Gravitational waves measure the universe

January 8, 2018, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
NGC4993, the galaxy hosting the gravitational wave event GW170817 that has been used to measure the age of the universe. The source of the event is the red dot to the upper left of the galaxy's center; it was not there in earlier images. Credit: NASA and ESA

The direct detection of gravitational waves from at least five sources during the past two years offers spectacular confirmation of Einstein's model of gravity and space-time. Modeling of these events has also provided information on massive star formation, gamma-ray bursts, neutron star characteristics, and (for the first time) verification of theoretical ideas about how the very heavy elements, like gold, are produced.

Astronomers have now used a single gravitational wave event (GW170817) to measure the age of the universe. CfA astronomers Peter Blanchard, Tarreneh Eftekhari, Victoria Villar, and Peter Williams were members of a team of 1314 scientists from around the world who contributed to the detection of gravitational waves from a merging pair of binary neutron stars, followed by the detection of gamma-rays, and then the identification of the origin of the cataclysm in a source in the galaxy NGC4993 spotted in images taken with various delays at wavelengths from the X-ray to the radio.

An analysis of the from this event infers their intrinsic strength. The observed strength is less, implying (because the strength diminishes with distance from the source) that the source is about 140 million light-years away. NGC4993, its host galaxy, has an outward velocity due to the expansion of the universe that can be measured from its spectral lines. Knowing how far away it is and how fast the galaxy is moving from us allows scientists to calculate the time since the expansion began – the age of the universe: between about 11.9 and 15.7 billion years given the experimental uncertainties.

The age derived from this single event is consistent with estimates from decades of observations relying on statistical methods using two other : the radiation (CMBR) and the motions of . The former relies on mapping the very faint distribution of light dating from a time about four hundred thousand years after the big bang; the latter involves a statistical analysis of the distances and motions of tens of thousands of galaxies in relatively recent times. The fact that this one single gravitational-wave event was able to determine an age for the universe is remarkable, and not possible with every gravity wave detection. In this case there was an optical identification of the source (so that a velocity could be measured) and the source was neither too distant or too faint. With a large statistical sample of gravitational wave events of all types, the current range of values for the age will narrow.

The new result is intriguing for another reason. Although both the CMBR and the galaxy measurements are each quite precise, they seem to disagree with each other at roughly the ten percent level. This disagreement could just be observational error, but some astronomers suspect it might be a real difference reflecting something currently missing from our picture of the cosmic expansion process, perhaps connected with the fact that the CMBR arises from a vastly different epoch of cosmic time than does the galaxy data. This third method, gravitational wave events, may help solve the puzzle.

Explore further: Astronomers first to see source of gravitational waves in visible light

More information: B. P. Abbott et al. A gravitational-wave standard siren measurement of the Hubble constant, Nature (2017). DOI: 10.1038/nature24471

Related Stories

Galaxy orbits in the local supercluster

December 8, 2017

A team of astronomers from Maryland, Hawaii, Israel, and France has produced the most detailed map ever of the orbits of galaxies in our extended local neighborhood, showing the past motions of almost 1400 galaxies within ...

Recommended for you

Superflares from young red dwarf stars imperil planets

October 18, 2018

The word "HAZMAT" describes substances that pose a risk to the environment, or even to life itself. Imagine the term being applied to entire planets, where violent flares from the host star may make worlds uninhabitable by ...

Blazar's brightness cycle confirmed by NASA's Fermi mission

October 18, 2018

A two-year cycle in the gamma-ray brightness of a blazar, a galaxy powered by a supermassive black hole, has been confirmed by 10 years of observations from NASA's Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope. The findings were announced ...

Astronomers catch red dwarf star in a superflare outburst

October 18, 2018

New observations by two Arizona State University astronomers using the Hubble Space Telescope have caught a red dwarf star in a violent outburst, or superflare. The blast of radiation was more powerful than any such outburst ...

Magnetic fields may be the key to black hole activity

October 17, 2018

Collimated jets provide astronomers with some of the most powerful evidence that a supermassive black hole lurks in the heart of most galaxies. Some of these black holes appear to be active, gobbling up material from their ...

58 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Anonym
1 / 5 (19) Jan 08, 2018
"mapping the very faint distribution of light dating from a time about four hundred thousand years after the big bang..."

There was no Earth, no Sun and, obviously, no annual revolution of the former around the latter, so what is the meaning of 400,000 years in this context? It appears this is an attempt at faux precision about a hypothetical event, like so much speculative science these days that masquerades as fact.
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (20) Jan 08, 2018
There was no Earth, no Sun and, obviously, no annual revolution of the former around the latter, so what is the meaning of 400,000 years in this context?

So the words "100 B .C." don't have any meaning for you because there was no christ at that time?

You are one seriously insane person.
tonyon
1 / 5 (9) Jan 08, 2018
(3)...interstellar travel (thousands G of constant acceleration)... By some reason in magnetic substance these photon waves straight lines perhaps would braid among adjacent material microspheres forming supposedly Gravitational Cords that go to a equilibrium point, the Pole, converging by exterior attracted by the Gravitational Cords from the other Pole...the "magnetic field). If someday is obtained the matter/antimatter annihilation for convert all the mass into Energy (photons), perhaps would have a spectacular increment of the Gravitational force during the action.
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (12) Jan 08, 2018
.interstellar travel (thousands G of constant acceleration)

No. Do some simple math. Interstellar travel does not require "thousands of gs of acceleration". What do they teach in school these days that kids can't even figure this out before posting?

The rest of your post is just random words strung together. You should really see a doctor. You have some serious mental issue.
Stevepidge
1 / 5 (10) Jan 08, 2018
"The direct detection of gravitational waves from at least five sources during the past two years offers spectacular confirmation of Einstein's model of gravity and space-time."

Direct detection? That's funny.
jonesdave
3.8 / 5 (13) Jan 08, 2018
Direct detection? That's funny.


And also accurate.
Parsec
4.6 / 5 (9) Jan 08, 2018
"Direct detection? That's funny."

In what way is the direct reception and measurement of gravitational energy from the event not "direct detection"? You don't believe in gravity?
Merrit
2.8 / 5 (6) Jan 08, 2018
@jones and parsec you know how the dector works? It basically splits light down two different arms perpendicular to each other and bounces it back and fourth then has it meet back up. The light should reach the dector at the same time due to the constant speed of light. The idea is that if a gravitational wave is passing through the distance for one photon will be longer than the other and there will be a slight delay between them.
First of all, this is not direct observation. It is indirect. Secondly it assumes relatively is right about gravity and what it is detecting is gravitational waves. My only beef with the detector is they should have had a third arm for XYZ rather than just XY
shadybail
5 / 5 (2) Jan 08, 2018
"There was no Earth, no Sun and, obviously, no annual revolution of the former around the latter, so what is the meaning of 400,000 years in this context? It appears this is an attempt at faux precision about a hypothetical event, like so much speculative science these days that masquerades as fact."

So, you mean this event never happened? Ummmm...no....because the energy from the event is still detectable?

Anyway, "My only beef with the detector is they should have had a third arm for XYZ rather than just XY." Just clarifying, you mean 3D, yes?

Merrit
2.5 / 5 (2) Jan 08, 2018
@shady in a sense yes 3D. I am not sure if they simply measure the difference in times or if they also compare actual times to predicted times. If only measuring differences, they could miss detections due to symmetry. But, either way, having a third arm would provide more detail and could possibly discern a location direction with only one detector.
Stevepidge
1 / 5 (8) Jan 08, 2018
"Direct detection? That's funny."

In what way is the direct reception and measurement of gravitational energy from the event not "direct detection"? You don't believe in gravity?


Believe? Is this a religion? Gravitational waves are fictional entities to prop up a fictional narrative. It's your life, believe what you want. But let me guess, it offends your sensibilities if the world is not lock step with your hive mind mentality and interpretation of nature. This is not a science site it is a psyence site, it is there to prop up the Einstein/Jewish western interpretation of the nature of reality. It is an echo chamber used to resonate and magnify their thoughts in an attempt to dominate the world in every way possible.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (7) Jan 08, 2018
So the real data that was measured is somehow...fictional? How's that work? Or don't you know what the words "real" and "fictional" mean?
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (12) Jan 08, 2018
@jones and parsec you know how the dector works? It basically splits light down two different arms perpendicular to each other and bounces it back and fourth then has it meet back up. The light should reach the dector at the same time due to the constant speed of light. The idea is that if a gravitational wave is passing through the distance for one photon will be longer than the other and there will be a slight delay between them.
First of all, this is not direct observation. It is indirect. Secondly it assumes relatively is right about gravity and what it is detecting is gravitational waves. My only beef with the detector is they should have had a third arm for XYZ rather than just XY


It's as direct as you can get. GWs are invisible :) In the same way that sound waves are. Do we directly detect SWs? Or do they make something vibrate that reveals their presence? Detecting a GW, and imaging the neutron star merger that caused it, is as good as it gets.
Stevepidge
1 / 5 (7) Jan 08, 2018


It's as direct as you can get. GWs are invisible :) In the same way that sound waves are. Do we directly detect SWs? Or do they make something vibrate that reveals their presence? Detecting a GW, and imaging the neutron star merger that caused it, is as good as it gets.


A neutron star? LOLOLOLOLOL. Why don't you measure the vibration and frequency of fairie wings?
jonesdave
3.6 / 5 (14) Jan 08, 2018
A neutron star? LOLOLOLOLOL. Why don't you measure the vibration and frequency of fairie wings?


Huh? Where have you been living? Check the news. GW detected, triangulated, and hey presto! There's a neutron star merger. With the precise signature in the data as had been predicted. What is your (no doubt unscientific, EU inspired) explanation?

Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Neutron Star Inspiral
https://journals....9.161101

Origin of the heavy elements in binary neutron-­star mergers from a gravitational wave event
https://arxiv.org...5463.pdf

Gravitational Waves and Gamma-Rays from a Binary Neutron Star Merger: GW170817 and GRB 170817A
http://iopscience...20c/meta

And plenty others. Please point me to the counter-argument within the scientific literature. No links to silly pseudoscience sites, thanks.
malapropism
4.6 / 5 (9) Jan 08, 2018
My only beef with the detector is they should have had a third arm for XYZ rather than just XY

It's a bit impractical though, isn't it? With the LIGO arms being 4 km (2.5 mi.) long, your suggested third arm, presumably perpendicular to the other two, would therefore have to either stand upright in the air that far, or go into a mine or other hole in the ground that distance.

I don't think the former would be possible and the movement at the top would probably be pretty large also, making it difficult to keep calibrated (since reportedly passing trucks can cause problems with the current LIGO). The world's deepest mine is Mponeng gold mine, at about 3.9km deep (not in a straight line though), in South Africa so that might just about be feasible but very costly.

This is why more than one detector was planned (and now exist).
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (9) Jan 08, 2018
My only beef with the detector is they should have had a third arm for XYZ rather than just XY

That's why there are multiple detectors sited at different places on the globe and why the LISA mission will fly in space where doing XYZ is easier.

You have to use a bit of common sense: These experiments don't come cheap - and every experiment runs the risk that you end up measuring nothing.
The experiment you get granted is the one that will cost the least.
Proposing massively overdesigned experiments will not net you funding.
jonesdave
4.3 / 5 (11) Jan 08, 2018
This is why more than one detector was planned (and now exist).


And is how they were able to triangulate to the area of the binary neutron star merger, as mentioned above. Two in the U.S. and one in Italy. Having done that, they could point all sorts of instruments at this non-existent (according to Stevepidge) event. And how they could confirm, for instance, the creation of heavy elements through the r-process. As predicted.
Merrit
1 / 5 (4) Jan 08, 2018
@Jones vibrations from sound waves is direct. That is why they can't travel through the vacuum. Observing electromagnetic radiation with telescopes is also direct. But, these detectors are not direct. You would need something similar to how they measure the gravitational constant to measure it directly, but this indirect method is better. It is indirect because it is a two step process. The definition of indirect.

@antialais you are right. I was being more theoretical rather than practical. Having multiple detectors is a plus, but having one with XYZ would still be nice if feasible. The gravitational waves travel the universe as expanding spheres so that by the time it reaches us it can be thought as planes passing through the earth. With only two arms you can get bad angles for detection.
jonesdave
3.8 / 5 (10) Jan 08, 2018
@Jones vibrations from sound waves is direct. That is why they can't travel through the vacuum. Observing electromagnetic radiation with telescopes is also direct. But, these detectors are not direct. You would need something similar to how they measure the gravitational constant to measure it directly, but this indirect method is better. It is indirect because it is a two step process. The definition of indirect.


I quote:
The era of gravitational wave (GW) astronomy began on 2015 September 14 when the Advanced Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory (LIGO) made **the first direct detection of gravitational waves**, resulting from the merger of a stellar mass binary black hole (BBH; GW150914; Abbott et al. 2016b).


THE ELECTROMAGNETIC COUNTERPART OF THE BINARY NEUTRON STAR MERGER LIGO/VIRGO GW170817.
II. UV, OPTICAL, AND NEAR-IR LIGHT CURVES AND COMPARISON TO KILONOVA MODELS
Cowperthwaite, P. S. et al.
https://arxiv.org...5840.pdf
Benni
2.1 / 5 (11) Jan 08, 2018
@antialias_physorg

The rest of your post is just random words strung together. You should really see a doctor. You have some serious mental issue.


antialias_physorg.............and EVERY post of yours above this one is simply YOU on one name calling rant after another.............So maybe you can tell us why your name calling binges are a more worthwhile read than somebody else's random thoughts on the focus of the article? I guess we can only conclude it's simply because you know so little about the topic under discussion. Grow up, learn to become an adult.

Merrit
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 09, 2018
@jones the article is wrong. Maybe you should look up direct and indirect online. The are inferring the existence of gravity waves based on perturbations on the time it takes light to travel the difference arms. They perform a calculation and then use that data to infer the gravity waves. This is the definition of indirect. That is why some scientists were questioning what is really being observed.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (11) Jan 09, 2018
@jones the article is wrong. Maybe you should look up direct and indirect online. The are inferring the existence of gravity waves based on perturbations on the time it takes light to travel the difference arms. They perform a calculation and then use that data to infer the gravity waves. This is the definition of indirect. That is why some scientists were questioning what is really being observed.


It wasn't an article; it was a peer reviewed scientific paper.
I further quote:

Conclusions and outlook

The first*** direct detection of gravitational waves*** and the first observation of a binary black hole merger are remarkable achievements, but they represent only the first page of an exciting new chapter in astronomy.


From LIGO themselves.
https://www.ligo....W150914/
Stevepidge
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 09, 2018


From LIGO themselves.
https://www.ligo....W150914/


No Jonesdave, No.

"When a gravitational wave passes by, the stretching and squashing of space causes the arms of the interferometer alternately to lengthen and shrink, one getting longer while the other gets shorter and then vice-versa."

They are INFERRING that a gravitational "wave" is causing an interferometer to lengthen and shrink. Even the tolerances observed are incredibly infinitesimal. These "observations" may as well be pixie wings beating between the two arms lol.
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 09, 2018
These "observations" may as well be pixie wings beating between the two arms lol.

Since the are:
a) predicted
b) observed at several LIGO sites

...I'm pretty sure you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about (and probably not even how much of a sign saying "no education and no interest in getting one" you're pinning on yourself by your posts)
Ojorf
3.3 / 5 (12) Jan 09, 2018
"The direct detection of gravitational waves from at least five sources during the past two years offers spectacular confirmation of Einstein's model of gravity and space-time."

Direct detection? That's funny.


And we are all blind, since we can't see anything directly, we only see the light bouncing off it.
Benni
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 09, 2018
...I'm pretty sure you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about (and probably not even how much of a sign saying "no education and no interest in getting one" you're pinning on yourself by your posts)


.......and look who it is running his mouth about other people's knowledge about anything, it's the sum total of everything you post, and the really sad thing about it is that you vainly imagine that's why you think you're so smart........Yeah, only the smart guys send a resume to Stumpy thinking that's what gives them instant credibility to post Comments in this forum. Hey did he offer you a job, or are you still living in mommy's basement ? With Stumpy?
baudrunner
1 / 5 (8) Jan 09, 2018
Gravitational waves don't exist - they detected shock waves - and to infer in the slightest that "they" ever had anything to do with how gold was created is just absurd. The more pseudo-scientific this kind of baffle-gab gets, the more respect it seems to earn them, and the more "science funding" - read: money laundering - they absorb to feed the self-importance that bloats their megalomania, when in fact these filthy little hair baby mobster runts don't know their asses from a hole in the ground. They'll ask you if you know calculus, but they can't demonstrate for the life of them that they do. Frauds, the bloody lot of them.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (6) Jan 09, 2018
The really important thing to understand here is that we now have three different ways of checking the age of the universe and they all agree with one another.

As we gather more events we will get smaller and smaller error bars. That won't shut the #physicscranks up, but normal people will understand it well enough.
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (1) Jan 10, 2018
Delightfully amused by the sympathetic ingenuity of the pro and anti "main stream science", concerning a phenomenon that we experience every day (gravity). My question: how come nobody in this discussion have some basic understanding of the technology involved... The detection of gravitational waves is done with test masses (they are the real sensors) free falling object are instantly affected by gravity (or in the case of LIGO test masses in quasi free fall). The laser beam is just part of the measuring tool stop being baffled by it. the is no voodoo involved.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Jan 10, 2018
@Techno, there are some people around here who know how all this works. You should be more wary in making blanket statements. The use of test masses has been known since the nineteenth century and laser interferometer metrology has been in use since the 1980s.
Merrit
1 / 5 (2) Jan 10, 2018
Why not just make an earth based one magnetically levitated inside a vacuum chamber? Obviously wouldn't be able to make it nearly as big as LIGO, but you would eliminate all noise besides something like neutrinos.
jonesdave
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 10, 2018


From LIGO themselves.
https://www.ligo....W150914/


No Jonesdave, No.

"When a gravitational wave passes by, the stretching and squashing of space causes the arms of the interferometer alternately to lengthen and shrink, one getting longer while the other gets shorter and then vice-versa."

They are INFERRING that a gravitational "wave" is causing an interferometer to lengthen and shrink. Even the tolerances observed are incredibly infinitesimal. These "observations" may as well be pixie wings beating between the two arms lol.


Yes, idiot, yes. Wake up and smell the coffee, and climb out of your Dunning-Kruger inspired stupor. All this was as predicted before we had even detected GWs. As was the fact that neutron star mergers would cause them. What did they see when they triangulated on the last one? A BNS merger, with the predicted r-process heavy elements. Read the papers. And weep. And stop listening to dumb pseudoscientists.
Zzzzzzzz
5 / 5 (6) Jan 10, 2018
@Jones vibrations from sound waves is direct. That is why they can't travel through the vacuum. Observing electromagnetic radiation with telescopes is also direct. But, these detectors are not direct. You would need something similar to how they measure the gravitational constant to measure it directly, but this indirect method is better. It is indirect because it is a two step process. The definition of indirect.


At least as direct as any sound you hear with your ears, or anything you see with your eyes. Shallow thinking is almost always misleading.....
Merrit
5 / 5 (1) Jan 10, 2018
@zzz direct vs indirect while very simple is apparently misunderstood by many people including you. It has nothing to do with your brain receiving signals. You are right that everything that reaches your brain was an indirect process though.

Direct observations are things like measuring the length of an object with a ruler.

Indirect would be something like inferring dark matter through gravitational lensing or looking at rotation curves. Dark matter has yet to be observed directly. Scientists don't even know what it is yet
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Jan 10, 2018
The argument 'direct' vs 'indirect' is pointless. What you can measure is real. Period. It doesn't matter how you measure it.

It can be that you misinterpret a measurement, but that's why scientific theories make a prediction *before* they go to experiment and don't try to fit the theory to the observation in retrospect

(Yes: theories are adapted to fit new findings, but these adaptations must make *new* predictions that are then tested. Only then do these adaptations count as verified)
TechnoCreed
not rated yet Jan 10, 2018
@Merrit. I do not know you good enough to have an objective opinion about you. But I can easily say, without any doubt, that you are basically clueless about gravitational wave detection. The detection is not inferred like you suggest but direct.
Merrit
not rated yet Jan 10, 2018
@antialias direct vs indirect does matter because direct is much more credible. With our current understanding of science GW is the most plausible explanation especially for the ones where we have direct observations to go with it.

In the future, however, we may find relatively incomplete and a new theory may have an alternative explanation for gravity and what we are measuring might be actually something else. Very unlikely.

The point is it isn't 100% certain.

My biggest issue is the amount of noise these detectors pick up. Some of the GW without observational backup could be false positives, possibly something like turbulence deep in the earth's core. Also, the more likely scenario is that we are missing GW detections due to them being hidden in the noise even when compared to other detectors.
TechnoCreed
not rated yet Jan 10, 2018
@Da Schneib, @antialias (anti who reacted in in favor of DS) and Zzzzzzzz (who is just tickeled by my comment), I have high regards for your contribution to Physorg. But there is one thing that you would have dismissed right away if you would have had a good understanding of aLIGO; it cannot have a 3D design. Gravitational wave antennas must be set perpendicular to a gravitational axis; for earth based GWAs it is geocentric for LISA it will be heliocentric http://spie.org/I...fig1.jpg . The only way to have information on the "Z" axis is to place another GWA around this gravitational axis. Example aLIGO and aVIRGO.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 10, 2018
Gravitational waves don't exist - they detected shock waves.


Lol. Perhaps you could explain what type of shock waves travel at light speed? And where did these 'shock waves' come from? Given that they looked at the area of the sky from which the signal came, and already know the answer, then the latter is a rhetorical question.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Jan 10, 2018
My biggest issue is the amount of noise these detectors pick up. Some of the GW without observational backup could be false positives, possibly something like turbulence deep in the earth's core. Also, the more likely scenario is that we are missing GW detections due to them being hidden in the noise even when compared to other detectors.


This is well and truly considered and ruled out. The last signal was detected at three different sites. All the others, iirc, were at two. Mimicking the delay between 2 or 3 different detectors, thousands of kms apart, due to earthquakes, or a big truck going by, is extremely unlikely, and can be ruled out with very high confidence.

antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Jan 10, 2018
direct vs indirect does matter because direct is much more credible.

By what rationale? If the information content is the same then an indirect measurement is absolutely equivalent to a direct one. It would make no sense otherwise.

The point is it isn't 100% certain.

Nothing is 100% certain. We might be brains in a jar or everything we ever experienced might be by total random chance and just look 'logical' by the most freakish of coincidences.

If the measurement goes beyond the set probability for 'accepted' then that's it. That's why the relevant alpha values were chosen in the various disciplines. You can't pick-and-choose which value of confidence you belive in one measurement vs another just because you like measuring appartus A more than measuring appartus B. That'd be unscientific (simply put: It'd be biased)
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Jan 10, 2018
it cannot have a 3D design

Of course it can (and having 2 or more LIGOs is effectively the same as having a 3D one - as long as they're not co-planar)

You just don't get a blip in the difference signal between a pair of the legs if the wave comes from the directly perpendicular direction. But that's very unlikely. So in a 3D setup (which is just way more expensive than 2D setups - but not inherently wrong) you would likely get signals in all pairs.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Jan 10, 2018
The point is, measuring gravitational waves with a test mass *is* direct measurement. The lasers, as @Techno correctly pointed out, are only for measuring what the test mass *does*.
Merrit
not rated yet Jan 10, 2018
@da schneib it isn't just about the test mass. The arms wouldn't need to be 4km long if only the test mass mattered. They measure changes in the length of arms too.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Jan 11, 2018
Well, technically you can look at it either way, @Merrit. It all depends on what frame of reference you choose to describe it in.
TechnoCreed
not rated yet Jan 11, 2018
@Da Schneib
I would like to express my gratitude for giving me this proud moment. Helping somebody take a little step forward have always been fulfilling to me.

On this, let me give you another key hint to understand the detection and measurement of gravitational waves. The second FAQ on this page tells a lot: https://www.ligo....page/faq

Keep up the good work, long live science outreach.
milnik
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 14, 2018
Today's science has nothing to do with the meaning of verbs: LEARN. Unfortunately, science does not even know what gravity is, how it arises, and who is causing it in the universe. What Einstein put out as an "anti scientific pesticide". not only is it a contaminating means of awareness that should lead us to the realization of the true causes of the phenomenon in the universe, but it is also the idiotic way of deterring people from their main entity of existence, which is our own, and also the universe SPIRITUAL ENTITY OF THE UNIVERSE (SEU). Whoever does not believe in this, lives only with an instinct and a little intellect, and consciousness is near zero.
Today's scientists in this field have sank so much into the "dark" area by the way their brains are in that darkness, and everything else is seen and conceived as dark.
milnik
3 / 5 (4) Jan 14, 2018
Their images of the existence of something of which everything is formed in the universe are some dark matter, energy, fabrications such as: BB, the spread of the universe, the black hole collision, gravitational waves, and so on.
In scientific "evidence" there is a lot of unnatural, illogical and fictitious.
First, if one does not know what gravity is, how does it arise, how can one claim that there are GVs? If one does not understand what is the "scientific empty space," how one can understand and explain the movement of light, and especially what science does not know what a photon is and how it forms and moves through that "empty" space.
How can two black holes collide, if they are in the center of hundreds of billions of stars? This can only be claimed by scientific idiots, or those who deliberately make it out of their interest.
milnik
3 / 5 (4) Jan 14, 2018
Science does not know at all what the matter is formed and how it all originates, and especially there is no idea about the sequence of the mass formation process going from subatomic particles to the clusters of the galaxies. In addition, it is a stutter that science has no insight into the real movement of the celestial bodies and their paths, and therefore invented stupid theories.
milnik
3 / 5 (4) Jan 14, 2018
And you all here, remember: THE UNIVERSE IS A SFERA OF A FIXED RADIUS, FILLED BY AETHER SUBSTANCE, OF WHICH MATERIAL IS FORMATED.
MAGNETISM IGRAVITATION ARE BECAUSE OF THE ABSENCE OF MATERIAL AND AETHER. Without Aether there is no movement, no phenomenon of photons, various waves. If one understands the existence of Aether, then everything will be clarified about the properties of light. Then the scientists will not be so stupid that they want to find out how old the universe is, and many do not even know when their grandfather or grandfather was born.
jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (7) Jan 14, 2018
^^^^^^^ Aaaaaaaaand we have another loon to join the party! Lol, where do they all come from? Aether! Dear me.
milnik
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 14, 2018
@jonesdave,
I see that you are astounded by something that has never existed in you, because you do not possess what opens up aspects that enable you to know the true causes of the phenomenon. We are all formed by Aether, but many are drugged with some fatamagers from stupid and non-spiritual and unnatural theories. Most of you invented something and want to prove that this is his discovery of an event in the universe. Who are such people? Are they human beings and / or natural surrogates?
If you want to find out what AETHER is, invite me and you'll see how contaminated with stupid theories.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) Jan 14, 2018
@jonesdave,
I see that you are astounded by something that has never existed in you, because you do not possess what opens up aspects that enable you to know the true causes of the phenomenon. We are all formed by Aether, but many are drugged with some fatamagers from stupid and non-spiritual and unnatural theories. Most of you invented something and want to prove that this is his discovery of an event in the universe. Who are such people? Are they human beings and / or natural surrogates?
If you want to find out what AETHER is, invite me and you'll see how contaminated with stupid theories.


Michelson-Morley, and others since. Newsflash, woo boy - there is no aether. Get over it.
milnik
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 14, 2018
Michelson-Morley,
they worked on something that they did not know what it was all about. They thought it was something that was like matter and that prompted the planets to move slower or faster.
Today, science does not recognize the existence of Aether because gentle things form matter, but the violence wants to introduce the existence of some dark matter or dark energy. Let science change these two and then there will be AETHER. And I will prove how he behaves. You stay with MM, it's easier for you.
tonyon
not rated yet Jan 22, 2018
3d bioprinting = Immortality fly me to the stars
tonyon
not rated yet Jan 22, 2018
(3b)...interstellar travel (thousands G of constant acceleration)... How the Nature repeats successful designs...and there are some substances that rotate the plane of polarization of light, then perhaps... Electromagnetic Force: in magnetic substances the supposed photons Gravitational Cords...e.g. braided to the right: same Pole repulsion, and braided to the left: same Pole repulsion. Pole braided to the right against Pole braided to the left: attraction... Gravitational Force: perhaps could be something similar but inverse...e.g. photons Gravitational Cords braided dextrorotatory: from Matter...and braided levorotatory: from Antimatter... Gravity: matter/matter, attraction. Antigravity: antimatter/antimatter, attraction... Matter/Antimatter, repulsion... Electromagnetic and Gravitational Forces supposedly joined them...
tonyon
not rated yet Feb 23, 2018
theory relativity, NO.Do some; mass increases with velocity, No. Do some; "ship time relativistic", NO. DO some; time increases with velocity, NO. Do some; light speed impossible to reach, NO. Do some; gravity a relativistic "curvature" of that "space-time", No.Do some; motor "Warp", NO. do some. Time will put everyone in their place. The theory of relativity is a Monumental Hoax. And now they can continue with the relativistic Tales "the Lorentz factor" and Co, that already minus remains, 1000 years?

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.