On Tuesday, 17 October 2017 19:22:16 UTC+1, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> R.T. wrote:
> ^^^^
> It is considered polite to post using one’s real name here.
>
Doesn't seem to bother you when others post here without full names.
> > On Monday, 16 October 2017 21:40:57 UTC+1, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> > wrote:
>
> >> R.T. wrote:
> >> > So,..Maybe a GW.
> >> No, *definitely* GWs (not just one). 4 km long arms just do not shorten
> >> and lengthen by less than 1/10'000th the diameter of a proton *in a
> >> particular pattern* because one associated scientist sneezes.
> >> > But more likely a desperate attempt to make one LIGO detection look
> >> > like a GW by finding a very low corresponding s/n trigger in the other
> >> > LIGO detector
> >> Cite evidence.
> >
> > Below is link. Livingston strong at 14, Hanford weak at 7,
>
> No surprise there, it had a longer way to travel to Hanford than to
> Livingston where it arrived first. Details about the different SNR can
> probably be found in the papers. From the looks of it (satellite imagery
> on Google Maps), Ligo Livingston has a different orientation (WSW/SSE)
> than LIGO Hanford (NNW/WSW), which could be a part of the explanation.
>
Irrelevent point. You asked me to cite evidence for the 3 snr signals. I cited
my source, and you can't refute it.
> > and Virgo unnoticeable at 4.
>
> Which is why it did not trigger their alarm. No problem.
Which is exactly the point you were trying to disagree with earlier.
Yo make yet Another U turn.
>
> > Don't forget, each LIGO detector detects 1billion 4snr events every day!
>
> Cite evidence.
>
Contact LIGO. Email any senior source listed on any official website. Ask them
if it's true that over a three month run each detector triggers about a 100 billion
events at or above snr 4. They will confirm this. If they bother answering. It took
me a while to get this info. Then apologise to me for incorrectly questioning this
detection rate
> >> > a non detection in Virgo,
> >> “Blind spot” does not mean *blind* spot, but *less accurate* detection
> >> capabilities. You really need to learn what you are writing about before
> >> you are writing about it.
> >
> > I think it's you who needs to learn about what's actually being detected
> > and study the data before you make any claims.
>
> Pot calling the kettle black.
Says the man who didn't know the trigger detection rates for LIGO, doesn't
know how to read GCN, doesn't know anything about grb detection rates
or methodology, didn't initially know the Virgo detection wasn't actually detected
etc etc etc
>Have you even bothered to watch the two-hour
> presentation and Q&A session? Lots of sky photos of the event therein, too.
> All fake? For what?
>
You try to change the subject to avoid admitting that a snr14 trigger in Livingston can
be matched to a 6 snr trigger in Hanford purely by random coincidence. Considering
that at Hanford * every 10 ms* there is at least one 6snr event triggered. And
at VIRGO something like a thousand at 4snr every 10 ms. This latest GW
was a random coincidence as much as any real wave detected. And you can't
prove otherwise.
Any other wavelength observations could have been made in any other part
of the sky and revealed imaginary followup data that could be attributed to a
random coincidence generated by LIGO.
Answer this.. How often does a similar sized region of the sky get such
intensive attention from world the astronomy community including HUBBLE?
Not very often if ever is the answer.
> >> > and a weak, initially untriggered pulse in the fermi data,...look like
> >> > a historic discovery.
> >> *70 telescope arrays* and *ten thousands* of scientists *around the
> >> world* and *in space* (CHANDRA et al.) *all* observing the *same event*
> >> in the *same small region of the sky*, in *different* wavelengths of
> >> light, over *weeks*, *consistent with each other and current knowledge*,
> >> and you are still not convinced? One wonders, is there *anything* that
> >> could convince you of *any* discovery?
> >
> > Yes. If there were only a handful of >7 snr events in each LIGO detector
> > every three months and those only coincided to within ms with each other.
> > Then you'd have convinced me. Right now there is this one clear signal one
> > day in Livingston and billions of weak ones every day in Hanford and VIRGO
> > to match to. That's called random coincidence. [more nonsense]
>
> Good grief. Look at the whitened strain, look at the corresponding
> *electromagnetic* observations. Those patterns, those observations,
> just *cannot* be random coincidences.
>
Good grief. Look at the statistical correlation between Livingston vs Hanford
and VIRGO. They all have similar strength triggers happening at least
once every 10 ms. And fermi gets those weak grb signals every few seconds.
You imagine statistical coincidence in your tea leaves is something real.
> PointedEars
> --
> Q: Where are offenders sentenced for light crimes?
> A: To a prism.
>
> (from: WolframAlpha)