info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Open Question to LIGO: Why No Gravitational Waves from Neutron Stars?
250 views
Skip to first unread message
Pentcho Valev
Jul 16, 2016, 10:42:35 AM7/16/16
to
Initially neutron star gravitational waves were regarded as "far more common candidates" than black hole gravitational waves:
http://www.lastwordonnothing.com/2016/06/16/getting-from-wow-to-yawn/
"What surprised the LIGO collaboration instead was the nature of what they’d detected. Of the various gravitational-wave-producers that LIGO might observe—the kind that disturb space-time to such an extent that LIGO could register the aftershock—the collision of binary black holes was perhaps the least likely. Supernovae, neutron stars, colliding neutron stars: These were what the LIGO collaboration foresaw as far more common candidates. And now LIGO has detected a second pair of colliding black holes."
http://theadvocate.com/news/15893528-126/after-breakthrough-gravitational-wave-finding-ligo-scientists-look-ahead-to-new-discoveries
"Before the Sept. 14 detection, LIGO scientists had focused their calculations on the mergers of neutron stars, not black holes. That’s because neutron stars — the dense remnants of collapsed stars — had been observed already through other means, like electromagnetic radiation, and were, thus, more predictable, said Joseph Giaime, head of the LIGO Livingston Observatory and a professor of physics and astronomy at LSU."
Judging from the text above, the detection of neutron star gravitational waves is much easier. Even if the signal is weak and inconclusive at first, comparison with INTEGRAL's data might lead to a straightforward conclusion in the end:
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Integral_sets_limits_on_gamma_rays_from_merging_black_holes
"Models predict that the merging of two stellar-mass black holes would not produce light at any wavelength, but if one or two neutron stars were involved in the process, then a characteristic signature should be observable across the electromagnetic spectrum. Another possible source of gravitational waves would be an asymmetric supernova explosion, also known to emit light over a range of wavelengths. [...] Integral is sensitive to transient sources of high-energy emission over the whole sky, and thus a team of scientists searched through its data, seeking signs of a sudden burst of hard X-rays or gamma rays that might have been recorded at the same time as the gravitational waves were detected. "We searched through all the available Integral data, but did not find any indication of high-energy emission associated with the LIGO detection," says Volodymyr Savchenko of the François Arago Centre in Paris, France. Volodymyr is the lead author of a paper reporting the results, published today in Astrophysical Journal Letters. [...] Subsequent analysis of the LIGO data has shown that the gravitational waves were produced by a pair of coalescing black holes, each with a mass roughly 30 times that of our Sun, located about 1.3 billion light years away. Scientists do not expect to see any significant emission of light at any wavelength from such events, and thus Integral's null detection is consistent with this scenario. [...] The only exception was the Gamma-Ray Burst Monitor on NASA's Fermi Gamma-Ray Space Telescope, which observed what appears to be a sudden burst of gamma rays about 0.4 seconds after the gravitational waves were detected. The burst lasted about one second and came from a region of the sky that overlaps with the strip identified by LIGO. This detection sparked a bounty of theoretical investigations, proposing possible scenarios in which two merging black holes of stellar mass could indeed have released gamma rays along with the gravitational waves. However, if this gamma-ray flare had had a cosmic origin, either linked to the LIGO gravitational wave source or to any other astrophysical phenomenon in the Universe, it should have been detected by Integral as well. The absence of any such detection by both instruments on Integral suggests that the measurement from Fermi could be unrelated to the gravitational wave detection."
So why are you silent about neutron star gravitational waves, LIGO folks? Unless you break the silence, the only conceivable explanation is this:
Faking black hole gravitational waves remains unpunished and is awarded with millions of dollars while faking neutron star gravitational waves can be exposed by alternative observations and is therefore too dangerous.
Pentcho Valev
http://www.lastwordonnothing.com/2016/06/16/getting-from-wow-to-yawn/
"What surprised the LIGO collaboration instead was the nature of what they’d detected. Of the various gravitational-wave-producers that LIGO might observe—the kind that disturb space-time to such an extent that LIGO could register the aftershock—the collision of binary black holes was perhaps the least likely. Supernovae, neutron stars, colliding neutron stars: These were what the LIGO collaboration foresaw as far more common candidates. And now LIGO has detected a second pair of colliding black holes."
http://theadvocate.com/news/15893528-126/after-breakthrough-gravitational-wave-finding-ligo-scientists-look-ahead-to-new-discoveries
"Before the Sept. 14 detection, LIGO scientists had focused their calculations on the mergers of neutron stars, not black holes. That’s because neutron stars — the dense remnants of collapsed stars — had been observed already through other means, like electromagnetic radiation, and were, thus, more predictable, said Joseph Giaime, head of the LIGO Livingston Observatory and a professor of physics and astronomy at LSU."
Judging from the text above, the detection of neutron star gravitational waves is much easier. Even if the signal is weak and inconclusive at first, comparison with INTEGRAL's data might lead to a straightforward conclusion in the end:
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Integral_sets_limits_on_gamma_rays_from_merging_black_holes
"Models predict that the merging of two stellar-mass black holes would not produce light at any wavelength, but if one or two neutron stars were involved in the process, then a characteristic signature should be observable across the electromagnetic spectrum. Another possible source of gravitational waves would be an asymmetric supernova explosion, also known to emit light over a range of wavelengths. [...] Integral is sensitive to transient sources of high-energy emission over the whole sky, and thus a team of scientists searched through its data, seeking signs of a sudden burst of hard X-rays or gamma rays that might have been recorded at the same time as the gravitational waves were detected. "We searched through all the available Integral data, but did not find any indication of high-energy emission associated with the LIGO detection," says Volodymyr Savchenko of the François Arago Centre in Paris, France. Volodymyr is the lead author of a paper reporting the results, published today in Astrophysical Journal Letters. [...] Subsequent analysis of the LIGO data has shown that the gravitational waves were produced by a pair of coalescing black holes, each with a mass roughly 30 times that of our Sun, located about 1.3 billion light years away. Scientists do not expect to see any significant emission of light at any wavelength from such events, and thus Integral's null detection is consistent with this scenario. [...] The only exception was the Gamma-Ray Burst Monitor on NASA's Fermi Gamma-Ray Space Telescope, which observed what appears to be a sudden burst of gamma rays about 0.4 seconds after the gravitational waves were detected. The burst lasted about one second and came from a region of the sky that overlaps with the strip identified by LIGO. This detection sparked a bounty of theoretical investigations, proposing possible scenarios in which two merging black holes of stellar mass could indeed have released gamma rays along with the gravitational waves. However, if this gamma-ray flare had had a cosmic origin, either linked to the LIGO gravitational wave source or to any other astrophysical phenomenon in the Universe, it should have been detected by Integral as well. The absence of any such detection by both instruments on Integral suggests that the measurement from Fermi could be unrelated to the gravitational wave detection."
So why are you silent about neutron star gravitational waves, LIGO folks? Unless you break the silence, the only conceivable explanation is this:
Faking black hole gravitational waves remains unpunished and is awarded with millions of dollars while faking neutron star gravitational waves can be exposed by alternative observations and is therefore too dangerous.
Pentcho Valev
Gary Harnagel
Jul 16, 2016, 7:52:27 PM7/16/16
to
On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 8:42:35 AM UTC-6, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> Initially neutron star gravitational waves were regarded as "far more
> common candidates" than black hole gravitational waves:
More common but much, much weaker gravitational waves. Surely anyone
>
> Initially neutron star gravitational waves were regarded as "far more
> common candidates" than black hole gravitational waves:
with an honest brain would know this.
Gary
Pentcho Valev
Jul 17, 2016, 6:34:54 PM7/17/16
to
"Advanced LIGO is likely to observe mergers of double neutron star (NS/NS) binaries at a rate of a few to a few hundred per year; and black-hole/neutron-star (BH/NS) binaries perhaps in a comparable range of rates." Benjamin J. Owen Pennsylvania State University, Endorsed by: David H. Reitze (University of Florida), Stanley E. Whitcomb (LIGO-Caltech)
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/ssbsurvey/DetailFileDisplay.aspx?id=146
Yet nothing so far? Not even weak and inconclusive signals that could be confirmed or disconfirmed by INTEGRAL? Or faking these signals, unlike faking signals from black-hole/black-hole binaries, is too dangerous? INTEGRAL may expose the fraud?
http://www.thenational.ae/arts-life/the-review/why-albert-einstein-continues-to-make-waves-as-black-holes-collide#full
"Einstein believed in neither gravitational waves nor black holes. [...] Dr Natalia Kiriushcheva, a theoretical and computational physicist at the University of Western Ontario (UWO), Canada, says that while it was Einstein who initiated the gravitational waves theory in a paper in June 1916, it was an addendum to his theory of general relativity and by 1936, he had concluded that such things did not exist. Furthermore - as a paper published by Einstein in the Annals of Mathematics in October, 1939 made clear, he also rejected the possibility of black holes. [...] On September 16, 2010, a false signal - a so-called "blind injection" - was fed into both the Ligo and Virgo systems as part of an exercise to "test ... detection capabilities". At the time, the vast majority of the hundreds of scientists working on the equipment had no idea that they were being fed a dummy signal. The truth was not revealed until March the following year, by which time several papers about the supposed sensational discovery of gravitational waves were poised for publication. "While the scientists were disappointed that the discovery was not real, the success of the analysis was a compelling demonstration of the collaboration's readiness to detect gravitational waves," Ligo reported at the time. But take a look at the visualisation of the faked signal, says Dr Kiriushcheva, and compare it to the image apparently showing the collision of the twin black holes, seen on the second page of the recently-published discovery paper. "They look very, very similar," she says. "It means that they knew exactly what they wanted to get and this is suspicious for us: when you know what you want to get from science, usually you can get it." The apparent similarity is more curious because the faked event purported to show not a collision between two black holes, but the gravitational waves created by a neutron star spiralling into a black hole. The signals appear so similar, in fact, that Dr Kiriushcheva questions whether the "true" signal might actually have been an echo of the fake, "stored in the computer system from when they turned off the equipment five years before"."
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2076754-latest-rumour-of-gravitational-waves-is-probably-true-this-time/
"In 2010, before LIGO had been upgraded to its present sensitivity, a textbook chirp that looked like two black holes colliding came through. The team drafted a paper and sent maps of where the signal may have come from to astronomers, who searched for a counterpart with other telescopes. There was just one problem: the signal was a fake deliberately injected into the data stream to make sure the team would be able to spot a real one. The dramatic opening of a sealed envelope revealed that fact to 300 team members in the room, with 100 more watching via a video link." [Note that in 2010 not only LIGO members were deceived - astronomers all over the world were misled into wasting time and money and looking for the non-existent black hole collision.]
http://motls.blogspot.bg/2016/02/ligo-journal-servers-behind-scenes.html
" On September 9th, the LIGO folks were already convinced that they would discover the waves soon. Some of them were thinking what they would buy for the Nobel prize and all of them had to make an online vote about the journal where the discovery should be published. It has to be Physical Review Letters because PRL (published by the APS) is the best journal for the Nobel-prize-caliber papers, the LIGO members decided. Five days later, Advanced LIGO made the discovery. Four more days later, as you know, they officially started Advanced LIGO. ;-) "
Pentcho Valev
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/ssbsurvey/DetailFileDisplay.aspx?id=146
Yet nothing so far? Not even weak and inconclusive signals that could be confirmed or disconfirmed by INTEGRAL? Or faking these signals, unlike faking signals from black-hole/black-hole binaries, is too dangerous? INTEGRAL may expose the fraud?
http://www.thenational.ae/arts-life/the-review/why-albert-einstein-continues-to-make-waves-as-black-holes-collide#full
"Einstein believed in neither gravitational waves nor black holes. [...] Dr Natalia Kiriushcheva, a theoretical and computational physicist at the University of Western Ontario (UWO), Canada, says that while it was Einstein who initiated the gravitational waves theory in a paper in June 1916, it was an addendum to his theory of general relativity and by 1936, he had concluded that such things did not exist. Furthermore - as a paper published by Einstein in the Annals of Mathematics in October, 1939 made clear, he also rejected the possibility of black holes. [...] On September 16, 2010, a false signal - a so-called "blind injection" - was fed into both the Ligo and Virgo systems as part of an exercise to "test ... detection capabilities". At the time, the vast majority of the hundreds of scientists working on the equipment had no idea that they were being fed a dummy signal. The truth was not revealed until March the following year, by which time several papers about the supposed sensational discovery of gravitational waves were poised for publication. "While the scientists were disappointed that the discovery was not real, the success of the analysis was a compelling demonstration of the collaboration's readiness to detect gravitational waves," Ligo reported at the time. But take a look at the visualisation of the faked signal, says Dr Kiriushcheva, and compare it to the image apparently showing the collision of the twin black holes, seen on the second page of the recently-published discovery paper. "They look very, very similar," she says. "It means that they knew exactly what they wanted to get and this is suspicious for us: when you know what you want to get from science, usually you can get it." The apparent similarity is more curious because the faked event purported to show not a collision between two black holes, but the gravitational waves created by a neutron star spiralling into a black hole. The signals appear so similar, in fact, that Dr Kiriushcheva questions whether the "true" signal might actually have been an echo of the fake, "stored in the computer system from when they turned off the equipment five years before"."
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2076754-latest-rumour-of-gravitational-waves-is-probably-true-this-time/
"In 2010, before LIGO had been upgraded to its present sensitivity, a textbook chirp that looked like two black holes colliding came through. The team drafted a paper and sent maps of where the signal may have come from to astronomers, who searched for a counterpart with other telescopes. There was just one problem: the signal was a fake deliberately injected into the data stream to make sure the team would be able to spot a real one. The dramatic opening of a sealed envelope revealed that fact to 300 team members in the room, with 100 more watching via a video link." [Note that in 2010 not only LIGO members were deceived - astronomers all over the world were misled into wasting time and money and looking for the non-existent black hole collision.]
http://motls.blogspot.bg/2016/02/ligo-journal-servers-behind-scenes.html
" On September 9th, the LIGO folks were already convinced that they would discover the waves soon. Some of them were thinking what they would buy for the Nobel prize and all of them had to make an online vote about the journal where the discovery should be published. It has to be Physical Review Letters because PRL (published by the APS) is the best journal for the Nobel-prize-caliber papers, the LIGO members decided. Five days later, Advanced LIGO made the discovery. Four more days later, as you know, they officially started Advanced LIGO. ;-) "
Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
Jul 18, 2016, 4:19:30 AM7/18/16
to
Einstein schizophrenic world: LIGO profiteers make money by discovering ripples in spacetime; other profiteers make money by discovering that spacetime does not exist:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U47kyV4TMnE
Nima Arkani-Hamed (06:11): "Almost all of us believe that space-time doesn't really exist, space-time is doomed and has to be replaced by some more primitive building blocks."
https://www.edge.org/response-detail/26563
Nobel Laureate David Gross observed, "Everyone in string theory is convinced...that spacetime is doomed. But we don't know what it's replaced by."
https://edge.org/response-detail/25477
What scientific idea is ready for retirement? Steve Giddings: "Spacetime. Physics has always been regarded as playing out on an underlying stage of space and time. Special relativity joined these into spacetime... [...] The apparent need to retire classical spacetime as a fundamental concept is profound..."
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727721.200-rethinking-einstein-the-end-of-spacetime.html
"Rethinking Einstein: The end of space-time [...] The stumbling block lies with their conflicting views of space and time. As seen by quantum theory, space and time are a static backdrop against which particles move. In Einstein's theories, by contrast, not only are space and time inextricably linked, but the resulting space-time is moulded by the bodies within it. [...] Something has to give in this tussle between general relativity and quantum mechanics, and the smart money says that it's relativity that will be the loser."
http://gjl038.g.j.pic.centerblog.net/3fea2faf.jpg
Pentcho Valev
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U47kyV4TMnE
Nima Arkani-Hamed (06:11): "Almost all of us believe that space-time doesn't really exist, space-time is doomed and has to be replaced by some more primitive building blocks."
https://www.edge.org/response-detail/26563
Nobel Laureate David Gross observed, "Everyone in string theory is convinced...that spacetime is doomed. But we don't know what it's replaced by."
https://edge.org/response-detail/25477
What scientific idea is ready for retirement? Steve Giddings: "Spacetime. Physics has always been regarded as playing out on an underlying stage of space and time. Special relativity joined these into spacetime... [...] The apparent need to retire classical spacetime as a fundamental concept is profound..."
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727721.200-rethinking-einstein-the-end-of-spacetime.html
"Rethinking Einstein: The end of space-time [...] The stumbling block lies with their conflicting views of space and time. As seen by quantum theory, space and time are a static backdrop against which particles move. In Einstein's theories, by contrast, not only are space and time inextricably linked, but the resulting space-time is moulded by the bodies within it. [...] Something has to give in this tussle between general relativity and quantum mechanics, and the smart money says that it's relativity that will be the loser."
http://gjl038.g.j.pic.centerblog.net/3fea2faf.jpg
Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
Jul 28, 2016, 12:36:00 PM7/28/16
to
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/science/Einstein-will-continue-to-be-relevant-/articleshow/53434554.cms
Clifford Will: "I must say that when they found the waves, proving Einstein right, I thought it came from an unexpected source (the black holes). I thought it would be neutron stars."
Faking black hole gravitational waves is safe (nobody can expose the fraud) but faking neutron star gravitational waves is dangerous:
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Integral_sets_limits_on_gamma_rays_from_merging_black_holes
"Models predict that the merging of two stellar-mass black holes would not produce light at any wavelength, but if one or two neutron stars were involved in the process, then a characteristic signature should be observable across the electromagnetic spectrum. Another possible source of gravitational waves would be an asymmetric supernova explosion, also known to emit light over a range of wavelengths. [...] Integral is sensitive to transient sources of high-energy emission over the whole sky, and thus a team of scientists searched through its data, seeking signs of a sudden burst of hard X-rays or gamma rays that might have been recorded at the same time as the gravitational waves were detected. "We searched through all the available Integral data, but did not find any indication of high-energy emission associated with the LIGO detection," says Volodymyr Savchenko of the François Arago Centre in Paris, France." x
Unless INTEGRAL gets involved in LIGO's fraud (a few more millions would be needed), no neutron star gravitational waves will be "discovered".
Pentcho Valev
Clifford Will: "I must say that when they found the waves, proving Einstein right, I thought it came from an unexpected source (the black holes). I thought it would be neutron stars."
Faking black hole gravitational waves is safe (nobody can expose the fraud) but faking neutron star gravitational waves is dangerous:
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Integral_sets_limits_on_gamma_rays_from_merging_black_holes
"Models predict that the merging of two stellar-mass black holes would not produce light at any wavelength, but if one or two neutron stars were involved in the process, then a characteristic signature should be observable across the electromagnetic spectrum. Another possible source of gravitational waves would be an asymmetric supernova explosion, also known to emit light over a range of wavelengths. [...] Integral is sensitive to transient sources of high-energy emission over the whole sky, and thus a team of scientists searched through its data, seeking signs of a sudden burst of hard X-rays or gamma rays that might have been recorded at the same time as the gravitational waves were detected. "We searched through all the available Integral data, but did not find any indication of high-energy emission associated with the LIGO detection," says Volodymyr Savchenko of the François Arago Centre in Paris, France." x
Unless INTEGRAL gets involved in LIGO's fraud (a few more millions would be needed), no neutron star gravitational waves will be "discovered".
Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
Aug 1, 2016, 6:25:31 PM8/1/16
to
PETITION: Prof. Karsten Danzmann, please answer 3 questions on the measurement of gravitational waves in connection with the LIGO Experiment.
https://www.change.org/p/prof-karsten-danzmann-beantworten-sie-bitte-3-fragen-über-das-ligo-experiment
I signed this petition.
Pentcho Valev
https://www.change.org/p/prof-karsten-danzmann-beantworten-sie-bitte-3-fragen-über-das-ligo-experiment
I signed this petition.
Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
Aug 4, 2016, 6:39:42 AM8/4/16
to
LIGO fraudsters believe that the gullible world is more gullible than it really is:
http://phys.org/news/2016-08-physicists-gravitational-neutron-star-collisions.html
"Last February, scientists made the groundbreaking discovery of gravitational waves produced by two colliding black holes. Now researchers are expecting to detect similar gravitational wave signals in the near future from collisions involving neutron stars—for example, the merging of two neutron stars to form a black hole, or the merging of a neutron star and a black hole."
In the near future?!? They should have already detected them, or at least informed the world about dozens of suspicious signals - INTEGRAL would tell them whether the signals are from collisions involving neutron stars or not:
http://theadvocate.com/news/15893528-126/after-breakthrough-gravitational-wave-finding-ligo-scientists-look-ahead-to-new-discoveries
"Before the Sept. 14 detection, LIGO scientists had focused their calculations on the mergers of neutron stars, not black holes. That’s because neutron stars — the dense remnants of collapsed stars — had been observed already through other means, like electromagnetic radiation, and were, thus, more predictable, said Joseph Giaime, head of the LIGO Livingston Observatory and a professor of physics and astronomy at LSU." x
http://www.lastwordonnothing.com/2016/06/16/getting-from-wow-to-yawn/
"What surprised the LIGO collaboration instead was the nature of what they’d detected. Of the various gravitational-wave-producers that LIGO might observe—the kind that disturb space-time to such an extent that LIGO could register the aftershock—the collision of binary black holes was perhaps the least likely. Supernovae, neutron stars, colliding neutron stars: These were what the LIGO collaboration foresaw as far more common candidates." x
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/ssbsurvey/DetailFileDisplay.aspx?id=146
Benjamin J. Owen, Pennsylvania State University; Endorsed by: David H. Reitze (University of Florida), Stanley E. Whitcomb (LIGO-Caltech): "Advanced LIGO is likely to observe mergers of double neutron star (NS/NS) binaries at a rate of a few to a few hundred per year; and black-hole/neutron-star (BH/NS) binaries perhaps in a comparable range of rates."
The only reason why LIGO haven't "discovered" neutron star gravitational waves yet is that faking such waves is dangerous - INTEGRAL may expose the fraud.
Pentcho Valev
http://phys.org/news/2016-08-physicists-gravitational-neutron-star-collisions.html
"Last February, scientists made the groundbreaking discovery of gravitational waves produced by two colliding black holes. Now researchers are expecting to detect similar gravitational wave signals in the near future from collisions involving neutron stars—for example, the merging of two neutron stars to form a black hole, or the merging of a neutron star and a black hole."
In the near future?!? They should have already detected them, or at least informed the world about dozens of suspicious signals - INTEGRAL would tell them whether the signals are from collisions involving neutron stars or not:
http://theadvocate.com/news/15893528-126/after-breakthrough-gravitational-wave-finding-ligo-scientists-look-ahead-to-new-discoveries
"Before the Sept. 14 detection, LIGO scientists had focused their calculations on the mergers of neutron stars, not black holes. That’s because neutron stars — the dense remnants of collapsed stars — had been observed already through other means, like electromagnetic radiation, and were, thus, more predictable, said Joseph Giaime, head of the LIGO Livingston Observatory and a professor of physics and astronomy at LSU." x
http://www.lastwordonnothing.com/2016/06/16/getting-from-wow-to-yawn/
"What surprised the LIGO collaboration instead was the nature of what they’d detected. Of the various gravitational-wave-producers that LIGO might observe—the kind that disturb space-time to such an extent that LIGO could register the aftershock—the collision of binary black holes was perhaps the least likely. Supernovae, neutron stars, colliding neutron stars: These were what the LIGO collaboration foresaw as far more common candidates." x
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/ssbsurvey/DetailFileDisplay.aspx?id=146
Benjamin J. Owen, Pennsylvania State University; Endorsed by: David H. Reitze (University of Florida), Stanley E. Whitcomb (LIGO-Caltech): "Advanced LIGO is likely to observe mergers of double neutron star (NS/NS) binaries at a rate of a few to a few hundred per year; and black-hole/neutron-star (BH/NS) binaries perhaps in a comparable range of rates."
The only reason why LIGO haven't "discovered" neutron star gravitational waves yet is that faking such waves is dangerous - INTEGRAL may expose the fraud.
Pentcho Valev
Gary Harnagel
Aug 4, 2016, 7:05:20 AM8/4/16
to
On Thursday, August 4, 2016 at 4:39:42 AM UTC-6, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> LIGO fraudsters believe that the gullible world is more gullible than it
> really is:
Pentcho the prevaticating regurgitating fraudster believes the world is
>
> LIGO fraudsters believe that the gullible world is more gullible than it
> really is:
MUCH more gullible than he is. Actually, Pentcho believes that he created
the world and designed it after his fantasies.
Pentcho Valev
Aug 31, 2016, 4:37:53 PM8/31/16
to
http://optics.org/news/7/8/47
"The world knows about the historic recording at LIGO a year ago of two wild black holes crashing a billion years ago, confirming Einstein’s theories, said Daniel Sigg, the exuberant chief scientist at the observatory that made the discovery. But stay tuned. “This was not a one-time shot,” he said. “Next time, we won’t be out to prove that gravitational waves exist. Now, we are just going to do astrophysics. “We are going to find more black holes, more neutron stars, more binary neutron-star mergers,” said Sigg..."
How many neutron stars have you "found" already, Sigg? Zero? No signal at all? Not even a hint of a signal? Why? Dangerous to fake such signals? INTEGRAL may expose the fraud?
Pentcho Valev
"The world knows about the historic recording at LIGO a year ago of two wild black holes crashing a billion years ago, confirming Einstein’s theories, said Daniel Sigg, the exuberant chief scientist at the observatory that made the discovery. But stay tuned. “This was not a one-time shot,” he said. “Next time, we won’t be out to prove that gravitational waves exist. Now, we are just going to do astrophysics. “We are going to find more black holes, more neutron stars, more binary neutron-star mergers,” said Sigg..."
How many neutron stars have you "found" already, Sigg? Zero? No signal at all? Not even a hint of a signal? Why? Dangerous to fake such signals? INTEGRAL may expose the fraud?
Pentcho Valev
JanPB
Aug 31, 2016, 5:47:31 PM8/31/16
to
--
Jan
Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog
Sep 1, 2016, 1:05:57 AM9/1/16
to
for the recent silence in regards to new results that you find so disturbing.
Pentcho Valev
Sep 3, 2016, 3:22:00 AM9/3/16
to
On Thursday, September 1, 2016 at 8:05:57 AM UTC+3, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> Have patience. LIGO is currently offline undergoing upgrades. This accounts
> for the recent silence in regards to new results that you find so disturbing.
The world should wait until LIGO profiteers find a way to safely fake neutron star gravitational waves?
> Have patience. LIGO is currently offline undergoing upgrades. This accounts
> for the recent silence in regards to new results that you find so disturbing.
Pentcho Valev
Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog
Sep 3, 2016, 8:51:47 AM9/3/16
to
several times that many non-scientist personnel. That number will more than
quadruple in the next few years as VIRGO, GEO 600, TAMA, and CLIO ramp up and
combine their data with LIGO, and a new gravitational detector is built in
India.
How long can a conspiracy be maintained?
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35411684
http://phys.org/news/2016-01-equation-large-scale-conspiracies-quickly-reveal.html
Hundreds of thousands of scientists and engineers throughout the world
routinely depend on relativity in their everyday work. It has been more than
a century since Einstein's original publications. You work out the math.
How long can this massive conspiracy of yours have been maintained?
Pentcho Valev
Sep 3, 2016, 9:39:10 AM9/3/16
to
On Saturday, September 3, 2016 at 3:51:47 PM UTC+3, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> There are more than 1000 scientists currently involved in LIGO, along with
> several times that many non-scientist personnel. That number will more than
> quadruple in the next few years as VIRGO, GEO 600, TAMA, and CLIO ramp up and
> combine their data with LIGO, and a new gravitational detector is built in
> India.
>
> How long can a conspiracy be maintained?
There are just a few conspirators. The rest of the team are victims of the conspiracy:
> There are more than 1000 scientists currently involved in LIGO, along with
> several times that many non-scientist personnel. That number will more than
> quadruple in the next few years as VIRGO, GEO 600, TAMA, and CLIO ramp up and
> combine their data with LIGO, and a new gravitational detector is built in
> India.
>
> How long can a conspiracy be maintained?
Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog
Sep 3, 2016, 9:55:55 AM9/3/16
to
On Saturday, September 3, 2016 at 8:39:10 AM UTC-5, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> On Saturday, September 3, 2016 at 3:51:47 PM UTC+3, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
>
> > There are more than 1000 scientists currently involved in LIGO, along with
> > several times that many non-scientist personnel. That number will more than
> > quadruple in the next few years as VIRGO, GEO 600, TAMA, and CLIO ramp up and
> > combine their data with LIGO, and a new gravitational detector is built in
> > India.
> >
> > How long can a conspiracy be maintained?
>
> There are just a few conspirators. The rest of the team are victims of the conspiracy:
And when the gravitational detectors worldwide join to become a truly
> On Saturday, September 3, 2016 at 3:51:47 PM UTC+3, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
>
> > There are more than 1000 scientists currently involved in LIGO, along with
> > several times that many non-scientist personnel. That number will more than
> > quadruple in the next few years as VIRGO, GEO 600, TAMA, and CLIO ramp up and
> > combine their data with LIGO, and a new gravitational detector is built in
> > India.
> >
> > How long can a conspiracy be maintained?
>
> There are just a few conspirators. The rest of the team are victims of the conspiracy:
international network? Most of the others are undergoing upgrades to achieve
sensitivity comparable to or better than current LIGO, now that LIGO has
demonstrated what is necessary. How will you maintain the conspiracy then?
You are getting increasingly delusional.
Pentcho Valev
Sep 3, 2016, 11:22:50 AM9/3/16
to
On Saturday, September 3, 2016 at 4:55:55 PM UTC+3, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> And when the gravitational detectors worldwide join to become a truly
> international network? Most of the others are undergoing upgrades to achieve
> sensitivity comparable to or better than current LIGO, now that LIGO has
> demonstrated what is necessary. How will you maintain the conspiracy then?
The conspiracy will have to be maintained by the conspirators, not by me. But they have failed already - by now they should have detected (at least suspicious signs of) neutron star gravitational waves:
> And when the gravitational detectors worldwide join to become a truly
> international network? Most of the others are undergoing upgrades to achieve
> sensitivity comparable to or better than current LIGO, now that LIGO has
> demonstrated what is necessary. How will you maintain the conspiracy then?
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/ssbsurvey/DetailFileDisplay.aspx?id=146
Benjamin J. Owen, Pennsylvania State University; Endorsed by: David H. Reitze (University of Florida), Stanley E. Whitcomb (LIGO-Caltech): "Advanced LIGO is likely to observe mergers of double neutron star (NS/NS) binaries at a rate of a few to a few hundred per year; and black-hole/neutron-star (BH/NS) binaries perhaps in a comparable range of rates." x
Pentcho Valev
Gary Harnagel
Sep 3, 2016, 1:03:30 PM9/3/16
to
On Saturday, September 3, 2016 at 9:22:50 AM UTC-6, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> On Saturday, September 3, 2016 at 4:55:55 PM UTC+3, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> >
> > And when the gravitational detectors worldwide join to become a truly
> > international network? Most of the others are undergoing upgrades to achieve
> > sensitivity comparable to or better than current LIGO, now that LIGO has
> > demonstrated what is necessary. How will you maintain the conspiracy then?
>
> On Saturday, September 3, 2016 at 4:55:55 PM UTC+3, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> >
> > And when the gravitational detectors worldwide join to become a truly
> > international network? Most of the others are undergoing upgrades to achieve
> > sensitivity comparable to or better than current LIGO, now that LIGO has
> > demonstrated what is necessary. How will you maintain the conspiracy then?
> > You are getting increasingly delusional.
This, of course, is impossible. He is already at the point of maximal
delusionality :-)
> The conspiracy will have to be maintained by the conspirators, not by me.
far gone.
> But they have failed already - by now they should have detected (at least
> suspicious signs of) neutron star gravitational waves:
doesn't realize that Advanced LIGO isn't operational yet!
> http://www8.nationalacademies.org/ssbsurvey/DetailFileDisplay.aspx?id=146
> Benjamin J. Owen, Pennsylvania State University; Endorsed by: David H.
> Reitze (University of Florida), Stanley E. Whitcomb (LIGO-Caltech):
> "Advanced LIGO is likely to observe mergers of double neutron star (NS/NS)
> binaries at a rate of a few to a few hundred per year; and black-hole/
> neutron-star (BH/NS) binaries perhaps in a comparable range of rates."
>
How retarded does one have to be to misunderstand that?
Pentcho Valev
Sep 3, 2016, 1:53:20 PM9/3/16
to
On Saturday, September 3, 2016 at 8:03:30 PM UTC+3, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> And he can't read, either. He doesn't understand simple English and
> doesn't realize that Advanced LIGO isn't operational yet!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIGO
> And he can't read, either. He doesn't understand simple English and
> doesn't realize that Advanced LIGO isn't operational yet!
"On September 18, 2015, Advanced LIGO began its first formal science observations at about four times the sensitivity of the initial LIGO interferometers."
Pentcho Valev
Gary Harnagel
Sep 3, 2016, 2:09:18 PM9/3/16
to
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIGO#A.2B
The Advanced LIGO that discovered black hole collisions is not sensitive
enough to detect neutron star collisions, so your diatribes are misplaced.
Gary
Pentcho Valev
Sep 3, 2016, 2:43:04 PM9/3/16
to
On Saturday, September 3, 2016 at 9:09:18 PM UTC+3, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> The Advanced LIGO that discovered black hole collisions is not sensitive
> enough to detect neutron star collisions
On the contrary, Gary Cockroach, Advanced LIGO IS able to detect neutron star collisions, and such detections were more expected than detections of black hole collisions:
> The Advanced LIGO that discovered black hole collisions is not sensitive
> enough to detect neutron star collisions
http://www.lastwordonnothing.com/2016/06/16/getting-from-wow-to-yawn/
"What surprised the LIGO collaboration instead was the nature of what they’d detected. Of the various gravitational-wave-producers that LIGO might observe—the kind that disturb space-time to such an extent that LIGO could register the aftershock—the collision of binary black holes was perhaps the least likely. Supernovae, neutron stars, colliding neutron stars: These were what the LIGO collaboration foresaw as far more common candidates. And now LIGO has detected a second pair of colliding black holes." v
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/ssbsurvey/DetailFileDisplay.aspx?id=146
Benjamin J. Owen, Pennsylvania State University; Endorsed by: David H. Reitze (University of Florida), Stanley E. Whitcomb (LIGO-Caltech): "Advanced LIGO is likely to observe mergers of double neutron star (NS/NS) binaries at a rate of a few to a few hundred per year; and black-hole/neutron-star (BH/NS) binaries perhaps in a comparable range of rates." v
Pentcho Valev
Gary Harnagel
Sep 3, 2016, 3:37:42 PM9/3/16
to
On Saturday, September 3, 2016 at 12:43:04 PM UTC-6, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> On Saturday, September 3, 2016 at 9:09:18 PM UTC+3, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > The Advanced LIGO that discovered black hole collisions is not sensitive
> > enough to detect neutron star collisions
>
> On the contrary, Gary Cockroach, Advanced LIGO IS able to detect neutron
> star collisions, and such detections were more expected than detections
> of black hole collisions:
Not necessarily, Pinhead Pentcho, they EXPECTED to detect such. It's a
>
> On Saturday, September 3, 2016 at 9:09:18 PM UTC+3, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > The Advanced LIGO that discovered black hole collisions is not sensitive
> > enough to detect neutron star collisions
>
> On the contrary, Gary Cockroach, Advanced LIGO IS able to detect neutron
> star collisions, and such detections were more expected than detections
> of black hole collisions:
matter of just how big a signal they would get from colliding neutron
stars.
> http://www.lastwordonnothing.com/2016/06/16/getting-from-wow-to-yawn/
> "What surprised the LIGO collaboration instead was the nature of what
> they’d detected. Of the various gravitational-wave-producers that LIGO
> might observe—the kind that disturb space-time to such an extent that
> LIGO could register the aftershock—the collision of binary black holes
> was perhaps the least likely. Supernovae, neutron stars, colliding
> neutron stars: These were what the LIGO collaboration foresaw as far
> more common candidates. And now LIGO has detected a second pair of
> colliding black holes." v
> http://www8.nationalacademies.org/ssbsurvey/DetailFileDisplay.aspx?id=146
> Benjamin J. Owen, Pennsylvania State University; Endorsed by: David H.
> Reitze (University of Florida), Stanley E. Whitcomb (LIGO-Caltech):
> "Advanced LIGO is likely to observe mergers of double neutron star (NS/NS)
> binaries at a rate of a few to a few hundred per year; and black-hole/
> neutron-star (BH/NS) binaries perhaps in a comparable range of rates."
>
Apparently, you don't understand what the word "likely" means. Experimental
results trump expectations. So stop crowing at midnight, morning will come
with future sensitivity increases.
Gary
Pentcho Valev
Sep 3, 2016, 3:56:09 PM9/3/16
to
On Saturday, September 3, 2016 at 10:37:42 PM UTC+3, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Saturday, September 3, 2016 at 12:43:04 PM UTC-6, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> >
> > On the contrary, Gary Cockroach, Advanced LIGO IS able to detect neutron
> > star collisions, and such detections were more expected than detections
> > of black hole collisions:
>
> Not necessarily, Pinhead Pentcho, they EXPECTED to detect such. It's a
> matter of just how big a signal they would get from colliding neutron
> stars.
>
> > http://www.lastwordonnothing.com/2016/06/16/getting-from-wow-to-yawn/
> > "What surprised the LIGO collaboration instead was the nature of what
> > they’d detected. Of the various gravitational-wave-producers that LIGO
> > might observe—the kind that disturb space-time to such an extent that
> > LIGO could register the aftershock—the collision of binary black holes
> > was perhaps the least likely. Supernovae, neutron stars, colliding
> > neutron stars: These were what the LIGO collaboration foresaw as far
> > more common candidates. And now LIGO has detected a second pair of
> > colliding black holes." v
>
> Obviously the signals aren't as big as they assumed.
LIGO folks say expectations are based on general relativity calculations. That is, general relativity calculations showed that signals from neutron stars are more probable than signals from black holes. Yet only black hole signals were "discovered" and not a hint of a signal from neutron stars. The fraud (faked black hole signals) is almost obvious isn't it?
> On Saturday, September 3, 2016 at 12:43:04 PM UTC-6, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> >
> > On the contrary, Gary Cockroach, Advanced LIGO IS able to detect neutron
> > star collisions, and such detections were more expected than detections
> > of black hole collisions:
>
> Not necessarily, Pinhead Pentcho, they EXPECTED to detect such. It's a
> matter of just how big a signal they would get from colliding neutron
> stars.
>
> > http://www.lastwordonnothing.com/2016/06/16/getting-from-wow-to-yawn/
> > "What surprised the LIGO collaboration instead was the nature of what
> > they’d detected. Of the various gravitational-wave-producers that LIGO
> > might observe—the kind that disturb space-time to such an extent that
> > LIGO could register the aftershock—the collision of binary black holes
> > was perhaps the least likely. Supernovae, neutron stars, colliding
> > neutron stars: These were what the LIGO collaboration foresaw as far
> > more common candidates. And now LIGO has detected a second pair of
> > colliding black holes." v
>
> Obviously the signals aren't as big as they assumed.
Pentcho Valev
Gary Harnagel
Sep 3, 2016, 9:33:09 PM9/3/16
to
course, you won't ever say you were wrong about anything, Prevaricating
Pentcho.
Gary
Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog
Sep 3, 2016, 10:50:49 PM9/3/16
to
done. The conspiracy in Pentcho's mind will just have expanded a little bit.
Three key people at the top is all it takes. After all, they proved that they
have the ability to do it through their blind injection runs, blah, blah...
Pentcho Valev
Sep 4, 2016, 1:55:54 AM9/4/16
to
On Sunday, September 4, 2016 at 4:33:09 AM UTC+3, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> You'll be eating crow a year from now when NS/NS signals are found.
I am sure they will find a way to safely fake NS/NS signals, sooner or later. For the moment however faking NS/NS signals is too dangerous - the fraud would be easily exposed. If gravitational waves did exist, there would be a great number of inconclusive detections which could be compared with INTEGRAL's data - some of them may turn out to be NS/NS signals. LIGO conspirators don't even hint at such inconclusive detections (there is one but the signal comes from, surprise surprise, a black hole merger).
> You'll be eating crow a year from now when NS/NS signals are found.
Pentcho Valev
jaymo...@hotmail.com
Sep 4, 2016, 5:32:07 AM9/4/16
to
Gary Harnagel wrote...
could be erroneously attributed to NS/NS mergers. But as Pentcho says, with no
matching signal in integral.
The truth is that each detector recieves 100's of billion candidate chirps that
match a BH ringdown profile. Even though they all are in fact random chirps detected
from outside sources and/or internal noise. What LIGO software does is see if any
of these chirps from one detector have a similar enough profiled chirp detected in
the other detector within the millisecond time constraint dictated by theory.
This wittles the random chance of simultaneous detection of similar shaped but
unrelated chirps within the millisecond time frame down to about 3 over the
few months detection period. Pure chance. If the speed of light were 1/2 c
then this would increase the imaginary BH merger detection rate as the time
window for theoretical detections is longer.
The problem is that with NS merger models one needs the random coincidence
of 2 unrelated chirps that match within milliseconds PLUS the additional statistical
probability of a neccesary simultaneous third random spike detected in integral.
The reason why LIGO is so quiet is that they are beginning to realize that they
arent actually detecting gravitational waves. But rather just using sophisticated
software to match two unrelated detections from two seperate very sensitive sources.
> You'll be eating crow a year from now when NS/NS signals are found. Of course, you won't ever say you were wrong about anything, Prevaricating Pentcho.
Im sure LIGO have already found signals in both detectors that when matched
could be erroneously attributed to NS/NS mergers. But as Pentcho says, with no
matching signal in integral.
The truth is that each detector recieves 100's of billion candidate chirps that
match a BH ringdown profile. Even though they all are in fact random chirps detected
from outside sources and/or internal noise. What LIGO software does is see if any
of these chirps from one detector have a similar enough profiled chirp detected in
the other detector within the millisecond time constraint dictated by theory.
This wittles the random chance of simultaneous detection of similar shaped but
unrelated chirps within the millisecond time frame down to about 3 over the
few months detection period. Pure chance. If the speed of light were 1/2 c
then this would increase the imaginary BH merger detection rate as the time
window for theoretical detections is longer.
The problem is that with NS merger models one needs the random coincidence
of 2 unrelated chirps that match within milliseconds PLUS the additional statistical
probability of a neccesary simultaneous third random spike detected in integral.
The reason why LIGO is so quiet is that they are beginning to realize that they
arent actually detecting gravitational waves. But rather just using sophisticated
software to match two unrelated detections from two seperate very sensitive sources.
Tom Roberts
Sep 4, 2016, 10:08:39 PM9/4/16
to
On 9/4/16 9/4/16 4:32 AM, jaymo...@hotmail.com wrote:
> The truth is that each detector recieves 100's of billion candidate chirps that
> match a BH ringdown profile.
Why do you make stuff up and pretend it is true?
> The truth is that each detector recieves 100's of billion candidate chirps that
> match a BH ringdown profile.
This is BLATANTLY FALSE.
If there was one single-detector chirp per second, 1E11 chirps
would take over 3,000 years! If there were ~ 3,000 chirps per
second, so they would fit in the time LIGO has operated, they
would have found BILLIONS of coincidences between the detectors
(every one would be within their 2-detector coincidence window).
At seminars around the world, LIGO personnel have played ~ 30 seconds
surrounding the first signal they found. It is the only chirp present. The
signal is clearly audible to the ear; it is rather faint and only modestly above
the background noise.
I do not know what their single-detector chirp rate is. But it
is an important measure of their false-coincidence rate, and
also of their background rate, so I'm sure it is given in their
publications. If you are interested, look them up and READ them.
Just making stuff up is USELESS.
> [... further nonsense that he JUST MADE UP]
This has absolutely nothing to do with the LIGO experiment, it's just mental
masturbation. Clearly you are too ignorant and stupid to make stuff up that is
anywhere close to plausible.
Tom Roberts
jaymo...@hotmail.com
Sep 5, 2016, 7:15:32 AM9/5/16
to
Tom blubbered..
>I do not know what their single-detector chirp rate is. But it is an important measure of their false-coincidence rate, and also of their background rate, so I'm sure it is given in their publications. If you are interested, look them up and READ them. Just making stuff up is USELESS.
If you dont know, then dont make fatuous statements pretending you do. You
should contact the software team at LIGO. Because contrary to your pathetic attempts
at sounding knowledgeable about detections at LIGO in general,... there *are*
Hundreds of billions of detections in each detector. All candidate detections.
Even after screening for local known seismic sources. What the sophisticated
software does is screen all detections looking for matches between both. Keeping
in mind frequencies, intensities , and timing in the narrow millisecond parameter
required for theory.
In other words, its a crap game at vegas. What are the chances of finding 3 matching
random unrelated chirps in both detectors within the narrow time band?
Obviously about 3 out of 100's of billions. Seems about right. No need for any
relativistic explanation from morons like yourself.
Which is why we have seen no "neutron" star mergers. The odds are less. You need two
random chirps PLUS a third parameter of a coincident blip from integral.
>I do not know what their single-detector chirp rate is. But it is an important measure of their false-coincidence rate, and also of their background rate, so I'm sure it is given in their publications. If you are interested, look them up and READ them. Just making stuff up is USELESS.
should contact the software team at LIGO. Because contrary to your pathetic attempts
at sounding knowledgeable about detections at LIGO in general,... there *are*
Hundreds of billions of detections in each detector. All candidate detections.
Even after screening for local known seismic sources. What the sophisticated
software does is screen all detections looking for matches between both. Keeping
in mind frequencies, intensities , and timing in the narrow millisecond parameter
required for theory.
In other words, its a crap game at vegas. What are the chances of finding 3 matching
random unrelated chirps in both detectors within the narrow time band?
Obviously about 3 out of 100's of billions. Seems about right. No need for any
relativistic explanation from morons like yourself.
Which is why we have seen no "neutron" star mergers. The odds are less. You need two
random chirps PLUS a third parameter of a coincident blip from integral.
Daniel S. Riley
Sep 5, 2016, 10:08:56 AM9/5/16
to
jaymo...@hotmail.com writes:
> there *are* Hundreds of billions of detections in each detector. All
> candidate detections. Even after screening for local known seismic
> sources.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1602.03844
> there *are* Hundreds of billions of detections in each detector. All
> candidate detections. Even after screening for local known seismic
> sources.
"Characterization of transient noise in Advanced LIGO relevant to
gravitational wave signal GW150914"
p 18-20.
Single arm LIGO-Hanford trigger rate for signals passing all vetoes with
SNR greater than 6.5 is ~1-10 Hz, mean looks to be < 1 Hz.
-dan
JanPB
Sep 6, 2016, 1:53:17 AM9/6/16
to
--
Jan
jaymo...@hotmail.com
Sep 6, 2016, 6:03:26 AM9/6/16
to
Daniel S. Riley...
>> there *are* Hundreds of billions of detections in each detector. All > candidate detections. Even after screening for local known seismic > sources.
>https://arxiv.org/abs/1602. 03844
>Characterization of transient noise in Advanced LIGO relevant to gravitational wave signal GW150914"
>p 18-20.
>single arm LIGO-Hanford trigger rate for signals passing all vetoes with SNR greater than 6.5 is ~1-10 Hz, mean looks to be < 1 Hz. apabilities of the >computers.
Im not sure exactly what your point is above,but heres a quote from a member of the
LIGO template matching team...
"We used an SNR threshold of 4. With peak finding, that typically reduces the data volume from 1/2 billion SNR samples per second of data to "just" 100 billion single-detector candidates for the O1 science run. Coincidence with a second instrument reduces that by about a factor of 100 to about 1 billion coincident candidates."
As you can see, after SNR filtering they still have a hundred billion candidate chirps for
each detector. For coincidences, that reduces to 1 billion chirps that occur in both
detectors over the run. The important point to remember is that there are at least
a hundred billion initial candidate chirps in each detector. And the only difference
between them and those final 3 that are assumed to be from " gravitational waves"
is that they did not have a close enough match in the other detector. But any of
these billions on their own could still fit an imaginary wave ringdown template.
Its just that over the detection run only 3 matches of random chirps from
each detector could be matched. Considering that every second there are
at a rough estimate hundreds of thousands of potential random chirps
occuring in each detector. Its not surprising that 3 matches can be made over
the total detection run. Considering the fairly tight parameters of the
template matching.
You could say the same statistically with anything. For example, in the world
how many people sneeze every second? Lets say 10,000. Now how many
males? Lets say 5000. Now how many males between 5'7" and 5'8" with black
hair, a goatee and sunglasses who speak russian? Lets say over 3 months you
find only 3 coincidences occuring within those tight temporal and various other
parameters. A wacko relativist could say this is a gravitational wave. A statistician
would be on more solid scientific ground if they said it was statistical
probability from random coincidences.
>> there *are* Hundreds of billions of detections in each detector. All > candidate detections. Even after screening for local known seismic > sources.
>https://arxiv.org/abs/1602. 03844
>Characterization of transient noise in Advanced LIGO relevant to gravitational wave signal GW150914"
>p 18-20.
Im not sure exactly what your point is above,but heres a quote from a member of the
LIGO template matching team...
"We used an SNR threshold of 4. With peak finding, that typically reduces the data volume from 1/2 billion SNR samples per second of data to "just" 100 billion single-detector candidates for the O1 science run. Coincidence with a second instrument reduces that by about a factor of 100 to about 1 billion coincident candidates."
As you can see, after SNR filtering they still have a hundred billion candidate chirps for
each detector. For coincidences, that reduces to 1 billion chirps that occur in both
detectors over the run. The important point to remember is that there are at least
a hundred billion initial candidate chirps in each detector. And the only difference
between them and those final 3 that are assumed to be from " gravitational waves"
is that they did not have a close enough match in the other detector. But any of
these billions on their own could still fit an imaginary wave ringdown template.
Its just that over the detection run only 3 matches of random chirps from
each detector could be matched. Considering that every second there are
at a rough estimate hundreds of thousands of potential random chirps
occuring in each detector. Its not surprising that 3 matches can be made over
the total detection run. Considering the fairly tight parameters of the
template matching.
You could say the same statistically with anything. For example, in the world
how many people sneeze every second? Lets say 10,000. Now how many
males? Lets say 5000. Now how many males between 5'7" and 5'8" with black
hair, a goatee and sunglasses who speak russian? Lets say over 3 months you
find only 3 coincidences occuring within those tight temporal and various other
parameters. A wacko relativist could say this is a gravitational wave. A statistician
would be on more solid scientific ground if they said it was statistical
probability from random coincidences.
Daniel S. Riley
Sep 6, 2016, 8:43:40 AM9/6/16
to
jaymo...@hotmail.com writes:
> Daniel S. Riley...
>>https://arxiv.org/abs/1602.03844
this quote...
> "We used an SNR threshold of 4. With peak finding, that typically
> reduces the data volume from 1/2 billion SNR samples per second of
> data to "just" 100 billion single-detector candidates for the O1
> science run. Coincidence with a second instrument reduces that by
> about a factor of 100 to about 1 billion coincident candidates."
>
> As you can see, after SNR filtering they still have a hundred billion
> candidate chirps for each detector.
Look at what the paper I cited says about LVT151012, p. 27. That's an
SNR ~7 coincidence, which they describe as "producing a trigger with a
false-alarm rate of 1 event per 2.3 years; far too high to be a strong
detection candidate". The point is that they shouldn't (and didn't)
claim a discovery based on a coincidence with a SNR of only 7, and
certainly shouldn't for a coincidence with a SNR of only 4, which you
correctly identify as having much too high a false positive rate. The
event they did claim a discovery for had an SNR of 13 at Livingston and
nearly 20 at Hanford. The likelihood of coincident events with that
high SNR in both detectors is very small. How small can be measured,
which is how they set a confidence bound on their result.
-dan
> Daniel S. Riley...
>>https://arxiv.org/abs/1602.03844
>
>>Characterization of transient noise in Advanced LIGO relevant to
>>gravitational wave signal GW150914"
>
>>p 18-20.
>
>>single arm LIGO-Hanford trigger rate for signals passing all vetoes
>>with SNR greater than 6.5 is ~1-10 Hz, mean looks to be < 1
>>Hz. apabilities of the >computers.
>
> Im not sure exactly what your point is above,but heres a quote from a
> member of the LIGO template matching team...
A cite to a source would be useful, searches didn't find any matches to
>>Characterization of transient noise in Advanced LIGO relevant to
>>gravitational wave signal GW150914"
>
>>p 18-20.
>
>>single arm LIGO-Hanford trigger rate for signals passing all vetoes
>>with SNR greater than 6.5 is ~1-10 Hz, mean looks to be < 1
>>Hz. apabilities of the >computers.
>
> Im not sure exactly what your point is above,but heres a quote from a
> member of the LIGO template matching team...
this quote...
> "We used an SNR threshold of 4. With peak finding, that typically
> reduces the data volume from 1/2 billion SNR samples per second of
> data to "just" 100 billion single-detector candidates for the O1
> science run. Coincidence with a second instrument reduces that by
> about a factor of 100 to about 1 billion coincident candidates."
>
> As you can see, after SNR filtering they still have a hundred billion
> candidate chirps for each detector.
SNR ~7 coincidence, which they describe as "producing a trigger with a
false-alarm rate of 1 event per 2.3 years; far too high to be a strong
detection candidate". The point is that they shouldn't (and didn't)
claim a discovery based on a coincidence with a SNR of only 7, and
certainly shouldn't for a coincidence with a SNR of only 4, which you
correctly identify as having much too high a false positive rate. The
event they did claim a discovery for had an SNR of 13 at Livingston and
nearly 20 at Hanford. The likelihood of coincident events with that
high SNR in both detectors is very small. How small can be measured,
which is how they set a confidence bound on their result.
-dan
jaymo...@hotmail.com
Sep 7, 2016, 3:08:19 PM9/7/16
to
Daniel S Riley...
>> "We used an SNR threshold of 4. With peak finding, that typically > reduces the data volume from 1/2 billion SNR samples per second of > data to "just" 100 billion single-detector candidates for the O1 > science run. Coincidence with a second instrument reduces that by > about a factor of 100 to about 1 billion coincident candidates." > > As you can see, after SNR filtering they still have a hundred billion > candidate chirps for each detector.
>Look at what the paper I cited says about LVT151012, p. 27. That's an SNR ~7 coincidence, which they describe as "producing a trigger with a false-alarm rate of 1 event per 2.3 years; fartoohigh to bea strong detection candidate". The point is that they shouldn't (and didn't) claim a discovery based on a coincidence with a SNR of only 7, and certainly shouldn't for a coincidence with a SNR of only 4, which you correctly identify as having much too high a false positive rate. The event they did claim a discovery for had an SNR of 13 at Livingston and nearly 20 at Hanford. The likelihood of coincident events with that high SNR in >both detectors is very small. How small can be measured, which is how they set a confidence bound on their result
Interesting point. My source only mentions 100 billion above 4 snr. But where is this data?
Its not in your paper. What is the total chirp detection amount at or above snr 13 for Livingston
in the entire 01 run? Dont forget its not the coincidence rate for chirps above 13 within the
millisecond time parameter thats important. Its the total amount of similar strength snr
detections for each detector that decides whether or not one can rule out random
coincidence.
If the gravitational wave theory were to be the only viable explanation, it would have to be
the ONLY chirp detection in the total Livingston detection run above 13. My guess is its probably
still in the millions of chirps above 13 for each detector. But Ill see what the data tells me.
(Also its worth mentioning snr for both detectors for gw 151226 is only at 7.9 & 10.5)
>A cite to a source would be useful, searches didn't find any matches to this quote...
Private email. This info wasnt publiclly available when I looked.
>> "We used an SNR threshold of 4. With peak finding, that typically > reduces the data volume from 1/2 billion SNR samples per second of > data to "just" 100 billion single-detector candidates for the O1 > science run. Coincidence with a second instrument reduces that by > about a factor of 100 to about 1 billion coincident candidates." > > As you can see, after SNR filtering they still have a hundred billion > candidate chirps for each detector.
Interesting point. My source only mentions 100 billion above 4 snr. But where is this data?
Its not in your paper. What is the total chirp detection amount at or above snr 13 for Livingston
in the entire 01 run? Dont forget its not the coincidence rate for chirps above 13 within the
millisecond time parameter thats important. Its the total amount of similar strength snr
detections for each detector that decides whether or not one can rule out random
coincidence.
If the gravitational wave theory were to be the only viable explanation, it would have to be
the ONLY chirp detection in the total Livingston detection run above 13. My guess is its probably
still in the millions of chirps above 13 for each detector. But Ill see what the data tells me.
(Also its worth mentioning snr for both detectors for gw 151226 is only at 7.9 & 10.5)
Message has been deleted
Daniel S. Riley
Sep 13, 2016, 12:37:03 PM9/13/16
to
jaymo...@hotmail.com writes:
> Interesting point. My source only mentions 100 billion above 4
> snr. But where is this data? Its not in your paper. What is the total
> chirp detection amount at or above snr 13 for Livingston in the entire
> 01 run?
See figure 7, p. 20 in https://arxiv.org/pdf/1602.03844v3.pdf
> Interesting point. My source only mentions 100 billion above 4
> snr. But where is this data? Its not in your paper. What is the total
> chirp detection amount at or above snr 13 for Livingston in the entire
> 01 run?
That shows the single-arm trigger rate as a function of the SNR.
Unfortunately, it doesn't go down to 4; a naive extrapolation
down to 4 would put the rate at around 100 million, not billion,
but that's just naive extrapolation.
> Dont forget its not the coincidence rate for chirps above 13
> within the millisecond time parameter thats important. Its the total
> amount of similar strength snr detections for each detector that
> decides whether or not one can rule out random coincidence. If the
> gravitational wave theory were to be the only viable explanation, it
> would have to be the ONLY chirp detection in the total Livingston
> detection run above 13.
there's almost never only one conceivable explanation. Whether an
explanation is "viable" depends on your threshold of viability. LIGO
does what every science experiment does, they give a likelihood for
the alternative explanations they can quantify, and that likelihood
is very small. It isn't, IMO, unreasonable to wait for more events
(and more detectors) before calling it certain, but GW150914 is very
strong evidence.
> My guess is its probably still in the millions of chirps above 13 for
> each detector.
distribution with a rate (as you claim) of 100 billion Hz at SNR 4 and a
million Hz at SNR 13 would be very weird--for a normal distribution,
we'd expect 5 orders of magnitude just going from 4 to 6 sigma. I can't
imagine a physically realizable distribution with only 5 orders of
magnitude reduction from 4 to 13. Anyway, fig. 7 says less than one
chirp every million seconds at Livingston has an SNR over 13.
-dan
jaymo...@hotmail.com
Sep 21, 2016, 3:18:31 PM9/21/16
to
Daniel S. Riley...
just realized its the same paper as the LIGO paper on the website which
is available in html. And no reference to total detection *amount* at snr 13.
And it definitely is 100 billion total greater than snr 4 per detector.
I got that directly from the LIGO template matching team. In fact other info
I have indicates no such specific data is collated regarding total detections
at anything above 4. Because they seem to start excluding any data at any
level which isnt coincident in the 10 ms or so time parameter. That can
exclude potentially millions at snr 13 just because they didnt have a coincident
detection in the other detector within the narrow time parameter dictated by theory.
And as I explain below, you only need in the tens of thousands over 3 months at snr13
in each detector to get at least one random coincidence.
>> Dont forget its not the coincidence rate for chirps above 13 > within the millisecond time parameter thats important. Its the total > amount of similar >>Strength snr detections for each detector that > decides whether or not one can rule out random coincidence. If the > gravitational wave theory were to be >>the only viable explanation, it > would have to be the ONLY chirp detection in the total Livingston > detection run above 13.
>it's very rare that we can completely rule out random coincidence, and there's almost never only one conceivable explanation. Whether an explanation is "viable" depends on your threshold of viability. LIGO does what every science experiment does, they give a likelihood for the alternative explanations they can quantify, and that likelihood is very small. It isn't, IMO, unreasonable to wait for more events (and more detectors) before calling it certain, but GW150914 is >very strong evidence.
>> My guess is its probably still in the millions of chirps above 13 for > each detector.
>I don't think that's possible, given their definition of SNR. A distribution with a rate (as you claim) of 100 billion Hz at SNR 4 and a million Hz at SNR 13 would be very weird--for a normal distribution, we'd expect 5 orders of magnitude just going from 4 to 6 sigma. I can't imagine a physically realizable distribution >with only 5 orders of magnitude reduction from 4 to 13. Anyway, fig. 7 says less than one chirp every million seconds at Livingston has an SNR over 13.
I think the calculations may prove otherwise. To get 1 coincidence in 10 ms over 3 months
one only needs something like 15,000 total detections at 13 snr for each detector. Dont
forget only one gw was at that snr, the second was seven and ten snr. Thats a rough calculation
but its close to fulfilling your supposed order of magnitude restriction. I think the numbers
support 3 random coincidences from two detectors easily. This was no gravitational wave.
Its more likely random coincidence. Especially so considering we know each detector is
detecting 100 billion potential events over 3 months above snr 4.
>> Interesting point. My source only mentions 100 billion above 4 > snr. But where is this data? Its not in your paper. What is the total > chirp detection amount at or above snr 13 for Livingston in the entire > 01 run?
>See figure 7, p. 20 in https://arxiv.org/pdf/1602.03844v3.pdf That shows the single-arm trigger rate as a function of the SNR. Unfortunately, it doesn't go >down to 4; a naive extrapolation down to 4 would put the rate at around 100 million, not billion, but that's just naive extrapolation.
Ive been trying to find an html version of this paper unsuccessfully but
>See figure 7, p. 20 in https://arxiv.org/pdf/1602.03844v3.pdf That shows the single-arm trigger rate as a function of the SNR. Unfortunately, it doesn't go >down to 4; a naive extrapolation down to 4 would put the rate at around 100 million, not billion, but that's just naive extrapolation.
just realized its the same paper as the LIGO paper on the website which
is available in html. And no reference to total detection *amount* at snr 13.
And it definitely is 100 billion total greater than snr 4 per detector.
I got that directly from the LIGO template matching team. In fact other info
I have indicates no such specific data is collated regarding total detections
at anything above 4. Because they seem to start excluding any data at any
level which isnt coincident in the 10 ms or so time parameter. That can
exclude potentially millions at snr 13 just because they didnt have a coincident
detection in the other detector within the narrow time parameter dictated by theory.
And as I explain below, you only need in the tens of thousands over 3 months at snr13
in each detector to get at least one random coincidence.
>> Dont forget its not the coincidence rate for chirps above 13 > within the millisecond time parameter thats important. Its the total > amount of similar >>Strength snr detections for each detector that > decides whether or not one can rule out random coincidence. If the > gravitational wave theory were to be >>the only viable explanation, it > would have to be the ONLY chirp detection in the total Livingston > detection run above 13.
>it's very rare that we can completely rule out random coincidence, and there's almost never only one conceivable explanation. Whether an explanation is "viable" depends on your threshold of viability. LIGO does what every science experiment does, they give a likelihood for the alternative explanations they can quantify, and that likelihood is very small. It isn't, IMO, unreasonable to wait for more events (and more detectors) before calling it certain, but GW150914 is >very strong evidence.
>> My guess is its probably still in the millions of chirps above 13 for > each detector.
>I don't think that's possible, given their definition of SNR. A distribution with a rate (as you claim) of 100 billion Hz at SNR 4 and a million Hz at SNR 13 would be very weird--for a normal distribution, we'd expect 5 orders of magnitude just going from 4 to 6 sigma. I can't imagine a physically realizable distribution >with only 5 orders of magnitude reduction from 4 to 13. Anyway, fig. 7 says less than one chirp every million seconds at Livingston has an SNR over 13.
one only needs something like 15,000 total detections at 13 snr for each detector. Dont
forget only one gw was at that snr, the second was seven and ten snr. Thats a rough calculation
but its close to fulfilling your supposed order of magnitude restriction. I think the numbers
support 3 random coincidences from two detectors easily. This was no gravitational wave.
Its more likely random coincidence. Especially so considering we know each detector is
detecting 100 billion potential events over 3 months above snr 4.
Daniel S. Riley
Sep 25, 2016, 3:13:24 PM9/25/16
to
jaymo...@hotmail.com writes:
> In fact other info I have indicates no such specific data is collated
> regarding total detections at anything above 4. Because they seem to
> start excluding any data at any level which isnt coincident in the 10
> ms or so time parameter.
They record the non-coincident data, they have to in order to calculate
> In fact other info I have indicates no such specific data is collated
> regarding total detections at anything above 4. Because they seem to
> start excluding any data at any level which isnt coincident in the 10
> ms or so time parameter.
the fake rate and significance. I think you've misunderstood your
sources. Give specific cites and verifiable quotes if you disagree.
-dan
jaymo...@hotmail.com
Sep 26, 2016, 5:46:36 AM9/26/16
to
Dan Riley..
And those are *quotes* Ive included.
If you disagree maybe its time you started supplying some quotes. Wheres
your quote ( cited or private ) that rules out 100 billion per detector?
And wheres your quoted data that specifies * how many* detections above
snr 13 per detector for the total detection run?
You are going have to supply actual numbers if you claim that there cant
be as many as 15000 per detector.
>> In fact other info I have indicates no such specific data is collated > regarding total detections at anything above 4. Because they seem to > start excluding any data at any level which isnt coincident in the 10 > ms or so time parameter.
>They record the non-coincident data, they have to in order to calculate the fake rate and significance. I think you've misunderstood your sources. Give specific cites and verifiable quotes if you disagree.
Ive already told you. Private email from the LIGO template matching team.
>They record the non-coincident data, they have to in order to calculate the fake rate and significance. I think you've misunderstood your sources. Give specific cites and verifiable quotes if you disagree.
And those are *quotes* Ive included.
If you disagree maybe its time you started supplying some quotes. Wheres
your quote ( cited or private ) that rules out 100 billion per detector?
And wheres your quoted data that specifies * how many* detections above
snr 13 per detector for the total detection run?
You are going have to supply actual numbers if you claim that there cant
be as many as 15000 per detector.
Odd Bodkin
Sep 26, 2016, 9:27:08 AM9/26/16
to
On 9/26/2016 4:46 AM, jaymo...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Dan Riley..
>> They record the non-coincident data, they have to in order to
>> calculate the fake rate and significance. I think you've misunderstood
>> your sources. Give specific cites and verifiable quotes if you disagree.
>
> Ive already told you. Private email from the LIGO template matching team.
Email addresses, please. Since you seem unwilling to cite the sources,
I'd like to go to your particular sources myself to see if you are
interpreting things correctly or incorrectly.
What reason would you have to hide this information?
> And those are *quotes* Ive included.
> If you disagree maybe its time you started supplying some quotes. Wheres
> your quote ( cited or private ) that rules out 100 billion per detector?
> And wheres your quoted data that specifies * how many* detections above
> snr 13 per detector for the total detection run?
> You are going have to supply actual numbers if you claim that there cant
> be as many as 15000 per detector.
>
--
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> Dan Riley..
>> They record the non-coincident data, they have to in order to
>> calculate the fake rate and significance. I think you've misunderstood
>> your sources. Give specific cites and verifiable quotes if you disagree.
>
> Ive already told you. Private email from the LIGO template matching team.
I'd like to go to your particular sources myself to see if you are
interpreting things correctly or incorrectly.
What reason would you have to hide this information?
> And those are *quotes* Ive included.
> If you disagree maybe its time you started supplying some quotes. Wheres
> your quote ( cited or private ) that rules out 100 billion per detector?
> And wheres your quoted data that specifies * how many* detections above
> snr 13 per detector for the total detection run?
> You are going have to supply actual numbers if you claim that there cant
> be as many as 15000 per detector.
>
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
jaymo...@hotmail.com
Sep 27, 2016, 6:59:33 AM9/27/16
to
Odd bodkin wrote..
Dont forget Odd, a few months ago I said that there must be billions of detections
to choose from to get a reasonable random coincidence that looks like a gw. You
said I was wrong and to contact LIGO myself if I wanted data. I did and found out
Its 100's of billions above 4 snr!. So now Ill give the same advice you gave me if
you still think Im wrong....
Go ask them yourself.
You know who to contact. Stop wimpering and do
some research for a change.
Because you wont find any data or online source that contradicts what Ive
said now or said few months ago. Proof is, Ive looked and you have yet to
supply any hard information to the contrary. Just hotair as usual.
>>> They record the non-coincident data, they have to in order to >> calculate the fake rate and significance. I think you've misunderstood >> your sources. >>>Give specific cites and verifiable quotes if you disagree.
>> Ive already told you. Private email from the LIGO template matching team.
>Email addresses, please. Since you seem unwilling to cite the sources, I'd like to go to your particular sources myself to see if you are interpreting things >correctly or incorrectly.
LIGO is the source.
>> Ive already told you. Private email from the LIGO template matching team.
>Email addresses, please. Since you seem unwilling to cite the sources, I'd like to go to your particular sources myself to see if you are interpreting things >correctly or incorrectly.
Dont forget Odd, a few months ago I said that there must be billions of detections
to choose from to get a reasonable random coincidence that looks like a gw. You
said I was wrong and to contact LIGO myself if I wanted data. I did and found out
Its 100's of billions above 4 snr!. So now Ill give the same advice you gave me if
you still think Im wrong....
Go ask them yourself.
You know who to contact. Stop wimpering and do
some research for a change.
Because you wont find any data or online source that contradicts what Ive
said now or said few months ago. Proof is, Ive looked and you have yet to
supply any hard information to the contrary. Just hotair as usual.
Odd Bodkin
Sep 27, 2016, 9:59:26 AM9/27/16
to
On 9/27/2016 5:59 AM, jaymo...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Odd bodkin wrote..
>>> Ive already told you. Private email from the LIGO template matching team.
>
>> Email addresses, please. Since you seem unwilling to cite the sources, I'd
> like to go to your particular sources myself to see if you are interpreting
> things >correctly or incorrectly.
>
> LIGO is the source.
You didn't get an email from LIGO. LIGO is a collaboration. You got an
email from an individual. Which individual?
> Dont forget Odd, a few months ago I said that there must be billions of detections
> to choose from to get a reasonable random coincidence that looks like a gw. You
> said I was wrong and to contact LIGO myself if I wanted data. I did and found out
> Its 100's of billions above 4 snr!. So now Ill give the same advice you gave me if
> you still think Im wrong....
Prove it. Empty claim.
>
> Go ask them yourself.
>
> You know who to contact. Stop wimpering and do
> some research for a change.
> Because you wont find any data or online source that contradicts what Ive
> said now or said few months ago. Proof is, Ive looked and you have yet to
> supply any hard information to the contrary. Just hotair as usual.
>
Jay, "cited" anonymous sources is hot air.
> Odd bodkin wrote..
>>> Ive already told you. Private email from the LIGO template matching team.
>
>> Email addresses, please. Since you seem unwilling to cite the sources, I'd
> like to go to your particular sources myself to see if you are interpreting
> things >correctly or incorrectly.
>
> LIGO is the source.
email from an individual. Which individual?
> Dont forget Odd, a few months ago I said that there must be billions of detections
> to choose from to get a reasonable random coincidence that looks like a gw. You
> said I was wrong and to contact LIGO myself if I wanted data. I did and found out
> Its 100's of billions above 4 snr!. So now Ill give the same advice you gave me if
> you still think Im wrong....
>
> Go ask them yourself.
>
> You know who to contact. Stop wimpering and do
> some research for a change.
> Because you wont find any data or online source that contradicts what Ive
> said now or said few months ago. Proof is, Ive looked and you have yet to
> supply any hard information to the contrary. Just hotair as usual.
>
jaymo...@hotmail.com
Sep 29, 2016, 2:54:00 PM9/29/16
to
Odd wrote
hundreds of billions. Wheres your cited quote of how many detections
there are in each detector over the observation period?
You dont even know how many. And you are too lazy and incompetent
to find out for yourself.
The truth is, there are 100's of billions of >4snr detections in each detector.
And one only needs 15000 above 13 snr to give an average of 1
coincidence detection in both.
The " gravitational wave " was a coincidence of random detections only.
No need for GR.
>> Dont forget Odd, a few months ago I said that there must be billions of detections > to choose from to get a reasonable random coincidence that looks like a gw. You > said I was wrong and to contact LIGO myself if I wanted data. I did and found out > Its 100's of billions above 4 snr!. So now Ill give the same advice you gave me if > you still think Im wrong....
>Prove it. Empty claim.
Not as empty a claim as yours that there are not even billions, let alone
>Prove it. Empty claim.
hundreds of billions. Wheres your cited quote of how many detections
there are in each detector over the observation period?
You dont even know how many. And you are too lazy and incompetent
to find out for yourself.
The truth is, there are 100's of billions of >4snr detections in each detector.
And one only needs 15000 above 13 snr to give an average of 1
coincidence detection in both.
The " gravitational wave " was a coincidence of random detections only.
No need for GR.
Odd Bodkin
Sep 29, 2016, 3:03:24 PM9/29/16
to
On 9/29/2016 1:53 PM, jaymo...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Odd wrote
>>> Dont forget Odd, a few months ago I said that there must be billions of detections
>>> to choose from to get a reasonable random coincidence that looks like a gw. You
>>> said I was wrong and to contact LIGO myself if I wanted data. I did and found out
>>> Its 100's of billions above 4 snr!. So now Ill give the same advice you gave me if
>>> you still think Im wrong....
>
>> Prove it. Empty claim.
>
> Not as empty a claim as yours that there are not even billions,
Jay, you have a bad habit of making outlandish unsupported claims,
> Odd wrote
>>> Dont forget Odd, a few months ago I said that there must be billions of detections
>>> to choose from to get a reasonable random coincidence that looks like a gw. You
>>> said I was wrong and to contact LIGO myself if I wanted data. I did and found out
>>> Its 100's of billions above 4 snr!. So now Ill give the same advice you gave me if
>>> you still think Im wrong....
>
>> Prove it. Empty claim.
>
> Not as empty a claim as yours that there are not even billions,
refusing to cite exactly where you got the information, and then trying
to flip it around to get other people to prove your claim wrong. Onus is
on you, not on others. Put up or shut up.
I'm going with the published data, not what you claim you got from an
unnamed source.
> let alone
> hundreds of billions. Wheres your cited quote of how many detections
> there are in each detector over the observation period?
> You dont even know how many. And you are too lazy and incompetent
> to find out for yourself.
> The truth is, there are 100's of billions of >4snr detections in each detector.
> And one only needs 15000 above 13 snr to give an average of 1
> coincidence detection in both.
> The " gravitational wave " was a coincidence of random detections only.
> No need for GR.
>
jaymo...@hotmail.com
Sep 30, 2016, 8:13:45 AM9/30/16
to
Odd bodkin
in each detector above snr4 is......?
>On 9/29/2016 1:53 PM, jaymo...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Odd wrote
>>> Dont forget Odd, a few months ago I said that there must be billions of detections
>>> to choose from to get a reasonable random coincidence that looks like a gw. You
>>> said I was wrong and to contact LIGO myself if I wanted data. I did and found out
>>> Its 100's of billions above 4 snr!. So now Ill give the same advice you gave me if
>>> you still think Im wrong....
>
>>> Prove it. Empty claim.
>
>> Not as empty a claim as yours that there are not even billions,
>Jay, you have a bad habit of making outlandish unsupported claims,
refusing to cite exactly where you got the information, and then trying
to flip it around to get other people to prove your claim wrong. Onus is
on you, not on others. Put up or shut up.
>I'm going with the published data, not what you claim you got from an
unnamed source.
And your source for proving there are not 100s of billions of detections
> Odd wrote
>>> Dont forget Odd, a few months ago I said that there must be billions of detections
>>> to choose from to get a reasonable random coincidence that looks like a gw. You
>>> said I was wrong and to contact LIGO myself if I wanted data. I did and found out
>>> Its 100's of billions above 4 snr!. So now Ill give the same advice you gave me if
>>> you still think Im wrong....
>
>>> Prove it. Empty claim.
>
>> Not as empty a claim as yours that there are not even billions,
>Jay, you have a bad habit of making outlandish unsupported claims,
refusing to cite exactly where you got the information, and then trying
to flip it around to get other people to prove your claim wrong. Onus is
on you, not on others. Put up or shut up.
>I'm going with the published data, not what you claim you got from an
unnamed source.
in each detector above snr4 is......?
Odd Bodkin
Sep 30, 2016, 10:11:22 AM9/30/16
to
http://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.57.2101
http://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.57.659
http://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.61.082001
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/25/12/125011/meta
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/21/5/081/meta
http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v7/n12/abs/nphys2083.html
Happy reading.
Now, your turn. Specifics about your reference, please. Put up or shut up.
Tom Roberts
Sep 30, 2016, 2:00:58 PM9/30/16
to
On 9/30/16 9/30/16 7:13 AM, jaymo...@hotmail.com wrote:
> And your source for proving there are not 100s of billions of detections
> in each detector above snr4 is......?
Common sense.
> And your source for proving there are not 100s of billions of detections
> in each detector above snr4 is......?
LIGO has taken data for less than 1 year total, but assume 1 year. That is ~ 3E7
seconds, so your "100s of billions of detections" would be thousands per second.
I have HEARD the chirp of their first event, surrounded by ~ 20 seconds of
noise. There are audibly no other chirps in that 20 seconds, while your claim
would imply tens of thousands of "detections".
Of course your "detection" cannot possible be a chirp, which must last at least
0.1 seconds or so, and they cannot overlap -- so your "thousands per second"
simply cannot happen.
So what you think are "detections" are surely something else, in that you
misread what they wrote.
Or more likely, you just made it up and decided to pretend it is true, even
though you are too stupid to make something up that is plausible. You certainly
act like this....
Tom Roberts
jaymo...@hotmail.com
Oct 2, 2016, 4:54:12 AM10/2/16
to
Odd Bodkin
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1103.2728.pdf
http://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.57.2101
http://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.57.659
http://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.61.082001
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/25/12/125011/meta
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/21/5/081/meta
http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v7/n12/abs/nphys2083.html
>Happy reading.
>Now, your turn. Specifics about your reference, please. Put up or shut up.
Typical of a relativist. Make outrageous claims with no evidence or no
reference as your above links show. Not a single quote in any of those
papers about *how many* detections in total are made in each detector
above snr4.
Which is why you failed to supply the quoted data yourself. You know it
isn't there online and that it is 100 's of billions if you were to contact
LIGO yourself.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1103.2728.pdf
http://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.57.2101
http://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.57.659
http://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.61.082001
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/25/12/125011/meta
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/21/5/081/meta
http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v7/n12/abs/nphys2083.html
>Happy reading.
>Now, your turn. Specifics about your reference, please. Put up or shut up.
reference as your above links show. Not a single quote in any of those
papers about *how many* detections in total are made in each detector
above snr4.
Which is why you failed to supply the quoted data yourself. You know it
isn't there online and that it is 100 's of billions if you were to contact
LIGO yourself.
jaymo...@hotmail.com
Oct 2, 2016, 5:07:36 AM10/2/16
to
Tom Roberts...
Total nonsense from someone who has already admitted that they don't
know how many detections were made in the detection run above 4snr.
Have you tried contacting LIGO?
No.
Because you can easily find out that it is in the billions. Look up the
LIGO website, copy a few emails of department heads etc, then send an
email cc'd to all with a simple question asking how many detections above
snr4 in total were detected in each detector. You don't even have to get back
to me to confirm I was right all along as I have my quotes from the relevant
department already.
As I said to Odd, it's typical of a relativist to make outrageous claims with no
supporting evidence. And then when relativists do have the evidence as with
the hundreds of billions of detections in each detector. They ignore the data.
And ignore the obvious conclusion from the data that the "gravitational
waves" are in fact just random coincidences. And instead fabricate imaginary
conclusions based on Magic. Pseudoscience at its best.
know how many detections were made in the detection run above 4snr.
Have you tried contacting LIGO?
No.
Because you can easily find out that it is in the billions. Look up the
LIGO website, copy a few emails of department heads etc, then send an
email cc'd to all with a simple question asking how many detections above
snr4 in total were detected in each detector. You don't even have to get back
to me to confirm I was right all along as I have my quotes from the relevant
department already.
As I said to Odd, it's typical of a relativist to make outrageous claims with no
supporting evidence. And then when relativists do have the evidence as with
the hundreds of billions of detections in each detector. They ignore the data.
And ignore the obvious conclusion from the data that the "gravitational
waves" are in fact just random coincidences. And instead fabricate imaginary
conclusions based on Magic. Pseudoscience at its best.
Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog
Oct 2, 2016, 5:35:01 PM10/2/16
to
On Sunday, October 2, 2016 at 3:54:12 AM UTC-5, jaymo...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Which is why you failed to supply the quoted data yourself. You know it
> isn't there online and that it is 100 's of billions if you were to contact
> LIGO yourself.
After an embargo period of several years to allow scientists of the LIGO
> Which is why you failed to supply the quoted data yourself. You know it
> isn't there online and that it is 100 's of billions if you were to contact
> LIGO yourself.
consortium to analyse and publish their results, complete datasets from all
recent science runs have been released to the public. See
https://losc.ligo.org/data/
Complete bulk data from the S5 and S6 science runs have been released
Data for selected events have also been released:
- GW150914
- GW151226
- LVT151012
- Blind Injection of September 16, 2010
- GRB 051103 (non-detection)
Software for analysis of this data is available for download from the same site,
along with tutorials.
I have played a ***little bit*** with this software.
Right now they are up to 2010 in their releases of bulk data. The plan is to
accelerate the release of bulk data, so I would not be surprised if the bulk
data from the latest science run becomes available within three years or so.
Meanwhile, you can analyze the data for the selected events yourself. My limited
experience with analyzing this data does not support your wild claims.
numbernu...@gmail.com
Oct 2, 2016, 6:42:53 PM10/2/16
to
the electromagnetic gravity wave have a frequency range of 10^-7 to 10^4 Hz but an electromagnetic gravity wave with a frequency of 10^-7 Hz forms a wavelength of 10^15 meters that is more than a light year in length!! A gravity wave with a frequency of 10^4 Hz represents sound but sound cannot propagate in the vacuum of stellar space nor can sound propagate at the velocity of light. Furthermore, the LIGO gravitational wave experiment detected electromagnetic gravity waves, that originated from the merging of two black holes more than 1.3 billion light years from the earth. The LIGO gravity waves have a frequency of 35 to 250 Hz that produce an acoustical vibration of the armature of Michelson-Morley interferometer forming a signal that is used to justify the existence of gravity waves but the LIGO gravity waves represent the frequency of sound that are propagating in the vacuum of celestial space at the velocity of light.
Odd Bodkin
Oct 3, 2016, 10:43:40 AM10/3/16
to
On 10/2/2016 3:54 AM, jaymo...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Odd Bodkin
>
> https://arxiv.org/pdf/1103.2728.pdf
> http://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.57.2101
> http://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.57.659
> http://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.61.082001
> http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/25/12/125011/meta
> http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/21/5/081/meta
> http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v7/n12/abs/nphys2083.html
>
>> Happy reading.
>
>> Now, your turn. Specifics about your reference, please. Put up or shut up.
>
> Typical of a relativist. Make outrageous claims with no evidence or no
> reference as your above links show. Not a single quote in any of those
> papers about *how many* detections in total are made in each detector
> above snr4.
They're in there. You asked for references, which I've provided. I don't
> Odd Bodkin
>
> https://arxiv.org/pdf/1103.2728.pdf
> http://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.57.2101
> http://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.57.659
> http://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.61.082001
> http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/25/12/125011/meta
> http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/21/5/081/meta
> http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v7/n12/abs/nphys2083.html
>
>> Happy reading.
>
>> Now, your turn. Specifics about your reference, please. Put up or shut up.
>
> Typical of a relativist. Make outrageous claims with no evidence or no
> reference as your above links show. Not a single quote in any of those
> papers about *how many* detections in total are made in each detector
> above snr4.
have to digest the references for you. You are a grown up and you can read.
Now, I've asked you for the email address from whom you said you got
your private communication from LIGO. You are being a chickenshit so
far. Want to keep that up?
> Which is why you failed to supply the quoted data yourself. You know it
> isn't there online and that it is 100 's of billions if you were to contact
> LIGO yourself.
>
jaymo...@hotmail.com
Oct 5, 2016, 8:05:36 AM10/5/16
to
Project
Prokaryotic Caspase homolog..
the narrow ms time frames are only available. That means that bulk data for
the whole recent 2015 run is not available. So there is no way that you
can analyse for total detections above snr4.
Any ways if you have bothered to do this much, I suggest an easier approach
which WILL give you the same answer of 100's of billions in each
detector as I have supplied.
Just email LIGO or more specifically the template matching software team.
They will confirm my claim as correct.
In other words each detector DOES receive 100's of billions of candidate
detections above snr4. Which means it's not unreasonable to assume
15000 above snr 13. At least. Which is what would give an average of
one above 13 snr coincidence in both detectors which is what's observed.
You don't need GR. This "wave" was most likely a random coincidence.
Prokaryotic Caspase homolog..
>Right now they are up to 2010 in their releases of bulk data. The plan is to
>accelerate the release of bulk data, so I would not be surprised if the bulk
>data from the latest science run becomes available within three years or so.
>Meanwhile, you can analyze the data for the selected events yourself. My limited
>experience with analyzing this data does not support your wild claims.
You are not being rational. If you admit bulk data only up to 2010 and data for
>accelerate the release of bulk data, so I would not be surprised if the bulk
>data from the latest science run becomes available within three years or so.
>Meanwhile, you can analyze the data for the selected events yourself. My limited
>experience with analyzing this data does not support your wild claims.
the narrow ms time frames are only available. That means that bulk data for
the whole recent 2015 run is not available. So there is no way that you
can analyse for total detections above snr4.
Any ways if you have bothered to do this much, I suggest an easier approach
which WILL give you the same answer of 100's of billions in each
detector as I have supplied.
Just email LIGO or more specifically the template matching software team.
They will confirm my claim as correct.
In other words each detector DOES receive 100's of billions of candidate
detections above snr4. Which means it's not unreasonable to assume
15000 above snr 13. At least. Which is what would give an average of
one above 13 snr coincidence in both detectors which is what's observed.
You don't need GR. This "wave" was most likely a random coincidence.
jaymo...@hotmail.com
Oct 5, 2016, 8:15:49 AM10/5/16
to
Odd Bodkin
>
> https://arxiv.org/pdf/1103.2728.pdf
> http://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.57.2101
> http://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.57.659
> http://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.61.082001
> http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/25/12/125011/meta
> http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/21/5/081/meta
> http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v7/n12/abs/nphys2083.html
>
>>> Happy reading.
>
>>> Now, your turn. Specifics about your reference, please. Put up or shut up.
>
>> Typical of a relativist. Make outrageous claims with no evidence or no
>> reference as your above links show. Not a single quote in any of those
>> papers about *how many* detections in total are made in each detector
>> above snr4.
>They're in there. You asked for references, which I've provided. I don't
>have to digest the references for you. You are a grown up and you can read.
>Now, I've asked you for the email address from whom you said you got
>your private communication from LIGO.
What wally you are. For starters none of those papers specifies how
>
> https://arxiv.org/pdf/1103.2728.pdf
> http://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.57.2101
> http://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.57.659
> http://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.61.082001
> http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/25/12/125011/meta
> http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/21/5/081/meta
> http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v7/n12/abs/nphys2083.html
>
>>> Happy reading.
>
>>> Now, your turn. Specifics about your reference, please. Put up or shut up.
>
>> Typical of a relativist. Make outrageous claims with no evidence or no
>> reference as your above links show. Not a single quote in any of those
>> papers about *how many* detections in total are made in each detector
>> above snr4.
>They're in there. You asked for references, which I've provided. I don't
>have to digest the references for you. You are a grown up and you can read.
>Now, I've asked you for the email address from whom you said you got
>your private communication from LIGO.
many detections above snr 4 in each detector. Which is why you cannot
actually supply a specific quote from a specific paper. You probably haven't
even read those papers.
Because if you had, you would have realised your big mistake.
All those papers were published before 2011.
And the latest experiment at the new improved sensitivity for LIGO
WAS..... IN 2015!.
So tell me...how does a paper published in 2011 have
data from an experiment conducted in 2015?
Wormhole? Time travel?
0 new messages