Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

[Webbman]

sorry cant accept spacetime. I imagine the whole clocks thing has been fabricated as well.

sorry to offend but when people seem to know the masses of black holes its because they are testing your gullibility.

[neilwilkes]

but the x-rays took *days* before they became visible. Radio waves seemed to be "delayed" as well.

The cosmic event is very interesting indeed.
It seems like an electrical event that first gave a "electric spark", which caused the gamma ray burst.
(Just like an x-ray machine)
Then we get series of electric events with lower voltage, which first produces
x-rays and later radio-waves.
This is totally in line with an electrical phenomenon.
Not really a neutron-star or anything.

The LIGO is 1.7 seconds too soon, so it is a clear miss.
The GW predicts the same speed for light as for gravity.

Anything outside the theory is a failure of the theory, even if the signal was perfect.
But there is almost no signal. Just look in the paper.
The other GW "detections" were much better in signal/noise ration, and even those
were under discussion.
The LIGO could really use a visual confirmation, but sadly this is a very weak connection.

I think that the Virgo is better designed, since we don't get so many resonance signals from it.
Or maybe the LIGO has some kind of failing electrical system.
Virgo's electric grid and continent are also independent, so virgo's signal is very important
for the correlation problem that the LIGO has.
After seeing no improvements in the quality of so many "signals" I seriously doubt the
critical thinking of the scientists involved.

But first: the observation is a clear theoretical miss, even when it is only 1.7 sec.
Also the additional radiation is not in line with the theory. It should never take days,
and if its process is long, we should see it in the GW signal.

My prediction:
To pretend that the signal is really a GW, we will see additional explanations.
I think that they will invent new theories involving dark matter or extra dimensions.
Keep the faith and collect the budgets.

Indeed - the timing is just too suspicious. Results were needed, and hey presto they suddenly got them.
Hmmm. Additionally the sound that accompanied this to me sounded exactly like an overloading circuit that blew out a component. The frequency ramped up with the power input until something gave. No GW at all but basic electrical circuit theory and it truly sounded just like a failing component in an amplifier (I have heard PA amplifiers do this, and another PA analogy is the bang - bang - bang sound you get when a transformer is too near a signal line. What happens in a PA system is that if someone has got, say, a laptop plugged into the mains & the power line gets too close to the signal line from the amplifiers to the transducers (loudspeakers to you & I) you get this banging sound as the transformer fields build & collapse and build & collapse ad infinitum. Now imagine this effect with a steadily increasing power input.........

I also fail to see how they managed to get 2 spinning Neutron Stars colliding from this - in the first place Neutron stars are a chemical impossibility as they would fall so far outside the band of stability (see http://www.kentchemistry.com/links/Nucl ... bility.htm) so even if such a thing could happen it would be seriously unstable - and that is always assuming you can compress matter this far in the first place.
My understanding is admittedly limited and I am no mathematician, but a mathematical model ain't reality.

The other problem is of course the timing is all wrong - if these supposed GW arrived so far ahead of any light observations then how are they propagated? This takes us back to a lack of understanding of both mass & gravity (remember in Newton's equations Gravity acts instantaneously at a distance - no light speed limitations - and time is not mentioned either (yet we still use these rules to get probes around the solar system) so how are GW propagated? Through what medium? Hello, Ether! Yet they reject the ether out of hand (usually citing the Michelson/Morley experiment as proving ether does not exist, which is ironic given that they proved no such thing) so this leaves them with more problems (sorry, "surprises").

[neilwilkes]

I'm probably in the minority here in terms of being one of the few EU/PC proponents that actually accepts GR theory, black hole theory and neutron star theory in the first place.

It is time that GR theory be divided into two parts. The original, basic and indisputable GR about trains, flashlights, elevators, coordinate systems and observers, preferably read in its original form. The part that I am having problems with is the later part including ST when it turns into a failed search for gravity and a theory of everything.
I wish that A.E. had done what S.H. is doing during his search for gravity, refrain from self centered creationism.

GR has nothing at all to do with trains/flashlights/elevators etc - that was SR (Special Relativity) and AE himself accepted the Ether ideas, and indeed once said that without the Ether, GR is unthinkable. Have you ever read his presentation "Sidelights On Relativity"?

More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence of an ether ; only we must give up ascribing a definite state of motion to it, i.e. we must by abstraction take from it the last mechanical characteristic which Lorentz had still left it.

He goes on to say many interesting things like

Certainly, from the standpoint of the special theory of relativity, the ether hypothesis appears at first to be an empty hypothesis. In the equations of the electromagnetic field there occur, in addition to the densities of the electric charge, only the intensities of the field. The career of electromagnetic processes in- vacua appears to be completely determined by these equations, uninfluenced by other physical quantities. The electromagnetic fields
appear as ultimate, irreducible realities, and at first it seems superfluous to postulate a homogeneous, isotropic ether medium, and to envisage electromagnetic fields as states of this medium. But on the other hand there is a weighty argument to be adduced in favour of the ether hypothesis. To deny the ether is ultimately to assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever.

and also - very revealing and ignored by most these days

Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities ; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable ; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense.

I have major problems with the whole idea of Black Holes - as did AE himself who famously stated that a naked singularity is an impossibility - see http://www.noblackholes.com/ and there is a 1939 paper where he states categorically (with the maths) that

When the cluster is contracted from an infinite diameter its mass decreases at the most about 5%. This minimal mass will be reached when the diameter 2ro is about 9. The diameter can be further reduced down to about 5.6, but only by adding enormous amounts of energy. It is not possible to compress the cluster any more while preserving the chosen mass distribution. A further addition of energy enlarges the diameter again. In this way the energy content, i.e. the gravitating mass of the cluster, can be increased arbitrarily without destroying the cluster. To each possible diameter there belong two clusters (when the number of particles is given) which differ with respect to the particle velocity.
Of course, these paradoxical results are not represented by anything in physical nature. Only that branch belonging to smaller (To values contains the cases bearing some resemblance to real stars, and this branch only for diameter values between 00 and 9M. The case of the cluster of the shell type, discussed earlier in this paper, behaves quite similarly to this one, despite the different mass distribution. The shell type cluster, however, does not contain a case with infinite J.I., given a finite M.
The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the "Schwarzschild singularities" do not exist in physical reality. Although the theory given here treats only clusters whose particles moye along circular paths
it does not seem to be subject to reasonable doubt that mote general cases will have analogous results. The "Schwarzschild singularity" does not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this i~ due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light.
This investigation arose out of discussions the author conducted with Professor H. P. Robertson and with Drs. V. Bargmann and P. Bergmann on the mathematical and physical significance of the Schwarzschild singularity. The problem quite naturally leads to the question, answered by this paper in the negative, as to whether physical models are capable of exhibiting such a singularity.

So the relativists cannot even agree with themselves.

[Bengt Nyman]

...

SR is considered part 1 of GR (Leonard Susskind). GR needs to be cleaned up, leaving indisputabel parts of SR but eliminating fantasies about ST and more. By the way, we are talking about Aether (or Äther in german), not Ether.

[Bengt Nyman]

Why is Relativity such a controversial mess ? Is the original flawed, or have modern extrapolations and opportunistic additions distorted the original ?
The answer to both is yes. The historic consensus about the man with the theory is an imaginative, autistic man with a postmortem diagnosis of Aspergers syndrom and a touch of Schizophrenia who stated that: "Imagination is more important than knowledge." And: "If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts."
I believe that AEs imagination took him from a sincere study of trains, flashlights, elevators and coordinate systems to a flight of fancy in a universe where space willingly distorted and time stretched/compressed to fit his fancy.

[Solar]

Can someone help my naiveté' please: This theoretical everywhere present “spacetime” undergoing a “gravitational wave” seems quite implausible since gravity supposedly can’t be shielded. My question is how does a “blind spot” occur with either or both, simultaneously??

Meanwhile, astronomers initially thought Virgo had missed the signal, since it wasn’t showing up in the observatory’s data. But after a further look, scientists realized Virgo had picked it up; the wave signal was just incredibly faint. It turned out the merger occurred in a part of the sky that is a bit of a blindspot for Virgo, which is a byproduct of the observatory’s location on Earth. “Virgo in a way missed it, because it happened to be in a narrow part of the sky where Virgo couldn’t quite catch it,” says Kalogera. – The Verge

With EM radiation, due to the presence of objects “shielding” the EM signal, the only time a “blind spot” occurs is when a device functions as an electrodynamic “antenna”. What causes “blind spots” for gravity when “gravity” supposedly can’t be shielded and/or a “spacetime fabric” that is supposedly everywhere??

[Bengt Nyman]

Can someone help my naivité please: This theoretical everywhere present “spacetime” undergoing a “gravitational wave” seems quite implausible since gravity supposedly can’t be shielded. My question is how does a “blind spot” occur with either or both, simultaneously??

Gravity is a consequence of particle physics and transmitted at net Coulomb attraction.
Spacetime is an imaginary, nonsensical concept.
The concept of gravitational waves are based on the nonsensical spacetime concept making gravitational waves nonsensical at best.

[antosarai]

Why is Relativity such a controversial mess ? Is the original flawed, or have modern extrapolations and opportunistic additions distorted the original ?
The answer to both is yes. The historic consensus about the man with the theory is an imaginative, autistic man with a postmortem diagnosis of Aspergers syndrom and a touch of Schizophrenia who stated that: "Imagination is more important than knowledge." And: "If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts."
I believe that AEs imagination took him from a sincere study of trains, flashlights, elevators and coordinate systems to a flight of fancy in a universe where space willingly distorted and time stretched/compressed to fit his fancy.

Why does the image of a slug "dancing" in a salt bed comes to my mind?

[nick c]

Spacetime is an imaginary, nonsensical concept.

And that is why MM's plea that the EU/PC community should accept GR is falling upon deaf ears.

[PeterVermont]

Can someone help my naiveté' please: This theoretical everywhere present “spacetime” undergoing a “gravitational wave” seems quite implausible since gravity supposedly can’t be shielded. My question is how does a “blind spot” occur with either or both, simultaneously??

Meanwhile, astronomers initially thought Virgo had missed the signal, since it wasn’t showing up in the observatory’s data. But after a further look, scientists realized Virgo had picked it up; the wave signal was just incredibly faint. It turned out the merger occurred in a part of the sky that is a bit of a blindspot for Virgo, which is a byproduct of the observatory’s location on Earth. “Virgo in a way missed it, because it happened to be in a narrow part of the sky where Virgo couldn’t quite catch it,” says Kalogera. – The Verge

With EM radiation, due to the presence of objects “shielding” the EM signal, the only time a “blind spot” occurs is when a device functions as an electrodynamic “antenna”. What causes “blind spots” for gravity when “gravity” supposedly can’t be shielded and/or a “spacetime fabric” that is supposedly everywhere??

LIGO detectors can have a blind spot if the signal comes from a direction that hits both arms at the same time. Remember, this is not a traditional antenna but instead is an interferometry technique -- it only sees a net signal if the two arms of the detector are distorted by a gravitational wave differently from each other.

In fact it does not have a blind spot but a blind plane that runs perpendicular to the "V" of the two arms.

[Michael Mozina]

Spacetime is an imaginary, nonsensical concept.

And that is why MM's plea that the EU/PC community should accept GR is falling upon deaf ears.

Well Nick, I certainly have no illusions about the fact that I'm facing an uphill struggle around here.

I'd simply point out again that there is a very clear and distinct difference between the basic theory of GR and the supernatural nonsense that is the LCDM model of cosmology. Imagine stuffing pure invisible magic into Newton's formulas, and that's pretty close to what LCMD represents today, but it wouldn't be Newton's fault, anymore than it's Einstein's fault that the mainstream insists on kludging GR theory. Keep in mind that the mainstream did the very same thing to Hannes Alfven with "magnetic reconnection" theory. I don't blame Alfven for that pseudoscientific garbage anymore than I blame Einstein for the sins of LCMD.

Einstein originally rejected the idea of space expansion, although he had to grudgingly admit that it's a viable "mathematical solution/possibility" in GR after meeting with LaMaitre. Einstein outright rejected the concept of "black holes" as "point" objects and he called the introduction of a non-zero constant his 'greatest blunder'. I really don't think it's fair of us to hold Einstein responsible for those types of concepts. They are not even core requirements of GR, they're just goofy, metaphysical ideas that have been mathematically kludged into his GR formulas, much like the magnetic reconnection fiasco.

IMO there's nothing wrong with using GR theory to express the concept of gravity in EU/PC theory. I personally think we live in a static universe so I see nothing particularly wrong with using Newton's formulas as well. I don't think Newton's formulas work as well to describe the orbit of Mercury, the speed limit of light, time dilation, and processes which occur at close to the speed of light. It think GR handles such events and observations "better than" Newton's formulas. As others have pointed out already, Einstein was *not* opposed the the concept of an aether involving EM fields and other types of moving particles, so there's still the strong possibility of tying GR theory back to a "theory of everything" that is based on EM fields.

I just think it's unwise of us to give big bang proponents any sense of "General relativity high ground". They don't deserve it. LCDM proponents aren't even using GR theory, they're abusing a variation of a "blunder" theory according to Einstein. Einstein wasn't their best friend but they keep acting like it. It's like watching someone try to justify their magnetic reconnection claims based on Alfven's formulas. It's just disgusting IMO.

I really think that Einstein got an unfair rap around here, mostly because of the way that his theories have been blatantly abused by the mainstream. Considering the fact that 95 percent of mainstream theory is based on invisible nonsense which is being stuffed into a "blunder" theory, it's understandable that folks would be willing to toss out the LCDM bathwater, and the GR baby along with it, but that's a dangerous choice.

It could be that Einstein is correct about time dilation, the speed limit of light, gravitational (EM aether) waves, orbital influences on Mercury, and various aspects that derive from his core theories. I don't think we should easily dismiss ideas and observations that actually are better explained by GR. It just gives the mainstream more "ammunition" to use against us, and it doesn't really do Einstein justice. I'd feel the same way if our community had a big chip on our shoulder towards Alfven's work, but I think we all recognize that Alfven isn't responsible for the sins of the mainstream as it relates to his work. I don't think we're as careful with Einstein's work. It's understandable of course, it's just unfortunate IMO.

It's unfortunate too because that may turn off mainstream astronomers who are willing to jump ship and embrace EU/PC theory who are fans of GR theory. We should be careful not to make it more difficult for students of GR to embrace EU/PC theory. It also plays into the hands of the mainstream by creating an "us vs. them" mentality.

Maybe attitudes towards GR theory will change around here if/when LIGO is able to replicate examples of multimessenger astronomy. That could be a very exciting development in astronomy, and I support LIGO's efforts. I still think that LIGO's special pleading and biased methodology related to "black holes" stinks to high heaven, but that last multimessenger observation is tough to ignore IMO.

Anyway......

Like I said, I have no illusions about the fact that I'm in the minority around here as it relates to GR theory and heavy gravitational objects, but I hope others at least keep an open mind towards the idea of *not* giving BB proponents the GR high ground. They really don't deserve it since most of their invisible nonsense has nothing to do with GR theory in the first place.

[Zyxzevn]

I am looking for an alternative source of the long term signal that LIGO received on 17 aug.
One major signal seems the sun, it showed a spectacular display of electrical plasma:
Incredible Plasma Dance/Coronal Cavity | S0 News Aug.17.2017

Electrical and magnetic fields can influence the LIGO as they reach the surface.
That is due to the phase changes that these fields cause.
LIGO is everything about phase.

I think we should check the closest strong signals first, before we decide whether the
nova has anything to do with it.

[JHL]

I am looking for an alternative source of the long term signal that LIGO received on 17 aug.
One major signal seems the sun, it showed a spectacular display of electrical plasma:
Incredible Plasma Dance/Coronal Cavity | S0 News Aug.17.2017

http://aaronsreality.blogspot.com/2016/ ... ilure.html

[willendure]

Just for the record, as I have always maintained, I believe GR to be 'correct' or at least our most accurate theory describing gravity, and these latest LIGO results just add more weight to that.

I don't see that in any way being in conflict with believing in many electric universe ideas. Gravity and electricity together explain how the cosmos works.

[querious]

Just for the record, as I have always maintained, I believe GR to be 'correct' or at least our most accurate theory describing gravity, and these latest LIGO results just add more weight to that.

Personally, I can't for LIGO 3.0 to come online next summer. GR is actually a really cool theory, if you don't hate it just because it's not simple algebra.