Evidence of gravitational waves, or evidence of confirmation bias?

LOL! You created a complete strawman, and then you want me to answer *your strawman* question rather than the question that is actually *relevant* to the conversation. Simply unbelievable.

If we used your strawman coin toss example, LIGO's claim amounts to "Hey, they all came up heads, therefore aliens did it!". There is no correlation between the sigma and the claim, and the claim of cause is not supported by the sigma calculation.

 

Well, in fairness to you, I suppose it depends on what *exactly* you meant by the use of the variable "np". If np^2 happens to equal 6*(0.5^0.5) in your example rather than np simply representing the number of flips of the coin as it represents in mine, I suppose your answer could be correct, so out of the goodness of my heart I'll just let it slide. Even still, it took you two tries and you still needed my help to get it right.

LOL! What a great example of pure denial. You're the one that completely messed up the math formulas the first time, not me. I even pointed out your original math error for you, so you can just get off your high horse already. Get real. You blew it, not me, and I had to point out *your* error.

I knew this thread would turn into nothing but a personal attack because you have no explanation for any of the points that I made in my paper, or you would have made them by now.

What complete and utter nonsense. I even pointed out the sigma games that LIGO played with blip transients for you in the very paper that you cited for us.

Unlike you, I got the correct answer to your homework assignment on my first attempt. My formula only requires that np=number of flips/plays. My math formula is simplified and it works perfectly for every number of flips of the coin that you might try. You're intentionally changing the meaning of my variable to suit yourself. That's just unethical.

Huh? I'm not the one that changed the rules by refusing to apply the same process of elimination method on celestial claims of cause as they did to every other claim of cause. You're sounding more desperate by the post at this point.

The only thing that was blatantly demonstrated here is the fact that your math skills are sloppy at best, and you haven't got a valid rebuttal to a single point I made in my paper, so you concocted up some absurd way to attack the messenger, and it completely backfired on you. Your attack the messenger game blew up in your face. You messed up the math in your own example and you failed your own test! What a riot! Your karma ran over your own dogma!

Pffft. You simply shot yourself in the foot when I had to point out your math error for you. My formula and my answer is correct and it was correct the first time. NP is just a simple variable in my formula that represents the number of plays/flips of the coin in my example. It doesn't represent what you claim it does in my formula. You simply *changed* the meaning of that variable in my simplified formula to suit yourself. How unethical can you get anyway?

Your last several posts have been nothing but a personal attack because you have absolutely nothing to offer us as a rebuttal to any of the *several* problems that I cited in my paper. You shot yourself in the foot when I had to point out your math error, and you're now in denial of the basic facts of what went down in this thread. How totally predictable.

Every point that I made in my paper is a valid criticism of LIGO's methodology. It's absolutely terrible methodology. There's *at least* four major scientific problems in that paper, and you haven't *scientifically* dealt with a single one of them. In fact you've never even addressed the confirmation bias issue at all!

In every *other* instance, a lack of an external confirmation led to a *rejection* of that option as a potential cause of the signal. When they got to celestial claims however, they simply cheated by exempting celestial claims from elimination in the same way that everything else was eliminated. If they had followed their own methodology consistently, this signal *should* have been classified as "unknown" in origin, not "aliens did it".

I even went to the trouble of pointing out the sigma games that LIGO played with blip transients for you, and you've never commented on that point either!

Your whole "bash the messenger" routine wouldn't be so hilarious and so ironic if you had not shot yourself in the foot by failing your own math homework assignment. How funny, and how karmically delicious.

 

Let's recap the list of problems with the LIGO claim of "discovery":

1. The sigma calculation cited by LIGO does not support their claim of 'cause', nor does it support the claim of "discovery" just by virtue of a high sigma.
2. The sigma methodology does not actually eliminate ordinary environmental processes from being the real cause of the signal because the *real/actual* environmental background noise was *stripped* from the test data based on vetoes, and cherry picked data sets, and this signal itself was *vetoed*.
3. There is no effective or certain way in LIGO's methodology to differentiate between ordinary blip transient events and celestial origin claims.
4. The mathematical models of black hole mergers only demonstrates the *possibility* that the signal could be related to black hole mergers, but it does not calculate the *probability* of the signal being related to a black hole merger.
5. There's a gigantic confirmation bias problem in the LIGO methodology because every *other* potential cause of the signal was *eliminated* from further consideration based upon a lack of external corroboration, whereas all celestial origin claims got a complete free pass.



Care to actually address any of these points SelfSim?

 

https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.221101

Hey look, they're now 0 for 3 in terms of any visual support, and 3 for 3 in terms of their use of pure confirmation bias as a method of 'discovery'.

 

What you are calling "statistical noise" is distinctly different from ordinary *environmental/extraneous noise* because all of the obvious environmental information was already removed from the "test set". What is left in the data set is just the ordinary "background hum" that either cannot be filtered out, or it cannot be identified by external detectors of some kind to effectively remove it *without* somehow filtering out gravitational waves too.

So at best case you can be sure that less than obvious "statistical" (cherry picked) noise can be eliminated from consideration, and it's probably a *real* signal of unknown origin. It's like knowing *yep*, I cannot identify that flying object in the sky yet, but I certainly have no evidence to suggest that it's from another planet simply because I cannot identify it.

So you cannot rule out all environmental factors if you're only comparing the signal to *statistical* (cherry picked) noise! I don't care how high of a sigma you come up with to demonstrate a "discovery" of any particular *cause* we might try to assign to that signal. All we might determine through that process is that "Yep, it's a real signal of unknown origin".

Your claimed "cause" wasn't detected in any external auxiliary hardware either so why is that a *requirement* on any other presumed "cause"? So what if I have no external validation of any other cause? You don't have one either! Hypocrisy much?

No, I called it "filtered data". It's still a type of data however. You can call it "statistical data", but your use of the term "statistic' in no way speaks to *cause*. It cannot be used to identify "cause" in fact because it's been stripped of the most common causes of LIGO influences.

It's still a form of highly *processed/filtered data*. If it was "raw extraneous data" to begin with, the 'statistical data' is now a *highly filtered*, hand selected subset of the full data set.

It absolutely, positively *was* a cherry picked, vetoed and hand selected subset of the larger data set of days and times. Don't even go there. You're never going to win that battle. They could have used a vetoed set of "noisy' environmental days if they wanted to, but they chose not to because it lowered the sigma. They *cherry picked* the very best data so it would give them the highest sigma number they could come up with. Give me a break.

Yep, raw data not "a highly filtered and cherry picked subset of the data" like your "statistical data" which doesn't have anything to do with a "cause".

Yep, and therefore you couldn't come up with a high sigma figure from the *real* data, you had to use the *cherry picked* data instead.

Well, everything has a "cause", so ya, I believe that every single bit of "extraneous noise"(raw data) has a cause of some sort, including the signal in question.

What are you even talking about? I clearly pointed out the *clear and obvious difference* between the raw (what you're calling "extaneous" data and the cherry picked days and times that you're calling "statistical noise". I'm the one that pointed out that difference in the first place and that's why I cried foul over your claim of 'discovery" based on a high sigma number from your *cherry picked* data set. The sigma you might come up with has *nothing* do with "cause" or the 'discovery" of any cause.

Your flip toss analogy is pointless. The only analogous example I can come up with is if you hand (cherry) picked only the "flips" that you "liked" from the full data set of flips and you ignored all the tails, and then you said: "Hey look, I got 100 heads in a row, therefore aliens did it. The cherry picked data set *cannot* be used to determine "cause", and your sigma doesn't even relate back to "aliens", even if you had 1000 heads in a row.

You certainly cannot rule out ordinary causes from your cherry picked data set because you've effectively removed most (probably not all) of known environmental influences.

Whatever sigma you come up with means *nothing* with respect to the claim that "aliens did it ".

I already pointed out where they "rigged" the sigma against blip transients by *assuming* that they don't change frequency (chirp) very much. Without *that* assumption the whole claim falls apart. The C1-C3 categories were all *assumptions* that were made during the *engineering* run no less when you had no history of improved data to compare anything to in the first place!

The whole sigma number is rigged. It's just like you cherry picking 16 heads from 48 flips and claiming it somehow determines *cause*. There's no connection other than in your head because you already filtered out the most like "causes" to begin with. Had you not done that, you wouldn't have a high sigma, and you wouldn't have a 'discovery" either.

I have no doubt that the signal is consistent with your mathematical models since even ordinary blip transients are also consistent with your mathematical merger models. So what? All that demonstrates is *possibility*, not *probability*!

What a bunch of nonsense. It's *because* I understand the reasoning behind it that I can point out the *assumptions* that were made, the *cherry picking* that went on, and the pointlessness of your sigma figure. It could be a 7 sigma figure and it wouldn't speak to cause one iota!

Man, you're doing *anything* to avoid their confirmation bias problem. They *eliminated* every other potential cause of that signal from consideration based upon a *lack* of external corroboration, but they gave their own claim a totally free pass, and made no provision for "unknown" origin.

Special thanks for the joy of watching you fail your own homework assignment. That was a classic. The only thing you're demonstrating is that you don't have a valid explanation as to why all celestial origin claims were exempted from exclusion based on the same process of elimination arguments that were used to rule out everything else.

Thanks for demonstrating that you don't have a valid explanation as to why LIGO didn't even allow for a category of "unknown origin".

 

FYI, my criticisms of the LIGO paper would *predict* that all similar 'discoveries' of "transient" gravitational waves by LIGO will be devoid of any support by any ground based or spaced based telescope or neutrino hardware. Today's announcement confirms my prediction. LIGO is already 0 for 3 at bat whereas I'm 3 for 3. Wanna bet that I go 4 for 4? What are the odds considering all the various hardware that we have in space and on the ground?

 

Evidently I should not have to wait very long to see if my winning prediction streak continues:

LIGO spots gravitational waves for third time

At the rate they're going, I could be 9 for 9 by the end of the year. I suspect that If any of the other 6 candidates had a visual confirmation to go with it, I'm sure they would have dropped everything and published that one next, or they will certainly publish that one next. If they don't have a visual or neutrino confirmation by the next claim, I'm probably already 9 for 9.

 

I certainly had *no clue* how the heck *you* were trying to use the variable(s) in your first equation because your math formula didn't even add up and it didn't jive with your own numerical answer for crying out loud.

I just *simplified* whatever cockamamie formula that *you* were using and the *single* variable "np" in my formula only represents the number of flip attempts. PERIOD. It's *one* freaking variable in my formula, not *TWO*! I at least *tried* to see things *your* way, but you're ignoring my use of the single variable "np" in that formula that I *correctly* provided you with, even *after* I have already *repeatedly* explained it to you! Even the fact that you were using a *non simplified* formula and two different "variables" (when one was simply a constant) to calculate the sigma shows that your math skills are *sloppy*. For crying out loud, you can't just *change* the meaning of my use of variables! That's just unethical. Use the *single* variable as I intended it to be used and the formula that I provided you with will always and consistently produce the right sigma. Furthermore, there is little room for error in my formula (although you managed to kludge it) because my equation is more *simplified* (and therefore better) than yours to begin with! Oy Vey.

Is just *one* variable like you might use it in a *SOFTWARE* program because that is exactly how I use variables when I write software. I *rarely if ever* use a *single character* to represent any variable in a software program. The single variable "np" is simply the number of flips in my formula. It's not *two different variables*!

Well, not the way you had it *first* it wasn't because of your typo, so I had no idea how you were using the variables at first, all I knew for sure was that your math was wrong because it didn't generate the number on the right. Period. My formula has *nothing* to do with two variables. It's *simplified* to just one.

Since you're so confused by the name of the *single* variable, let me change the name of the single variable for you:

Sigma=0.5(NumberOfFlipAttemptsSoThatPoorOldSelfSimIsntConfusedByASingleVariableAnymore^.5)

Now try a mathematical *refutation* that is actually based on my use of the *single* variable in my *simplified* formula or just admit that it's right as written! Show me where my *single* variable formula is wrong as written.

 

Oh for goodness sake! I already explained to you *exactly* how LIGO trumped up a 5+ sigma number by selectively filtering out the data they didn't like. I even gave you an overly simplistic example based on your coin toss scenario here:

Evidence of gravitational waves, or evidence of confirmation bias?

How about we try this scenario if you didn't like that simplified example:

Let's start with 48 flips of the coin since LIGO had 48 days of data to work with. Now lets "filter" that data because we've decided to 'look for signal patterns' in the data set. The "signals' that we're looking for are patterns that appear in fours, where there are four consecutive heads, or a pattern of four consecutive tails. Let's just say for the sake of the example that the total number of heads and tails is 24 as we might expect. For whatever reason, somewhere within the string of 48 flips of the coin, four different times the coin came up with consecutive heads four times in a row (for a total of 16 of the 24 heads), and one time it we got four consecutive tails in a row. The rest of the flips were mostly a total of three tails and one heads, but there were no other times where we got four of the same side of the coin consecutively.

Now, we arbitrarily decide that "aliens" always speak in four consecutive tails, never in consecutive heads of course because those are human events. Furthermore, we know that we only want to consider consecutive flip scenarios, so we "filter out" (cherry pick) anything that wasn't four consecutive heads or four consecutive tails. We cherry pick *16* of those coins (like LIGO picked 16 days of clean data), that all happen to be consecutive heads, and we call them our "statistical (obviously human) noise". We also "found" a "candidate signal from the aliens" in our data set just as we "predicted" if aliens exist! We then do a bunch of sigma calculations which are entirely based on just (only) the *statistical (human) noise" set of 16 consecutive heads, and we see absolutely no sign of aliens in our "statistical noise", but we do observe a clear sign of aliens in our "signal" set. So we whip up a sigma figure that is based on randomly "coin slicing" the "statistical (human) noise" which we demonstrate can *never* produce four tails in a row. Since we can now exclude "statistical noise" as the cause of the signal, we now confidently proclaim that aliens exist and they caused the "signal" set because there is no similarity between the "alien signal" and our filtered 'test set" of "statistical noise".

As long as LIGO simply *cherry picks* the data they want to consider, and they simply ignore the environmental influences that have the most direct effect on their equipment, any ridiculous claim is possible.

 

You must be talking about yourself because I had to point out *your* mathematical error, *and* it wasn't even a *simplified* formula which just shows how *sloppy* you are because you used *twice as many variables as I did*! You didn't bother to even simplify your formula and you didn't even get the more complex formula right.

Hilarious.

 

Oh no, I didn't pick on anyone but Selfsim. I simply pointed out that he didn't bother to simplify his formula, and therefore he needed twice as many variables as I did. Since it wasn't simplified, his formula was also more prone to error as he discovered when he also *botched* the formula. That's what I picked on Selfsim about, and only Selfsim.

Yawn. What a bunch of pure nonsense. I simply took a shot at the fact that he messed it up, and he also failed to simplify it. In college I always got points taken away when I didn't simplify the formula properly, and I definitely lost points when I blatantly messed up the formula like Selfsim did.

No, he actually made a typo too. What pathetic behavior. You've all belittled my math skills for years. Yawn. You all do it, and you all belittle anyone and everyone who dares to question your beliefs. It's a very common and very sleazy debate tactic. Proud of yourself?

Where's the error in my simplified sigma formula again?

Sigma=0.5(NumberOfFlipAttemptsSoThatPoorOldSelfSimIsntConfusedByASingleVariableAnymore^.5)

Ya, and I gave him both a simplified example and a *perfect* strawman (coin flip) example too of how to manipulate those statistics at will if you cherry pick from the raw data set as LIGO did.

What the heck of you even talking about?
Evidence of gravitational waves, or evidence of confirmation bias?

I went to *extreme* lengths to use his *strawman* example to demonstrate how easy it is to demonstrate that aliens did it! I even used a variaton of LIGO's "time-shifting" (coin slicing) technique to increase the sigma. Give me a break. You failed miserably to grasp the *clear* implications of cherry picking the data to suit yourself and then building a sigma from the "statistical (cherry picked) noise".

More personal attack nonsense. Sheesh. This whole sigma nonsense is nothing but a ruse to take the conversation *off topic* and put it onto the *individual*. It's the oldest and sleaziest debate tactic on the planet and you *all* engage yourself in that nonsense because you folks cannot handle an honest scientific debate:

Thunderbolts Forum • View topic - The mainstream cannot handle an honest debate on cosmology

Personal attacks are just something that you folks *do constantly* to anyone and to everyone who questions your dogma. You folks simply cheat at debate. Instead of sticking to the topic, you constantly play "kill the messenger". Selfsim's problem is that his silly personal attack game blew up in his own face.

I don't have any problem admitting my limitations when they are relevant to any particular discussion. In this case I simply pointed out that Selfsim had a typo in his formula and I used the *simplified* formula that only requires a *single* variable to calculate sigma. If I was as "limited" as you seem to imagine, I would not have caught his error in the first place, and I definitely wouldn't have *simplified the formula*.

The only part that is really hilarious is the fact that SelfSim botched his own homework assignment and he shot himself in the foot. It was karmically delicious to watch him hoist himself by his own petard. You guys are highly entertaining at times.

Shall we all go back to the *topic* now, or is this personal attack charade going to continue?

 

Let's talk about your distorted view of events. First *you* changed the subject from the *topic* of this thread in this post:

Evidence of gravitational waves, or evidence of confirmation bias?

I pointed out that you had deliberately and in an unethical manner, changed the thread from discussing the *topic* of the conversation to belittling me as an individual. You've continued to focus your attention on the individual too.

The real irony is that you hoisted yourself from your own petard with your coin nonsense. Not only did you blow the math formula, you failed to simplify it too.

Not only that, but I used your own coin toss analogy to not only demonstrate the existence of aliens (like LIGO's black holes), but I also demonstrated that the talked to me using coin flips with infinite sigma certainty no less.

The only one that has demonstrated poor math skills in this thread is you.

 

Ok, lets see exactly how much my formula has changed since I originally corrected your mathematical error:

Evidence of gravitational waves, or evidence of confirmation bias?

So I'd already simplified the formula and I put the .5 on the outside of the square root function, and the only thing remaining inside the square root function is the number of flips.

My function hasn't changed *one iota* since I first corrected you. There's only *ONE SINGLE* value inside that square root function, not two.

My mathematical formula hasn't changed at all, and it works perfectly for any number of flip attempts you might select. Since I'm a programmer by trade, had I actually intended to use two *different* variables, I would have had to put the * symbol between them, because that's how software treats variables. You can't use them like you might in an ordinary math book. I wouldn't have even written it like that if I meant to use two different variables, but as we can see from my first mention of your mathematical error, that you didn't simplify the formula, and I only had one variable inside the square root function, specifically the number of flips. I've been *100* percent consistent, since day one, and unlike you, I didn't make any mistakes.

You're simply misrepresenting the facts, and trying to cover up the fact that you A) didn't simplify your formula, and B) you messed it up!

If you weren't simply confused then you intentionally misrepresented my statements because the very first time I corrected you, my formula was *simplified* and the only thing inside the square root function was the number of flips.

I even tried to be gracious to you when I realized that your p and n characters might actually be two different variables and your first formula just wasn't simplified, and yet you *continued* your personal attack nonsense anyway.

How could you possibly misconstrue my intent when my very first "fix" of your formula was A) simplified (and therefore better than yours) and B) only a single variable, specifically the number of flips, was inside the square root function?