Evidence of gravitational waves, or evidence of confirmation bias?
- Thread starter Michael
- Start date
Not at all. I gave LIGO credit where credit was due, and I busted their chops when that was warranted too.
I love how you try to sweep the huge visual, duration and frequency differences right under the rug and pretend that they don't matter. There's a huge theoretical difference between suggesting that the sound we just heard coming from the room probably came from the cellphone that is visible and sitting on the desk in front of us, vs. claiming "invisible merging gods did it". Give me a break. You refuse to acknowledge the many order of magnitude difference between the duration and frequencies of these events and the visual differences too! They are not even close to the same claims.
It also detects all sorts of other noises too, including blip transients and evidently other types of correlated noise according to the Danish team paper which you refuse to deal with. If LIGO detectors *never* were influenced by other factors you might have something to complain about. Since that's not even close to true, you've got nothing but confirmation bias and wishful thinking to support LIGO's immaculate conception claims.
It's also consistently observed blip transients which routinely show up in those exact frequency and duration patterns too, and LIGO has no logical way to eliminate them.
What a crock and a half. One event is *visible*, lasts over 100 seconds, has a frequency that's two orders of magnitude greater and looks *nothing* like an ordinary blip transient. The other one looks *exactly* like a blip transient, has no visual component, lasts less than half of a second just like blip transient, and the Danish team reports correlated noise during that same time frame. They aren't equivalent, no matter how much you wish they were.
What was their basis of "extracting" it? Sorry if I'm not real impressed with LIGO announcements but a few months ago they announced that they'd respond to the Danish team's paper and now they are running from it like it's the devil himself. LIGO "announced" that there were no vetoes within an hour of the first signal too, but that exact signal was vetoed within 18 seconds. Pardon me if I'm not real satisfied with their "announcements" but they have a bad track record.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Try improving your reading comprehension skills.
They are not in the same ballpark for the reasons I have given.
What gibberish are you going on about?
Redshift of GWs has absolutely nothing to do with the when where and how of GW radiation but due to the expansion of the Universe.
That presents a problem to your nonsensical extreme confirmation bias argument since scattering occurs “in the lab” then cosmological redshift must be due to scattering.
The scattering cross section for matter in the presence of GWs is extremely small hence so don't bother trying to suggest that GWs are scattered.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Thank you! I agree that this succinct question goes straight to the heart of the matter.
I look forward to an equally succinct answer from Michael (not holding my breath on that though ..)
Upvote
0
I have asked you both now to produce some papers that "predicted" that "naked uncharged" black hole mergers would be expected to A) be the "norm" for all BBH mergers, and B) outnumber BNS events by a ratio of 5 to 1 *prior* to 2016. So far you've both run from that request. Why is that?
The evidence of "special pleading" by LIGO begins with their lack of any previous material to support their assertion that all BBH mergers would all be "invisible" on Earth. I see nothing at all in the literature that predicts such a thing, and certainly nothing to support the concept that we'd be likely to observe *only* invisible examples of such mergers.
Instead, the "excuse" that they gave for applying a completely different *methodology* to all celestial events was based on pure special pleading. They seemed to simply "assume" that anything that even remotely looked like a correlated "chirp" *must be* a celestial merger of some kind. They simply "excused" their lack of visual confirmation by blatantly evoking a "special scenario" which somehow exempts all celestial claims as to cause from further scrutiny. That's even more dubious considering the fact that short blip transient 'chirps' have been routinely observed by LIGO all along and they're far more common than BBH mergers.
The more I read about LIGO's first example of multimessenger astronomy, the more impressive it is, and the less impressive their previous claims appear to be.
IMO it's really too bad that LIGO didn't wait for visual corroboration and apply the same standard of evidence to celestial claims of cause as they applied to all other possible cause of the "chirps". The new papers are impressive, much more so than anything else they've published.
All the previous 'chirps' are identical to what LIGO has observed routinely from ordinary blip transient phenomenon since day one, and they really don't seem to have any clear way to differentiate between ordinary blip transients and actual celestial events. It only underscores the wide differences between their last claim, and all the preceding claims.
FYI, the last ARXIV paper I read about blip transient identification does concede that they've got problems on that score. While it offers some methods to weed out *some* types of blip transients, their method "assumes" that anything which can't be easily weeded out *must be* a celestial event, with or without any visual confirmation. That's just not a valid assumption.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
The answer is simple.
It's called the burden of proof which you have chickened out of, by engaging in the logical fallacy by expecting us to prove the negative of your assertions.
Sorry it can't be done its like trying to prove why the tooth fairy doesn't exist.
Also it is totally and utterly ridiculous to base an argument on a statistical sample size of 5.
To use your own derogatory terminology we are not your "physics mommies" either.
You made the assertions, you provide the evidence for your assertions otherwise you are engaging in nothing more than special pleading.
Upvote
0
LOL! Talk about projection. I'm not the one claiming to have "discovered" something based on a complete *non event*! Nothing was observed that even remotely suggested that the events in question were anything other than ordinary correlated blip transient events. Period!
You're the one insisting that this was some great 'discovery' yet there is nothing in any literature that suggest that black holes are always devoid of acretion disks, or that all BBH mergers would be devoid of any visual signal.
LIGO simply offered us a blatant case of "special pleading" where none was ever predicted or warranted, simply to "prop up" an otherwise falsified cause claim.
You two can't even cite a single piece of published literature that ever predicted anything of the sort, nor can show that LIGO ever expected to observe such a "non event" prior to claiming that something "special" was the reason they couldn't see it......four straight times in a row no less!
The only one that chickened out is you two. The only one who made an claims based on a "non event" was LIGO. I've got absolutely nothing to prove so LIGO's blatant special pleading claim is the claim that needs to be "supported", and you can't do it!
Ya, but somehow you expect me to disprove your naked uncharged black hole fairies didn't do it.
LOL!You have an actual sample size of one real celestial event that looks *nothing* like an ordinary blip transient, and a sample size of four events that look exactly like ordinary blip transients. That's all you've got.
The fact you somehow expect me to "disprove" the existence of your special pleading naked black hole tooth faeries says it all. You've got physics and the concept of evidence standing on it's head.
The reason you can't produce any such papers to support your claims is because nothing was ever published prior to their tooth faerie claim that ever supported tooth faeries! Who do you think you're fooling? Give me a break.
Upvote
0
For the record......
I've been very supportive of GR theory and LIGO's last paper both here and at Thunderbolts, but nothing in that last paper supports LIGO's first four claims. In fact, the only verified merger event tends to undermine their first four claims because they look *nothing* like an actual merger event, and they look exactly like ordinary correlated blip transients. LIGO has to simply run and hide from that Danish team's finding of correlated noise too.
The basic claim of LIGO is that any correlated "chirp" noise *must be* a celestial event and special pleading then ensues.
Had LIGO actually published a series of papers in advance suggesting that all BBH merger events would be likely to be impossible to detect and would always fall outside the range of multimessenger astronomy, they might not have needed to resort to blatant special pleading four times in a row. As it stands however, there's nothing in the previous literature to support their claim, so the whole thing is *blatant* special pleading in every possible respect. This chirp noise is "special" because.......
Baloney. There's nothing "special" about ordinary blip transients, and LIGO *still* can't actually distinguish between a blip transient and a celestial event. The best they can do is weed out *some obvious* blip transients and then they're left with just the "questionable" ones which still can't be distinguished from blip transients.
The one merger event that has been verified looks *nothing* like a blip transient, but the four 'special pleading' signals look *exactly* like an ordinary blip transient in terms of their duration and frequency. There's nothing "special" about them, other than the fact that LIGO insisted they're "special".
I've been very supportive of GR theory and LIGO's last paper both here and at Thunderbolts, but nothing in that last paper supports LIGO's first four claims. In fact, the only verified merger event tends to undermine their first four claims because they look *nothing* like an actual merger event, and they look exactly like ordinary correlated blip transients. LIGO has to simply run and hide from that Danish team's finding of correlated noise too.
The basic claim of LIGO is that any correlated "chirp" noise *must be* a celestial event and special pleading then ensues.
Had LIGO actually published a series of papers in advance suggesting that all BBH merger events would be likely to be impossible to detect and would always fall outside the range of multimessenger astronomy, they might not have needed to resort to blatant special pleading four times in a row. As it stands however, there's nothing in the previous literature to support their claim, so the whole thing is *blatant* special pleading in every possible respect. This chirp noise is "special" because.......
Baloney. There's nothing "special" about ordinary blip transients, and LIGO *still* can't actually distinguish between a blip transient and a celestial event. The best they can do is weed out *some obvious* blip transients and then they're left with just the "questionable" ones which still can't be distinguished from blip transients.
The one merger event that has been verified looks *nothing* like a blip transient, but the four 'special pleading' signals look *exactly* like an ordinary blip transient in terms of their duration and frequency. There's nothing "special" about them, other than the fact that LIGO insisted they're "special".
Upvote
0
Not true! A signal (of ~23dB magnitude), which matched the parameters predicted for BBH merger(s) was detected in both detectors! The absence of other pertinent environmental data in the PEM sensor data allowed exclusion of all other local environmental causes.
Show us the data demonstrating the distribution frequency of simultaneous blip transients in multiple detectors!
Before the detection of the intitial BBH merger, there was no pertinent empirical data for distinguishing the frequency of accreting vs non accrecting black holes throughout the universe. My posts #265 and #270, which you totally dismissed and scoffed at, contained a link to the very first prediction estimates of BBH mergers, based on the LIGO data.Michael said:
And now, you repeat your demands for the current best models?
I'm sorry, but such demands don't get much more ignorant than ones demanding what has already been provided (and scoffed at). LIGO is at the forefront of research here y'know .. that's one of the reasons for rewarding them for their efforts with the Nobel Prize in Physics!
And you repeat the lie of a 'non event' yet again!!!Michael said:
LIGO did not make a claim of a "non event". The event was a confirmed GW detection from which a BBH merger was inferred directly from the data produced .. end of story. They were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics for their efforts!
Now what are you prattling on about?
How do you know what characterises an 'ordinary blip transient'? Where did that information come from? What was the source?Michael said:
Please cite evidence of the statistical probability that allows LIGO to remove and dismiss blip transients as a cause (like they did for the NS merger event).
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
No-one cares what you 'support', or what you 'don't support'! (Especially at the house of horrors!)
You don't understand 'GR theory' anyway, as you've clearly demonstrated that you don't understand the distinguishing nature of black holes throughout the universe.
Blah .. blah .. blah ...Michael said:
The 'Danish team' already have their answer from LIGO .. they don't understand the data as LIGO has presented it .. end of story.
This is such a foolishly deluded expectation!Michael said:
The initial LIGO detection was the very first constrained detection of a GW signal. LIGO was designed to do this in order to generate the data to seed future predictive models!
Your question demands 'the cart' before there is even 'a horse'!
Upvote
0
Yet since they can't distinguish between blip transients and BBH mergers, they don't know the cause of blip transients, and there was other correlated noise going on at the time according to the Danish team, such a "chirp" signal could still could be caused by anything.
Pure confirmation bias on a stick. If that's true, then the lack of any visual support should have been used to exclude celestial events the way that a lack of a signal in PEM sensors was used to exclude local environmental causes. We are right back to a signal of unknown origin, and no there is no "discovery". They have provided nothing even close to 'extraordinary' evidence to support an "extraordinary" celestial claim!
That might be possible if LIGO could easily distinguish between them, but since they couldn't and still can't, the fact they show up in both detectors is automatically classified as a "special pleading" event! They also weren't even out of the engineering run before engaging in special pleading so how would they even know which was which when they had no historical data to work with related to their *highly upgraded* detectors?
Maybe not, but that's not my fault or my problem. They do have *plenty* of examples of black holes with acretion disks surrounding them within our own galaxy. I can't be sure their aren't invisible unicorns in space either, but again, it's not my problem since I'm not trying to build a federal case over invisible burping unicorns either.
That was all done "after the fact". It was based on *assuming* LIGO's claims were true, not based on observations prior to LIGO's special pleading claims!
Prior to their special pleading claims they predicted a 5/3 ratio favoring NS related mergers to start with, and nobody claimed that all three BBH mergers would necessarily be 'invisible" in that paper either. Instead we have a 4/1 ratio favoring completely invisible mergers! Something doesn't add up, and therefore they simply "fudged the numbers" (postdicted the numbers) to fit the LIGO claims!
My 'demands' are pretty simple and pretty logical. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Claiming to have discovered something new in physics is an extraordinary claim. LIGO didn't provide any extraordinary evidence to support their first four special pleading claims, whereas they certainly did provide extraordinary evidence to support their BNS merger claim. That last event was done right, whereas the first four claims were far less impressive because there was nothing "extraordinary" about observing blip transients, or even correlated blip transients while in the engineering run no less in the first claim.
Woah. You didn't provide a paper which was *not based* upon the LIGO claims, and written prior to the LIGO special pleading claims. Instead you handed me an "after the fact" postdicted claim that simply *assumes* that LIGO was correct! That's not what I asked you for. I asked you for a written paper done *before* LIGO made it's special pleading claims.
BICEP2 was at the forefront of research too and they won the Kalvi award before that whole claim fell apart.
I don't even personally begrudge LIGO their Nobel anymore after that last BNS observation, but that doesn't automatically make them "right" about their first four invisible merger claims.
There was no visual support of the first four invisible events. It's like me *not* seeing anything in the PEM sensors but *assuming* it was an environmental cause anyway! Do you accept that claim from me too?
They made a claim about a noise pattern they saw in an engineering run which enjoyed no external support of any sort. That's pretty much no better than what BICEP2 did.
Ah, so since Alfven won the Nobel prize and he rejected magnetic reconnection theory, you accept his opinions on that topic too I assume? Einstein rejected infinitely dense objects (AKA black holes) too, and he even questioned the existence of gravitational waves at one point in his life, and rejected aspects of QM. So what? Their Nobel doesn't make them right, and being right about one thing doesn't mean they can't be wrong about something else.
LIGO themselves! They admit that blip transients are capable of producing signals that fall into the same frequency range and duration patterns of the BBH merger signals and they admit they have (or at least had) no veto methods in place to remove them!
Why? The last time you did that for us, your claim was based on the *assumption* that blip transients could not be correlated between the detectors but that was before the Danish team demonstrated the existence of correlated noise between the detectors!
LIGO's whole basis for "distinguishing" between blip transients and BBH mergers is based upon *assuming* that blip transients cannot be correlated. That's not an acceptable assumption after just upgrading the detectors by a factor of 1000 in terms of volume space and while still in the engineering run to test the upgrades no less! They didn't even have any vetoes in place.
Correlation or lack thereof is *still* their primary basis for distinguishing between them apparently. They can evidently weed out some types of chirp transients based on the chirp pattern itself at higher frequencies, but if they happen to be too similar, a correlated blip transient just gets a free pass, and another immaculate conception claim is born.
LIGO engaged in confirmation bias in their methodology related to BBH mergers. They used a lack of external corroboration to rule out all environmental causes, but didn't apply any exclusion capability to celestial claims of origin! They cut corners big time.
That certainly *wasn't* the case the last time which is what makes that particular claim different and so impressive, and it's exactly what makes their first four claims look so cheesy too.
I will say this much....
I'm *relieved* that LIGO actually delivered on multimessenger astronomy. I would have hated to think there was a possibility that none of their claims were true, but I simply don't feel that way anymore. I think they did their job the right way the last time. I don't think it excuses their use of improper methodology the first four times however, nor do I believe it means their first invisible merger claims were in fact valid.
I'm glad for GR theory that gravitational waves have been verified and "discovered", but I still have no faith whatsoever in the flawed methodology that LIGO applies to BBH merger claims. There was no extraordinary evidence to support any of those first four claims and there still is no extraordinary evidence to support them. None of the first four claims were worthy of being called a 'discovery', but that last event was a completely different claim and a much better supported claim. Even I'm highly impressed that they could narrow down the number of candidate galaxies to 49, prioritize the potential galaxies by size, and find the right one in three tries. That's a great example of proving "extraordinary" evidence to support an "extraordinary" claim. I'm still not impressed with their invisible BBH merger claims, and I'm frankly unlikely to ever be impressed by them in the future either until and unless they can explain the actual source of blip transients. Since they can't do that, they have no way to know if they are right or they are wrong about invisible mergers in the sky.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Then why are you even posting in this thread?
Oh, you mean if I don't agree with your invisible sky daddies, I must be wrong. Got it.
Except it wasn't the end of the story since LIGO tried to respond, messed up the Python code and got busted by the Danish team, so LIGO had to then run for cover.
So sayeth you....oh great invisible pumpkin guru.
The initial LIGO claim was pure confirmation bias on a stick, unworthy of being called a "discovery". The last one however was a great example of providing extraordinary evidence to support an extraordinary claim, and it's good science. Their BBH merger claims are still not validated by the BNS example, and until they can actually explain the cause of blip transients, they still have no evidence to support their BBH claims. Period.
Einstein himself once questioned the very existence of gravitational waves so it's not rational to just *assume* they have to exist and *assume* that naked uncharged black hole pairs must exist either. LIGO wasn't even sure their was a cart or a horse, just a chirp!
Upvote
0
And of course, Michael is just plain wrong about this. Blip transients have not, (to date), occurred simultaneously across the multiple detectors involved (ie: within c bounds for the transitted distance). They are not of the same intensity as the detected GWs and they exhibit more power at higher frequencies than a comparable GW signal.
Michael is, yet again, just simply wrong ...
Heresay! ... Ie: until your 'Danish team' gains its own peer support on its claims.Michael said:
Nope.Michael said:
In this aspect, Michael appears to not understand the basic scientific empirical methodology taught at school (perhaps he should 'bone up' on a Wiki entry or two about: controlled, dependent and independent variables). The absence of significant readings in the PEM data, is direct evidence that all known local EM, acoustic, seismic, etc phenomenon were not present at the precise time of the GW detections (BH mergers), because the PEM sensors are controlled in order to permit such a conclusion.
Michael's 'lack of visual support', from a purely logical viewpoint, can easily be explained by lack of coverage, telescope detector sensitivity limitations, lack of all sky coverage during the GW chirps, etc .. in other words, a lack of observational data on its own (ie: from a purely logical viewpoint) , by no means, demonstrates that 'celestial' events were not at cause. They were anyway because the various signals matched (ie: were consistent with) expected BH-BH merger values (and we don't have any BH-BH mergers to play with in his much beloved 'lab' test environments).
Michael's claim is just bad logic on Michael's part.
(Oh and it is also a lie of omission on his part too, because we covered all this yonks ago with him, and he knows it).
.. the lie is repeated yet again ...Michael said:
Yes .. that was the whole purpose of building the LIGO detectors in the first place .. to improve theoretical predictions on the basis of live measured GWs.Michael said:
This is ridiculous!Michael said:
I, for one, cannot be bothered reading the rest of Michael's absolute tripe!
Upvote
0
Let’s bring this thread back to a discussion of real science.
I previously brought up the fact that gravitational waves are redshifted, how the calculations are performed makes interesting reading.
Let’s first look at the cosmological redshift with respect to electromagnetic radiation.
The calculations are straightforward, one measures the wavelengths in the observer’s frame of reference such as the wavelength λ of the Hα line in the spectrum of a distant galaxy.
The next step is to utilize the wavelength value of the Hα line λ0 (=656.3nm) in its rest frame such as the Balmer series of the laboratory hydrogen spectrum.
The cosmological redshift z = (λ – λ0)/ λ0
Determining the cosmological redshift of a gravitational wave is anything but straightforward.
Firstly we don’t have the benefit of a catalogue of gravitational wave laboratory spectra that serves as our rest frame.
Secondly the gravitational waves measured by LIGO and Virgo don’t explicitly measure a redshift in frequency as there is degeneracy issue.
This issue will be made clear a little later on.
We need to define the effective mass of a binary system to understand how the redshift is calculated.
Intuitively one might think this is
simply the sum of the masses of the neutron stars or black holes making up the binary system but it is somewhat more complicated.
We are interested in the mass-energy of the binary system which also includes the energy contribution from the gravitational waves.
The effective mass or “chirp mass” CM for a binary system that also has a quadruple symmetry is defined as.
CM= (m1.m2)^0.6/(m1+m2)^0.2
m1 and m2 are the masses of the neutron stars or black holes.
The maths is easy to derive but since this thread involves physics rather than math I’ll state it without proof.
Since the chirp mass includes energy which is a function of frequency that can be redshifted, the chirp mass itself can be redshifted according to the formula.
CM(redshifted) = (1+z)CM(rest frame)
The gravitational frequency data from LIGO and VIRGO allows us to calculate the redshifted chirp mass (CM(redshift)).
Here lies the problem, we don’t know the contributions of z and CM(rest frame) to the redshifted chirp mass.
This problem is known as the M, Z degeneracy.
If the CM(rest frame) can be determined then the redshift z can be calculated as CM(redshifted) is already known.
The solution to this problem uses some physics the effects of which causes the ocean tides.
When neutron stars orbit around a centre of mass, the gravitational pull is greater on each neutron star on the side that is closest to the centre of mass.
This tidal field deforms each neutron star and affects the gravitational waveform in the high frequency range of the late inspiral/merger process.
The tidal field deformation is specifically a property of the CM(rest frame).
Hence from the gravitational waveform a rough calculation of CM(rest frame) using the high frequency components from which z can be calculated.
If you want to subject yourself to a full blown assault on the subject instead of my meek user friendly version here is the paper.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1312.1862.pdf
At this stage I’m not sure if there are publications on the redshift of GW170817, the accuracy of the result, and how this compares the redshift of the host galaxy NGC4993.
Since I now have a contact at LIGO, I will pose the question.
I previously brought up the fact that gravitational waves are redshifted, how the calculations are performed makes interesting reading.
Let’s first look at the cosmological redshift with respect to electromagnetic radiation.
The calculations are straightforward, one measures the wavelengths in the observer’s frame of reference such as the wavelength λ of the Hα line in the spectrum of a distant galaxy.
The next step is to utilize the wavelength value of the Hα line λ0 (=656.3nm) in its rest frame such as the Balmer series of the laboratory hydrogen spectrum.
The cosmological redshift z = (λ – λ0)/ λ0
Determining the cosmological redshift of a gravitational wave is anything but straightforward.
Firstly we don’t have the benefit of a catalogue of gravitational wave laboratory spectra that serves as our rest frame.
Secondly the gravitational waves measured by LIGO and Virgo don’t explicitly measure a redshift in frequency as there is degeneracy issue.
This issue will be made clear a little later on.
We need to define the effective mass of a binary system to understand how the redshift is calculated.
Intuitively one might think this is
simply the sum of the masses of the neutron stars or black holes making up the binary system but it is somewhat more complicated.
We are interested in the mass-energy of the binary system which also includes the energy contribution from the gravitational waves.
The effective mass or “chirp mass” CM for a binary system that also has a quadruple symmetry is defined as.
CM= (m1.m2)^0.6/(m1+m2)^0.2
m1 and m2 are the masses of the neutron stars or black holes.
The maths is easy to derive but since this thread involves physics rather than math I’ll state it without proof.
Since the chirp mass includes energy which is a function of frequency that can be redshifted, the chirp mass itself can be redshifted according to the formula.
CM(redshifted) = (1+z)CM(rest frame)
The gravitational frequency data from LIGO and VIRGO allows us to calculate the redshifted chirp mass (CM(redshift)).
Here lies the problem, we don’t know the contributions of z and CM(rest frame) to the redshifted chirp mass.
This problem is known as the M, Z degeneracy.
If the CM(rest frame) can be determined then the redshift z can be calculated as CM(redshifted) is already known.
The solution to this problem uses some physics the effects of which causes the ocean tides.
When neutron stars orbit around a centre of mass, the gravitational pull is greater on each neutron star on the side that is closest to the centre of mass.
This tidal field deforms each neutron star and affects the gravitational waveform in the high frequency range of the late inspiral/merger process.
The tidal field deformation is specifically a property of the CM(rest frame).
Hence from the gravitational waveform a rough calculation of CM(rest frame) using the high frequency components from which z can be calculated.
If you want to subject yourself to a full blown assault on the subject instead of my meek user friendly version here is the paper.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1312.1862.pdf
At this stage I’m not sure if there are publications on the redshift of GW170817, the accuracy of the result, and how this compares the redshift of the host galaxy NGC4993.
Since I now have a contact at LIGO, I will pose the question.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
That statement is almost comical were it not so sad. The reason none of the correlated noises were labeled as "blip transients' is because every single time its happened, they simply labeled it a BBH merger signal, starting with the first one they saw while still in the engineering run no less.
Those are both pure "assumptions' because LIGO *still* can't identify the source of blip transients to start with so they have no idea what causes them or if they're capable of achieving the same intensity or similar high frequency characteristics.
Heresay my eye. LIGO's representative even botched their response to the Danish team's findings and the Danish team had to point out his errors. I already know from personal experience how biased the publishing channels are with respect to LIGO. The APJ letters wouldn't even publish a rebuttal!
I know for a fact that the scientific method doesn't including hiding the fact that a veto took place and then claiming that nothing happened. It's a little disingenuous to claim that the PEM sensors didn't record anything important when in fact those sensors and that software *vetoed the actual signal*, and LIGO won't explain any of the relevant details, or express 'safety' in any quantified way at all!!
Horse pucky. The first immaculate conception claim *was vetoed* by those sensors and software, and no quantified definition of "safety" was even provided by LIGO. Give me a break. You're engaging in a whitewashed rewriting of historical fact.
This statement just demonstrates the one sided and biased nature of their whole methodology. On one hand you're claiming (erroneously I might add) that a lack of PEM sensor input is enough evidence to write off all possible environmental causes, but you refuse to apply that same process of elimination to celestial origin claims. There could be any number of reasons why the PEM sensors weren't particularly accurate in some cases either, but you didn't include that possibility. Why not? It's not even true that the PEM sensors didn't record anything important because the first chirp was vetoed by the software and hardware in place and time, and LIGO won't explain the details of that veto.
They're also consistent with blip transients in terms of frequency range and duration and they don't know what causes them, so we cannot play with them in the lab either.
The fact you "covered" something doesn't mean I'm obligated to agree with you. You've go some nerve accusing me of lying by omission after LIGO's missing veto information in their first published paper. I've never even seen such an overt omission of important and highly critical information in a published paper prior that paper. Where's your outrage over that omission?
In terms of distinguishing between blip transients and BBH signals, since you can't explain the cause of blip transients, you can't claim to be sure they can't generate similar signals on rare occasions, like four times in two years.
In other words, yes those are "postdicted fits" based on the *assumption* LIGO was correct to start with. If they weren't correct to begin with, those numbers mean absolutely nothing.
In other words you can't handle the rest of the debate because there was no 'extraordinary' evidence to support their extraordinary claims prior to the BNS merger observation. You aren't fooling anyone.
Upvote
0
Thank you. I'll have to read the paper as I get time. Could you explain how redshift could in any way be responsible for the shortness of the supposed merger process involving BBH mergers? If anything their greater distance should result in a time dilation of the whole process and a *longer* signal, not a shorter one.
Upvote
0
Is English not your first language?
I've already explained to you that redshift has absolutely nothing to with the merger mechanism.
I suggest you also look up the meaning of time dilation from a cosmological perspective.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Really? Then what the heck was this statement supposed to mean?
You sure sounded like you were making up handwavy excuses as to why there was no long term signal the way we saw with the BNS merger.
Ditto. In no way does the redshift/time dilation associated with GR theory explain why the pre-merger signal was so short in LIGO's supposed BBH merger events compared to the BNS merger signal that lasted for 100 seconds or so prior to the merger.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
This is now a thread to intelligently discuss the science of gravitational waves.
You have demonstrated you cannot achieve this plus your intentions to sabotage my post.
As a result I will not partake in any further discussions with you and declare this a Michael free zone.
PS. Apologies to other members called Michael.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
