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

Re: Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

Unread postby Higgsy » Mon Nov 06, 2017 6:10 pm

Cargo wrote:
Higgsy wrote:
Cargo wrote:The nonsense of gravitational collapse and neutron compact objects that create infinite black holes. Only supported by more illogical thoughts of quantum theory and up/down anti-states. All just so they can overcome the inherent electrostatic/magnetic forces that do govern nature. Up next, LIGO detects worm hole opening and alternate universe.
Nothing to see here other than the argument from personal incredulity.


Put your fingers in your ears and go Nah nah Nah nah Nah nah.
So you believe in Black Holes, Big Bangs, Wormholes, and a endless parade of other mathamagical nonsense. And anyone who does not believe in these things must be ignored and shunned lest the House of Gravity Space Time be shown for the true logical fallacy that it is.

Still nothing to see here. The content-free objection continues. No attempt to demonstrate the logical fallacy I see.
Higgsy
 
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 3:32 pm

Re: Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

Unread postby BeAChooser » Mon Nov 06, 2017 7:28 pm

Hey Higgsy ... want to discuss how little you know about helically wound plasma filaments again? :D
BeAChooser
 
Posts: 133
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2015 7:24 pm

Re: Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Mon Nov 06, 2017 11:01 pm

Higgsy wrote:That is utterly ridiculous and stupid on the face of it. No-one in the world would have the slightest idea about the most fundamental aspects of electromagnetic theory and plasma physics without the work of physicists.


You mean physicists like Alfven that wrote MHD theory and claimed adamantly that magnetic reconnection was "pseudoscience", or physicists like Einstein that rejected your black hole models?

And as we have seen, you are disqualified from commenting on electromagnetic theory (you would fail the most basic undergraduate exam in electromagnetic theory)


No, what we have seen is that you cannot and will not stick to the *topics*. Instead you pull the oldest, sleaziest, most deceitful trick in the book by attacking the individual in the most slanderous of ways, using an anonymous handle no less. That's just scummy behavior on a stick.

I already explained to you that I took calculus in high school and in college and physics classes too, but you go ahead and lie about me all you like because that's your *thing*, since you have no real science to offer anyone. All you have is black magic and pseudoscience to offer us and everyone on this website knows it.

You keep saying that, but it is a meaningless mantra, not a conclusion that you can support with reason, because you....


Case in point. Alfven was very qualified Higgsy and he utterly rejected the whole claim as pure pseudoscience and I finally understand why. You folks are utterly clueless about even basic EM field theory. The term is confusing, misleading and it's caused you to actually believe that magnetic lines "disconnect" and "reconnect" and topology lines on a map reconnect and cause earthquakes! What pure nonsense. That whole JREF conversation was very enlightening because none of you pointed out Clinger's *obvious* error! You're all quite clueless about even the most basic aspects of EM field theory. You all seem to believe that magnetic topology lines are magic and they do 'reconnection' tricks in *null* points for crying out loud! Oy Vey.

And if youbhave some vestige of reason left, perhaps you can parse the fact that not all incidences of magnetic reconnection occur in the presence of double layers.


They all take place in current carrying environments, therefore Alfven's double layer paper makes them all obsolete. The sun is *definitely* a charged body with respect to the heliosphere which is why all of Birkeland's predictions were shown to be valid. Every single place in space where the mainstream resorts to pseudoscience, Alfven used circuit theory. Every single place.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m58-CfVrsN4

Birkeland explained the heat source of the solar corona to you over a century ago, and you *still* can't explain it, let alone simulate a full sphere corona in a lab, even with his help! Wow. Talk about pure ignorance of basic physics.

Even your convection predictions were shown to be off by two whole orders of magnitude and you can't explain why so you try to sweep the problem under the rug. Your solar model was falsified by SDO and you have no clue how to fix it.

Uh - a physicist who can actually do physics problems.


Show us one that has an application in solar physics that relies on "reconnection" that can't be replaced with circuit theory and "electrical discharges", or Alfven's double layer paper.

You don't really do real "physics" problems with LCDM or in solar physics. You do *metaphysics* and "pseudoscience" Higgsy. They aren't the same thing as "physics"!
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1255
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Thu Nov 09, 2017 8:48 am

Higgsy wrote:
Zyxzevn wrote:Do you have a link for that?
(of how they actually implemented it in the LIGO.)

https://labcit.ligo.caltech.edu/~ajw/LIGO_SURF02_3.pdf pages 1 -7
https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0110061.pdf
Arxiv1411.4547

Thanks for info. Could not find it before.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 720
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

Unread postby Higgsy » Thu Nov 09, 2017 11:11 am

Michael Mozina wrote:
Higgsy wrote:Yet, there is only one external world. History has shown that common sense is a very poor guide to understanding the physical universe. The Sun goes round the Earth, obviously, right? That's common sense for you.


Not really. The epicycle extensions required to explain the movement of objects in the night sky weren't really logical, nor was the fact that there were observations of a 'north star' that didn't move when all the other stars appeared to move. A sun centric rotation pattern, and a rotating Earth was always at least as logical as any Earth centric concept even without including epicycles to explain planetary motions. Common sense doesn't favor an Earth centric explanation, and it really never has favored an Earth centric explanation. That's not a valid argument to start with.

Your history is as bad as your science. So now you'll explain why the default belief for millenia, of astronomers, mathematicians and lay-people, was that the Universe is geocentric, and it was only when Copernicus and Galileo came along that people began to seriously consider any alternative. And even then, the Copernican world view flew in the face of the common sense notion that the Earth could not be in motion.
Except, except, space-time is the fundamental fabric of General Relativity, and GR has been shown, by observation, to be an extremely accurate predictor of the gravitational interaction of bodies. It's by far the best theory of gravity that we have. You, and others, might think it's nonsensical, but so did the Catholic Church think that the notion that the Earth orbited the Sun was nonsensical.


I'd tend to agree with you that GR itself (without metaphysical extensions) is the best theory of gravity that we have to work with at the moment [much soap boxing snipped here]
Thank you - and since the concept of space-time is essential to the theory of GR (GR cannot do without the concept as it is woven into the most fundamental equations of GR), you are in effect supporting my view that the concept of space-time makes sense in describing gravitational interactions.

But GR and QM aren't fantasies or leaps of faith, but theories that accurately describe the observed universe - very accurately.


Not really. GR accurately describes the movements of the bigger objects in our solar system, but it doesn't even accurately describe the rotation pattern of a single galaxy if we *assume* that your baryonic mass estimates are correct.
Which is why, in addition to working on the Standard Model, there are a lot of smart theoretical physicists working on alternative theories of gravity. Unfortunately, none of them are, as yet, good models for what we observe, both in terms of current orbital mechanics and in the development of the Universe over time. And GR is supported by more than orbital mechanics in the solar system. It makes predictions about the effects of mass energy on time, about gravitomagnetics (frame dragging), about the influence of mass-energy on the propagation of radiation (gravitational lensing) and about gravitational radiation as waves, all of which are met so far.
]No - the solid basis is absolutely there.


Not exactly. You can't even explain solar wind with GR or any theory of gravity alone.
Why, in the name of Beelzebub, would anyone other than a complete idiot, try to explain the solar wind with any theory of gravity alone. I don't know anyone who tries to do that. Do you?

I have also observed that EU/PC proponents propose hypotheses that can be shown, with a few quick calculations, to be impossible.


https://briankoberlein.com/2014/02/25/t ... -universe/

You mean like when Brian Koberlein erroneously claimed that the EU/PC solar model proposed by Jeurgen's/Scott/Thornhill/Talbott was wrong based upon lyin' Brian's fabricated claim that EU/PC theory predicts no neutrinos, and none of you so called "professionals" ever corrected his erroneous crap?
I have no idea what you bleating about. Why do you keep dragging in these irrelvant historical asides.
You mean like when you falsely claim that there's no math to support our theories only because you're too cheap and too lazy to buy and read Peratt's book or Alfven's book?
You don't have any mathematics to support your theories. Zero.
For example, someone proposed up-thread that gravitational waves are not as described by GR, but merely a sudden change in tidal gravity. I encouraged them to do the sums to see if that is possible, and I even offered to help them do the sums, but so far they have refused to do so. Why do you think that is?


Well, for starters because not all of us even agree with that concept in the first place, so why would you expect those of us who don't agree with that claim to bother doing that in the first place? You really need to stop lumping us all together like you do.
But none you ever ever quantify anything. Ever!

I get the feeling that you're not really interested in even trying to look for help where you might find it, nor interested in addressing any of the methodology problems I cited in my OP.
We've discussed your silly claims about "methodology problems" at LIGO before. For the reasons I pointed out then there are utterly worthless and beneath contempt.
Higgsy
 
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 3:32 pm

Re: Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

Unread postby Bengt Nyman » Thu Nov 09, 2017 12:01 pm

The Standard Model and Quantum Physics recognize that the ST-GR model of gravity is not reconcilable and consequently unsatisfactory.
My/our claim is that gravity as well as strong force are the results of Coulomb particle physics.
When this becomes generally accepted, there is little need for space time, and GR is likely to shrink back to the original and basic observations about special relativity.
Meanwhile I suggest that we do this in steps:
1. Recognize particle physics as the CAUSE of gravity.
2. Slowly untangle and update the CONSEQUENCES of gravity, including the opportunity to simplify and clarify what is left of ST and GR.
Bengt Nyman
 
Posts: 494
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:39 pm
Location: USA and Sweden

Re: Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Thu Nov 09, 2017 3:38 pm

Higgsy wrote:Your history is as bad as your science. So now you'll explain why the default belief for millenia, of astronomers, mathematicians and lay-people, was that the Universe is geocentric, and it was only when Copernicus and Galileo came along that people began to seriously consider any alternative. And even then, the Copernican world view flew in the face of the common sense notion that the Earth could not be in motion.


Projection at it's finest.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristarchus_of_Samos

Copernicus? Hell, he was at least 1500 years *late* figuring out that the Earth wasn't the center of the universe! Do you guys even know how to use a search engine? I'm really beginning to doubt it because either you're totally ignorant of these topics, or willfully deceitful, one or the other. Which is it?

The only reason that Aristarchus wasn't taken "seriously" as you put it is probably the same reason you personally still refuse to take Birkeland's work on solar physics "seriously", or Alven's work on circuit theory as it applies to topics of astronomy seriously. Mainstreamers are so stuck in their ego that they can't imagine for one second that they might be wrong. That's the only reason that BB theory is currently the "default" as you put it too! That doesn't mean that our community agrees with you, or that we think your beliefs are based on "common sense". They aren't.

Aristarchus used simple logic and common sense to figure out the Earth wasn't the center of the universe, and "mainstream" folks like you ignorantly rejected his work. That's the only reason he wasn't taken seriously. It had nothing to do with "common sense", anymore than your cosmology beliefs are based on 'common sense".

Thank you - and since the concept of space-time is essential to the theory of GR (GR cannot do without the concept as it is woven into the most fundamental equations of GR), you are in effect supporting my view that the concept of space-time makes sense in describing gravitational interactions.


Ya, GR theory itself seems sensible", but your BS about 'dark energy", "inflation", space expansion and exotic matter have nothing to do with "common sense", even if GR is fine. You're evoking *dark magic* just to stuff them into an otherwise perfectly good physics theory. That's not common sense, that's absurd and outrageous behavior.

Which is why, in addition to working on the Standard Model, there are a lot of smart theoretical physicists working on alternative theories of gravity.


So why condemn our community for doing the same thing? Why can't we revisit and reexamine that topic too without being ridiculed?

Unfortunately, none of them are, as yet, good models for what we observe, both in terms of current orbital mechanics and in the development of the Universe over time.


What "development of the universe"?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... -in-young/

You guys simply sweep all the contradictory evidence right under the rug and repeat the same falsified dogma. Denial seems to be the only way you can keep your nonsense alive too.

And GR is supported by more than orbital mechanics in the solar system. It makes predictions about the effects of mass energy on time, about gravitomagnetics (frame dragging), about the influence of mass-energy on the propagation of radiation (gravitational lensing) and about gravitational radiation as waves, all of which are met so far.


Be that as it may, none of that really explains why your model fails the moment we talk about the rotation patterns of galaxies, in which case either GR fails, or your baryonic mass estimates are a joke. I know it's the later, but you can't claim GR is "right" unless you A) demonstrate your exotic matter deity isn't a figment of your overactive imagination, or better yet, you just admit that you screwed up big time with respect to geustimating the mass of a galaxy.

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chan ... _halo.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... y-Way.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... y-Way.html

Why, in the name of Beelzebub, would anyone other than a complete idiot, try to explain the solar wind with any theory of gravity alone. I don't know anyone who tries to do that. Do you?


Why do you do exactly that with "black holes" and jets around black holes?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... grees.html

Your temperature estimates fail in *epic* fashion as a result of that irrational choice you make.

As it relates to solar wind, I know that you dumb down what is essentially an *electromagnetic* process into just "magnetism" and you use pseudoscience to do so. That's pretty damn idiotic if you ask me, particularly since Birkeland not only predicted solar wind, and explained why the corona is hot, he simulated them in his lab using *electricity*!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m58-CfVrsN4

None of your beliefs are based on "common sense". Mostly they're based on dark magic and pseudoscience in fact.

I have no idea what you bleating about. Why do you keep dragging in these irrelvant historical asides.


They aren't irrelevant. Such BS from so called professionals shows just how ignorant your industry is, and/or how deceitful LCDM proponents are, and how dishonest these debates end up being as a result. No EU/PC solar model predicts "no neutrinos", but not a single mainstream astronomer pointed out that BS to lyin' Brian. You're all either clueless about our models, or you simply don't care to be honest about them, one or the other. Which is it in your case? Do you admit that Koberlein is full of crap with respect to EU/PC solar models predicting our sun to emit "no neutrinos"? Yes or no?

You don't have any mathematics to support your theories. Zero.


This is what I mean by pure dishonesty. BIrkeland provided you with *lots* of math in his book for you to read anytime you choose to read it. So did Alfven, Peratt, Lerner, Bruce, etc. The fact you haven't read it, and you dishonestly claim it doesn't exists simply demonstrates that you're either willfully ignorant or blatantly dishonest. Which is it?

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-a ... &version=1

Have you even bothered to read "Cosmic Plasma" by Alfven or "Physics of the plasma universe" by Peratt?


But none you ever ever quantify anything. Ever!


Lies, lies, lies, ya. Your ignorance isn't my fault, and your statements are simply ridiculously dishonest and/or ignorant. Which is it?

We've discussed your silly claims about "methodology problems" at LIGO before. For the reasons I pointed out then there are utterly worthless and beneath contempt.


In other words, you don't care that they misrepresented the facts when LIGO erroneously claimed in their published paper that there were no vetoes present within an hour of the first signal, when in fact that exact signal was vetoed within 18 seconds of it being uploaded to the gracedb database. Honestly was never your industry's strong suit apparently.

Yep, this conversation is about what I expected. Your denial problems and integrity problems are obvious. If you can't tell the truth about our theories, why are you even here? If you don't care about the blatant misrepresentation of facts in LIGO papers, who the hell cares what you think about the rest of their work?

I'm more than happy to acknowledge that their *last* paper wasn't plagued by blatant confirmation bias, or the same integrity problem as their first paper, but that was certainly the case with their first four papers. The first one included a blatantly dishonest statement about vetoes.

This conversation is going in circles because you are blatantly misrepresenting the math that has been provided by *many* EU/PC proponents, since as far back as Birkeland himself. Oy Vey.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1255
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Wed Nov 15, 2017 9:51 pm

LIOG's Filter Algorithm keeps on converting noise to "signals"..

GW17060

This time they did not include a proper "signal" graph, but only showed the frequency/time graph.

Image

Then it showed me:
There are 2 lines visible in the graph that are attributed to "signal".
But:
1) It also has a lot of echoes.
So many of them, that I can easily add 10 other "false signals" in the graph.
It looks as if many signals are weaved together, as if there is a wave pattern.
2) There is no actual signal much of the time.
3) The "signals" in 2 LIGO detectors do not really match.
The frequency graphs deviate.
This is not really possible in the model.
4) The Livingston produces an "aftershock" after the "signal".

It appears to me that their method of extracting "signal" is flawed.
The system creates a pattern of chirps and other signals,
probably due to the digital filter and all other systems.

The geometric pattern looks like a side-effect of the Fourier filter,
because it doubles each higher frequency.
It is usually caused by non-linear effects.

But if the noise already has so many chirps, how much of it is error?
How often does it occur?
How close do the "signal" frequencies actually match?
Their Sigma calculation seems like fantasy to me.
And the LIGO system is already producing false positives in this graph.

I think that the 100+ researchers on the paper could be more critical of
the data that they are analysing. But at least they got their degrees now.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 720
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Thu Nov 16, 2017 1:48 am

Zyxzevn wrote:LIOG's Filter Algorithm keeps on converting noise to "signals"..


Apparently LIGO wants us to believe that it is purely a coincidence that all five of these "invisible" events just so happen to look exactly like very ordinary environmental "blip transient" events, and they all just so happen to involve pairs of "uncharged naked black holes" which produce no visible EM counterparts whatsoever, in spite of releasing massive amounts of energy in the form of gravitational waves. They don't even see a gamma ray burst anywhere around the time of these events. Sheesh.

They're 0 for 5 in multimessenger astronomy on these BH-BH merger claims now. Even the way they calculate the error rate is cheesy because they start by removing all the environmental noise they can filter out *before* they fabricate the error rates. They still can't distinguish between ordinary blip transient events and these invisible merger claims. Give me a break.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1255
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

Unread postby Higgsy » Thu Nov 16, 2017 2:54 am

Michael Mozina wrote:
Higgsy wrote:That is utterly ridiculous and stupid on the face of it. No-one in the world would have the slightest idea about the most fundamental aspects of electromagnetic theory and plasma physics without the work of physicists.


You mean physicists like Alfven that wrote MHD theory and claimed adamantly that magnetic reconnection was "pseudoscience", or physicists like Einstein that rejected your black hole models?

You see this is the trouble with you people. You treat the scintists who you choose to worship like holy prophets whose opinions can never be wrong and never be improved on and whose sacred words enshrine the truth forever and ever, amen. You're just doing religion not science.

In science, we look at the body of work of a scientist, and we build on it, and the ultimate arbiter is reality. You know, I don't give two pins for what Alfven believed or what Einstein believed - I only care about whether the theory matches the observations. No physicist claims that Einstein's GR is right beccause Einstein first laid out its foundations - GR is used because so far it matches every observation and test that has been devised.

You seem to think that once Alfven wrote the holy gospel of MHD theory that no-one could ever improve on it, add to it, refine it, modify it, or build other theories to describe related phenomena. Well, that's not how it works. By continuing to treat Alfven and Peratt as holy prophets, you just reinforce the pseudoscientific nature of your arguments and undermine your credibility further.
And as we have seen, you are disqualified from commenting on electromagnetic theory (you would fail the most basic undergraduate exam in electromagnetic theory)


No, what we have seen is that you cannot and will not stick to the *topics*. Instead you pull the oldest, sleaziest, most deceitful trick in the book by attacking the individual in the most slanderous of ways, using an anonymous handle no less. That's just scummy behavior on a stick.
Nah - I am just pointing out the irony of some dude on the internet who has never shown and will never show the slightest skill in elementary calculus and vector algebra criticising professional pysicists for not understanding EM theory. It's rich.

You keep saying that, but it is a meaningless mantra, not a conclusion that you can support with reason, because you....


Case in point. Alfven was very qualified Higgsy and he utterly rejected the whole claim as pure pseudoscience and I finally understand why. You folks are utterly clueless about even basic EM field theory.
There you go. An utterly idiotic and stupid claim. What you are doing is quoting from the Holy Gospel of St Alfven. You're no better than a theologian. If you think you understand any claim of Alfven's and you agree with that claim, you should be able to point out mathematiically exactly what that claim is, why it is right, and mathematically how it conflicts with some specific element of current MHD theory. Otherwise you're just engaged in theological journalism and can be ignored. Oh, wait, you're ignored anyway.
The term is confusing, misleading and it's caused you to actually believe that magnetic lines "disconnect" and "reconnect" and topology lines on a map reconnect and cause earthquakes!
Blatant strawman. Can you point to one single scientific paper where the author(s) claim that? Oh wait again. You won't be able to do that because you are incapable of actually understanding MHD theory.

They all take place in current carrying environments, therefore Alfven's double layer paper makes them all obsolete. The sun is *definitely* a charged body with respect to the heliosphere which is why all of Birkeland's predictions were shown to be valid. Every single place in space where the mainstream resorts to pseudoscience, Alfven used circuit theory. Every single place.
The Holy Gospel of St Alfven. Riiiiiight.

Birkeland explained the heat source of the solar corona to you over a century ago, and you *still* can't explain it, let alone simulate a full sphere corona in a lab, even with his help! Wow. Talk about pure ignorance of basic physics.
No he didn't, and no the full sphere solar corona has never been simulated in a lab, never mind 100 years ago. If you think your little naive discharge experiment in a soft vacuum simulates a full sphere solar corona, then you are abjectly ignorant of the respective conditions in the solar corona and the little terella experiment. Oh, and of basic physics.

Show us one that has an application in solar physics that relies on "reconnection" that can't be replaced with circuit theory and "electrical discharges", or Alfven's double layer paper.
So do it then. Use circuit theory and "electrical discharges", or Alfven's double layer paper to quantitatively explain solar flares. Use all the measured conditions before, during and after the flare and develop the theory. Show that it quantitatively explains what we observe.

I am going to be doing this in the future. Where you make confident claims, you should be able to demonstrate quantitatively that those claims are theoretically and observationally consistent. That's what physicists do. And I predict that you will not respond to a single one of these challenges because you don't have a clue how to actually begin to do physics. You just do religion.
Higgsy
 
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 3:32 pm

Re: Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

Unread postby Webbman » Thu Nov 16, 2017 5:07 am

well I guess your first quantitative analysis should be funding for projects and feel free to identify the people who approve and run the projects as well. Be scientific and be specific. Don't discount any possible influences. Well get to the bottom of this.

once we level the playing field we can see which competing ideas better suit the data, which of course will be more accurate with dramatically increased observations from multiple perspectives.
The secret to the universe is a rubber band.
Webbman
 
Posts: 385
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2014 10:49 am

Re: Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Thu Nov 16, 2017 6:48 am

Higgsy wrote:You see this is the trouble with you people. You treat the scintists who you choose to worship like holy prophets whose opinions can never be wrong and never be improved on and whose sacred words enshrine the truth forever and ever, amen. You're just doing religion not science.


Projection at it's finest. You're a master of that by the way. You're the ones that are peddling metaphysical nonsense under the guise of sacred "science". You blatantly 'rip off" a few math formulas from the guys that wrote these theories while kludging the hell out them with metaphysical trash, and claiming to "know" things about our universe based on your metaphysical garbage. Anyone who dares to look at your theory with skepticism is lied about, bashed on as a person, and basically burned at the public stake. It's your entire profession that runs itself like a bad religion, akin to Scientology, including the militant personal attack crapola.

In science, we look at the body of work of a scientist, and we build on it, and the ultimate arbiter is reality.


You mean like how your beloved mainstream added all those epicycles to your Earth centric belief system and created all those wonderful epicycle mathematical models that 'proved' that the Earth was the center of the universe? You don't really give a rat's backside about "reality" as evidenced by your collective head burying routine over you dark matter fiasco. It's failed every single "test" you've put it to, including 3 times in the past 20 days, and you still cling to exotic forms of 'dark matter' as sacred dogma. Even more telling is the fact that your whole cosmological basis of that claim was based on bad mass estimation techniques that were demonstrated to be *riddled* with numerous flaws. Reality? What do you know about "reality"? You live on "faith" in metaphysical garbage.

You know, I don't give two pins for what Alfven believed or what Einstein believed


You should. They wrote the formulas that you're abusing and they rejected your claims. They certainly understood the math. They certainly understood how that math could be abused and was being abused even during their lifetime and they spoke against that abuse.

- I only care about whether the theory matches the observations.


Your theory doesn't even match observations. It's a disaster the moment we look at high redshift objects. It fails the surface brightness test. It fails to explain "mature" galaxies that should not exist. It can't explain supermassive black holes in the early universe. It can't explain how "dark energy" retains constant density over multiple exponential increases in volume. It can't even explain why the whole thing didn't implode *instantly*. It has failed in the lab more times than I can count with respect to DM. The only observation it seems to "match" requires 95 percent metaphysical nonsense to make it match!

No physicist claims that Einstein's GR is right beccause Einstein first laid out its foundations - GR is used because so far it matches every observation and test that has been devised.


True, but LCDM has failed more tests than it passes. You're constantly trying to ride the coattails of GR theory with your metaphysical *blunder* theory!

You seem to think that once Alfven wrote the holy gospel of MHD theory that no-one could ever improve on it, add to it, refine it, modify it, or build other theories to describe related phenomena.


I don't believe that at all, but I do believe that you people don't even understand the basics of EM field theory after that very revealing conversation at JREF/ISF on the topic of 'magnetic reconnection". Hell, you don't even understand the first thing about EM field theory, let alone MHD theory. You basically have to misrepresent my beliefs and my statement in virtually every single post which shows you how personally desperate you've become, and how unethical you've all become.

Well, that's not how it works. By continuing to treat Alfven and Peratt as holy prophets, you just reinforce the pseudoscientific nature of your arguments and undermine your credibility further.


Have you personally even read their books yet, particularly Peratt's book? Yes or no? Why do you keep dodging and avoiding that direct question? The only one peddling "pseudoscience' around here is you, not us. Our ideas all work in the lab, starting with Birkeland's working simulation of a real corona.

No, what we have seen is that you cannot and will not stick to the *topics*. Instead you pull the oldest, sleaziest, most deceitful trick in the book by attacking the individual in the most slanderous of ways, using an anonymous handle no less. That's just scummy behavior on a stick.
Nah - I am just pointing out the irony of some dude on the internet who has never shown and will never show the slightest skill in elementary calculus and vector algebra criticising professional pysicists for not understanding EM theory. It's rich.


That's actually false, but you don't care. You've got no intellectual integrity and no empirical science to offer anyone, so you bash on the individual and somehow gain comfort in believing yourself to being superior to Alfven and Peratt and Birkeland and everyone else who's ever written about EU/PC theory, and oh ya, me too.

I mostly criticize your lack of professionalism, like I'm seeing from you right now.

There you go. An utterly idiotic and stupid claim. What you are doing is quoting from the Holy Gospel of St Alfven.


Oh no. The utterly idiotic and stupid claim was Clinger claiming to get "magnetic reconnection" in pure vacuum from a *null* point no less, without a single charged particle to his name. That was the completely idiotic statement that drove me into Alfven's camp because I really didn't understand Alfven's position until I saw how truly ignorant you people really are to even *basic EM field theory*! Magnetic lines form as a full continuum, not tiny little "lines". Magnetic lines are a "teaching tool", like topology map lines. They can't "disconnect from", nor reconnect to other magnetic field lines anymore than topology map lines can cause Earthquakes by disconnecting and reconnecting! Not a single one of the so called "professionals" at JREF/ISF set clueless Clinger straight, and nobody has done so to this very day! Who the hell are you trying to kid?

You're no better than a theologian. If you think you understand any claim of Alfven's and you agree with that claim, you should be able to point out mathematiically exactly what that claim is, why it is right, and mathematically how it conflicts with some specific element of current MHD theory.


Been there, done that and even pointed out Clinger missing math formula to express a non-zero rate of "reconnection" in his vacuum contraption. You all ignored it too.

Blatant strawman. Can you point to one single scientific paper where the author(s) claim that? Oh wait again. You won't be able to do that because you are incapable of actually understanding MHD theory.


I can and have pointed out that some papers are mathematically "ok" by me, but they don't work in the lab until and unless you *add electricity*. That's the part you refuse to deal with. It's also why you folks *still* cannot explain something as simple as a solar corona over a hundred years after Birkeland not only explained it, but also simulated it in his lab. You mathematically abuse MDH theory just like you abuse GR. Alfven pointed out their error in his double layer paper and you've never shown me his mathematical error. Who are you trying to kid Higgsy?

The Holy Gospel of St Alfven. Riiiiiight.'


Nope, the working model of a man who lived decades before Hannes Alfven:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m58-CfVrsN4

Wake me up when you can simulate a sustained full sphere corona in a lab.

No he didn't, and no the full sphere solar corona has never been simulated in a lab, never mind 100 years ago.


Bullshit. Your denial process is just childish. I can see for myself that it works in the lab Higgsy. You've never done *anything* like that and your model is *broken* in terms of it's predictions about convection to start with!

If you think your little naive discharge experiment in a soft vacuum simulates a full sphere solar corona, then you are abjectly ignorant of the respective conditions in the solar corona and the little terella experiment. Oh, and of basic physics.


Projection at it's finest. If you weren't so damn electrophobic you'd know how stupid that sounds. I can see for myself why the corona is "hot" with respect to the surface of that sphere, and it's obvious that it's an *electrically driven* process. Basic physics works in the lab, unlike your basic BS.

So do it then. Use circuit theory and "electrical discharges", or Alfven's double layer paper to quantitatively explain solar flares. Use all the measured conditions before, during and after the flare and develop the theory. Show that it quantitatively explains what we observe.


The irony is that Dungey did that for you himself decades ago. Alfven explained how to do it too. Peratt explaineed it for you in his book too. You don't care to use circuit theory because it forces you to embrace the electrical nature of objects in space. You therefore expect everyone you meet to bark math for you on command to your hearts content, otherwise you bash on them personally. It's so obvious that you have no interest in real physics to start with.

I am going to be doing this in the future. Where you make confident claims, you should be able to demonstrate quantitatively that those claims are theoretically and observationally consistent. That's what physicists do. And I predict that you will not respond to a single one of these challenges because you don't have a clue how to actually begin to do physics. You just do religion.


http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1992SoPh..139..343Z

You're just in pure denial of the work on circuit theory that has been done for *decades* and you have faith in pseudo-scientific nonsense that won't and doesn't actually work in the lab. Even you precious 'magnetic reconnection" experiments are mostly driven by electric fields. Turn off the electricity and your "experiment" ends instantly.

Oy Vey Higgsy. You've done nothing here at Thunderbolts besides demonstrate your woeful ignorance of basic work in EU/PC theory, work that has been going on for more than a century. I cant force you to read that paper I cited, or read Alfven's work for yourself, or Peratt's work for yourself, or Bruce's work for yourself. If you won't do it, you won't do it. I can make you.

What I can do however is ignore your personal attack nonsense and point out your total ignorance of circuit theory as it applies to events in space. Everywhere that you rely upon 'magnetic reconnection' can be explain and has been explained with circuit theory and Alfven's double layer paper. Period.

It's also damn obvious that you ignored my direct question about lyin' Brian Koberlein and his bullshit about EU/PC solar models predicting "no neutrinos". If your industry has to flat out lie about the facts, and you don't personally have the intellectual integrity to set him straight, why should any of us believe that you are actually interested in 'reality"? Bullshit you're interested in "reality". You're interested in protecting your funding, even if that means flat out lying about EU/PC solar theory. Let's see you show some ethical fortitude and then you can claim that you care about "reality".

https://briankoberlein.com/2014/02/25/t ... -universe/

Quote anyone listed as a reference in that "hit piece" who ever claimed that any EU/PC solar model predicts that our sun will emit "no neutrinos". You're all a bunch of frigging liars and cowards IMO. Prove me wrong and set lyin' Brian straight, or prove me right and run. It's your choice. If you choose to run, don't you dare ever claim that you care about "reality". Nobody here will believe you.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1255
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

Unread postby Higgsy » Thu Nov 16, 2017 9:57 am

Michael Mozina wrote:
Higgsy wrote:Your history is as bad as your science. So now you'll explain why the default belief for millenia, of astronomers, mathematicians and lay-people, was that the Universe is geocentric, and it was only when Copernicus and Galileo came along that people began to seriously consider any alternative. And even then, the Copernican world view flew in the face of the common sense notion that the Earth could not be in motion.


Projection at it's finest.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristarchus_of_Samos

Copernicus? Hell, he was at least 1500 years *late* figuring out that the Earth wasn't the center of the universe! Do you guys even know how to use a search engine? I'm really beginning to doubt it because either you're totally ignorant of these topics, or willfully deceitful, one or the other. Which is it?
You miss the point entirely. It's not that Copernicus was the first to put forward the idea (although he was the first to put forward a fully quantified idea of how it could all work), but that because the idea is so counter-intuitive and so against common sense, that it took millenia of astronomy, and observations which powerfully supported the idea for it become widely accepted. That is the point that I am making, and you will see if you read what I wrote above, that is the point I actually made. Which you would have realised if you hadn't such bad reading comprehension. The point is that common sense did not lead to the right answer, because common sense holds that the Earth is static and the heavens revolve around it, and that's what the vast majority of people believed for millenia. Read the 1633 judgement and abjuration of Galileo where the heliocentric theory is called absurd and philosophically false for the beliegf held by 99.9% of people throughout history up to that point.

Thank you - and since the concept of space-time is essential to the theory of GR (GR cannot do without the concept as it is woven into the most fundamental equations of GR), you are in effect supporting my view that the concept of space-time makes sense in describing gravitational interactions.


Ya, GR theory itself seems sensible", but your BS about 'dark energy", "inflation", space expansion and exotic matter have nothing to do with "common sense", even if GR is fine. You're evoking *dark magic* just to stuff them into an otherwise perfectly good physics theory. That's not common sense, that's absurd and outrageous behavior.
You're still missing the point. I am not saying that any theory in physics is based on common sense. On the contrary, I am saying that many well accepeted and evidenced theories run counter to common sense.
Which is why, in addition to working on the Standard Model, there are a lot of smart theoretical physicists working on alternative theories of gravity.

So why condemn our community for doing the same thing? Why can't we revisit and reexamine that topic too without being ridiculed?
Because you're not doing the same thing. Nobody here is working on an alternative theory of gravity, because nobody here understands the extant theories. Nobody here is working on an alternative theory of anything. Nobody here knows how to work on a theory of anything. There are no theories being worked on by any of the regular EU proponents on this forum.

And GR is supported by more than orbital mechanics in the solar system. It makes predictions about the effects of mass energy on time, about gravitomagnetics (frame dragging), about the influence of mass-energy on the propagation of radiation (gravitational lensing) and about gravitational radiation as waves, all of which are met so far.

Be that as it may,
"Be that as it may"? That is no small matter.
none of that really explains why your model fails the moment we talk about the rotation patterns of galaxies, in which case either GR fails, or your baryonic mass estimates are a joke.
Or there is mass present which does not interact electromagnetically. The observed baryonic mass whether before or after 2005 is neither sufficient nor distributed correctly to explain the rotation curves.
I know it's the later, but you can't claim GR is "right" unless you A) demonstrate your exotic matter deity isn't a figment of your overactive imagination, or better yet, you just admit that you screwed up big time with respect to geustimating the mass of a galaxy.
You know it's the latter? So why don't you demonstrate quantitatively, using all the baryonic mass estimates plus any corrections that have been applied since 2005 that you can model a spiral galaxy with the observed rotation curves using GR and no exotic matter. Of course you won't do this, because you guys never, ever quantify anything. Ever.

So quantify exactly how that halo surrounding the Milky way affects the rotation curves of the galaxy. You won't do it because you never ever quantify anything. And here's a hint - look up and try to understand the shell theorem.

Why, in the name of Beelzebub, would anyone other than a complete idiot, try to explain the solar wind with any theory of gravity alone. I don't know anyone who tries to do that. Do you?

Why do you do exactly that with "black holes" and jets around black holes?
Because the jets are clearly caused by matter being accelerated by hugely intense gravitational fields.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3515338/The-quasar-jets-break-laws-physics-Streams-100-times-hotter-thought-possible-10-TRILLION-degrees.html

Your temperature estimates fail in *epic* fashion as a result of that irrational choice you make.
Do you ever read any papers, or are all your references to rubbishy newspaper articles? The Daily Mail - beneath contempt.
I have no idea what you bleating about. Why do you keep dragging in these irrelvant historical asides.

They aren't irrelevant. Such BS from so called professionals shows just how ignorant your industry is, and/or how deceitful LCDM proponents are, and how dishonest these debates end up being as a result. No EU/PC solar model predicts "no neutrinos", but not a single mainstream astronomer pointed out that BS to lyin' Brian. You're all either clueless about our models, or you simply don't care to be honest about them, one or the other. Which is it in your case? Do you admit that Koberlein is full of crap with respect to EU/PC solar models predicting our sun to emit "no neutrinos"? Yes or no?
I still have no idea what you are bleating about.
You don't have any mathematics to support your theories. Zero.

This is what I mean by pure dishonesty. BIrkeland provided you with *lots* of math in his book for you to read anytime you choose to read it. So did Alfven, Peratt, Lerner, Bruce, etc. The fact you haven't read it, and you dishonestly claim it doesn't exists simply demonstrates that you're either willfully ignorant or blatantly dishonest. Which is it?
You don't have any mathematics to support your theories. Zero.
We've discussed your silly claims about "methodology problems" at LIGO before. For the reasons I pointed out then there are utterly worthless and beneath contempt.

In other words, you don't care that they misrepresented the facts when LIGO erroneously claimed in their published paper that there were no vetoes present within an hour of the first signal, when in fact that exact signal was vetoed within 18 seconds of it being uploaded to the gracedb database. Honestly was never your industry's strong suit apparently.
Why don't you accept that your criticisms are utterly invalid and totally unfounded and that no-one is ever going to take the slightest notice of them. No-one who matters cares what you think. THERE WAS NO VALID VETO AT THE TIME OF THE FIRST DETECTION. If you keep claiming that there was you just make yourself look like a clown. Maybe, if I shout, I'll get through to the hard of understanding.
Higgsy
 
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 3:32 pm

Re: Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

Unread postby Higgsy » Thu Nov 16, 2017 10:34 am

Zyxzevn wrote:LIOG's Filter Algorithm keeps on converting noise to "signals"..


Still trying to deny LIGO in your naive way? Do you really think that the data used to determine the detection is based on eyeballing the time-frequency plots as you have? Really?
Higgsy
 
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 3:32 pm

Re: Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Thu Nov 16, 2017 12:52 pm

Higgsy wrote:You miss the point entirely.


No, I just *disagree* with you entirely. :)

It's not that Copernicus was the first to put forward the idea (although he was the first to put forward a fully quantified idea of how it could all work), but that because the idea is so counter-intuitive and so against common sense, that it took millenia of astronomy, and observations which powerfully supported the idea for it become widely accepted.


The acceptance factor had, and still has nothing to do with "common sense", and everything to do with fear of change and ignorant bullying by the mainstream for not toeing the party line. People usually just believe whatever they are taught to believe and heretics are typically shunned and personally attacked, just as the mainstream is still doing to the EU/PC community today.

A helioscentric view of the solar system is every bit as "common sense' today as an Earth centric belief system seemed like "common sense" a thousand years ago. It wasn't as well "mathematically modeled" 1500 years ago perhaps, but that didn't mean that Aristarchus was wrong anymore than the math related to LCDM makes LCDM right today. Math alone doesn't tell the full story as this issue clearly demonstrates. Earth centric maths looked fine on paper, and they worked well enough to predict the movement of various planets and the position of the sun (maybe better than other options back then), but the whole Earth centric concept was physically FUBAR anyway, just like your dark magic universe is physically FUBAR today.

The rejection factor has nothing to do with common sense and everything to do with protecting the delicate ego of the mainstream. That's as true today as it relates to EU/PC theory vs. LCDM as it was when Aristarchus was being ridiculed for proposing his "common sense" explanation for various celestial observations. It's not "common sense" to think that every star in the sky revolves around our planet! That's about as illogical as it gets when a simple planetary rotation would work better in the first place.

That is the point that I am making, and you will see if you read what I wrote above, that is the point I actually made. Which you would have realised if you hadn't such bad reading comprehension.


There you go again with your dishonest personal attacks. I'm sure Aristarchus would recognize that pathetic behavior for what it really is, just egotistical crap.

The point is that common sense did not lead to the right answer, because common sense holds that the Earth is static and the heavens revolve around it,


Who the hell, besides you, would agree to that claim today? That's not "common sense" today, and it never was any more "sensible' than heiiocentric beliefs even if Earth-centric beliefs were more "common" for a time.

and that's what the vast majority of people believed for millenia. Read the 1633 judgement and abjuration of Galileo where the heliocentric theory is called absurd and philosophically false for the beliegf held by 99.9% of people throughout history up to that point.


Yep, people believed what they were told, and they resisted change then, just like they believe the dogma they're told today about LCDM, and they resist change today. The heretics are always shunned, laughed at, ridiculed and abused today just like they've always been.

You're still missing the point.


No, I'm still *disagreeing* with your claim. :)

I am not saying that any theory in physics is based on common sense. On the contrary, I am saying that many well accepeted and evidenced theories run counter to common sense.


A heliocentric view of this solar system is not "counter to common sense" today, in fact it's considered "common sense" today and Earth centric views are considered to be irrational nonsense.

Because you're not doing the same thing.


Me personally? No. I'm fine with GR to describe gravity and I'm fine with the standard particle physics model, and I'm fine with circuit theory as it stands. If I have a preference for a theory of everything concept at the moment, it's probably the concept of Subquantum Kinetics, but even that seems "questionable' to me. I'm frankly not that interested in any particular theory of everything but others here are interested.

Nobody here is working on an alternative theory of gravity, because nobody here understands the extant theories. Nobody here is working on an alternative theory of anything. Nobody here knows how to work on a theory of anything. There are no theories being worked on by any of the regular EU proponents on this forum.


Do you really think that anyone here actually believes that you're a mind reader? Your personal attacks today are just as sleazy and irrational as those who hurled insults at Aristarchus. Nobody here believes your personal attack BS so just give it a rest already.

You know it's the latter?


viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15850

Yep. There are *at least* five major documented errors in those pathetic 2006 baryonic mass estimates of the bullet cluster galaxies, all of which show that your baryonic mass estimates were never close to accurate. There are also billions of dollars worth of failed dark matter tests to demonstrate the fact that your exotic matter claims fail every single lab test you've put them to over the last 10 years. What more evidence do I need to reject your claims about exotic matter?

So why don't you demonstrate quantitatively, using all the baryonic mass estimates plus any corrections that have been applied since 2005 that you can model a spiral galaxy with the observed rotation curves using GR and no exotic matter. Of course you won't do this, because you guys never, ever quantify anything. Ever.


First of all, that's just another bald faced lie since Peratt did that for you *years* ago, not that you ever bothered to read any of it. Secondly, there's simply no evidence that exotic forms of matter exist to start with, and there's no evidence that your industry has a clue how to estimate mass based on light. Lastly, you've already calculated how much matter you missed in your own dark matter halo models, so why would I reinvent the wheel for you?

I'm not doing your busy work just because you're too lazy to do it yourself or because you want me to jump through mathematical hoops for you personally. If you believe in exotic forms of matter, it's up to *you* to demonstrate it exists, it's not up to me to prove you wrong.

So quantify exactly how that halo surrounding the Milky way affects the rotation curves of the galaxy. You won't do it because you never ever quantify anything. And here's a hint - look up and try to understand the shell theorem.


Here's a hint. Take your own DM "halo" models and insert ordinary plasma and gas in those halo models and I promise you that the math works out perfectly, shell theorem and all. I'm not claiming that only exotic matter would work in those dark matter halo models you came up with, but apparently you seem to think so. Prove it, otherwise that work has already been done *by your industry* already and all that's necessary is to replace your exotic nonsense with known forms of matter. Period. No additional math is necessary or warranted to start with because it's already been done! I'm not your math mommy.

Do you ever read any papers, or are all your references to rubbishy newspaper articles? The Daily Mail - beneath contempt.


What's beneath contempt is the fact that you dodged your obvious jet heating problems by hurling insults at me. Do you really think that's going to make your major heating problem go away?

http://earthsky.org/space/the-extremely ... asar-3c273
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.38 ... hPage=true

If you guys weren't so damn electrophobic you'd realize that electricity and electrical current also play a role in such features as Alfven explained *decades* ago, and as Peratt modeled with software *decades* ago. For crying out loud, do you try to blatantly dodge every problem in your theory by blaming the messenger or what?

They aren't irrelevant. Such BS from so called professionals shows just how ignorant your industry is, and/or how deceitful LCDM proponents are, and how dishonest these debates end up being as a result. No EU/PC solar model predicts "no neutrinos", but not a single mainstream astronomer pointed out that BS to lyin' Brian. You're all either clueless about our models, or you simply don't care to be honest about them, one or the other. Which is it in your case? Do you admit that Koberlein is full of crap with respect to EU/PC solar models predicting our sun to emit "no neutrinos"? Yes or no?
I still have no idea what you are bleating about.


Another blatant dodge:

https://briankoberlein.com/2014/02/25/t ... -universe/

That's the crap I'm talking about. Go set him straight. He's been ignorantly lying about EU/PC solar theory for *years* now and not a single so called "professional" called him on his BS. You won't call him on his BS either because none of you have any integrity at all when it comes to science. I don't even like Juergen's anode solar model, I prefer Birkeland's cathode model, but it pisses me off no end that you folks simply lie your asses off about that model and everything related to EU/PC theory for that matter. Tom Bridgman's been lying about Birkeland's model for years too, and no "processional" has bothered to set him straight. You're all either professionally incompetent or unethical as hell. Which is it?

You don't have any mathematics to support your theories. Zero.


Repeating the same blatant lies just makes you look ignorant and dishonest. Suit yourself, but it's not my fault that you're too damn lazy to bother to read what's already been written. Your blatant lies won't make any of Peratt's or Alfven's published papers suddenly disappear. They won't make Lerners papers disappear, or Bruce's papers disappear, or that last solar flare paper I handed you disappear either.

Why don't you accept that your criticisms are utterly invalid and totally unfounded


Because they're not invalid or unfounded, they're correct and well founded in fact. Admittedly my criticisms do *not* apply to the one NS-NS merger scenario, or any multimessenger event in the future, but it applies to every BH-BH merger claim to date, including the most recent one. Even your sigma figures do not directly relate to "cause" and they're totally trumped up because all the normal environmental noise was *removed* from the sigma calculations.

and that no-one is ever going to take the slightest notice of them. No-one who matters cares what you think.


I never had any illusions about that to begin with. You folks ignored Alfven and Einstein's criticisms even after giving them Nobel Prizes, so I have no illusions about the fact that you're going to ignore my criticisms too.

THERE WAS NO VALID VETO AT THE TIME OF THE FIRST DETECTION.


Bullshit. That exact signal was vetoed within 18 seconds of it being uploaded to the gracedb database and nobody at LIGO has explained why it was vetoed, why it was vetoed with *high confidence*, or ever quantified the human override of that veto. In fact nobody mentioned it in the published paper, just some damn lie about there being no vetoes present within an hour of the event.

If you keep claiming that there was you just make yourself look like a clown.


I'd rather look like a clown than have flat out lied in a published paper by claiming that no vetoes took place within an hour of the event when in fact a veto took of that exact signal took place within 18 seconds.

Maybe, if I shout, I'll get through to the hard of understanding.


Nope. Only a full explanation of the missing veto would provide "understanding", and we both know that's never going to happen. There's too much ego and prestige at stake to be honest about what really happened to that infamous veto, how and why it was given a "high confidence" figure, and why it was overridden in any quantitative manner. You'll just sweep it under the rug like you always do.

IMO it's beneath contempt that the peer reviewers were handed a snow job and never told anything about that veto. That's the worst example of pure BS that I've ever seen in a published paper, ever!
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1255
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests