You haven't pointed out any errors and this conversation has degenerated because you two won't stick to the *topic*.
Upvote
0
Evidence of gravitational waves, or evidence of confirmation bias?
- Thread starter Michael
- Start date
You haven't pointed out any errors and this conversation has degenerated because you two won't stick to the *topic*.
That wouldn't sound so absurd and laughable were it not for the fact that one of the folks on your list claimed that EU/PC solar models predict "no neutrinos" and another one of them botched the solar wind predictions of Birkeland's model. They can't handle the science either so they have to bail out of the conversation and ban anyone and everyone who points out their errors.
Then again, feel free to correct me and show me where Thornhill or Scott predicted that Jeurgen's solar model predicts "no neutrinos" or where Birkeland ever claimed that only electrons came from the sun.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
IMO the biggest irony of this entire thread is the fact that you *insisted* that I use your coin toss example to demonstrate how LIGO manipulated the sigma figure. I was able to use nearly the exact same methodology that LIGO used to demonstrate that alien signals cannot be reproduced by the "statistical noise". 
That was funny.
As long as LIGO continues to cherry pick their data, and they engage themselves in pure confirmation bias, they can make an infinite number of unsupported claims about gravitational waves and celestial events that never happened.
The way that we can tell that they never happened is because LIGO has consistently failed, and they *will* consistently fail to produce any visual or neutrino evidence of a celestial event that had anything to do with it. They're already 0 for 3, whereas I'm already 3 for 3. Wanna bet that LIGO goes 0 for 4 and that I go 4 for 4?
That was funny. As long as LIGO continues to cherry pick their data, and they engage themselves in pure confirmation bias, they can make an infinite number of unsupported claims about gravitational waves and celestial events that never happened.
The way that we can tell that they never happened is because LIGO has consistently failed, and they *will* consistently fail to produce any visual or neutrino evidence of a celestial event that had anything to do with it. They're already 0 for 3, whereas I'm already 3 for 3. Wanna bet that LIGO goes 0 for 4 and that I go 4 for 4?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
'WD Clinger' .. Phil Plait .... 'Nereid' ...
Thornbill struggles with basic physics and Scott fails to explain how a Birkeland currents form, (even whilst plagiarising others' work on the topic).Michael said:
Upvote
0
Are you both too afraid to explain what would actually change your opinion about LIGO's methodology and their claims?
I already stated for the record that if LIGO ever actually demonstrates a correlation of one of these signals to a real (visual) celestial event, I'd be happy to reconsider my position. What would it take to for you two to change your position?
Would them going 0 for 10 do it? Would a "chirp" signal that showed up in only two of the (soon to be) three detectors do it?
I already stated for the record that if LIGO ever actually demonstrates a correlation of one of these signals to a real (visual) celestial event, I'd be happy to reconsider my position. What would it take to for you two to change your position?
Would them going 0 for 10 do it? Would a "chirp" signal that showed up in only two of the (soon to be) three detectors do it?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
What!?!?! Clinger still owes me (in fact everyone at ISF who agreed with Clinger still owes me) a formula to express a non-zero rate of 'magnetic reconnection" in Clinger's vacuum contraption. That's why he doesn't want to talk to me.
Phil Plait? Have you seen the utterly *draconian* rule system that Phil implemented at his website? It's not like it's just me that Phil won't talk to, it's *everyone* that holds a different position than he does for more than 30 days that he refuses to talk to. They hold witch hunts at his website. Anyone they didn't burn at the stake in 30 days is silenced by brute force, or else.
You're blatantly engaging in yet *another* personal attack against Thornhill rather than quoting where Thornhill ever claimed that his (actually Jeurgen's) solar model predicts "no neutrinos". Wanna guess why you did that? You can't quote him because he never predicted anything of the sort, and neither did Jeurgens or Scott.
Birkeland explained why Birkeland currents form (electric fields). You also engaged yourself in a personal attack against Scott too. You guys are *so* predictable.
Where's Clinger's missing math formula to express a non zero rate of "reconnection' in his vacuum contraption?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Just for the record, Michael, alone, disagrees with the LIGO and VIRGO Collabration. Here is a list from a LIGO paper (chosen more or less at random .. and yet, he still expects to be taken seriously?): (excuse the cross-reference numbers in the list .. I couldn't be bothered editing them out)
"Characterization of transient noise in Advanced LIGO relevant to gravitational wave signal GW150914"
B P Abbott1, R Abbott1, T D Abbott2, M R Abernathy1, F Acernese3,4, K Ackley5, M Adamo4,21, C Adams6, T Adams7, P Addesso3, R X Adhikari1, V B Adya8,
C Affeldt8, M Agathos9, K Agatsuma9, N Aggarwal10, O D Aguiar11, L Aiello12,13, A Ain14, P Ajith15,
B Allen8,16,17, A Allocca18,19, P A Altin20, S B Anderson1, W G Anderson16, K Arai1, M C Araya1, C C Arceneaux21, J S Areeda22, N Arnaud23, K G Arun24, S Ascenzi25,13,
G Ashton26, M Ast27, S M Aston6, P Astone28,
P Aufmuth8, C Aulbert8, S Babak29, P Bacon30,
M K M Bader9, P T Baker31, F Baldaccini32,33,
G Ballardin34, S W Ballmer35, J C Barayoga1,
S E Barclay36, B C Barish1, D Barker37, F Barone3,4,
B Barr36, L Barsotti10, M Barsuglia30, D Barta38,
J Bartlett37, I Bartos39, R Bassiri40, A Basti18,19,
J C Batch37, C Baune8, V Bavigadda34, M Bazzan41,42,
B Behnke29, M Bejger43, A S Bell36, C J Bell36,
B K Berger1, J Bergman37, G Bergmann8, C P L Berry44, D Bersanetti45,46, A Bertolini9, J Betzwieser6, S Bhagwat35, R Bhandare47, I A Bilenko48, G Billingsley1, J Birch6,
R Birney49, S Biscans10, A Bisht8,17, M Bitossi34, C Biwer35, M A Bizouard23, J K Blackburn1, L Blackburn10,
C D Blair50, D G Blair50, R M Blair37, S Bloemen51,
O Bock8, T P Bodiya10, M Boer52, G Bogaert52, C Bogan8, A Bohe29, P Bojtos53, C Bond44, F Bondu54, R Bonnand7, B A Boom9, R Bork1, V Boschi18,19, S Bose55,14,
Y Bouffanais30, A Bozzi34, C Bradaschia19, P R Brady16,
V B Braginsky48, M Branchesi56,57, J E Brau58, T Briant59, A Brillet52, M Brinkmann8, V Brisson23, P Brockill16,
A F Brooks1, D A Brown35, D D Brown44, N M Brown10, C C Buchanan2, A Buikema10, T Bulik60, H J Bulten61,9,
A Buonanno29,62, D Buskulic7, C Buy30, R L Byer40,
L Cadonati63, G Cagnoli64,65, C Cahillane1,
J Calder ́on Bustillo66,63, T Callister1, E Calloni67,4,
J B Camp68, K C Cannon69, J Cao70, C D Capano8,
E Capocasa30, F Carbognani34, S Caride71,
J Casanueva Diaz23, C Casentini25,13, S Caudill16,
M Cavagli`a21, F Cavalier23, R Cavalieri34, G Cella19,
C B Cepeda1, L Cerboni Baiardi56,57, G Cerretani18,19,
E Cesarini25,13, R Chakraborty1, T Chalermsongsak1, S J Chamberlin72, M Chan36, S Chao73, P Charlton74, E Chassande-Mottin30, S Chatterji10, H Y Chen75,
Y Chen76, C Cheng73, A Chincarini46, A Chiummo34, H S Cho77, M Cho62, J H Chow20, N Christensen78, Q Chu50, S Chua59, S Chung50, G Ciani5, F Clara37,
J A Clark63, F Cleva52, E Coccia25,12,13, P-F Cohadon59, A Colla79,28, C G Collette80, L Cominsky81,
M Constancio Jr.11, A Conte79,28, L Conti42, D Cook37, T R Corbitt2, N Cornish31, A Corsi71, S Cortese34,
C A Costa11, M W Coughlin78, S B Coughlin82,
J-P Coulon52, S T Countryman39, P Couvares1,
E E Cowan63, D M Coward50, M J Cowart6, D C Coyne1, R Coyne71, K Craig36, J D E Creighton16, J Cripe2,
S G Crowder83, A Cumming36, L Cunningham36,
E Cuoco34, T Dal Canton8, S L Danilishin36, S D’Antonio13, K Danzmann17,8, N S Darman84, V Dattilo34, I Dave47,
H P Daveloza85, M Davier23, G S Davies36, E J Daw86,
R Day34, D DeBra40, G Debreczeni38, J Degallaix65,
M De Laurentis67,4, S Del ́eglise59, W Del Pozzo44,
T Denker8,17, T Dent8, H Dereli52, V Dergachev1,
R T DeRosa6, R De Rosa67,4, R DeSalvo87, S Dhurandhar14, M C D ́ıaz85, L Di Fiore4, M Di Giovanni79,28,
A Di Lieto18,19, S Di Pace79,28, I Di Palma29,8,
A Di Virgilio19, G Dojcinoski88, V Dolique65, F Donovan10, K L Dooley21, S Doravari6,8, R Douglas36, T P Downes16, M Drago8,89,90, R W P Drever1, J C Driggers37, Z Du70,
M Ducrot7, S E Dwyer37, T B Edo86, M C Edwards78,
A Effler6, H-B Eggenstein8, P Ehrens1, J Eichholz5,
S S Eikenberry5, W Engels76, R C Essick10, T Etzel1,
M Evans10, T M Evans6, R Everett72, M Factourovich39,
V Fafone25,13,12, H Fair35, S Fairhurst91, X Fan70, Q Fang50, S Farinon46, B Farr75, W M Farr44, M Favata88, M Fays91, H Fehrmann8, M M Fejer40, I Ferrante18,19, E C Ferreira11, F Ferrini34, F Fidecaro18,19, I Fiori34, D Fiorucci30,
R P Fisher35, R Flaminio65,92, M Fletcher36,
J-D Fournier52, S Franco23, S Frasca79,28, F Frasconi19,
Z Frei53, A Freise44, R Frey58, V Frey23, T T Fricke8,
P Fritschel10, V V Frolov6, P Fulda5, M Fyffe6,
H A G Gabbard21, J R Gair93, L Gammaitoni32,33,
S G Gaonkar14, F Garufi67,4, A Gatto30, G Gaur94,95,
N Gehrels68, G Gemme46, B Gendre52, E Genin34,
A Gennai19, J George47, L Gergely96, V Germain7, Archisman Ghosh15, S Ghosh51,9, J A Giaime2,6,
K D Giardina6, A Giazotto19, K Gill97, A Glaefke36,
E Goetz98, R Goetz5, L Gondan53, G Gonz ́alez2,
J M Gonzalez Castro18,19, A Gopakumar99, N A Gordon36, M L Gorodetsky48, S E Gossan1, M Gosselin34, R Gouaty7, C Graef36, P B Graff62, M Granata65, A Grant36, S Gras10,
C Gray37, G Greco56,57, A C Green44, P Groot51, H Grote8, S Grunewald29, G M Guidi56,57, X Guo70, A Gupta14,
M K Gupta95, K E Gushwa1, E K Gustafson1,
R Gustafson98, J J Hacker22, B R Hall55, E D Hall1,
G Hammond36, M Haney99, M M Hanke8, J Hanks37, C Hanna72, M D Hannam91, J Hanson6, T Hardwick2, J Harms56,57, G M Harry100, I W Harry29, M J Hart36, M T Hartman5, C-J Haster44, K Haughian36,
A Heidmann59, M C Heintze5,6, H Heitmann52, P Hello23, G Hemming34, M Hendry36, I S Heng36, J Hennig36,
A W Heptonstall1, M Heurs8,17, S Hild36, D Hoak101,
K A Hodge1, D Hofman65, S E Hollitt102, K Holt6,
D E Holz75, P Hopkins91, D J Hosken102, J Hough36,
E A Houston36, E J Howell50, Y M Hu36, S Huang73,
E A Huerta103,82, D Huet23, B Hughey97, S Husa66,
S H Huttner36, T Huynh-Dinh6, A Idrisy72, N Indik8,
D R Ingram37, R Inta71, H N Isa36, J-M Isac59, M Isi1,
G Islas22, T Isogai10, B R Iyer15, K Izumi37, T Jacqmin59, H Jang77, K Jani63, P Jaranowski104, S Jawahar105,
F Jim ́enez-Forteza66, W W Johnson2, D I Jones26,
R Jones36, R J G Jonker9, L Ju50, Haris K106,
C V Kalaghatgi24,91, V Kalogera82, S Kandhasamy21,
G Kang77, J B Kanner1, S Karki58, M Kasprzack2,23,34,
E Katsavounidis10, W Katzman6, S Kaufer17, T Kaur50,
K Kawabe37, F Kawazoe8,17, F K ́ef ́elian52, M S Kehl69,
D Keitel8,66, D B Kelley35, W Kells1, R Kennedy86,
J S Key85, A Khalaidovski8, F Y Khalili48, I Khan12,
S Khan91, Z Khan95, E A Khazanov107, N Kijbunchoo37,
C Kim77, J Kim108, K Kim109, Nam-Gyu Kim77,
Namjun Kim40, Y-M Kim108, E J King102, P J King37,
D L Kinzel6, J S Kissel37, L Kleybolte27, S Klimenko5,
S M Koehlenbeck8, K Kokeyama2, S Koley9,
V Kondrashov1, A Kontos10, M Korobko27, W Z Korth1,
I Kowalska60, D B Kozak1, V Kringel8, B Krishnan8,
A Kr ́olak110,111, C Krueger17, G Kuehn8, P Kumar69,
L Kuo73, A Kutynia110, B D Lackey35, M Landry37,
J Lange112, B Lantz40, P D Lasky113, A Lazzarini1,
C Lazzaro63,42, P Leaci29,79,28, S Leavey36, E O Lebigot30,70, C H Lee108, H K Lee109, H M Lee114, K Lee36, A Lenon35, M Leonardi89,90, J R Leong8, N Leroy23, N Letendre7,
Y Levin113, B M Levine37, T G F Li1, A Libson10,
T B Littenberg115, N A Lockerbie105, J Logue36,
A L Lombardi101, J E Lord35, M Lorenzini12,13,
V Loriette116, M Lormand6, G Losurdo57, J D Lough8,17, H Lu ̈ck17,8, A P Lundgren8, J Luo78, R Lynch10, Y Ma50, T MacDonald40, B Machenschalk8, M MacInnis10,
D M Macleod2, F Magan ̃a-Sandoval35, R M Magee55,
M Mageswaran1, E Majorana28, I Maksimovic116,
V Malvezzi25,13, N Man52, I Mandel44, V Mandic83,
V Mangano36, G L Mansell20, M Manske16, M Mantovani34, F Marchesoni117,33, F Marion7, S M ́arka39, Z M ́arka39,
A S Markosyan40, E Maros1, F Martelli56,57, L Martellini52, I W Martin36, R M Martin5, D V Martynov1, J N Marx1, K Mason10, A Masserot7, T J Massinger35,
M Masso-Reid36, F Matichard10, L Matone39,
N Mavalvala10, N Mazumder55, G Mazzolo8,
R McCarthy37, D E McClelland20, S McCormick6,
S C McGuire118, G McIntyre1, J McIver1, D J McManus20, S T McWilliams103, D Meacher72, G D Meadors29,8,
J Meidam9, A Melatos84, G Mendell37,
D Mendoza-Gandara8, R A Mercer16, E Merilh37,
M Merzougui52, S Meshkov1, C Messenger36, C Messick72, P M Meyers83, F Mezzani28,79, H Miao44, C Michel65,
H Middleton44, E E Mikhailov119, L Milano67,4, J Miller10, M Millhouse31, Y Minenkov13, J Ming29,8, S Mirshekari120, C Mishra15, S Mitra14, V P Mitrofanov48,
G Mitselmakher5, R Mittleman10, A Moggi19, M Mohan34, S R P Mohapatra10, M Montani56,57, B C Moore88,
C J Moore121, D Moraru37, G Moreno37, S R Morriss85,
K Mossavi8, B Mours7, C M Mow-Lowry44, C L Mueller5, G Mueller5, A W Muir91, Arunava Mukherjee15,
D Mukherjee16, S Mukherjee85, N Mukund14, A Mullavey6, J Munch102, D J Murphy39, P G Murray36, A Mytidis5,
I Nardecchia25,13, L Naticchioni79,28, R K Nayak122,
V Necula5, K Nedkova101, G Nelemans51,9, M Neri45,46,
A Neunzert98, G Newton36, T T Nguyen20, A B Nielsen8,
S Nissanke51,9, A Nitz8, F Nocera34, D Nolting6,
M E Normandin85, L K Nuttall35, J Oberling37,
E Ochsner16, J O’Dell123, E Oelker10, G H Ogin124,
J J Oh125, S H Oh125, F Ohme91, M Oliver66,
P Oppermann8, Richard J Oram6, B O’Reilly6,
R O’Shaughnessy112, D J Ottaway102, R S Ottens5,
H Overmier6, B J Owen71, A Pai106, S A Pai47,
J R Palamos58, O Palashov107, C Palomba28, A Pal-Singh27, H Pan73, C Pankow82, F Pannarale91, B C Pant47,
F Paoletti34,19, A Paoli34, M A Papa29,16,8, H R Paris40,
W Parker6, D Pascucci36, A Pasqualetti34,
R Passaquieti18,19, D Passuello19, B Patricelli18,19,
Z Patrick40, B L Pearlstone36, M Pedraza1, R Pedurand65, L Pekowsky35, A Pele6, S Penn126, A Perreca1, M Phelps36, O Piccinni79,28, M Pichot52, F Piergiovanni56,57, V Pierro87, G Pillant34, L Pinard65, I M Pinto87, M Pitkin36,
R Poggiani18,19, P Popolizio34, A Post8, J Powell36,
J Prasad14, V Predoi91, S S Premachandra113,
T Prestegard83, L R Price1, M Prijatelj34, M Principe87,
S Privitera29, G A Prodi89,90, L Prokhorov48, O Puncken8, M Punturo33, P Puppo28, M Pu ̈rrer29, H Qi16, J Qin50,
V Quetschke85, E A Quintero1, R Quitzow-James58,
F J Raab37, D S Rabeling20, H Radkins37, P Raffai53, S Raja47, M Rakhmanov85, P Rapagnani79,28,
V Raymond29, M Razzano18,19, V Re25, J Read22,
C M Reed37, T Regimbau52, L Rei46, S Reid49,
D H Reitze1,5, H Rew119, S D Reyes35, F Ricci79,28,
K Riles98, N A Robertson1,36, R Robie36, F Robinet23,
A Rocchi13, L Rolland7, J G Rollins1, V J Roma58,
R Romano3,4, G Romanov119, J H Romie6, D Rosin ́ska127,43, S Rowan36, A Ru ̈diger8, P Ruggi34, K Ryan37, S Sachdev1, T Sadecki37, L Sadeghian16, L Salconi34, M Saleem106,
F Salemi8, A Samajdar122, L Sammut84,113, E J Sanchez1,
V Sandberg37, B Sandeen82, J R Sanders98,35, B Sassolas65, B S Sathyaprakash91, P R Saulson35, O Sauter98,
R L Savage37, A Sawadsky17, P Schale58, R Schilling†8,
J Schmidt8, P Schmidt1,76, R Schnabel27,
R M S Schofield58, A Scho ̈nbeck27, E Schreiber8,
D Schuette8,17, B F Schutz91,29, J Scott36, S M Scott20,
D Sellers6, A S Sengupta94, D Sentenac34, V Sequino25,13,
A Sergeev107, G Serna22, Y Setyawati51,9, A Sevigny37,
D A Shaddock20, S Shah51,9, M S Shahriar82, M Shaltev8,
Z Shao1, B Shapiro40, P Shawhan62, A Sheperd16,
D H Shoemaker10, D M Shoemaker63, K Siellez52,63,
X Siemens16, D Sigg37, A D Silva11, D Simakov8, A Singer1, L P Singer68, A Singh29,8, R Singh2, A Singhal12,
A M Sintes66, B J J Slagmolen20, J [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]sky8, J R Smith22, N D Smith1, R J E Smith1, E J Son125, B Sorazu36,
F Sorrentino46, T Souradeep14, A K Srivastava95,
A Staley39, M Steinke8, J Steinlechner36, S Steinlechner36, D Steinmeyer8,17, B C Stephens16, R Stone85, K A Strain36, N Straniero65, G Stratta56,57, N A Strauss78, S Strigin48,
R Sturani120, A L Stuver6, T Z Summerscales128, L Sun84, P J Sutton91, B L Swinkels34, M J Szczepan ́czyk97,
M Tacca30, D Talukder58, D B Tanner5, M T ́apai96,
S P Tarabrin8, A Taracchini29, R Taylor1, T Theeg8,
M P Thirugnanasambandam1, E G Thomas44, M Thomas6, P Thomas37, K A Thorne6, K S Thorne76, E Thrane113,
S Tiwari12, V Tiwari91, K V Tokmakov105, C Tomlinson86, M Tonelli18,19, C V Torres‡85, C I Torrie1, D To ̈yr ̈a44,
F Travasso32,33, G Traylor6, D Trifir`o21, M C Tringali89,90,
L Trozzo129,19, M Tse10, M Turconi52, D Tuyenbayev85,
D Ugolini130, C S Unnikrishnan99, A L Urban16,
S A Usman35, H Vahlbruch17, G Vajente1, G Valdes85,
N van Bakel9, M van Beuzekom9, J F J van den Brand61,9, C Van Den Broeck9, D C Vander-Hyde35,22,
L van der Schaaf9, J V van Heijningen9, A A van Veggel36, M Vardaro41,42, S Vass1, M Vasu ́th38, R Vaulin10,
A Vecchio44, G Vedovato42, J Veitch44, P J Veitch102,
K Venkateswara131, D Verkindt7, F Vetrano56,57,
A Vicer ́e56,57, S Vinciguerra44, D J Vine49, J-Y Vinet52,
S Vitale10, T Vo35, H Vocca32,33, C Vorvick37, D Voss5,
W D Vousden44, S P Vyatchanin48, A R Wade20,
L E Wade132, M Wade132, M Walker2, L Wallace1,
S Walsh16,8,29, G Wang12, H Wang44, M Wang44, X Wang70, Y Wang50, R L Ward20, J Warner37, M Was7, B Weaver37, L-W Wei52, M Weinert8, A J Weinstein1, R Weiss10,
T Welborn6, L Wen50, P Weßels8, T Westphal8, K Wette8, J T Whelan112,8, S Whitcomb1, D J White86, B F Whiting5, R D Williams1, A R Williamson91, J L Willis133,
B Willke17,8, M H Wimmer8,17, W Winkler8, C C Wipf1,
H Wittel8,17, G Woan36, J Worden37, J L Wright36, G Wu6, J Yablon82, W Yam10, H Yamamoto1, C C Yancey62,
M J Yap20, H Yu10, M Yvert7, A Zadroz ̇ny110,
L Zangrando42, M Zanolin97, J-P Zendri42, M Zevin82,
F Zhang10, L Zhang1, M Zhang119, Y Zhang112, C Zhao50, M Zhou82, Z Zhou82, X J Zhu50, N Zotov♯134
M E Zucker1,10, S E Zuraw101, and J Zweizig1
(LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration)
"Characterization of transient noise in Advanced LIGO relevant to gravitational wave signal GW150914"
B P Abbott1, R Abbott1, T D Abbott2, M R Abernathy1, F Acernese3,4, K Ackley5, M Adamo4,21, C Adams6, T Adams7, P Addesso3, R X Adhikari1, V B Adya8,
C Affeldt8, M Agathos9, K Agatsuma9, N Aggarwal10, O D Aguiar11, L Aiello12,13, A Ain14, P Ajith15,
B Allen8,16,17, A Allocca18,19, P A Altin20, S B Anderson1, W G Anderson16, K Arai1, M C Araya1, C C Arceneaux21, J S Areeda22, N Arnaud23, K G Arun24, S Ascenzi25,13,
G Ashton26, M Ast27, S M Aston6, P Astone28,
P Aufmuth8, C Aulbert8, S Babak29, P Bacon30,
M K M Bader9, P T Baker31, F Baldaccini32,33,
G Ballardin34, S W Ballmer35, J C Barayoga1,
S E Barclay36, B C Barish1, D Barker37, F Barone3,4,
B Barr36, L Barsotti10, M Barsuglia30, D Barta38,
J Bartlett37, I Bartos39, R Bassiri40, A Basti18,19,
J C Batch37, C Baune8, V Bavigadda34, M Bazzan41,42,
B Behnke29, M Bejger43, A S Bell36, C J Bell36,
B K Berger1, J Bergman37, G Bergmann8, C P L Berry44, D Bersanetti45,46, A Bertolini9, J Betzwieser6, S Bhagwat35, R Bhandare47, I A Bilenko48, G Billingsley1, J Birch6,
R Birney49, S Biscans10, A Bisht8,17, M Bitossi34, C Biwer35, M A Bizouard23, J K Blackburn1, L Blackburn10,
C D Blair50, D G Blair50, R M Blair37, S Bloemen51,
O Bock8, T P Bodiya10, M Boer52, G Bogaert52, C Bogan8, A Bohe29, P Bojtos53, C Bond44, F Bondu54, R Bonnand7, B A Boom9, R Bork1, V Boschi18,19, S Bose55,14,
Y Bouffanais30, A Bozzi34, C Bradaschia19, P R Brady16,
V B Braginsky48, M Branchesi56,57, J E Brau58, T Briant59, A Brillet52, M Brinkmann8, V Brisson23, P Brockill16,
A F Brooks1, D A Brown35, D D Brown44, N M Brown10, C C Buchanan2, A Buikema10, T Bulik60, H J Bulten61,9,
A Buonanno29,62, D Buskulic7, C Buy30, R L Byer40,
L Cadonati63, G Cagnoli64,65, C Cahillane1,
J Calder ́on Bustillo66,63, T Callister1, E Calloni67,4,
J B Camp68, K C Cannon69, J Cao70, C D Capano8,
E Capocasa30, F Carbognani34, S Caride71,
J Casanueva Diaz23, C Casentini25,13, S Caudill16,
M Cavagli`a21, F Cavalier23, R Cavalieri34, G Cella19,
C B Cepeda1, L Cerboni Baiardi56,57, G Cerretani18,19,
E Cesarini25,13, R Chakraborty1, T Chalermsongsak1, S J Chamberlin72, M Chan36, S Chao73, P Charlton74, E Chassande-Mottin30, S Chatterji10, H Y Chen75,
Y Chen76, C Cheng73, A Chincarini46, A Chiummo34, H S Cho77, M Cho62, J H Chow20, N Christensen78, Q Chu50, S Chua59, S Chung50, G Ciani5, F Clara37,
J A Clark63, F Cleva52, E Coccia25,12,13, P-F Cohadon59, A Colla79,28, C G Collette80, L Cominsky81,
M Constancio Jr.11, A Conte79,28, L Conti42, D Cook37, T R Corbitt2, N Cornish31, A Corsi71, S Cortese34,
C A Costa11, M W Coughlin78, S B Coughlin82,
J-P Coulon52, S T Countryman39, P Couvares1,
E E Cowan63, D M Coward50, M J Cowart6, D C Coyne1, R Coyne71, K Craig36, J D E Creighton16, J Cripe2,
S G Crowder83, A Cumming36, L Cunningham36,
E Cuoco34, T Dal Canton8, S L Danilishin36, S D’Antonio13, K Danzmann17,8, N S Darman84, V Dattilo34, I Dave47,
H P Daveloza85, M Davier23, G S Davies36, E J Daw86,
R Day34, D DeBra40, G Debreczeni38, J Degallaix65,
M De Laurentis67,4, S Del ́eglise59, W Del Pozzo44,
T Denker8,17, T Dent8, H Dereli52, V Dergachev1,
R T DeRosa6, R De Rosa67,4, R DeSalvo87, S Dhurandhar14, M C D ́ıaz85, L Di Fiore4, M Di Giovanni79,28,
A Di Lieto18,19, S Di Pace79,28, I Di Palma29,8,
A Di Virgilio19, G Dojcinoski88, V Dolique65, F Donovan10, K L Dooley21, S Doravari6,8, R Douglas36, T P Downes16, M Drago8,89,90, R W P Drever1, J C Driggers37, Z Du70,
M Ducrot7, S E Dwyer37, T B Edo86, M C Edwards78,
A Effler6, H-B Eggenstein8, P Ehrens1, J Eichholz5,
S S Eikenberry5, W Engels76, R C Essick10, T Etzel1,
M Evans10, T M Evans6, R Everett72, M Factourovich39,
V Fafone25,13,12, H Fair35, S Fairhurst91, X Fan70, Q Fang50, S Farinon46, B Farr75, W M Farr44, M Favata88, M Fays91, H Fehrmann8, M M Fejer40, I Ferrante18,19, E C Ferreira11, F Ferrini34, F Fidecaro18,19, I Fiori34, D Fiorucci30,
R P Fisher35, R Flaminio65,92, M Fletcher36,
J-D Fournier52, S Franco23, S Frasca79,28, F Frasconi19,
Z Frei53, A Freise44, R Frey58, V Frey23, T T Fricke8,
P Fritschel10, V V Frolov6, P Fulda5, M Fyffe6,
H A G Gabbard21, J R Gair93, L Gammaitoni32,33,
S G Gaonkar14, F Garufi67,4, A Gatto30, G Gaur94,95,
N Gehrels68, G Gemme46, B Gendre52, E Genin34,
A Gennai19, J George47, L Gergely96, V Germain7, Archisman Ghosh15, S Ghosh51,9, J A Giaime2,6,
K D Giardina6, A Giazotto19, K Gill97, A Glaefke36,
E Goetz98, R Goetz5, L Gondan53, G Gonz ́alez2,
J M Gonzalez Castro18,19, A Gopakumar99, N A Gordon36, M L Gorodetsky48, S E Gossan1, M Gosselin34, R Gouaty7, C Graef36, P B Graff62, M Granata65, A Grant36, S Gras10,
C Gray37, G Greco56,57, A C Green44, P Groot51, H Grote8, S Grunewald29, G M Guidi56,57, X Guo70, A Gupta14,
M K Gupta95, K E Gushwa1, E K Gustafson1,
R Gustafson98, J J Hacker22, B R Hall55, E D Hall1,
G Hammond36, M Haney99, M M Hanke8, J Hanks37, C Hanna72, M D Hannam91, J Hanson6, T Hardwick2, J Harms56,57, G M Harry100, I W Harry29, M J Hart36, M T Hartman5, C-J Haster44, K Haughian36,
A Heidmann59, M C Heintze5,6, H Heitmann52, P Hello23, G Hemming34, M Hendry36, I S Heng36, J Hennig36,
A W Heptonstall1, M Heurs8,17, S Hild36, D Hoak101,
K A Hodge1, D Hofman65, S E Hollitt102, K Holt6,
D E Holz75, P Hopkins91, D J Hosken102, J Hough36,
E A Houston36, E J Howell50, Y M Hu36, S Huang73,
E A Huerta103,82, D Huet23, B Hughey97, S Husa66,
S H Huttner36, T Huynh-Dinh6, A Idrisy72, N Indik8,
D R Ingram37, R Inta71, H N Isa36, J-M Isac59, M Isi1,
G Islas22, T Isogai10, B R Iyer15, K Izumi37, T Jacqmin59, H Jang77, K Jani63, P Jaranowski104, S Jawahar105,
F Jim ́enez-Forteza66, W W Johnson2, D I Jones26,
R Jones36, R J G Jonker9, L Ju50, Haris K106,
C V Kalaghatgi24,91, V Kalogera82, S Kandhasamy21,
G Kang77, J B Kanner1, S Karki58, M Kasprzack2,23,34,
E Katsavounidis10, W Katzman6, S Kaufer17, T Kaur50,
K Kawabe37, F Kawazoe8,17, F K ́ef ́elian52, M S Kehl69,
D Keitel8,66, D B Kelley35, W Kells1, R Kennedy86,
J S Key85, A Khalaidovski8, F Y Khalili48, I Khan12,
S Khan91, Z Khan95, E A Khazanov107, N Kijbunchoo37,
C Kim77, J Kim108, K Kim109, Nam-Gyu Kim77,
Namjun Kim40, Y-M Kim108, E J King102, P J King37,
D L Kinzel6, J S Kissel37, L Kleybolte27, S Klimenko5,
S M Koehlenbeck8, K Kokeyama2, S Koley9,
V Kondrashov1, A Kontos10, M Korobko27, W Z Korth1,
I Kowalska60, D B Kozak1, V Kringel8, B Krishnan8,
A Kr ́olak110,111, C Krueger17, G Kuehn8, P Kumar69,
L Kuo73, A Kutynia110, B D Lackey35, M Landry37,
J Lange112, B Lantz40, P D Lasky113, A Lazzarini1,
C Lazzaro63,42, P Leaci29,79,28, S Leavey36, E O Lebigot30,70, C H Lee108, H K Lee109, H M Lee114, K Lee36, A Lenon35, M Leonardi89,90, J R Leong8, N Leroy23, N Letendre7,
Y Levin113, B M Levine37, T G F Li1, A Libson10,
T B Littenberg115, N A Lockerbie105, J Logue36,
A L Lombardi101, J E Lord35, M Lorenzini12,13,
V Loriette116, M Lormand6, G Losurdo57, J D Lough8,17, H Lu ̈ck17,8, A P Lundgren8, J Luo78, R Lynch10, Y Ma50, T MacDonald40, B Machenschalk8, M MacInnis10,
D M Macleod2, F Magan ̃a-Sandoval35, R M Magee55,
M Mageswaran1, E Majorana28, I Maksimovic116,
V Malvezzi25,13, N Man52, I Mandel44, V Mandic83,
V Mangano36, G L Mansell20, M Manske16, M Mantovani34, F Marchesoni117,33, F Marion7, S M ́arka39, Z M ́arka39,
A S Markosyan40, E Maros1, F Martelli56,57, L Martellini52, I W Martin36, R M Martin5, D V Martynov1, J N Marx1, K Mason10, A Masserot7, T J Massinger35,
M Masso-Reid36, F Matichard10, L Matone39,
N Mavalvala10, N Mazumder55, G Mazzolo8,
R McCarthy37, D E McClelland20, S McCormick6,
S C McGuire118, G McIntyre1, J McIver1, D J McManus20, S T McWilliams103, D Meacher72, G D Meadors29,8,
J Meidam9, A Melatos84, G Mendell37,
D Mendoza-Gandara8, R A Mercer16, E Merilh37,
M Merzougui52, S Meshkov1, C Messenger36, C Messick72, P M Meyers83, F Mezzani28,79, H Miao44, C Michel65,
H Middleton44, E E Mikhailov119, L Milano67,4, J Miller10, M Millhouse31, Y Minenkov13, J Ming29,8, S Mirshekari120, C Mishra15, S Mitra14, V P Mitrofanov48,
G Mitselmakher5, R Mittleman10, A Moggi19, M Mohan34, S R P Mohapatra10, M Montani56,57, B C Moore88,
C J Moore121, D Moraru37, G Moreno37, S R Morriss85,
K Mossavi8, B Mours7, C M Mow-Lowry44, C L Mueller5, G Mueller5, A W Muir91, Arunava Mukherjee15,
D Mukherjee16, S Mukherjee85, N Mukund14, A Mullavey6, J Munch102, D J Murphy39, P G Murray36, A Mytidis5,
I Nardecchia25,13, L Naticchioni79,28, R K Nayak122,
V Necula5, K Nedkova101, G Nelemans51,9, M Neri45,46,
A Neunzert98, G Newton36, T T Nguyen20, A B Nielsen8,
S Nissanke51,9, A Nitz8, F Nocera34, D Nolting6,
M E Normandin85, L K Nuttall35, J Oberling37,
E Ochsner16, J O’Dell123, E Oelker10, G H Ogin124,
J J Oh125, S H Oh125, F Ohme91, M Oliver66,
P Oppermann8, Richard J Oram6, B O’Reilly6,
R O’Shaughnessy112, D J Ottaway102, R S Ottens5,
H Overmier6, B J Owen71, A Pai106, S A Pai47,
J R Palamos58, O Palashov107, C Palomba28, A Pal-Singh27, H Pan73, C Pankow82, F Pannarale91, B C Pant47,
F Paoletti34,19, A Paoli34, M A Papa29,16,8, H R Paris40,
W Parker6, D Pascucci36, A Pasqualetti34,
R Passaquieti18,19, D Passuello19, B Patricelli18,19,
Z Patrick40, B L Pearlstone36, M Pedraza1, R Pedurand65, L Pekowsky35, A Pele6, S Penn126, A Perreca1, M Phelps36, O Piccinni79,28, M Pichot52, F Piergiovanni56,57, V Pierro87, G Pillant34, L Pinard65, I M Pinto87, M Pitkin36,
R Poggiani18,19, P Popolizio34, A Post8, J Powell36,
J Prasad14, V Predoi91, S S Premachandra113,
T Prestegard83, L R Price1, M Prijatelj34, M Principe87,
S Privitera29, G A Prodi89,90, L Prokhorov48, O Puncken8, M Punturo33, P Puppo28, M Pu ̈rrer29, H Qi16, J Qin50,
V Quetschke85, E A Quintero1, R Quitzow-James58,
F J Raab37, D S Rabeling20, H Radkins37, P Raffai53, S Raja47, M Rakhmanov85, P Rapagnani79,28,
V Raymond29, M Razzano18,19, V Re25, J Read22,
C M Reed37, T Regimbau52, L Rei46, S Reid49,
D H Reitze1,5, H Rew119, S D Reyes35, F Ricci79,28,
K Riles98, N A Robertson1,36, R Robie36, F Robinet23,
A Rocchi13, L Rolland7, J G Rollins1, V J Roma58,
R Romano3,4, G Romanov119, J H Romie6, D Rosin ́ska127,43, S Rowan36, A Ru ̈diger8, P Ruggi34, K Ryan37, S Sachdev1, T Sadecki37, L Sadeghian16, L Salconi34, M Saleem106,
F Salemi8, A Samajdar122, L Sammut84,113, E J Sanchez1,
V Sandberg37, B Sandeen82, J R Sanders98,35, B Sassolas65, B S Sathyaprakash91, P R Saulson35, O Sauter98,
R L Savage37, A Sawadsky17, P Schale58, R Schilling†8,
J Schmidt8, P Schmidt1,76, R Schnabel27,
R M S Schofield58, A Scho ̈nbeck27, E Schreiber8,
D Schuette8,17, B F Schutz91,29, J Scott36, S M Scott20,
D Sellers6, A S Sengupta94, D Sentenac34, V Sequino25,13,
A Sergeev107, G Serna22, Y Setyawati51,9, A Sevigny37,
D A Shaddock20, S Shah51,9, M S Shahriar82, M Shaltev8,
Z Shao1, B Shapiro40, P Shawhan62, A Sheperd16,
D H Shoemaker10, D M Shoemaker63, K Siellez52,63,
X Siemens16, D Sigg37, A D Silva11, D Simakov8, A Singer1, L P Singer68, A Singh29,8, R Singh2, A Singhal12,
A M Sintes66, B J J Slagmolen20, J [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]sky8, J R Smith22, N D Smith1, R J E Smith1, E J Son125, B Sorazu36,
F Sorrentino46, T Souradeep14, A K Srivastava95,
A Staley39, M Steinke8, J Steinlechner36, S Steinlechner36, D Steinmeyer8,17, B C Stephens16, R Stone85, K A Strain36, N Straniero65, G Stratta56,57, N A Strauss78, S Strigin48,
R Sturani120, A L Stuver6, T Z Summerscales128, L Sun84, P J Sutton91, B L Swinkels34, M J Szczepan ́czyk97,
M Tacca30, D Talukder58, D B Tanner5, M T ́apai96,
S P Tarabrin8, A Taracchini29, R Taylor1, T Theeg8,
M P Thirugnanasambandam1, E G Thomas44, M Thomas6, P Thomas37, K A Thorne6, K S Thorne76, E Thrane113,
S Tiwari12, V Tiwari91, K V Tokmakov105, C Tomlinson86, M Tonelli18,19, C V Torres‡85, C I Torrie1, D To ̈yr ̈a44,
F Travasso32,33, G Traylor6, D Trifir`o21, M C Tringali89,90,
L Trozzo129,19, M Tse10, M Turconi52, D Tuyenbayev85,
D Ugolini130, C S Unnikrishnan99, A L Urban16,
S A Usman35, H Vahlbruch17, G Vajente1, G Valdes85,
N van Bakel9, M van Beuzekom9, J F J van den Brand61,9, C Van Den Broeck9, D C Vander-Hyde35,22,
L van der Schaaf9, J V van Heijningen9, A A van Veggel36, M Vardaro41,42, S Vass1, M Vasu ́th38, R Vaulin10,
A Vecchio44, G Vedovato42, J Veitch44, P J Veitch102,
K Venkateswara131, D Verkindt7, F Vetrano56,57,
A Vicer ́e56,57, S Vinciguerra44, D J Vine49, J-Y Vinet52,
S Vitale10, T Vo35, H Vocca32,33, C Vorvick37, D Voss5,
W D Vousden44, S P Vyatchanin48, A R Wade20,
L E Wade132, M Wade132, M Walker2, L Wallace1,
S Walsh16,8,29, G Wang12, H Wang44, M Wang44, X Wang70, Y Wang50, R L Ward20, J Warner37, M Was7, B Weaver37, L-W Wei52, M Weinert8, A J Weinstein1, R Weiss10,
T Welborn6, L Wen50, P Weßels8, T Westphal8, K Wette8, J T Whelan112,8, S Whitcomb1, D J White86, B F Whiting5, R D Williams1, A R Williamson91, J L Willis133,
B Willke17,8, M H Wimmer8,17, W Winkler8, C C Wipf1,
H Wittel8,17, G Woan36, J Worden37, J L Wright36, G Wu6, J Yablon82, W Yam10, H Yamamoto1, C C Yancey62,
M J Yap20, H Yu10, M Yvert7, A Zadroz ̇ny110,
L Zangrando42, M Zanolin97, J-P Zendri42, M Zevin82,
F Zhang10, L Zhang1, M Zhang119, Y Zhang112, C Zhao50, M Zhou82, Z Zhou82, X J Zhu50, N Zotov♯134
M E Zucker1,10, S E Zuraw101, and J Zweizig1
(LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration)
Upvote
0
Er, no. A lot of folks at Thunderbolts doubt their claims, and I'm sure that many other people do too. I guess since you can't find a single flaw in my paper, the only thing you can do is hide behind an appeal to authority fallacy, and engage in blatant personal attacks.
How about getting one of them to explain to *you* why they added that veto in the first place, what that veto was originally designed to filter out, and how that veto achieved a "high confidence" rejection of their candidate signal?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Where the heck is my name?
I doubt that someone who engages themselves in such blatant personal attack nonsense would even reveal their real name.
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
Why not? .. I mean after all, you evidently did in this very thread ..I doubt that someone who engages themselves in such blatant personal attack nonsense would even reveal their real name.
Upvote
0
I'm already 3 for 3, and I'm still waiting for you two to explain what it would take for you to change your position on this topic. 10 for 10? Two out the three detectors see the same basic chirp? No visual verification *ever* even with a well triangulated signal?
I'm not going to go away. I'm going to keep pointing out that LIGO is 0 for X, currently 0 for 3, every single time that they keep releasing *another* one of these hokey claims of "discovery" without any visual support. This is going to be fun.
I'm fully prepared to change my opinion on this topic if and when LIGO ever puts up some real visual or neutrino evidence to support their goofy claims, but not a moment before hand.
Where's the visual beef?
I'm not going to go away. I'm going to keep pointing out that LIGO is 0 for X, currently 0 for 3, every single time that they keep releasing *another* one of these hokey claims of "discovery" without any visual support. This is going to be fun.
I'm fully prepared to change my opinion on this topic if and when LIGO ever puts up some real visual or neutrino evidence to support their goofy claims, but not a moment before hand.
Where's the visual beef?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Ok .. this question emphasises the fundamental missing link between you and me. You see, I neither believe nor disbelieve anything the LIGO team documents with these discoveries. My beliefs are totally irrrelevant and don't even enter into my mind when I read their papers. What I see is a bunch of qualified scientists discussing what they measured within the context of an already well-evidenced theory (GR). The theory made predictions which happened to turn out to be entirely consistent with what was measured.
So, in this context, the answer to your question is self-evident and really requires no answer. However, for your benefit, all that is required for me to change my 'position' (whatever that's supposed to be .. because I don't really have 'a position'), is simply, a better explanation. Thus far everything you have come up with, ranks down there with Miles Mathis and something I might hear bandied about in some downtown, smoke-filled bar, someplace.
Michael said:
There is no need for me to pre-empt what might show up in the future .. particularly because all that would do, is clutter up the future with beliefs and opinions, rather than simply seeing what turns up. If we already know it all, then what's the point of exploring the newly discovered GR 'spectrum'?
Upvote
0
Your use of the term 'discoveries' pretty much blows your cover.
Your emotionally charged reaction to my 'doubt' of their claims of "discovery" also blows your cover. Their use of the term "discovery" certainly blows *their* cover. They clearly hold 'beliefs" and 'opinions' just like everyone else.
Technically speaking, I simply "lack belief" in their opinions. I definitely don't hold any strong opinions about the source of these signals as they do.
My opinions don't typically enter my mind while I'm reading papers either, but I can't help but have some 'opinions' *after* I've read various papers. I was of the opinion for instance, after reading the BICEP2 paper, that their claims would in section 9 about eliminating all other potential causes of those polarized photon patterns would fall apart, and lo and behold that's exactly what eventually happened.
Everyone's "opinions" are ultimately irrelevant, including the opinions of multiple and even numerous authors. The only thing that really matters is reality itself.
And yet that signal is also similar to ordinary blip transients, and it could have any number of other potential causes as well. The solar system was "consistent' with epicycle mathematical models, but not "reality". Mathematical models alone don't necessarily provide "confidence" in what is real, in fact they can be very misleading.
"Better" in what sense? "Better" in the sense that it's more consistent with LIGO's *lack* of any sort of external confirmation of their claims? IMO even that paper I cited on the US power grid offered a 'better' (more likely) explanation for the chirp signals. Define 'better'.
Whoever that might be....
You don't seem to be able to deal with even a single point I've raised, and you certainly have no excuse for their blatant confirmation bias problems.
In science it's *typical* to have competing beliefs about different observations, and it's useful to make 'predictions' to be able to judge the merits of different theories. I've certainly put some predictions on the table. I would predict that they won't find any EM counterpart to any transient candidate signal, and thus far I'm 3 for 3. All it would take is just *one* signal that could be visually confirmed, and my beliefs are easily falsified.
Meanwhile LIGO hasn't even offered a valid external way to falsify their claims, just potential ways to *verify* them. That alone seems more than a little suspicious.
I'm not sure you really answered my question(s). What happens if those same "chirp" signals show up in just two of the three detectors when the third detector comes online? Will that undermine their claims in your opinion? What happens if they go 0 for 10 in terms of finding any EM counterparts to these types of signals? Would that undermine your confidence in their opinions about the cause of these signals being celestial in origin?
Upvote
0
You still don't understand that blip transients are orders of magnitudes less in intensity than what was measured. Their energy and frequency characteristics distinguish them as not being GWs. They couldn't have been known as 'blip transients' in the first place, if they could not be distinguished as such. In the intervening period over which you have been arguing (some 1.5 years, now), they are now characterised to the point that they can be quickly eliminated from consideration. (Eg: there are some 64 pages(!!) discussing the characterisation of different types of blip transients on the GravitySpy web page).
Throughout this 'discussion', you have clung to a single outdated comment in the initial discovery paper as the basis of your argument. In your eagerness to jump to conclusions supporting your opinion, you ignored the entirely separate intensity band of blip transients. You also completely ignored the figure which showed the close match of the received signal with the theoretical prediction of a BH-BH merger.
You need to move on in understanding of how math is used in physics. Physics models are described using math syntax as a concise and reliable way of keeping track of the influences of interdependencies amongst variable parameters having both physical and non-physical implications. Processed models are tested to determine physicality and non-physicality. This is exactly what the LIGO interferometers were constructed to produce.Michael said:
Kepler's physical observation that the Sun is directly involved in determining an orbit brought about the demise of the Ptolemaic epicycle model. Same applies for the LIGO measured signal.
'Reality' in science, is the most recent best tested model.
You know full well that LIGO have arrays for sensing harmonics in the power grid band. ('ThickTarget' even linked you to the computer model parameter for gathering the relevant frequency band sensor data). The lack of time corresponding data demonstrates independence from the power grid .. end of story.Michael said:
"Better" is defined by how well the model fits the measured data. The power grid model predicts harmonics which were absent .. So, 'adios' power grid model.
You don't know who Miles Mathis is?Michael said:
Well, Ok .. sorry to have to tell you that he beat you in developing the math technique you just demonstrated in your above 'np=n' gobblydegook!
I don't have to deal with any of it because your basic assumptions (about sigma) are mathematically in error. The only confirmation bias, is yours.Michael said:
...
You miss my point. You create a hypothetical which solicits my opinion. You then state that:Michael said:
???Michael said:
I shall await the outcome from such future measurements, as the circumstances surrounding such mesurements are all-important.
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
Normally speaking, or *every single time*?
Let's get very specific for a moment. Are you claiming that "chirp" signals which change in frequency over time never ever show up in just a single detector at once (not celestial in those instances), or are you claiming that they never show up in *both* detectors *unless* they are caused by a gravitational wave?
It would help your case if your own references actually supported your assertions, but in this case they really don't. Here's what your own reference says about classifying various types of background 'glitches', AKA raw noise patterns in the data set:
It sounds like classifying these patterns is more of an art form presently rather than an automated form of 'quick' science, and human assistance is needed to classify them.
I don't think you understand my paper if that's what you think. I identified *several* problems in LIGO's methodology, and none of it was based upon a single sentence or comment, with the possible exception of the differing veto accounts. Which comment are you talking about?
Specify *exactly* what you mean by "separate intensity band".
I didn't ignore that issue, I addressed that point in my paper. All that mathematical curve fitting exercise demonstrates is the *possibility* that the signal is related to a celestial event, it doesn't demonstrate the *probability* that it was caused by a celestial event. You keep ignoring that point.
I know how it's used, and how it is often *misused* in astronomy, starting with all the failed mathematical models of "dark matter" over the years. You guys whip up a math formula and somehow it's "gospel" by virtue of some curve fitting routine.
They are affected however by all sorts of environmental noise, and internal noise as well. About all your sigma figure did is eliminate the internal noise from further consideration, but in no way does it eliminate any external environmental influences from being the potential cause of the signal.
You mathematical models would be more impressive (and convincing) if for instance LIGo's triangulated region of space produced a gamma ray burst at the same instant of the signal in question. Then I'd have more confidence in LIGOs claim to be sure.
As it stands, all I see is a "possibility" that a BH-BH merger *might* cause such a chirp type signal, but I have no evidence that the first signal or any future signals were celestial in origin in the first place.
I think a third detector is likely to be the demise of LIGO's claims too.
It's going to get much more difficult to explain the failure to visually verify these types of claims.Maybe, but when you guys whip up mathematical models, they often don't work out very well in the lab as the dark matter models can attest. Math in astronomy is often times more *misleading* than helpful, as the Chapman/Birkeland debates demonstrated.
I know that LIGO keeps an eye on many different external potential influences, and every one, *except* celestial claims is *eliminated* due to a lack of external corroboration, but not their claim. If they had followed that same process of elimination methodology consistently, they would have been required to eliminate celestial claims as well, but they didn't. Pure confirmation bias on a stick.
Where did you demonstrate any specific error in that paper I cited? Just because LIGO "checks' for some things, it doesn't mean they checked for all possible options related to US power grid changes. Again however, you ran headlong into their confirmation bias problem. Adios celestial claims.
Ah, just more personal attack nonsense. I see. Yawn.
What nonsense. I fixed *two* of *your* mathematical errors in the sigma formula and I used it correctly, and consistently. You have a weird way of twisting reality to suit yourself.
False. They eliminated all *other* environmental influences from further consideration based on a *lack* of external corroboration, but they gave all celestial claims a free pass. That's their bias.
You miss my point. You create a hypothetical which solicits my opinion. You then state that:???
I was simply curious if *you* still have an open mind, and if there's any external way to falsify your position. So far you haven't given us one. I at least remain open to being proven wrong, and I've clearly explained how they can do it. You don't even show the *least* bit of skepticism toward the LIGO claims, and I was curious if there was any external factor that might change your mind. Neither of our opinions dictates reality. I don't think either of us suffers from that delusion.
I'm awaiting them too, but at least I'm open to being proven wrong, and I've explained how to go about it. The last "future measurement" (after my paper) that came out only confirmed my predictions that these are not celestial in origin and therefore they can't visually verify any of them. They're already 0 for 3, and now I'm 3 for 3.
Before I go over and spend time at Gravity Sky, let's be clear about your claim. Are you claiming that "chirps" never ever show up in a single detector (demonstrating that blip transients can chip) or are you claiming that only gravitational waves can cause a chirp signal to appear in both detectors at once?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
In the case of GW150914, GW151226 and GW170104.
No .. neither .. are you claiming that?Michael said:
And so ..?Michael said:
...Michael said:
SelfSim said:
From here:Michael said:
LIGO said:
What garbage! There is no 'curve fitting exercise ...Michael said:
Irrelevant opinion ... and you've demonstrated you don't know.Michael said:
After all this discussion you still don't understand that statistical noise IS NOT DATA AND CANNOT BE REMOVED. Statistical noise IS NOT EXTRANEOUS NOISE for the umpteenth time!Michael said:
What does that have to do with {my} 'mathematical models'? You are one confused individual!Michael said:
And so? You don't have a clue as to how GW signals are predicted from GR theory .. so you're missing 'the evidence' due to a lack of theoretical reasoning background.Michael said:
Frankly, I don't see anyone caring about your opinions about the demise of LIGO. Especially as they have no basis in either logic, physics or fact!Michael said:I think a third detector is likely to be the demise of LIGO's claims too.
Irrelevant.Michael said:
And you have a better explanation for the now three detected GW signals, eh? Go ahead .. every other guess you've made turns out to have either measured evidence eliminating them from contention, or theoretical predictions overwhelming them.Michael said:
More nonsense .. go read up on how they routinely eliminate power grid 60HZ and harmonics interference ..Michael said:
Look who's talking .. your math fixes were refuted more than three times over. You are blind to just how wrong you are.Michael said:
Garbage!! There was no *lack* of environmental data!! The envirronmental data showed negligible levels!! This repeated 'lack of external corroboration' is now a blatant lie propagated by you!Michael said:
I've grown weary of going round the same loops of your denialism .. I can't be bothered any more ... You have convinced no-one and you have demonstrated your ignorance of the relevant fundamentals.Michael said:
Upvote
0
So just *three* of countless "chirps" in the background noise happened to be celestial in origin, whereas all the rest were not?
So you admit that "chirps" are "typically" nothing more than normal background noise?
And so blip transients aren't easily or "quickly" identified by software, nor do they seem to be excluded from creating "chirps" in the background noise.
So basically the argument amounts to: "Ignoring the major upgrades of the LIGO equipment, while they are still in the 'engineering run', they're confident that blip transients cannot *ever* be seen by both detectors at once, and these three chirps are unusually loud compared to the ones that are known to be environmentally created? That's your argument?
Oh boloney. They have all sorts of variables which they can tweak and play with, and according to your own paper, some of those variables are even "ad hoc" variables no less. Give me a break.
Sure, it is just my "imagination" that all of the most popular SUSY models prior to LHC bit the dust at LHC, and every other so called "test" of dark matter in the lab has been a dismal failure including the most recent results from Xenon-1T.
What you're calling "statistical noise" is just a *cherry picked subset* of the original "extraneous noise", exactly like the 16 heads in my coin flip analogy. There's nothing "special" about a cherry picked subset of the larger data set.
Would you be happier if I said *their* mathematical models? It doesn't change my argument one iota.
Actually I did kinda follow along with their logic, but it doesn't change the fact that other environmental influences cause the same basic patterns.
Ya, it just my imagination that LIGO is now 0 for 3 in terms of supporting their claim with any *external* (to LIGO) evidence. I'm just "lucky" that I'm 3 for 3.
No it's not. It demonstrates that mathematical "fits" to data don't necessarily mean a darn thing.
Yep, and I explained it in my paper. Their flawed methodology allows them to make *any number* of similar claims, but not a single one of them is ever likely to enjoy any visual or neutrino support.
What a crock. They only "eliminated" non celestial options using that biased method of elimination, and they simply cheated by giving themselves a free pass with respect to any need for external support. If we used that logic, idios celestial claims too.
Then sure you can find the flaw in the paper I cited earlier? Surely the same process of elimination was applied to *every* claim as to cause too, right?
So sayeth the guy that botched the math in two different ways, and who *refuses* to look at how I've *consistently* used the simplified formula since I first posted it for you.
Yawn. You failed your own homework assignment in truly epic karmic fashion. Somehow it's all my fault......
How would you know since it was all removed from the cherry picked data set that was used to trump up a high sigma figure?
Pffft. I've seen plenty of similar commentary over at Reddit in the LIGO thread. I'm clearly not the only one that finds their lack of any external support to be "disturbing".
You can't be bothered because you really don't have any rebuttal to any of the points of my paper, particularly the confirmation bias problem which you simply haven't even touched. The only one in denial is you, starting with your denial of their blatant confirmation bias problem, and the fact they don't even allow for a signal to have an "unknown origin" in their ridiculously biased methodology.
We all know you're eventually going to bail out of this conversation because you can't handle the points I made in my paper, and LIGO is now 0 for 3 in terms of supporting any of their bogus claims of "discovery". It's as simple as that.
Upvote
0
Here's where things stand from my perspective:
You basically acknowledge that the "statistical noise" sigma calculation is irrelevant in determining cause, or in eliminating environmental factors as being the actual cause of the signal.
You're trying to claim that the reason that various environmental variables can be excluded as the cause of these specific three signals is due to a lack of external support for various environmental factors when these signals were found, yet you refuse to apply that same standard and that same process of elimination methodology to celestial claims of cause.
You "seem" (I'm not entirely sure) to admit that "chirps" in this frequency range routinely show up "sometimes" in a single detector, demonstrating that similar environmental "noise/blip transients" can in fact produce a similar chirp pattern. Yes? No?
Only in *three specific* instances are any "chirps" recorded by LIGO actually indicative of a "celestial" cause, yet the 'chirp' factor is merely an ad-hoc variable in the mathematical mass merger models that your using. Is that correct?
So far, I haven't seen you address their obvious confirmation bias problem in any logical manner. It just been one lame excuse after another, mostly related to blaming *me* personally for their blatant manipulation of their haphazard "exclusion" rationale.
The "only* evidence you seem to have at all to support this claim is based upon your assertion that the signal matches your mathematical models of BH-BH mergers, but these formulas can be used to match a *variety* of different signal patterns, not *just* one or two, so it's really nothing more than a curve fitting exercise that demonstrates *possibility*, not probability.
You don't have any real explanation as to why LIGO has now gone 0 for 3 in terms of offering any external support, and their entire claim is based upon *internal* assertions about their equipment, and internal processes that have been shown to be "less than accurate" in terms of the veto of this very signal.
In short, you have exactly *no* evidence that actually supports gravitational wave discovery claims, just a bunch of trumped up and highly manipulated mathematical calculations that begin and end with cherry picked data sets, and dubious *assumptions* about what "blip transients' can and cannot do.
That's were things stand as I see it.
You basically acknowledge that the "statistical noise" sigma calculation is irrelevant in determining cause, or in eliminating environmental factors as being the actual cause of the signal.
You're trying to claim that the reason that various environmental variables can be excluded as the cause of these specific three signals is due to a lack of external support for various environmental factors when these signals were found, yet you refuse to apply that same standard and that same process of elimination methodology to celestial claims of cause.
You "seem" (I'm not entirely sure) to admit that "chirps" in this frequency range routinely show up "sometimes" in a single detector, demonstrating that similar environmental "noise/blip transients" can in fact produce a similar chirp pattern. Yes? No?
Only in *three specific* instances are any "chirps" recorded by LIGO actually indicative of a "celestial" cause, yet the 'chirp' factor is merely an ad-hoc variable in the mathematical mass merger models that your using. Is that correct?
So far, I haven't seen you address their obvious confirmation bias problem in any logical manner. It just been one lame excuse after another, mostly related to blaming *me* personally for their blatant manipulation of their haphazard "exclusion" rationale.
The "only* evidence you seem to have at all to support this claim is based upon your assertion that the signal matches your mathematical models of BH-BH mergers, but these formulas can be used to match a *variety* of different signal patterns, not *just* one or two, so it's really nothing more than a curve fitting exercise that demonstrates *possibility*, not probability.
You don't have any real explanation as to why LIGO has now gone 0 for 3 in terms of offering any external support, and their entire claim is based upon *internal* assertions about their equipment, and internal processes that have been shown to be "less than accurate" in terms of the veto of this very signal.
In short, you have exactly *no* evidence that actually supports gravitational wave discovery claims, just a bunch of trumped up and highly manipulated mathematical calculations that begin and end with cherry picked data sets, and dubious *assumptions* about what "blip transients' can and cannot do.
That's were things stand as I see it.
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
Well, the good news is that LIGO has an infinite number of tries to prove me wrong. While they've struck out in their first three attempts, their methodology isn't hampered by any need of external corroboration, so I'm sure they'll be publishing more papers soon enough. According to the article in Nature magazine, they already presumably have another half dozen candidate signals to choose from. Hope springs eternal.
You can be sure that I'll be waiting to see if any of those candidate signals enjoys any visual confirmation.
You can be sure that I'll be waiting to see if any of those candidate signals enjoys any visual confirmation.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
