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

[essentialsaltes]

'I can't see them because they are black in black space..' sorry that is not factual it is ridiculous without evidence.

Well, that's what this thread is about. Black holes do not, of themselves, give off light. But they do warp space and time. And now we have measured the warping of space and time. And the warping looks like what our models of coalescing black holes should look like. You are invited to develop your own hypothesis that matches the data as well as the graphs I showed earlier.

 

[[serious]]

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.

Maybe that's how it worked in the past, but how does it work now?

 

[dad]

What are you talking about? Of course it is factual. If you can't understand something this simply you will never understand anything.

I don't believe you. Get a grip, before claiming something is a fact. In the case of these BHs didn't the thread originator say thay he thinks they were not detected before? I think that means they were deduced because they think black holes would make that blip in the detectors?

Photons and atoms are real and exist everywhere throughout the universe.

Maybe. However since we have never been anywhere else I can't really say how they exist and whether they exist as they do here etc. That is how it works when one uses some honesty in one's views.

Nope, now Invisible Pink Unicorns and your God both have the same supporting evidence, but black holes are well supported by evidence.

Not direct evidence though you just need them to explain things by our laws. I notice they claim this is the first direct evidence for merging binary black holes. No. It is not.

Perhaps you should learn what light is first.

OK know anyone who knows?

 

[dad]

Well, that's what this thread is about. Black holes do not, of themselves, give off light. But they do warp space and time.

In theory.

And now we have measured the warping of space and time.

I tend to agree..so, that has what to do with BHs? Just because your limited philosophy imagines that only something resulting from and conforming to physics could possibly be doing anything in unknown space and time, means nothing actually.

And the warping looks like what our models of coalescing black holes should look like.

No doubt. For others it may look like ripples a pink invisible unicorn would make..so?

You are invited to develop your own hypothesis that matches the data as well as the graphs I showed earlier.

No thanks. Why would I need to know what exactly warps our fishbowl spacetime?

 

[essentialsaltes]

No doubt. For others it may look like ripples a pink invisible unicorn would make..so?

But the supporters of the PIU hypothesis have not made any predictions that can be checked. This evidence is a grand confirmation of a very strong and specific prediction. Not an after-the-fact explanation without specific details (such as the PIU hypothesis).

 

[dad]

But the supporters of the PIU hypothesis have not made any predictions that can be checked. This evidence is a grand confirmation of a very strong and specific prediction. Not an after-the-fact explanation without specific details (such as the PIU hypothesis).

I would like to check your prediction. Show us how it was arrived at in simple detail. Would it be something like 'If there were black holes, as big and as far away as we th8nk,and only our time and space and laws ecisted there, and nothing else, then we would expect to see these waves...'?

 

[essentialsaltes]

I would like to check your prediction.

I have already shown you the predicted gravitational waveforms, compared to the detected waveforms.

Show us how it was arrived at in simple detail.

This is general relativity. There's no such thing as simple detail. As I said before, these are numerical calculations based on Einstein's equations, and a scenario of coalescing black holes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't believe you. Get a grip, before claiming something is a fact. In the case of these BHs didn't the thread originator say thay he thinks they were not detected before? I think that means they were deduced because they think black holes would make that blip in the detectors?

No, that was not what was said. They were not directly observed before. There is a difference. Astronomers have observed stars, you know big massive shiny things like our Sun, rotating very quickly around something at the center of our universe. That something cannot be seen. I suppose you could say that they "deduced" it, but you seem to use that term incorrectly quite often.

Maybe. However since we have never been anywhere else I can't really say how they exist and whether they exist as they do here etc. That is how it works when one uses some honesty in one's views.

That is because they understand scientific evidence and you don't.

Not direct evidence though you just need them to explain things by our laws. I notice they claim this is the first direct evidence for merging binary black holes. No. It is not.

Sorry, but direct evidence is not needed to explain things by our laws. Where did you get that crazy idea from? And of course black holes are supported by evidence, again you do not understand what is and what is not evidence.

OK know anyone who knows?

Again, essential saltes could help you on that concept.

 

[Michael]

I have already shown you the predicted gravitational waveforms, compared to the detected waveforms.

This is general relativity. There's no such thing as simple detail. As I said before, these are numerical calculations based on Einstein's equations, and a scenario of coalescing black holes.

In fairness dad, they did create "mathematical models" to "predict" a type of pattern of gravitational wave that they might observe from two massive objects merging, and in fairness, it does pretty well match the signal they saw in LIGO. The real problem was claiming that they could eliminate any other type of signal from generating that same signal with five sigma confidence, which is exactly what the Bicep2 team claimed as well. That's where the slight of hand came in.

 

[Subduction Zone]

In fairness dad, they did create "mathematical models" to "predict" a type of pattern of gravitational wave that they might observe from two massive objects merging, and in fairness, it does pretty well match the signal they saw in LIGO. The real problem was claiming that they could eliminate any other type of signal from generating that same signal with five sigma confidence, which is exactly what the Bicep2 team claimed as well. That's where the slight of hand came in.

And this claim will be thoroughly checked and rechecked by real scientists. That is how the flaw in the work of the Bicep2 team was found. Not by people that scream "plasma" and have no testable predictions.

 

[Michael]

And this claim will be thoroughly checked and rechecked by real scientists. That is how the flaw in the work of the Bicep2 team was found. Not by people that scream "plasma" and have no testable predictions.

Peratt made all kinds of testable predictions with his model, as did Lerner and Alfven and most importantly Birkeland. Not only were all of Birkeland's predictions "testable", they've all been confirmed by satellites in space and unlike mainstream claims and predictions, his model actually works in the lab as well.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Peratt made all kinds of testable predictions with his model, as did Lerner and Alfven and most importantly Birkeland. Not only were all of Birkeland's predictions "testable", they've all been confirmed by satellites in space and unlike mainstream claims and predictions, his model actually works in the lab as well.

And Peratt had failed predictions too:

http://dealingwithcreationisminastr...06/scott-rebuttal-ii-peratt-galaxy-model.html

Birkeland was never a supporter of the electric universe from what I have seen. He was simply a plasma physicist. Just because a physicist specializes in plasma does not make him an electric universe supporter. There are countless physicists doing plasma research today that do not support your claims at all.

 

[Michael]

And Peratt had failed predictions too:

http://dealingwithcreationisminastr...06/scott-rebuttal-ii-peratt-galaxy-model.html

Don't even get me started on the unethical behaviors and false claims of Tom Bridgman. He personally kludged Birkeland's work so badly that it's simply pathetic and utterly false. He can't even get the particle flow diagram right in Birkeland's model!

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15939

Birkeland was never a supporter of the electric universe from what I have seen.

Birkeland was the very *first* supporter of the electric universe concept to actually sit down and *test* his beliefs in a real lab with real equipment and make real predictions based upon those experiments. He's literally the inventor/grandfather of the whole concept. Apparently all you know about his work is based upon mainstream propaganda that's never seen the light of publishing day.

He was simply a plasma physicist. Just because a physicist specializes in plasma does not make him an electric universe supporter. There are countless physicists doing plasma research today that do not support your claims at all.

The forth state of matter (plasma) didn't even have a proper scientific name in his day, nor did fusion or fission have proper scientific names. Even still he correctly predicted that the sun was internally powered by a "transmutation of elements", and he nailed every important solar atmospheric high energy Earth oriented prediction that I can think of, including cathode rays, polar jets, both types of high speed particles coming from the sun, discharges in the solar atmosphere, coronal loops, etc.

You really should study his actual work instead of relying upon unpublished websites for all your knowledge.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Don't even get me started on the unethical behaviors and false claims of Tom Bridgman. He personally kludged Birkeland's work so badly that it's simply pathetic and utterly false. He can't even get the particle flow diagram right in Birkeland's model!

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15939



Birkeland was the very *first* supporter of the electric universe concept to actually sit down and *test* his beliefs in a real lab with real equipment and make real predictions based upon those experiments. He's literally the inventor/grandfather of the whole concept. Apparently all you know about his work is based upon mainstream propaganda that's never seen the light of publishing day.



The forth state of matter (plasma) didn't even have a proper scientific name in his day, nor did fusion or fission have proper scientific names. Even still he correctly predicted that the sun was internally powered by a "transmutation of elements", and he nailed every important solar atmospheric high energy Earth oriented prediction that I can think of, including cathode rays, polar jets, both types of high speed particles coming from the sun, discharges in the solar atmosphere, coronal loops, etc.

You really should study his actual work instead of relying upon unpublished websites for all your knowledge.

Sorry, you are simply wrong about Birkeland and cannot support your claims. He was merely a pioneer in plasma physics. I can find nothing of his that showed he was a EU nut. You complain about others "hijacking" science and here you are guilty of that sin yourself. By the way, I do not go to creationist type sites unless I am seriously looking for a laugh. Why do you keep linking EU nuts?

 

[Michael]

And this claim will be thoroughly checked and rechecked by real scientists. That is how the flaw in the work of the Bicep2 team was found. Not by people that scream "plasma" and have no testable predictions.

For the record, David shoved that paper in my face the day or two after all the media hype. I pointed David to the exactly three or four paragraph in a 25+ page paper where the claims went to hell in a handbasket, and lo and behold, that's exactly where it fell apart. Bicep2 literally claimed to eliminate every other possible explanation in the universe for that particular observation in 4 paragraphs or less, and they did so with 5+ sigma confidence! Oy Vey.

All of these claims require "faith" in more than one hypothetical entity by the way. One has to "hold belief" in the concept of a "black hole" (as unique from simply an ordinary massive object), as well as the concept of gravity waves. I'm personally torn because I'd love them to find actual evidence of gravity waves, and I don't personally have a problem with the concept an extremely massive object, although the Pauli exclusion principle forbids the concept of a zero radius or infinitely dense object.

Unfortunately however, it looks to me thus far that all their "false alarm" calculations are based upon their own theories, and "background" data sets related to *older* (less sensitive) equipment. I'm inclined to believe at the moment that the signal observed by LIGO is "real", just like the polarized photon patterns observed by Bicep2 were real. I'm also inclined to think there's a more logical and likely empirical answer, namely discharges that are high in the Earth's atmosphere and not quite equidistant for both detectors. The frequency range observed in the LIGO signal is commonly produced by the Earth's magnetosphere-ionosphere regions, and I suspect that's where the signal originates, not 1.3 billion light years from Earth.

I'm still reading through the 203,000 year "miracle technology of no false alarm" paper before I pass final judgement, but I can't say I'm happy with the methodology I've seen thus far. The whole "claim of discovery" rides on the false alarm paper. Without a clear way to be sure the signal cannot originate for ordinary electrical discharges, you'd need a lot more background time than a few months to make any claims about what *new and more sensitive* technology might observe.

The real "weakness" in the claim IMO is the fact it was never visually corroborated by any other instrument used in astronomy today. A powerful merger that could send this kind of signal over spacetime would necessarily light up the region like a Christmas tree in a myriad of wavelengths. Some instrument besides LIGO should be able to cross verify the fact that *something* took place in deep space in the same general direction as their expected merger. If they can't corroborate it visually in some way, there's simply no way to be sure it's not caused by another type of high energy discharge closer to the Earth.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/30oct_ftes/

An event like this certainly might get picked up by LIGO, and while the signal might be real, I can think of a lot of empirically demonstrated potential signal points that are much closer to home.

 

[Michael]

Sorry, you are simply wrong about Birkeland and cannot support your claims.

Dude, I can not only support them, they actually *work as advertised in the lab*!

That's called "empirical" support for one's claims.

He was merely a pioneer in plasma physics.

Indeed, he was a pioneer in plasma physics even before there was a term for "plasma". That's handy by the way when 99+ percent of the known universe is plasma.

I can find nothing of his that showed he was a EU nut.

The term "EU nut" is your own personal biases going "personal". It has no other meaning. Birkeland was however an EU/PC "pioneer" as was Alfven.

By the way, I do not go to creationist type sites unless I am seriously looking for a laugh. Why do you keep linking EU nuts?

Your debate tactic is simply childish. Unlike your favorite creation mythology, EU/PC theory doesn't even necessarily predict or require a creation (of all matter) event like your belief system requires. You're the one peddling a faster than light speed expansion creation mythology, not me.

Why do you keep failing to read or comment on published and peer reviewed "tests" of your own claims?

 

[dad]

I have already shown you the predicted gravitational waveforms, compared to the detected waveforms.



This is general relativity. There's no such thing as simple detail. As I said before, these are numerical calculations based on Einstein's equations, and a scenario of coalescing black holes.

The graph was not a match. The so called expected details from relativity need to tell us how far away and big the holes are. What, anywhere in the universe will do? Have you dne wnyth8ng mre thwn declare a few black holes exist at certain coordinates because we see a wave hitting the fishbowl of earth that sort of looks like you'd expect!?

 

[dad]

In fairness dad, they did create "mathematical models" to "predict" a type of pattern of gravitational wave that they might observe from two massive objects merging, and in fairness, it does pretty well match the signal they saw in LIGO. The real problem was claiming that they could eliminate any other type of signal from generating that same signal with five sigma confidence, which is exactly what the Bicep2 team claimed as well. That's where the slight of hand came in.

The type of wave does not cut it. I see places on the graph where it does not msych. Anything affecting earth space time that resulted from a spiralling of something small and dense might do it, no? I would think the problem is assuming only a black hole could do it.

 

[Michael]

The type of wave does not cut it. I see places on the graph where it does not msych. Anything affecting earth space time that resulted from a spiralling of something small and dense might do it, no?

IMO the curve is a very good fit to their mathematical model, but it's smack dab in a frequency range that is commonly produced in the Earth's magnetosphere and it fits the same pattern as any ordinary electrical discharge. To be seen in both detectors the discharge would need to take place high in the atmosphere, and it would need to be not quite equidistant from both detectors. A whole range of potential discharge points come to mind much closer to home, specifically the magnetosphere, the aurora, sprites, Elves, and potentially solar discharges.

*If* they had visual confirmation I'd be impressed and excited. Without it, I'm skeptical and underwhelmed, particularly with the 203,000 year "false alarm" claims. They don't even seem to mention anything yet on that list of items I mentioned earlier. That's not a good sign.

 

[Michael]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_pulse