Gravity Waves

[Rushthezeppelin]

So when did black holes become fact and not just a theory?

Physicist Says She Has Proof Black Holes Simply Don't Exist

At least that's the contention of Dr. Laura Mersini-Houghton, a theoretical physicist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. In a new paper submitted to the non-peer-reviewed online research paper repository ArXiv, she offers what she calls proof that it's mathematically impossible for black holes ever to form.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/2 ... 85940.html
She's is not saying that there is nothing at the locations where some high energy event is detected, just that it not what is commonly accepted. There is at least one good alternative, but nobody wants to even consider it. But, they will likely use this supposed gravity wave detection to prove that black holes exist as massive objects!

Not only are they using it as "proof" of black holes existence, but they are using it as "proof" now of very low mass black holes. FFS, how long until we start "seeing" one stellar mass black holes? They gone off into silly spend the public money land as much as the climatologists, thank goodness they don't have the potential to massively raise taxes for some imaginary disaster.

[comingfrom]

His name is spelled Jesus, Querious.

I know right! There's gotta be a million explanations for a "blip". Silly scientists. Yeesh.

Educated idiots, actually.

Apart from, there are millions of possible sources in the universe, they source different types of energy, force. waves. etc.

The fact they can pinpoint their blip of a wave down to a particular pair of merging impossibilities some 1.4 million ly away is just too incredible to believe.
And too convenient, in that it cannot be verified or falsified.

And why couldn't it just be a wave in the charge field?
A far simpler, and more obvious answer.

The charge field is said to be negligent at the macro level, as if the quantum charge is not of this Universe, and as if the events occurring at the quantum level is not happening between and in the macro bodies, but maybe now we have a machine that is sensitive to pick something up from it.

God, I hope all the money spent is good for something more than just speculating about space monsters.
~Paul

[Eutrophicated1]

I have seen infrared astronomical documentation of something attracting stars into highly elliptical orbits around the center of our Milky Way. I'm not saying it's a supermassive black hole; and I'm not saying it's a plasmoidal pinch. What I am saying is that "something" is out there, causing these stars to orbit like crazed toy tops.

[comingfrom]

I don't think it is a bad idea, to tax polluters. But that's another topic.

Before discovering the Thunderbolts Project, I never questioned Black Holes. I presumed the scientists knew what they were talking about, and I swallowed the whole thing about us being too dumb to understand, if we don't believe them.

But now I have seen that there are scientists who question the existence of Black Holes, and mathematicians willing to step forward with mathematical proofs against the possibility of the existence of Black Holes. There is controversy, but not publicly spoken. One has to join the "crackpots", to even know there are viable alternatives.

Stephen J Crothers is another that mathematically disproves the existence of Black Holes.

The more I hear from the standard model, the more vague it sounds.
Is gravity a force propagated by waves? or is it curvature of space/time?
Or is space/time curvature caused by the gravity waves?

Or maybe gravity has a dual nature, like photons?
But instead of being wave/particle, gravity is wave/curvature.

Methinks, physics got sucked into it's own black hole.

[comingfrom]

More like, something that is in there.
Charge.
The charge at the centers of galaxies is so great it exceedingly overwhelms gravity, and that's why stars orbit there with more energy than gravity can account for.

~Paul

[Pi sees]

It seems like the physics community and the mainstream media are very much singing from the same choir sheet when it comes to this "discovery" - there doesn't seem to be a trace of scepticism, or even of caution. Since when does one detection event constitute scientific confirmation?

According to this article:

The LIGO detectors are in Livingston, Louisiana, and Hanford, Washington. Each one consists of a giant L-shaped structure with arms 2.5 miles (4 kilometers) long....The effect LIGO observed last September works out to a shift of a millionth of a millionth of a millionth of a meter — about one one-thousandth the diameter of a proton, project team members said.

Hmmm...suppose some parapsychologist tried to tell the world he had confirmed the existence of psychokinesis based on his ultra-high-end experimental apparatus detecting a single movement of a millionth of a millionth of a millionth of a meter. Suppose the parapsychologist had only managed to do this after years of detecting zero psychokinetic movement, even after having upgraded his super-sensitive apparatus to make it even more super-sensitive. Let us also suppose the parapsychologist claimed that this one unimaginably tiny psychokinetic nudge originated from the mind of an individual located 1.3 BILLION light years away. How do you think the media and scientific community would react to the parapsychologist's astounding claim?

Here are a couple of interesting videos about the latest alleged detection, they were pretty much the only sceptical perspective I could find outside of Thunderbolts:

Gravity Waves found? 14 Years NOTHING, but "find" it on 100-year Einstein publishing anniversary

Gravity Waves discovered? NOPE, Simplex Electromagnetic Phase Rarefaction/Retardation

If the interferometers weren't set up such that one laser fired in a horizontal direction while the other fired in a vertical direction, then how could LIGO possibly detect any gravitational wave originating from beyond Earth?

[nick c]

moderator note:
The threads "Gravity Waves" and "Another claim of finding possible distant G waves" have been merged.

[Zyxzevn]

These "waves" keep me awake at night..
But I had the following insights:

Public Ligo

and:
https://dcc.ligo.org/public/0122/P15002 ... _burst.pdf

There are many red flags:
1) There are far too many people on the papers. Shows the enormous confirmation-bias.
2) "For visualization, all time series are filtered with a 35 - 350 Hz bandpass
filter to suppress large fluctuations outside the detectors’ most sensitive frequency band,
and band-reject filters to remove the strong instrumental spectral lines seen in the Fig. 3 spectra"
That means that the data is only showing the area that they want to see.
This can dramatically increase the change to introduce a false positive.
3) The signal length is not consistent with the model. There is supposed to be a longer sinus signal than we see.
4) Only noise of certain qualities is considered. I see no mentioning of gravity-wave like noise, which is common
in engines and in electrical circuits.
5) "First, the data are whitened and converted to the time-frequency domain using the Wilson-Daubechies-Meyer wavelet transform
This effectively means that if you are gonna search for a cross in a picture, you can use a grid
that only shows the crosses. That way you can find the cross faster.
But if they used filters on the wavelets, they will add information to the signal.
Like wise: If you use a pencil or eraser on the grid, you will produce crosses.
This is in another paper about noise reduction:
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.10 ... /16/165014
It indeed shows how noise is reduced by using wavelets.
Did they remove the noise to find a possible positive, or did they leave it there in the end-signal
and create a positive?
Sadly behind a paywall, so I'll have to do with this sentence:
"Using this method, the seismic noise cancellation from the LIGO GW channel has already been performed."
This line seems to suggest that they indeed used it to change the signal.
That means that certain signals can be converted to a gravity-wave signal by the wavelets.

From these red flags, I believe that that the chance of a false identification of an unsuspected (magnetic) signal is very high.

[BeAChooser]

I have seen infrared astronomical documentation of something attracting stars into highly elliptical orbits around the center of our Milky Way. I'm not saying it's a supermassive black hole; and I'm not saying it's a plasmoidal pinch. What I am saying is that "something" is out there, causing these stars to orbit like crazed toy tops.

Agreed, something is doing that. But you'll note that the mass estimate range for that something according to the mainstream papers (like http://www.nrao.edu/pr/2004/sagastar/ ) is as low as 40,000 suns. That's well within the envelope of what a plasmoid might be, I suspect. It doesn't have to be a black hole.

Furthermore, stars may not be electrically neutral objects.  They may be charged.   Even mainstream sources admit they are predominantly made of plasma and I found numerous sources that conclude stars have a net positive charge. If true, then I see no reason to believe they wouldn't be affected by the strong magnetic fields posited to be around a plasmoid. And that could certainly explain why the S-stars near the core have the orbits that have been observed.

One last comment ... the main argument I’ve seen made by mainstream supporters against the notion of a charged sun is to claim there is no current flowing from the sun to the earth. But the discovery (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flux_transfer_event ) of magnetic flux tubes connecting the earth to the sun, which reportedly allow high energy particles to flow from the sun to the earth, makes me suspect that argument is bogus.  These high energy particles are ions and/or electrons … and the movement of them is by definition electric current.

[Solar]

No electricity, nowhere.

These "waves" keep me awake at night..

They can also put you to sleep.

Along with vibrations the elimination of any and all sources of electrodynamic interference - aka "noise" - save for the desired frequencies *is* obviously the goal. It should be noted in the last sentence and 2nd para of the paper[1] that "While numerous black hole candidates have now been identified through electromagnetic observations [17–19], black hole mergers have not previously been observed." They’ve got a lot in the mix at LIGO and yes; electrodynamic effects *ARE* the specific considerations.

The following paper assesses stochastically eliminating global magnetic effects due to lightning and the Schumann resonance down to a signal to noise ratio of 0.001036. It’s a good read:

Correlated Magnetic Noise in the Advanced LIGO Detector – S. Biscoveanu et al

Insofar as electric fields are concerned the below thesis involves the “steady state electric field of a complete, coupled-cavity LIGO interferometer” which also becomes an influence to try and stochastically filter:

Modeling the Performance of Interferometric Gravitation-Wave Detectors with Realistically Imperfect Optics – Bochner

And: There are “Squeezed Light” techniques being used to try and dampen the effects of “electronic dark currents” along with ”Squeezed Vacuum” techniques all for the sake of filtering the effects of photons interacting with the remaining gas molecules in the vacuum tubes - and to constrain the electrodynamic effects of “Zero-Point fluctuations”:

One of the stranger consequences of quantum theory is that there must be fluctuating electric and magnetic fields, even in a total vacuum. In a normal vacuum state, these "zero-point" fluctuations are completely random and the total uncertainty is distributed equally between the amplitude and the phase. However, by using a crystal with non-linear optical properties, it is possible to prepare a special state of light where most of the uncertainty is concentrated in only one of the two variables. Such a crystal can convert normal vacuum to "squeezed vacuum", which has phase fluctuations SMALLER than normal vacuum! At the same time, the amplitude fluctuations are larger, but phase noise is what really matters for LIGO.

During the last observational run in 2009 and 2010, the LIGO gravitational wave detectors were limited by zero-point fluctuations over most of their frequency range... - The Quantum Enhanced LIGO Detector Sets New Sensitivity Record - The Quantum Enhanced LIGO Detector Sets New Sensitivity Record

All of these efforts are directly related to trying to stochastically assess and filter a stunning array of electrodynamic effects. Obviously the modicum of references above are but the tip of a rather large iceberg of effort. So, behind the headlines, there are LOTS of studies and papers giving account of the electrodynamic goings on in these kind of efforts.

Not that I agree with the supposed cause - but it also seems that the fact that this "chirp" was triggered at two different detectors constitutes an automatic duplication of the experiment.

Considering the delay between detectors on September 14, 2015 at 09:50:45 UTC something within the desired range *appears* to have propagated.

[Zyxzevn]

So, behind the headlines, there are LOTS of studies and papers giving account of the electrodynamic goings on in these kind of efforts.

I expected nothing else.

Let me know when you find the keywords: shielding, solar flares and faraday effect.

[Zyxzevn]

A general problem with mainstream science is that they do not distinguish well between finding a signal,
and identifying a signal. Filters and low resolution can really #%?$ up your identification. The face of mars is a good example of that.

I have just downloaded some of the data. I hope it is unfiltered. Now I can find my solar flare, or a face.

[Solar]

I have just downloaded some of the data. I hope it is unfiltered. Now I can find my solar flare, or a face.

Touche' good Sir.

Someone else brought up solar flare/wind (here)

[comingfrom]

Blind injection simulations...?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ed1Uqx9tQE

Poster's comment

"Those latter “blind injections” are meant to keep researchers on their toes. Only four LIGO leaders know when such injections are made"

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/02/ ... nal-waves

[Zyxzevn]

Now they match it with a certain Gamma Ray Burst.
http://gammaray.nsstc.nasa.gov/gbm/publ ... eprint.pdf

..presence of a weak transient source above 50 keV, 0.4 s after the GW event.

Rare terrestrial natural sources produce gamma rays that are not of a nuclear origin, such as lightning strikes and terrestrial gamma-ray flashes. Additionally, gamma rays are produced by a number of astronomical processes in which very high-energy electrons are produced.

Someone on Reddit adds: "It's not real. The event is at 3 sigma. Events of this confidence are observed all the time. 3 sigma is not heigh confidence to call it a gwb"

Cosmic rays? Or lightning from the sun?