4.1 / 5 (9) Sep 27, 2017
Every time I read something like this it just boggles the mind.


Indeed. Ordinarily nothing could escape a black hole, and I'm wondering how this happens. Do the two black holes stretch towards each other so that for a moment some portion of them extends beyond the event horizon? Three solar masses is a not inconsiderable percentage of the original two objects to have disappear into energy.


It is a misnomer to believe that anything is actually escaping. What is happening is that the spacetime between the black holes is emitting the energy. Emission stops when the black holes are fully merged.
Benni
1.6 / 5 (14) Sep 27, 2017
"The collision was observed Aug. 14 at 10:30:43 a.m. Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) using the two National Science Foundation (NSF)-funded Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) detectors"

Just how do gravity wave detectors OBSERVE a stellar mass of any size?

"The collision was observed", so they've got a picture right? Of two stellar objects 31 & 25 times the mass of our Sun colliding & merging?

I do know what a laser interferometer gravity detector is, and it is incapable of taking a picture, so how do they know that the gravity field detectors recorded a merger of BHs? It could just as well have been a couple of small galaxies partially or fully hidden behind an intergalactic dust cloud?
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (8) Sep 27, 2017
The paper is available without subscription: https://journals....8.221101 Scroll down and click "Article Text click to expand."

I'm checking how quickly they got secondary observing going and what portion of the spectrum it was in.

It's notable that they significantly restricted the search area for secondary events.

On edit: My bad, that's the link to the Jan 14th detection. Looking at this one now...
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (9) Sep 27, 2017
Nope, not open. All there is is an abstract, and it's going to need some editing. I was unable to find out how quick the follow-ups were.

Moving right along, it looks like we can expect to see about one of these per year. As more gravitational wave observatories come online, we can expect to get more and more finely tuned polarization information, and more and more localized observations; with a networked set of GWOs, we can expect to be able to identify whether there is a host galaxy for each event. This will be interesting, because being able to identify a particular galaxy will allow us to determine for sure whether these events are occurring within galaxies, which would confirm that they are from binary black holes created by binary core collapse supernovae, or deny it if we don't find them inside galaxies.
[contd]
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (8) Sep 27, 2017
[contd]
It's worth keeping in mind that as we continue this, detection windows will become smaller and smaller, and we are more and more likely to be able to do follow-up obervations within seconds or minutes of a GW detection; if there are any follow-on events, we will become more and more likely to see them. A complete absence of follow-on events would be a very high significance indication that these are indeed binary black hole mergers, since other types of events would produce significant follow-on, and we know this from GRBs which have relatively long term follow-ons. So far no follow-on energetic event has been detected to explain these GW detections in the EM spectrum.

Also, there are questions as to whether these are events caused by two black holes being created by a binary pair of core collapse supernovae, or black holes from SNe that later formed a pair. Polarization will tell us this.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (9) Sep 27, 2017
It is a misnomer to believe that anything is actually escaping. What is happening is that the spacetime between the black holes is emitting the energy. Emission stops when the black holes are fully merged.
@Parsec this is actually pretty interesting because the energy comes out of the mass of the merging BHs. This strongly indicates that mass is being transmuted into energy during these mergers. This in turn argues that the contents of a BH are no longer representative of the things that fell into it, and that entropy is consumed by BHs as mass and energy are consumed by the BH. The entropy cannot be retrieved since matter has been converted into GW energy and the energy is randomized.

This is probably an appropriate thread to discuss the issues of BHs and entropy.
Benni
1.3 / 5 (12) Sep 27, 2017
there are questions as to whether these are events caused by two black holes being created by a binary pair of core collapse supernovae, or black holes from SNe that later formed a pair. Polarization will tell us this.


Oh no "Polarization" will tell us no such thing Schneibo.

it's obvious you don't know how that analyses is done because in this case it STARTS with an ASSUMPTION, and when data analyses starts with an ASSUMPTION it's almost a sure bet mistakes will follow, that's why we don't do analyses with built-in assumptions in our Gamma Spectroscopy lab that I oversight.
Da Schneib
4.1 / 5 (14) Sep 27, 2017
I'm not going to waste my time or others' arguing with #physicscranks like @Lenni and @anadish who don't "believe in" BHs. I suggest they get a clue and study GRT. Good luck with that, particularly for @Lenni who doesn't understand simultaneous PDEs.

As more and more BH mergers are detected the #physicscranks will be increasingly marginalized. Evidence always trumps #physicscranks.
malapropism
5 / 5 (3) Sep 27, 2017
@AAP
Ordinarily nothing could escape a black hole

It's gravity (i.e. warping of spacetime)..not a 'substance' that escapes.


That's an interesting observation (no pun intended). If gravity has a force-carrier particle (the hypothetical graviton), how would this work? Are the gravity waves created by gravitons *outside* the event horizon of the merging black holes (whatever its shape might be when they actually begin to merge)?

That the mass-energy contained by the two black holes is lessened once they merge, would seem to imply that the "missing" mass-energy of the merged black holes is converted into these force-carriers, but that mass-energy, I think by definition, occurs only within the event horizon and therefore the gravitons shouldn't be able to escape?

I'm intrigued by this and wondered if you might be able to explain further? (Well, hypothesize further, I guess, since nobody actually knows how the mergers occur or if gravitons exist
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 27, 2017
and that entropy is consumed by BHs


Schneibo, ENTROPY is not a consumable commodity. Your knowledge of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is zilch.

The entropy cannot be retrieved
.....because it was NEVER a consumable commodity to begin with, you absolutely don't know what ENTROPY is, but why should we be surprised, you've never taken a Thermodynamics course.

since matter has been converted into GW energy


The Laws of Conservation of Energy make no allusions to your assertion that "matter" can be converted into "GW energy", matter can only be TRANSFORMED to ELECTRO-MAGNETIC ENERGY but not to gravity. Hey, old dude, maybe you can tell us where in Einstein's General or Special Relativity we can find these things?

Don't just be shooting your mouth off about these things you keep pulling off the top of your head, quote for us the sections of General Relativity & 2nd Law of Thermodynamics so we can find all this exotic slop & swill you postulate.


Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 27, 2017
I'm not going to waste my time or others' arguing with #physicscranks like @Lenni and @anadish who don't "believe in" BHs. I suggest they get a clue and study GRT.


Yeah you should Schneibo, and everytime I challenge to quote the section of General Relativity in which you claim Einstein laid the groundwork for existence of BHs, you instantly go dumb & silent, same when I link to this paper Einstein wrote in 1939 in which he thoroughly trashed Schwarzschild's Black Hole Math:

"On Stationary Systems with Spherical Symmetry consisting of many Gravitating Masses"

http://www.cscamm...hild.pdf

Get over it old dude, you're just not smart enough to fool as many people as you think you can with trying to come up with a new Law of Physics called CONSERVATION OF GRAVITY, capiche? Probably not, those of you in the perpetual motion crowd living here never do.

anadish
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 27, 2017
@Da Schneib
I'm not going to waste my time or others' arguing with #physicscranks like @Lenni and @anadish who don't "believe in" BHs. I suggest they get a clue and study GRT. Good luck with that, particularly for @Lenni who doesn't understand simultaneous PDEs.

As more and more BH mergers are detected the #physicscranks will be increasingly marginalized. Evidence always trumps #physicscranks.


I never said BHs do not exist. To sum up all that I said, interferometry cannot detect cosmic origin GW due to these main reasons. 1. [proven], there is too much man-made synthetic GW noise around, 2. [unproven], speed of gravity is infinite (gravity is from quantum gravity).
Dileep_Sathe
5 / 5 (1) Sep 28, 2017
The detected gravitational waves—ripples in space and time—were emitted during the final moments of the merger of two black holes, one with a mass about 31 times that of our sun, the other about 25 times the mass of the sun. The event, located about 1.8 billion light-years away resulted in a spinning black hole with about 53 times the mass of our sun—that means about three solar masses were converted into gravitational-wave energy during the coalescence.

Above description is that of first wave detected by the LIGO people in February 2016 OR the one detected by LIGO and Virgo people in this week? Please clarify.
Whydening Gyre
3.1 / 5 (7) Sep 28, 2017
and that entropy is consumed by BHs


Schneibo, ENTROPY is not a consumable commodity. ...

Of course it is. It's as subject to conservation rules as everything else. And I suspect it might related to Gravity...
since matter has been converted into GW energy

The Laws of Conservation of Energy make no allusions to your assertion that "matter" can be converted into "GW energy", matter can only be TRANSFORMED to ELECTRO-MAGNETIC ENERGY but not to gravity.

Might that not hint that EM can affect gravity?
I mean, gravity affects EM all the time...
Whydening Gyre
3 / 5 (4) Sep 28, 2017
The detected gravitational waves—ripples in space and time—were emitted during the final moments of the merger of two black holes, one with a mass about 31 times that of our sun, the other about 25 times the mass of the sun. The event, located about 1.8 billion light-years away resulted in a spinning black hole with about 53 times the mass of our sun—that means about three solar masses were converted into gravitational-wave energy during the coalescence.

Above description is that of first wave detected by the LIGO people in February 2016 OR the one detected by LIGO and Virgo people in this week? Please clarify.

Not this week or February. Aug 14th of 2017
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (12) Sep 28, 2017
I'm sorry, I see little point in arguing the characteristics of black holes with a #physicscrank who claims not to "believe in" them.
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (9) Sep 28, 2017
Are the gravity waves created by gravitons *outside* the event horizon of the merging black holes

Can't really tell. From what I get gravitons are still very hypothetical

That the mass-energy contained by the two black holes is lessened once they merge, would seem to imply that the "missing" mass-energy of the merged black holes is converted into these force-carriers, but that mass-energy, occurs only within the event horizon and therefore the gravitons shouldn't be able to escape?

For now I would stick with warping of spacetime as being 'gravity'. Since that is what was measured.

Gravitons are quantumphysical constructs. As such they could tunnel(?)
Which might give them the ability to cross the event horizon. But this is really beyond my experience since spacetime inside the event horizon is not as straightforward as outside as there are no longer any inertial reference frames and r becomes the timelike coordinate (not t). It gets too weird.
shavera
4.3 / 5 (13) Sep 28, 2017
Here's the deal with gravitons: You know how photons, in large numbers, form classical electric and magnetic fields? Same thing with 'gravitons.' Gravitons, in large numbers, form the classical Space-Time curvature field. So there's still no issue with them "escaping" a black hole because they are the thing themselves that make up the curvature of a black hole.

Don't think of gravitons as the "force carrier of gravity" like a photon. The field they're associated with is space-time curvature. Which can, in some cases, produce an effect that we used to think was a force, that we called gravity. If you do a potential-free Lagrangian in a curved spacetime (Schwarzschild metric) you will see a fictitious force appear in an equation that doesn't have a force, much like "Centrifugal" forces appear in physics calculated in rotating reference frames.
Dileep_Sathe
1 / 5 (5) Sep 28, 2017
Warping of spacetime as being 'gravity. J.O. Weatherall's book - Void: the Strange Physics of Nothing, 2016, Uale U.P. Physicists associate warping of spacetime with gravity. We can gravitational force very easily but cannot feel warping / curving of space. this is becaise space means a matter-free sone and therefore we cannot sense space / void. So Space-Time continuum (STC) is still an enigma, even in 21st century. A common man can counter our belief in Einstein's STC by challenging as follows.

We, physicists, do not believe in ghosts as they cannot be sensed. Then why physicists believe in Einstein's STC because we do not have sensory organs for space and time both. As the discovery of gravitational waves is based on ripples caused on the STC, physicists will have to clarify public's objection, in the fore-going comparison of STC with ghost.
Benni
1.4 / 5 (9) Sep 28, 2017
I'm sorry, I see little point in arguing the characteristics of black holes with a #physicscrank who claims not to "believe in" them.


Well put Schneibo..........anyone who does not comprehend the the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (ENTROPY) should stay away from Black Hole Theory, because the two are contradictory to one another, of course you could only know this if you've actually studied Thermodynamics in a college classroom like I have & like YOU HAVE NOT.
Cusco
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 28, 2017
I've noticed that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a bit like Godwin's Law, an argument pulled out of the drawer when the poster really has no argument left. This is doubly true when the poster is claiming that another poster "doesn't understand" how the 2nd Law works while they themselves try to apply it to systems smaller than the universe.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 28, 2017
Here's the deal with gravitons:
...oh, won't this just be so much fun, a freelance journalist entertaining us with another one of his hypothethicals,..OK Shavo, let the entertainment begin:

You know how photons, in large numbers, form classical electric and magnetic fields? Same thing with 'gravitons.' Gravitons,


No, don't go there suggesting CONSERVATION OF GRAVITY, that gravity can have TRANSFORMATION CHARACTERISTICS. Maybe you have a test tube full of these gravitons by which you can prove such things exist?

The LIGO guys think gravity exists in the form of WAVES not MASSLESS PARTICLES. What makes you so much smarter than the LIGO guys? That you're a freelance journalist with a lot of spare time on your hands you don't know what to do with?

do a potential-free Lagrangian in a curved spacetime (Schwarzschild metric) you will see a fictitious force appear in an equation that doesn't have a force,
Yeah, "fictitious" alright, no surprise there.

shavera
4.1 / 5 (9) Sep 28, 2017
I don't say one way or the other whether gravitons do or do not exist. I am simply trying to provide an answer to those who don't understand what is proposed by physicists when they talk about gravitons, and why that difference matters in terms of being able to 'escape' a black hole. I personally suspect they exist, but that we don't have enough data to help pin down a good mathematical model to describe them. But that's just a personal belief.

There's literally no meaning in "conservation of gravity" as I have often said. But keep throwing around meaningless phrases. It does, in fact, make you look like you know what you're talking about.

And the "LIGO guys" are certainly describing classical waves, but QED allows for classical EM waves while at the same time talking about those waves being made up of smaller wave quanta with discrete momentum. (see also: Photoelectric effect) These observations don't yet say one way or another about gravitons, admittedly.
Zzzzzzzz
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 28, 2017
I'm sorry, I see little point in arguing the characteristics of black holes with a #physicscrank who claims not to "believe in" them.


I for one ignored 'anadish" immediately upon reading the first post.....
bschott
2 / 5 (4) Sep 28, 2017
Ahhhh, trying to build a solid structure on a hypothetical foundation....this never ends well for anyone who does it. Reality always prevails.
Then we have the usual pseudo intellectual crowd who seem to think they understand something then clearly demonstrate they don't...
This is doubly true when the poster is claiming that another poster "doesn't understand" how the 2nd Law works while they themselves try to apply it to systems smaller than the universe.

" The second law of thermodynamics states that an isolated system's entropy never decreases. "

Somebody thinks the universe is the only isolated system in existence I guess....
Benni, as a friend of mine likes to say when he sees me posting here: "You are arguing with blind people about the color of the rainbow that you can see".
Benni
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 28, 2017
@bshott.......truer words on this site have never been said:
Benni, as a friend of mine likes to say when he sees me posting here: "You are arguing with blind people about the color of the rainbow that you can see".
.......I mean, just look at the content of this Schneibo clown about ENTROPY, and how would you like to make a bet Shavo 5 Starred it?

@ shavo .....
There's literally no meaning in "conservation of gravity" as I have often said
.... yeah, like after you got one damned hard lecture from me when you were trying to twist words within one of my posts about TRANSFER of gravity when TRANSFORMATION of Mass/Energy occurs, you tried to twist that into CONSERVATION OF GRAVITY when I made no allusions to the effect that gravity has transformative properties.

shavera
4.1 / 5 (9) Sep 28, 2017
Yep you're right Benni. You sure showed me what's what. What with your ALL CAPS CATCH PHRASES, I'm sure cowed by your 'damned hard lecture' you claim to have given. I mean of course I'll just have to take your word for it like everything else, because of course you are the smartest of all interneters. I'll just have to assume that you know what you're talking about, since you never actually define what you mean by CONSERVATION OF GRAVITY, because such a phrase has never appeared in any of my physics courses.

Here's 10000000 internet points to you, oh great knower of physics. You have truly won this competition fairly and surely.
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 28, 2017
the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a bit like Godwin's Law, an argument pulled out of the drawer when the poster really has no argument left. doubly true when the poster is claiming that another poster "doesn't understand" how the 2nd Law works while they themselves try to apply it to systems smaller than the universe.


Ok then Mr Expert on the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, supposing you explain to this over educated science professional how the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (ENTROPY) gets a PASS when it comes to BHs?

Schneibo tried to lecture us that ENTROPY can be "consumed", that ENTROPY is somehow a consumable property of matter. All the books I used in Engineering School would need to be 100% rewritten to fit Schneibo's explanation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, ENTROPY.

OK, you want to be the 2nd Schneibo, so just you walk out on that sagging limb & see how long it can hold up with two of you now standing on it, you'd better hope Perpetual Motion is for real.
.
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 28, 2017
since you never actually define what you mean by CONSERVATION OF GRAVITY,


Of course a play on words such as CONSERVATION OF GRAVITY is totally lost on you. Hell's bells man, you still have yet to reach the level of CONSERVATION OF ENERGY & the reality of it's TRANSFORMATIVE properties proven by Einstein in Special Relativity 1905, and now you want to piddle around espousing CONSERVATION OF GRAVITY without telling us what gravity can TRANSFORM to?

You're the one proposing CONSERVATION OF GRAVITY without actually uttering the two words. You think there are these little graviton particles just sort of laying around all over the place snagging onto things like some kind of glue to keep other things from getting away, that somehow these little critters can TRANSFORM into a wave of some kind?

Tell us more about that Introductory Thermodynamics course you took in Grad School......like did it have any math in it?
shavera
4.1 / 5 (9) Sep 28, 2017
It's ok little buddy. I already told you you won. Look at all the internet points you won even! I bet if you print this out and take it to your science teacher, they might even give you some extra credit for your skilled physics knowing!
Cusco
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 28, 2017
without telling us what gravity can TRANSFORM to?


Well, apparently around 3 solar masses can transform into gravity waves so it's likely that the process works both ways, doncha think?
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 28, 2017
It's ok little buddy. I already told you you won.
......but I'm still curious about that introductory thermodynamics course you took in Grad School.......did it have any math content to it? Did ENTROPY ever come up? Enthalpy? C'mon here, don't leave me out on the same limb you & Schneibo are standing on, I don't believe in Perpetual Motion & I know sooner or later it will break & I don't want that happening with you two clowns for company.
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 28, 2017
without telling us what gravity can TRANSFORM to?


Well, apparently around 3 solar masses can transform into gravity waves so it's likely that the process works both ways, doncha think?


Via what Fundamental Law of Physics can "3 solar masses can transform into gravity waves"? So far only Shavo thinks CONSERVATION OF GRAVITY is a Fundamental Law of Physics, I guess he learned that in his Introductory Thermodynamics course in Grad School, so where did you learn it?
shavera
4.3 / 5 (11) Sep 28, 2017
There's literally no sense in discussing science with you if you're going to keep putting words in my mouth that I never said and don't believe.
1) The black hole entropy question has several proposed resolutions, but obviously we don't have the data to distinguish yet which one may yet be right.
2) what law: Mass is the Lorentz invariant quantity of 4-momentum. So obviously energy can be lorentz-boosted to momentum, so long as the mass of the system stays the same.
3) Again, I don't have the foggiest clue what you're talking about 'conservation of gravity.' There's no 'conservation of light' even though light is made of particles. We don't know the details of the couplings, but if gravitons do exist, they would be created by coupling to other particles just like photons are. Because they're bosons.

I still don't know what you're on about about my "thermodynamics course." But, I mean, if you get a kick out of having illogical arguments on the internet, like I said, you won!!!
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 28, 2017
1) The black hole entropy question has several proposed resolutions, but obviously we don't have the data to distinguish yet which one may yet be right.
..........sure we do, all the math & equations you could ever hope to see, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics......! Capiche? Probably not.

2) what law: Mass is the Lorentz invariant quantity of 4-momentum. So obviously energy can be lorentz-boosted to momentum, so long as the mass of the system stays the same.
........and you are totally clueless about the meaning of what you just wrote here.

I don't have the foggiest clue what you're talking about 'conservation of gravity.'
.......then why did you ever concoct such a terminology in the first place?

There's no 'conservation of light' even though light is made of particles.
Really? Now you're telling us that the visible portion of the Electro-Magnetic Energy Spectrum is made up of "particles", particles in case you never knew it is MASS.
jonesdave
4.1 / 5 (9) Sep 28, 2017
[Really? Now you're telling us that the visible portion of the Electro-Magnetic Energy Spectrum is made up of "particles", particles in case you never knew it is MASS.


In particle physics, a massless particle is an elementary particle whose invariant mass is zero. The two known massless particles are both gauge bosons: the photon (carrier of electromagnetism) and the gluon (carrier of the strong force).


https://en.wikipe...particle
shavera
4.3 / 5 (12) Sep 28, 2017
and you are totally clueless about the meaning

I think you have a typo there. I think you meant to say that you didn't have a clue about this stuff, because it's obvious you're just a high school physics student trying to say words you think physicists say.
.then why did you ever concoct such a terminology

Never did, Again, that's you putting words into my mouth and being entirely unwilling to back up anything you say.
particles in case you never knew it is MASS.

Again, if you want to invent new meanings for words beyond what physicists mean, please feel free to. A particle, in physics, is a quantized excitation of a field. Some of these particles couple to the Higgs field and gain mass, but not all do.

Look, in a few years, after you've had some introductory undergrad physics classes, you'll understand and just look back on this as a whole bunch of silliness.
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 28, 2017
Again, if you want to invent new meanings for words beyond what physicists mean, please feel free to. A particle, in physics, is a quantized excitation of a field. Some of these particles couple to the Higgs field and gain mass, but not all do.

Look, in a few years, after you've had some introductory undergrad physics classes, you'll understand and just look back on this as a whole bunch of silliness.


Yeah, Shavo, this little lecture coming from someone who concocted this:
There's no 'conservation of light' even though light is made of particles
.........how is it you brag about taking Physics courses yet don't know that no part of the Electro-Magnetic Energy Spectrum is made of "particles, MASS? Huh, Shavo? Explain how this works? Explain for us overeducated science professionals why your view of science is so superior to the known Fundamental Laws of Physics that you can't even get the definition of light energy right?
shavera
4.2 / 5 (10) Sep 28, 2017
I did explain, several times throughout this whole discussion. Quantum Field Theory defines particles as quantized excitations of a field. If you'd like the word to mean something else, then we cannot discuss it further. Quantized excitations in the limit of very large numbers, behave like classical fields with classical waves. Not all Quantized excitations have mass. Some do.

Some quantized excitations, bosons, don't have a fixed number that is conserved. Photons are bosons. Gravitons, if they exist, are bosons. I, to this day, do not know at all what you mean by your phrase, not mine, of "conservation of gravity" but I assume it's something like you say above where there's a fixed number of them, so I tried to draw a parallel with photons, which similarly do not have a fixed number. But again, if you could simply describe what your words mean, maybe we could have an adult conversation. Because the result I see when I search "conservation of gravity" is a physics joke thing.
Da Schneib
4.1 / 5 (9) Sep 28, 2017
Your mistake, @shavera, was accepting @Lenni, who lies about being a nuclear engineer when it is actually not even a technician, as a physicist. This individual is a #physicscrank and should be dismissed as such. I have tried addressing it and educating it and all it does is make up specious lies to try to deny reality. Don't waste your time, is my advice.
shavera
4.1 / 5 (9) Sep 28, 2017
Oh I know they are lying about it. It's definitely obvious that they're a high school student, at best. I remember being that age and thinking I'd understood physics from pop-sci articles and magazines. And you can just shuffle the words you think physicists say around a bit, "particles" and "waves" and "conservation," but they're missing all the Shibboleth phrases you can really identify someone who's had advanced physics classes.

So Benni, good luck in school tomorrow, and I do sincerely hope your science teacher gives you some bonus points in class for your excellent science sounding.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (8) Sep 28, 2017
I hate to say it, @shavera, but I think this individual is about 70 or so. And about as smart as a bag of hammers. Do feel free to embarrass it some more.

For lurkerz, @shavera is a real physicist and knows more than I do, but I can at least generally keep up. It's brain exercise. Educate me, I learn something new every day. :D
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 28, 2017
Your mistake, @shavera, was accepting @Lenni, who lies about being a nuclear engineer when it is actually not even a technician, as a physicist. This individual is a #physicscrank and should be dismissed as such. I have tried addressing it and educating it and all it does is make up specious lies to try to deny reality. Don't waste your time, is my advice.


......this coming from the guy who stated:

and that entropy is consumed by BHs


The entropy cannot be retrieved


since matter has been converted into GW energy


.....these things while making this piece of pseudo-science:

This strongly indicates that mass is being transmuted into energy during these mergers. This in turn argues that the contents of a BH are no longer representative of things that fell into it, and that entropy is consumed by BHs as mass and energy are consumed by the BH. The entropy cannot be retrieved since matter has been converted into GW energy


Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 28, 2017
In particle physics, a massless particle is an elementary particle whose invariant mass is zero. The two known massless particles are both gauge bosons:
......and referred to as VIRTUAL PARTICLES.

Hey, jonesy, do you know what the word "virtual" means? Then explain that transformation process? You do know what TRANSFORMATION means? Probably not.

Da Schneib
3 / 5 (4) Sep 28, 2017
@Lenni feel free to solve the PDEs you lie about understanding:

-m'' + m'n' - m'² - 2m'/r = 0
m'' + m'² - m'n' - 2m'/r = 0
e⁻²ⁿ (1 + m'r - n'r) - 1 = 0
R₂₂ sin² ϕ = 0
Source: http://www.etsu.e...esis.pdf
And another reminder:
E² = (pc)² + (mc²)²
https://phys.org/...rgy.html
https://phys.org/...ole.html

Anytime at all, sport. We are all watching you lie.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 28, 2017
@Lenni feel free to solve the PDEs you lie about understanding:

-m'' + m'n' - m'² - 2m'/r = 0
m'' + m'² - m'n' - 2m'/r = 0
e⁻²ⁿ (1 + m'r - n'r) - 1 = 0
R₂₂ sin² Ď� = 0
Source: http://www.etsu.e...esis.pdf

Anytime at all, sport. We are all watching you lie.


........and maybe you'd like to give us more pseudo-science enlightenment about ENTROPY?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Sep 28, 2017
Yeah, Shavo, this little lecture coming from someone who concocted this:
There's no 'conservation of light' even though light is made of particles
.........how is it you brag about taking Physics courses yet don't know that no part of the Electro-Magnetic Energy Spectrum is made of "particles, MASS? Huh, Shavo? Explain how this works? Explain for us overeducated science professionals why your view of science is so superior to the known Fundamental Laws of Physics that you can't even get the definition of light energy right?

Photon's have MASS?!?
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 29, 2017
Photon's have MASS?!?
........that's what Shavo says with this statement:
There's no 'conservation of light' even though light is made of particles
.........then he & jonesy start talking about VIRTUAL PARTICLES as if VIRTUAL does not mean what the definition of the word plainly states that it is with synonyms such as: simulated, artificial, imitation, make-believe.
CubicAdjunct747
not rated yet Sep 29, 2017
can someone calculate how much our bodies shifted in size when this gravity wave passed through us? are we talking microns, nanometers?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Sep 29, 2017
@shavera.

Since the previous claimed LIGO gravitational wave 'detection' event supposedly involving two black holes 3 billion light years away, I have asked those who 'believe' such a claim to demonstrate via maths that a gravitational wave generated by a source so far away would actually 'arrive here' at all, let alone be 'detectable above random grav-wave/perturbation 'noise' from all the many nearer sources such as in-spiraling Neutron Stars etc binaries.

So far, neither antialias nor Da Schneib have provided the necessary maths to support the claim that the quadrupole component of said waves from so far away would persist/posses sufficient 'signal strength' to be detected 'here' as claimed by the LIGO team. Maybe anti and DS cannot find the relevant maths in the scientific literature underpinning the LIGO expectations/claims/modeling etc?

It would help the discussion if maybe you could find/link to said maths for the forum, shavera? It would be greatly appreciated. :)
jonesdave
4.1 / 5 (9) Sep 29, 2017
So far, neither antialias nor Da Schneib have provided the necessary maths to support the claim that the quadrupole component of said waves from so far away would persist/posses sufficient 'signal strength' to be detected 'here' as claimed by the LIGO team.


Since when has a place like this become the proving ground for science? Why should commenters here have to provide the maths? Here's a thought; ask the LIGO team if you're really interested! Do you seriously think that they would spend gazillions on these projects if the maths didn't say they had a chance?
Try this, for instance:
https://arxiv.org...2502.pdf

Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 29, 2017
Since when has a place like this become the proving ground for science?
........and you are one who is the epitome of this statement.
jonesdave
4 / 5 (8) Sep 29, 2017
Since when has a place like this become the proving ground for science?
........and you are one who is the epitome of this statement.


Huh? You and others are the loons who think that you are some sort of geniuses, who are challenging far smarter people than yourselves (i.e. real scientists) by posting your drivel on here. If you were really smart, you'd be writing papers within the scientific literature to challenge these real scientists. Nobody gives a rat's arse what is posted on a place such as this. It has zero impact. It is an irrelevance. Real scientists are out there doing real science. The likes of saddos like you think that you are somehow taking it to the man by posting on a sci-news comments section! Think about it! Very sad and pathetic. When was the last time you saw this place referenced in a scientific paper? Never has, never will be. Meanwhile, real science marches on, totally oblivious to the tripe that cranks post on here.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 29, 2017
Nobody gives a rat's arse what is posted on a place such as this. It has zero impact.


So why then are you such a zealot for posting here? If it's such a rest stop for "saddos", that must include yourself.......Right?
jonesdave
4.1 / 5 (9) Sep 29, 2017
Nobody gives a rat's arse what is posted on a place such as this. It has zero impact.


So why then are you such a zealot for posting here? If it's such a rest stop for "saddos", that must include yourself.......Right?


I come here to read the latest science news. The majority of comments I make are in reply to the aforementioned tripe. If there was no tripe, I wouldn't comment, other than the occasional "interesting story" type remark. I certainly don't come here to tell everyone that the scientists have got it all wrong, and I'm going to tell them why. If I was smart enough to do that, I'd be doing it in the appropriate place. Where it might get noticed.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Sep 29, 2017
@jonesdave.
So far, neither antialias nor Da Schneib have provided the necessary maths to support the claim that the quadrupole component of said waves from so far away would persist/posses sufficient 'signal strength' to be detected 'here' as claimed by the LIGO team.
Since when has a place like this become the proving ground for science? Why should commenters here have to provide the maths?
Try this, for instance:
https://arxiv.org...2502.pdf
Double standards, mate (how many times have you/DS etc 'demanded the maths' from 'the cranks'?

Your link speaks of improving detector sensitivity for theory-discriminating purposes; but it doesn't answer my question:

Where is the maths that proves a DISTANT source gravitational wave signal will actually reach 'here' in sufficient 'signal strength' to be discerned above the MANY MORE nearer-sourced gravitational waves; especially from previously claimed BH 'merger' 3 BILLION LYs away?

Maybe shavera can help? :)
jonesdave
4 / 5 (8) Sep 29, 2017
Where is the maths that proves a DISTANT source gravitational wave signal will actually reach 'here' in sufficient 'signal strength' to be discerned above the MANY MORE nearer-sourced gravitational waves; especially from previously claimed BH 'merger' 3 BILLION LYs away?


!!!ASK THE LIGO TEAM!!! Get it? It's of no relevance whatsoever what people post on here, in case you haven't noticed. Go find the maths yourself. There are oodles of papers out there.Or just email the lead author on one of them and ask for guidance of where to find it. Nothing, repeat nothing, is going to be settled in a bloody comments section.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Sep 29, 2017
@jonesdave.
Where is the maths that proves a DISTANT source gravitational wave signal will actually reach 'here' in sufficient 'signal strength' to be discerned above the MANY MORE nearer-sourced gravitational waves; especially from previously claimed BH 'merger' 3 BILLION LYs away?


!!!ASK THE LIGO TEAM!!! Get it? It's of no relevance whatsoever what people post on here, in case you haven't noticed. Go find the maths yourself. There are oodles of papers out there.Or just email the lead author on one of them and ask for guidance of where to find it. Nothing, repeat nothing, is going to be settled in a bloody comments section.
You miss the point of discussion/comment section, mate. Since you/etc argue FOR the LIGO claims, it is incumbent on you/etc to support your argument; in this case by linking the maths as requested. Otherwise you prove your presence here is to troll/insult/evade rather than engage fairly on the science being discussed/commented upon here.
jonesdave
4.1 / 5 (9) Sep 29, 2017
You miss the point of discussion/comment section, mate. Since you/etc argue FOR the LIGO claims, it is incumbent on you/etc to support your argument; in this case by linking the maths as requested. Otherwise you prove your presence here is to troll/insult/evade rather than engage fairly on the science being discussed/commented upon here.


Utter nonsense. The LIGO team are making the claims. If you, or anybody else, think they're wrong, then publish it. It is certainly not incumbent on me, DS or anybody else, who aren't part of the LIGO team, to justify their claims. Those claims are within the scientific literature. As should be any questioning of them. I'm not aware of any. Anything written on here by outsiders is of no relevance.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Sep 29, 2017
@jonesdave.
You miss the point of discussion/comment section, mate. Since you/etc argue FOR the LIGO claims, it is incumbent on you/etc to support your argument; in this case by linking the maths as requested.
Utter nonsense. The LIGO team are making the claims. If you, or anybody else, think they're wrong, then publish it. It is certainly not incumbent on me, DS or anybody else, who aren't part of the LIGO team, to justify their claims. Those claims are within the scientific literature. As should be any questioning of them. I'm not aware of any. Anything written on here by outsiders is of no relevance.
Why the double standards again, mate? And why then keep kneejerking/insulting etc when PO members voice their concerns re possible errors of logics/physics with the reported claims by LIGO?

If it's beneath you engaging with PO members in discussion, then why attack and start/perpetuate personal feuds just because YOU don't want to support your assertions?



jonesdave
4.1 / 5 (9) Sep 29, 2017
..... just because YOU don't want to support your assertions?


They are not, for the final time, MY assertions. They are made by the LIGO team. If you think they're wrong, tell THEM. They have published their work. It is subject to scrutiny and peer review. You and Benji, however, are a couple of anonymous commenters on a comments section. How do you think that discussing it with people who are not on the LIGO team is of any relevance? What difference does it make whether or not I, or anybody else, can be bothered hunting down the mathematical proofs that YOU are asking for? ASK LIGO. Do a search. You are arguing against them, not us. I didn't write the papers, nor anybody else here.
Do you now understand the reason why peer reviewed scientific literature exists?
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 29, 2017
The majority of comments I make are in reply to the aforementioned tripe. If there was no tripe, I wouldn't comment,


You bet, almost the same for me but add to it the ENTERTAINMENT VALUE I get making fun of the Perpetual Motion Mechanics who live here, such as yourself, Schneibo, Shavo, & half a dozen others who are really serious about creating new arguments for perpetual motion.

It's about how much fun it is tying your vapid Perpetual Motion arguments into the configuration of a pretzel that keeps me here, plain pure unadulterated ENTERTAINMENT. For example, Schneibo positing discussions about ENTROPY & you 5 Starring it, yeah, that's ENTERTAINMENT.

Then of course the CONSERVATION OF GRAVITY proponents who argue for it, then turn right around & deny they ever said anything in support of it, while writing such things as:
since matter has been converted into GW energy
then do an about face denying they said it, right Schneibo? Yeah, great entertainment here.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (10) Sep 29, 2017
can someone calculate how much our bodies shifted in size when this gravity wave passed through us? are we talking microns, nanometers?
Actually there's no need to calculate it. What you need to know is how much the mirrors in the LIGO and VIRGO sites moved. You'll need to multiply by 2 to get the size change, unless you meant volume which is a little more complicated (not much more). If you look it up on Wikipedia, you'll find the mirrors shift about 10⁻¹⁸ m, which is less than a thousandth the size of a proton. That will get you to your best answer to this question with a minimum of fuss.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 30, 2017
Actually there's no need to calculate it. What you need to know is how much the mirrors in the LIGO and VIRGO sites moved. You'll need to multiply by 2 to get the size change, unless you meant volume which is a little more complicated (not much more). If you look it up on Wikipedia, you'll find the mirrors shift about 10⁻¹⁸ m, which is less than a thousandth the size of a proton. That will get you to your best answer to this question with a minimum of fuss.


Hey Schneibo, not a bad Copy & Paste. You need to stick to this kind of posting because when you do anything other than Copy & Paste, your Comments simply become a vapid wasteland of funny farm pseudo-science with your laughable EXPLANATIONS of ENTROPY & CONSERVATION OF GRAVITY.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 30, 2017
@Lenni, entropy isn't conserved; it can increase. You don't even know what "conservation" means in physics. What it supposedly can't do is decrease; this is not "conservation."

As for "gravity conservation," @shavera already made your claims idiotic on another thread, which I don't imagine you will respond to other than with more trolling and lying. Good luck with that.

You're lying again, @Lenni.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 30, 2017
@Lenni your mathematical incompetence does not equal a question about GRT. It's incompetence, not real objective argument.

It's unfortunate you choose to equate your deliberate ignorance to some sort of rational mathematical argument, but obvious from your driveling.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Sep 30, 2017
@jonesdave.
They are not, for the final time, MY assertions. They are made by the LIGO team. If you think they're wrong, tell THEM. They have published their work. It is subject to scrutiny and peer review.....ASK LIGO. Do a search. You are arguing against them, not us. I didn't write the papers, nor anybody else here.
Do you now understand the reason why peer reviewed scientific literature exists?
There are THREE issues, mate.

FIRST is YOUR/OTHERS' assertions/beliefs/argument in SUPPORT of the LIGO claims. That is what I have been trying to get the maths FOR from YOU/OTHERS here to help see how valid/tenable YOUR/OTHERS' 'support' is.

SECOND is LIGO claims themselves; which I have been trying to scrutinize but cannot get anyone to produce THEIR maths to prove said grav-wave from 3 BILLION LYrs away can reach 'here', let alone be discernible over NEARER sourced g-ws 'signals'.

THIRD is THIS is a commments site open to laypersons discussing science news; so relax!

OK?
Benni
2 / 5 (4) Sep 30, 2017
@Lenni, entropy isn't conserved; it can increase. You don't even know what "conservation" means in physics. What it supposedly can't do is decrease; this is not "conservation."


.......and here you go again, you so totally screw up the entire concept of ENTROPY with:
and that entropy is consumed by BHs
The entropy cannot be retrieved
,....... then pull a Shavo & give me credit for it, then to boot you start foaming at mouth something about CONSERVATION OF ENTROPY as if anybody here but you ever brought it up.

Hey, old dude, tell us more about how ENTROPY is "consumed". Huh? At least make a stab at it?

Now followup & explain to us
since matter has been converted into GW energy
.......tell us more about what this transformation concept is that converts (transforms) matter into GW energy. I'll bet you'd like to give Einstein credit for this? Even though he never stated it? Yeah, you & Shavo working out the same playbook here.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Oct 01, 2017
... Now followup & explain to us
since matter has been converted into GW energy
.......tell us more about what this transformation concept is that converts (transforms) matter into GW energy.

How bout this...
MATTER may not have been "transformed" into GW (that's a pretty silly interpretation of yours, btw), but excess energy generated FROM the two bodies of matter combining, (and not absorbed by them) was...
But then, even you will prob'ly admit that everything is energy in one form or another, so maybe it was....
SteveS
5 / 5 (3) Oct 01, 2017
@RealityCheck & JonesDave

SECOND is LIGO claims themselves; which I have been trying to scrutinize but cannot get anyone to produce THEIR maths to prove said grav-wave from 3 BILLION LYrs away can reach 'here', let alone be discernible over NEARER sourced g-ws 'signals'.


Not that I pretend to understand any of the math involved but this appears to be what you're looking for.

https://dcc.ligo....urve.pdf
https://www.aanda...2576.pdf
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Oct 01, 2017
@RealityCheck & JonesDave

SECOND is LIGO claims themselves; which I have been trying to scrutinize but cannot get anyone to produce THEIR maths to prove said grav-wave from 3 BILLION LYrs away can reach 'here', let alone be discernible over NEARER sourced g-ws 'signals'.


Not that I pretend to understand any of the math involved but this appears to be what you're looking for.

https://dcc.ligo....urve.pdf

Nicely Done, Steve!
Benni
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 01, 2017
Ok, stevo, the below copied from: https://dcc.ligo....urve.pdf

"2.3. Power spectral density
A second commonly used quantity for sensitivity curves is the square root of the PSD or
the amplitude spectral density

6. Concluding remarks:
When quantifying the sensitivity of a GW detector and the loudness of a GW source, there
are three commonly used quantities: the characteristic strain, the power spectral density,
and the spectral energy density.

You need to learn what "density" is about & how it is derived from General Relativity as the basis of irradiation of all thing Electro-Magnetic & Gravity. It's better know as application of the Inverse Square Law, which if you don't know what that is, then you will never understand why these LIGO detectors simply picked a change of INTENSITY over stable electro-magnetic background noise & a stable gravity field, only to watch the detectors return to previous levels once the so-called WAVE passed after a few nanosecs.

Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Oct 01, 2017
Ok, stevo, the below copied from: https://dcc.ligo....urve.pdf

"2.3. Power spectral density
A ... density

6. Concluding remarks:
When quantifying the ... spectral energy density.

You need to learn what "density" is about & how it is derived from General Relativity as the basis of irradiation of all thing Electro-Magnetic & Gravity. It's better know as application of the Inverse Square Law, which if you don't know what that is, then you will never understand why these LIGO detectors simply picked a change of INTENSITY over stable electro-magnetic background noise & a stable gravity field, only to watch the detectors return to previous levels once the so-called WAVE passed after a few nanosecs.

And they sensed it in a sequential manner (time-wise) between 2 detectors (1100 miles apart)...

If it looks like a duck...
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (8) Oct 01, 2017
Wow, that was pretty loony. General Relativity is not where density is derived from, for starters. Moving right along, it's not defined by anything to do with "the basis of irradiation of all things Electro-Magnetic & Gravity[sic]," whatever that word salad is supposed to refer to. It has nothing to do with "the Inverse Square Law," which is not a law but a type of law. To top it all off the quoted parts don't talk about matter density, which is all one can think when someone talks about deriving density from GRT; they talk about power spectral density and spectral energy density which are completely different concepts from matter density.

There's so much wrong there it's not even worth going further. It's some weird twisted cartoon of science.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 01, 2017
General Relativity is not where density is derived from, for starters.
First Schneibo, you need to read it to find out.

quoted parts don't talk about matter density, which is all one can think when someone talks about deriving density from GRT
......like your'e unable to figure out that the author already knows gravity is not derived from density of matter but rather from accumulated quantity of matter, you know, MASS DEPENDENT GRAVITY versus your loony concept of DENSITY DEPENDENT GRAVITY.

Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 01, 2017
Read what? I have no idea what you think I should read. Density? "...the basis of irradiation of all things Electro-Magnetic & Gravity[sic]" (whatever that is supposed to mean)? General Relativity? What "derived" means? Einstein's book on relativity? The Babble? Some supposed "science" site that you and your buddies made up while you were on acid?

I have no idea what you're talking about when you say, "...your loony concept of DENSITY DEPENDENT GRAVITY." First, it's not my concept, and second, it's obvious from Newton's Theory of Universal Gravitation that density has an effect on surface gravity. If you want to tell us all you think Newton was wrong, feel free but don't be surprised when you are met with derision.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 01, 2017
I have no idea what you're talking about when you say, "...your loony concept of DENSITY DEPENDENT GRAVITY."


Your memory is short, I understand that old dude.
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 01, 2017
If you're not going to respond to what I say without editing it, you're lying and there's no point in talking to you.

I said,
I have no idea what you're talking about when you say, "...your loony concept of DENSITY DEPENDENT GRAVITY." First, it's not my concept, and second, it's obvious from Newton's Theory of Universal Gravitation that density has an effect on surface gravity. If you want to tell us all you think Newton was wrong, feel free but don't be surprised when you are met with derision.
Do you have a response to it, or not?
Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (4) Oct 01, 2017
My curiousity is... why don't they detect a contiguous series of ripples from a single source, instead of just one....?
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (8) Oct 01, 2017
@Whyde, they did. That's what the ringdown sequence is. Every one of the ripples in the ringdown is a single orbit, and as the BHs get closer and closer together, the orbits come faster and faster, until they coalesce.

Have you seen the waveform? You should take a look at it.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Oct 01, 2017
@Whyde, they did. That's what the ringdown sequence is. Every one of the ripples in the ringdown is a single orbit, and as the BHs get closer and closer together, the orbits come faster and faster, until they coalesce.

Have you seen the waveform? You should take a look at it.

Ahhh.... I was under the impression it was just one blip and gone...
And... did it "ring-UP" first?
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 01, 2017
You can see the waveforms, and hear them, here: https://www.ligo....160211v2

Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (4) Oct 01, 2017
You can see the waveforms, and hear them, here: https://www.ligo....160211v2


That was interesting...
I kinda thought it would look more equal on either side of the peak...
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 01, 2017
There is a considerable noise floor, and only during the last hundreds of milliseconds are the GWs powerful enough to make it to us. We see something less than the last ten orbits or so. Before that the GWs aren't powerful enough to make it above the noise at this extreme distance.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 01, 2017
If you're not going to respond to what I say without editing it, you're lying and there's no point in talking to you.


I said, I have no idea what you're talking about when you say, "...your loony concept of DENSITY DEPENDENT GRAVITY." First, it's not my concept, and second, it's obvious from Newton's Theory of Universal Gravitation that density has an effect on surface gravity. If you want to tell us all you think Newton was wrong, feel free but don't be surprised when you are met with derision.
Do you have a response to it, or not?


Yeah, my response stands as before, dump your loony ideas of DENSITY DEPENDENT GRAVITY, in addition to that you should dump your latest loony idea about CONSERVATION OF GRAVITY also not found anywhere but among your fellow pseudo-science advocates for the advancement of Perpetual Motion.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 01, 2017
Sorry, I'm going with Newton rather than some nutjob #physicscrank on the Internets.

The higher the density, the smaller the radius. The smaller the radius, the shorter the distance. The shorter the distance, the stronger the gravity. It's all right here:

F(g) = Gmm'/r²

If you can do math.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 01, 2017
Sorry, I'm going with Newton rather than some nutjob #physicscrank on the Internets.

The higher the density, the smaller the radius. The smaller the radius, the shorter the distance. The shorter the distance, the stronger the gravity. It's all right here:

F(g) = Gmm'/r²

If you can do math.


Nope, that isn't what the equation states, it's simply your interpretation of it for support of Schwarzschild's black hole math so thoroughly destroyed by Einstein's 1939 paper: "On Stationary Systems with Spherical Symmetry consisting of many Gravitating Masses"........

http://www.cscamm...hild.pdf
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 01, 2017
No, it's not an interpretation. That's exactly what it says. Sorry if you don't understand what a variable in the denominator means because you can't do fractions. BTW this also means you have no idea what the meaning of an inverse square law is, despite your lying about it a couple posts ago.
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 01, 2017
No, it's not an interpretation. That's exactly what it says. Sorry if you don't understand what a variable in the denominator means because you can't do fractions. BTW this also means you have no idea what the meaning of an inverse square law is, despite your lying about it a couple posts ago.


....and all I need to do to continue reminding you of trying to spin the Fundamental Laws of Physics into Perpetual Motion Mechanics is this:

"On Stationary Systems with Spherical Symmetry consisting of many Gravitating Masses", http://www.cscamm...hild.pdf

........you NEVER have attempted to take that on Schneibo, why is that? I guess because you won't, it's because it destroys your Perpetual Motion fantasies of Schwarzschild's black hole math & the self serving spin you put on F(g) = Gmm'/r².
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 01, 2017
Sorry, dude, the higher the density, the smaller the radius. The smaller the radius, the shorter the distance. The shorter the distance, the stronger the gravity. It's all right here:

F(g) = Gmm'/r²

If you can do math. If you can, you know it's true. If you're arguing against it, you can't. Simple as that. There is little point in arguing about math with someone who can't do math.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (7) Oct 01, 2017
I kinda thought it would look more equal on either side of the peak...

The peak is the point in time when the event horizons touch.
At first the centers of the black holes are getting closer to one another and the oribital period rapidly decreases (which is the 'chirp'). After the event horizons touch the orbital period still decreases but the signal strenght drops off because for all intents and purposes its now one black hole that quickly loses its asymmetric shape (that's the ringdown).

There's a good movie of this on wikipedia that shows which part sof the signal correspond to which state
https://en.wikipe...nal_wave
(movie on the right side)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (6) Oct 01, 2017
I kinda thought it would look more equal on either side of the peak...

The peak is the point in time when the event horizons touch.
At first the centers of the black holes are getting closer to one another and the oribital period rapidly decreases (which is the 'chirp'). After the event horizons touch the orbital period still decreases but the signal strenght drops off because for all intents and purposes its now one black hole that quickly loses its asymmetric shape (that's the ringdown).

There's a good movie of this on wikipedia that shows which part sof the signal correspond to which state
https://en.wikipe...nal_wave
(movie on the right side)

Cool. Thanks AAP
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 02, 2017
Sorry, dude, the higher the density, the smaller the radius.


Your Perpetual Motion math does nothing to add gravity to the system, all that changes is the FORCE exerted per unit area of the body which can NEVER go to infinity.

Old dude, high school physics class is where you learn this, however my ten year old already knows this & can do FORCE CALCULATIONS, which comparing my ten year old's age to your age makes you an awfully pathetic choice to be my ten year old's teacher.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 02, 2017
Bwahahahaha, force isn't conserved. That's truly funny. Think about that equation a minute, the force changes as the radius goes up and down. There's no conservation law to break here.

#physicscranks come up with the oddest ideas.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 02, 2017
the force changes as the radius goes up and down.
.........but TOTAL GRAVITY within the system does not change by varying the FORCE via: "as the radius goes up and down". But this won't matter with you, you'll just come right back & say your Perpetual Motion pseudo-science of CONSERVATION OF GRAVITY is found in General Relativity even though Einstein trashed the entire concept of it in his 1939 paper, "On Stationary Systems with Spherical Symmetry consisting of many Gravitating Masses"

The DENSITY problem here is not what you imagine, the density problem is with accumulating calcification of plaque in your aged brain old dude. It is TRUE, calcification of the brain shrinks the brain size (think "radius" here) while at the same time causing it to become more dense.

There, now you have a better comprehension of the RADIUS vs, DENSITY vs, FORCE issues with regards to all your ranting & raving about things that are high school science issues.
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 02, 2017
And I said that. The width of a gravity well-- that is, the strength of the gravity in the limit as r goes to many times the size of the gravitating body-- remains the same for the same mass. It's only the surface gravity-- the depth of a gravity well-- that goes up.

And high surface gravity eventually gets so strong that it even stops light. And that's what makes a black hole. For a black hole, the surface is the Schwartzchild radius for that mass.

There's nothing about Einstein's GRT there because you don't need GRT to show black holes. You can do it with Newton's TUG, that very equation we've been talking about, and in fact it was done by, among others, Laplace, in the nineteenth century. So it's still not my idea and never was.

Total gravity for a given mass is the same, it's surface gravity that changes with r. And I told you that, too.

Do try to keep track past your Alzheimers or whatever your problem is.
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 02, 2017
So for any given pair of masses, there is a point for each of them in decreasing r beyond which the escape velocity from its surface gravity will exceed the speed of light; at this point, nothing can escape because nothing can exceed the speed of light. And you don't need GRT to show it; TUG shows it fine.

It's not the amount of mass that makes a black hole; it's the amount of mass *within a certain radius* that does. And all from that simple equation:

F(g) = Gmm'/r²

If you can do the math. And if you don't forget stuff because you have Alzheimer's.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 02, 2017
Last but not least, of course, is density.

If you have the same mass in a smaller radius, then you have a higher density. So it's also obvious that it's the density of a mass that determines whether it is a black hole or not.

There, I think that ties it up with a nice bow on it. Was there anything else?
Cusco
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 02, 2017
Yes, what's with his ravings about 'Perpetual Motion math"?? Seems a bizarre tangent to fly off on.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (6) Oct 02, 2017
The #physicscranks specialize in bizarre. A substantial portion of them think there's no such thing as gravity and everything is EM. It's pretty nutbar. If you stick around here a while @Cusco you'll see the links to their "Electric Universe" sites, and if you think what they're posting here is nutty you won't even believe what they claim there.
FuckLenniBenni
5 / 5 (5) Oct 02, 2017
This comment section, jesus christ. From the looks of it, Lenni was mangling physics while simultaneously being a prick and getting down-voted for it... so then he started a burner account called Benni who also spends his time mangling physics? Is that about right?

lenni...benni... whatever your name is. You claim to be a scientist, yet don't even know what scientific discourse is. You outed yourself bro. Why are you so mad in every comment?
Benni
1 / 5 (6) Oct 02, 2017
It's not the amount of mass that makes a black hole; it's the amount of mass *within a certain radius* that does. And all from that simple equation:

F(g) = Gmm'/r²


......and you fall for using an argument like this in lieu of "On Stationary Systems with Spherical Symmetry consisting of many Gravitating Masses" Albert Einstein 1939.

http://www.cscamm...hild.pdf

You love that 19th century math is that it Schneibo? Easier than Einstein's 20th century use of Differential Equations. Why don't you simply go read what Einstein actually wrote in the process of trashing Schwarzschild's zany brained black hole math, the link is right above.

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Oct 02, 2017
@Da Schneib.
Last but not least, of course, is density. If you have the same mass in a smaller radius, then you have a higher density. So it's also obvious that it's the density of a mass that determines whether it is a black hole or not.
It is that type of simplistic-maths 'thinking' that has led so many 'mathematical-theoretical' cosmologists/astrophysicists to 'believe' in un-physical objects/concepts instead of following reality-physical evidence/logics.

How many times are you going to ignore this, DS? I already had all this out with @rpenner years ago in OLD physorg/physforum (now defunct)?

If 'density' alone, rather than a 'critical cumulative quantity' of energy-mass) was the determinant of forming a black hole, then the densities achieved during collisions in LHC (not to mention orders of magnitude greater at alleged big bang 'beginning') should produce 'micro' black holes in LHC; but it doesn't, hence NO 'density determinant' as such for BH feature!

OK, DS?
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (5) Oct 02, 2017
@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? I am doing fine and dandy, thanks for asking.

How many times are you going to ignore this, DS?
Is that a trick question? I guess it would depend on how many times you Blah, Blah, and Blah the same old stuffs.
Whydening Gyre
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 02, 2017
If 'density' alone, rather than a 'critical cumulative quantity' of energy-mass) was the determinant of forming a black hole, then the densities achieved during collisions in LHC (not to mention orders of magnitude greater at alleged big bang 'beginning') should produce 'micro' black holes in LHC; but it doesn't, hence NO 'density determinant' as such for BH feature!

OK, DS?

RC,
I don't believe DS is saying density alone is the determinant.
That said, I believe it kinda goes like this;
X amount of mass get's packed tighter together due to gravity, reducing the volume of a body, causing a smaller radius, subsequently changing he curvature of the body. Which, in turn, changes the curvature of space/time.
And so on and so on... to the point of matching escape velocity of C.
Pretty easy to visualize if you think on it...
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 02, 2017
@Whyde.
RC,
I don't believe DS is saying density alone is the determinant.
That said, I believe it kinda goes like this;
X amount of mass get's packed tighter together due to gravity, reducing the volume of a body, causing a smaller radius, subsequently changing he curvature of the body. Which, in turn, changes the curvature of space/time.
And so on and so on... to the point of matching escape velocity of C.
Pretty easy to visualize if you think on it...
Yes; a MINIMUM 'critical mass' QUANTITY. :) But DS is baldly stating that 'density' determines if a feature becomes 'black' or not. He has often attacked/insulted OTHERS for not being precise/clear in their terms/claims, yet he keeps making just as bad statements himself and just ignores corrections of HIS understandings etc. If only DS could lose some of his ego and malice, and actually PAY ATTENTION instead of ignoring/denying/insulting etc, he might actually learn rather than pretending he is correct when he isn't.
Whydening Gyre
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 02, 2017
I don't believe DS is saying density alone is the determinant.
That said, I believe it kinda goes like this;
X amount of mass get's packed tighter together due to gravity, reducing the volume of a body, causing a smaller radius, subsequently changing he curvature of the body. Which, in turn, changes the curvature of space/time.
And so on and so on... to the point of matching escape velocity of C.
Pretty easy to visualize if you think on it...
And THAT said:
you might even get by, not with light speed reduction, but just increasing the curvature to within a certain radii.
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (5) Oct 02, 2017
But DS is baldly stating that 'density' determines if a feature becomes 'black' or not.
I think you are getting that part wrong Cher.

A star that has 10 times more stuff in him than the Sun has gets to the point that he don't anything left to burn so he can't stay as big, will collapse and when he collapses enough (you know, like becomes dense enough) he will be the black hole.
Whydening Gyre
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 02, 2017
@Whyde.
RC,
I don't believe DS is saying density alone is the determinant.
...
Pretty easy to visualize if you think on it...
Yes; a MINIMUM 'critical mass' QUANTITY. :)

Critical mass - At a certain DENSITY(volume), which determines curvature. A mass has to be a certain volume (density) to do that.
But DS is baldly stating that 'density' determines if a feature becomes 'black' or not.

Considering density determines volume(and vice versa), he is correct.
If only DS could lose some of his ego and malice, and actually PAY ATTENTION instead of ignoring/denying/insulting etc, he might actually learn rather than pretending he is correct when he isn't.

Insert something here about pot calling the kettle black...
.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 02, 2017
Judging from the quoted comments, it doesn't sound like @RC quite gets it.

Whether it's a black hole or not is solely and only dependent on whether the escape velocity from its surface is less than or equal to/greater than the speed of light.

The escape velocity depends on the surface gravity. The surface gravity depends on the mass and the radius (see Newton's equation for TUG). You can call the mass/radius factor out by calling it "density," and most of us do. But the mass and radius are right there in Newton's equation for TUG:

F(g) = mm'/r²

It's not a matter of "calling it black." It's a matter of the definition of "black hole," which is that the escape velocity from the surface is greater than or equal to the speed of light. If it is, then light cannot escape. If you have some better name for that, @RC, let's hear it, but it's not going to make any difference because the definition will be the same.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Oct 02, 2017
@Whyde, Ira, DS.

The understanding is clear already re the cumulative mass contracting beneath its eh limits to a certain density within that eh. The thing that I tried to explain for those reading who may misinterpret DS's earlier statement (that 'density determining black feature') is that density per se is not enough for gravity effect to contain the quantum forces that would explode that dense mass UNLESS said mass was of sufficient cumulative quantity to so contrain the quantum forces trying to tear it apart.

So, please in future try to make statements that reflect the whole context/forces/factors etc, instead of claiming/stating things that are plainly misleading or ignore what I keep explaining to BOTH 'sides'; ie:

MICRO black holes can NOT form/exist because there is insufficient cumulative mass; IRRESPECTIVE of the 'density' of said insufficient cumulative mass.

That's all that needs to be realized by ALL 'sides' above. OK? Good luck. :)
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Oct 02, 2017
@RC, you said "calling it black." You were lying again. I'll just go ahead and add this thread to the list. Are you trying for three posts in order to show all your lies?
Benni
1 / 5 (4) Oct 02, 2017
X amount of mass get's packed tighter together due to gravity,


So how is it all this gravity started showing up if not by accumulation of additional MASS, gravity must be present FIRST without which nothing can be compacted leading to increased DENSITY. Yeah WhyGuy, which came first, the chicken or the egg? Or how about asking it like this: Which came first, the DENSITY or the GRAVITY? I can tell you for certain that it's neither one.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Oct 02, 2017
@Da Schneib.
@RC, you said "calling it black." You were lying again. I'll just go ahead and add this thread to the list. Are you trying for three posts in order to show all your lies?
What are you on about now, mate? Here is the relavant sentence in your post of just 4 hours ago:
...
If you have the same mass in a smaller radius, then you have a higher density. So it's also obvious that it's the density of a mass that determines whether it is a black hole or not.
...
It was YOUR words, saying: "So it's also obvious that it's the density of a mass that determines whether it is a black hole or not."

Are you seriously denying that, and expecting readers to believe your denial, DS?
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 02, 2017
@Lenni, I am surprised you have what it takes to post here again considering how thoroughly you were pwnt.

The only remaining question is whether you have no pride, or are too stupid to do the math.
Benni
1 / 5 (6) Oct 02, 2017
It's not a matter of "calling it black." It's a matter of the definition of "black hole," which is that the escape velocity from the surface is greater than or equal to the speed of light. If it is, then light cannot escape. If you have some better name for that,


....and there you go again, thinking it's a cute piece of psycho-babble pegging the Electro-Magnetic Wave to the Escape Velocity Kinematics of a particle of MASS governed by 1/2mv².

There has never been an observation that gravity can either prevent the movement of or reduce the velocity an electro-magnetic wave. If gravity could do this, then electro-magnetic waves are no longer uniquely E=mc², but according to you are as subject to 1/2mv² as any particle of MASS.

Electro-magnetic Waves are not subject to your goofy conjecture of ESCAPE VELOCITY, which according to the Fundamental Laws of Physics apply only to MASS, but not to EM ENERGY.
Benni
1 / 5 (6) Oct 03, 2017
@Lenni, I am surprised you have what it takes to post here again considering how thoroughly you were pwnt.

The only remaining question is whether you have no pride, or are too stupid to do the math.


Hey, Schneibo, Density Dude, why be "surprised"?

I keep telling you that you're an absolutely terrific piece of ENTERTAINMENT for me at this site, that you're LIVING proof calcification of the brain shrinks brain size (think "radius" here) while at the same time causing it to become more dense to the point nothing can get through, not even: "On Stationary Systems with Spherical Symmetry consisting of many Gravitating Masses" Albert Einstein 1939.

http://www.cscamm...hild.pdf

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Oct 03, 2017
@SteveS.

Thanks, mate, for taking the trouble to find/link that early GENERALIZED approach/estimating techniques 'handbook' for researchers designing/modeling detector sensitivity and source spectral intensity etc. Much appreciated. :)

Actually, I read that before; which is why I've since been asking for the maths SPECIFICALLY applied by LIGO 'modeling/analysis' teams.

Here SOME flaws I saw then:

- 'space-time' construct is NOT real space construct per se, so all such models/analyses and interpretations/patterns are NOT REAL things, just 'artifact' of 'abstract construct' assumptions.

- they admit their approach/techniques stem from GENERAL lab/naive procedures/assumptions/contexts wherein 'source signal', 'system/background noise' and 'intentional test signal inputs' CAN BE 'isolated/evaluated' for respective contribution/effect in a 'run' analysis; whereas in REAL WORLD LIGO context can NOT so 'isolate' g-w SOURCES SIGNAL/NOISE while testing!

- etc.

Thanks. :)
SteveS
5 / 5 (5) Oct 04, 2017
@SteveS.

Here SOME flaws I saw then:

- 'space-time' construct is NOT real space construct per se, so all such models/analyses and interpretations/patterns are NOT REAL things, just 'artifact' of 'abstract construct' assumptions.

- they admit their approach/techniques stem from GENERAL lab/naive procedures/assumptions/contexts wherein 'source signal', 'system/background noise' and 'intentional test signal inputs' CAN BE 'isolated/evaluated' for respective contribution/effect in a 'run' analysis; whereas in REAL WORLD LIGO context can NOT so 'isolate' g-w SOURCES SIGNAL/NOISE while testing!

- etc.

Thanks. :)


Wow. You should write a paper on your observations and submit it for publication.

Could you show me your math?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Oct 04, 2017
@SteveS.
'space-time' construct is NOT real space construct per se, so all such models/analyses and interpretations/patterns are NOT REAL things, just 'artifact' of 'abstract construct' assumptions.

they admit their approach/techniques stem from GENERAL lab/naive procedures/assumptions/contexts wherein 'source signal', 'system/background noise' and 'intentional test signal inputs' CAN BE 'isolated/evaluated' for respective contribution/effect in a 'run' analysis; whereas in REAL WORLD LIGO context can NOT so 'isolate' g-w SOURCES SIGNAL/NOISE while testing!
You should write a paper on your observations and submit it for publication. Could you show me your math?
If you are familiar with my postings here at PO and elsewhere, you will be aware that I don't have the time/energy/health/inclination for such 'piecemeal' publish-or-perish publications which cannot treat the whole. I'll publish my reality-based ToE physics/maths work complete/consistent in due course. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Oct 04, 2017
PS @SteveS.

I reality-check professional/amateur claims, ideas, perspectives; not only to encourage objective, open discourse on science/logics news/issues in question, but also to 'soundboard' my own reality-based insights/perspectives; and occasionally hinting/pointing to particularly important 'reality-checks'; which FYI, I am being increasingly confirmed correct in, on many fronts, by more recent mainstream discovery/reviews. I have already alluded to such 'confirming news' over last few months. One such regards my longstanding caution/insight re FLAWED Type Ia supernova 'data and interpretations' cited to supposedly 'support' Accelerated Expansion claims by Perlmutter et al. This latest news-

https://phys.org/...arf.html

-should give an idea of the MANY things which (as I have been pointing out to IMP-9 etc) can VARY 'locally' and 'along line of sight'; making 'standard candle' assumptions/interpretations unreliable. :)
SteveS
5 / 5 (5) Oct 05, 2017
@RealityCheck

Obviously the people of the world are lucky that there are people like you around, and we at physorg should be grateful that you have decided to share your wisdom with us.

All scientists everywhere must be very worried that there is an intellect of such calibre scrutinizing their work.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Oct 05, 2017
@SteveS.
Obviously the people of the world are lucky that there are people like you around, and we at physorg should be grateful that you have decided to share your wisdom with us. All scientists everywhere must be very worried that there is an intellect of such calibre scrutinizing their work.
Twas ever thus! [humor :)]

Seriously, though, you could say that ALL INTELLECTS (be they 'lone independents' or 'collaborating with other individuals/groups') engaged in the OBJECTIVE scientific endeavor are doing that ALL THE TIME (to varying degrees of specialty/generality).

Objective selfless application for the greater good is what sets the true scientists apart from the biased/mercenary types which (as recent events/news has all too painfully made clear) are happy enough to promote/exploit 'expedient science' or outright 'corrupt science', at great cost to the greater good.

Through the ages, SOMEONE HAS TO come along to do the reality-checks, however unwelcome, SS. :)
SteveS
5 / 5 (5) Oct 06, 2017
@RealityCheck

You are wasted here, you will never get the respect you deserve. Even if you do convince anybody here what difference would it make? These people are without influence in academia, their opinions carry no weight, educating them is pointless.

Yours is the superior intellect, you should quit Physorg and take it to a forum where you will be appreciate by people fit to be your students.

I've taken the trouble to find a couple for you.

https://www.quant...archive/

Don't hesitate, don't look back, just go now.

Godspeed
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Oct 06, 2017
@SteveS.
@RealityCheck

You are wasted here, you will never get the respect you deserve.
My self-imposed scientific task (embarked on at age nine) was to satisfy MY curiosity about 'the universe' before I died. Having already noted by age nine that the usual 'grown ups' were easily influenced/sidetracked by personal/religious/social/mercenary interests and group affiliations/dynamics/beliefs, I made a conscious decision to be and remain always an INDEPENDENT and OBJECTIVE scientific researcher in order to minimize the detrimental effects/influences by the now-well-recognized subjective and external 'pitfalls' which many scientists so easily fall into (eg, specific 'publish or perish' imperatives; and/or general 'personal respect/glory/wealth/power' seeking; etc). So I do not 'seek' respect/other self-seeking 'rewards'; and only wish to 'convince' others to THINK and UNDERSTAND for THEMSELVES, objectively and fairly, as best they can, before THEY die.

Cheers, SS. :)
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (3) Oct 06, 2017
@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? If I was doing any better I would have to feel guilty, thanks for asking.

only wish to 'convince' others,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,that I was correct all along.

Fixed him for you, eh Cher?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Oct 06, 2017
@Uncle Ira.
@ Really-Skippy.
...
Fixed him for you, eh Cher?
Please note, Ira: recent mainstream cosmo/quantum/astro discoveries/reviews are doing that whether I 'wished it' or not. :) I only ever point out that fact to you/others whenever you/others need your own claims/lies about science/me reality-checked to reflect the actual reality and not your/others' own 'version' based on prejudices/feuds and otherwise irrelevant/malicious opinions/motives. Not bad, hey, Ira; that I am the one being so confirmed correct all along on many fronts, while you/others still persist in trolling/chopping/deriding.

Oh, Ira, I realize you needed to chop the sentence to make your 'joke'.

For the record:
So I do not 'seek' respect/other self-seeking 'rewards'; and only wish to 'convince' others to THINK and UNDERSTAND for THEMSELVES, objectively and fairly, as best they can, before THEY die.
Which obviously held no meaning for you, Ira; since you prefer to 'joke', not 'think'? :)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Oct 12, 2017
@RealityCheck

You are wasted here, you will never get the respect you deserve. Even if you do convince anybody here what difference would it make? These people are without influence in academia, their opinions carry no weight, educating them is pointless.

Yours is the superior intellect, you should quit Physorg and take it to a forum where you will be appreciate by people fit to be your students.

I've taken the trouble to find a couple for you.

https://www.quant...archive/

Don't hesitate, don't look back, just go now.

Godspeed
@SteveS

you, sir, have won the internetz today!

you just made me spit coffee all over the dog!

i don't know what was better: your comments or her replies

LMFAO
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Oct 12, 2017
@Captain Stumpy.
@SteveS
you, sir, have won the internetz today!
you just made me spit coffee all over the dog!
i don't know what was better: your comments or her replies
LMFAO
And there it is for all @Forum readers to see, again; your juvenile preoccupation with your personal insulting and trolling agenda placed above courteous, objective science discourse and comprehension of the important things at stake for science and humanity's future. The phrase "Casting Pearls before Swine" fits your mindless snuffling and wallowing in the mud while you miss the whole point and purpose of open science discourse on its objective merits not the person/source presenting it; like casting pearls before a 'swine mentality' it would seem insofar as your lack of appreciation of its implications for science is concerned, CS....as your above quoted trolling stupidity and malice unambiguously demonstrates for all to see yet again. My apologies to actual pigs; they can't help being swine.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Oct 13, 2017
@Captain Stumpy.
@lying POS delusional fanatic sam fodera the pseudoscience queen

evidence that has been validated by others who have checked:
to date you've made 7,455 posts
still no evidence at all whatsoever for your claims

that is 7,455,000 characters wasted
372.75 wasted hours (considering the 3 min waiting period to post)

that isn't juvenile, insulting or trolling - it's a point of fact that was validated by the site themselves
(although my post count is lower because they've deleted a sh*t load of your pseudoscience posts)

you will post after this to:
-argue that everyone else is wrong, and that only you're being objective
-only you know the answers
-everyone else somehow demonstrates or proves you right, even though you can't actually prove this yourself with evidence
-everyone else misses the point
-cross post and argue in other threads

reported for being a troll bot pseudoscience liar

LMFAO
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Oct 13, 2017
@Captain Stumpy.
@lying POS delusional fanatic sam fodera the pseudoscience queen
Don't you just 'hate it'!...I'm the one being confirmed correct all along on many fronts by more recent astro/cosmo/quantum physics discovery/review; while you/'gang' of bot-voting deniers and insult trolls are being shown up as ignorant ego-tripping trolls in DENIAL of REAL OBJECTIVE SCIENCE; as you/gang cleave to increasingly falsified 'beliefs'!
others who have checked:
And just WHO would these "others" be? The bot-voting gang of trolls who've been proven WRONG all along; and so just evade, insult, lie to distract from that recorded pattern of FAILURE of your ego-tripping ignorance and lies campaigns? Yeah, those "others" (your TROLL gang) are 'reliable witnesses' (NOT). You're dishonest, deluded, as is the rest of your nasty little 'gang', CS.
still no evidence at all whatsoever for your claims.
You BOASTED you DID NOT READ/UNDERSTAND, so how would you KNOW, you nasty troll.

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.