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 » Fri Nov 03, 2017 11:42 am

Metryq wrote:Laboratory empirical evidence vs theoretical constructs.

Got it.

"Versus" implies a conflict or inconsistency when, in fact, there is none bewteen well understood nuclear and atomic physics and the physics of degenerate matter. Or perhaps you know better?
"Every single ion is going to start cooling off instantly as far as I know…If you're mixing kinetic energy in there somehow, you'll need to explain exactly how you're defining 'temperature'" - Mozina
Higgsy
 
Posts: 217
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 3:32 pm

Re: Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Fri Nov 03, 2017 11:49 am

Higgsy wrote:
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.


You're clearly projecting. It's not our community that displays an obvious lack of knowledge of fairly basis physics, it's the folks that rely upon pure pseudoscience to describe very basic EM processes that have *nothing* to do with magnetic lines "disconnecting" from or "reconnecting" to other magnetic lines. Oy Vey.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m58-CfVrsN4

You guys are so damn electrophobic, and so incredibly ignorant of basic EM field theory, it's not even funny as I quickly discovered over at JREF when the whole EU/PC hater posse was claiming that 'magnetic reconnection' theory was a plasma *optional* process, and none of them could help ol' clueless Clinger come up with a formula to express a non-zero rate of "reconnection" in a vacuum!

Holy cow are you folks ignorant! Even the most *basic* elements of EM field theory escapes you, and your conceptual understanding of MHD theory is utterly pathetic.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1693
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Fri Nov 03, 2017 3:15 pm

Higgsy wrote: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,

Thanks for coming along with the basic idea that any feedback system has a resonance signal.
Your previous statement that it was "complete garbage" is now admittedly wrong.
Now we just do not agree on how the frequency.

The frequency that you give, would be the resonance frequency if there were no Fabry–Pérot cavities.
The cavety is the full length of the LIGO arm, to increase the signal strength.
I assumed a simple system that bounced forth and back using 2 mirrors following a zig-zag pattern.
On the other hand, they could use a semi-transparant mirror that can bounces back the signal
indefinitely with reducing strength.
Both have totally different signal characteristics.
Also in how the phase and polarisation of the signal is affected.

The echoes depends on how they implemented those caveties.
Maybe you have some good information on that?

Because my calculated signal range is so close to the observed frequencies, I assumed
that it was the source of this 200,300,500 Hz noise.
The suspension system seems to have much lower resonance frequencies.

If my theory is not true, I still have some alternatives that involve
sound side-effects of the mirrors and such.

Note: I am only now writing about the sources of noise, because I find their analysis lacking an
analysis of the non-linear dynamic system. And of the side-effects of the resonance chambers.

I have not gone into the sources of the signals.
That is a whole other story.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 991
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Fri Nov 03, 2017 3:21 pm

querious wrote:.. they can pretend they are smarter than people with Ph'Ds in the subjects they study. ...

You know that this is "appeal to authority?"

I have seen quite some stupid Ph'Ds.
And sadly astronomy is full with them.

That is because the theories can run wild without direct and practical feedback.

In my university, smart people got real work in business.
The work at the universities was for those that could not find a job.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 991
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Fri Nov 03, 2017 3:43 pm

Now all personal attacks aside...
the discussion is diverting away from the actual topics.

The real topics for this thread:

1) Is there confirmation bias in the Sigma's that are presented in the LIGO papers?
-> Until now Michael has made very good statements that choise of Sigma in the LIGO papers
has no scientific basis.

2) What is the actual source of the signal that did show some significance?

My topics related to 2:
a) What is the actual source of the noise in the LIGO?
b) How does the dynamics of the LIGO react to noise and signals?
c) What causes the false positives that some LIGO researchers reported?
d) What is the electromagnetic sensitivity of the LIGO system?

On those points related to 2 we all certainly disagree.
That is why I put up certain theories to specify conditions under which LIGO might not
function as presented in the papers.

From the mainstream supporters I often see "appeal to authority".
That is actually a logical fallacy.
Similar to: "All well-known astrologers say that astrology can give you insights in your life".
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 991
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

Unread postby Higgsy » Fri Nov 03, 2017 6:17 pm

Zyxzevn wrote:
Higgsy wrote: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,

Thanks for coming along with the basic idea that any feedback system has a resonance signal.
Your previous statement that it was "complete garbage" is now admittedly wrong.
Now we just do not agree on how the frequency.

No, you still don't understand. There won't be a signal at 37.5kHz or 134Hz or whatever the fundamental mode cavity is. Take an obvious example. Say you are checking the figure of a mirror in a Michelson interferometer (well strictly speaking it would be a Twyman-Green, but the difference doesn't matter here) with 1 metre arms and using a HeNe 633nm source. The fundamental eigenmode of that interferometer is 150MHz or 2m wavelength whether or not you set it up as multiple pass or single pass. 2m radiation is VHF used to broadcast radio, old fashioned television etc. But the only radiation in the cavity is at 633nm - the interferometer doesn't suddenly become a VHF transmitter and there is no 150MHz signal coming out of it. All that comes out is 633nm radiation with an amplitude determined by the relative arm lengths. The fact that an optical cavity has a fundamental mode at some given wavelength doesn't mean that it produces radiation or a signal at that wavelength. That's a preposterous, nay, stupid idea. In steady state, the output of a Michelson is at the same wavelength as its source. In LIGO that is 1064nm, or the near IR from a Nd-YAG CW laser
The frequency that you give, would be the resonance frequency if there were no Fabry–Pérot cavities.
The cavety is the full length of the LIGO arm, to increase the signal strength.
I assumed a simple system that bounced forth and back using 2 mirrors following a zig-zag pattern.
On the other hand, they could use a semi-transparant mirror that can bounces back the signal
indefinitely with reducing strength.
Both have totally different signal characteristics.
The difference between a single pass Michelson and one with multipass is the total energy in the interferometer (power recycling) and the finesse of the fringes (signal recycling). The fundamental eigenmode is determined by the arm length of 4km (resulting in an eigenmode of 8km or 37.5kHz), but that does not mean that there will be a signal or radiation at 37.5kHz. There won't be.
The echoes depends on how they implemented those caveties.
Maybe you have some good information on that?
I don't know what you mean by echoes. You are talking gibberish.
Because my calculated signal range is so close to the observed frequencies, I assumed
that it was the source of this 200,300,500 Hz noise.
Your calculated frequency is wrong anyway, but even if it were right, how could 134Hz give rise to sharp tonal resonances at 200, 300 and 500Hz? I thought you were claiming to be an expert on, what was it, dynamic and non-linear systems analysis. You're very funny.
The suspension system seems to have much lower resonance frequencies.
Does it? Why don't you read the papers instead of talking garbage. Read first, talk after, prevents foot in mouth.
If my theory is not true, I still have some alternatives that involve
sound side-effects of the mirrors and such.
You don't have a theory. You have a dismally failed hypothesis based on complete ignorance of interferometry.
"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 » Fri Nov 03, 2017 6:34 pm

Michael Mozina wrote:Holy cow are you folks ignorant! Even the most *basic* elements of EM field theory escapes you, and your conceptual understanding of MHD theory is utterly pathetic.

I guarantee that you would abysmally fail a physics undergraduate end of term exam in foundational EM theory. I would say, from what I have seen here, that that would go for almost everyone on this forum who is an "Electrical Universe" devotee. As for plasma and MHD, how many Plasma Cosmology devotees are capable of solving simultaneous differential equations in vector algebra? Not you and no-one else that I have met here. But to do problems in MHD, that is what you have to do.
"Every single ion is going to start cooling off instantly as far as I know…If you're mixing kinetic energy in there somehow, you'll need to explain exactly how you're defining 'temperature'" - Mozina
Higgsy
 
Posts: 217
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 3:32 pm

Re: Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

Unread postby Cargo » Fri Nov 03, 2017 8:49 pm

How do you get Neutrons to attract each other?
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 Michael Mozina » Sat Nov 04, 2017 1:24 am

Higgsy wrote:I guarantee that you would abysmally fail a physics undergraduate end of term exam in foundational EM theory.


I guarantee you that you personally won't ever help poor clueless Clinger, and Mr. verbal abuse (RC) over at JREF come up with their missing math formula to express a non-zero rate of "reconnection" without a single charged particle to their names in Clinger's stupid vacuum contraption.

You folks don't even understand the most *basic* aspects of EM field theory, starting with the fact that magnetic lines do not 'disconnect", nor do they "reconnect" to any other magnetic field lines. EM fields aren't even real "lines" in the first place. Those "lines" are like a 2D topology map that are used as a teaching tool to represent the physical layout of a whole 3D field! For crying out loud, EM fields form as a full 3D continuum, not tiny little *lines*!

OMG. You guys are *completely clueless* about even the most rudimentary theoretical aspects of basic EM field *theory*. Talk about epic fails. I've never seen anyone stick their foot in their mouth so completely and so deeply in my life as Clinger and crew did to themselves at JREF. The entire EU/PC hater posse is completely ignorant of even the most basic aspects of EM field theory and the most rudimentary aspects of MHD theory. The very first thing one learns when one opens up a textbook on the topic of MDH theory is that it's all about *plasma* and charged particles! You can't transfer magnetic field energy into particle kinetic energy (magnetic reconnection) without *plasma*! Oy Vey.

Don't even think about lecturing me about EM field theory and/or MHD theory after that hater posse fiasco at JREF/ISF. Wow. I've never seen such an epic physics fail in my entire life as what I saw there. It was unbelievably pathetic. I don't care if they can do the math if they don't have the first clue about the actual *physics*. Wow. What a lethal combo of ignorance and arrogance.

I would say, from what I have seen here, that that would go for almost everyone on this forum who is an "Electrical Universe" devotee.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m58-CfVrsN4

Pfft. Birkeland explained and replicated the heat source of the solar corona, and he sustained a hot, full sphere corona in a lab along with planetary aurora over a century ago. You folks *still* can't explain the heat source of a simple corona, let alone replicate and sustain a full sphere corona in a real life experiment. How sad, and how ridiculous it is to hear you lecture us about anything. Ninety five percent of your cosmology model is nothing more than placeholder terms for human ignorance and the rest is pure pseudoscience on a stick.

As for plasma and MHD, how many Plasma Cosmology devotees are capable of solving simultaneous differential equations in vector algebra? Not you and no-one else that I have met here. But to do problems in MHD, that is what you have to do.


Yep, and I was doing that in college almost 40 years ago.

HIggsy, have you even bothered to read Peratt's book, "Physics of the plasma universe" yet, yes or no? It's the single most complete and comprehensive mathematical explanation of how these models work that I've ever read, and I've yet to meet *any* astronomer who has read it. In fact, I yet to meet an astronomer that even has a real understanding of Birkeland's full body of work, let alone the work of Peratt. You folks run around ignorantly and erroneously proclaiming that "there is no math to support EU theory", apparently because your whole industry is too damn lazy to visit a library and open up a book or two on the subject.

It's your own arrogance and your own ignorance that forces "professional" astronomers to grope around in the dark ages of astronomy and which forces you to resort to using nothing but placeholder terms for human ignorance and pseudoscience to describe our universe. If you weren't so damn electrophobic, you wouldn't be so utterly clueless.

Get down off your high horse before you hurt yourself.
Last edited by Michael Mozina on Sat Nov 04, 2017 1:54 am, edited 3 times in total.
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 Michael Mozina » Sat Nov 04, 2017 1:43 am

Cargo wrote:How do you get Neutrons to attract each other?


The don't attract each other, they actually repel each other due to their layered structure. Gravity presumably brings them together.:

https://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1167106

Neutrons have no net charge, but they are layered, much like an Oreo cookie. They have an outer negative charge layer, and a negatively charged core, with a positive layer sandwiched in between.
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 » Sat Nov 04, 2017 2:18 am

Cargo wrote:How do you get Neutrons to attract each other?

Gravity and residual strong force, where the mass is given by the mass of the neutrons (quark mass plus binding energy) plus the mass equivalent of the pressure energy. Oppenheimer (yes, that Oppenheimer) worked this out in the 1930s.
"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 » Sat Nov 04, 2017 2:22 am

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.
"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 Bengt Nyman » Sat Nov 04, 2017 3:40 am

Cargo wrote:How do you get Neutrons to attract each other?

They consist of one upquark and two downquarks resulting in Coulomb forces between them:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GL1Qs-jO6iE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmsssEfkq1I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwGXQN1XKEQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SuPcCx5lmDY
Bengt Nyman
 
Posts: 567
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:39 pm
Location: USA and Sweden

Re: Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

Unread postby Bengt Nyman » Sat Nov 04, 2017 3:49 am

Michael Mozina wrote:
Cargo wrote:How do you get Neutrons to attract each other?

Neutrons have no net charge, but they are layered, much like an Oreo cookie. They have an outer negative charge layer, and a negatively charged core, with a positive layer sandwiched in between.

That is correct only when seen in a certain orientation. A triangle consisting of one upquark and two downquarks is a more general description:
Neutron gravity or Coulomb tripole gravity is the result of the tripole nature of the neutron:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GL1Qs-jO6iE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmsssEfkq1I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwGXQN1XKEQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SuPcCx5lmDY
Bengt Nyman
 
Posts: 567
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:39 pm
Location: USA and Sweden

Re: Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

Unread postby moonkoon » Sat Nov 04, 2017 6:37 am

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

... picking out the tiny signal expected from a gravitational wave from mundane background vibrations is like trying to hear the crickets chirping at an AC/DC concert. The trick is to isolate LIGO’s mirrors from external shaking as perfectly as possible. To do that, Advanced LIGO has a completely revamped isolation system that exploits seven different layers of technology to effectively “float” the optics.

... Even with all this noise-canceling technology, today, much of the day-to-day business of operating LIGO is trying to understand all the background noise that it picks up. And now, after eight years spent acclimating to the standard noise of the first LIGO run, physicists find themselves back at the beginning.

... In fact, the very same active seismic isolation system designed to keep the noise out can introduce new noise as it pushes against the mirrors, noise that in the past would have been imperceptible.

... Before today’s announcement the smart money was on neutron stars as the source of the first signals. Neutron stars are the “bread and butter” of LIGO, González says. Less camera-shy than black holes, neutron stars—ultra-dense, fiercely magnetized stellar corpses left behind by supernova explosions—have already been observed by radio telescopes in death-spiral orbits that will ultimately lead them to crash and coalesce, perhaps birthing a black hole in the process. In fact, some of the strongest indirect evidence for gravitational waves had come from observations of a pair of neutron stars known as the Hulse-Taylor pulsar, named for its discoverers, who also won a Nobel prize for their work. “We know next to nothing about these black holes,” González says.

Astrophysicists guesstimate that a single neutron star pair merger happens in our galaxy every 10,000 years or so. “That’s too long to wait,” González says, but by expanding LIGO’s reach to include hundreds of thousands or even millions of galaxies, we can tip the odds in our favor. Right now, LIGO should be able to pick up the signal of a garden-variety neutron star merger if it happens within about 200 million light years of Earth. (The Milky Way, for comparison, is about 100,000 light years across.) As LIGO scientists better understand the sources of noise in the LIGO system, they expect to be able to extend LIGO’s reach to some 650 million light years. At that point, González estimates, LIGO should be picking up tens of events each year. ...

... But it isn’t easy. The problem: LIGO gives terrible directions. Together, the twin LIGO detectors can only localize a gravitational wave source to a patch of sky that’s many hundreds of square degrees. In a field that large, other telescopes are practically guaranteed to find some now-you-see-it-now-you-don’t object. Telling the difference between a true match and a coincidence may be impossible.


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

Even assuming we have the cosmological models right, based on the amount of data to hand, these initial squiggle interpretations seem a little heroic, in my opinion. :-)
moonkoon
 
Posts: 90
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 9:37 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests