Evidence of gravitational waves, or evidence of confirmation bias?

[Michael]

What a profoundly lame attempted come-back, completely lacking in evidence of a vestige of a thinking mind!

In other words, immaculate conception claims were never even conceived of or written about prior to 2015. Got it.

Has the Danish paper passed any peer-review process yet? If not, why are you asserting the existence of correlated noise?

For starters because LIGO *blew it big time* when they did try to "debunk" their claim on the web. Secondly it wasn't written by a mere amateur like myself, and lastly because I know from experience just how *biased* the publication channels are with respect to LIGO claims.

I saw a cartoon the other day that asserted the existence of angels and goblins! Do you believe they also exist because of some artist's impression of what angels and goblins must look like?

What the heck are you even talking about. Please provide a citation to this mythical conversation we never had about artists impressions.

.. That's coming from "Mr 0.5=1" (The ultimate contradictor!)
What a crock!

Your claim is dishonest Mr. "I just made that up because I botched the formula and failed to simplify it too".

It is when there's nothing left to accrete!

Special pleading, which is no doubt how you'll try to deal with that utter and complete lack of an inspiral build up too!

So what? No-one else bothered either ... should we be bothered? Why?

Why are you engaged in this thread at all if you aren't interested in discussing the *topic*?

Just watch how fast you run from LIGO's missing inspiral build up in those invisible merger claims now too. You can't handle the physics.

 

[Michael]

Are you now attempting to post-edit your messages in order to escape the foot-in-mouth hard corners you've backed yourself into?

Huh? What corner?

The really funny part of this conversation is that LIGO backed themselves right into a missing inspiral build up corner by publishing that last paper, and you don't even have a valid or logical explanation for that lack of a build up prior to the BH-BH mergers. Just watch how fast you run from that problem.

 

[SelfSim]

Presumably the accretion disks would still emit light, produce jets and all the normal processes we see around massive objects in and around our own galaxy.

It is {edit: "It won't'} when there's nothing left to accrete!

...Special pleading, which is no doubt how you'll try to deal with that utter and complete lack of an inspiral build up too!

Not 'special' at all! The emissions change in accordance with the amount of BH infalling matter!:
(Note: a 2011 article):
Disaster looms for gas cloud falling into Milky Way's central black hole:

"When we look at the black holes in the centers of other galaxies, we see them get bright and then fade, but we never know what is actually happening," said Eliot Quataert, a theoretical astrophysicist and University of California, Berkeley professor of astronomy. "This is an unprecedented opportunity to obtain unique observations and insight into the processes that go on as gas falls into a black hole, heats up and emits light. It's a neat window onto a black hole that's actually capturing gas as it spirals in."
...
Black hole normally quiet
Astronomers have long observed clouds of gas streaming toward the center of our Milky Way Galaxy, presumably destined to fall into the 4.3 million solar-mass black hole lurking there. But this black hole "has a surprisingly low amount of matter falling inward at the moment," Quataert said.

 

[Michael]

Not 'special' at all! The emissions change in accordance with the amount of BH infalling matter!:
(Note: a 2011 article):
Disaster looms for gas cloud falling into Milky Way's central black hole:

Where exactly in that paper does it claim the object is invisible or it has *no* material around it?

Why are you still avoiding the utter lack of a gravitational wave build up problem in all of the 'immaculate conception' claims? I should expect more special pleading, or blatant avoidance of that *glaring physics problem* I presume?

 

[sjastro]

LOL! Projection at it's finest. I'm not trying to claim a "great discovery" based on purely invisible events. It's like claiming that two invisible sky gods merged together and burped out a big fat gravitational wave: "Somewhere out there in that huge band in the sky". And they did it *four times in a row* no less!

The logical fallacy, argument of incredulity.

Er, no. I'm not making any great "discovery" claims, nor did my paper claim that all BH-BH mergers *had* to emit EM radiation.

So you know have now contradicted your logical fallacy by stating BH-BH mergers don't have to emit EM radiation.

LIGO needs *8* special types of black holes, all of which must have zero plasma around their event horizon, miraculously they produced no visible jets, and all of which merged together without any preceding buildup like that last visible event.

Uh? So now you have contradicted the statement that contradicted your original statement (ie you have gone back to your original statement.)
And you wonder why I think you are not very bright.

Your second quote is also a bald faced lie.
Your paper stated BH-BH mergers needed an EM signal after the first GW discovery.
So on a sample size of one you made a bold declaration that an EM signal is required.
This can only be "logically consistent" (and I use the term lightly) if BH mergers resulted in EM signals.

What this shows you are so inept you can't even effectively cover up your own lies.

 

[Michael]

The logical fallacy, argument of incredulity.

Nope. I'm simply noting LIGO's complete lack of evidence to support their invisible merger claims, including that missing gravitational wave build up we saw in a "real" celestial event. It's not my fault that you're reduced to special pleading when trying to claim a great "discovery" from completely invisible events.

So you know have now contradicted your logical fallacy by stating BH-BH mergers don't have to emit EM radiation.

Not at all. There's no evidence that BH mergers *don't* emit light either! In fact neither of you seems to be able to produce a single published paper that ever predicted such a thing prior to 2015.

Uh? So now you have contradicted the statement that contradicted your original statement (ie you have gone back to your original statement.)
And you wonder why I think you are not very bright.

Since I'm not claiming any great discovery based on invisible objects, there is no contradiction. I've not made any "extraordinary" claims, so I have nothing to demonstrate. You're the one that doesn't look real bright while you blatantly avoid that missing gravitational wave build up in your invisible merger claims.

Your second quote is also a bald faced lie.
Your paper stated BH-BH mergers needed an EM signal after the first GW discovery.

Quote me. The only thing I said is that *to avoid all possibility of bias*, they can't have a double standard with respect to their process of elimination. You obviously never read my paper which is why you're reduced to just making stuff up.

So on a sample size of one you made a bold declaration that an EM signal is required.

It's only *required* if one wishes to avoid the potential of blatant bias and you wish to ensure that biases are eliminated. I did *not* claim that all BH-BH mergers *must* emit light. You made that up, just like you make up half the junk that comes out of your mouth.

This can only be "logically consistent" (and I use the term lightly) if BH mergers resulted in EM signals.

If they don't emit light, you can't be sure that the signal is celestial in origin. The fact they didn't show any type of gravitational wave build up during the inspiral process also suggests that the chirps in question have nothing whatsoever to do with a merger event like the one we *saw*.

What this shows you are so inept you can't even effectively cover up your own lies.

Considering the fact that you're too lame to even read the paper you're trying to critique, you're the last one that should be complaining about someone else's ineptitude or lack of intellectual honesty. Oy Vey.

 

[sjastro]

I hate to burst your naive bubble, but that last multimessenger observation doesn't demonstrate that LIGO is correct about the first four "invisible" events being caused by celestial mergers. In fact, it only pokes more huge holes in LIGO's invisible merger claims. The first four 'invisible' events all suffer from a bad case of *missing gravitational wave build up* that was observed for something like 100 seconds prior to the actual merger in the last event. That missing gravitational wave build up only demonstrates that it's highly *unlikely* that those first four 1/4 second chirp noises are actually caused by celestial merger events. There was no gravitational wave buildup in any of the first four "invisible" events like we observed in the last visible event. Why not?

Somehow *every single one* of the immaculate conception events miraculously and mysteriously avoided releasing any sign of gravitational waves *prior to* the actual merger. That's exactly the *opposite* of what we saw in the last event. There was something like 100 seconds of pre-chirp build up from the inspiral process before the actual merger process is observed in the last event. Why didn't your magic invisible black holes do something similar in terms of signal build up during the inspiral process as we observed in the most recent event? Let me guess: More special pleading?

Why don't you attach the data instead making some vague descriptions and allegations.

 

[Michael]

Why don't you attach the data instead making some vague descriptions and allegations.

Oh for crying out loud! I put a link to the published paper about the EM emissions from black hole mergers right in my original paper, and I cited LIGO's own work to show the difference between the inspiral gravitational wave build up they observed from a real celestial event and the complete lack of such an observation from the *invisible immaculate conception* claims they made. It's LIGO's own data that destroys their own BH-BH argument! There is no inspiral build up of gravitational waves in their immaculate conception claims. Why not? Stop avoiding that hard physics question now. It just makes you look desperate.

 

[SelfSim]

Oh for crying out loud! I put a link to the published paper about the EM emissions from black hole mergers right in my original paper, and I cited LIGO's own work to show the difference between the inspiral gravitational wave build up they observed from a real celestial event and the complete lack of such an observation from the *invisible immaculate conception* claims they made. It's LIGO's own data that destroys their own BH-BH argument! There is no inspiral build up of gravitational waves in their immaculate conception claims. Why not? Stop avoiding that hard physics question now. It just makes you look desperate.

What are you on about now?
You're attempting to compare a BH-BH merger strain signal with a NS-NS merger signal and claim that because the two are different, the first detections are therfore not GW detections?
Sheeeeeshh!!

 

[sjastro]

Oh for crying out loud! I put a link to the published paper about the EM emissions from black hole mergers right in my original paper, and I cited LIGO's own work to show the difference between the inspiral gravitational wave build up they observed from a real celestial event and the complete lack of such an observation from the *invisible immaculate conception* claims they made. It's LIGO's own data that destroys their own BH-BH argument! There is no inspiral build up of gravitational waves in their immaculate conception claims. Why not? Stop avoiding that hard physics question now. It just makes you look desperate.

What's wrong Michael.
A tad sensitive aren't we.
Are you that inept you cannot perform a simple task such as providing the data.

My reasons for requesting the data from you is given your history of incompetence, it wouldn't surprise me if your "analysis" is based on the wrong information.
Once I am satisfied the data is consistent, I will make a response.

Simple isn't it.

 

[Michael]

What are you on about now?
You're attempting to compare a BH-BH merger strain signal with a NS-NS merger signal and claim that because the two are different, the first detections are therfore not GW detections?
Sheeeeeshh!!

Not only are you two reduced to special pleading as it relates to requiring 'naked uncharged" black holes *eight times in a row* to supposedly 'explain' your complete lack of visual evidence, you also have to resort to special pleading as it relates to their utter lack of any sort of gravitational wave build up as we observed in the BNS merger. Holy Cow! There's literally no sign of any gravitational wave build up as we would expect during an inspiral process in those invisible BH merger claims. Why not? Why is it that you're reduced to relying exclusively upon special pleading fallacies and invisible miracles galore? Wow!

Your industry is in a very sorry state in 2017. You have no evidence to support any of your invisible nonsense and almost all of your claims (with just one exception) rely *exclusively* on invisible entities, and blatant special pleading fallacies galore!

Bah! Denial at it's finest. It's no wonder why we're still living in the dark ages of astronomy. You're in pure denial of the scientific implications of your own data sets! Sheeesh is right.

 

[Michael]

What's wrong Michael.
A tad sensitive aren't we.
Are you that inept you cannot perform a simple task such as providing the data.

My reasons for requesting the data from you is given your history of incompetence, it wouldn't surprise me if your "analysis" is based on the wrong information.
Once I am satisfied the data is consistent, I will make a response.

Simple isn't it.

You've been engaged in this thread for months, but you haven't bothered to even read my paper, and you have the nerve to accuse me of incompetence? Wow!

You want me to provide you with *more* specific links and references that you won't even bother to read? Why? What would be the point? Wake me up when you've actually read my paper and then I *might* bother to waste my time providing you with even more links that you probably won't even bother to read!

 

[SelfSim]

Not only are you two reduced to special pleading as it relates to requiring 'naked uncharged" black holes *eight times in a row* to supposedly 'explain' your complete lack of visual evidence, you also have to resort to special pleading as it relates to their utter lack of any sort of gravitational wave build up as we observed in the BNS merger. Holy Cow! There's literally no sign of any gravitational wave build up as we would expect during an inspiral process in those invisible BH merger claims. Why not?

What data are you looking at? I am yet to see the strain vs time data/graph for the NS-NS merger event and all the other events all showed a high correlation with the expected merger models ... including the inspiral phase.

Unless you provide the comparison data you are referring to, all we can conclude is that this, your latest complaint, is yet another vicious rumour!? Stand and deliver!

 

[Michael]

What data are you looking at? I am yet to see the strain vs time data/graph for the NS-NS merger event and all the other events all showed a high correlation with the expected merger models ... including the inspiral phase.

Apparently your "inspiral phase" models are purely ad hoc constructs then, because the duration and frequency patterns are absolutely *nothing* alike! They are different by *multiple orders of magnitude*! They are as different from each other as the Empire State Building is different from a single story, single family dwelling!

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017...-gravitational-waves-and-celestial-light-show

The four previous events lasted for, at most, a few seconds, with gravitational waves rippling at frequencies of tens of cycles per second. The new siren sang for 100 seconds at frequencies climbing to thousands of cycles per second.

The first invisible event didn't even last for a full second, whereas the only visible merger event was observable over 100 seconds and 100 times the frequency! The inspiral patterns are almost *nothing* alike in terms of their duration or their frequency patterns.

It's not a "rumor", it's a fact. Look at their duration and frequency patterns. They're nothing alike in terms of their duration. They are nothing alike in terms of their frequency, and they are certainly nothing alike in terms of their EM emission patterns. The last problem is bad enough, but the first two observations are more than a tad suspicious. Supposedly these binary pairs are inspiraling into one another but they can't even manage to produce gravitational waves for a whole second prior to the supposed "merger". The first four "chirps" could *easily* be discharge related activity, and/or ordinary "blip transient" events, whereas the last one could not possibly be either of those things.

Wanna bet that I get more special pleading as to why they're so radically different? 8 "special" black holes and 4 "special" merger patterns, none of which match any visually verified event.

 

[sjastro]

Apparently your "inspiral phase" models are purely ad hoc constructs then, because the duration and frequency patterns are absolutely *nothing* alike! They are different by *multiple orders of magnitude*! They are as different from each other as the Empire State Building is different from a single story, single family dwelling!

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017...-gravitational-waves-and-celestial-light-show



The first invisible event didn't even last for a full second, whereas the only visible merger event was observable over 100 seconds and 100 times the frequency! The inspiral patterns are almost *nothing* alike in terms of their duration or their frequency patterns.

It's not a "rumor", it's a fact. Look at their duration and frequency patterns. They're nothing alike in terms of their duration. They are nothing alike in terms of their frequency, and they are certainly nothing alike in terms of their EM emission patterns. The last problem is bad enough, but the first two observations are more than a tad suspicious. Supposedly these binary pairs are inspiraling into one another but they can't even manage to produce gravitational waves for a whole second prior to the supposed "merger". The first four "chirps" could *easily* be discharge related activity, and/or ordinary "blip transient" events, whereas the last one could not possibly be either of those things.

Wanna bet that I get more special pleading as to why they're so radically different? 8 "special" black holes and 4 "special" merger patterns, none of which match any visually verified event.

Yawn.

You hit the nail right on the head Selfsim.

Mr “1=0.5” has made the fatal mistake of thinking if the gravitational wave spectra of BH and NS mergers are not “equivalent” this somehow invalidates the concept.
What Mr “1=0.5” evidently doesn’t know is that GWs undergo redshift.
All the BH mergers occurred at distances of the magnitude of billions of light years whereas the NS merger is only 130 million light years away.
Therefore it is not surprising the frequencies of BH mergers have been redshifted to very low values when compared to the much closer NS merger.

Let’s now wait in anticipation when Mr “1=0.5” conducts his own special pleading.

Incidentally Mr “1=0.5” dishonesty goes beyond the boundaries of this site when he boasted at Tbolts that we were stumped by his profound insight on this subject, even though we were unaware of the subject at the time.

 

[SelfSim]

Apparently your "inspiral phase" models are purely ad hoc constructs then, because the duration and frequency patterns are absolutely *nothing* alike! They are different by *multiple orders of magnitude*! They are as different from each other as the Empire State Building is different from a single story, single family dwelling!

Taking GW150914 as an example:

The gravitational waveform observed for GW150914 comprises ∼10 cycles during the inspiral phase from 30 Hz, followed by the merger and ringdown. The properties of the binary affect the phase and amplitude evolution of the observed GWs, allowing us to measure the source parameters.

So, firstly GW150914 did provide evidence of an inspiral phase and secondly, why would anyone expect the same from two totally dissimilar and unrelated inspiralling events?
As sjastro points out, the duration of the inspiral is also affected by the redshift, taking it outside the detector sensitivity range!

The first invisible event didn't even last for a full second, whereas the only visible merger event was observable over 100 seconds and 100 times the frequency! The inspiral patterns are almost *nothing* alike in terms of their duration or their frequency patterns.

So what?
They are two totally different observations of two totally unconnected events!

The first four "chirps" could *easily* be discharge related activity, and/or ordinary "blip transient" events, whereas the last one could not possibly be either of those things.

No .. not even remotely plausible! Every one of your 'blip' transient/discharge arguments have been shown to be completely bogus throughout this thread.

 

[SelfSim]

From the same report:

We consider the frequency region between 20 Hz, below which the sensitivity of the instruments significantly degrades (see panel (b) of Fig. 3 in Ref. [1]), and 1024 Hz, a safe value for the highest frequency contribution to radiation from binaries in the mass range considered here.

 

[SelfSim]

In the light of the recent NS merger announcement, Michael continues to pay lip-service in his statements about agreeing with the theoretical predictions of the existence of GWs and with the existence of 'massive objects' (aka Black Holes) and then even with his agreement that the NS merger event was 'good' science (his opinion).
However, his contradiction streak runs true-to-form by then apparently completely ignoring the exact same theroretical context under which the entire LIGO intitiative was conceived by persisting with his nonsensical shoot-from-the-hip explanations of the 'possible' other causes of the first BH merger GW measurements!
The fact is LIGO was designed to detect GWs .. and it has consistently done exactly what it was conceived and designed to do. Arguing that it sometime detects GWs and at other times doesn't, entirely without any evidence of 'intermittent malfunctioning', whatsoever, is just ridiculous! (Oh and yes .. LIGO can and does distinguish between blip transients and GW signals .. see the latest announcements on how they extracted one such event ..)

 

[Michael]

Taking GW150914 as an example:
So, firstly GW150914 did provide evidence of an inspiral phase

But it's absolutely *nothing* like a "real" merger event! In one case you have no visual confirmation of celestial event, a signal of *almost* ~10 cycles over less than a 1/4 of a second, vs. *thousands* of cycles over *hundreds of seconds* and visual confirmation of a celestial event in the exact location predicted by the equipment.

Your absurd argument is like claiming that we see two objects, one moving ~10 miles an hour, and the other one moving 100,000 miles an hour and claiming they *must* both be rocket ships. Your argument is worse still however because we can literally see the rocket ship and we can't even see the 10 mile per hour object but you keep insisting it also has to be or rocket ship! Oy Vey.

Your argument is worse than I thought. It's a 2 for 1 fallacy extravaganza. It's not only based on blatant special pleading, it's also based on a false equivalence fallacy too! What a lame argument.

and secondly, why would anyone expect the same from two totally dissimilar and unrelated inspiralling events?

You're right that they are totally dissimilar and unrelated observations. One is *obviously* a celestial event, and the other isn't!

As sjastro points out, the duration of the inspiral is also affected by the redshift, taking it outside the detector sensitivity range!

Er, when exactly did that happen? Before or after they saw the first of the 10 cycles? Before or after the merger? You two are obvioiusly making this up as you go.

So what?
They are two totally different observations of two totally unconnected events!

That's the whole point! The are totally unconnected and totally dissimilar events. They aren't anything alike. One is visible, the other isn't. One lasts 100 seconds and the other less than a second. One is only 10's of cycles per second, whereas the other is *thousands* of cycles per second. They aren't equivalent in any way shape or form.

No .. not even remotely plausible! Every one of your 'blip' transient/discharge arguments have been shown to be completely bogus throughout this thread.

Pure baloney. Your whole basis for eliminating blip transients was your claim that environmental influences could not produce correlated noise, but the Danish team blew that claim out of the water, so you're avoiding their work like the plague as a result. Who are you trying to kid?

Naturally occurring electrical discharges in the Earth's atmosphere routinely produce signals that last for less than a second, whereas they rarely if every produce hundred second long high energy processes. You're in pure denial of basic physics.

 

[Michael]

Yawn.

You hit the nail right on the head Selfsim.

Mr “1=0.5” has made the fatal mistake of thinking if the gravitational wave spectra of BH and NS mergers are not “equivalent” this somehow invalidates the concept.

They are not only not equivalent, they aren't even in the same ballpark Dr. Denial.

What Mr “1=0.5” evidently doesn’t know is that GWs undergo redshift.

When did that happen in the first case, before or after the first cycle, and/or before or after the merger Dr. Denial?