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 » Thu Nov 02, 2017 8:56 am

Cargo wrote:
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...
You don't mind altering the definition of words to make your point I see.

...A Neutron Compact Object... if you had a teaspoon full of it and blah blah, that is the most fairy tale thing ever.
A post entirely filled with argument from Personal Incredulity. There is a lot of Personal Incredulity round here.
"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 Higgsy » Thu Nov 02, 2017 9:03 am

neilwilkes wrote:
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.
Pat yourself on the back for spotting an obvious and basic flaw in the theory of neutron stars. Of course you are right, and all those thousands of stupid, ignorant, lying physicists are wrong.

Can I suggest you take a course in physics which leads you to an understanding of degenerate matter, why it isn't inconsistent with nuclear and atomic physics, what happens to a star when normal hydrostatic equlibium breaks down, and why the band of stability of nuclear composition is irrelevant in this case.
"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 Zyxzevn » Thu Nov 02, 2017 9:15 am

Here are more space-sounds:
Spooky Space 'Sounds' (NASA halloween theme)

There are so many "chirps" of so many sources. How easy would it be for the LIGO system to
sense them directly or indirecly.
Chorus radio waves within earth's atmosphere is very similar to the long LIGO signal.

In the papers, I would expect signal/respond characteristics of all kinds of signals.
That is how you make a good detector. That why mobiles and such work very well.
But I have not seen any papers on them.
All needs to be tested before we can take the observations serious.

One major problem that I found is the resonating of ANY signal that the LIGO receives.
This is caused by the recycling of light at the laser-end.

It is much worse than anyone else here thinks:
Any signal repeats itself after bouncing between all mirrors.
And any changes in the length or time or phase of the light, changes this path due to the splitter.
So we get a amplitude modulated noise repeated over and over again, with "random" variations.
It is also their major source of noise, which can not be filtered away with their tricks.

Am I so smart? Or are the LIGO scientists so biased?
I think of the latter, which is common in a university environment.

Explanation of the resonating signal:
The light goes from the laser to the splitter. From there it goes bouncing forth and back through one of the arms between 2 mirrors at both ends of the arms with 4 km distance. This repeats 280 times.
(In the LIGO. Figure may change with upgrades)
(wiki: By the use of partially reflecting mirrors, Fabry–Pérot cavities are created in both arms that increase the effective path length of laser light in the arm. )
This gives an effective path of 1120 km.

From there it goes through the splitter and arrives at the receiver, which is a mirror.

Then it goes back to the splitter, through the other arm 4 k to the other mirror, bouncing forth and
back again for 1120 km.

And from there back to the laser.
At the laser, there is another mirror that recycles the light.

This means the signal is recycled after going 2240km.
This gives a base-resonance frequency of any noise and signal of 133.9 Hz.
This is inside their "signal" range.
It is similar to any echo.

Now there is another problem:
The splitter is a mirror that works differently when the phase of a signal changes.
So if the phase changes during the 2240 km,
the path of the signal can change too.
It can either take a longer path, or the shorter path.
So noise in the phase will cause frequency changes of the recycled signal.
In this case doubling and halving them. Sometimes multiple times.
This is what we actually see in the graphs provided by LIGO.
The noise is clearly in those frequency ranges.

While I have some theories, I still don't know how exactly
electromagnetism can affect the LIGO-system.
But it would be easy to do some tests for direct influences.
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 » Thu Nov 02, 2017 6:33 pm

Zyxzevn wrote:Here are more space-sounds:
Spooky Space 'Sounds' (NASA halloween theme)

There are so many "chirps" of so many sources. How easy would it be for the LIGO system to
sense them directly or indirecly.
Chorus radio waves within earth's atmosphere is very similar to the long LIGO signal.

If you think chorus waves are similar to a merger signal in LIGO then you know even less than you have appeared to so far. And these chorus waves are not detected in "earth's atmosphere".

In the papers, I would expect signal/respond characteristics of all kinds of signals.
That is how you make a good detector. That why mobiles and such work very well.

Mobiles and such work well because it is possible to exclude noise, and focus on the signal, even when the signal is overall weaker than the noise. Or do you think that mobile phones are good transducers of whistler and chorus waves?
But I have not seen any papers on them.
All needs to be tested before we can take the observations serious.
You haven't seen any papers on how LIGO excludes environmental noise from the detectors? Man, you obviously haven't looked very hard. Here, start with these: GW150914: The Advanced LIGO Detectors in the Era of First Discoveries arxiv1602.03838v1; Characterization of transient noise in Advanced LIGO relevant to gravitational wave signal GW150914 arxiv1602.03844v3; Calibration of the Advanced LIGO detectors for the discovery of the binary black-hole merger GW150914 arxiv1602.03845v1.
One major problem that I found is the resonating of ANY signal that the LIGO receives.
This is caused by the recycling of light at the laser-end.
I have told you over and over again that you do not understand interferometers and you do not understand the influence of signal and power recycling on the results, and yet you reiterate this utter nonsense over and over again. The signal and power recycling does not and CANNOT produce a tone at 134Hz. You don't understand what the recycling is for or how it works and you keep producing this nonsensical claim that is so full of misunderstanding and ignorance that it's hard to know where to start. Have you heard of fringe finesse? No of course you haven't.
It is much worse than anyone else here thinks:
Any signal repeats itself after bouncing between all mirrors.
No it doesn't. The signal presents itself, in real time, as the gravitational wave propagates through the apparatus. It's a multipath interferometer like a very long Fabry-Perot.
And any changes in the length or time or phase of the light, changes this path due to the splitter.
Of course. That's how an interferometer works.
So we get a amplitude modulated noise repeated over and over again, with "random" variations.
No we don't. That's just your misguided fantasy.
It is also their major source of noise, which can not be filtered away with their tricks.
No it isn't.There is no noise directly associated with signal and power recycling, and to think so reveals a breath-taking degree of ignorance in one who thinks they know better than the LIGO scientists.

Am I so smart?
Asolutely undeniably spectacularly not.
Or are the LIGO scientists so biased?
Not that either.
I think of the latter, which is common in a university environment.
You are obviously completely unfamiliar with the conduct of university researchers.

Explanation of the resonating signal:
The light goes from the laser to the splitter. From there it goes bouncing forth and back through one of the arms between 2 mirrors at both ends of the arms with 4 km distance. This repeats 280 times.
(In the LIGO. Figure may change with upgrades)
(wiki: By the use of partially reflecting mirrors, Fabry–Pérot cavities are created in both arms that increase the effective path length of laser light in the arm. )
This gives an effective path of 1120 km.

From there it goes through the splitter and arrives at the receiver, which is a mirror.

Then it goes back to the splitter, through the other arm 4 k to the other mirror, bouncing forth and
back again for 1120 km.

And from there back to the laser.
At the laser, there is another mirror that recycles the light.

This means the signal is recycled after going 2240km.
This gives a base-resonance frequency of any noise and signal of 133.9 Hz.
This is inside their "signal" range.
It is similar to any echo.

You know what? This can be demonstrated to be complete garbage with a single graph:
Go here: http://www.ligo.org/science/Publication ... igure1.png
This shows the noise on all three detectors at the end of Advanced LIGO O2. No noise tone at 133.9Hz.
Now there is another problem:
The splitter is a mirror that works differently when the phase of a signal changes.
So if the phase changes during the 2240 km,
the path of the signal can change too.
It can either take a longer path, or the shorter path.
So noise in the phase will cause frequency changes of the recycled signal.
In this case doubling and halving them. Sometimes multiple times.
This is what we actually see in the graphs provided by LIGO.
The noise is clearly in those frequency ranges.
What on earth are you going on about now? Do you understand how a beamsplitter works? This claim is so incoherent that it's beyond detailed criticism. It's just wrong.

While I have some theories
No you don't. You have put forward some fantasies that fail to mesh with reality from the very outset.
I still don't know how exactly
electromagnetism can affect the LIGO-system.
That's the first true thing you have said in this post.
But it would be easy to do some tests for direct influences.
And you don't think the LIGO team has done that?
"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 seasmith » Thu Nov 02, 2017 7:14 pm

To operate effectively, the lengths of LIGO's arm cavities (i.e. the distance between the test masses at the ends of each arm) must not vary by more than a fraction of a picometer (one-trillionth of a meter). To hold the masses in place, we need to push on them–but very carefully, and we use the reaction chain (see figure above) for that. Simple motors made of permanent magnets and electrical coils push on the upper masses; these 'voice coils' work like audio loudspeakers, with the coil producing a magnetic field which attracts or repels the magnets. On the test masses themselves, we use more gentle electrostatic forces, like that which attracts a balloon rubbed on a sweater to a wall (or hair to a comb on a dry day). Caltech/MIT/LIGO Lab)

The large containment tubes are made of stainless steel and laid out in a workable shape for a dipole antenna.
The photo detectors are also EM devices.

Too many variables: atmospheric, ionospheric, solar and cosmic (in addition to the design features noted above) for any real certainty in identification of such a tiny and ephemeral signal; not to mention the purported Huge distances of transmission.
Lots of money and fame garnered on the project though.

Interesting subject for a forum discussion.
seasmith
 
Posts: 2815
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Thu Nov 02, 2017 8:20 pm

Higgsy wrote:You know what? This can be demonstrated to be complete garbage with a single graph:
Go here: http://www.ligo.org/science/Publication ... igure1.png
This shows the noise on all three detectors at the end of Advanced LIGO O2. No noise tone at 133.9Hz.


Basic system dynamics:
Any system with a recycling component has a resonance frequency.
There is NO exception.

The LIGO graphs shows spikes at: 200 and 300 Hz and 500 Hz and 1000 Hz.
This looks very much like the resonance that I meant.
The 60 Hz is the US electric grid.
The spike at 16Khz is likely their control system.
The Virgo graphs show spikes at: 100, 150, 200, 300. That is because their
system is different in length (3km instead of 4km for example).
The 50 Hz spike is the Italian electric grid.

I assume that the information on the LIGO website was wrong. An old version very likely.
The resonance base frequency is now probably around 200 Hz.
It is also possible that the Fabry–Pérot cavities work a bit different, due to their semi-transparent mirrors.
and that at each pass a part of the signal passes through while the rest bounces back.
This means that the resonance signal becomes much more complicated than I explained.

In most systems we have dampers to prevent resonance.
Those dampers absorb the energy at those resonance frequencies and prevent those echoes.
In the LIGO they use a frequency reduction algorithm, which only
removes the base frequencies, but not the modulations of it.

Any phase signal, which is what the LIGO is supposed to detect,
will be mixed with these frequencies.
Also a beam-splitter is usually phase dependent.
That means it will choose different paths depending on the phase of the incoming light.
(it is a bit more complex).

If a signal can get different paths, it means that you get an AM modulation of your signal.
AM modulation is evenly distributed along a band of frequencies.
So with their filter-system it will not go away.
It will show up in the final "signal".
And as we see in the produced graphs, we see small spikes and
resonances of the resonance frequencies.
So their "final" results actually show what I mean.

The LIGO has a lot of side-effects that are not accounted for in their many papers.
I find that a red flag that they did not properly look at the dynamics of their system.
They did do a very good job at the mirrors and the lasers.
I see very good frequency analysis and dampening on them.
But they missed the basic resonating dynamics of their recycle system?
A shame.

And that is what I meant earlier. If you do good system analysis, you
can filter out a lot more noise than they now do with their frequency analysis.
With a better system analysis, they can really improve their signal.

But I am actually interested in how their very sensitive system reacts to electric and
magnetic fields. And how the earth underneath reacts to electric and magnetic fields.
Those can clearly produce signals very similar to what the LIGO is looking for.
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 » Thu Nov 02, 2017 9:38 pm

Higgsy wrote:
Cargo wrote:
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...

You don't mind altering the definition of words to make your point I see.

...A Neutron Compact Object... if you had a teaspoon full of it and blah blah, that is the most fairy tale thing ever.

A post entirely filled with argument from Personal Incredulity. There is a lot of Personal Incredulity round here.


Well, which definition would you like to use?

And I don't think you know what the argument is really about. You are relatively brainwashed (RB) into complete big bangism and infinite gravity. You've gone so far into the church, you really do believe the scripture is reality, and of course if you didn't, or maybe even thought for a moment about what the heretics think about, you would be in danger of expulsion and ridicule until you wrote another paper about how GR is evidence of GR.
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 Aardwolf » Fri Nov 03, 2017 5:48 am

Theoretically LIGO is unable to detect gravity waves whether you believe in them or not. Look at their answer to the following FAQ;
LIGO Caltech wrote:If a gravitational wave stretches the distance between the LIGO mirrors, doesn't it also stretch the wavelength of the laser light?
A gravitational wave does stretch and squeeze the wavelength of the light in the arms. But the interference pattern doesn't come about because of the difference between the length of the arm and the wavelength of the light. Instead it's caused by the different arrival time of the light wave's "crests and troughs" from one arm with the arrival time of the light that traveled in the other arm. To get how this works, it is also important to know that gravitational waves do NOT change the speed of light.
It's stating the wavelength (crests & troughs) of light is changed by GW's but also states the interference pattern is caused by the different arrival times of lights crests and troughs. These are contradictory statements. If the GW has stretched the distance between the crests/troughs the time interval should remain identical as the locally measured speed of light is supposed to remain constant.

These "detections" are at best, just unidentified noise.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1327
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

Unread postby Higgsy » Fri Nov 03, 2017 6:10 am

Zyxzevn wrote:
Higgsy wrote:You know what? This can be demonstrated to be complete garbage with a single graph:
Go here: http://www.ligo.org/science/Publication ... igure1.png
This shows the noise on all three detectors at the end of Advanced LIGO O2. No noise tone at 133.9Hz.


Basic system dynamics:
Any system with a recycling component has a resonance frequency.
There is NO exception.

You really, really don't understand interferometry, do you? Have you ever personally set up or used an interferometer? No, it's obvious that you haven't. You have been repeating this fundamental mistake for months, and I have told you probably ten times now that you are wrong, and I have explained why, but you just ignore it. You have this misconception burned into your brain, and you going to go to your grave with it, in spite of being corrected by those who know better than you.

The power cycling in the LIGO interferometer is to reduce photon noise thus increasing signal to noise ratio, and the signal recycling is increase the sensitivity of the interferometer to going off null by increasing the finesse of the fringe as in a Fabry-Perot etalon. The power and signal recycling does not and CANNOT produce a signal at 134Hz, and you would know this simple fact if you had the slightest knowledge of interferometry. As it is, you keep repeating this idiotic mistake.
The LIGO graphs shows spikes at: 200 and 300 Hz and 500 Hz and 1000 Hz.
This looks very much like the resonance that I meant.
No it isn't. You claimed there would be a signal at 134Hz. There isn't. Your correct response is "I was wrong".
The 60 Hz is the US electric grid.
The spike at 16Khz is likely their control system.
The source of all of those resonances that are present are known and they are all at specific frequencies. Several are mechanical resonances of the mirror suspension and drive. If you read the papers I linked you will learn what the source of each spike is. Those resonances are easy to remove from the raw signal as they are pure tones.
The Virgo graphs show spikes at: 100, 150, 200, 300. That is because their
system is different in length (3km instead of 4km for example).
Complete rubbish. Virgo has more, different and higher noise peaks because the suspension system and other noise sources are different from LIGO and, so far, less well controlled.

I assume that the information on the LIGO website was wrong. An old version very likely.
The resonance base frequency is now probably around 200 Hz.
What information? Are you talking about the noise spectrum I linked to? If so, that is absolutely up-to-date inforamtion, the state of the interferometer noise at the time of the BH merger detection in September 2017.
It is also possible that the Fabry–Pérot cavities work a bit different, due to their semi-transparent mirrors.
and that at each pass a part of the signal passes through while the rest bounces back.
This means that the resonance signal becomes much more complicated than I explained.
You really are completely clueless about interferometry.

In most systems we have dampers to prevent resonance.
Those dampers absorb the energy at those resonance frequencies and prevent those echoes.
In the LIGO they use a frequency reduction algorithm, which only
removes the base frequencies, but not the modulations of it.
Complete garbage. The noise floor of LIGO is below 10-23 strain and the spikes are below 10-22 strain. Have you any idea how fantastically well managed that noise level is?

Any phase signal, which is what the LIGO is supposed to detect,
will be mixed with these frequencies.
Also a beam-splitter is usually phase dependent.
That means it will choose different paths depending on the phase of the incoming light.
(it is a bit more complex).
It's obviously a bit too complex for you, but change in the phase of one arm owing to a length change does modify the relative quantity of light in the output - that's how a two beam interferometer works.

If a signal can get different paths, it means that you get an AM modulation of your signal.
AM modulation is evenly distributed along a band of frequencies.
No it isn't. An AM signal is at one carrier frequency and sidebands that carry information about the signal. You can extract the signal from the carrier. It's how one type of radio transmission has worked for 150 years.
So with their filter-system it will not go away.
It will show up in the final "signal".
And as we see in the produced graphs, we see small spikes and
resonances of the resonance frequencies.
So their "final" results actually show what I mean.
Complete gibberish and garbage. Have you done the LIGO tutorial on signal extraction yet? All the raw data is available for all of the detections and if you knew how to do it you'd be able to extract the same whitened signal as LIGO did.
The LIGO has a lot of side-effects that are not accounted for in their many papers.
I find that a red flag that they did not properly look at the dynamics of their system.
They did do a very good job at the mirrors and the lasers.
I see very good frequency analysis and dampening on them.
But they missed the basic resonating dynamics of their recycle system?
A shame.
No they didn't. You have invented a fantasy effect that doesn't happen and CANNOT happen and you are so mule-headed that you refuse to be corrected by those who actually work with interferometers. That is the shame.

And that is what I meant earlier. If you do good system analysis, you
can filter out a lot more noise than they now do with their frequency analysis.
With a better system analysis, they can really improve their signal.
Why don't you apply for a job? I'm sure with your superb expertise in signal processing, they'll jump at the opportunity to get a real expert on the job. Talk about Dunning-Kruger.
"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 Zyxzevn » Fri Nov 03, 2017 6:33 am

Higgsy wrote:Why don't you apply for a job?

They do really need a dynamic and non-linear systems analyst.
But I don't think they want any at this point.
I will look at your other writing another time, and reply if it has any meaning.

Anyway, any dynamic system with feedback has a resonance frequency.
This is for example the case with a local area network (LAN).
For a standard Coax Ethernet cable you need a damper that is 50 Ohm,
otherwise all your signals will be bouncing and form echoes.

In modern lenses they use special coatings to reduce the reflections of the systems.
The well-known lens-flare is a characteristic of such a reflection.

These 2 examples have similar resonance dynamics as the LIGO.
Note that you won't see any reflections or echoes if there is no signal!
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 querious » Fri Nov 03, 2017 9:26 am

Higgsy wrote:
Zyxzevn wrote:
Higgsy wrote:You know what? This can be demonstrated to be complete garbage with a single graph:
Go here: http://www.ligo.org/science/Publication ... igure1.png
This shows the noise on all three detectors at the end of Advanced LIGO O2. No noise tone at 133.9Hz.


Basic system dynamics:
Any system with a recycling component has a resonance frequency.
There is NO exception.

You really, really don't understand interferometry, do you? Have you ever personally set up or used an interferometer? No, it's obvious that you haven't. You have been repeating this fundamental mistake for months, and I have told you probably ten times now that you are wrong, and I have explained why, but you just ignore it. You have this misconception burned into your brain, and you going to go to your grave with it, in spite of being corrected by those who know better than you.


Higgsy,
You're wasting your time because you have a fundamental misunderstanding of why most of these posters are here. It's so that together, they can pretend they are smarter than people with Ph'Ds in the subjects they study. They back each other up in calling them stupid, and THEY are the smart ones with real knowledge. They still respect a guy who thinks dipoles can explain gravity. That alone should tell you something about the level of physics understanding that you're dealing with here.
querious
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

Re: Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Fri Nov 03, 2017 10:37 am

querious wrote:Higgsy,
You're wasting your time because you have a fundamental misunderstanding of why most of these posters are here. It's so that together, they can pretend they are smarter than people with Ph'Ds in the subjects they study. They back each other up in calling them stupid, and THEY are the smart ones with real knowledge. They still respect a guy who thinks dipoles can explain gravity. That alone should tell you something about the level of physics understanding that you're dealing with here.


What exactly is "real knowledge" and how are you defining it? The fact of the matter is that LCMD proponents have no actual physical "knowledge" in the first place which is why they are reduced to using placeholder terms for human ignorance to describe 95 percent of the universe, and the other 5 percent if mostly "pseudoscience". What "knowledge" are your offering exactly?

Even Einstein worked on trying to tie gravity and EM fields together in a "theory of everything", so you can't really fault anyone else for "trying'. FYI, not all of us accept any specific theory of everything at this point in time, or a dipole definition of gravity. Contrary to your dishonest statements, we don't all think in lockstep around here like your "dark cult" seems to operate. We're more independent than you give us credit for.

I respect everyone here a lot more than I respect your industry as a whole, I can tell you that much. Why? Because we *are* willing to think for ourselves, to think outside of the LCDM box, to explore new ideas, and to keep an open mind, which is exactly the opposite of what I've seen from the so called "professionals" I've met. You all have to bow down to the invisible sky deities of LCDM nonsense, you have to ignore the billions of dollars of failures of "dark matter" theory, you have to sweep all the high z reshift problems of LCDM dogma right under the rug, and pretend that you have some kind of special "knowledge". It's just ridiculous that your industry acts like it even has any real "knowledge" to offer anyone because LCDM is about as useful in the lab as astrology.

I for one prefer GR theory to describe gravity, but like everyone else here I resent the metaphysical kludge job that is LCDM theory. Your industry is not even honest about the fact that the LCDM model isn't the same as GR theory because you're constantly trying to ride the coattails of GR when stuffing dark magic into those formulas. You misrepresent the fact to your students too because Einstein *rejected* your "black hole" models. Alfven *rejected* your "magnetic reconnection" claims too, but you drag his name through the metaphysical mud anyway.

You then have the audacity to blame others for your gross misrepresentation of the facts, and you still wish us to treat you as demi-gods while you slander our community online and you erroneous misrepresent our theories on your blogs and message boards. You run around erroneously claiming that there is "no math" to support our ideas only because you've apparently never bothered to read them!

Go right ahead and blame us all you like, but it's your own damn fault. If you weren't so electophobic, and you were honest about where GR ends and where LCMD begins, you wouldn't have so many of us rejecting your claims outright.

GR theory isn't the problem, it's your own dishonesty that is the problem. When you clean up your act, you'll discover that we're not adverse to some of your claims, but while you intentionally misrepresent our theories, misrepresent the beliefs of Einstein and Alfven, and you remain ignorant of the the math that supports our beliefs, none of it will make any sense to you.

Have you personally even read Cosmic Plasma by Hannes Alfven, Birkeland's work, or Peratt's book Physics of the Plasma Universe? If not, who are you to come here and lecture us about anything when you're still using "pseudoscience" to describe high energy plasma events which are *clearly* related to electricity and electrical current, not "magnetic reconnection"?

Bah. You have no physics "knowledge", even if you're mathematically competent. You can't even admit that there's a difference between physical knowledge and math!
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 Higgsy » Fri Nov 03, 2017 10:46 am

Zyxzevn wrote:
Higgsy wrote:Why don't you apply for a job?

They do really need a dynamic and non-linear systems analyst.
But I don't think they want any at this point.

I didn't realise you were such a funny guy. It's the pantomime season - perhaps you could get a job at that instead.
Anyway, any dynamic system with feedback has a resonance frequency.
Riiiiight - and the relevance of a feedback system to a two beam multi-pass interferometer is what exactly?
This is for example the case with a local area network (LAN).
For a standard Coax Ethernet cable you need a damper that is 50 Ohm,
otherwise all your signals will be bouncing and form echoes.
Any coax cable needs to be terminated with an impedance match (not a damper) to avoid reflections. And the relevance of this to a two beam multi-pass interferometer is what exactly?
In modern lenses they use special coatings to reduce the reflections of the systems.
The well-known lens-flare is a characteristic of such a reflection.
And the relevance of this to a two beam multi-pass interferometer is what exactly?

These 2 examples have similar resonance dynamics as the LIGO.
Note that you won't see any reflections or echoes if there is no signal!
You think that lens flare is caused by a resonance? You really think that?

The fundamental mode of the cavity of a LIGO interferometer arm is 37.5kHz (not 134Hz) - 300,000/2x4 = c/2L. That doesn't mean there will be a signal at 37.5kHz, it just means that 37.5kHz or 8km wavelength radiation, if it were actually to be present and reflected from the mirrors, would be sustained in the cavity. 8km wavelength radiation is not present in the cavity (very long wave radio), but even if it were, it would not be reflected from the mirrors which are not reflective at 37.5kHz and too small anyway at that wavelength. In other words, although it is the right length for a resonance at 37.5kHz, it does not act as a cavity at 37.5kHz. And even if that were not true, the detectors are not sensitive to very long wave radio frequencies.
"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 Metryq » Fri Nov 03, 2017 11:14 am

Higgsy wrote:Can I suggest you take a course in physics which leads you to an understanding of degenerate matter, why it isn't inconsistent with nuclear and atomic physics, what happens to a star when normal hydrostatic equlibium breaks down, and why the band of stability of nuclear composition is irrelevant in this case.

Laboratory empirical evidence vs theoretical constructs.

Got it.
User avatar
Metryq
 
Posts: 513
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 3:31 am

Re: Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

Unread postby Higgsy » Fri Nov 03, 2017 11:37 am

querious wrote:Higgsy,
You're wasting your time because you have a fundamental misunderstanding of why most of these posters are here. It's so that together, they can pretend they are smarter than people with Ph'Ds in the subjects they study. They back each other up in calling them stupid, and THEY are the smart ones with real knowledge. They still respect a guy who thinks dipoles can explain gravity. That alone should tell you something about the level of physics understanding that you're dealing with here.

Yes, I do understand and I realise it is more or less pointless, but I feel that an occasional dissenting voice should be raised in the echo chamber, and just maybe someone might be stimulated to question whether professionals are really as dim and mendacious as they are portrayed. I came here originally to try to learn why people were attracted to EU/PC ideas and was shocked and appalled at the level of misunderstanding and lack of knowledge of fairly basic physics.
"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 16 guests