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 » Sun Nov 05, 2017 5:25 am

Michael Mozina wrote:
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.

I think I’m in a time warp. I have an intense feeling of deja vu where someone keeps bellowing about some ancient and irrelevant tale using exactly the same phrases over and over again.
Higgsy
 
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 3:32 pm

Re: Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

Unread postby Bengt Nyman » Sun Nov 05, 2017 5:26 am

Hi Higgsy,
You seem like a decent fellow, refraining for the most part from using unnecessary, negative epithets when addressing your adversaries. Please perfect that. In case you wonder about some of the members on this forum I have a theory. Many of them are common sense based and refuse to accept anything that does not clearly link to their existing knowledge base. Others, like yourself, excel at calculating and drawing mathematical conclusions from assumptions mostly made by others. These two modes of operation come from two very different brains resulting in the perception of two very different worlds.
The mainstream Standard Model is a mixture of both. SM deserves respect for the parts of Relativity that is based on observations and logic but looses its credibility when it promotes nonsensical hypotheses like space-time.
My own and probably a big part of EU's skepticism about mainstream SM is that we refuse to base our perception on somebody else's fantasy or leap of faith. Unless your arguments spring from a solid point to which EU members agree, your teachings, no matter how mathematically correct, will be aggressively rejected because of your lack of a solid footing.
Bengt Nyman http://www.dipole.se
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 Michael Mozina » Sun Nov 05, 2017 9:39 am

Zyxzevn wrote:
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.


It was bad enough that they're mislabeling the concept of induction, i.e. the transfer of magnetic field energy into particle kinetic energy by introducing a time variable magnetic field into a conductor, but the fact they kept talking about "reconnection" without even including particle acceleration was mind boggling. The irony overload was the fact that the MIT math professor painted himself right into a corner when he couldn't come up with a formula to express a non-zero rate of 'reconnection' without a plasma particle to his name! Wow. Not only don't they understand basic EM field theory, they don't have the first clue about plasma physics, not even the fact that it describes the movement of *plasma*! :)

The moment I pointed out Clinger's missing math formula, they all freaked out, and i got banned for pointing out that obvious problem, and continuing to ask them for it.

I really thought that astronomers at least understood basic EM field theory, but I was sadly mistaken. :( They actually believe that magnetic "lines" disconnect and reconnection to one another. They really don't even understand the difference between ordinary flux in a vacuum, and the concept of inducing particle acceleration in a conductive plasma. That's how bad it really is.
Last edited by Michael Mozina on Sun Nov 05, 2017 9:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1191
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Sun Nov 05, 2017 9:52 am

Higgsy wrote:I think I’m in a time warp. I have an intense feeling of deja vu where someone keeps bellowing about some ancient and irrelevant tale using exactly the same phrases over and over again.


It may be ancient history, but it's certainly not irrelevant to our conversation. It demonstrates very clearly that whatever our community's mathematical limitations might be, they utterly pale in comparison to your industry's complete and total ignorance of basic EM field theory, and plasma physics.

Since Maxwell's equations solve for both E and B, and it's certainly possible to transfer magnetic field energy into particle acceleration (induction), I never quite understood why Hannes Alfven so adamantly rejected MR theory. After that conversation at JREF/ISF however, I finally realized that astronomers don't understand the first thing about plasma physics or even basic EM field theory so that term just confuses the hell out you. Alfven's double layer paper makes the whole concept of "magnetic reconnecton" irrelevant and obsolete in all current carrying environments, and you folks are in staunch denial of very basic physics principles.

The fact that you even think that those lines are "real" lines in the first place, or that they disconnect and reconnect to other lines to release energy just demonstrates how ignorant you are of even basic EM field theory. Those lines are no more "real", and no more "substantive" than the "lines" we observe on topology maps of a mountain. Your reconnection claims amount to claiming that the cause of ground movement from an earthquake is related to the energy released by "topology map line reconnection"! Holy cow. Astronomers are utterly clueless about basic EM field theory.

Who the hell are you to lecture me about my knowledge of physics?
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1191
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Sun Nov 05, 2017 10:01 am

Bengt Nyman wrote:Hi Higgsy,
You seem like a decent fellow, refraining for the most part from using unnecessary, negative epithets when addressing your adversaries. Please perfect that. In case you wonder about some of the members on this forum I have a theory. Many of them are common sense based and refuse to accept anything that does not clearly link to their existing knowledge base. Others, like yourself, excel at calculating and drawing mathematical conclusions from assumptions mostly made by others. These two modes of operation come from two very different brains resulting in the perception of two very different worlds.
The mainstream Standard Model is a mixture of both. SM deserves respect for the parts of Relativity that is based on observations and logic but looses its credibility when it promotes nonsensical hypotheses like space-time.
My own and probably a big part of EU's skepticism about mainstream SM is that we refuse to base our perception on somebody else's fantasy or leap of faith. Unless your arguments spring from a solid point to which EU members agree, your teachings, no matter how mathematically correct, will be aggressively rejected because of your lack of a solid footing.
Bengt Nyman http://www.dipole.se


Unfortunately however, that's really not possible because A) LCDM proponents have no clue about even basic EM field theory or they wouldn't claim that magnetic lines disconnect from and reconnect to other magnetic lines, and B) they garbage up GR theory with pure metaphysical nonsense and they refuse to even admit the fact that they're making a "leap of faith" in metaphysical nonsense. Between those two key issues, there really isn't any common ground between our two communities.

We use ordinary circuit theory to describe high energy events in light plasma, whereas they resort to convoluted pseudoscience to describe the same events. Some of us might embrace the core concepts of GR theory, but none of us will agree to let them stuff a GR formula full of 'dark magic'. You'll note that Einstein outright rejected their concept of a "black hole" condensing to a zero radius "point" object, and Alfven flat out rejected the way they try to kludge MHD theory. LCDM proponents reject the core beliefs of the authors of the mathematical theories they use (actually abuse), whereas we do not.

There's almost no common ground at all. They're quite content to wallow around in the dark ages of physics until the day they die, whereas we're insisting on looking for real empirical explanations of our universe based on known laws of physics. LCDM proponents have *far* more in common with astrologers than they have with our community. Astrology claims and LCDM claims cannot be verified in controlled experimentation on Earth, whereas every single principle that we apply to plasma in space also works in the lab. We literally have almost nothing in common.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1191
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Sun Nov 05, 2017 11:18 am



Michael wrote:I really thought that astronomers at least understood basic EM field theory, but I was sadly mistaken. :( They actually believe that magnetic "lines" disconnect and reconnection to one another. They really don't even understand the difference between ordinary flux in a vacuum, and the concept of inducing particle acceleration in a conductive plasma. That's how bad it really is.


Yes. It is really bad.
The difference between EM/Physics and astronomy is
like the difference between neurology and psychology.
Two different fields saying different things, and many pseudo scientific theories in the latter (psychology /astronomy).
Those theories are in conflict the physical basis on which these theories are formed.

Addition:
I think that the "specialist" fallacy is highly integrated in the scientific system of astronomy.
Which causes these "specialists" and their followers to deny any failures and wrongdoing.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 699
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Sun Nov 05, 2017 11:52 am

Higgsy wrote: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.

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

In the "scientists section" there is another mentioning of the long distance that I mentioned:
LIGO wrote:See: https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/page/ligo-technology

The mirrors also refocus the laser, keeping the beam traveling coherently, meaning that it doesn't spread out as it travels throughout its multiple reflections before encountering the photodetector.

Finally, the mirrors were polished so precisely that the difference between the theoretical design (the perfect mirror shape as designed on a computer) and the actual polished mirror surface is measured in atoms! This is critical because, with all the reflections it goes through, each laser in each arm travels about 1120 km before being merged with its partner and reflected one last time to the photodetector. Maintaining the stability and purity of the laser light is one of LIGO's biggest challenges.

They are still claiming the 1120 km distance, without mentioning the cavity.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 699
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

Unread postby Cargo » Sun Nov 05, 2017 1:32 pm

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.
Cargo
 
Posts: 123
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 7:02 pm

Re: Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Mon Nov 06, 2017 8:37 am

Zyxzevn wrote:Addition:
I think that the "specialist" fallacy is highly integrated in the scientific system of astronomy.
Which causes these "specialists" and their followers to deny any failures and wrongdoing.


That's probably true, but.....

The whole concept of applying the term 'specialist' to LCDM proponents seems rather dubious and contrived to start with. The whole lot of them can't name so much as a single identified source of "dark energy'' yet it makes up the vast majority of their beliefs. Ditto with '"dark matter". Not one experiment has been a success in terms of the predictive usefulness of their claims, so what exactly is so "special" about their level of expertise in that area? Between the two of those metaphysical claims, they make up the vast majority of their beliefs, and most of the rest of their beliefs are based upon "pseudoscience' according to the "specialist' who actually wrote MHD theory.

I think you're probably right about their egos *imagining* some sort of specialization is necessary or warranted to judge their beliefs, but from the outside looking in they certainly don't appear to have any real expertise on the topics which they discuss and "specialize" in. It's akin to being a 'specialist' on the topic of Bigfoot, astrology or Scientology. Their field of specialization doesn't seem to have actual application in the real world.

I'm not really seeing any actual useful "knowledge' associated with their areas of specialization.

It's a 'little' different when we discuss concepts like LIGO and gravitational waves, but this seems to be the rare exception rather than the rule.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1191
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

Unread postby Higgsy » Mon Nov 06, 2017 11:18 am

Zyxzevn wrote:My university background is in EM,
Really? Really??!!
and I have never seen such bullshit as magnetic reconnection.
With that astronomy has hit a new low.
well, if you say so, it must be so. But you do know people researching magnetic reconnection are not all astronomers?
If any of magnetic reconnection were true, we can put all physics in the drain.
Crikey! Why would you say that? You do know that magnetic reconnection is a sudden change in the topology of a magnetic field which releases energy (as the new topology has a smaller potential energy than the old one)? That's all.

After looking at the details, it seems that they have simply mistaken the Zeeman-effect with the Stark-effect.
The Zeeman effect confused with the Stark effect, has led to the concept of magnetic reconnection? Really??!! What on earth has line-splitting got to do with magnetic reconnection? And what sort of physicist confuses the Zeeman and Stark effects? Are you really sure you know what they are?
Higgsy
 
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 3:32 pm

Re: Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

Unread postby Higgsy » Mon Nov 06, 2017 11:37 am

Bengt Nyman wrote:Hi Higgsy,
You seem like a decent fellow, refraining for the most part from using unnecessary, negative epithets when addressing your adversaries. Please perfect that. In case you wonder about some of the members on this forum I have a theory. Many of them are common sense based and refuse to accept anything that does not clearly link to their existing knowledge base. Others, like yourself, excel at calculating and drawing mathematical conclusions from assumptions mostly made by others. These two modes of operation come from two very different brains resulting in the perception of two very different worlds.

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.
The mainstream Standard Model is a mixture of both. SM deserves respect for the parts of Relativity that is based on observations and logic but looses its credibility when it promotes nonsensical hypotheses like space-time.
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.
My own and probably a big part of EU's skepticism about mainstream SM is that we refuse to base our perception on somebody else's fantasy or leap of faith.
But GR and QM aren't fantasies or leaps of faith, but theories that accurately describe the observed universe - very accurately.
Unless your arguments spring from a solid point to which EU members agree, your teachings, no matter how mathematically correct, will be aggressively rejected because of your lack of a solid footing.
Bengt Nyman http://www.dipole.se
No - the solid basis is absolutely there. What I have observed is that unless my views match the prejudiced and unsupported opinions of EU/PC proponents, then they will be rejected, no matter how well based on evidence they are. I have also observed that EU/PC proponents propose hypoytheses that can be shown, with a few quick calculations, to be impossible. 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?
Higgsy
 
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 3:32 pm

Re: Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Mon Nov 06, 2017 1:34 pm

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.

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, but 95 percent of your cosmology claims (even more than 95 percent when you include space expansion and inflation) are not required elements of GR to begin with and you folks rarely if ever take the time or make the effort to explain that to anyone.

I think the problem here is that your industry keeps trying to ride the coattails of GR theory with a cosmology model that is mostly "black magic", not GR theory. It's the black magic parts of LCDM that tends to turn off this community, along with other "questionable" elements like your definition of "black holes" which Einstein himself *rejected*. GR itself isn't the problem IMO, it's the unrelated and unnecessary elements of LCMD that most people tend to reject.

I'm not sure that most EU/PC proponents even understand where GR theory ends and the LCDM model begins, That's mostly your fault too, not ours. Your industry relies upon blatant 'bait and switch' routines by talking about "Doppler shift" in relationship to resdshift, and then using an equivocation fallacy that equates "space expansion" with moving objects. They aren't the same process or the same claim, but you intentionally confuse everyone by trying to use one demonstrated observation (moving objects) to support a purely metaphysical claim like 'space expansion". It's damn confusing to anyone and everyone who's trying to understand your beliefs and how they differ from the core features of GR. Moving objects is a given in SR and GR, but "space expansion" isn't a requirement, just a mathematical possibility. You never make that clear. We have to figure that out on our own if we can with no help from you, and in spite of your intentional bait and switch routines.

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. You're almost immediately introducing an entirely optional and metaphysical component into GR the moment you look outside of the solar system. It's gets far away from GR as we look at cosmology theory because you're introducing *four* metaphysical and entirely optional elements into those formulas to "get a fit'. I'd have to say that the accuracy of GR ends the moment you start claiming to know how much ordinary matter exists in a galaxy. If we assume that your mass estimates of galaxies are correct, GR longer works well at all to describe anything outside of the solar system. I personally think you just screwed up those mass estimates and many studies suggest the same thing.

]No - the solid basis is absolutely there.


Not exactly. You can't even explain solar wind with GR or any theory of gravity alone. Something *else*, other than gravity, must also have a tangible influence on the mass flow patterns of our own solar system. You start off by neglecting the electric fields of space from the moment you try to describe the cause of solar wind and the heat source of the sun's corona. You've dumbed down EM fields to magnetism alone even here inside of our own solar system and you use pseudoscience to describe electrically driven events. It only gets worse as we move further from the sun. Your obvious lack of inclusion of electric fields and their influence on mass is suspect even from the moment we start to discuss the Earth's aurora and the heat source of the sun's corona. While Birkeland built working models of these features with electric fields over a century ago, you *still* can't replicate a sustained full sphere corona and planetary aurora in a lab to this day based on your dumbed down models. Gravity alone *cannot be* the only important feature of spacetime, but you consistently treat it that way, and it never fits, so you're constantly introducing ad-hoc metaphysical elements galore into GR formulas which have no business even being inserted into a GR formula to start with.

What I have observed is that unless my views match the prejudiced and unsupported opinions of EU/PC proponents, then they will be rejected, no matter how well based on evidence they are.


That depends on the claim you're making. If you're claiming that "dark energy did it", ya, we'll probably all reject such metaphysical nonsense. If you stick to GR theory itself, not all of us will reject every argument you make. We (as a community) don't all have to swallow the same party line dogma the way that LCDM proponents are required/forced to do. We don't all think alike yet you keep insisting that we do. That's your first error.

I have also observed that EU/PC proponents propose hypoytheses 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? 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? Hell, you guys just make up lies and bogus and false arguments most of the time. At least half of the time you're completely full of it. Why should we trust so called "professions" when you're horrifically ignorant of even the most basic elements of EU/PC theories? Who for instance in our community every claimed that our sun is predicted to produce "no neutrinos"? You guys just make sh*t up as you go.

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. It just makes you look bad.

You'd probably have a lot more success around here if you started by acknowledging the fact that we don't all think in lock-step, and acknowledging the fact that do you have some allies here with respect to *some* elements of GR and SR theory, including the concept of gravitational waves. I started this thread, but I never questioned the scientific legitimacy of GR theory *or* gravitational waves, even though Einstein himself once questioned gravitational waves.

I do however have *serious* reservations about your definition of a "black hole" condensing itself to a "point" and so did Einstein. I also have very grave reservations about the methodology that was used by LIGO prior to their first multimessnger observation, and I haven't seen you even touch those methodology issues with a 10 foot pole yet. About all I've seen so far in this thread is you erroneously lumping us altogether and you blatantly ignoring the actual points I made in my paper. That's not really going to win you any points with me either.

I'm frankly personally very relieved that LIGO finally delivered on their promise of multimessenger astronomy and I was personally very impressed with their last paper, if not at all impressed at all with their first four papers.

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. That just makes you look like you're avoiding the topic only so you can diss on EU/PC proponents by erroneously lumping us altogether and by fixating on irrelevant side issues.

You mostly have a tough time with this particular audience because we all recognize the electrophobic nature of your industry, and your ridiculous reliance upon ad-hoc constructs and metaphysics to make up most of your cosmology model, not because you believe that gravity is 'important' or that GR theory is superior to Netwon's definition of gravity. You also seem to blame us for attempting to do what everyone does, namely look for ways to tie all the known forces of nature together. For instance, I don't personally believe that a dipole description of gravity is superior to GR theory to describe gravity, but I wouldn't "assume" that gravity and EM fields are completely unrelated either.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1191
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Mon Nov 06, 2017 2:01 pm

Higgsy wrote:well, if you say so, it must be so. But you do know people researching magnetic reconnection are not all astronomers?


Ya but their experiments typically start and end with electric fields and electrical current to create and sustain the process and they sweep that part right under the carpet like it doesn't matter. It matters.

Crikey! Why would you say that? You do know that magnetic reconnection is a sudden change in the topology of a magnetic field which releases energy (as the new topology has a smaller potential energy than the old one)? That's all.


Ah, but that's not all. The topology change doesn't result in 'magnetic reconnection" AKA a transfer of magnetic field energy to particle kinetic energy without inducing particle movement in plasma (a conductor). Nobody at JREF even seems to realize the need to transfer field energy into particle acceleration to get "magnetic reconnection". They didn't transfer any magnetic field energy into particle kinetic energy and you didn't mention that part either! Why not?

For God sake, Alfven's double layer paper explains the whole process of what happens inside of a current sheet *without* evoking a special process like "magnetic reconnection". It's an unnecessary concept and a confusing one at that. Clinger and the whole clueless hater posse at ISF seem to believe that magnetic lines disconnect and reconnect to each other in a frigging null point no less! Holy cow.

You guys are completely and totally clueless about the real physics going on. It's no wonder why Alfven called the whole reconnection claim "pseudoscience". It is "pseudo" correct because it is actually possible to transfer magnetic field energy into particle kinetic energy by introducing a time variable magnetic field inside of a *conductor* and inducing charged particle movement, but it has nothing to do with magnetic lines disconnecting or "reconnecting"! Your industry doesn't even have a good grasp of *basic EM field theory*. Those magnetic "lines" aren't even real (they're a topology teaching tool), so they can't disconnect or reconnect to other lines and release energy all by themselves, anymore than the lines on a topology map can disconnect and reconnect and thereby cause earthquakes. Oy Vey.

You at least seem to understand there's a topology change involved, but there's also an *induction* process going on which is what actually causes the transfer of energy, not "reconnnecting magnetic lines'.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1191
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

Unread postby Higgsy » Mon Nov 06, 2017 5:41 pm

Zyxzevn wrote:
Higgsy wrote: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.

Do you have a link for that?
(of how they actually implemented it in the LIGO.)
The implementation is described in the links I already gave you to the actual science reporting papers. But here are a few more links which are directly relevant:
https://labcit.ligo.caltech.edu/~ajw/LIGO_SURF02_3.pdf pages 1 -7
https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0110061.pdf
Arxiv1411.4547

Look, I know how a Fabry-Perot cavity works because I have designed them and built them, and worked with all sorts of interferometer. In an FP cavity the fringe spacing is the same as it is in a single pass interferometer with arms of the same length (or to put it another way, the fundamental eigenmode is at twice the cavity length). The free spectral range of the LIGO Fabry-Perot cavities is 37.5kHz not 134Hz (which is the same as LIGO would have with single pass arms, and the fundamental eigenmode is at 37.5kHz). The finesse of the Fabry-Perot in advanced LIGO is 450 which is the ratio of the frequency span at full width half maximum of a fringe to the free spectral range.

In the "scientists section" there is another mentioning of the long distance that I mentioned:
LIGO wrote:See: https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/page/ligo-technology

The mirrors also refocus the laser, keeping the beam traveling coherently, meaning that it doesn't spread out as it travels throughout its multiple reflections before encountering the photodetector.

Finally, the mirrors were polished so precisely that the difference between the theoretical design (the perfect mirror shape as designed on a computer) and the actual polished mirror surface is measured in atoms! This is critical because, with all the reflections it goes through, each laser in each arm travels about 1120 km before being merged with its partner and reflected one last time to the photodetector. Maintaining the stability and purity of the laser light is one of LIGO's biggest challenges.

They are still claiming the 1120 km distance, without mentioning the cavity.

Yes, but that's for lay people. The more correct description is contained in the links above. The sensitivity is increased as though the arm lengths are 1120km, but they are not; and the FP cavities improve the finesse of the fringes without changing the free spectral range so that the sensitivity is the same as if the arms were 1120km, but the cavity lengths are 4km.

But all of this is moot. Whether the fundamental mode is 134Hz (incorrect) or 37.5kHz (correct) is irrelevant, because in neither case does the interferometer produce radiation or signals at those frequencies. It does not and cannot.
Higgsy
 
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 3:32 pm

Re: Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

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

Michael Mozina wrote:
Higgsy wrote:I think I’m in a time warp. I have an intense feeling of deja vu where someone keeps bellowing about some ancient and irrelevant tale using exactly the same phrases over and over again.


It may be ancient history, but it's certainly not irrelevant to our conversation. It demonstrates very clearly that whatever our community's mathematical limitations might be, they utterly pale in comparison to your industry's complete and total ignorance of basic EM field theory, and plasma physics.

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. And as we have seen, you are disqualified from commenting on electromagnetic theory (you would fail the most basic undergraduate exam in electromagnetic theory) and you are disqualified from commenting on all aspects of plasma physics including MHD (as you are incapable of working the simplest problems that require solving simultaneous partial differential equations in vector algebra). It is utterly absurd and stupid to claim that the very people who developed all this physics (without whom you would be even more ignorant than you are) don't understand it. It is a remarkably silly idea.

Since Maxwell's equations solve for both E and B, and it's certainly possible to transfer magnetic field energy into particle acceleration (induction), I never quite understood why Hannes Alfven so adamantly rejected MR theory. After that conversation at JREF/ISF however, I finally realized that astronomers don't understand the first thing about plasma physics or even basic EM field theory so that term just confuses the hell out you.
First of all, I have no idea what JREF/ISF is, but the notion that physicists don't understand plasma physics and EM theory (why the addition of the superfluous word "field in there?) is just nonsensical. As a physics undergraduate, I took several courses on EM theory and a full course on plasma physics as did all other professional physicists. You're just full of it, but you are totally unable to pass the most elementary undergraduate exams on EM theory and on MHD.
Alfven's double layer paper makes the whole concept of "magnetic reconnecton" irrelevant and obsolete in all current carrying environments,
You keep saying that, but it is a meaningless mantra, not a conclusion that you can support with reason, because you are disqualified from commenting on these subjects by your fundamental lack of mathematical ability. 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.
The fact that you even think that those lines are "real" lines in the first place, or that they disconnect and reconnect to other lines to release energy just demonstrates how ignorant you are of even basic EM field theory. Those lines are no more "real", and no more "substantive" than the "lines" we observe on topology maps of a mountain. Your reconnection claims amount to claiming that the cause of ground movement from an earthquake is related to the energy released by "topology map line reconnection"! Holy cow. Astronomers are utterly clueless about basic EM field theory.
And who do you think you are persuading with this ignorant strawman? Why on earth would you think that any professional thinks that there are "visible" or "actual" lines that reconnect. The lines are representative of the topology of the fields. Basically you are grandstanding to the laypeople on this forum, but in doing so you are making it clear to any passing physics professional that you are clueless.

Who the hell are you to lecture me about my knowledge of physics?
Uh - a physicist who can actually do physics problems.
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 1 guest