Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

Plasma and electricity in space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Mon Mar 27, 2017 9:25 pm

http://www.etwebsite.com/ligo/Evidence% ... 20v1.1.pdf

Abstract:
On February 11th 2016 the LIGO Scientific Collaboration announced the discovery of gravitational waves. Their announcement has been met with a great deal of excitement and enthusiasm by the scientific community. However, a careful and detailed analysis of the published papers, and other internal LIGO documents, reveal critical scientific methodology problems and unresolved questions surrounding the published materials which tend to undermine the veracity of the discovery claim and which could suggest a pattern of confirmation bias. For instance, the sigma calculation that is provided by LIGO does not provide any statistical assessment as to the likelihood that gravitational waves are the specific source of this signal. The published papers report that no data quality vetoes were active within an hour of the signal, but this account of events conflicts with other internal LIGO documents. The wave form, frequency range and duration of GW150914 are remarkably similar to common blip transient events which are routinely observed by both LIGO detectors. The exclusion of a blip transient as the probable cause of GW150914 is based upon a questionable assumption when considering the significant sensitivity upgrades that had just been completed prior to engineering run eight (ER8). The lack of any visual or neutrino confirmation of a celestial event at the time of the signal offers the LIGO Scientific Collaboration a viable elimination method related to their own gravitational wave claims which must be implemented in this case and all future claims of gravitational wave discovery to avoid any possibility of confirmation bias.


It took me awhile to figure out the various problems with the LIGO gravity wave claims, but I did sit down and organize my criticisms and my arguments in a pretty logical and concise manner in the PDF.

FYI, I did in fact shop this paper (or a similar variant) around to the mainstream publications a bit to solicit some feedback. Suffice to say it's way too controversial to print in it's current form, and anything less than it's current form would be a highly weakened argument IMO. I've therefore decided to simply post my criticisms of LIGO's gravity wave discovery claims to the internet for anyone who's interested in reviewing them.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1196
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

Unread postby Electro » Tue Mar 28, 2017 7:09 am

I admire the work you've put into this. But, since black holes don't exist, and that space, like time, is not a "thing" that can be bent or have waves, but a concept, the claim for gravitational waves is a fallacy from the beginning.
User avatar
Electro
 
Posts: 309
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 8:24 pm

Re: Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Tue Mar 28, 2017 10:01 am

Electro wrote:I admire the work you've put into this. But, since black holes don't exist, and that space, like time, is not a "thing" that can be bent or have waves, but a concept, the claim for gravitational waves is a fallacy from the beginning.


Be that as it may, even if you give them the benefit of the doubt with respect to the existence of gravitational waves, and the existence of 'black holes' as a potential emitter of such waves, there's still no evidence that the signal in question has anything to do with a gravitational wave.

If they had used the very same 'process of elimination" method on their own claim that they had used with respect to every other potential source of that signal, they should have eliminated the gravitational wave option since they found zero external support for that claim. In every other case, they *eliminated* something from consideration based on a lack of external corroboration, but in the single instance of a gravitational wave claim, they simply removed the need for external corroboration entirely. For instance, if they saw no ground motion from external hardware sensors, they eliminated ground motion as the potential cause of the signal. If they saw no EM field spikes in external hardware, they eliminated that option as well. In the case of the gravitational wave claim, they made a concerted effort to visually confirm a celestial link, and they couldn't find one. If they'd followed the same methods consistently, they should also have eliminated their own claim as to cause, and the cause of the signal should have been labelled "unknown".

Their scientific methodology is seriously flawed even *if* everything worked exactly as they expected.

FYI, you'll also note that I documented the fact that the LIGO team has a conflicted set of accounts surrounding their "data quality veto" of that specific signal.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1196
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Tue Mar 28, 2017 12:02 pm

FYI, the various skeptical rebuttals that I've read with respect to LIGO's claim of the discovery of gravitational waves fall into three general categories:

1. The LIGO technology doesn't work as advertised/gravitational waves do not exist.
2. Some other cause better explains the signal(s).
3. The methodology that was used by LIGO was seriously flawed in specific ways.

My paper falls into the last category. For purposes of my critique of the LIGO claim and papers, I simply take for granted that GR theory is valid, and I assume that gravitational waves exist. I furthermore presume that gravitational waves could be produced by merging black holes. In every way possible I gave the LIGO team the benefit of the doubt with respect to their technology, and with respect to their theories related to gravitational waves. I focused specifically and exclusively upon the LIGO team *methodology* and/or the consistency of their statements.

Of course Einstein himself wasn't 100 percent certain that gravitational waves exist, and he rejected the concept of infinitely dense objects (black holes). I didn't even *question* those assumptions with respect to my critique of *their actual published work*, as it's written, and the methodology that was implemented in their study.

My paper does *not* attempt to address the scientific legitimacy of GR theory, the existence of gravitational waves, or the LIGO technology in general. It's simply a cold, hard, skeptical review of the various LIGO papers, claims, and LIGO materials and a skeptical critique of their methods. I do not attempt to question GR theory, nor question the foundation of the LIGO technology, nor question the possibility that LIGO might one day really "discover" gravitational waves. I simply focused on their methods and their statements.

Of the various LIGO papers that I cited in my reference list, specifically the 2nd cited paper on my list is a scientific piece of junk with respect to poor methodology. Their sigma number they came up with is virtually meaningless. It's entirely unrelated to the likelihood of the signal being specifically related to gravitational waves. By itself, that sigma calculation doesn't even calculate the likelihood that the signal is not caused by environmental factors either. Their "peer reviewed" story doesn't jive with LIGO magazine accounts as to whether or not the signal in question was originally "vetoed". They have no explanation for 'blip transients' which are routinely seen by both detectors. Worse yet, they used a "process of elimination" method that was skewed in their favor because they didn't apply the same process of elimination mechanism to their own claim.

It could very well be true that GR theory is correct, that gravitational waves exist, and that LIGO technology operates exactly as advertised, but it's definitely not true that the LIGO scientific collaboration found evidence of gravitational waves.

All LIGO demonstrated is strong evidence of their *extreme* case of confirmation bias in its most blatant form.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1196
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Thu Mar 30, 2017 12:09 pm

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... p?t=316580

Selfsim:

And ... dare I revive JT's thread with Mr Mozina's latest rant from 'the house of all things electric'?

This time, he's actually written up his gripes and decided to:

"shop this paper (or a similar variant) around to the mainstream publications a bit to solicit some feedback"


Apart from regurgitating the same nonsense from our marathon CRUS/CFs thread, he appears to be totally oblivious that LIGO also found a second Gravitational Wave a few months after the initial discovery.

(One would think, following his initial meaningless campaign, that at least he would move on ... just a little(?) .. and attempt to demonstrate how his accusations might pertain to the second discovery as well?)


Did you even bother to read the paper? The biggest "problem" in their paper is related to *methodology* and blatant confirmation bias.

In every other instance, a potential 'cause' of the signal was rejected if there was no external corroboration for that claim. If there was no blatant ground movement in external detectors during the time of the event, they excluded that from consideration. If there were no EM field measurements made during the signal time in question observed in external detectors, they pretended to eliminate EM field effects from being the cause of the signal.

When however they got to their *own* claim of it being a celestial signal, they found *zero* visual confirmation of that claim too. If they had followed the same process of elimination methods *consistently*, they would have rejected their own claim too, and the signal should have been categorized as "unknown". Instead they simply removed any requirement for external corroboration/rejection of their own claim. That is pure confirmation bias on a stick!

There were no visual or neutrino confirmation of *any* gravitational wave claim, not the first one, or the second one either, or anything else you folks hope to dream up in your fantasy universe.

We didn't even discuss your fuzzy sigma problems, or your blatant confirmation bias problems at CRUS, because I had not figured them out yet, but you're welcome to discuss those problems now that I've pointed out those problems. I started a new thread there on this topic too:

https://www.christianforums.com/threads ... s.7999018/

You guys have a serious credibility problem these days. All of your 'discoveries' of invisible stuff have been *destroyed* by later evidence. Larger SN!A studies push your dark energy thingy into the three or four sigma category, and it falls *short* of being a discovery these days. Ooops?

Your dark matter claim has been a complete *disaster* too for more than a decade.

This whole gravitational wave claim *reeks* of desperation and confirmation bias. You need any type of 'victory', even if it means lying about the original veto of this very same signal. That's not just sad, that's down right pathetic and highly unethical.

When (if ever) might I hope to see a *visual* confirmation of any celestial origin claim? When will I get a straight answer as to why the original signal was vetoed with 'high confidence' in the first place?

And by the way......

Since I fully embrace GR theory, and even the concept of discovering gravitational waves, you can't even accuse me of treating you unfairly in any way. I gave you *every possible* benefit of the doubt, and yet your claims don't hold water. Even if gravitational waves exist, you have no evidence to support your claim that the two signals in question have anything at all to do with gravitational waves.

Somewhere in my reading I came across an evaluation of the signal that was done by another outside group. They used background filter overlays to show the wave form pattern of the background noise from the US power grid (and harmonics) during the time around the event. When they looked at the wave form pattern of the signal(s?) in question, it turns out they lined up perfectly with that background noise. That wouldn't happen so perfectly had the signal actually been celestial in origin rather than something related to the US power grid. There would be no logical reason for the waveform of the background to rise and fall in exactly the same waveform pattern if they weren't related. We would have expected the waves (plural) to rise and fall separate from the background if it was related to gravity waves. I'll see if I can find that link for you. It was actually the best "analysis" that I've seen done on that signal, and I think they correctly verified a link between the US power grid and both of your "signals" as I recall. I'll go find it for you.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1196
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Thu Mar 30, 2017 12:25 pm

Here you go:

http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInfor ... erID=71246

Face it. *Without* any visual or neutrino confirmation of your claim about these signals being celestial in origin, you're *guessing* about the real cause of the signal. You haven't got any real evidence that the signals in question are related to celestial events. They look to be *power grid related* events.

I originally figured that the signal was a whistler wave in the magnetosphere, but after reading their paper, I'd be inclined to agree with them that it's probably a power grid related phenomenon. That's even closer to home than my original idea, and the filters show there is a correlation between them.

Of course that paper attacks the whole LIGO technology and the whole concept of gravitational waves, so it's even more "skeptical" of your claims than I am.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1196
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Thu Mar 30, 2017 2:42 pm

Power grid? Good candidate.
I already found the frequency very problematic, because almost anything is in that frequency range.
A slight phase change in the power-grid can indeed cause some "chirps" of 30Hz.

We have seen that before with the Microwave ovens causing mysterious radio signals.
There was a solar storm around that time, and that usually causes some grid failures.
Imagine if all this money would have been spent on upgrading the grid instead.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 700
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

Unread postby Higgsy » Thu Mar 30, 2017 4:43 pm

Michael Mozina wrote:Here you go:

http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInfor ... erID=71246

Face it. *Without* any visual or neutrino confirmation of your claim about these signals being celestial in origin, you're *guessing* about the real cause of the signal. You haven't got any real evidence that the signals in question are related to celestial events. They look to be *power grid related* events.

I originally figured that the signal was a whistler wave in the magnetosphere, but after reading their paper, I'd be inclined to agree with them that it's probably a power grid related phenomenon. That's even closer to home than my original idea, and the filters show there is a correlation between them.

Of course that paper attacks the whole LIGO technology and the whole concept of gravitational waves, so it's even more "skeptical" of your claims than I am.

Michael, why don't you publish your paper on LIGO in the Journal of Modern Physics? I can guarantee that it will pass peer review and you'll only have to pay a publication fee of $1199. Maybe if that's too much for you, all your colleagues on the Thunderbolts forum will club together and help out. That way, the LIGO collaboration will be exposed as the frauds that they really are.

But, before you go this route, you should be aware that the Journal of Modern Physics is a SCIRP journal, and SCIRP is a predatory publisher. That means that SCIRP don't care what they publish so long as they get their fee. A sort of vanity publishing house. It also means that papers published in SCIRP journals aren't worth the paper they are written on. It also means that papers published in SCIRP journals have zero impact and will be completely ignored. Probably not a good expenditure of $1199 after all. Probably not worth even $11.99.
Higgsy
 
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 3:32 pm

Re: Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Thu Mar 30, 2017 10:10 pm

Higgsy wrote:Michael, why don't you publish your paper on LIGO in the Journal of Modern Physics? I can guarantee that it will pass peer review and you'll only have to pay a publication fee of $1199. Maybe if that's too much for you, all your colleagues on the Thunderbolts forum will club together and help out.


Publication money wasn't the key issue since I offered more than twice that figure to Classical and Quantum Gravity to publish my rebuttal. I offered to publish my response using their "gold standard" just like the original paper so that I could reference the paper in public and people could access it for free that way. CAQG's response seemed to imply that they were open to publishing part of my criticism but they wanted me to chop my response in half. They really only wanted to publish the first half of my paper without any reference to the blatant confirmation bias problem. APJ Letters wouldn't touch my paper with a ten foot pole. They claimed they don't even publish rebuttals to their published papers, although they happily published the original "discovery" paper. In short, I got to experience the mainstream publishing bias up close and personal last month. Their response was pretty predictable. I've never really seen the point of self publishing so I opted to simply put the PDF file online.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1196
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Thu Mar 30, 2017 10:16 pm

Zyxzevn wrote:Power grid? Good candidate.
I already found the frequency very problematic, because almost anything is in that frequency range.
A slight phase change in the power-grid can indeed cause some "chirps" of 30Hz.

We have seen that before with the Microwave ovens causing mysterious radio signals.
There was a solar storm around that time, and that usually causes some grid failures.
Imagine if all this money would have been spent on upgrading the grid instead.


Ya, I hear you.

Originally I suspected the the event in question was related to a discharge in the Earth's atmosphere, but after reading their paper and analyzing their methods, I'm included to agree with their assessment as to the likely cause of the signals.

It would be very interesting to find out what actually triggered the original veto of the first signal. I suspect the LIGO team already knew that there were serious technical "complications" with that signal which is why they misrepresented the events of that day in their published paper. They never even mentioned the original veto in their published papers. In fact they erroneously and falsely claimed that *no* data quality vetoes took place within an hour of the event. That's the first time I've ever seen the accounts of a published paper conflict with other written accounts of the same event. Something caused LIGO to intentionally misrepresent that original veto, and caused them to hide that "high confidence" veto information from the public and from the peer reviewers of their paper. Was it fear? Public pressure for tangible results after spending billions with a B?
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1196
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Has LIGO painted themselves into a corner?

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Mon Apr 03, 2017 9:22 am

I'm curious to find out if LIGO will ever produce a "signal" that has any sort of visual confirmation, or if they're already quite aware of the fact that they painted themselves into a corner?

With three LIGO detectors online, it's going to be a lot harder to ignore "local' events (like power system events) that happen to trigger two detectors at once, but not all three. It's also going to be pretty damn obvious if they can triangulate the signal to a small area of the sky that nothing happened there during the timeline in question.

So far it's been more than a year and they've been unable to show any correlation between their claims and any sort of observed celestial event. I don't see that getting any better anytime soon.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1196
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Mon Apr 03, 2017 11:40 am

Selfsim:

Yeah, no. Nobody is in a position to refuse to let people debate scientific theories.


Boloney. You folks refuse to let people debate scientific theories routinely in fact. Just this weekend one of the moderators removed my post about this topic over at Physics Forums. Your "editors" of APJ Letters also act like demi-gods when comes to refusing to even allow for a rebuttal to their published paper. How does one even try to refute a paper they "peer reviewed" if they don't allow for rebuttals?

General relativity was widely debated. You just don't like the outcome of that debate: the widespread realization that general relativity is by far the most accurate theory for gravity that we have.


Maybe, but even GR wasn't an instant sell. It took you guys 60 years to admit that Birkeland was right about aurora.

That, plus its multiple successful tests.


What "successful tests" are there for LCDM even if there are tests that support GR? You struck out 100 percent of the time with dark matter, and the last "test" of your dark energy claims put the whole concept at roughly 3 sigma at best case, *assuming* that no inelastic scattering takes place *at all* in space. Your inflation deity has hemispheric variations that *defy* Pope Guth's claims about homogeneity at the largest scales. What "successful tests" are even left standing in LCMD?

Your objections are purely subjective. General relativity is 100% scientific. It makes quantifiable, testable predictions. And it passes all those tests. That is as much as we can ever ask of any scientific theory. Your own objections are pseudoscientific mumbo-jumbo.


Even if GR theory itself is 100 percent scientific and "testable", LCDM theory is definitely not. LCDM "predictions" mean absolutely nothing *unless* they happen to work in your favor, and *only* if they happen to work in your favor. Every failed "test" is utterly ignored, most notably every failed "test" of "dark matter" over the past decade.

Granted, GR theory itself isn't the problem IMO, but the fact you try to ride the coattails of a "blunder" theory disguised as GR theory is a problem.

Arguably, of greater issue in the recent renewed activity on the LIGO GW discoveries, is the publication of this paper:

Was LIGO’s Gravitational Wave Detection a False Alarm? by authors: Policarpo Yōshin Ulianov, Xiaochun Mei, Ping Yu.

The paper makes the following claims, and then sets about 'proving' them. (How this process is in any way indicative of the Scientific Process, completely escapes me). Summarising:

Section2. Theoretical Evidence That LIGO Cannot Detect Gravitational Waves.

2.1 The Michelson Interferometer Cannot Be Used to Detect Gravitational Waves
2.2. The Results of LIGO’s Experiments Go against the Results of Michelson’s Experiments
2.3. The Formula of General Relativity Was Applied in a Wrong Context
2.4. Electromagnetic Interaction Makes LIGO’s Experiments Impossible
2.5. LIGO’s Experiments Do Not Verify the Theory of General Relativity
2.6. No Singularity Black Holes Were Found
2.7. Interferometer’s Arm Length Variation Is a 1000 Times Less than Nuclear Radius
2.8. The Method of Numerical Relativity Is Unreliable


So, after seeing such headings, the question arises:
"Who on Earth would have actually bothered to publish such an obviously flawed paper?"


Yet you really didn't show any flaws in any of the claims on that list, you just alleged flaws with the express intent on bashing on the publication that published them:

The answer turns out to be the subject of an entire Wikipedia entry on "Scientific Research Publishing":

Originally Posted by Wiki
The company has been accused of being a predatory open access publisher and of using email spam to solicit papers for submission. In 2014 there was a mass resignation of the editorial board of one of the company's journals, with the outgoing Editor-in-Chief saying of the publisher "For them it was only about making money. We were simply their 'front'."


Right, and mainstream publications make no money at alll on anything they publish. They publish stuff out of the goodness of their heart, and they have no financial interests at all. Sheeesh.

So much for the credibility of Mr Mozina's new found evidence in support of his accusations of the LIGO team's:
Quote:
.. *extreme* case of confirmation bias in its most blatant form.


The only argument that I found interesting and relevant in that paper was their proposed *source* of the signal. It's substantially *more* likely that they are correct about the real cause of that signal, and that the LIGO team screwed up. The LIGO team even went out of their way to *deny* that any data quality veto even took place! I love how you simply overlook their *huge* lack of ethics just to bash on some random publication.

You can pick on my "credibility' the moment you can actually point out an error in my paper. You can't, and you won't.

It seems this paper and its analysis turns out to be a near-perfect example of Mr Mozina's hollow accusations directed at the LIGO team's work.


You haven't even mentioned a single point that *I personally raised* in my paper. Your response is completely hollow and it's based on pure fear. You have no way to refute anything that I wrote, so you went after another paper, and actually a different *publisher*, you didn't even directly refute the content of the paper that I cited. You didn't show any error in their work either. You just attacked the publisher with innuendo and nonsense.

The paper's (evidently unconcealed) motivation, appears to be for the authors to gain profit, in some way, from their development of a type of data filter ("the Ulianov Whitening Filter with Noise Band-Pass"), which may, or may not be applicable to the LIGO data gathering/detection path:
Originally Posted by Ulianov etal
... the Ulianov Whitening Filter with Noise Band-Pass is a new tool that can be used by the LIGO team to better understand the noise sources in the detectors and can help avoid false detections

If that's not confirming their own confirmation bias, (and a vested interest in the discreditation of LIGO's work), then it would be very surprising.


What? How does anyone "gain" by discrediting LIGO? Exactly how were those authors going to "make money" by paying to get their work published? I don't see anything in their filtering process from that paper which cannot be reproduced by LIGO *without* paying anyone anything. You're just making up this nonsense as you go. It actually *costs money* to be a "skeptic" of mainstream claims because skeptics don't have instant access to the same publishing channels, and they often have to go to much greater lengths (and greater costs) to get their work published at all.

If there was a level playing field, LIGO would be toast by now. The only way you can keep up this pretense about discovering gravitational waves is by controlling the peer review process and limiting the publishing options of critics.

Until this LIGO paper I had *never* even personally read an astronomy paper that contained *false* information, nor have I ever seen such an outrageous example of pure confirmation bias.

In every other potential 'cause' of the signal, LIGO introduced *external* instrumentation to *eliminate* other possible causes if there was no observation to support it. When they got to their own claim however, they *blatantly* ignored the external instruments and telescopes and they utterly ignored their complete lack of evidence to support their claim of a celestial origin of this signal, and they claimed "discovery" anyway! What a bullshit way to do "science". When you folks can't provide evidence ethically and based on consistent methodology, your side just lies and cheats! Like hell there was no data quality veto within an hour of the signal. What a bunch of dishonest bullshit.
Last edited by Michael Mozina on Mon Apr 03, 2017 12:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1196
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

For the record....

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Mon Apr 03, 2017 12:15 pm

I personally embrace GR theory and I'm even optimistic that gravitational waves exist. I gave the LIGO team *every possible* benefit of the doubt with respect to their technology, just as I gave the BICEP2 folks every possible benefit of the doubt with respect to their instrumentation and what those instruments observed.

There's still exactly *zero* evidence to support LIGO's claim that gravitational waves were the real cause of that signal, and there's zero evidence to support their claim that they effectively ruled out other possible environmental factors.

Even their methodology is simply *pathetic* in final analysis because they outright *cheated* as it relates to their own claims! Every other potential cause of the signal was *eliminated* based on a lack of external verification by external hardware, but they gave their own claim a free pass and just changed the process of elimination rules completely.

If they has used their own methods *consistently*, the utter lack of any visual or neutrino confirmation would have eliminated their celestial origin claims of this signal, and we'd have a signal without a defined source, and no "discovery' at all. Only by "gaming the system" could they even make that "discovery" claim, and only by flat out lying about the data quality veto of this exact signal that took place *within 18 seconds*.

This was by *far* the worst scientific paper I've ever read. Period. Some discovery. All we 'discovered" is a complete lack of ethics by the LIGO team. As long as we're questioning the whole money motivation factor, who has the most to gain financially from gaming the system and misrepresenting the facts? LIGO!
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1196
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Wed Apr 05, 2017 9:02 am

FYI, I did email a few individuals at LIGO to get an explanations as to the two different data quality veto descriptions between the published paper, and the LIGO magazine account of events. I'll keep you posted when/if I get a response.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1196
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

Unread postby comingfrom » Wed Apr 05, 2017 4:18 pm

LOL.
Now they probably are detecting real gravitational waves... caused by Michael Mozina.

Waves generated by their own grave errors, and detected in their spinal cords.
But there is no way they will be reporting these new waves.

:D
User avatar
comingfrom
 
Posts: 759
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:11 pm
Location: NSW, Australia

Next

Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests