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 seasmith » Sun Oct 29, 2017 7:29 am

Out beyond the plasmasphere, where the plasma is tenuous and relatively warm, whistler-mode waves create primarily rising chirps, like a flock of noisy birds. T

https://phys.org/news/2017-07-nasa-electrons.html#jCp

Higgsy,
You really need to work on expanding your knowledge base. You are getting lost in uninformed dogma and QM (quantum mystery) nonsense.

The 'whistler' genre is not yet well understood, but the Principle of EM energy traveling as signals along much longer 'carrier' wave-trains is not limited to lower frequency, near-earth disturbances.
And don't forget, their detectors are EM devices and not immune to EM noise,
either cosmic or local in origination.
seasmith
 
Posts: 2815
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

Unread postby Higgsy » Sun Oct 29, 2017 8:38 am

seasmith wrote:
Out beyond the plasmasphere, where the plasma is tenuous and relatively warm, whistler-mode waves create primarily rising chirps, like a flock of noisy birds. T

https://phys.org/news/2017-07-nasa-electrons.html#jCp

Higgsy,
You really need to work on expanding your knowledge base.
And you are getting lost by googling for something to support a preconception and swallowing it unquestioningly. Chorus waves are even less likely to be the causes of the signals in LIGO than whistlers caused by lightning because they occur in choruses (hence the name - like a flock of birds as you say yourself) rather than in single isolated signals as is seen in LIGO, and because their time evolution is unlike an inspiral. The other objections also stand, chief of which is that there were no signals in environmental detectors specifically designed to detect EM radiation which could contaminate the signal channel. So no, whistlers and whistler mode chorus radiation can't be the cause.

And don't forget, their detectors are EM devices and not immune to EM noise,
either cosmic or local in origination.
Well an optical interferometer is not inherently sensitive to ELF/VLF radio waves, although it's possible that radio energy can inject into amplifiers and other electronics, however well shielded, hence the use of environmental detectors to distinguish between environmental EM contamination and signal.
"Every single ion is going to start cooling off instantly as far as I know…If you're mixing kinetic energy in there somehow, you'll need to explain exactly how you're defining 'temperature'" - Mozina
Higgsy
 
Posts: 217
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 3:32 pm

Re: Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

Unread postby Cargo » Sun Oct 29, 2017 9:14 pm

Isn't the Big Bang and Infinite Density a preconceived assumption? How about Neutron Stars?

Isn't a Quadrupole based on two dipoles? And based on the late 1800's to early 1900's thinking that Radio, Radar, and Sound were the Language of the Universe.

If LIGO can sense the strain on it's protons by the movement of gravity, where does it indicate the Moon and Sun are located as we move around and around? And does this differ from where they appear optically?
interstellar filaments conducted electricity having currents as high as 10 thousand billion amperes
Cargo
 
Posts: 294
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 7:02 pm

Re: Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Mon Oct 30, 2017 3:18 am

Cargo wrote:protons

You meant photons.

The movement of the Moon or Sun would not be visible, due to the slowness of change.
In theory: The gravitational waves are caused by the movement of the objects.
If the movement is slow, the waves are too shallow.
So if they move very fast, the LIGO should be able to detect them.

In practice: We have not yet proven a direct link between gravity changes and LIGO.
The observations are still speculations. But that is enough for the LIGO scientists
(their whole career is based on speculations anyway).
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 992
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

Unread postby Higgsy » Mon Oct 30, 2017 4:34 am

Cargo wrote:Isn't the Big Bang and Infinite Density a preconceived assumption?
They are inferences .
How about Neutron Stars?
A consequence of well accepted physics.
Isn't a Quadrupole based on two dipoles? And based on the late 1800's to early 1900's thinking that Radio, Radar, and Sound were the Language of the Universe.
Gravitational multipoles are analogous to electric multipoles up to a point, but the analogy is not exact. For example, the lowest non-zero gravitational multipole which can radiate energy is the quadrupole, since the gravitational dipole corresponds simply to the centre of the mass of the system and is conserved (in the electrical case, an oscillating dipole can radiate energy). The field from any arbitrary mass system can be described by an infinite series of multipoles and the quadrupole is non-zero for any non-spherically symmetric mass. So, for example, two masses orbiting one another have a non-zero quadrupole moment (analogous to two opposite charges orbiting one another which also have a non-zero quadrupole moment), and can radiate gravitational energy in the form of waves.

If LIGO can sense the strain on it's protons by the movement of gravity, where does it indicate the Moon and Sun are located as we move around and around? And does this differ from where they appear optically?
The Moon and Sun have quadrupole moments which are very close to zero (they are almost spherically symmetric) so do not in themselves radiate gravitational waves. The Sun-Earth and Earth-Moon systems (and indeed the entire solar system) do have non-zero quadrupole moments, but since the velocities and masses of the planets are very small the gravitational energy radiated is minuscule and undetectable.
"Every single ion is going to start cooling off instantly as far as I know…If you're mixing kinetic energy in there somehow, you'll need to explain exactly how you're defining 'temperature'" - Mozina
Higgsy
 
Posts: 217
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 3:32 pm

Re: Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Mon Oct 30, 2017 11:59 am

Higgsy wrote:
Michael Mozina wrote:This is a perfect example of the obligatory personal attack BS that you folks have become famous for. It's the kind of crap that you constantly resort to in order to elevate your cognitive dissonance.
Your post is preposterous.


No, your denial of your bad behaviors is preposterous, along with the behaviors themselves. Anyone who dares to question your dogma is subject to personal attack. That's the preposterous aspect of this whole conversation to date.

More than half of your rant is completely irrelevant to the question of whether the time to coalescence of compact binaries is longer for systems of less mass. The other less than half of your rant has no sensible content and makes no reasonable points.


Reasonable to whom? The guy claiming that 95 percent of the universe is made of invisible magic stuff? Please.

The fact is that your refusal to accept the rather basic fact that falls directly out of a theory you claim to "support", that compact binary coalescence time is an inverse square function of system mass makes you look like the sort of whining schoolboy who refuses to accept the basic classical result that orbital period of planets goes as 3/2 power of distance from the sun.


That might actually have merit were able to demonstrate how your model handles charges of black holes and such, but your links don't even seem to deal with that possibility, so my criticism still stands. It's apparently a very "simplfied' model that makes a lot of 'assumptions' about the process. Having perused the links a bit, I'd say that's certainly the case.

How can you possibly claim to "support" GR when you refuse to understand its most basic results, such as the rate of gravitational energy radiated by compact binaries?


I can't really say I've spent a whole lot of time studying the gravitational wave emission aspects. I've simply taken them for granted to this point, but alas it's not a part of GR that I've spent a lot of time on yet, particularly how they model the merger processes.

No one outside this forum really cares whether people round here accept or reject GR, as their acceptance or rejection is not based on an understanding of the subject and is therefore worthless.


Considering the fact that your beliefs are based on percent 95 percent placeholder terms for human ignorance and about 5 percent "pseudoscience", it's not clear that you folks understand your own cosmology model very well either, so your criticism is both hypocritical and irrelevant.

I told you exactly how the complexities are dealt with using the Einstein quadrupole formula and the post-Newtonian formalism, approaches which you had never even heard of before I schooled you on their existence, and approaches which you steadfastly refuse to learn about (even if you had the capability of doing so). I even gave you links to start learning about the subject.


But your links didn't address my question related to the charge of the object or anything or the sort. In fact they seemed to simply *assume* that the charge of the objects was irrelevant or non-existent. Why?

I have already told you that the complexities are dealt with in the PN formalism. I'm afraid you'll have to learn the maths and then learn the methods.


Cop out. Where *exactly* in either paper did they address the charge of the objects. If you won't be specific as to even where such calculations are presented and dealt with, I'm going to have to assume you're just making this up as you go.

But I'll give you another starting link - see for example Tessmer and Schaeffer, Eccentric Motion of Spinning Compact Binaries, arxiv 1406.0358, which generalises the PN formalism through Hamilton-Jacobi theory and cites many papers on the subject. Are you seriously expecting me to reproduce in words in a forum post the mathematical theory of gravitational radiation?


What I'm looking for is something *specific*, including a page number and formula where complexities like charge are even dealt with. You don't seem to be capable of doing that.

I wonder whether you realise how absurd your refusal to accept this basic result appears to anyone with the slightest real knowledge of GR.


Yawn. Do you realize how absurd it looks to simply ignore the complexities of the process and attack anyone who points it out?


You have been pontificating about the detection of gravitational waves for years but you have never bothered to learn how GR actually predicts the loss of energy by gravitational radiation from compact binaries which is the foundational theory of the entire field. You don't have to learn it, but rejecting its basic results just makes you look silly. You would be more self-consistent if you rejected GR altogether for whatever reason you choose.


If you had actually read my paper, you should have notice that I focused on the failures of their *methodology* and their overt biases, not the validity of GR theory, not the mathematical models they used, not the concept of massive objects, or the concept of them merging. My paper had *nothing* to do with complaining about GR or their merger models in the first place! Oy Vey.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1693
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Mon Oct 30, 2017 2:56 pm

Michael Mozina wrote:The guy claiming that 95 percent of the universe is made of invisible magic stuff? Please.


Then how can you explain unicorns without invisible magic stuff?

Unicorns make rainbows.
So it is clear that they exist.

And this means that this invisible magic stuff must also exist!

Applying the same logic using different names, shows
an appeal to belief fallacy. That is why I want proof of
each individual step, instead of creating a belief.
Even when that belief looks nice on paper.
(I also like unicorns and dragons)
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 992
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

Unread postby Cargo » Mon Oct 30, 2017 10:06 pm

Higgsy wrote:They are inferences .

To infer is to assume without exact definition. To create a fact where none may exist based on a 'hunch' or 'data' or maybe just because it's 'reasonable'... The BB, BH, and the entire Math Orgasm of Astro/Cosmic/Space Physics is 99% misguided and misunderstood about Reality. Cue the next shoe drop...

Higgsy wrote:A consequence of well accepted physics.

That is true if you ignore basic physics of the atom. Or maybe that's too old-school and simple so you don't need to worry about it. Because Q can allow G to overcome E. You just need to boost M to 1. And Zero is again Okay. The Math Physicists Theoreticians will show how we can simulate a compact object that creates a zero-space super-compact Neutron Particle Mass where the very Space of the NUCLEUS is 100% neutrons. And the Dust Ball turns into a Black Hole. We then Invent a Quatamagneto Shell to contain this Thing (after it's formed of course, somehow) before it's goes back to Neutral, because you know Neutrons and all that... I am mocking if you can't tell. And this imaginary near-not-zero object of ME can carry on Pulsing for x10x10X years until is Poofs into a Black Hole. This is Inferred all because of what?

Higgsy wrote:Gravitational multipoles are analogous to electric multipoles up to a point, but the analogy is not exact. For example, the lowest non-zero gravitational multipole which can radiate energy is the quadrupole, since the gravitational dipole corresponds simply to the centre of the mass of the system and is conserved (in the electrical case, an oscillating dipole can radiate energy). The field from any arbitrary mass system can be described by an infinite series of multipoles and the quadrupole is non-zero for any non-spherically symmetric mass. So, for example, two masses orbiting one another have a non-zero quadrupole moment (analogous to two opposite charges orbiting one another which also have a non-zero quadrupole moment), and can radiate gravitational energy in the form of waves.


Gravity is like Electricity up to a point but is not exactly. Yeah, or maybe...

Anyway, it's not like you are going to see what I mean anyway. I just would like to see the sub-proton photon-detector prove it's worth with something more 'down to earth'. It can detect a disturbance in the Gravity Force. Can it detect Earthquakes "early"? How about Nuclear Bomb Tests? Regular bombs? Cosmic Storms Winds? Anything?
Does the Moon not pull the Tides and 'flex' the Crust? With so much money, they should have 3DStudio show off the Strain of the Atoms and use some neat CSI Math tech to show where the two triangles-a-bending point to in the sky in Real Time.

But seriously, the Pulsar has forever been the flashing beacon of misplaced Gravity Force. The invention of a Neutron Star some 20-30yrs later (just after the 'Nuclear Age' had fostered hey) has also been forever a pile of infinite nonsense that is only allowed because of Relativistic powers granted by the Gravity Force.

A Neutron Compact Object... if you had a teaspoon full of it and blah blah, that is the most fairy tale thing ever.
interstellar filaments conducted electricity having currents as high as 10 thousand billion amperes
Cargo
 
Posts: 294
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 7:02 pm

Re: Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

Unread postby neilwilkes » Tue Oct 31, 2017 2:32 am

Bengt Nyman wrote:
neilwilkes wrote:...

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.


Yes indeed - thanks for the typo pointing out and I will go edit that. :oops:
You will never get a man to understand something his salary depends on him not understanding.
User avatar
neilwilkes
 
Posts: 359
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 4:30 am
Location: London, England

Re: Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

Unread postby neilwilkes » Tue Oct 31, 2017 3:22 am

Higgsy wrote:
Cargo wrote:Isn't the Big Bang and Infinite Density a preconceived assumption?
They are inferences .
How about Neutron Stars?
A consequence of well accepted physics.


And also in itself another assumption sorry, inference.
What Physics can possibly be responsible for breaking it's own laws - an object made of Neutrons is a physical impossibility because it falls far outside the chemical band of stability and could not possibly therefore exist as any "neutronium" formed would be so unstable it would cease to exist almost immediately.
Seehttp://www.algebralab.org/practice/practice.aspx?file=Reading_TheBandOfStability.xml%20

The truth is that Neutron Stars are an assumption and a ridiculous one at that.
You will never get a man to understand something his salary depends on him not understanding.
User avatar
neilwilkes
 
Posts: 359
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 4:30 am
Location: London, England

Re: Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Tue Oct 31, 2017 10:02 am

Zyxzevn wrote:
Michael Mozina wrote:The guy claiming that 95 percent of the universe is made of invisible magic stuff? Please.


Then how can you explain unicorns without invisible magic stuff?

Unicorns make rainbows.
So it is clear that they exist.


The really sad part is that is *exactly* the same logic behind both their dark energy and their dark matter claims. Invisible matter causes gravitational lensing (unicorn create rainbows), we see lensing patterns (rainbows), therefore invisible magic matter unicorns did it. Dark energy causes "space acceleration" (unicorns create rainbows), and (now falsified) assumptions about SN1A events being "standard candles" suggest that the universe is accelerating, therefore dark energy unicorns did it. Their entire model is built upon numerous and ridiculous affirming the consequent fallacies. just like your unicorn analogy. There's literally no difference between your analogy and their claims!

But sure, "trust them", in spite of the fact that Alfven rejected "magnetic reconnection" as "pseudoscience", magnetic reconnection is somehow responsible for every high energy event we observe in light plasma anyway. Forget the fact that Einstein flat out rejected their "black hole" models which supposedly collapse into a "point" , magic black holes exist anyway. And by all means, trust them when they claim that black holes merge together and magically emit multiple solar masses of energy in a 1/4 of a second, yet do so "invisibly" without emitting any observable EM emissions whatsoever!

What a pathetic cosmology model.

It's really no wonder why our community prefers to toss out the whole LCDM cosmology model, lock stock and barrel, but blaming GR theory for the sins of the LCDM model is like blaming Alfven today for the sins of the magnetic reconnection proponents. It makes me angry that astronomers ignore the authors of the theories they abuse on constant basis. What a scummy thing to do.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1693
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

Unread postby Cargo » Tue Oct 31, 2017 8:53 pm

Let's stick to this topic at least. Since cold (or any) dark matter is another impossibility, anyone who actually does believe in Dark Matter, already believes the entire box of magic and fairies.

I wonder if LIGO could be sensitive enough to detect Dark Matter? With the right bit of Noise and Math, I bet it could.
interstellar filaments conducted electricity having currents as high as 10 thousand billion amperes
Cargo
 
Posts: 294
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 7:02 pm

Re: Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

Unread postby Webbman » Wed Nov 01, 2017 4:02 am

since spacetime isn't stretching lets ponder what a device like this could be used for.
We shall know them by their works
Webbman
 
Posts: 522
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2014 10:49 am

Re: Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

Unread postby BeAChooser » Wed Nov 01, 2017 10:18 pm

It's hard to believe that Higgsy is still around after the last beating he took. :roll:
BeAChooser
 
Posts: 168
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2015 7:24 pm

Re: Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

Unread postby Higgsy » Thu Nov 02, 2017 8:50 am

Michael Mozina wrote:
The fact is that your refusal to accept the rather basic fact that falls directly out of a theory you claim to "support", that compact binary coalescence time is an inverse square function of system mass makes you look like the sort of whining schoolboy who refuses to accept the basic classical result that orbital period of planets goes as 3/2 power of distance from the sun.


That might actually have merit were able to demonstrate how your model handles charges of black holes and such, but your links don't even seem to deal with that possibility, so my criticism still stands. It's apparently a very "simplfied' model that makes a lot of 'assumptions' about the process. Having perused the links a bit, I'd say that's certainly the case.
Don't blame your ignorance and abject mathematical incompetence on me. Don't blame your inability to understand the links I gave you on me. You yourself admit that you know nothing about this subject and since you need to be familiar with tensor analysis to make sense of GR, then all aspects of GR will be a foggy mystery forever for you. If you had the ability to understand what I gave you, and you weren't so lazy and demanding to be spoon fed you would already have agreed that 10 solar mass black holes coalesce more quicky than 1.4 solar neutron stars, and we could move on. It's not as though the result is close and subject to being modified by perturbations. It's more than 50 times for heaven's sake. Links? You want links on charged BH mergers? Here you go - enjoy: arxiv:0907.1151.
How can you possibly claim to "support" GR when you refuse to understand its most basic results, such as the rate of gravitational energy radiated by compact binaries?

I can't really say I've spent a whole lot of time studying the gravitational wave emission aspects. I've simply taken them for granted to this point, but alas it's not a part of GR that I've spent a lot of time on yet, particularly how they model the merger processes.
What part of GR have you spent a lot of tiime on? Your ignorance of tensor analysis disqualifies you from understanding ANY part of GR.

I told you exactly how the complexities are dealt with using the Einstein quadrupole formula and the post-Newtonian formalism, approaches which you had never even heard of before I schooled you on their existence, and approaches which you steadfastly refuse to learn about (even if you had the capability of doing so). I even gave you links to start learning about the subject.


But your links didn't address my question related to the charge of the object or anything or the sort. In fact they seemed to simply *assume* that the charge of the objects was irrelevant or non-existent. Why?
Because the first references I gave you are dealing with the theory of mergers in the real world where BHs and NSs are not highly charged. Stars cannot be highly charged because that is a self-regulating process (a negatively charged star will create a negatively charged stellar wind until such time as the star becomes neutral again), and NS and solar mass BHs are the remnants of stars. However, I have now given you a reference on the charged BBH question. However, your focus on a non-issue (it's a non-issue for the question of whether BH mergers proceed much faster than NS mergers) is more evidence of your total ignorance of astrophysics.

I have already told you that the complexities are dealt with in the PN formalism. I'm afraid you'll have to learn the maths and then learn the methods.

Cop out. Where *exactly* in either paper did they address the charge of the objects. If you won't be specific as to even where such calculations are presented and dealt with, I'm going to have to assume you're just making this up as you go.
Why on earth do you you think I give two pins what you assume?
But I'll give you another starting link - see for example Tessmer and Schaeffer, Eccentric Motion of Spinning Compact Binaries, arxiv 1406.0358, which generalises the PN formalism through Hamilton-Jacobi theory and cites many papers on the subject. Are you seriously expecting me to reproduce in words in a forum post the mathematical theory of gravitational radiation?


What I'm looking for is something *specific*, including a page number and formula where complexities like charge are even dealt with. You don't seem to be capable of doing that.
And you don't seem to be capable of understanding the references I have given you - why on earth should I spoon feed you this stuff? You now have references that cover complexiteies such as unequal masses, initially eccentric orbits, spin, spin alignments and charge. None of these affect the first order conclusion that BH mergers occur faster than NS mergers (more than 50 times for 10:1.4 ratio of masses) which is reached with the same derivation and the same result in all the references. You know, you're just making yourself look stupid.
I wonder whether you realise how absurd your refusal to accept this basic result appears to anyone with the slightest real knowledge of GR.


Yawn. Do you realize how absurd it looks to simply ignore the complexities of the process and attack anyone who points it out?
Do you realise how absurd it looks to ignore the fact that the complexities have been treated and don't affect the conclusion?
You have been pontificating about the detection of gravitational waves for years but you have never bothered to learn how GR actually predicts the loss of energy by gravitational radiation from compact binaries which is the foundational theory of the entire field. You don't have to learn it, but rejecting its basic results just makes you look silly. You would be more self-consistent if you rejected GR altogether for whatever reason you choose.

If you had actually read my paper, you should have notice that I focused on the failures of their *methodology* and their overt biases, not the validity of GR theory, not the mathematical models they used, not the concept of massive objects, or the concept of them merging. My paper had *nothing* to do with complaining about GR or their merger models in the first place! Oy Vey.
Your "paper" doesn't address the question of merger dynamics which is what you are currently irrationally digging your heels in about, and so is irrelevant to this discussion. What is relevant is your erroneous and ignorant assertion that 10 solar mass black holes should merge with the same dynamics as 1.4 solar mass neutron stars. You have already said that you haven't studied the merger process. Why can't you just admit, like a normal reasonable person would, that now it's been explained, you understand that the rate of energy loss from compact binaries as a result of gravitational radiation, according to GR, is much higher for higher masses than lower masses. That's all that's required to understand this stuff to the level that explains why the BH detection signals were much shorter than the NS one. But no, you have invested yourself to such an extent in denial of the BH detections that admitting that an objection that you put forward is invalid is beyond you, and so you tie yourself in ridiculous knots to maintain it.
"Every single ion is going to start cooling off instantly as far as I know…If you're mixing kinetic energy in there somehow, you'll need to explain exactly how you're defining 'temperature'" - Mozina
Higgsy
 
Posts: 217
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 3:32 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests