info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
LIGO's Gravitational Waves: Why the Sloppiness?
117 views
Skip to first unread message
Pentcho Valev
Feb 23, 2016, 3:46:46 AM2/23/16
to
LIGO calculated the maximum delay of the signal, 10 ms, by dividing the great-circle (!) distance between the two sites, 3002 km, by the speed of light. This is an incredible sloppiness, and not only LIGO but all triumphant professors are silent about that. It seems only Hilton Ratcliffe has the courage to publish something on the matter:
http://www.newkerala.com/news/2016/fullnews-23659.html
"On September 14, 2015, the LIGO (Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory) observed a "chirp" lasting about a fifth of a second (GW150914). Analyses of the signal suggest that it was produced by the cataclysmic collision of two black holes a billion light years away. This was probably the verification of the most dramatic prediction of Albert Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. Accordingly, we ought to have a critical look at the relevant experiment before we finally incorporate this great achievement into the body of scientific knowledge. (...) There is also something which appears to be too fortuitous about GW150914, as noted by the distinguished Indian astrophysicist Dr. Abhas Mitra: Given that the radius of Earth is 6,370 km, we can calculate the linear distance between the LIGO detectors at Livingstone and Hanford at around 2,500 Km. Because this distance is absolutely negligible compared with the distance to the origin of GW150914 (1.3 billion light years), both detectors should see the event almost simultaneously. There should be a delay of a few microseconds at most if both detectors received the signal from the sky above. However, the actual delay of seven milliseconds was very much larger, and is possible only if the source was almost perfectly aligned with a straight line joining Livingstone and Hanford."
Perhaps Ratcliffe and Mitra are exaggerating, but then why isn't there any precise calculation coming from LIGO? From triumphant professors? A good explanation is this:
When the results are all fake, precise calculations should be avoided - they can only expose Achilles' heels. In such cases one should only be careful not to fabricate suspicious (unrealistic) data.
Pentcho Valev
http://www.newkerala.com/news/2016/fullnews-23659.html
"On September 14, 2015, the LIGO (Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory) observed a "chirp" lasting about a fifth of a second (GW150914). Analyses of the signal suggest that it was produced by the cataclysmic collision of two black holes a billion light years away. This was probably the verification of the most dramatic prediction of Albert Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. Accordingly, we ought to have a critical look at the relevant experiment before we finally incorporate this great achievement into the body of scientific knowledge. (...) There is also something which appears to be too fortuitous about GW150914, as noted by the distinguished Indian astrophysicist Dr. Abhas Mitra: Given that the radius of Earth is 6,370 km, we can calculate the linear distance between the LIGO detectors at Livingstone and Hanford at around 2,500 Km. Because this distance is absolutely negligible compared with the distance to the origin of GW150914 (1.3 billion light years), both detectors should see the event almost simultaneously. There should be a delay of a few microseconds at most if both detectors received the signal from the sky above. However, the actual delay of seven milliseconds was very much larger, and is possible only if the source was almost perfectly aligned with a straight line joining Livingstone and Hanford."
Perhaps Ratcliffe and Mitra are exaggerating, but then why isn't there any precise calculation coming from LIGO? From triumphant professors? A good explanation is this:
When the results are all fake, precise calculations should be avoided - they can only expose Achilles' heels. In such cases one should only be careful not to fabricate suspicious (unrealistic) data.
Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
Feb 23, 2016, 1:05:59 PM2/23/16
to
http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-gravitational-waves-ligo-history-20160222-story.html
"The LIGO researchers even worried that a member of their own team had faked it. "They decided it would have to be somebody who really understood the instrument well enough and the data well enough," Harrison said. "And they found all such people and interviewed them and determined that in fact nobody had any motivation to do this.""
Who "found all such people"? The rest of the team who didn't understand the instrument well enough and the data well enough? Or "all such people" just found themselves, interviewed themselves and "determined that in fact nobody had any motivation to do this"?
Pentcho Valev
"The LIGO researchers even worried that a member of their own team had faked it. "They decided it would have to be somebody who really understood the instrument well enough and the data well enough," Harrison said. "And they found all such people and interviewed them and determined that in fact nobody had any motivation to do this.""
Who "found all such people"? The rest of the team who didn't understand the instrument well enough and the data well enough? Or "all such people" just found themselves, interviewed themselves and "determined that in fact nobody had any motivation to do this"?
Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
Feb 23, 2016, 6:41:03 PM2/23/16
to
http://arxiv.org/abs/1602.04674
"Around 1936, Einstein wrote to his close friend Max Born telling him that, together with Nathan Rosen, he had arrived at the interesting result that gravitational waves did not exist, though they had been assumed a certainty to the first approximation. He finally had found a mistake in his 1936 paper with Rosen and believed that gravitational waves do exist. However, in 1938, Einstein again obtained the result that there could be no gravitational waves!"
https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160218-gravitational-waves-kennefick-interview/
""There are no gravitational waves ... " ... "Plane gravitational waves, traveling along the positive X-axis, can therefore be found ... " ... " ... gravitational waves do not exist ... " ... "Do gravitational waves exist?" ... "It turns out that rigorous solutions exist ... " These are the words of Albert Einstein. For 20 years he equivocated about gravitational waves, unsure whether these undulations in the fabric of space and time were predicted or ruled out by his revolutionary 1915 theory of general relativity. For all the theory's conceptual elegance -- it revealed gravity to be the effect of curves in "space-time" -- its mathematics was enormously complex."
Did LIGO gloriously confirm Einstein's predictions? Of course. Triumphant professors all over the world say so. This is Einstein's schizophrenic world. We all live in it.
Pentcho Valev
"Around 1936, Einstein wrote to his close friend Max Born telling him that, together with Nathan Rosen, he had arrived at the interesting result that gravitational waves did not exist, though they had been assumed a certainty to the first approximation. He finally had found a mistake in his 1936 paper with Rosen and believed that gravitational waves do exist. However, in 1938, Einstein again obtained the result that there could be no gravitational waves!"
https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160218-gravitational-waves-kennefick-interview/
""There are no gravitational waves ... " ... "Plane gravitational waves, traveling along the positive X-axis, can therefore be found ... " ... " ... gravitational waves do not exist ... " ... "Do gravitational waves exist?" ... "It turns out that rigorous solutions exist ... " These are the words of Albert Einstein. For 20 years he equivocated about gravitational waves, unsure whether these undulations in the fabric of space and time were predicted or ruled out by his revolutionary 1915 theory of general relativity. For all the theory's conceptual elegance -- it revealed gravity to be the effect of curves in "space-time" -- its mathematics was enormously complex."
Did LIGO gloriously confirm Einstein's predictions? Of course. Triumphant professors all over the world say so. This is Einstein's schizophrenic world. We all live in it.
Pentcho Valev
PC
Feb 23, 2016, 7:32:43 PM2/23/16
to
Pentcho Valev wrote:
> http://arxiv.org/abs/1602.04674
> "Around 1936, Einstein wrote to his close friend Max Born telling him
> that, together with Nathan Rosen, he had arrived at the interesting
> result that gravitational waves did not exist, though they had been
> assumed a certainty to the first approximation. He finally had found a
> mistake in his 1936 paper with Rosen and believed that gravitational
> waves do exist. However, in 1938, Einstein again obtained the result
> that there could be no gravitational waves!"
Agree that not. Would be iff spacetime had internal structure, but it
> http://arxiv.org/abs/1602.04674
> "Around 1936, Einstein wrote to his close friend Max Born telling him
> that, together with Nathan Rosen, he had arrived at the interesting
> result that gravitational waves did not exist, though they had been
> assumed a certainty to the first approximation. He finally had found a
> mistake in his 1936 paper with Rosen and believed that gravitational
> waves do exist. However, in 1938, Einstein again obtained the result
> that there could be no gravitational waves!"
hasn't. As considered 100% empty and everything in it are just abstract
geometrical projections. Including the curvature. That's nothing but a
geometrical projection likewise.
Their own interpretation of this theory forces us to conclude that
gravitational waves are not physically possible. Not me fault.
John Gogo
Feb 23, 2016, 9:04:44 PM2/23/16
to
Pentcho Valev
Feb 24, 2016, 7:44:45 AM2/24/16
to
Unbelievable:
http://motls.blogspot.bg/2016/02/ligo-journal-servers-behind-scenes.html
Luboš Motl: " 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://motls.blogspot.bg/2016/02/ligo-journal-servers-behind-scenes.html
Luboš Motl: " 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
Jack...@hotmail.com
Feb 26, 2016, 10:59:59 AM2/26/16
to
On Tue, 23 Feb 2016 00:46:43 -0800 (PST), Pentcho Valev
<pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
wo
Thank you for pointing this out this sage observation from Abhas
Mitra. The reported 7 ms delay is impossible. It is the transit time,
D/c, between stations, transmitting 'linearly' to each other.
But the signal came in orthogonally from high above and the difference
can't be more than a few microseconds.
This appears to be an outrageous fraud.
John Polasek
<pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
wo
Mitra. The reported 7 ms delay is impossible. It is the transit time,
D/c, between stations, transmitting 'linearly' to each other.
But the signal came in orthogonally from high above and the difference
can't be more than a few microseconds.
This appears to be an outrageous fraud.
John Polasek
Odd Bodkin
Feb 26, 2016, 11:03:42 AM2/26/16
to
On 2/26/2016 9:59 AM, Jack...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Thank you for pointing this out this sage observation from Abhas
> Mitra. The reported 7 ms delay is impossible. It is the transit time,
> D/c, between stations, transmitting 'linearly' to each other.
> But the signal came in orthogonally from high above and the difference
> can't be more than a few microseconds.
> This appears to be an outrageous fraud.
> John Polasek
C'mon John. What is the straight line distance between the two
> Thank you for pointing this out this sage observation from Abhas
> Mitra. The reported 7 ms delay is impossible. It is the transit time,
> D/c, between stations, transmitting 'linearly' to each other.
> But the signal came in orthogonally from high above and the difference
> can't be more than a few microseconds.
> This appears to be an outrageous fraud.
> John Polasek
locations? Calculate it. Now calculate the time of flight at c between
the two stations.
--
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Jack...@hotmail.com
Feb 26, 2016, 11:13:44 AM2/26/16
to
always transmitting its results to the other station, sure enough
there would be two reports separated by 7 milliseconds.
Otherwise 7 ms is impossible.
Obviously, there could be other explanations.
John Polasek
Pentcho Valev
Feb 26, 2016, 11:21:13 AM2/26/16
to
As I have admitted in another thread, Mitra has made a mistake. For arc 3002 km and radius 6371 km, the chord is 2976 km (not 2500 km, as Mitra claims). That is, the difference between the great-circle distance and the linear distance is insignificant.
Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
Jack...@hotmail.com
Feb 26, 2016, 11:41:41 AM2/26/16
to
On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 08:21:10 -0800 (PST), Pentcho Valev
<pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
No, Mitra is correct. The earth distance of 3000 km is no consequence
and does not need precise measurement.
The signal came orthogonally from a source nearly at infinity, so the
signal should arrive at both sites nearly simultaneously. The
subtended angle is nearly 0.
Yes, the delay could be 7 ms, but the fact that the delay coincides
with the land travel time is suspicious.
John Polasek
<pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
No, Mitra is correct. The earth distance of 3000 km is no consequence
and does not need precise measurement.
The signal came orthogonally from a source nearly at infinity, so the
signal should arrive at both sites nearly simultaneously. The
subtended angle is nearly 0.
Yes, the delay could be 7 ms, but the fact that the delay coincides
with the land travel time is suspicious.
John Polasek
Paul B. Andersen
Feb 26, 2016, 1:36:03 PM2/26/16
to
On 26.02.2016 17:41, Jack...@hotmail.com wrote:
> No, Mitra is correct. The earth distance of 3000 km is no consequence
> and does not need precise measurement.
> The signal came orthogonally from a source nearly at infinity, so the
> signal should arrive at both sites nearly simultaneously. The
> subtended angle is nearly 0.
> Yes, the delay could be 7 ms, but the fact that the delay coincides
> with the land travel time is suspicious.
> John Polasek
(3000 km)/c = 10 ms
> No, Mitra is correct. The earth distance of 3000 km is no consequence
> and does not need precise measurement.
> The signal came orthogonally from a source nearly at infinity, so the
> signal should arrive at both sites nearly simultaneously. The
> subtended angle is nearly 0.
> Yes, the delay could be 7 ms, but the fact that the delay coincides
> with the land travel time is suspicious.
> John Polasek
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog
Feb 26, 2016, 2:16:23 PM2/26/16
to
On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 10:03:42 AM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> C'mon John. What is the straight line distance between the two
> locations? Calculate it. Now calculate the time of flight at c between
> the two stations.
I get ~2999 km as the linear distance between the two detectors
> C'mon John. What is the straight line distance between the two
> locations? Calculate it. Now calculate the time of flight at c between
> the two stations.
There are several reasonable explanations for the slight discrepancy between my
approximate calculated figure and the accepted figure of 3002 km.
From Wikipedia, the coordinates of the two sites are:
Hanford Site 46°27′18.52 N 119°24′27.56 W
Livingston 30°33′46.42 N 90°46′27.27 W
Given these coordinates, an online calculator yields
Great Circle Distance: 3027 km
http://www.movable-type.co.uk/scripts/latlong.html
The radius of the Earth is approximately 6371 km
3027/6371 = 0.47512 radians
Applying the Law of Cosines yields 2999 km.
I can easily think of several reasons for the slight discrepancy between my
calculation and 3002 km.
1) The Earth is not a sphere.
2) Related to reason #1, 6371 is not necessarily the appropriate radius to use.
3) Each interferometer spreads out over several kilometers. The Wikipedia
coordinates do not necessarily correspond to the detector "centers".
One way or another, the 2500 km figure claimed by Mitra is absurd.
Tom Roberts
Feb 26, 2016, 2:21:41 PM2/26/16
to
On 2/26/16 2/26/16 - 9:59 AM, Jack...@hotmail.com wrote:
> The reported 7 ms delay is impossible. It is the transit time,
> D/c, between stations, transmitting 'linearly' to each other.
It is not impossible, and it is NOT the stations "transmitting" to each other.
> The reported 7 ms delay is impossible. It is the transit time,
> D/c, between stations, transmitting 'linearly' to each other.
You REALLY should learn something about the subject before attempting to write
about it.
This was a single signal coming from far, far away, received by two detectors on
earth. They are separated by 10 ms flight time for a gravitational wave that
propagates directly along the line between them. So to achieve 7 ms between
detectors it must have come from a direction not on that line, but also not too
far from it [#].
> But the signal came in orthogonally from high above
signal came, except approximately [#]. Unlike light, gravitational waves
propagate freely through the earth (and the sun, and ...); they aren't even
slowed down.
[#] READ THE PAPER(s) -- they presented a diagram showing
probability contours for directions from which it might have
come.
> This appears to be an outrageous fraud.
> As soon as I hit the send button I realized that if one station was
> always transmitting its results to the other station, sure enough
> there would be two reports separated by 7 milliseconds.
> Otherwise 7 ms is impossible.
one to the other with a delay of only 7 ms; they are 10 light-milliseconds apart.)
Tom Roberts
HGW
Feb 26, 2016, 4:10:08 PM2/26/16
to
On 27/02/16 06:21, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 2/26/16 2/26/16 - 9:59 AM, Jack...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> The reported 7 ms delay is impossible. It is the transit time,
>> D/c, between stations, transmitting 'linearly' to each other.
>
> It is not impossible, and it is NOT the stations "transmitting" to each
> other. You REALLY should learn something about the subject before
> attempting to write about it.
>
> This was a single signal coming from far, far away, received by two
> detectors on earth. They are separated by 10 ms flight time for a
> gravitational wave that propagates directly along the line between them.
> So to achieve 7 ms between detectors it must have come from a direction
> not on that line, but also not too far from it [#].
Assuming the clocks are in absolute synch, it is likely that they picked
> On 2/26/16 2/26/16 - 9:59 AM, Jack...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> The reported 7 ms delay is impossible. It is the transit time,
>> D/c, between stations, transmitting 'linearly' to each other.
>
> It is not impossible, and it is NOT the stations "transmitting" to each
> other. You REALLY should learn something about the subject before
> attempting to write about it.
>
> This was a single signal coming from far, far away, received by two
> detectors on earth. They are separated by 10 ms flight time for a
> gravitational wave that propagates directly along the line between them.
> So to achieve 7 ms between detectors it must have come from a direction
> not on that line, but also not too far from it [#].
up an unconventional Earth tremor somewhere deep underground and which
reached one detector 7ms after it reached the other.
>> But the signal came in orthogonally from high above
>
> JUST PLAIN WRONG. In actual fact, they do not know from which direction
> the signal came, except approximately [#]. Unlike light, gravitational
> waves propagate freely through the earth (and the sun, and ...); they
> aren't even slowed down.
>
> [#] READ THE PAPER(s) -- they presented a diagram showing
> probability contours for directions from which it might have
> come.
>
>
>> This appears to be an outrageous fraud.
gravitational waves.
> Tom Roberts
Jack...@hotmail.com
Feb 26, 2016, 5:26:21 PM2/26/16
to
On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 13:21:38 -0600, Tom Roberts
<tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>On 2/26/16 2/26/16 - 9:59 AM, Jack...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> The reported 7 ms delay is impossible. It is the transit time,
>> D/c, between stations, transmitting 'linearly' to each other.
>
<tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>On 2/26/16 2/26/16 - 9:59 AM, Jack...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> The reported 7 ms delay is impossible. It is the transit time,
>> D/c, between stations, transmitting 'linearly' to each other.
>
>.
>
>This was a single signal coming from far, far away, received by two detectors on
>earth. They are separated by 10 ms flight time for a gravitational wave that
>propagates directly along the line between them. So to achieve 7 ms between
>detectors it must have come from a direction not on that line, but also not too
>far from it [#].
>
I went through the trouble of analyzing it with a simple triangle
>
>This was a single signal coming from far, far away, received by two detectors on
>earth. They are separated by 10 ms flight time for a gravitational wave that
>propagates directly along the line between them. So to achieve 7 ms between
>detectors it must have come from a direction not on that line, but also not too
>far from it [#].
>
diagram. It comes down to this,
if the land separation is 10 ms and the time delay 7 ms than the slant
angle at which the signal was received would be 45.58°:
cosine X = 7ms/10 ms
X equals 45.58°
That's reasonable.
>>
John Polasek
>
>Tom Roberts
0 new messages