Gravity Waves

[GenesisAria]

Which of the two clocks runs slow?

Well apparenly there is evidence of minor dilation differences between sea level and satellites, it's perceptibly negligible. Which clock runs slower? Because we can't distinguish between attraction and general speed, the one moving faster relative to it's -environment-, the aether (or just faster relative to more local mass)? (thus having more energy input?). If you have 2 clocks in an empty universe there probably wouldn't be any way to define time, because each clock would be a bespoke system, it's own universe.

Time in our physical world cannot be relative!

Well it's not that it's can't, it's that it's metaphysics, there wasn't any basis or cause to think of variable time. Such type of macro-mechanical thinking is better left to the people of the future to consider after they have a better understanding of fundamentals. General Relativity is premature and not very relevant today, but it's not terrible or anything. All this stuff going into quantum tangents and string theories and so on, are getting way ahead of themselves. It's like having a 2 minute exposure to a new culture, and then trying to guess what the heart and soul of it's people are like; it's just going to lead to opinionated conclusions.

[Aardwolf]

The original argument already exists. Carlip's paper is the counter argument. My argument is when you bring his mathmatics into the real world it requires planets to predict the future.

That's your interpretation of it. My interpretation is that it's a mathematical theory, you turn the crank and see what pops out. Talking about planets "predicting the future" is just silly.

I'm glad you agree Carlip's paper is silly. He's the one advocating predictions.

ex·trap·o·lat·ed ex·trap·o·lat·ing

transitive verb

1 : to infer (values of a variable in an unobserved interval) from values within an already observed interval

2 a : to project, extend, or expand (known data or experience) into an area not known or experienced so as to arrive at a usually conjectural knowledge of the unknown area <extrapolates present trends to construct an image of the future> b : to predict by projecting past experience or known data <extrapolate public sentiment on one issue from known public reaction on others>

Indeed, the vector (2.5) does not point toward the “instantaneous” position of the source, but only toward its position extrapolated from this retarded data.

Carlip expects us to believe that an object is following a curved path based on a projection of what it expects the force of gravity to be at a certian point and time in the future, based on the old information it just received. How does it even know the path it's supposed to take? How does it differentiate between a large distant body and a nearby smaller body.These would have the same gravitaional pull but cause different curves. Not only that, the objsect would need to know what direction the pulling body was travelling so it could predict if the force received in an hour or so will be increased or diminished depending on its distance in the future.

The whole premise is incredibly silly, there is no way an object predict its future motion based on old retarded information. Objects react to current forces and those forces are required to be virtually instantaneous.

[Pi sees]

Carlip's paper is a question-begging algebraic fudgefest which treats mathematical operations as a substitute for mechanical explanation. In other words, it's a typical example of contemporary mainstream physics.

The closest I can come to making mechanical sense (as opposed to autistic mathematical "sense") of Carlip's psychic planets is to suppose that planets are somehow responsive to changes in the gradient of space-time resulting from the movement of other celestial bodies, i.e. the planets incline towards the change in spacetime curvature rather than the spacetime curvature itself. This is not a very satisfying interpretation, not the least because it totally ignores the perennially-ignored question of what spacetime actually is such that it can be distorted by mass, and also because it requires planets to have a property which is uncomfortably similar to clairvoyance.

I'm surprised mainstream physics hasn't tried to address this problem by strategically shoving a few dark-matter planets into the solar system.

[Michael Mozina]

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/ ... t.7932180/

I've been through the various papers now, and I've even been through a bit of back and forth over this issues now at the thread above.

I'm asking for your help. It is possible that I've overlooked something in terms of the gravity wave claims, but thus far I haven't seen anything at all related to whistler wave considerations, or really any magnetosphere or solar considerations. As best as I can tell, they took exactly 16 days of hand (cherry) picked data, and promptly ignored all large scale EMP considerations for 203,000 as though those specific 16 days told they everything they need to know about EMP based events around Earth, the sun, and spacetime in general. There's no visual confirmation of this signal that has held up to scrutiny, and nothing to really support their assertion.

As far as I can tell there's been almost *no* magnetosphere or solar considerations even looked at by the LIGO team. Is that really how it seems to you folks to, or did I miss something important somewhere in these various papers?

I'm really impressed by some of the work related to the construction, and maintenance of this LIGO (and BICEP2) equipment, but I'm utterly dismayed at the lack of consideration the made over the potential to observe geomagnetic influences with their upgraded and more sensitive equipment. They didn't even seem to "check" their signal against any satellite systems that are located in space and where are designed to routinely record whistler waves. As a matter of fact, they didn't even mention the term whistler waves in any papers that I've read to date. Am I simply missing an important paper somewhere?

That "signal" they observed sure happens to resemble an ordinary whistler wave that just happens to occur between 35-250 Hertz. It's apparently located closer to one detector than the other, but in every respect, it looks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, it has upward pointed feathers like a duck, and all the earmarks of a whistler wave duck.

Instead of spending some well needed time checking out what various magnetosphere ducks sound like in their equipment, they *assumed* that two deep space, invisible merging pink unicorns did it, and did it so quietly that nobody saw any photons from space.

Wow. This paper really has the look and feel of the BICEP2 fiasco paper. Like BICEP, LIGO saw "something"'. That something however has *many* logical and rational possible explanations, and one very *likely* one too, without resorting to invisible black hole mergers from 1.3 billion light years away.

IMO the most damning evidence against their claim is their utter lack of a visual confirmation on any wavelength. Their "blip transients" have never been traced to a *specific* hardware failure, or channel, they've been seen in *both* detectors. Apparently *except* for the two possible signals in question, they haven't seen the same "blip transient" at the same time in both detectors so they "assume" that blip transients are equipment related and *assume* they aren't EMP events.

I was convinced that the BICEP2 team had done due diligence to accurately and scientifically collect the data related to polarized photon patterns around the Earth. Likewise I'm convinced that the LIGO team has done due diligence in collecting the data related to this "signal". Just as I was skeptical that BICEP2 had properly ruled out dust and synchrotron radiation sources around our own galaxy, I'm skeptical that the LIGO team properly ruled out geomagnetic influences, and *specifically* whistler waves between 35-250 Hertz. They didn't do"due diligence" to rule out solar events. They didn't even study whistler wave events using modern satellite technology as far as I can tell before *assuming* they had no influence on their equipment.

I'd like your help. If I missed something important here please cite the paper and paragraph(s) I should be looking at? Did they ever even study geomagnetic events in their new equipment prior to the release of this paper? Are the magnetosphere influence factors of the new equipment even mentioned anywhere in literature prior to this "discovery" paper?

What am I missing? I don't want to bad mouth the LIGO team unfairly, but I simply see no evidence that they even studied magnetosphere or solar influences before just *assuming* they had no effect on their equipment.

[Osmosis]

It's amazing that no magnetometers are not used at these observatories. The San Francisco Bay area has total field magnetometers deployed to help monitoring seismically active areas. Why not use them for monitoring during hunts for more elusive events?

[Michael Mozina]

It's amazing that no magnetometers are not used at these observatories. The San Francisco Bay area has total field magnetometers deployed to help monitoring seismically active areas. Why not use them for monitoring during hunts for more elusive events?

I'm sure they used them at both observatories. What's "amazing" is that they failed to include a presentation of that information for the timeline in question. All I got in the published paper was a "snapshot in time" of the "strain noise" in one(?) of the detectors "near" the time in question, and nothing that provides a millisecond by millisecond snapshot of the various magnetometer readings during this timeframe. That critical information seems to be suspiciously absent from a paper that is claiming to have 5.1 sigma confidence of their claim, along with a suspicious absence of any sort of visual confirmation on any wavelength.

[Michael Mozina]

I think the most damning bit of evidence *against* the LIGO claim that this chirp signal is due to a celestial event is the complete *lack* of visual confirmation of this signal on any wavelength known to humanity. Any celestial event of this energy release magnitude would necessarily have lit up the surrounding region in a myriad of various wavelengths. The LIGO team claimed to be able to isolate the "general" region of the sky where we should expect this merger to have occurred, and yet nowhere in that region during that time frame do we see any visual confirmation on any wavelength. Why not?

In every other instance the LIGO team used a perceived lack of input from another channel or input in order to discard that potential influence as being the potential "cause" of the signal. For instance they didn't supposedly see undefined "radio waves" from undefined ground based sources so they eliminated EMP signals as being the potential culprit. In this case however, they blatantly do *not* have a falsification mechanism in place as it relates to proposed celestial origins of the signal. That is a blatant double standard as it relates to the quality of the so called "evidence". In every other case they *require* verification, but they do not impose any such restriction on their own claims of it being celestial in origin. No visual confirmation is required or used as a void mechanism.

It's like a "Heads I win, tails you lose" scenario.

The other really damaging *missing* data from this paper is a complete lack of magnetometer readings from each of the two detectors during the exact timelines in question. If I missed it, someone point it out, but I simply do not see that critical information contained anywhere in these papers.

Essentially they used 16 days of "cleaned for public consumption" data from about 42 days worth of data that wasn't all necessarily compatible with their claim. They then extrapolated those 16 "cherry picked" days over 203,000 years, claiming all the while that no geomagnetic event could have any effect on their equipment or be responsible for that signal. I guess this also means that we're absolutely safe from another Carrington sized solar event then for another 203,000 years. And oh ya, never mind those "blip transients" that occur in these exact frequencies which we can't explain to any specific channel or any specific equipment failure, we are somehow sure it's not one of those chirps (again)

Oy Vey. This has BICEP2 written all over it.

[Cargo]

It's amazing that no magnetometers are not used at these observatories. The San Francisco Bay area has total field magnetometers deployed to help monitoring seismically active areas. Why not use them for monitoring during hunts for more elusive events?

I'm sure they used them at both observatories. What's "amazing" is that they failed to include a presentation of that information for the timeline in question. All I got in the published paper was a "snapshot in time" of the "strain noise" in one(?) of the detectors "near" the time in question, and nothing that provides a millisecond by millisecond snapshot of the various magnetometer readings during this timeframe. That critical information seems to be suspiciously absent from a paper that is claiming to have 5.1 sigma confidence of their claim, along with a suspicious absence of any sort of visual confirmation on any wavelength.

That's because they 'filtered' out everything they didn't want to see. See?

The LIGO is so great, it should be able to pinpoint every 1Kt+ bomb denotation on the planet with pinpoint accuracy. Why isn't the Military all over this?

I fully expect we'll have the same people believing in Gravity Waves months from now as we do that still think we found the Higgs.

[comingfrom]

Stephen J Crothers A Critical Analysis of LIGO

ABSTRACT:
The LIGO Scientific Collaboration and the Virgo Collaboration have announced
that on 24 September 2015, LIGO detected an Einstein gravitational wave
directly for the first time, with the first observation of a binary black hole
merger. The announcement was made with much media attention. Not so
long ago similar media excitement surrounded the announcement by the
BICEP2 Team of detection of primordial gravitational waves imprinted in Bmode
polarisations of a Cosmic Microwave Background, which proved to be
naught. According to the LIGO and Virgo Collaborations, the gravitational
wave LIGO allegedly detected was generated by two merging black holes, one
of ~29 solar masses, the other of ~36 solar masses, at a distance of some 1.3
billion light years. The insurmountable problem for the credibility of LIGO's
claims is the questionable character of the theoretical assumptions upon
which they are based. In this paper various arguments are presented
according to which the basic theoretical assumptions, and the consequential
claims of detecting gravitational waves, are proven false. The apparent
detection by the LIGO-Virgo Collaborations is not related to gravitational
waves or to the collision and merger of black holes.

[Michael Mozina]

That's because they 'filtered' out everything they didn't want to see. See?

Ya, I see that.

I must admit I'm a bit bumbed.

Unlike some EU/PC proponents, I strongly support GR theory without all the metaphysical nonsense associated with LCDM theory, and I accept the premise of massively heavy objects in spacetime. I am definitely open to the idea of discovering gravity waves, and this issue has no actual bearing on the debate between LCDM and EU/PC theory. I'm probably the ideal "skeptic" in that sense. I have no particular axe to grind as it relates to this issue, and I did my best to keep an "open mind" while reading the materials.

I quickly discovered however that the more that I read, the less believable this claim became. The real "deal breaker" of this claim is that complete lack of visual support for it being related to a celestial event of any kind. In every other instance, they used "voiding" mechanisms to remove various potential explanations for this signal from consideration. In terms of celestial claims of origin however, they impose *no* voiding mechanism of any sort. Even though we should "expect" to see this event light up the surrounding plasma like a Christmas tree in every wavelength imaginable, nothing was observed from the supposed area of the sky where this signal originated. How can they then claim it's celestial in origin?

The other deal breaker is that they took a grand total of 16 "clean" days, and then tried to extrapolate those hand selected 16 days over 203,000 years, while never isolating the cause of blip transients in the very same frequency range, and while flippantly handaving away all potential for solar and geomagnetic influences over hundreds of thousands of years. That's just unbelievably sloppy science IMO. They didn't even provide any graphs or data that might be related to any any effects from any geomagnetic events. Hell, the whole experiment wasn't even officially in "data collection mode" yet, that's has *little* data, and how *little time* they've had to even consider geomagnetic influences on their new upgraded, and much more sensitive equipment.

This whole LIGO paper has way too many parallels with the BICEP2 fiasco paper. Both teams spent a lot of time making sure their equipment worked right, and a lot of time making sure they were seeing what they were seeing, and a lot of time claiming that what they were seeing was mathematically related to their specific claims, and almost *no* time at all considering any other potential causes of the observation in question. The terms "whistler wave" and "magnetosphere" are not even mentioned in the either the primary LIGO paper, or the paper related to geomagnetic factors. That's simply unbelievable considering the signal characteristics and the frequency in question. *The most likely* cause of a frequency shifting pulse in this frequency range wasn't even mentioned by name! How unprofessional is that?

The real damning issue here is the utter lack of visual confirmation, and their unwillingness to void their own claim based upon *any* constraining mechanism that is available or possible. There is no way to "void" their celestial claim based upon a lack of visual support. That's just childish and hypocritical nonsense.

In fairness, it is still "possible" that someone might eventually come up with a strong visual confirmation of this event in some piece of equipment, but thus far it looks very suspicious that many telescope teams are not already jumping on the bandwagon and providing visual support for the claim of this signal being celestial in origin.

[upriver]

It's amazing that no magnetometers are not used at these observatories. The San Francisco Bay area has total field magnetometers deployed to help monitoring seismically active areas. Why not use them for monitoring during hunts for more elusive events?

I'm sure they used them at both observatories. What's "amazing" is that they failed to include a presentation of that information for the timeline in question. All I got in the published paper was a "snapshot in time" of the "strain noise" in one(?) of the detectors "near" the time in question, and nothing that provides a millisecond by millisecond snapshot of the various magnetometer readings during this timeframe. That critical information seems to be suspiciously absent from a paper that is claiming to have 5.1 sigma confidence of their claim, along with a suspicious absence of any sort of visual confirmation on any wavelength.

Personally, I think they should have had a room with every sensor known to man to back their data up...

[Michael Mozina]

Personally, I think they should have had a room with every sensor known to man to back their data up...

Between the various neutrino detectors that we have online, and the various telescopes we have on the ground and up in space, they basically do have every sensor known to man to help them make their case. The most damning "evidence" against their claim of "discovery" is that even with billions of dollars of additional equipment to help them, they couldn't find any external support at all to back up this "discovery" claim. That's a rather revealing problem IMO.

[BeAChooser]

The most damning "evidence" against their claim of "discovery" is that even with billions of dollars of additional equipment to help them, they couldn't find any external support at all to back up this "discovery" claim. That's a rather revealing problem IMO.

Agreed. Guess that evidence just went down the black hole. :rolleyes:

[Michael Mozina]

The most damning "evidence" against their claim of "discovery" is that even with billions of dollars of additional equipment to help them, they couldn't find any external support at all to back up this "discovery" claim. That's a rather revealing problem IMO.

Agreed. Guess that evidence just went down the black hole. :rolleyes:

I'm inclined to believe that the complete lack of visual support is the most damning part of this paper, but here's a more comprehensive list of problem in that paper that I compiled over at CRUS.

1. There is no visual confirmation of this claim even with many instruments that should be capable of verifying the LIGO team's claim of a celestial origin of this signal.
2. There is no void/falsification/verification mechanism applied to *any* celestial origin claim at all, a blatant double standard with respect to other potential causes of the signal in question.
3. There is no specific channel or specific explanation identified or justified for "blip transients", which are routinely seen by both instruments in exactly these frequency ranges and with very similar wave patterns.
4. Blip transients even have a very similar wave form as demonstrated, documented and noted in figure 12 of the supporting document on EM influences considered by LIGO.
5. There is a known and demonstrated coupling mechanism between EM pulse events and the equipment that is being used to detect this signal.
6. No potential long term or "one off" events from geomagnetic or solar influence are taken into account in that highly "fine tuned" 203,000 year figure which is based upon just 16 days of cherry picked "quiet" data.
7. No raw magnetometer data from either detector seems to be publicly available for inspection during the 1/4 second timeline in question. I've been through a lot of the data that is available online, and I've not seen it, but perhaps it's publicly available and someone could just point it out.
8. No relevant satellite magnetosphere observational data was ever compared to any 'blip transient' events, or the 'discovery' event even though whistler waves from the magnetosphere follow similar signal patterns and can occur in these frequencies.
9. The entire paper is based upon the flimsy premise that "Since we can't easily explain the observation in question locally yet, therefore something exotic and 'unseen' that is really far away did it." just like the BICEP2 paper. This type of premise has already been demonstrated to be *fraught* with scientific peril over the long haul, and it's the same basis of the the breakdown of the 5+ BICEP2 claim during peer review, the breakdown of the "dark matter" claim over the past decade, as well as the breakdown of the "standard candle" claim over the past 15 years.

[Zyxzevn]

Rumours of a second signal.
Something I already expected, because electromagnetic "chirp"-events are not so rare.

"..we already have evidence that we have seen a second such event,"
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/ligo-scientist ... ry-1549229

It would be funny if it would coincide with another magnetic storm.