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 Solar » Sat Nov 04, 2017 6:57 am

There also exist a LIGO & Citizen Scientist collaboration where YOU can help 'train' computers to identify "glitches" and "triggers":

Being the most sensitive and most complicated gravitational experiment ever created, LIGO is susceptible to a great deal of instrumental and environmental sources of noise called glitches. These glitches are difficult to model using computers, can mimic true astrophysical signals, and generally make LIGO less sensitive to gravitational waves.

By selecting the right classification for a given glitch, you are helping computers learn to do this classification themselves on much larger datasets, which helps scientists determine and eliminate the sources of noise. Humans still are far better than computers at recognizing subtle differences across images and when an image simply does not fit within a known category. Please help us identify all of the glitch morphologies and open up an even bigger window into the gravitational wave universe! - Gravity Spy


Quit whining and go help out.
"Our laws of force tend to be applied in the Newtonian sense in that for every action there is an equal reaction, and yet, in the real world, where many-body gravitational effects or electrodynamic actions prevail, we do not have every action paired with an equal reaction." — Harold Aspden
User avatar
Solar
 
Posts: 1272
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:05 am

Re: Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

Unread postby Higgsy » Sat Nov 04, 2017 7:57 am

moonkoon wrote:To add some perspective to this discussion, here are a few quotes from a PBS report about the Advanced LIGO that suitably unqualified readers may find helpful in their efforts to assess the reliability of the interpretations of transient signals detected by the LIGO machine. Apologies if this report has already been mentioned

SNIP

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/physi ... nced-ligo/

Even assuming we have the cosmological models right, based on the amount of data to hand, these initial squiggle interpretations seem a little heroic, in my opinion. :-)

Have you ever considered reading the discovery papers and supplemental papers from LIGO rather than relying on a popular and out of date PBS article?
Higgsy
 
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 3:32 pm

Re: Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

Unread postby Cargo » Sat Nov 04, 2017 9:14 am

What is the half-life, or total life of a Neutron?
Cargo
 
Posts: 124
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 7:02 pm

Re: Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

Unread postby Bengt Nyman » Sat Nov 04, 2017 9:17 am

Cargo wrote:What is the half-life, or total life of a Neutron?

"A free neutron will decay with a half-life of about 10.3 minutes but it is stable if combined into a nucleus. This decay is an example of beta decay with the emission of an electron and an electron antineutrino."
Bengt Nyman
 
Posts: 475
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:39 pm
Location: USA and Sweden

Re: Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

Unread postby moonkoon » Sat Nov 04, 2017 9:21 am

I'm mainly interested in the isolation technology and how it deals with natural seismic activity ranging from major displacement to things like longer period temperature and pressure effects, so I have read some of the excellent and detailed LIGO literature on the subject of keeping the apparatus 'afloat'.

Their whole effort, engineering, information sharing etc. is impressive. Any skepticism about interpretation or process does not detract from these achievements.

The recent series of bold claims may well turn out to be spot-on, but I think a much longer time-frame is needed before the interpretations can be added to the canon.

And the time-frame may be even longer if the low number of detections to date is any indication. Maybe 200 light years out is a bit too optimistic, no? :-)
moonkoon
 
Posts: 74
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 9:37 pm

Re: Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Sat Nov 04, 2017 9:25 am

Higgsy wrote:
Michael Mozina wrote:
I guarantee you that you personally won't ever help poor clueless Clinger, and Mr. verbal abuse (RC)...

Get down off your high horse before you hurt yourself.

I have no idea what this rant is all about, but the facts remain that you would fail a foundational undergraduate EM theory exam and you haven't shown the mathematical ability to solve simultaneous partial differential equations in vector algebra.


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... ost7721905
http://www.cesura17.net/~will/Ephemera/ ... index.html

The fact remains that you and your EU/PC hater posse are absolutely and utterly *clueless* about even the most rudimentary theoretical aspects of EM field theory, not to mention MHD theory. I spent *months* trying to get poor Clinger to recognize the fact that he can't transfer magnetic field energy into particle kinetic energy (AKA "magnetic reconnection") without a single plasma particle to his name! Clinger and the hater posse claimed to demonstrate "magnetic reconnection" in pure vacuum, in a *NULL* point no less, but your completely inept math professor *never* produced his missing math formula to describe a non-zero rate of "magnetic reconnection" in his ridiculous vacuum contraption. Your MIT math professor failed his own math test in truly epic fashion!

Clinger painted himself right into a mathematical corner and you folks had to ban me to shut me up when it became damn apparent that he had no clue what he was talking about. I hounded him for that missing math formula for *months*, and now for *years*, and I'm never going to see it.

You folks may know math, but you know almost *nothing* about even basic EM field theory or basic MHD theory, starting with the fact that MHD theory describes the behaviors of *plasma*, not vacuums. How ignorant can you folks be anyway?

Magnetic "lines" don't even exist in the first place, anymore than you will find actual topology "lines" on a mountain top! Holy Cow. They cannot disconnect from, nor reconnect to other magnetic lines, because the *lines* are not real to start with! They are nothing but a teaching tool to describe the magnetic field topology, just like topology lines on a map describe the topological layout of 3 dimensional surface features.

Whatever my math limitations might be, they utterly *pale* in comparison to your complete ineptitude in physics theory.

Get over yourselves, or go help poor clueless Clinger figure out his missing math formula to describe a non zero rate of 'reconnection' in his vacuum contraption. Better yet, go help him figure out that he screwed up big time.

Oy Vey. I've *never* seen anyone stick their foot in their mouth so deeply in my entire life. The whole hater posse at JREF/ISF demonstrated their complete ignorance of even basic EM field theory. They literally cannot tell the physical difference between very ordinary magnetic flux in a vacuum, and the process of transferring magnetic field energy into particle acceleration known as "magnetic reconnection" Wow! It's no wonder why you folks are still wallowing around in the dark ages of physics and reduced to using placeholder terms for human ignorance and pseudoscience to describe our universe.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1197
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

Unread postby Webbman » Sat Nov 04, 2017 9:43 am

I was pretty much full stop when they claimed to know the mass of the black holes. I should of known neutron stars would be next...lol

prediction!!! round 3 is black hole meets neutron star!
The secret to the universe is a rubber band.
Webbman
 
Posts: 367
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2014 10:49 am

Re: Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Sat Nov 04, 2017 1:54 pm

Zyxzevn wrote:Now we just do not agree on how the frequency.

The frequency .... would be the resonance frequency if there were no Fabry–Pérot cavities.

I forgot to reference the LIGO website (see link).
LIGO wrote:With Fabry Perot cavities, LIGO's interfereometer arms are effectively 1120 km long, making them 144,000 times bigger than Michelson's original instrument! This bit of 'mirror magic' greatly increases LIGO's sensitivity and makes it capable of detecting changes in arm-length thousands of times smaller than a proton, all while keeping the physical size of the interferometer manageable.


So based on this basic LIGO information we can indeed find a theoretical resonance of:
133.9 Hz (2240km wavelength).
It is probably changed in upgrades or they implemented the Fabry–Pérot cavity in a different way,
because we see different frequencies.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 700
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Sat Nov 04, 2017 2:02 pm

Solar wrote:Quit whining and go help out.

What if they are all glitches?
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 700
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Sat Nov 04, 2017 2:13 pm

Michael Mozina wrote:You folks may know math, but you know almost *nothing* about even basic EM field theory or basic MHD theory, starting with the fact that MHD theory describes the behaviors of *plasma*, not vacuums. How ignorant can you folks be anyway?


My university background is in EM, and I have never seen such bullshit as magnetic reconnection.
With that astronomy has hit a new low.
If any of magnetic reconnection were true, we can put all physics in the drain.

It is actually very similar to astrology.
In both cases, imaginary lines are doing miraculous things.

After looking at the details, it seems that they have simply mistaken the Zeeman-effect with the Stark-effect.
AND these "scientists" have lost all connection with reality.
I made [url=http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=16662]a special thread to go into magnetic reconnection on the sun[url].
I think that good physical examples make it much clearer.
I also explain there what is wrong with the theory as described on wikipedia.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 700
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

Unread postby Cargo » Sat Nov 04, 2017 9:49 pm

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.
Cargo
 
Posts: 124
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 7:02 pm

Re: Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

Unread postby Higgsy » Sun Nov 05, 2017 3:38 am

Webbman wrote:I was pretty much full stop when they claimed to know the mass of the black holes. I should of known neutron stars would be next...lol

prediction!!! round 3 is black hole meets neutron star!

You could make the effort to learn how the masses of binaries are deduced from the data or you could stick with the uninformed argument from personal incredulity. And yes, NS/BH mergers are a possibility.
Higgsy
 
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 3:32 pm

Re: Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

Unread postby Higgsy » Sun Nov 05, 2017 3:58 am

moonkoon wrote:I'm mainly interested in the isolation technology and how it deals with natural seismic activity ranging from major displacement to things like longer period temperature and pressure effects, so I have read some of the excellent and detailed LIGO literature on the subject of keeping the apparatus 'afloat'.

Their whole effort, engineering, information sharing etc. is impressive. Any skepticism about interpretation or process does not detract from these achievements.

The recent series of bold claims may well turn out to be spot-on, but I think a much longer time-frame is needed before the interpretations can be added to the canon.

And the time-frame may be even longer if the low number of detections to date is any indication. Maybe 200 light years out is a bit too optimistic, no? :-)

The rate of detections is pretty much what was expected for this stage of the sensitivity refinement, and assuming the improvements go as planned, the rate of detections should be much higher by 2021.
Higgsy
 
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 3:32 pm

Re: Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

Unread postby Higgsy » Sun Nov 05, 2017 4:33 am

Zyxzevn wrote:
Zyxzevn wrote:Now we just do not agree on how the frequency.

The frequency .... would be the resonance frequency if there were no Fabry–Pérot cavities.

I forgot to reference the LIGO website (see link).
LIGO wrote:With Fabry Perot cavities, LIGO's interfereometer arms are effectively 1120 km long, making them 144,000 times bigger than Michelson's original instrument! This bit of 'mirror magic' greatly increases LIGO's sensitivity and makes it capable of detecting changes in arm-length thousands of times smaller than a proton, all while keeping the physical size of the interferometer manageable.


So based on this basic LIGO information we can indeed find a theoretical resonance of:
133.9 Hz (2240km wavelength).
It is probably changed in upgrades or they implemented the Fabry–Pérot cavity in a different way,
because we see different frequencies.

No, you still don’t understand. They are explaining to lay people how signal recycling improves the sensitivity by comparing it to effectively increasing the path length. But the actual mechanism to improve sensitivity by using a Fabry-Perot is an increase in the finesse of the fringes not an increase in the cavity length. The cavity length is 4 km and the fundamental mode is 37.5kHz. But whether it is 37.5kHz or 134Hz is irrelevant as the radiation in the interferometer is all at Nd-YAG 1046 nm and there is no radiation or signal at the fundamental eigenmode. You have had this fact explained to you 15 times now and you are so bone headed and wedded to your nonsense that you refuse to accept it.
Higgsy
 
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 3:32 pm

Re: Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

Unread postby Higgsy » Sun Nov 05, 2017 4:35 am

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.
Higgsy
 
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 3:32 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests