Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

[Cargo]

Neutron Stars are pure fantasy. So are Gravity Waves. But now they been able to correlate two fantasy objects and continue to prop up more with whatever they want to come up with. The Prize has been awarded, it's all settled.

[Roshi]

If "spacetime" can oscillate

That is still only a theory.

No, it is accepted by mainstream, it`s "fact". Gravity waves = spacetime waves because gravity is bent spacetime . How come there is only one wave and not a series of ripples?

[Bengt Nyman]

Spacetime is the new aether...

Agreed ! And "gravitational" waves are shock waves through the aether.
The real question is: What makes up the so called aether ? One candidate is a mist of energy, black, white or whatever, escaping along with gamma rays from the poles of black holes.
We can forget the expressions spacetime and gravitational waves now that we know what causes gravity.
http://www.dipole.se

[Zyxzevn]

Reddit post with all LIGO papers.
Everyone jumps on the GW train.

[Bengt Nyman]

Everyone jumps on the GW train.

Yes. Spacetime is the new aether (I agree Roshi) and gravitational waves are part of the new religion.
Shock waves through the aether is probably closer to reality.
It seams nobody is satisfied with a non-mystical explanation of what's really going on, and not going on, in space.

[Xantos]

Michelson Morley: Negative result, Einstein wins!

LIGO: Positive results, Einstein wins!

It seems, this Einstein guy can't lose.

[Michael Mozina]

Michelson Morley: Negative result, Einstein wins!

LIGO: Positive results, Einstein wins!

It seems, this Einstein guy can't lose.

I think it's unfortunate that GR theory has gotten such a "bad rap" within the EU/PC community. With all of the blatant abuse of GR that has taken place by the mainstream, I understand why GR theory is unpopular inside of our community, but I think we're unfairly blaming Einstein for the sins of the mainstream. The mathematical abuse of GR theory isn't Einstein's fault anymore than the mathematical abuse of MHD theory and magnetic reconnection theory is Alfven's fault. Keep in mind that Einstein originally resisted the whole "space expansion" concept before finally accepting that it's a valid "mathematical" solution to GR even if it's not a valid physical solution. Einstein even originally questioned the existence of gravitational waves, and he outright rejected the whole concept of "black holes" with an infinite density at a "point".

GR theory is IMO a *wonderful* and purely *empirical* theory of gravity. It may not ultimately be the "best" description of gravity, but it's certainly passed every logical "test" to date, most recently with the discovery (and I'm willing to go there at this point) of gravitational waves, time dilation, and many things that are quite unique to GR and "predicted" by GR.

While concepts like 'space expansion', dark energy, and exotic forms of matter can be mathematically modeled and expressed in GR, GR is not in any way dependent upon the validity of those concepts for it's physical legitimacy. It's not really Einstein's fault that mainstream took a "blunder" theory variation of GR and kludged the hell out of it with metaphysical entities galore. It's likewise not Alfven's fault that "magnetic reconnection" theory has become so popular within the mainstream community. Stuff just happens.

The discovery of gravitational waves in no way threatens EU/PC theory, nor does it improve or support LCDM theory one iota.

I think it would be better to "pick our battles" wisely with respect to GR. While I have steadfastly resisted "immaculate conception" claims by LIGO, I see no logical reason to reject multimessenger astronomy or the basic concept of gravitational waves. I think everyone here knows what a public critic I've been with respect to LIGO's claims about "black hole" mergers, but I'm not adverse to the concept of heavy objects "merging together" as long weren't not talking about infinitely dense objects, or completely invisible nonsense.

IMO the latest paper by LIGO at least passes the first read through "whiff test" from my perspective. It certainly doesn't make my skin crawl the way that the first four LIGO papers did. I think that it is entirely possible that LIGO is able to "observe" gravitational waves from real high energy celestial events. I'll probably continue to reject LIGO's invisible merger claims, but multimessenger claims are a completely different animal, and a completely different issue IMO.

I haven't been through all the available materials yet related to this last LIGO observation, but what I've read so far at least looks "semi-legit". I still have that nagging doubt in the back of my mind about the small possibility of a 'coincidence' occurring between a real celestial event, and an 'environmental noise' influence that accidentally happens/occurs around the same time. That 1.7 second delay between gamma ray detection and the LIGO chirp detection still nags at me, as does Virgo's lack of a detection, but the fact they can triangulate the signal to the same region as the gamma ray burst, and the distance aspects are in general agreement are tough to ignore. It seems improbable to me that the two events are not related in any way.

I've complained hard and heavy about LIGO's pitiful methodology in the past, but this new paper doesn't suffer from all of those same problems. It's very different. I don't really see a logical reason to reject this particular multimessenger claim, although I still have zero confidence in their previous claims.

Anyway, that's kind of where I see things at the moment.

Keep in mind that LIGO is shut down now for the next year while they work on upgrades that should make the LIGO and Virgo detectors about twice as sensitive as they are now, and improve their volume sensitivity by a factor of about 8. If this isn't actually a fluke, the increase in volume sensitivity should result in similar multimessenger events being observed several times a year. We won't really know for a couple years now whether this is actually just a coincidence or not, but I don't really see any obvious reason to reject this last LIGO claim, even though it hasn't changed my opinion about any of their previous claims one bit.

GR theory isn't the problem. LCDM theory is the problem. The existence (or lack thereof) of gravitational waves really has no direct effect on either LCDM or EU/PC theory. Gravitational waves either exist or they don't, but their existence doesn't favor any particular cosmology theory. I don't think it helps our case however to draw an arbitrary line in the sand with respect to either GR theory or gravitational waves. Assuming that LIGO is right about their last detection of real waves, we should see other similar events over the next couple of years. We won't know for more than a year if they'll be able to duplicate such multimessenger events, but in the meantime I'm willing to give LIGO the benefit of any doubt with respect to this last event, even if I *never* embrace their invisible immaculate conception claims, now or in the future.

Believe it or not, I'm actually quite happy for LIGO, and I'm actually relieved that they may be right about the existence of gravitational waves. It would be horrible to think that gravitational waves are just another one of their "make believe" claims that will now be taught to unsuspecting students. I think it would be a real boon for astronomy if LIGO is right, and I think they probably are right about this last event at least. I'm not necessarily 100 percent "sold" on the existence of gravitational waves based on one multimessenger event, but I'm definitely leaning in LIGO direction and I'm certainly willing to give them credit where credit is due. Multimessenger astronomy would be great for cosmology theory and I hope for everyone's sake that LIGO is able to replicate such multimessenger events in the future. Time will tell.

Either way, I don't think it's wise for our community to simply outright reject the concept of gravitational waves or GR theory. I think we look more (and are more) "legit'' by picking our battles wisely and by embracing as much of GR theory as possible. I'll never believe in "space expansion", exotic invisible forms of matter and energy, infinitely dense objects, or concepts like 'magnetic reconnection", but I'm willing to embrace MHD theory in some instances, and I willingly embrace GR theory too. We all know that gravity isn't the *only* thing that is important to astronomy but we should also accept the fact that gravity does play a very important role in astronomy.

I think it's best if we pick our battles wisely and do as much as we can to reach out and embrace GR theory whenever and wherever we can. I've been publicly vocal in my rejection of LIGO's black hole claims, but I feel equally compelled to support their multimessenger claims. Even if these events are not directly related to 'neutron stars', it's hard to simply ignore the correlation between the timing, the direction and the distance calculations from the chirp signal observed by LIGO and the gamma ray burst that was observed 1.7 seconds later. They certainly could be and probably are related in some way.

If Einstein is right, he can't lose, but Alan Guth can still lose, and dark energy can still lose and space expansion claims can still lose and exotic matter claims can still lose. Like I said, Einstein and GR theory aren't the real problem with LCDM theory, or cosmology theory in general.

[Cargo]

Why is it so important that Einstein and Relativity are 'right'? I don't see the point. hehe.

But maybe that is the point, because from the earliest days of Radio Astronomy, less then 100 years ago, as the atomic age was thrust upon man, as the entire world suddenly, all at once, became aware of Space, and all that is out there, someone decided that this Relativity was so awesome we can use it to explain itself and create any construct of object we want.

The basis of Pulsar phenomenon are littered with such obvious 'relative' bias that the term becomes meaningless. It is simple dropped in as a 'Mater of Fact' in most Published papers throughout the 30's and on. The discovery of neutrons gave the consortium a great way to invent math and matter that actually compressed an entire Solar Mass inside the nuclei of an Atom. The 1968 paper and studies of those years were all crazy studies of math overdose as one zero point singularity was joined with the apparent next-best-friend, the Neutron Star, which also can Create a Black Hole by it's incredible MAGNETIC FIELD. Ignore that. We know this is proof of Einstien and GR, because the Jets are Relativistic. We know this because Relativity says anything going that fast Must be Relative. Gravity and Mass is the only thing capable of producing the Magnetic Field needed.

And just where is Space and Time in all of this. Well, no where at all really. These terms are meaningless to the Universe. Although, I suppose if you can imagine the entire Sun compressed down to the size of a basketball of Neutron Star Super Compact Matter, you can imagine anything at all. Math will get there eventually.

Anyway, if you really looked at it all, it really obvious how simply illogical the accepted/published/mainstream 'science' is. They are blinded by endless formula and mental contortions.

If I were to imagine that Gravity Wave do exist:
So what happens when Gravity Waves run into each other? Are they Flat or Spherical? What about Relativistic Jets, do they affect the Waves?

Is Gravity Thick like ketchup, or Thin like Water? How many Waves does one encounter on a Billion Year journey through Space?

[Metryq]

Michelson Morley: Negative result, Einstein wins!

But did MMX actually fail to find any indication at all of an aether? Every textbook says so.
Relativity Challenge: The Michaelson-Morley Experiment

[Michael Mozina]

Why is it so important that Einstein and Relativity are 'right'? I don't see the point. hehe.

My whole point is that it really doesn't matter if Einstein is right, or GR theory is correct with respect to it's overall effect on cosmology theory. The detection of gravitational waves, or lack thereof in no way supports LCDM theory, "space expansion". dark stuff, etc. It really makes no difference with respect to EU/PC theory either. Either gravitational waves exist or they don't, but either way, it's irrelevant in terms of cosmology theory.

After wasting billions on dark matter theory, Planck's revelations of hemispheric variations in the CMB, and larger SN1A studies that move the likelihood of "dark energy" under the magic five sigma figure, the mainstream *needs* something, anything to claim as a "victory" of sorts. LIGO offers them that opportunity.

IMO examples of multimessenger astronomy are a horse of a different color from anything that LIGO has produced prior to this week. There are some mathematical correlations now between a real celestial event, and a "chirp noise pattern" observed by LIGO. Whether it's a fluke, or there's a physical reason for that correlation may remain to be seen, but either way, it has little or no effect on cosmology theory in general.

I'll admit that I'm not 100 percent convinced yet that this latest event "seals the deal" with respect to the existence of gravitational waves, but from what I've read thus far, I'm definitely leaning in that direction.

Mutlimessenger astronomy could offer us a whole new way of observing the universe and that excites me as much as it excites LIGO. I don't have any faith that their previous claims had merit, but I must say that this most recent event does tend to support the existence of graviational waves IMO.

I don't think anyone can answer some of your questions yet in terms of wave interactions, but maybe that will become a possibility in the future.

[Zyxzevn]

I see there is some confusion:
There are 2 kinds of relativity. Special relativity (speed of light=c) and
general relativity (gravity=acceleration).
The Michaelson-Morley experiment deals with special relativity, and established that the speed of light
is independent of the movement of earth through space.

The points of discussion on special relativity are:
1) what about dynamic aether? (aether that moves with earth)
2) is the speed of light really a constant? (R.Sheldrake)
3) clock-speed instead of time

The experiments of general relativity are a bit more difficult.
One aspect of general relativity is that gravity causes acceleration, and also affects light.
The fact that mass is directly related with gravity causes the direct relationship between
gravity and acceleration.

Many aspects of general relativity are under discussion:
1) does gravity move with speed of light?
2) can gravity bend light?
3) is the maths correct? (S.Crothers)

Some aspects of general relativity that were added later:
4) do black holes really exist?
5) is inflation real?
6) can changes in mass cause gravitational waves?
7) can such waves be detected?

Some here also have more points to discuss:
8) can electromagnetism affect orbits or even gravity itself?
9) does gravity affect time?
10) G is not a constant.
11) Gravity is just a result of quantum mechanics.

I think the discussion would be better if people would state which part of relativity they were discussing.
Sadly most mainstream scientists do not even bother to separate these different aspects of relativity.

[Zyxzevn]

Keep in mind that LIGO is shut down now for the next year while they work on upgrades that should make the LIGO and Virgo detectors about twice as sensitive as they are now, and improve their volume sensitivity by a factor of about 8. If this isn't actually a fluke, the increase in volume sensitivity should result in similar multimessenger events being observed several times a year. We won't really know for a couple years now whether this is actually just a coincidence or not, but I don't really see any obvious reason to reject this last LIGO claim, even though it hasn't changed my opinion about any of their previous claims one bit.

It seems to me that they will lower their standards when there are more detectors available.
Your basic point of a over-optimistic sigma is still valid, even for the latest detection.

The base resonance frequency of Virgo seems 500/1000 Hz.
The 500 Hz resonance is clearly visible in the "signal".
Due to the "photon-recycling" the "detectors" have become resonating chambers,
where the semitransparent mirror can switch between paths.
I think that these PhD students missed some lessons in resonance and an opportunity to improve
the signal /noise ratio.
If anyone knows the exact measures of the Virgo system, I could use it to remove some noise
in their data. But I am "afraid" that it might also remove the "detection".

[Michael Mozina]

It seems to me that they will lower their standards when there are more detectors available.
Your basic point of a over-optimistic sigma is still valid, even for the latest detection.

Maybe, but...

https://www.space.com/38471-gravitation ... ained.html

"Using LIGO and Virgo, we found there were only 49 galaxies that could have possibly been the home of this merger, and by prioritizing our search for this merger by how massive the galaxies were — which helped us estimate how many stars there were in each galaxy, and thus the chances they might have merging neutron stars — we found the merger in the third galaxy on our list," Kasliwal said.

If you stop and think about it, they used LIGO data to eliminate all but 49 galaxies. Had this been a complete fluke in terms of the timing, I wouldn't expect such a small subset out of a potentially infinite number of galaxies to produce EM emissions that are consistent with LIGO's data. The odds of that happening by chance are (literally) astronomical.

I've ripped on LIGO pretty good over their flawed methodology, and I still hold no faith in their previous claims, but the criticisms of LIGO's methodology which are outlined in my paper simply do not apply to this particular event. Granted this event could be a case of "pure dumb luck", but the odds of it being a pure coincidence seem pretty remote. In this specific case I'm willing to give LIGO the benefit of the doubt, and I'd expect to see them duplicate this feat in later observations.

Time will tell.

[Zyxzevn]

If you stop and think about it, they used LIGO data to eliminate all but 49 galaxies.

Michael, thanks for your input.

Locating the source

They use the timing of the "chirps" to establish the direction, just like the GPS.
With 3 detectors the direction would be sharp.
But it is not extremely sharp because the signals are not clear, so there is a certain shift possible.
Especially the Virgo signal is unclear.

Because the signals are very noisy there is a large degree of freedom.
Not exactly with the distribution as the scientists propose, because the raw signal is filtered
with a Fourier transformation and can cause possible signals at repeating distances.

What I believe is that in the cooperation with other scientists,
that they picked the best possible fit for the "chirps", after finding a signal from space.
It may be possible that they chose the best fit for all detectors.
Looking at the noise in the Virgo signal, it seems to me that the Virgo signal has been "fitted".
In universities I know that this fitting is very common, due to the "publish or perish" culture.

By choosing the best fit, they had a very wide band of possibilities
and picked out the most convenient one.

From the way they handle the data I do not believe that they
had 3 independent clear signals that they could later match with a real signal from space.
Their signal/noise ratio is far too low. And they have a resonating chamber.

Future improvements or future degeneration? We will see soon

If the scientists actually detected anything, we must see better signal quality in the future detectors.
Also we must see smaller locations for each detection, as more detectors are added.
Instead I suspect that we will have less quality of the detections, as the scientists will
use the other detectors to do more statistical wizardry to pull out more gravitational waves.
That is because the scientists still assume that the very high sigma value is true, so with more
detectors they can allow even more noise in their detections.
Future headline: "black holes colliding everywhere"
I suspect that when other detectors have no "signal" at all, those will just be ignored.
With a Nobel prize you can make your own rules.
But like what you say, the future will tell. after a few years we will know more.

The supernova

The signal from space seems very interesting.
I personally thing that it is an electrical phenomenon.
First a big spark, then smaller electric transfers, each transfer causing detectable
radio-waves.
From EU perspective I would be interested in studying the data from this event.

For a neutronstar gravitational wave, I would expect a signal that follows the gravitational wave,
and nothing else. Some signal that would look like the chirp.
A collision produces a lot of energy at once, especially in the gravitational wave theory.
So the observation is a mismatch with the basic theory.
I can extend the gravity theory by assuming that the collision causes particles to break off or whatever,
but that is not listed in the official theories. Probably because that model does also not fit the observations
(or expectations).

[Michael Mozina]

As I understand the paper, Virgo didn't see the last event at all, but that could be related to it's arm alignments. All of the detectors have blind spots and more sensitive spots. I believe that they even used that lack of a Virgo detection to calculate a "best guess" by "assuming" that the angle of the signal was related to Virgo's blind spot. I believe that is how they narrowed down the possible candidate galaxies to those specific 49 galaxies. Feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken of course.

The other really interesting observation of this last multimessenger event is that there was a 100 second "build up" during the "inspiral' process where they observed gravitational waves *prior* to the actual merger and corresponding "chirp" peak. That observation of an inspirial signal build up during that last merger event actually destroys LIGO's "immaculate conception" (BH merger) claims because in all four of those instances there *was no build up whatseover*! You can't help but ask yourself why there was no inspiral gravitational wave build up observed in *any* of the black hole merger events? Why are those merger events so different in that respect from that last merger event?

Not only does LIGO have to engage in a bad case of special pleading with respect to the lack of EM radiation in BH-BH merger claims, they also have no evidence of any sort of inspiral build up in the first four events as we saw in the last one. Why would that be? Not only does LIGO require a totel of 8 very special "uncharged naked" black holes, they all have to merge is a "very special" way that is completely different from the last merger event. There was something like 100 seconds of build up of the signal before the actual merger event (chirp peak) in the last paper, but no build up whatsoever in the first four papers. That lack of an inspiriral build up suggests that the first four chirps had *nothing whatsoever to do with a merger* process.

In short, LIGO's last paper only blows their first four papers out of the water in terms of the physics.

Not only does "where the beef" apply to the lack of EM emissions, it applies to the lack of a build up in the signal during the merger processes too. LIGO just shot themselves in the foot with respect to BH-BH merger claims. No doubt they'll do a special pleading tap dance around that problem too, or just try to ignore it entirely.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ug75diEyiA0

In these case "where's the inspiral build up before the merger"?