LIGO detects neutron star merger

[Michael Moroney]

On August 17, LIGO detected a signal that was consistent with a merger
of two neutron stars. Unlike the black hole merger signals, this one
lasted about 100 seconds.

Less than two seconds later, other detectors detected a gamma ray burst.

Multiple telescopes then detected a new object in a galaxy 130 million
light years away, known as NGC 4993, in the region of space that LIGO
and the gamma ray burst detectors said the neutron star merger should
have taken place.

This is really, really cool.

[Bud Cargo]

Michael Moroney wrote:

> Multiple telescopes then detected a new object in a galaxy 130 million
> light years away, known as NGC 4993, in the region of space that LIGO
> and the gamma ray burst detectors said the neutron star merger should
> have taken place. This is really, really cool.

I beg to differ. You have no proofs. There are no proofs.

[Michael Moroney]

Of course you do. That's because you are a retarded nymshifting
troll. Nymshifting trolls don't understand anything except for how
to shift nyms and babble nonsense.

[Bud Cargo]

I didn't say anything. That babble can't physically be mine. You do the
talking, but no proofs.

[R.T.]

Maybe. But note Virgo didn't actually detect it. Here's a quote from an official
LIGO source.. "Meanwhile, astronomers initially thought Virgo had missed the
signal, since it wasn’t showing up in the observatory’s data. But after a further
look, scientists realized Virgo had picked it up; the wave signal was just
incredibly faint. It turned out the merger occurred in a part of the sky that is a
bit of a blindspot for Virgo, which is a byproduct of the observatory’s location
on Earth. “Virgo in a way missed it, because it happened to be in a narrow
part of the sky where Virgo couldn’t quite catch it,” says Kalogera"...

And then look at the Fermi grb detection. It wasn't initially noted as a trigger.
The LIGO event was posted on GCN. And a search of the untriggered data
in all the other grb detectors was made and only after seven hours or so later
of data trawling a "weak short pulse of 2 s" was conveniently found in fermi.
If you know anything about grb data from fermi swift etc. You'll know
there are many low signal to noise events every day. Normally not considered
triggers.
So,..Maybe a GW. But more likely a desperate attempt to make one LIGO detection
look like a GW by finding a very low corresponding s/n trigger in the other
LIGO detector, a non detection in Virgo, and a weak, initially
untriggered pulse in the fermi data,...look like a historic discovery.
Just before LIGO was to be shut down again for six months.
Lots of jobs saved here.

[pnal...@gmail.com]

Yes, really cool...

[Michael Moroney]

"R.T." <matt.r...@outlook.com> writes:

>On Monday, 16 October 2017 18:31:23 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On August 17, LIGO detected a signal that was consistent with a merger
>> of two neutron stars. Unlike the black hole merger signals, this one
>> lasted about 100 seconds.
>>
>> Less than two seconds later, other detectors detected a gamma ray burst.
>>
>> Multiple telescopes then detected a new object in a galaxy 130 million
>> light years away, known as NGC 4993, in the region of space that LIGO
>> and the gamma ray burst detectors said the neutron star merger should
>> have taken place.
>>
>> This is really, really cool.

>Maybe. But note Virgo didn't actually detect it.

It did, but it was below the threshold to signal an alert. They had to go
back and look and saw the weaker signal.

>And then look at the Fermi grb detection. It wasn't initially noted as a trigger.
>The LIGO event was posted on GCN. And a search of the untriggered data
>in all the other grb detectors was made and only after seven hours or so later
>of data trawling a "weak short pulse of 2 s" was conveniently found in fermi.

Half hour, at most.

From an article in the Washington Post:

Just 1.7 seconds after the initial gravitational wave detection, NASA's Fermi
Space Telescope registered a brief flash of gamma radiation coming from the
constellation Hydra. Half an hour later, McEnery, the telescope's project
scientist, got an email from a colleague with the subject line, "WAKE UP."

"It said, 'This gamma ray burst has an interesting friend. ... Buckle up,'"
McEnery recalled.

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

R.T. wrote:

> So,..Maybe a GW.

No, *definitely* GWs (not just one). 4 km long arms just do not shorten and
lengthen by less than 1/10'000th the diameter of a proton *in a particular
pattern* because one associated scientist sneezes.

> But more likely a desperate attempt to make one LIGO detection look like a
> GW by finding a very low corresponding s/n trigger in the other
> LIGO detector

Cite evidence.

> a non detection in Virgo,

“Blind spot” does not mean *blind* spot, but *less accurate* detection
capabilities. You really need to learn what you are writing about before
you are writing about it.

> and a weak, initially untriggered pulse in the fermi data,...look like a
> historic discovery.

*70 telescope arrays* and *ten thousands* of scientists *around the world*
and *in space* (CHANDRA et al.) *all* observing the *same event* in the
*same small region of the sky*, in *different* wavelengths of light, over
*weeks*, *consistent with each other and current knowledge*, and you are
still not convinced? One wonders, is there *anything* that could convince
you of *any* discovery?

> Just before LIGO was to be shut down again for six months.

For improving the detection even more.

> Lots of jobs saved here.

Nonsense. LIGO is not one of the construction sites that you may be used to
work at. They are not all going on vacation or lay off all their people for
the winter; they just *stop* *observing* *actively* and *start* *testing*
and *improving* their equipment *again* (which is exactly what they did when
they accidentally had the first, Nobel-prized detection).


PointedEars
--
Q: What did the female magnet say to the male magnet?
A: From the back, I found you repulsive, but from the front
I find myself very attracted to you.
(from: WolframAlpha)

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

How can sound waves propagate in space?

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It is considered polite to post using one’s real name here. If you use
Google Groups, AFAIK this is only possible if you “join” the group.

> How can sound waves propagate in space?

If there is a medium to carry them, like the gas of an interstellar cloud.

But how did you get the idea of *sound* waves with regard to *gravitational*
waves?


PointedEars
--
Heisenberg is out for a drive when he's stopped by a traffic cop.
The officer asks him "Do you know how fast you were going?"
Heisenberg replies "No, but I know where I am."
(from: WolframAlpha)

[Carl Susumu]

If there is a medium to carry them, like the gas of an interstellar cloud.

But how did you get the idea of *sound* waves with regard to *gravitational*
waves?

_________________________________________________________________


Stellar gas clouds (computer imagery) do not exist since space is a vacuum.


How does LIGO interferometer detect the gravitational waves?---gravitational sound waves.. look it up

[Carl Susumu]

Gravity waves form sound waves.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIGO#/media/File:Simplified_diagram_of_an_Advanced_LIGO_detector.png

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

<http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html>

Carl Susumu wrote:

[Quotes fixed]

> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> But how did you get the idea of *sound* waves with regard to
>> *gravitational* waves?
>

> Stellar gas clouds (computer imagery) do not exist since space is a
> vacuum.

Nonsense. Stars are created from gas clouds (called “stellar nurseries”)
that collapse when they cool by emitting radiation. If there were no gas
clouds, there would be no stars, no planets, and you would not exist.

> How does LIGO interferometer detect the gravitational
> waves?---gravitational sound waves..

Nonsense twofold. Look up the facts, and the meaning of “interferometer”,
yourself.

The detection of gravitational waves is enabled by laser interferometry to
measure the changes of lengths as a gravitational wave passes through the
observatory.

In order to explain gravitational waves *to the general public*, they are
*turned into* equivalent sounds. That is, the amplitude is multiplied and
the frequency is decreased, accordingly.


PointedEars
--
Two neutrinos go through a bar ...

(from: WolframAlpha)

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Carl Susumu wrote:

> Gravity waves form sound waves.

No, the waveform can be turned into sound instead.

>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIGO#/media/File:Simplified_diagram_of_an_Advanced_LIGO_detector.png

You have not read this Wikipedia article, yes?


PointedEars
--
A neutron walks into a bar and inquires how much a drink costs.
The bartender replies, "For you? No charge."

(from: WolframAlpha)

[R.T.]

On Monday, 16 October 2017 20:09:02 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:

> "R.T." writes:
>
> >On Monday, 16 October 2017 18:31:23 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On August 17, LIGO detected a signal that was consistent with a merger
> >> of two neutron stars. Unlike the black hole merger signals, this one
> >> lasted about 100 seconds.
> >>
> >> Less than two seconds later, other detectors detected a gamma ray burst.
> >>
> >> Multiple telescopes then detected a new object in a galaxy 130 million
> >> light years away, known as NGC 4993, in the region of space that LIGO
> >> and the gamma ray burst detectors said the neutron star merger should
> >> have taken place.
> >>
> >> This is really, really cool.
>
> >Maybe. But note Virgo didn't actually detect it.
>
> It did, but it was below the threshold to signal an alert. They had to go
> back and look and saw the weaker signal.
>
> >And then look at the Fermi grb detection. It wasn't initially noted as a trigger.
> >The LIGO event was posted on GCN. And a search of the untriggered data
> >in all the other grb detectors was made and only after seven hours or so later
> >of data trawling a "weak short pulse of 2 s" was conveniently found in fermi.
>
> Half hour, at most.

That's what they'd like you to think. But it's not true. The actual fermi trigger
wasn't released for about seven hours or so after the event to make it look
official. (Note the official Fermi trigger wasn't released until
approx 20:00 GMT compared to the actual time of the GW.
Which was 12:41 GMT. )
What actually happened was an unusual strong
14s/n signal was seen in Livingston LIGO detector only. A much
weaker 6.5 signal coincided in Hanford. This was followed up and a an
even weaker signal of *only* 4sn was "found" in the Virgo detector.
Don't forget, that every day there are 1 billion 4sn events
detected in each LIGO detector alone!! Assuming similar
numbers for VIRGO this makes it pretty easy to 'find' a signal in
Hanford and VIRGO to match the only strong signal there was. (Livingston)
Then, if you look at the facts (GCN) you can see that the LIGO team tried to
build on the only strong signal they had (from Livingston) by then going to the fermi
data, trawling through it and found a very weak signal out of a sea of weak
signals and pretended it was correlated! They then made it an official
trigger seven hours later to cover up their trail.
Most likely a rat farted in the Livingston tunnel. After that it's easy to find
a match in the data from Hanford, VIRGO and fermi considering there are
up to a billion matchable events per day for LIGO and probably at least one
per second in fermi.

[R.T.]

On Monday, 16 October 2017 21:40:57 UTC+1, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> R.T. wrote:
>
> > So,..Maybe a GW.
>
> No, *definitely* GWs (not just one). 4 km long arms just do not shorten and
> lengthen by less than 1/10'000th the diameter of a proton *in a particular
> pattern* because one associated scientist sneezes.
>
> > But more likely a desperate attempt to make one LIGO detection look like a
> > GW by finding a very low corresponding s/n trigger in the other
> > LIGO detector
>
> Cite evidence.

Below is link. Livingston strong at 14, Hanford weak at 7, and Virgo unnoticeable
at 4. Don't forget, each LIGO detector detects 1billion 4snr events every day!
>
https://www.sciencealert.com/new-ligo-virgo-gravitational-waves-neutron-stars-space-news-sept-2017

>
> > a non detection in Virgo,
>
> “Blind spot” does not mean *blind* spot, but *less accurate* detection
> capabilities. You really need to learn what you are writing about before
> you are writing about it.
>

I think it's you who needs to learn about what's actually being detected and
study the data before you make any claims.

> > and a weak, initially untriggered pulse in the fermi data,...look like a
> > historic discovery.
>
> *70 telescope arrays* and *ten thousands* of scientists *around the world*
> and *in space* (CHANDRA et al.) *all* observing the *same event* in the
> *same small region of the sky*, in *different* wavelengths of light, over
> *weeks*, *consistent with each other and current knowledge*, and you are
> still not convinced? One wonders, is there *anything* that could convince
> you of *any* discovery?
>

Yes. If there were only a handful of >7 snr events in each LIGO detector every
three months and those only coincided to within ms with each other. Then you'd have
convinced me. Right now there is this one clear signal one day in Livingston and
billions of weak ones every day in Hanford and VIRGO to match to.
That's called random coincidence. Fermi isn't much better I imagine. The weak
signal cited probably occurs every second at that strength. And as for all the other
observations. If you told them to all study any same sized narrow spot in the sky
I'm sure you could find similar corroborating observations.

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

R.T. wrote:
^^^^
It is considered polite to post using one’s real name here.

> On Monday, 16 October 2017 21:40:57 UTC+1, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> wrote:

Attribution *line*, _not_ attribution novel.

>> R.T. wrote:
>> > So,..Maybe a GW.
>> No, *definitely* GWs (not just one). 4 km long arms just do not shorten
>> and lengthen by less than 1/10'000th the diameter of a proton *in a
>> particular pattern* because one associated scientist sneezes.
>> > But more likely a desperate attempt to make one LIGO detection look
>> > like a GW by finding a very low corresponding s/n trigger in the other
>> > LIGO detector
>> Cite evidence.
>
> Below is link. Livingston strong at 14, Hanford weak at 7,

No surprise there, it had a longer way to travel to Hanford than to
Livingston where it arrived first. Details about the different SNR can
probably be found in the papers. From the looks of it (satellite imagery
on Google Maps), Ligo Livingston has a different orientation (WSW/SSE)
than LIGO Hanford (NNW/WSW), which could be a part of the explanation.

> and Virgo unnoticeable at 4.

Which is why it did not trigger their alarm. No problem.

> Don't forget, each LIGO detector detects 1billion 4snr events every day!

Cite evidence.

>> > a non detection in Virgo,
>> “Blind spot” does not mean *blind* spot, but *less accurate* detection
>> capabilities. You really need to learn what you are writing about before
>> you are writing about it.
>
> I think it's you who needs to learn about what's actually being detected
> and study the data before you make any claims.

Pot calling the kettle black. Have you even bothered to watch the two-hour
presentation and Q&A session? Lots of sky photos of the event therein, too.
All fake? For what?

>> > and a weak, initially untriggered pulse in the fermi data,...look like
>> > a historic discovery.
>> *70 telescope arrays* and *ten thousands* of scientists *around the
>> world* and *in space* (CHANDRA et al.) *all* observing the *same event*
>> in the *same small region of the sky*, in *different* wavelengths of
>> light, over *weeks*, *consistent with each other and current knowledge*,
>> and you are still not convinced? One wonders, is there *anything* that
>> could convince you of *any* discovery?
>
> Yes. If there were only a handful of >7 snr events in each LIGO detector
> every three months and those only coincided to within ms with each other.
> Then you'd have convinced me. Right now there is this one clear signal one
> day in Livingston and billions of weak ones every day in Hanford and VIRGO

> to match to. That's called random coincidence. [more nonsense]

Good grief. Look at the whitened strain, look at the corresponding
*electromagnetic* observations. Those patterns, those observations,
just *cannot* be random coincidences.


PointedEars
--
Q: Where are offenders sentenced for light crimes?
A: To a prism.

(from: WolframAlpha)

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

Nonsense. Stars are created from gas clouds (called “stellar nurseries”)
that collapse when they cool by emitting radiation. If there were no gas
clouds, there would be no stars, no planets, and you would not exist.

___________________________________________________________



Are there any stellar gas clouds in our solar system?

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

In order to explain gravitational waves *to the general public*, they are
*turned into* equivalent sounds. That is, the amplitude is multiplied and
the frequency is decreased, accordingly.

_____________________________________________________



This is patently untrue since the bottom of the graph shows that the MIT-LIGO gravity wave experiment is detecting sound waves.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIGO#/media/File:Simplified_diagram_of_an_Advanced_LIGO_detector.png

[RichD]

On October 16, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On August 17, LIGO detected a signal that was consistent with a merger
> of two neutron stars. Unlike the black hole merger signals, this one
> lasted about 100 seconds.

How do they know it was a pair of neutron stars?
Relativity addresses only mass, it doesn't say anything about
the exact nature of defunct stars.

> Less than two seconds later, other detectors detected a gamma ray burst.
> Multiple telescopes then detected a new object in a galaxy 130 million
> light years away, known as NGC 4993, in the region of space that LIGO
> and the gamma ray burst detectors said the neutron star merger should
> have taken place.

In the original detector event, in 2015, the equipment
could measure only the amplitude waveforms, but unable
to locate the position. This time, they can suss that
information? What changed?


--
Rich

[Bud Cargo]

RichD wrote:

> On October 16, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On August 17, LIGO detected a signal that was consistent with a merger
>> of two neutron stars. Unlike the black hole merger signals, this one
>> lasted about 100 seconds.
>
> How do they know it was a pair of neutron stars?
> Relativity addresses only mass, it doesn't say anything about the exact
> nature of defunct stars.

ahahahah, excellent observation, Dr. RichD. They are making shit up, just
to be the first grabbing the cookies.

[Michael Moroney]

"R.T." <matt.r...@outlook.com> writes:

>Below is link. Livingston strong at 14, Hanford weak at 7, and Virgo unnoticeable
>at 4. Don't forget, each LIGO detector detects 1billion 4snr events every day!
>>
>https://www.sciencealert.com/new-ligo-virgo-gravitational-waves-neutron-stars-space-news-sept-2017

That link discusses the recent black hole merger event (8/14/2017), not
the 8/17/2017 neutron star event that got everyone excited (despite
"neutron stars" being part of the URL)

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

RichD wrote:
^^^^^

It is considered polite to post using one’s real name here.

> On October 16, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On August 17, LIGO detected a signal that was consistent with a merger
>> of two neutron stars. Unlike the black hole merger signals, this one
>> lasted about 100 seconds.
>
> How do they know it was a pair of neutron stars?

Because of the amplitude of the detected waves, therefore the spacetime
strain or IOW the amount by which distances became longer and shorter when
the waves passed through the observatories.

> Relativity addresses only mass, it doesn't say anything about
> the exact nature of defunct stars.

Incorrect.

First of all, you really need to differentiate between the *two* theories of
relativity: *special* relativity (SR) and *general* relativity (GR).

*GR* states that the curvature in a region of spacetime corresponds to the
density of stress, energy and momentum in that region. (That is why it is
also a theory of gravitation: orbits are explained not by a gravitational
force acting instantaneously at a distance, but by objects moving on
geodesics of a curved spacetime, which are curved, when they are moving
*without* a force acting on them.)

But according to SR, mass and rest energy are equivalent (E₀ = m c²;
E² = m²c⁴ + p²c², then substitute momentum p = 0). So mass density
ρ_m = ∂m∕∂V is equivalent to energy density ρ_E = c² ∂m∕∂V = ∂E∕∂V (they are
obviously *equal* in Planck units where c = 1). That is, the spacetime
curvature is the greater the greater the mass density.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equations>

The mass density of neutron stars (which really are rather star *remnants*
after a supernova) is very high compared to normal stars. For example, the
average mass density of Sol (r_Sol ≈ 700'000 km) is approximately only that
of water (ρ_Sol ≈ 1.403 g∕cm³); now think the *same* mass compressed into a
spherical region with a radius of only 10 to 20 km [avg(ρ_m) = m∕V,
V = 4∕3 π r³], and you get an idea how incredibly dense a neutron star is;
hence the common “a spoonful of it would weigh tons” analogies).

Neutron stars form when massive stars collapse that much under their own
gravity (simply put) so that electrons are forced closer to their atomic
nucleus and are captured by protons to form neutrons:

p⁺ + e⁻ → n⁰ + ν

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_capture>

It should therefore be *obvious* now that neutron stars correspond to a
*large* mass density already, therefore a large spacetime curvature.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_star>

Gravitational waves are propagating changes in spacetime curvature. So the
spacetime strain caused by gravitational waves corresponds to the energy–
momentum, including the mass density, of the objects causing them.¹ That is
why so far only supernovae, neutron stars and black holes would cause (are
causing) gravitational waves of sufficient amplitudes for us to detect them
at a distance of 130 million light-years or more (keep in mind that the
amplitude of the wave is reciprocal to the distance from the source).

<https://www.quora.com/Does-the-amplitude-of-a-gravitational-wave-fall-off-as-the-inverse-square-law>

_______
¹ I am ignoring stress and momentum density here which also contribute to
the energy–momentum tensor, the source of spacetime curvature: it matters
that the neutron stars not only have large masse density, but are moving
*fast*, at considerable fractions of the speed of light, relative to us,
and they are rotating *very fast*.

>> Less than two seconds later, other detectors detected a gamma ray burst.
>> Multiple telescopes then detected a new object in a galaxy 130 million
>> light years away, known as NGC 4993, in the region of space that LIGO
>> and the gamma ray burst detectors said the neutron star merger should
>> have taken place.
>
> In the original detector event, in 2015, the equipment
> could measure only the amplitude waveforms, but unable
> to locate the position. This time, they can suss that
> information? What changed?

One more gravitational-wave observatory online at the other side of the
Atlantic, VIRGO (in Pisa, Italy), and 70 classical observatories to pinpoint
the location. Think trilateration.

It was also explained well in the two-hour presentation and Q & A session.
You should take the time to watch it before you jump to further conclusions:

<https://youtu.be/AFxLA3RGjnc?list=FL2ol3ZFHm1AHKRjm3d68yig>


HTH

PointedEars
--
Q: What did the nuclear physicist order for lunch?
A: Fission chips.

(from: WolframAlpha)

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> RichD wrote:
>> On October 16, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>> On August 17, LIGO detected a signal that was consistent with a merger
>>> of two neutron stars. Unlike the black hole merger signals, this one
>>> lasted about 100 seconds.
>>
>> How do they know it was a pair of neutron stars?
>
> Because of the amplitude of the detected waves, therefore the spacetime
> strain or IOW the amount by which distances became longer and shorter when

> the waves passed through the observatories. […]

And you must not forget the kilonova that was observed following the merger
for 16 days, across the *electromagnetic* spectrum (including *visible*
light):

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GW170817>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilonova>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum>


PointedEars
--
Q: What happens when electrons lose their energy?
A: They get Bohr'ed.

(from: WolframAlpha)

[pnal...@gmail.com]

Not anymore, the last remnants were blown away by our nascent star. Of course, you could have looked this up yourself...

http://atropos.as.arizona.edu/aiz/teaching/nats102/mario/solar_system.html

"Once nuclear burning began in the Sun, it became a luminous object and cleared nebula as pressure from its light and solar wind pushed material out of Solar System."

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> RichD wrote:
>>> On October 16, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On August 17, LIGO detected a signal that was consistent with a merger
>>>> of two neutron stars. Unlike the black hole merger signals, this one
>>>> lasted about 100 seconds.
>>> How do they know it was a pair of neutron stars?
>> Because of the amplitude of the detected waves, therefore the spacetime
>> strain or IOW the amount by which distances became longer and shorter
>> when the waves passed through the observatories. […]
>
> And you must not forget the kilonova that was observed following the
> merger for 16 days, across the *electromagnetic* spectrum (including
> *visible* light):
>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GW170817>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilonova>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum>

A “too long, didn’t watch” version that appears to not have been referenced
yet:

<http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/10/merging-neutron-stars-generate-gravitational-waves-and-celestial-light-show>

It should clarify a lot of misconceptions that are floating around here.


PointedEars
--

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

Gravity waves form sound waves.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIGO#/media/File:Simplified_diagram_of_an_Advanced_LIGO_detector.png

[Bud Cargo]

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GW170817>
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilonova>
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum>
>
> A “too long, didn’t watch” version that appears to not have been
> referenced yet:
> <http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/10/merging-neutron-stars-generate-
gravitational-waves-and-celestial-light-show>
> It should clarify a lot of misconceptions that are floating around here.
> PointedEars

Sure. Unemployed and on social welfare.

[Carl Susumu]

Gases do not exist in vacuum.

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

[John Heath]

I beg to differ. A rat fart will have a saw tooth wave form with a beat frequency that is continuous until the gas is expelled. On the other hand two merging neutron stars make a distinct chirp sound that a sine wave increasing in frequency until they are merged. I am not saying that the rat's fine contribution of fart sounds is less deserving of attention only that the lack of a change in pitch makes it unlikely to be the merging of two neutron stars.

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:

> Gravity waves form sound waves.

You still don’t get it.

>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIGO#/media/File:Simplified_diagram_of_an_Advanced_LIGO_detector.png

Gravity waves are not measured with this instrument.

You have no idea what gravity waves are.
You have no idea what gravitational waves are.
You have no idea what sound waves are.

Please stop talking about things of which you have no clue. TIA.

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Carl Susumu wrote:

> Gases do not exist in vacuum.

What do you think stars are made of?

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:

> Gravity waves form sound waves.

Repeating nonsense does not make it true.


PointedEars
--

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That is _not_ a name.

> [Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: ]

>> Nonsense. Stars are created from gas clouds (called “stellar nurseries”)
>> that collapse when they cool by emitting radiation. If there were no
>> gas clouds, there would be no stars, no planets, and you would not exist.
>

> Are there any stellar gas clouds in our solar system?

There are no “stellar gas clouds” to begin with. “Stellar” refers to a
*single* star (lat. «stēlla» “star”), like “stellar nuclear fusion” is the
nuclear fusion that is going on inside a *single* star. So “stellar gas
clouds” is pseudo-scientific word salad.

I wrote _interstellar_ gas clouds; that is, gas clouds *between* the stars
(lat. «inter» “between”).

Of course there are no *interstellar* gas clouds in our solar system because
it is a *star* system. (How can there be something between *itself*?)

But the universe is much greater than our little star system:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe#/media/File:Earth%27s_Location_in_the_Universe_SMALLER_(JPEG).jpg>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstellar_cloud>

Next time, do your own homework.

Learn to quote. Google Groups does not insert the quote when you reply so
that you copy-paste from the original instead and then use some arbitrary
delimiter. It does it so that you move through the quote from top to
bottom, remove the parts that you are not referring to and leave in the
parts that you are referring to in your replies. (Unfortunately, different
to proper newsreaders, it puts the text cursor at the bottom, so you have
to move to the top manually first.)


PointedEars
--
“Science is empirical: knowing the answer means nothing;
testing your knowledge means everything.”
—Dr. Lawrence M. Krauss, theoretical physicist,
in “A Universe from Nothing” (2009)

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:

[Quotes fixed]

> [Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: ]

>> In order to explain gravitational waves *to the general public*, they are
>> *turned into* equivalent sounds. That is, the amplitude is multiplied
>> and the frequency is decreased, accordingly.
>

> This is patently untrue since the bottom of the graph shows that the
> MIT-LIGO gravity wave experiment is detecting sound waves.

^^^ ^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Not even wrong.

>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIGO#/media/File:Simplified_diagram_of_an_Advanced_LIGO_detector.png

Stop talking about things of which you have no clue.

Get a real name, and learn to quote.

Otherwise, FOAD.


PointedEars
--
Q: Who's on the case when the electricity goes out?
A: Sherlock Ohms.

(from: WolframAlpha)

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

R.T. wrote:

> [conspiracy theory]

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_(person)>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll>


PointedEars
--
Heisenberg is out for a drive when he's stopped by a traffic cop.
The officer asks him "Do you know how fast you were going?"
Heisenberg replies "No, but I know where I am."
(from: WolframAlpha)

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

John Heath wrote:

> […] A rat fart will have a saw tooth wave form with a beat frequency that

> is continuous until the gas is expelled. On the other hand two merging
> neutron stars make a distinct chirp sound that a sine wave increasing in
> frequency until they are merged.

The rat fart would make an (somewhat) audible *sound* wave.

Merging neutron stars (or black holes) make *silent* *gravitational* waves –
propagated *spacetime curvature* –, which are only *turned into* sound waves
*for explanation and effect* to “rat fart” people.

Will you “rat fart” people *please* understand this?


PointedEars
--
Q: What did the nuclear physicist post on the laboratory door
when he went camping?
A: 'Gone fission'.
(from: WolframAlpha)

[John Heath]

It is understood that a gravity wave is not a audio wave. The difference being audio travels at 1000 feet per second in air and gravity at c. Other than speed they so similar that audio is often used as an analogy of a gravity wave. To change the shape of space for for the earth's gravity you just change the density of a vacuum just like air pressure changes the density of air.

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

It is understood that a gravity wave is not a audio wave. The difference being audio travels at 1000 feet per second in air and gravity at c. Other than speed they so similar that audio is often used as an analogy of a gravity wave. To change the shape of space for for the earth's gravity you just change the density of a vacuum just like air pressure changes the density of air.

______________________________________________________________________


In the graph depicted in the link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIGO#/media/File:Simplified_diagram_of_an_Advanced_LIGO_detector.png

are not the frequencies on the bottom axis between 20 and 1000 Hz. Conversely, are the frequencies between 20-1000 Hz frequencies of sound waves?

[Tom Roberts]

On 10/17/17 2:28 PM, RichD wrote:
> On October 16, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On August 17, LIGO detected a signal that was consistent with a merger
>> of two neutron stars. Unlike the black hole merger signals, this one
>> lasted about 100 seconds.
>
> How do they know it was a pair of neutron stars?

From the signal characteristics they could measure the masses of the two
objects, and also their radius as they infall. From these values, the only known
astronomical objects they could be are neutron stars or black holes (their
density is enormously higher than that of any star). But if they were black
holes they would not have emitted EM radiation as well, and the ringdown would
have been much different.

> In the original detector event, in 2015, the equipment
> could measure only the amplitude waveforms, but unable
> to locate the position.

Not true. For each of the previous black-hole mergers the LIGO collabroation
presented a plot of where in the sky the event could have occurred, including
distance. They are rather large swaths of the sky...

> This time, they can suss that
> information? What changed?

VIRGO came online, permitting a much better determination of location from the
gravitational wave alone. This was good enough so many other telescopes started
searching for optical, X-ray, and gamma-ray counterparts, and suitable
candidates were found -- these, of course, are much better localized in the sky.

Tom Roberts

[Ned Latham]

Tom Roberts wrote:

> RichD wrote:
>>
>> How do they know it was a pair of neutron stars?
>
> From the signal characteristics they could measure the masses
> of the two objects,

Hogwash.

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

"TABLE 5.1 FREQUENCY BANDS FOR GRAVIATIONAL WAVES


Designation..............................................Frequency...............................Typical sources


Extremely low frequency.......................10-7 to 10-4 Hz..........................Slow binaries, black hole (>108 Mo)

Very low frequency................................10-4 to 10-1 Hz.........................Fast binaries, black holes (<108 Mo), white-dwarf vibrations

Low frequency.......................................10-1 to 102 Hz..........................Binary pulsars, black holes (<105 Mo)

Medium frequency.................................102 to 105 Hz...........................Supernovas, pulsar vibrations

High frequency......................................105 to 108 Hz............................Man-made?

Very high frequency..............................108 to 1011 Hz..........................Blackbody, cosmological?" (Ohanian, p. 242).


"The most promising frequency band is that of medium frequency, from 102 to 105 Hz. There are several probable sources of gravitational waves in this band and, fortunately, detectors that respond to waves in this band can be built. There is little doubt that gravitational waves are incident on the Earth; the question is, can we build a detector sufficiently sensitive to feel them?" (Ohanian, p. 242).



Weber's 1662 Hz gravity wave is ten order of magnitude greater than the frequency of a 10-7 Hz black hole gravity wave. Also, a 10-7 Hz black hole gravity wave does not represent a radio wave and has a wavelength of 1015 m!!! Furthermore, a 104 Hz supernovas gravity wave represents a sound wave but sound cannot propagate in the vacuum of stellar space nor can sound propagate at the velocity of light. The LIGO gravitational wave experiment detected gravity waves formed by the collision of two 250 ly black holes that produces gravitational waves of frequencies between 35 Hz to 250 Hz that acoustical chirps vibrate the armature of a laser interferometer forming the signal of the gravity waves but the LIGO gravity waves represent the frequencies of sound that cannot propagate in the vacuum of celestial space at the velocity of light.

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

John Heath wrote:

> […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> John Heath wrote:
>> > […] A rat fart will have a saw tooth wave form with a beat frequency

>> > [that is continuous until the gas is expelled. On the other hand two$

>> > merging neutron stars make a distinct chirp sound that a sine wave
>> > increasing in frequency until they are merged.
>>
>> The rat fart would make an (somewhat) audible *sound* wave.
>>
>> Merging neutron stars (or black holes) make *silent* *gravitational*
>> waves – propagated *spacetime curvature* –, which are only *turned into*
>> sound waves *for explanation and effect* to “rat fart” people.
>>
>> Will you “rat fart” people *please* understand this?
>

> It is understood that a gravity wave is not a audio wave.

You mean _sound_ wave, and it is obvious from what you are writing that you
do not understand the difference (despite my previous, detailed explanations
on the subject).

> The difference being audio travels at 1000 feet per second in air

_Sound_, not “audio”.

That would be 304.8 m/s. It is about 331.2 m/s in dry air at 0 °C, and 343
m/s in air at 20 °C instead. Learn the metric system, and the facts from a
more reliable source than before.

> and gravity at c.

The difference being that sound waves are propagating changes of *pressure*,
and gravitational waves are propagating changes of *spacetime curvature*.
Also, sound waves are longitudinal waves (except partially in solids), while
gravitational waves are transversal waves.

Also, gravitational waves are not the same as “gravity”. In fact, there are
gravitational waves because *there* *is* *no* *gravitational* *force* (no
gravity).

> Other than speed they so similar that audio is often used as an analogy of
> a gravity wave.

Nonsense.

> To change the shape of space for for the earth's gravity you just change
> the density of a vacuum just like air pressure changes the density of air.

Not even wrong.


PointedEars
--

[John Heath]

Not even wrong in your world but not Einstein's world. You change the shape of space to cause gravity. If you change the density of a vacuum you change the shape of space in the same way as predicted by GR. I am not saying a gravity wave is exactly like audio but close enough that you can see the shape of space changing without the need to crank numbers. As far as longitudinal our gravity here on earth is decidedly longitudinal with the force holding us down at 90 degrees to the horizon . It is analogous to EM near and far radiation where both gravity and EM are both transverse and longitudinal depending on your distance and the wave length. The wave length of earth's gravity is vary long as it does not change therefore longitudinal. It is a sudden change in gravity with a reasonable wave length at c that is a transverse wave.

[R.T.]

On Tuesday, 17 October 2017 22:02:27 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:

? Read the whole article. It refers mainly to 08/17/17
In particular the LIGO and Virgo data for that event which is what I was referring to.

[R.T.]

On Tuesday, 17 October 2017 19:22:16 UTC+1, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> R.T. wrote:
> ^^^^
> It is considered polite to post using one’s real name here.
>

Doesn't seem to bother you when others post here without full names.

> > On Monday, 16 October 2017 21:40:57 UTC+1, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> > wrote:
>
> >> R.T. wrote:
> >> > So,..Maybe a GW.
> >> No, *definitely* GWs (not just one). 4 km long arms just do not shorten
> >> and lengthen by less than 1/10'000th the diameter of a proton *in a
> >> particular pattern* because one associated scientist sneezes.
> >> > But more likely a desperate attempt to make one LIGO detection look
> >> > like a GW by finding a very low corresponding s/n trigger in the other
> >> > LIGO detector
> >> Cite evidence.

> >
> > Below is link. Livingston strong at 14, Hanford weak at 7,
>

> No surprise there, it had a longer way to travel to Hanford than to
> Livingston where it arrived first. Details about the different SNR can
> probably be found in the papers. From the looks of it (satellite imagery
> on Google Maps), Ligo Livingston has a different orientation (WSW/SSE)
> than LIGO Hanford (NNW/WSW), which could be a part of the explanation.
>
Irrelevent point. You asked me to cite evidence for the 3 snr signals. I cited
my source, and you can't refute it.

> > and Virgo unnoticeable at 4.
>

> Which is why it did not trigger their alarm. No problem.

Which is exactly the point you were trying to disagree with earlier.
Yo make yet Another U turn.

>
> > Don't forget, each LIGO detector detects 1billion 4snr events every day!
>

> Cite evidence.
>
Contact LIGO. Email any senior source listed on any official website. Ask them
if it's true that over a three month run each detector triggers about a 100 billion
events at or above snr 4. They will confirm this. If they bother answering. It took
me a while to get this info. Then apologise to me for incorrectly questioning this
detection rate
> >> > a non detection in Virgo,
> >> “Blind spot” does not mean *blind* spot, but *less accurate* detection
> >> capabilities. You really need to learn what you are writing about before
> >> you are writing about it.
> >
> > I think it's you who needs to learn about what's actually being detected
> > and study the data before you make any claims.
>
> Pot calling the kettle black.

Says the man who didn't know the trigger detection rates for LIGO, doesn't
know how to read GCN, doesn't know anything about grb detection rates
or methodology, didn't initially know the Virgo detection wasn't actually detected
etc etc etc

>Have you even bothered to watch the two-hour
> presentation and Q&A session? Lots of sky photos of the event therein, too.
> All fake? For what?
>
You try to change the subject to avoid admitting that a snr14 trigger in Livingston can
be matched to a 6 snr trigger in Hanford purely by random coincidence. Considering
that at Hanford * every 10 ms* there is at least one 6snr event triggered. And
at VIRGO something like a thousand at 4snr every 10 ms. This latest GW
was a random coincidence as much as any real wave detected. And you can't
prove otherwise.
Any other wavelength observations could have been made in any other part
of the sky and revealed imaginary followup data that could be attributed to a
random coincidence generated by LIGO.
Answer this.. How often does a similar sized region of the sky get such
intensive attention from world the astronomy community including HUBBLE?
Not very often if ever is the answer.
> >> > and a weak, initially untriggered pulse in the fermi data,...look like
> >> > a historic discovery.
> >> *70 telescope arrays* and *ten thousands* of scientists *around the
> >> world* and *in space* (CHANDRA et al.) *all* observing the *same event*
> >> in the *same small region of the sky*, in *different* wavelengths of
> >> light, over *weeks*, *consistent with each other and current knowledge*,
> >> and you are still not convinced? One wonders, is there *anything* that
> >> could convince you of *any* discovery?
> >
> > Yes. If there were only a handful of >7 snr events in each LIGO detector
> > every three months and those only coincided to within ms with each other.
> > Then you'd have convinced me. Right now there is this one clear signal one
> > day in Livingston and billions of weak ones every day in Hanford and VIRGO
> > to match to. That's called random coincidence. [more nonsense]
>
> Good grief. Look at the whitened strain, look at the corresponding
> *electromagnetic* observations. Those patterns, those observations,
> just *cannot* be random coincidences.
>
Good grief. Look at the statistical correlation between Livingston vs Hanford
and VIRGO. They all have similar strength triggers happening at least
once every 10 ms. And fermi gets those weak grb signals every few seconds.
You imagine statistical coincidence in your tea leaves is something real.
> PointedEars
> --
> Q: Where are offenders sentenced for light crimes?
> A: To a prism.
>
> (from: WolframAlpha)

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

John Heath wrote:

> On Wednesday, October 18, 2017 at 4:08:43 PM UTC-4, Thomas 'PointedEars'
> Lahn wrote:
>> John Heath wrote:
>> > To change the shape of space for for the earth's gravity you just
>> > change the density of a vacuum just like air pressure changes the
>> > density of air.
>> Not even wrong.
>

> Not even wrong in your world but not Einstein's world.

Nonsense.

> You change the shape of space to cause gravity. If you change the density
> of a vacuum you change the shape of space in the same way as predicted by
> GR.

No, the _curvature_ of _spacetime_ in a region of _spacetime_ corresponds to
the _density_ of _stress_, _energy_, and _momentum_ in that region.

> I am not saying a gravity wave is exactly like audio but close enough that
> you can see the shape of space changing without the need to crank
> numbers.

Nonsense.

> As far as longitudinal our gravity here on earth is decidedly longitudinal
> with the force holding us down at 90 degrees to the horizon .

Gravity is an apparent force only, and you have no clue what “longitudinal”
means.

> It is analogous to EM near and far radiation

No, it is not.

> where both gravity and EM are both transverse and longitudinal

No, electromagnetic waves are transversal waves. Gravitational waves are
also transversal waves. That and their phase speed are the only thing they
have in common.

> depending on your distance

Word salad.

> and the wave length.

The type of wave (longitudinal or transversal) does not depend on the
wavelength.

> The wave length of earth's gravity is vary long as it does not change
> therefore longitudinal. It is a sudden change in gravity with a reasonable
> wave length at c that is a transverse wave.

Pseudo-scientific word salad. Not even wrong.


PointedEars
--

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

R.T. wrote:

> On Tuesday, 17 October 2017 19:22:16 UTC+1, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> wrote:
>> R.T. wrote:
>> ^^^^
>> It is considered polite to post using one’s real name here.
>
> Doesn't seem to bother you when others post here without full names.

You are mistaken.

>> > On Monday, 16 October 2017 21:40:57 UTC+1, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
>> > wrote:
>> >> R.T. wrote:
>> >> > But more likely a desperate attempt to make one LIGO detection look
>> >> > like a GW by finding a very low corresponding s/n trigger in the
>> >> > other LIGO detector
>> >> Cite evidence.
>> > Below is link. Livingston strong at 14, Hanford weak at 7,
>> No surprise there, it had a longer way to travel to Hanford than to
>> Livingston where it arrived first. Details about the different SNR can
>> probably be found in the papers. From the looks of it (satellite imagery
>> on Google Maps), Ligo Livingston has a different orientation (WSW/SSE)
>> than LIGO Hanford (NNW/WSW), which could be a part of the explanation.
>>
> Irrelevent point. You asked me to cite evidence for the 3 snr signals. I
> cited my source, and you can't refute it.

The SNR is irrelevant. The whitened strain is relevant. But it turns out
you cited an irrelevant source to begin with, for the wrong event.

>> > and Virgo unnoticeable at 4.
>> Which is why it did not trigger their alarm. No problem.
>
> Which is exactly the point you were trying to disagree with earlier.
> Yo make yet Another U turn.

Not at all. A detection can get unnoticed.

>> > Don't forget, each LIGO detector detects 1billion 4snr events every
>> > day!
>> Cite evidence.
>

> Contact LIGO. [blathering]

So you have none. Figures.


PointedEars
--
Q: How many theoretical physicists specializing in general relativity
does it take to change a light bulb?
A: Two: one to hold the bulb and one to rotate the universe.
(from: WolframAlpha)

[Michael Moroney]

"R.T." <matt.r...@outlook.com> writes:

>On Tuesday, 17 October 2017 22:02:27 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> "R.T." writes:
>>
>> >Below is link. Livingston strong at 14, Hanford weak at 7, and Virgo unnoticeable
>> >at 4. Don't forget, each LIGO detector detects 1billion 4snr events every day!
>> >>
>> >https://www.sciencealert.com/new-ligo-virgo-gravitational-waves-neutron-stars-space-news-sept-2017
>>
>> That link discusses the recent black hole merger event (8/14/2017), not
>> the 8/17/2017 neutron star event that got everyone excited (despite
>> "neutron stars" being part of the URL)

>? Read the whole article. It refers mainly to 08/17/17

No, it refers to the 08/14/17 event.

The story is obviously influenced by the rumors of the 08/17/17 event
which was known to many but not yet announced (the article is dated Sept.
27, 2017).

>In particular the LIGO and Virgo data for that event which is what I was
>referring to.

LIGO and Virgo both detected the 08/14/17 event.

Some quotes from the article:

"Doesn't look like we have neutron stars."

"We have to admit, we're a little disappointed that we didn't actually get
to see a collision between two neutron stars, but this news is still
incredibly exciting."

The author was obviously expecting an announcement of a neutron star
merger, because of all the rumors of the 08/17/17 event flying around.

[John Heath]

Let me try this a different way. Vacuum is just a medium that a wave will propagate in. If can be moved , effected , in any direction longitudinal or transverse. A longitudinal wave moves outward in all three dimensions. A transverse wave can only propagate in 2 dimensions as it is a transverse wave. At a distance a longitudinal wave attenuates faster than a transverse wave as it is spreading out in 3 dimensions not 2 dimensions. We are unlikely to detect longitudinal gravity or EM waves but transverse wave as they are less attenuated over distance but we can detect longitudinal gravity from earth as we are close. If you stand on a weight scale you will see my point.

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Which part of “real name” did you not understand?

> In the graph depicted in the link:

> […]

> are not the frequencies on the bottom axis between 20 and 1000 Hz.
> Conversely, are the frequencies between 20-1000 Hz frequencies of sound
> waves?

Frequency is not a physical quantity, and Hertz is not a unit, that is tied
to sound (waves); but it is a property of waves, and a unit for cyclic
processes, *in general*: the number of cycles per unit time; 1 Hz is one
cycle *per second*. Also, the term “noise” in the axis label must not be
misunderstood to mean sound; it means “_not_ the signal that we are looking
for”. The graph shows where LIGO is most sensitive – where the “strain
noise” is *lowest*.

It is rather obvious if for a moment you look to the lower left-hand corner
and see “Laser Source” there.

If you had actually *read the article*, you would have seen that that graph
does _not_ depict gravitational waves. This one does:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave#/media/File:LIGO_measurement_of_gravitational_waves.svg>

Maybe this helps:

<https://www.amnh.org/sciencebulletins/content/a.f.gravity.20041101/assets/115/>

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Your parents were mathematicians to give you that name, right?

> Weber's 1662 Hz gravity wave

Who is Weber?

> is ten order of magnitude greater than the frequency of a 10-7 Hz black
> hole gravity wave.

10³ is 10 orders of magnitude greater than 10⁻⁷, yes.

> Also, a 10-7 Hz black hole gravity wave

_10⁻⁷_ Hz _gravitational_ wave (see below)

> does not represent a radio wave

True. Neither kind of wave represent *any* type of electromagnetic wave.

> and has a wavelength of 1015 m!!!

So what?

Radio waves are low-frequency, long-wavelength *electromagnetic* waves:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_wave>


Gravitational waves are _not_ electromagnetic waves:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave>

> Furthermore, a 104 Hz supernovas gravity wave represents a sound
> wave

No, it does not. It represents an oscillation in the curvature of
spacetime: simply put, lengths change with time. That oscillation can be
*represented* by any other wave; for effect, the wave *values* can be
amplified and stretched to represent a sound wave, so that humans can hear
the corresponding sound.

> but sound cannot propagate in the vacuum of stellar space nor can
> sound propagate at the velocity of light.

Electromagnetic waves are _not_ sound waves, _not_ gravitational waves,
and _not_ water waves.

Gravitational waves are _not_ sound waves, _not_ electromagnetic waves,
and _not_ water waves.

Water waves are not gravitational waves, not electromagnetic waves,
and _not_ sound waves.

And so on.

There can be sound waves that have the same frequency as electromagnetic
waves and as gravitational waves and still all of them are *fundamentally
different*. The frequency of a wave does _not_ tell you what kind of wave
it is.

Have you *finally* got that?

> The LIGO gravitational wave experiment detected gravity waves

No, it detected _gravitational_ waves.

Gravity waves are something else entirely:

,-<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_wave>
|
| This article is about the movement of fluids. For the phenomenon of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| general relativity, see <gravitational wave>.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

> black holes that produces gravitational waves

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
See? You do not even use terminology consistently. Because you have no
idea what the words that you are using *mean*.

> of frequencies between 35 Hz to 250 Hz that acoustical chirps vibrate the
> armature of a laser interferometer

No, propagating changes in the curvature of spacetime cause the
interferometer arms to lengthen and shorten as the gravitational
wave passes through the observatory:

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWJJeJAUdfM>
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szo2HbXhNkU>

> forming the signal of the gravity waves

No, the interference of laser beams that are traveling different distances
makes the _gravitational_ wave *signal*.

> but the LIGO gravity waves represent the frequencies of sound that cannot
> propagate in the vacuum of celestial space at the velocity of light.

Which should indicate to you that you have no clue what you are talking
about as your own premise leads to a nonsensical conclusion.

/Ex falso quodlibet./


PointedEars
--
A neutron walks into a bar and inquires how much a drink costs.
The bartender replies, "For you? No charge."

(from: WolframAlpha)

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

<http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html>

John Heath wrote:

> […] Vacuum is just a medium that a wave will propagate in.

Wrong.

> [Ex falso quodlibet]

[John Heath]

Let me try and pull you over the fence on this one. Not completely over the fence but teetering a bit thinking it could be right. In a super fluid heat will propagate at the speed of sound not the slow dynamics of particles hitting particles. One point that a super fluid could be a vacuum. Secondly if you were in a sea of this super fluid no amount of hand waving would tell you that you are in this sea of fluid as the velocity is zero. This is a second point that says a vacuum could be a super fluid. Thirdly a super fluid will support a transverse wave just like a solid which is a requirement for a transverse wave. What seemed unlikely is starting to sound a little more possible yes / no ? Can not say it is true but if it walks like a duck and it looks ....

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

John Heath wrote:

> […] In a super fluid heat will propagate at the speed of sound […]

How did you get that idea?

[Tom Roberts]

On 10/19/17 5:26 AM, R.T. wrote:
> [...] over a three month run each detector triggers about a 100 billion

> events at or above snr 4.

I have no idea where you got this notion, but it simply cannot be true:

3 months contain about 7.8E6 seconds, so 1E11 "triggers" would have to occur at
an average rate of ~ 13 kHz. That is above the frequency range of their
sensitivity -- it is not possible to trigger faster than the highest frequency
in their bandwidth.

Their ACTUAL false-alarm rate is ENORMOUSLY lower:
* I remember looking at the data from their first GW, which covered
several seconds. Other than the one they flagged, there were no
visible signal candidates to my eyes.
* At a colloquium a year or two ago we listened to ~ 30 seconds of
their data, into which they had injected one GW candidate at low
SNR; I was one of 5 people who raised their hands when it happened
(out of several hundred people) -- it was quite clear to me, but I
heard no others.
* Here they discuss a "a loose false-alarm-rate threshold of one per
month" in each detector: http://www.ligo.org/news.php

Tom Roberts

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

The detection of a blackhole requires the viewing of stars that surround the blackbody hole but to detect a 250 million ly star where A is the earth orbital diameter, B is the distance to the star that surround a 250 million ly black hole would require a resolution of:





A/B = θ = .000000001 arcsec............................................................................................................................................27





The Hubble has a resolution of .1 arsec which proves blackholes are an astronomic hoax.

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn


6:04 AM (7 hours ago)

numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Which part of “real name” did you not understand?


> In the graph depicted in the link:

> […]

> are not the frequencies on the bottom axis between 20 and 1000 Hz.
> Conversely, are the frequencies between 20-1000 Hz frequencies of sound
> waves?


Frequency is not a physical quantity, and Hertz is not a unit, that is tied
to sound (waves); but it is a property of waves, and a unit for cyclic
processes, *in general*: the number of cycles per unit time; 1 Hz is one
cycle *per second*. Also, the term “noise” in the axis label must not be
misunderstood to mean sound; it means “_not_ the signal that we are looking
for”. The graph shows where LIGO is most sensitive – where the “strain
noise” is *lowest*.

_______________________________________________________

"Frequency is not a physical quantity". This is extremely funny.

[John Heath]

Fair enough. Talk is cheap , where is the beef. I present the beef.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKOlfR5OcB4

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

"History shows us examples of scientists who were able to make a great leap forward specifically because they were not limited by the data. One of the most dramatic examples occurs at the beginning of the nineteenth century, when we may find a scientist willing to ignore the limitations of numerical facts for the sake of correct idea or theory, even to the extent of saying that certain numbers probably should be made a little bit bigger, others a little smaller, and so on. It was precisely in this way that Dalton proceeded in developing his atomic theory. Some scientists do not like examples of this sort, because they imply a special virtue "fudging" the evidence or "cooking" the data, and they warn us that we must not ever tell our science students that discoveries have been made in this way." (Suppe, p. 300).

[Carl Susumu]

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

No, propagating changes in the curvature of spacetime cause the
interferometer arms to lengthen and shorten as the gravitational
wave passes through the observatory:

______________________________________________________________


Really, what does the frequency and noise of the graph in the following link represent?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIGO#/media/File:Simplified_diagram_of_an_Advanced_LIGO_detector.png

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

John Heath wrote:

> On Thursday, October 19, 2017 at 10:31:28 AM UTC-4, Thomas 'PointedEars'
> Lahn wrote:
>> John Heath wrote:
>> > […] In a super fluid heat will propagate at the speed of sound […]
>> How did you get that idea?
>

> Fair enough. Talk is cheap , where is the beef. I present the beef.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKOlfR5OcB4

After refreshing my knowledge about superfluids, I was afraid that you might
refer to second sound. It is something else entirely than what you have
claimed:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_sound>

IOW, what you have claimed is simply not the case *in general*, and it has
nothing to do with gravitational waves, the subject of this thread.

I have already explained /ad nauseam/ what gravitational waves actually are.
Your continuing failure to consider what I posted will result in me
killfiling you. You have been warned.


PointedEars
--
Q: What did the nuclear physicist order for lunch?
A: Fission chips.

(from: WolframAlpha)

[Carl Susumu]

"On September 14, 2015 at 09:50:45 UTC the two detectors of the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory simultaneously observed a transient gravitational-wave signal. The signal sweeps upwards in frequency from 35 to 250 Hz with a peak gravitational-wave strain of 1.0×10−21." (Abstract).


Abbott, B. P. Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger.
Physical Review Letters. 116, 061102. 2016

[RLH]

On Tuesday, October 17, 2017 at 7:41:29 PM UTC+1, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
> Are there any stellar gas clouds in our solar system?

There is a gas cloud for sure. Think 'Coronal cloud' and its outwards propagation out past Earth to space.

Given the higher densities near the Sun, what was the correction that was applied for light bending by the Sun? Mirages cause bending of light all the time. The calculations require a correction to be present otherwise spherical gas lensing is missing in the equations.

[RLH]

On Tuesday, October 17, 2017 at 11:51:53 PM UTC+1, Carl Susumu wrote:
> Gases do not exist in vacuum.

There is no such thing as a vacuum. Just a very, very thin gas.

[RLH]

Why are you all fighting private battles in a thread I started?

[Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž]

Dne 20/10/2017 v 08:40 RLH napsal(a):

> On Tuesday, October 17, 2017 at 11:51:53 PM UTC+1, Carl Susumu wrote:
>> Gases do not exist in vacuum.
>
> There is no such thing as a vacuum. Just a very, very thin gas.

And between 2 molecules is..... ?
In the intergalactic space is matter density
several atoms per cubic metre.

BTW, vacuum has also not so rigorous meanings,
that is gas so thin you can neglect
the effect of presence of residual matter.

Depending on circumstances,
it may be vacuum of the water vacuum pump
till intergalactic space.

--
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.

[John Heath]

You can not do physics by yourself. If you killfile those who present ideas that are unfamiliar or unwanted it is a guarantee you will not proceed forward in physics. You have to stand in my shoes to understand what I am saying. You can not have a transverse wave in a gas or a liquid. Only a solid has the dynamics of structure to support a transverse wave. As gravity can be a transverse wave , note can be not always , then the vacuum must be a solid or use Mr graviton much like a photon. Einstein's argument that light must be a photon is based on the need for a vacuum to be a solid for an EM wave to be transverse. He did not like the vacuum as a solid. I am presenting a super fluid as a third alternative to vacuum as a solid or graviton. now there are three options on the table. 1 , The vacuum is nothing therefore the photon and graviton as force carriers. 2 , the vacuum is a solid EPOLA crystal theory , long story. 3, the vacuum is a super fluid therefore it is back to old school classical wave theory. All I am doing here is presenting the super fluid option. As to the finer details of why a super fluid is a valid option for gravity requires a hunger on your part to proceed forward in physics using other people such as myself to get you there.

[RLH]

On Friday, October 20, 2017 at 8:03:29 AM UTC+1, Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž wrote:
> Dne 20/10/2017 v 08:40 RLH napsal(a):
> > On Tuesday, October 17, 2017 at 11:51:53 PM UTC+1, Carl Susumu wrote:
> >> Gases do not exist in vacuum.
> >
> > There is no such thing as a vacuum. Just a very, very thin gas.
>
> And between 2 molecules is..... ?
> In the intergalactic space is matter density
> several atoms per cubic metre.

That's what I call a very, very thin gas. It is most definitely not a vacuum. Care to estimate the number of atoms of hydrogen are in a 1 light year, 1 cm cross section volume of space?

> BTW, vacuum has also not so rigorous meanings,
> that is gas so thin you can neglect
> the effect of presence of residual matter.

That's just a slightly thicker gas.

> Depending on circumstances,
> it may be vacuum of the water vacuum pump
> till intergalactic space.

Well we have metallic evaporation to take into account too at really low pressures. Even at very low temperatures there are often a few atoms around at high temperatures definitely so.

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

John Heath wrote:

> On Thursday, October 19, 2017 at 6:58:47 PM UTC-4, Thomas 'PointedEars'
> Lahn wrote:
>> I have already explained /ad nauseam/ what gravitational waves actually
>> are. Your continuing failure to consider what I posted will result in me
>> killfiling you. You have been warned.
>

> You can not do physics by yourself.

Well, by contrast to you I can do at least some physics by myself and come
up with the right answers.

> If you killfile those who present ideas that are unfamiliar or unwanted it
> is a guarantee you will not proceed forward in physics.

How would *you* know? You have no clue about physics, as you demonstrate
repeatedly.

> You have to stand in my shoes to understand what I am saying.

Thanks, but no, thanks; I prefer the sane approach approach instead,
the *scientific* method.

> You can not have a transverse wave in a gas or a liquid.

If that were true, then you could not read this. Because light is
evidentially a transverse electromagnetic wave (for Tom: it exhibits
corresponding properties), and you are breathing air, a mix of gases,
right now. Your actions refute your claim.

> Only a solid has the dynamics of structure to support a transverse wave.

Evidentially wrong, brick-breather.

> [not even wrong]

*PLONK*


F’up2 poster

PointedEars
--
I heard that entropy isn't what it used to be.

(from: WolframAlpha)

[RLH]

On Friday, October 20, 2017 at 7:42:30 AM UTC+1, RLH wrote:
> Why are you all fighting private battles in a thread I started?

Oops, wrong thread. It does go for the threads I actually started though.

[John Heath]

I recommend that you google before responding.

Quote

Transverse waves cannot propagate in a gas or a liquid because there is no mechanism for driving motion perpendicular to the propagation of the wave.

End of quote

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Sound/tralon.html

I bet you feel a little embarrassed at this point. As I said before you can not do physics by your self. You have to listen to what other people say with an open mind.

[Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž]

Dne 21/10/2017 v 04:07 John Heath napsal(a):

>
> Quote
>
> Transverse waves cannot propagate in a gas or a liquid because there is no mechanism for driving motion perpendicular to the propagation of the wave.
>

That is true, but it applies to fluid medium waves,
related to osculation of medium.

EM waves are not such waves.

[Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž]

Dne 20/10/2017 v 20:44 RLH napsal(a):

> On Friday, October 20, 2017 at 8:03:29 AM UTC+1, Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž wrote:
>> Dne 20/10/2017 v 08:40 RLH napsal(a):
>>> On Tuesday, October 17, 2017 at 11:51:53 PM UTC+1, Carl Susumu wrote:
>>>> Gases do not exist in vacuum.
>>>
>>> There is no such thing as a vacuum. Just a very, very thin gas.
>>
>> And between 2 molecules is..... ?
>> In the intergalactic space is matter density
>> several atoms per cubic metre.
>
> That's what I call a very, very thin gas. It is most definitely not a vacuum. Care to estimate the number of atoms of hydrogen are in a 1 light year, 1 cm cross section volume of space?

I repeat the question
"And between 2 molecules 1 m apart is..... ?"

>
>> BTW, vacuum has also not so rigorous meanings,
>> that is gas so thin you can neglect
>> the effect of presence of residual matter.
>
> That's just a slightly thicker gas.

Names are just labels.
If physics or technology calls it vacuum,
you can do nothing about it.

>> Depending on circumstances,
>> it may be vacuum of the water vacuum pump
>> till intergalactic space.
>
> Well we have metallic evaporation to take into account too at really low pressures. Even at very low temperatures there are often a few atoms around at high temperatures definitely so.

That is well know. Even the best technology cannot beat the vacuum
on the Moon, no speaking about many orders sparser vacuum
in the intergalactic space.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu sobota, 21 października 2017 09:26:07 UTC+2 użytkownik Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž napisał:

> Names are just labels.

No, poor idiot. Names have power.

[John Heath]

I would add that you can have a transverse wave if you combine a liquid with air such as a water wave on a lake where the wave is transverse. If the energy of a photon can change the properties of a vacuum so that it is somewhat like a water drop in a sea of vacuum then there is some wiggle room to have an EM wave , bunch of photons , as a transverse wave. I say this as the wave particle duality of an EM wave is energy dependent being more wave like at low frequencies and more particle like at high frequencies. A x-ray photon acts much like a particle but an AM radio carrier , 1 MHz , is much like a wave.

[Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž]

Dne 21/10/2017 v 17:08 John Heath napsal(a):

> On Saturday, October 21, 2017 at 3:15:58 AM UTC-4, Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž wrote:

>>
>> That is true, but it applies to fluid medium waves,
>> related to osculation of medium.
>>
>> EM waves are not such waves.
>>
>

> I would add that you can have a transverse wave if you combine a liquid with air such as a water wave on a lake where the wave is transverse. If the energy of a photon can change the properties of a vacuum so that it is somewhat like a water drop in a sea of vacuum then there is some wiggle room to have an EM wave , bunch of photons , as a transverse wave. I say this as the wave particle duality of an EM wave is energy dependent being more wave like at low frequencies and more particle like at high frequencies. A x-ray photon acts much like a particle but an AM radio carrier , 1 MHz , is much like a wave.
>

Phase boundary waves are special category.
Strictly speaking they are not medium waves.

[Lofty Goat]

On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 08:08:02 -0700 (PDT), John Heath
<heath...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I would add that you can have a transverse wave if you combine a
> liquid with air such as a water wave on a lake where the wave is
> transverse.

Not really.

They behave like compression, i.e. longitudinal, waves where the
"compression" is a function of lifting the liquid above, erm, the
gravitational equipotential surface of the liquid. (Whatever the hell
that's called. There's an engineering word for it, but I forget.)

They'd behave like transverse waves if the liquid wiggled from side to
side without forming a bump in its surface, in other words propagating
by shear rather than compression. But because of the way liquids shear
they wouldn't propagate very far, one wavelength or less.

I'm expressing myself poorly, but you should get the idea.

The distinction is more in the math one uses to describe them. After
all, electromagnetic waves are transverse waves, mathematically, even
though they aren't transmitted through any medium by shear strain and
relaxation.

--
Goat

[John Heath]

Poutnik had a nice word for it " phase boundary wave ". Sounds good to me. The transverse elasticity of the boundary of water is high so a lake wave only moves at 1 meter per second. However a longitudinal wave in water has low elasticity has water does not compress well. That wave moves faster than sound. A vacuum has a very low elasticity of only 8.8 p Farad so the wave speed is very fast at c. What about a EM longitudinal wave ? One that comes to mind is a condenser in a electronic circuit. Could the Coulomb force wave in a vacuum between the plates be consider a longitudinal EM wave? The distance between the plates are much shorter than the EM wave length but just the same it is moving in the forward direction that would technically make it a longitudinal wave. For a gravity wave if dust collapses to a star then the resulting gravity wave should be longitudinal not transverse I would think assuming the dust does not whirl around while collapsing? Transverse for 2 neutron stars but longitudinal for dust shrinking into a star. Hmmm .

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn


Oct 19

numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Which part of “real name” did you not understand?

> In the graph depicted in the link:

> […]

> are not the frequencies on the bottom axis between 20 and 1000 Hz.
> Conversely, are the frequencies between 20-1000 Hz frequencies of sound
> waves?


Frequency is not a physical quantity, and Hertz is not a unit, that is tied
to sound (waves); but it is a property of waves, and a unit for cyclic
processes, *in general*: the number of cycles per unit time; 1 Hz is one
cycle *per second*. Also, the term “noise” in the axis label must not be
misunderstood to mean sound; it means “_not_ the signal that we are looking
for”. The graph shows where LIGO is most sensitive – where the “strain
noise” is *lowest*.

It is rather obvious if for a moment you look to the lower left-hand corner
and see “Laser Source” there.

If you had actually *read the article*, you would have seen that that graph
does _not_ depict gravitational waves. This one does:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave#/media/File:LIGO_measurement_of_gravitational_waves.svg>

Maybe this helps:

<https://www.amnh.org/sciencebulletins/content/a.f.gravity.20041101/assets/115/>

[R.T.]

On Thursday, 19 October 2017 19:47:13 UTC+1, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 10/19/17 5:26 AM, R.T. wrote:
> > [...] over a three month run each detector triggers about a 100 billion
> > events at or above snr 4.
>
> I have no idea where you got this notion, but it simply cannot be true

It has to be true. Not only is it obvious from the LIGO data,
I also emailed LIGO numerous times with various attempts
and *finally* got a long email back from one of the main contributors
to the analysing software. They said."..100s of billion detections
in each detector at or above 4snr over three months" Email them yourself.
You may get a faster response than me but it will be the same.
This means, using the well accepted "order of" that your peers accept,
that at SNR 6 one gets about 1 million detections in a day or about one per
maximum time window permitted by relativistic theory. That's
probably why you never get a GW detected that has one detector at more
than 6-7. Because it's always possible to match a stronger detection in
one detector to at least one snr 6 in the other. By random coincidence
between the two detectors in the data. Which means that one cannot rule
out random coincidence for all GW 'detections''
Except of course as Gary correctly pointed out GW17817. But this one has
problems that make it untenable as a GW detection.
For starters...how far apart are the triggers in ms? It's not mentioned in the
paper!?
Amazing isn't it? And do you want to know why this pivotal piece of information
isn't mentioned? Because it's not available in the data. I would say this only
proves that it must be environmental. Seeing as it's also unusually long and
not detected in VIRGO. At such a SNR strength in LIGO it should have
been detected by VIRGO. The lame excuse was... it's in VIRGOs blind spot.
And it was such a low 'detection' in Fermi that occurs anyways every few
seconds.
So low and so frequent that the theorists at LIGO had to trawl through Fermi
data around the same time frame and try to pretend a low snr weak blip at that
point was an event and not random noise. . And then pretend it's official by
announcing it eight hours later as a "trigger"

> 3 months contain about 7.8E6 seconds, so 1E11 "triggers" would have to occur at
> an average rate of ~ 13 kHz. That is above the frequency range of their
> sensitivity -- it is not possible to trigger faster than the highest frequency
> in their bandwidth.
>
> Their ACTUAL false-alarm rate is ENORMOUSLY lower:
> * I remember looking at the data from their first GW, which covered
> several seconds. Other than the one they flagged, there were no
> visible signal candidates to my eyes.

Don't forget the time window is in ms for the first one.
Enlarge that and suddenly more signals at similar snr appear.
Take for instance the larger time window shown in 151226 data.
It's now a whole second and it has numerous bright yellow (higher
strength) signals. In fact I would say it's being creative there to link the Hanford
and Livingston chirps together as one distinct event. I see more like 5-10
seperate chirps being assumed to be connected.

[R.T.]

On Thursday, 19 October 2017 11:44:01 UTC+1, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> R.T. wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, 17 October 2017 19:22:16 UTC+1, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> > wrote:
> >> R.T. wrote:
> >> ^^^^
> >> It is considered polite to post using one’s real name here.
> >
> > Doesn't seem to bother you when others post here without full names.
>
> You are mistaken.
>
> >> > On Monday, 16 October 2017 21:40:57 UTC+1, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> >> > wrote:
> >> >> R.T. wrote:
> >> >> > But more likely a desperate attempt to make one LIGO detection look
> >> >> > like a GW by finding a very low corresponding s/n trigger in the
> >> >> > other LIGO detector
> >> >> Cite evidence.
> >> > Below is link. Livingston strong at 14, Hanford weak at 7,
> >> No surprise there, it had a longer way to travel to Hanford than to
> >> Livingston where it arrived first. Details about the different SNR can
> >> probably be found in the papers. From the looks of it (satellite imagery
> >> on Google Maps), Ligo Livingston has a different orientation (WSW/SSE)
> >> than LIGO Hanford (NNW/WSW), which could be a part of the explanation.
> >>
> > Irrelevent point. You asked me to cite evidence for the 3 snr signals. I
> > cited my source, and you can't refute it.
>
> The SNR is irrelevant.

Nonsense. SNR is everything. Anyways VIRGO did not not detect anything
for 170817. Hence it wasn't a gravitational wave detected by LIGO.

The whitened strain is relevant. But it turns out
> you cited an irrelevant source to begin with, for the wrong event.
>
Yes It's true, I stand corrected, that data was for a couple of days earlier. Nonetheless
that event then fails by the same criticism as a false detection. As with all
other (imaginary) events which show all GW detections are random coincidence.
That cannot be ruled out. In fact it's the only option, unless you are a fantasist.
Anyways as I've pointed out to Tom, the 170817 event has serious problems.
It isn't detected in VIRGO. As it should be seeing the relative SNR strength in LIGO,
the fermi detection was made up, and most importantly... no information regarding
delay between the two at LIGO is supplied, or from what I see in the data, observed.
In other words your imaginary GW was environmental. Cooked up with data fiddling
to look real by a desperate LIGO team.
> >> > and Virgo unnoticeable at 4.
> >> Which is why it did not trigger their alarm. No problem.
> >
> > Which is exactly the point you were trying to disagree with earlier.
> > Yo make yet Another U turn.
>
> Not at all. A detection can get unnoticed.
>
> >> > Don't forget, each LIGO detector detects 1billion 4snr events every
> >> > day!
> >> Cite evidence.
> >
> > Contact LIGO. [blathering]
>
> So you have none. Figures.

Says the blatherer who has no figures himself. Anyways I DO have them.
Try emailing LIGO and ask if they can confirm if there are a 100 billion
detections at 4SNR over a three month period. They will confirm by private
email to you. As they did to me. Something you have yet to disprove in your
laziness.
>
>
> PointedEars
> --
> Q: How many theoretical physicists specializing in general relativity
> does it take to change a light bulb?
> A: Three: one to hold the bulb and one to rotate the universe, and one
to fiddle the data.

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

R.T. wrote:

> On Thursday, 19 October 2017 11:44:01 UTC+1, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> wrote:
>> R.T. wrote:
>> >> > On Monday, 16 October 2017 21:40:57 UTC+1, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> R.T. wrote:
>> >> >> > But more likely a desperate attempt to make one LIGO detection

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>> >> >> > look like a GW by finding a very low corresponding s/n trigger in

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>> >> >> > the other LIGO detector
>> >> >> Cite evidence.
>> >> > Below is link. Livingston strong at 14, Hanford weak at 7,
>> >> No surprise there, it had a longer way to travel to Hanford than to
>> >> Livingston where it arrived first. Details about the different SNR
>> >> can probably be found in the papers. From the looks of it (satellite
>> >> imagery on Google Maps), Ligo Livingston has a different orientation
>> >> (WSW/SSE) than LIGO Hanford (NNW/WSW), which could be a part of the
>> >> explanation.
>> > Irrelevent point. You asked me to cite evidence for the 3 snr signals.

JFTR: I did not ask you for evidence of *that*.

>> > I cited my source, and you can't refute it.
>> The SNR is irrelevant.
>
> Nonsense. SNR is everything.

No, it is not. The regular strain "noise" that remains after all
precautions (away from cities; vacuum, temperature close to absolute zero,
separation from ground vibrations, 4 km long arms, at least two
observatories ca. 3700 km flight distance apart¹ – did I forget anything?)
have been put in place, is being filtered out by sophisticated software.

The actual result is the *whitened* strain that you can see drawn further
below. As you can clearly see, the waveforms obtained in different places
match almost exactly, but there is a time shift caused by the gravitational
waves traveling from one place to the other at approximately the speed of
light.

________
¹ <http://www.ligo.org/science/GW-Detecting.php> pp.

> Anyways VIRGO did not not detect anything for 170817.

Wrong. Without Advanced Virgo’s support, it would not have been possible to
pinpoint the source in the first place:

<http://www.ligo.org/detections/GW170817.php>
<http://www.ligo.org/detections/GW170817/images-GW170817/O1-O2-skymaps-white.jpg>
<http://www.ligo.org/detections/GW170817/images-GW170817/GW170817-milkyway-triangulation.png>
<https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161101>

> Hence it wasn't a gravitational wave detected by LIGO.

Ex falso quodlibet.

> The whitened strain is relevant. But it turns out
>> you cited an irrelevant source to begin with, for the wrong event.
>
> Yes It's true, I stand corrected, that data was for a couple of days
> earlier.

It (GW170814) was not just 3 days earlier, it was a completely different
*kind* of event. To begin with, it was one where two black holes merged,
not two neutron stars.

Only when no black hole is one of the progenitor masses, like with two
neutron stars, is electromagnetic radiation emitted *immediately* to allow
for confirmation by *other* means than GW astronomy that something took
place there.

<https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/page/detection-companion-papers>

> Nonetheless that event then fails by the same criticism as a

> false detection. [conspiracy theory]

Ex falso quodlibet.

>> >> > Don't forget, each LIGO detector detects 1billion 4snr events every
>> >> > day!
>> >> Cite evidence.
>> > Contact LIGO. [blathering]
>> So you have none. Figures.
>
> Says the blatherer who has no figures himself.

See above.

> Anyways I DO have them.

Then present your evidence instead of just a lot of hot air.

> Try emailing LIGO and ask if they can confirm if there are a 100 billion

> detections at 4SNR over a three month period. […]

This claim of yours has been refuted already. Repeating nonsense does not
make it true.

>> --
>> Q: How many theoretical physicists specializing in general relativity
>> does it take to change a light bulb?
>> A: Three: one to hold the bulb and one to rotate the universe, and one
> to fiddle the data.

Your falsifying quotations to support your case does not inspire more
confidence in the validity of your statements and in your veracity;
on the contrary.

Nor does your continuing to post via b0rked Google Groups without a real
name, despite having been notified of that.

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

R.T. wrote:

> On Thursday, 19 October 2017 19:47:13 UTC+1, tjrob137 wrote:
>> On 10/19/17 5:26 AM, R.T. wrote:
>> > [...] over a three month run each detector triggers about a 100 billion
>> > events at or above snr 4.
>> I have no idea where you got this notion, but it simply cannot be true
>
> It has to be true.

Because you wish it to be so, trimming the relevant part of Tom’s reply?

> Not only is it obvious from the LIGO data,

To which data are you referring?

> I also emailed LIGO numerous times with various attempts and *finally* got
> a long email back from one of the main contributors to the analysing
> software. They said."..100s of billion detections in each detector at or
> above 4snr over three months" Email them yourself.

*You* produce the evidence that purportedly support *your* claims.
This is a scientific newsgroup, not a kindergarten.


PointedEars
--
Q: Who's on the case when the electricity goes out?
A: Sherlock Ohms.

(from: WolframAlpha)

[Lofty Goat]

On Tue, 17 Oct 2017 20:22:13 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

>R.T. wrote:

>^^^^
>It is considered polite to post using one’s real name here.

Also sprach der Hallenmonitor.

[sigh]

--
Goat

[Lofty Goat]

On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 14:55:42 -0700 (PDT), John Heath

<heath...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, October 21, 2017 at 4:15:08 PM UTC-4, Lofty Goat wrote:
>> On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 08:08:02 -0700 (PDT), John Heath
>> <heath...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > I would add that you can have a transverse wave if you combine a
>> > liquid with air such as a water wave on a lake where the wave is
>> > transverse.
>>
>> Not really.
>>
>> They behave like compression, i.e. longitudinal, waves where the
>> "compression" is a function of lifting the liquid above, erm, the
>> gravitational equipotential surface of the liquid. (Whatever the hell
>> that's called. There's an engineering word for it, but I forget.)
>>
>> They'd behave like transverse waves if the liquid wiggled from side to
>> side without forming a bump in its surface, in other words propagating
>> by shear rather than compression. But because of the way liquids shear
>> they wouldn't propagate very far, one wavelength or less.
>>
>> I'm expressing myself poorly, but you should get the idea.
>>
>> The distinction is more in the math one uses to describe them. After
>> all, electromagnetic waves are transverse waves, mathematically, even
>> though they aren't transmitted through any medium by shear strain and
>> relaxation.

> Poutnik had a nice word for it " phase boundary wave ". Sounds good to
> me. The transverse elasticity of the boundary of water is high so a
> lake wave only moves at 1 meter per second. However a longitudinal
> wave in water has low elasticity has water does not compress well.
> That wave moves faster than sound. A vacuum has a very low elasticity
> of only 8.8 p Farad so the wave speed is very fast at c. What about a
> EM longitudinal wave ? One that comes to mind is a condenser in a
> electronic circuit. Could the Coulomb force wave in a vacuum between
> the plates be consider a longitudinal EM wave? The distance between
> the plates are much shorter than the EM wave length but just the same
> it is moving in the forward direction that would technically make it a
> longitudinal wave. For a gravity wave if dust collapses to a star then
> the resulting gravity wave should be longitudinal not transverse I
> would think assuming the dust does not whirl around while collapsing?
> Transverse for 2 neutron stars but longitudinal for dust shrinking
> into a star. Hmmm .

He does. And it is a worthwhile distinction, insofar as in a pool of
water, confined by gravity, one sees two types of longitudinal waves:

One type is propagated by actual compression of the fluid, pushing on it
hard enough that the molecules get closer together. Its speed is
determined by the density and elastic modulus of the medium, and is
about 1,500 m/s.

One type is propagated by something which works out mechanically in a
way analogous to compression of the fluid, the fact that when you push
on it near its surface it acts like it's being compressed, but the
molecules don't get closer together (enough to notice) but rather rise
up above the nominal surface of the liquid. The energy required to
raise that wave above the surface of the water is itself analogous to an
elastic modulus, and yields a speed of a metres or two per second.

It is more useful to model both as longitudinal waves, or in this
context compression waves.

(Mind you, I'm looking at this from an engineer's perspective. The
scientists here may well disagree. Be interesting to find out.)

I'm not sure it's useful to try to model EM as a longitudinal wave.

One way to look at those is this: you move an electric charge in one
direction, it induces a magnetic field moving perpendicular to it, which
induces an electric field perpendicular to that (and in the reverse
direction of the original) which induces another perpendicular magnetic
field, and so forth. No physical shear force is involved, but here it's
more useful to model these as transverse waves.

As for making something "technically a longitudinal wave" or discussing
the elasticity of vacuum, I think I'd stick with the established math.
After all, the point of all this isn't aesthetic satisfaction, but
coming up with a model which gives useful answers to the sorts of
questions you might ask about the actual reality.

I won't post an entire link-farm, but something like this would be a
good starting point:

https://smartsite.ucdavis.edu/access/content/user/00002774/Sears-Coleman%20Text/Text/C21-25/21-6.html

You get the terminology down pat and you can find a lot more like it.

BTW, astrophysicists usually refer to them as "gravitational waves",
because "gravity waves" was already taken by fluid dynamics... and used
to describe what Poutnik calls a "phase boundary wave". I like his term
better because it confuses fewer people. Likewise I hesitate to refer
to transverse waves as "shear waves", even though that's the force which
propagates them, because geologists make a more specific use of the
term....

--
Goat

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Lofty Goat posted using a b0rked newsreader:
^^^^^^^^^^

It is considered polite to post using one’s real name here.

> On Tue, 17 Oct 2017 20:22:13 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>R.T. wrote:
>>^^^^
>>It is considered polite to post using one’s real name here.
>
> Also sprach der Hallenmonitor.

That’s Gerberish™, and the used character encoding was not declared.

> [sigh]

Indeed.


PointedEars
--
A neutron walks into a bar and inquires how much a drink costs.
The bartender replies, "For you? No charge."

(from: WolframAlpha)

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Lofty Goat wrote:
^^^^^^^^^^
Which part of “real name” did you not get?

> He does. And it is a worthwhile distinction, insofar as in a pool of
> water, confined by gravity, one sees two types of longitudinal waves:
>
> One type is propagated by actual compression of the fluid, pushing on it
> hard enough that the molecules get closer together.

Water is a liquid, and for all practical purposes an *incompressible* fluid:
“its compressibility ranges from 4.4 to 5.1×10⁻¹⁰ Pa⁻¹ in ordinary
conditions.” Hence “hydraulics”.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water#Mechanical_properties>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulics>

Water waves are *the textbook example* of transversal waves, i.e. a wave
where the oscillations occur *perpendicular* to the direction of
propagation; put simply, the water is moving *up* and *down* when the wave
(*not* the water) moves to the *left* or the *right*.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transverse_wave>

> Its speed is determined by the density

… *and* by the surface tension, but *only for very short wavelengths*.

*In general*, the phase speed of water waves depends on *the water depth*
and *the gravitational acceleration*.

Natural water waves are actually wind waves created by wind continuously
blowing above the water. The waves are then propagating in the direction
that the wind is blowing.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_wave> redirects to
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_wave>, there
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_wave#Physics_of_waves>

> and elastic modulus of the medium,

You have no clue what you are talking about.

> and is about 1,500 m/s. […]

Oh for crying out loud. Will you *please* *think* about what you are saying
there?

The *average* walking speed of an *average* human is 4 km∕h ≈ 1.11 m∕s.

If what you are saying would be true, one could not go to the beach and walk
from there into the water for swimming in the ocean, because the waves would
be pushing back so hard that this would be impossible.

> It is more useful to model both as longitudinal waves, or in this
> context compression waves.

No, it is not. Not at all.

> (Mind you, I'm looking at this from an engineer's perspective. The
> scientists here may well disagree. Be interesting to find out.)

As always: First study, then claim. The real information is not hard to
find. You do not have to be a professional scientist to know what I am
telling you. In fact, *common sense* suffices for the most part.

> I'm not sure it's useful to try to model EM

“EM” is the acronym for “electromagnetic”; that is an adjective and (as the
name says) it cannot stand on its own in such a construction. You can say
“EM *waves*” and “EM *radiation*”, but _not_ just “EM”, here. And if you
think you could use it to say “electromagnetism” instead and this statement
would still make sense, think again.

> as a longitudinal wave.

It is not at all useful because they simply are _not_ longitudinal waves.

> One way to look at those is this: you move an electric charge in one
> direction, it induces a magnetic field moving perpendicular to it, which
> induces an electric field perpendicular to that (and in the reverse
> direction of the original) which induces another perpendicular magnetic
> field, and so forth. No physical shear force is involved, but here it's
> more useful to model these as transverse waves.

That is _not_ “one way to look at it”; it is what *happens*. Other models
are simply *wrong* (as far as we are talking about EM waves).

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation>

> BTW, astrophysicists usually refer to them as "gravitational waves",
> because "gravity waves" was already taken by fluid dynamics...

That is _not_ the reason why. “Gravity waves” would mean waves *of* gravity
or waves made *by* gravity (see “water waves” and “wind waves” above). But
*gravitational* waves are something else: gravitation-*like* waves, based on
a theory (GR) that says that *gravitation/gravity is not real*, but just an
*observable effect* of the curvature of spacetime.

That is also why the proper term is “_longitudinal_ wave”; _not_ “longitude
wave” (cf. “longitude”). [Whether you say “transverse” or “transversal”
does not matter as there is no ambiguity; both are adjectives for the same
concept: something perpendicular to the direction of motion (“lying across”)
as opposed to “lying along”]

The choice of words matters because words have *meaning*.

<https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/transverse>
<https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/longitudinal>

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

Numbernumber1964 Oct 18 (LIGO detects neutron star merger)


By Number: In the graph depicted in the link: are not the frequencies on the bottom axis between 20 and 1000 Hz. Conversely, are the frequencies between 20-1000 Hz frequencies of sound waves?

......................................................................................................................................................


"On September 14, 2015 at 09:50:45 UTC the two detectors of the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory simultaneously observed a transient gravitational-wave signal. The signal sweeps upwards in frequency from 35 to 250 Hz with a peak gravitational-wave strain of 1.0 × 10^−21." (Abstract).

Abbott, B. P. Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger. Physical Review Letters. 116, 061102. 2016.

______________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn Oct 19

By Lahn: Frequency is not a physical quantity, and Hertz is not a unit, that is tied to sound (waves); but it is a property of waves, and a unit for cyclic processes, *in general*: the number of cycles per unit time; 1 Hz is one cycle *per second*.

________________________________________________________________________________________________

[RLH]

On Saturday, October 21, 2017 at 8:26:07 AM UTC+1, Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž wrote:
> Dne 20/10/2017 v 20:44 RLH napsal(a):
> > On Friday, October 20, 2017 at 8:03:29 AM UTC+1, Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž wrote:
> >> Dne 20/10/2017 v 08:40 RLH napsal(a):
> >>> On Tuesday, October 17, 2017 at 11:51:53 PM UTC+1, Carl Susumu wrote:
> >>>> Gases do not exist in vacuum.
> >>>
> >>> There is no such thing as a vacuum. Just a very, very thin gas.
> >>
> >> And between 2 molecules is..... ?
> >> In the intergalactic space is matter density
> >> several atoms per cubic metre.
> >
> > That's what I call a very, very thin gas. It is most definitely not a vacuum. Care to estimate the number of atoms of hydrogen are in a 1 light year, 1 cm cross section volume of space?
>
> I repeat the question
> "And between 2 molecules 1 m apart is..... ?"

"According to Universe Today, for the intergalactic medium they state a figure of only one hydrogen atom per cubic meter. As a point of comparison, the University of California, San Diego quotes an interstellar density of 1 atom per cubic centimeter."

> >> BTW, vacuum has also not so rigorous meanings,
> >> that is gas so thin you can neglect
> >> the effect of presence of residual matter.
> >
> > That's just a slightly thicker gas.
>
> Names are just labels.
> If physics or technology calls it vacuum,
> you can do nothing about it.
>
> >> Depending on circumstances,
> >> it may be vacuum of the water vacuum pump
> >> till intergalactic space.
> >
> > Well we have metallic evaporation to take into account too at really low pressures. Even at very low temperatures there are often a few atoms around at high temperatures definitely so.
>
> That is well know. Even the best technology cannot beat the vacuum
> on the Moon, no speaking about many orders sparser vacuum
> in the intergalactic space.

See above. Would you like interstellar space density as well?

[Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž]

Dne 23/10/2017 v 00:38 RLH napsal(a):

>>
>> I repeat the question
>> "And between 2 molecules 1 m apart is..... ?"
>
> "According to Universe Today, for the intergalactic medium they state a figure of only one hydrogen atom per cubic meter. As a point of comparison, the University of California, San Diego quotes an interstellar density of 1 atom per cubic centimeter."

>>

>> That is well know. Even the best technology cannot beat the vacuum
>> on the Moon, no speaking about many orders sparser vacuum
>> in the intergalactic space.
>
> See above. Would you like interstellar space density as well?
>

Notice interstellar is not intergalactic.
The former is about 10^6 denser than the latter.

[R.T.]

On Sunday, 22 October 2017 15:47:41 UTC+1, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> R.T. wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, 19 October 2017 19:47:13 UTC+1, tjrob137 wrote:
> >> On 10/19/17 5:26 AM, R.T. wrote:
> >> > [...] over a three month run each detector triggers about a 100 billion
> >> > events at or above snr 4.
> >> I have no idea where you got this notion, but it simply cannot be true
> >
> > It has to be true.
>
> Because you wish it to be so, trimming the relevant part of Tom’s reply?

You are deranged. I trimmed nothing from Toms post.

>
> > Not only is it obvious from the LIGO data,
>
> To which data are you referring?
>
> > I also emailed LIGO numerous times with various attempts and *finally* got
> > a long email back from one of the main contributors to the analysing
> > software. They said."..100s of billion detections in each detector at or
> > above 4snr over three months" Email them yourself.
>
> *You* produce the evidence that purportedly support *your* claims.
> This is a scientific newsgroup, not a kindergarten.
>

I have produced the evidence. It's 100 billion events at or above SNR 4
over three months. Note it is you who has not supplied any numbers. Not me.

It isn't available online. You have to try a bit harder. Here's some contact
details you can follow up rather than playing video games. Try the following
page
http://www.ligo.org/contact.php
Their emails are available online. Email all of them and others and ask if it's true
that there are 100 billion chirps detected at or above 4 SNR over three months.
If you keep on trying like I did eventually someone at LIGO software analysis will
reply and confirm this by private email. Then you can apologise to me for being so
incompetent.

[RLH]

On Monday, October 23, 2017 at 6:38:30 AM UTC+1, Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž wrote:
> Dne 23/10/2017 v 00:38 RLH napsal(a):
> >>
> >> I repeat the question
> >> "And between 2 molecules 1 m apart is..... ?"
> >
> > "According to Universe Today, for the intergalactic medium they state a figure of only one hydrogen atom per cubic meter. As a point of comparison, the University of California, San Diego quotes an interstellar density of 1 atom per cubic centimeter."
>
> >>
> >> That is well know. Even the best technology cannot beat the vacuum
> >> on the Moon, no speaking about many orders sparser vacuum
> >> in the intergalactic space.
> >
> > See above. Would you like interstellar space density as well?
> >
> Notice interstellar is not intergalactic.
> The former is about 10^6 denser than the latter.

> than he says about the subject.

You don't say. I thought I indicated that above.

[RLH]

Here is one estimate of the interstellar medium's density.

"In all phases, the interstellar medium is extremely tenuous by terrestrial standards. In cool, dense regions of the ISM, matter is primarily in molecular form, and reaches number densities of 106 molecules per cm3 (1 million molecules per cm3). In hot, diffuse regions of the ISM, matter is primarily ionized, and the density may be as low as 10−4 ions per cm3. "

[R.T.]

All events below SNR 4 are filtered out. SNR is of integral importance.
Otherwise it wouldn't be mentioned in every press release. You are ill
informed.

________
> ¹ <http://www.ligo.org/science/GW-Detecting.php> pp.
>
> > Anyways VIRGO did not not detect anything for 170817.
>
> Wrong. Without Advanced Virgo’s support, it would not have been possible to
> pinpoint the source in the first place:
>

Only a relativist fool would pretend a non detection in VIRGO is a detection.
That's two imaginary GW in a few days that both 'happened' in VIRGOs blind spot.
Hilarious pseudoscience.

> <http://www.ligo.org/detections/GW170817.php>
> <http://www.ligo.org/detections/GW170817/images-GW170817/O1-O2-skymaps-white.jpg>
> <http://www.ligo.org/detections/GW170817/images-GW170817/GW170817-milkyway-triangulation.png>
> <https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161101>
>
> > Hence it wasn't a gravitational wave detected by LIGO.
>
> Ex falso quodlibet.
>

Says the man who only cuts and paste web links, but can't supply any
hard data.

> > The whitened strain is relevant. But it turns out
> >> you cited an irrelevant source to begin with, for the wrong event.
> >
> > Yes It's true, I stand corrected, that data was for a couple of days
> > earlier.
>
> It (GW170814) was not just 3 days earlier, it was a completely different
> *kind* of event. To begin with, it was one where two black holes merged,
> not two neutron stars.
>

You are a fantasist and a fool. LIGO didn't detect a GW. It observed billions
of events, matched two random events out of those billions and made a theoretical
assumption only about imaginary black holes, which themselves have never
been observed. You don't understand physics.

> Only when no black hole is one of the progenitor masses, like with two
> neutron stars, is electromagnetic radiation emitted *immediately* to allow
> for confirmation by *other* means than GW astronomy that something took
> place there.
>

And you've been there right? In your relativistic spaceship?
Any photos of your imaginary black hole?

> <https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/page/detection-companion-papers>
>
> > Nonetheless that event then fails by the same criticism as a
> > false detection. [conspiracy theory]
>
> Ex falso quodlibet.
>
> >> >> > Don't forget, each LIGO detector detects 1billion 4snr events every
> >> >> > day!
> >> >> Cite evidence.
> >> > Contact LIGO. [blathering]
> >> So you have none. Figures.
> >
> > Says the blatherer who has no figures himself.
>
> See above.
>
> > Anyways I DO have them.
>
> Then present your evidence instead of just a lot of hot air.
>
> > Try emailing LIGO and ask if they can confirm if there are a 100 billion
> > detections at 4SNR over a three month period. […]
>
> This claim of yours has been refuted already. Repeating nonsense does not
> make it true.
>

Refuted? Ha ha. So far you have supplied no evidence to the contrary.
Nor have you in your laziness even tried to contact LIGO. I did and received
information that I've passed on to you. If you don't agree try contacting LIGO.
They will confirm what I say.

> >> Q: How many theoretical physicists specializing in general relativity
> >> does it take to change a light bulb?
> >> A: Three: one to hold the bulb and one to rotate the universe, and one
> > to fiddle the data.
>
> Your falsifying quotations to support your case does not inspire more
> confidence in the validity of your statements and in your veracity;
> on the contrary.

Says the man who is incapable of doing even a tiny bit of research. Try
doing something constructive for a change. Contact LIGO,like I did
and like every other researcher does, and ask for information not available
on their websites. You will then find that my assertion that there are
100 billion chirps at or above 4 SNR over three months is correct

> Nor does your continuing to post via b0rked Google Groups without a real
> name, despite having been notified of that.

Boohoo
R.T.

[Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž]

Dne 23.10.2017 v 10:21 RLH napsal(a):

Sure, but I do not see your point, unless you are going to show me
a technical procedure producing vacuum of the intergalactic quality.

In such a case I will admit I was wrong saying it is not possible.

--
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,

[Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž]

Dne 23.10.2017 v 10:27 RLH napsal(a):

Sure, but what is the point ?

--
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,

[RLH]

On Monday, October 23, 2017 at 9:42:03 AM UTC+1, Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž wrote:
> Dne 23.10.2017 v 10:21 RLH napsal(a):
> > On Monday, October 23, 2017 at 6:38:30 AM UTC+1, Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž wrote:
> >> Dne 23/10/2017 v 00:38 RLH napsal(a):
> >>>>
> >>>> I repeat the question
> >>>> "And between 2 molecules 1 m apart is..... ?"
> >>>
> >>> "According to Universe Today, for the intergalactic medium they state a figure of only one hydrogen atom per cubic meter. As a point of comparison, the University of California, San Diego quotes an interstellar density of 1 atom per cubic centimeter."
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>> That is well know. Even the best technology cannot beat the vacuum
> >>>> on the Moon, no speaking about many orders sparser vacuum
> >>>> in the intergalactic space.
> >>>
> >>> See above. Would you like interstellar space density as well?
> >>>
> >> Notice interstellar is not intergalactic.
> >> The former is about 10^6 denser than the latter.
> >> than he says about the subject.
> >
> > You don't say. I thought I indicated that above.
>
> Sure, but I do not see your point, unless you are going to show me
> a technical procedure producing vacuum of the intergalactic quality.
>
> In such a case I will admit I was wrong saying it is not possible.

I observed that there is no such thing as a real vacuum.

Do you concede that it is indeed true?