"We have detected gravitational waves. We did it."

[Michael]

Well, maybe they could do that in a little time. However, we then would need to look at the basis for the distances and sizes involved for the area where they claim blackholesdunnit. Since they can't do that, we seem to have religion with a little extra fog here.

I'm actually quite hopeful that unlike the Bicep2 fiasco, that this claim from LIGO turns out to have empirical merit and they are able to actually observe gravity waves as advertised. Unlike the Bicep2 claims, this observation does not depend on inflation or the mainstream cosmology model in order to make it's case. It is however heavily dependent upon the validity of black hole models.

Like the Bicep2 claim however, it is dependent upon the "assumption" that they have indeed ruled out other potential sources of the signal. I'm leery of that particular aspect of the claim more than anything else, just as I was worried about that assumption as it related to the Bicep2 paper.

If it turns out that the upgraded LIGO equipment can indeed observe gravity waves from the merger of two heavy objects, it's likely that they will eventually be able to correlate the observation in LIGO receivers with observations from other satellites. The fact it wasn't done in this particular case is "concerning", particularly since they felt compelled to assign the claim with a 5+ sigma confidence level, putting it squarely into the real of "new discovery".

In fairness to the LIGO team, most of the predictions of GR theory proper (without the Lambda-CDM blunder add-ons) have already been confirmed by various means. It's therefore likely that Einstein was correct about the existence of gravity waves in spacetime, and it's equally likely that we'll eventually be able to observe them in some detail and correlate them back to visual observations of the same events that are seen in LIGO detectors.

 

[dad]

I'm actually quite hopeful that unlike the Bicep2 fiasco, that this claim from LIGO turns out to have empirical merit and they are able to actually observe gravity waves as advertised.

Impossible..sorry. They advertise the waves came from some giant black holes that they need to explain the waves. Hey who needs to see them they simply 'must' exist' because they need them to explain the waves.

Unlike the Bicep2 claims, this observation does not depend on inflation or the mainstream cosmology model in order to make it's case. It is however heavily dependent upon the validity of black hole models.

Therefore it is garbage.

Like the Bicep2 claim however, it is dependent upon the "assumption" that they have indeed ruled out other potential sources of the signal. I'm leery of that particular aspect of the claim more than anything else, just as I was worried about that assumption as it related to the Bicep2 paper.

They are in no position to rule out anything else or even know what else it could be!

If it turns out that the upgraded LIGO equipment can indeed observe gravity waves from the merger of two heavy objects, it's likely that they will eventually be able to correlate the observation in LIGO receivers with observations from other satellites.

I do not see why not. However what they see with satellites is just not what they assume.

In fairness to the LIGO team, most of the predictions of GR theory proper (without the Lambda-CDM blunder add-ons) have already been confirmed by various means. It's therefore likely that Einstein was correct about the existence of gravity waves in spacetime,

I disagree. To be right, there would really have to be a same space and same time and black holes where they claim. They cannot determine that.

and it's equally likely that we'll eventually be able to observe them in some detail and correlate them back to visual observations of the same events that are seen in LIGO detectors.

Radio telescopes may see the perturbations in the right area, but that means precious little. That area may be far different than they think. That does not tell us time exists where these supposed black holes are. Nor does it tell us that space and time together exist as we know them. All it tells us is that a fishbowl pipe in a field in the USA was impacted by waves that seem somewhat similar to what we would expect from distant gravity waves. Now what if for example they source of the waves was not as distant or big as they thought?

 

[Michael]

Keep in mind dad that if LIGO is actually capable of detecting gravity waves as advertised, that capability could end up falsifying mainstream cosmology theory (again), particularly if LIGO picks up the signal *before* any photons arrive at Earth.

 

[dad]

Keep in mind dad that if LIGO is actually capable of detecting gravity waves as advertised, that capability could end up falsifying mainstream cosmology theory (again), particularly if LIGO picks up the signal *before* any photons arrive at Earth.

Maybe. But you assume they are over a billion years away, and that it takes time to get here.

 

[Michael]

For anyone interested, here are some useful related links to papers and software that are relevant to this discussion:

https://losc.ligo.org/events/GW150914/
https://papers.ligo.org/
https://github.com/ligo-cbc
https://github.com/lscsoft

 

[Michael]

Maybe. But you assume they are over a billion years away, and that it takes time to get here.

That's pretty much true of every cosmology theory under the sun dad.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Maybe. But you assume they are over a billion years away, and that it takes time to get here.

That is really not an assumption. When creationists say "assumption" in some form or other it is really an admission of ignorance on their part. Scientists are not allowed to assume.

 

[dad]

That is really not an assumption. When creationists say "assumption" in some form or other it is really an admission of ignorance on their part. Scientists are not allowed to assume.

Thanks for the philosophy. The view of space and time in the universe is wholly assumption for godless science.

 

[dad]

For anyone interested, here are some useful related links to papers and software that are relevant to this discussion:

https://losc.ligo.org/events/GW150914/
https://papers.ligo.org/
https://github.com/ligo-cbc
https://github.com/lscsoft

In the paper I looked at in your list I noticed the formulas. There is that M and that C. Mass and speed of light. As well as the time dependent things like frequency, and the assumed things like gravitational constant.

So what do we really have here? Apparently something in space somewhere, some size, merged. This merge produced a wave.

"This leaves black holes as the only known objects compact enough to reach an orbital frequency of 75 Hz without contact.."
https://dcc.ligo.org/public/0122/P150914/014/LIGO-P150914_Detection_of_GW150914.pdf

The known objects actually are objects that are there because physics required something that obeyed it to be there. It occurs to me that if more than the laws of physics and time and space as we know it, and physical mass alone is involved, then we cannot use so called known objects based solely on a limited portion of the realities in space.

 

[[serious]]

Thank goodness we have you here Michael to always correct those silly professional scientists.

Micheal might say a lot of crazy stuff, but I think taking a wait-and-see approach to new discoveries is in generally a good instinct. My BS detector isn't pinging on this one, but as he referenced, it wasn't that long ago that we had a premature claim of gravity wave detection.

 

[[serious]]

I have a couple of conceptual questions I'd like some help with if you would be so kind. I'm visualizing these waves as a type of "geometric wave" where the curvature of spacetime is rippling as a result of the merger of these two bodies. Is that a reasonable way to conceptualize the process?

I'm confused as to why the duration of the "signal" would be so short. Why would the signal be less than a second?

Haven't had a chance to really dig into it, and i'm a layman myself, but perhaps it's tied to the rotation or orbital period?

 

[[serious]]

Keep in mind dad that if LIGO is actually capable of detecting gravity waves as advertised, that capability could end up falsifying mainstream cosmology theory (again), particularly if LIGO picks up the signal *before* any photons arrive at Earth.

Not seeing the issue there. Light, traveling through the imperfect vacuum of space, would not move precisely at C. Gravity waves could in theory be less susceptible to such interference and slightly lead xray signals and such.

 

[[serious]]

In the paper I looked at in your list I noticed the formulas. There is that M and that C. Mass and speed of light. As well as the time dependent things like frequency, and the assumed things like gravitational constant.

So what do we really have here? Apparently something in space somewhere, some size, merged. This merge produced a wave.

"This leaves black holes as the only known objects compact enough to reach an orbital frequency of 75 Hz without contact.."
https://dcc.ligo.org/public/0122/P150914/014/LIGO-P150914_Detection_of_GW150914.pdf

The known objects actually are objects that are there because physics required something that obeyed it to be there. It occurs to me that if more than the laws of physics and time and space as we know it, and physical mass alone is involved, then we cannot use so called known objects based solely on a limited portion of the realities in space.

Don't worry, reading depends on a same state past. There is no proof that the previous page actually says what you remember it saying. Thus, unless you accept a same state past, you really don't have any way of knowing what you just read.

Once again dad has been defeated.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Don't you wish. So far you can't even get the ball near the plate. As much as I hate to interrupt a worship session for anti creation folks...as this thread seems to be....I look forward to victory. Obviously demonic forces are trying to kick up a fuss with this issue.

When you score an own goal like that, of course you're going to lose.

 

[Michael]

Not seeing the issue there. Light, traveling through the imperfect vacuum of space, would not move precisely at C. Gravity waves could in theory be less susceptible to such interference and slightly lead xray signals and such.

A light emission delay would be a problem as it relates to the photon redshift issue. According to mainstream theory, photons do *not* bounce around the dust and plasmas of spacetime. Rather they presumably weave and dodge their way around every temperature and EM field gradient in the universe to arrive at Earth without a shred of photon redshift related to inelastic scattering in plasma.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thanks for the philosophy. The view of space and time in the universe is wholly assumption for godless science.

It seems that as usual it went over your head. You still cannot use the word "assumption" correctly.

 

[Michael]

"This leaves black holes as the only known objects compact enough to reach an orbital frequency of 75 Hz without contact.."
https://dcc.ligo.org/public/0122/P150914/014/LIGO-P150914_Detection_of_GW150914.pdf

http://w3.pppl.gov/~jrj/publications-jrj/2005GL023638.pdf

This "assumption" about the cause of the 75Hz signal also simply ignores the fact that the magnetosphere-ionosphere interactions routinely generate the same 75Hz signal.

So, is it "more likely" that a *known* process near Earth is responsible for this signal, or a couple of theoretical objects slamming into each other over a billion light years away?

 

[Michael]

Haven't had a chance to really dig into it, and i'm a layman myself, but perhaps it's tied to the rotation or orbital period?

From what I've read thus far, you're correct in that figure is supposedly related to the movement and proximity of the massive objects in the last second of their merging process. Frankly however my monitor can display information at either 60 or 75Hz right out the box, and electrical discharges are more than capable of generating that frequency. Furthermore, the peak and drop off aspects of the signal are rather consistent with electric discharge patterns. A sprite or Elf high in the atmosphere might produce something similar to that event.

I'd be inclined to believe at this point that the event itself was real and measured by both detectors, but the source of the signal is highly questionable, particularly the 5.1 sigma figure related to possible false signals. This upgrade was completed very recently, and nobody can be sure *exactly* what false signals might influence the new gear. Furthermore the signal in question occurred *before* the actual data run was official, and just like the BICEP2 claim, this whole argument hinges upon claiming to have eliminated every other potential cause of that signal.

It's also interesting to me that this signal has not been observed since that date. If something like this could be seen at such distances, why aren't we seeing them occur more frequently?

I'm skeptical. I'm not so skeptical as it relates to the observation in question anymore than I was skeptical about the data that BICEP2 was producing. The *cause* of the signal however is where the mainstream always seems to jump to the *least* probable possibility, while intentionally overlooking the *most* probable cause. In the case of BICEP2 the most probable causes of polarized photon patterns in space were dust and synchrotron radiation, and instead they claimed to have eliminated both of those possibilities with something greater than sigma 5+ confidence. In this case the most probable causes would likely be related to magnetosphere discharge activity, or possibly solar flare activity. Again however, they've claimed to rule them out with 5+ sigma confidence. How?

The part that makes me squirm and cry fowl is that Sigma 5 plus confidence level. It seems almost arbitrary that anyone can boastfully claim to eliminate every other natural potential source of any signal with that kind of level of confidence. Furthermore to claim to be able to eliminate every possible "false signal" to over 203,000 years after only a couple of months of data collection, and without any visual confirmation of an actual celestial event, sounds more than boastful. It sounds downright silly.

 

[Michael]

FYI, for any layman who's relying exclusively upon Einstein being "right" (as the mainstream publicly advertises), it should be noted that Einstein himself wasn't as "confident" in the existence of gravitational waves as the mainstream would have you believe. He did in fact first propose them, but he also vacillated on that topic during his career. If Einstein himself wasn't "positive" of their existence, then why should you be?

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-02-12/the-man-who-said-no-to-einstein

 

[dad]

Don't worry, reading depends on a same state past.

The waves from space are measured here because they disturb our space and time. That much we seem to know. We feel it in the fishbowl. Gravity is a wonderful thing, made by God.