Evidence of gravitational waves, or evidence of confirmation bias?

[Michael]

It seems like the conversations here and at Thunderbolts are winding down, so I'd like to make a few final comments.

Though I remain open minded to a QM definition of gravity that ties all the forces of nature together, I personally embrace GR theory for now. I also embrace the possibility of gravitational waves. I embrace the basic technology that LIGO is using to detect them too. I'm open minded to the possibility of actually "discovering" gravitational waves in the future, and I hope that scientists manage to do so within my lifetime. I wouldn't even mind eating a little crow if LIGO does eventually start linking specific LIGO signals to specific celestial events either. Long before the last round of upgrades, I actually devoted some computer time to their efforts using their screensaver app. I like the LIGO concept and I support the concept.

As it relates to LIGO's current claims however, I remain an "atheist' in the sense that I simply lack belief in the validity of their methodology, not necessarily their technology. These are completely separate issues IMO,and I see it that way.

I continue to support the LIGO technology, and I look forward to having additional LIGO stations online. That would indeed offer us a way to test LIGO's assumptions about blip transients, and to allow LIGO to better triangulate a candidate signal to a much smaller and more constrained portion of the sky.

I even hope that we eventually discover gravitational waves using LIGO technology during my lifetime, but alas I don't believe that has occurred yet. Their current methodology is simply biased in favor of celestial claims, and it is blatantly biased against all other potential causes of the signal.

You have to ask yourself how likely it is that their *single*, billion light year away explanation for these types of signals is really the most likely probable cause of these three specific signals, particularly if similar "chirp" transients show up regularly in both (and potentially all) the LIGO detectors and therefor originate locally. IMO it's far more likely that these are rare EM related phenomenon which occur somewhere between both detectors. LIGO did just recently increase the sensitivity of their equipment by a factor of 10 in terms of distance, and by a factor of 1000 in terms of volume space. They probably now enjoy some overlap in terms of being able to detect the same EM transient event.

I think a third operational LIGO station would at least confirm the possibility that similar future "chirps" might sometimes show up in just two of the three detectors, but not all three. That would tend to support my position, and undermine the claim of "discovery'. Such chirps and very rare EM events may even occasionally affect all three detectors at once, but again, without evidence of any celestial event as the actual 'cause', all we have is a pig in a poke, and a bunch of wild speculation.

According to that article in Nature magazine, LIGO already has a half dozen or so more candidate signals to choose from for their next published paper, so it should be *extremely* interesting to see if any of those half dozen or so candidate signals enjoy any type of external support. So far every single 'claim' by LIGO can only be confirmed by LIGO, and there is no falsification mechanism that exists or that is offered in their methodology. The don't even offer a category for "unknown cause" in their flawed (current) methodology.

This type of blatantly biased methodology is simply *beneath* the Herculean efforts that have been made to design, engineer and build the LIGO detectors IMO. I hope that LIGO is eventually successful in discovering gravitational waves, but I simply lack belief in their current methodology. It appears to suffer from a seriously bad case of confirmation bias.

Nothing I've heard during these online conversations/debates would tend to suggest that there's even a reasonable or logical excuse for that blatant bias. It only makes their lack of any type of external corroboration look that much more suspicious every single time they keep failing to corroborate their claims of a celestial origin of these 'chirps'. Unfortunately I think this problem is likely to get much worse before it gets better, and the whole thing is likely to unravel as more stations come online.

 

[Michael]

This paper and this issue really underscores and exemplifies the mainstream's reliance upon pure confirmation bias as a "method" to support their otherwise unsupportable belief systems. Not only did LIGO *not* eliminate celestial claims based on the same methodology they used to eliminate every other potential cause of the signal, the sigma figure is almost (not quite) entirely unrelated to the claim as to cause., so in no way does it support the claim of 'discovery'.

This same blatant confirmation bias problem can also be observed with respect to "dark matter" claims. Not only have the mainstream's galaxy mass estimation techniques been shown to be flawed in many different ways, all the so called "tests" of dark matter in the lab have failed to find any evidence at all of exotic forms of matter.

Confirmation bias has now become the "defacto methodology" in astronomy today. It's gotten so bad, that the mainstream simply accepts and even encourages that bizarre behavior, and they don't even think twice about it.

 

[Halbhh]

Please forgive me for not being able to find the thread where we were talking about red shifts easily, but it came to me yesterday or the day before that for the idea of scattering to account for large redshifts, there was something about blue shifts that gave me a thought to consider.

This reasoning has several steps, so please be patient, and you already know some, but please read through anyway.

Obviously a blue shift can only be from doppler, from relative velocity.

Next, what are the implications of the continuum of gradually more and more red shifted objects. What about if the galaxy of wider angular appearance, which is closer, has a red shift that falls on the curve of the relationship of distance to red shift? That's expected in either cause of red shifts....But!>...

If redshift of more distance objects is supposed to be from scattering, for instance, than how could that agree with the phenomena of more distant galaxies, as shown by relative angular size, happen to line up with a relationship of distance and redshift unless somehow all the scattering plasma/gas were rather uniformly distributed....

But, if the gas/plasma is very uniformly distributed, then why are galaxies visibly not uniformly distributed? (We see that in sky wide maps, galaxies clump into threads).

Put into different words -- what would make the scattering gas so uniformly distributed -- as if the "inflation" theory is all correct, but even moreso -- (or the even less likely alternative explanation that the scattering gas/plasma isn't uniformly distributed, but instead is incredibly all be lined up towards us in a consistent way far above mere chance, as if the Universe was radial with us at the exact only center)?

 

[Michael]

Put into different words -- what would make the scattering gas so uniformly distributed -- as if the "inflation" theory is all correct,

I'm not altogether certain what you're fishing for, but....

ESA Science & Technology: Simple but challenging: the Universe according to Planck

At the same time, the extraordinary quality of the Planck data reveals the presence of subtle anomalies in the CMB pattern that might challenge the very foundations of cosmology. The most serious anomaly is a deficit in the signal at large angular scales on the sky, which is about ten per cent weaker than the standard model would like it to be. Other anomalous traits that had been hinted at in the past - a significant discrepancy of the CMB signal as observed in the two opposite hemispheres of the sky and an abnormally large 'cold spot' - are confirmed with high confidence. Planck's new image of the CMB suggests that some aspects of the standard model of cosmology may need a rethink, raising the possibility that the fabric of the cosmos, on the largest scales of the observable Universe, might be more complex than we think.

I think we should start with your first premise, since Planck data sets show hemispheric variations in the CMB which tend to defy the basic premise of inflation theory. They also show signs of "holes" which tend to be rather large in relationship to inflation predictions.

but even moreso -- (or the even less likely alternative explanation that the scattering gas/plasma isn't uniformly distributed, but instead is incredibly all be lined up towards us in a consistent way far above mere chance, as if the Universe was radial with us at the exact only center)?

I'd assume that intergalactic space is "modestly" homogeneously distributed, but I'm unclear why you would assume that a lack of homogeneity would necessarily result in a significant change in the angular size of the galaxy. I can see why it might effect the brightness aspect to some degree, but not so much the angular size.

FYI, Eric Lerner published a paper a few years back that suggested the LCDM theory does seem to fail the brightness calculations at larger redshifts:

Universe is Not Expanding After All, Controversial Study Suggests | Astronomy | Sci-News.com

The scientists carefully compared the size and brightness of about a thousand nearby and extremely distant galaxies. They chose the most luminous spiral galaxies for comparisons, matching the average luminosity of the near and far samples.

Contrary to the prediction of the Big Bang theory, they found that the surface brightnesses of the near and far galaxies are identical.

These results are consistent with what would be expected from ordinary geometry if the Universe was not expanding, and are in contradiction with the drastic dimming of surface brightness predicted by the expanding Universe hypothesis.

 

[Michael]

Consider LIGO's claims for a moment with a little objectivity, and look how far down the invisible rabbit hole we have gone.

LIGO is claiming that two (now six) invisible things in galaxies far far away, merged together in a quarter of a second to create yet another invisible object (now three) in space, while releasing several solar masses of energy into an "invisible" form of energy which billions of years later makes a "transient" spike show up in their equipment. Of course none of these three events managed to release enough EM energy to be observed on Earth. The transient that they measured is physically and statistically indistinguishable from ordinary environmental noise. Since it is indistinguishable from the normal background noise, LIGO simply stripped out the background noise, and they created a useless 5 sigma figure on the "statistical noise" to be able to claim a 'discovery" which ultimately does not even support their claim as to cause. Now of course none of that math even works in the first place unless we simply overlook the *blatant* confirmation bias that is required to claim to have eliminated every *other* potential cause of the transient signal based on a lack of external support, while simply giving all invisible celestial events and entities a completely free pass! Oy Vey.

The mathematical and logical contradictions of that particular claim are simply *off scale*. Not only doesn't the math they created relate to anything useful as to their claim as to cause, it's downright contrived and manipulated at every single step of the way. Worse yet, the methodology is biased in *favor of the invisible*, and biased against all known environmental causes of ordinary environmental transient noise.

There's not even a decent logical basis of the claim to start with. The entire claim, and now all three LIGO claims are based upon confirmation bias quicksand.

I'm curious to see if any of the next 6 candidate signals enjoys any visual or neutrino support, and I'd love to be a fly on the wall when the third LIGO detector comes online and they're still unable to visually corroborate any of these claims.

There's already a veritable cottage paper industry today that is based entirely upon gravitational waves.

 

[Halbhh]

I'm not altogether certain what you're fishing for, but....

ESA Science & Technology: Simple but challenging: the Universe according to Planck



I think we should start with your first premise, since Planck data sets show hemispheric variations in the CMB which tend to defy the basic premise of inflation theory. They also show signs of "holes" which tend to be rather large in relationship to inflation predictions.



I'd assume that intergalactic space is "modestly" homogeneously distributed, but I'm unclear why you would assume that a lack of homogeneity would necessarily result in a significant change in the angular size of the galaxy. I can see why it might effect the brightness aspect to some degree, but not so much the angular size.

FYI, Eric Lerner published a paper a few years back that suggested the LCDM theory does seem to fail the brightness calculations at larger redshifts:

Universe is Not Expanding After All, Controversial Study Suggests | Astronomy | Sci-News.com

Sorry for not being more clear. It was an emerging thought.

First, as you will remember, the variations in background radiation are of very small magnitude, and that's a big deal, and the whole reason the inflation hypothesis arose, etc... Inflation is about trying to account for that oddity.

And even if the variations were say 2 orders of magnitude higher, they would still be very small, etc. (it's everywhere, visible in all directions, without gaps (unlike Galaxies, which very much have gaps between them) and this in turn suggests the whole conventional "inflation" hypothesis) . (Merely see a 'map of the Universe' for example, of which there are many such.)

I'm assuming you don't buy the inflation hypothesis (which I don't really care about either way myself, it's merely a hypothesis).

Now to the question I'm trying to ask you, and let me try to make more sense this time....

For the relationship between the distance as shown by the appearance of the galaxy in the image -- apparent angular width as a rough suggestion of distance for various galaxy types -- that suggested distance as compared to the measured red shift -- for that relationship of red shift to general distance, graphed, for instance, to be so consistent requires in turn that the cause of the red shift be highly consistent over distance *AND* also well distributed everywhere (as above via inflation), that is far more so than galaxies themselves.

With me on that? Is the wording clear to this point?

So, if that cause of the large observed red shifts ("cosmological red shift") is scattering, and 2nd, the scattering material has to be distributed with only small variation--

So...then, for that putative scattering material to be so close to evenly distributed in all directions and places....has to mean the inflation hypothesis or other means to cause it....-- inflation hypothesis is all about explaining the background radiation being so highly even everywhere. Thus, putatively inflation would be the cause of the scattering material being very evenly distributed>>?? Or....in your view, if inflation isn't the cause of that in your own hypothesis (that scattering causes cosmological red shift)....then how did the scattering material become so evenly distributed, UNLIKE GALAXIES....??

i.e. -- this makes scattering seem unlikely as the cause of cosmological red shift, unless there is a plausible reason for the scattering material to be so close to evenly distributed, unlike galaxies. This would then support cosmological red shift from velocity as more plausible instead, right?

That's the question.

Also, here's an interesting bit I just saw, which I think you will like:

https://phys.org/news/2017-06-galaxy-alignments-ten-billion-years.html

 

[Michael]

Sorry for not being more clear. It was an emerging thought.

First, as you will remember, the variations in background radiation are of very small magnitude, and that's a big deal, and the whole reason the inflation hypothesis arose, etc... Inflation is about trying to account for that oddity.

It's just an observation of relative homogeneity of mass that may have *nothing* to do with extra and unnecessary constructs like inflation. It's not even clear that it's entirely 'background' radiation to start with. It's not 'foreground' radiation from our own galaxy once we remove that foreground contamination from the image, but every galaxy and every sun produces those wavelengths, and the "bright spots' in the 'cleaned up' images are simply areas where the stars and galaxies are more concentrated than in the darker regions. Scattering tends to smooth it out over distance.

And even if the variations were say 2 orders of magnitude higher, they would still be very small, etc.

When you say "variations", what you mean is *after they clean up the image*, it looks pretty much the same. If they didn't first start by cleaning up the image using a bunch of techniques, those variations would be huge. Our own sun emits those very same wavelengths of light as does every sun in every galaxy.

(it's everywhere, visible in all directions, without gaps (unlike Galaxies, which very much have gaps between them)

But those dark areas *are* just gaps in the galaxy concentration patterns, or at least areas of under density of galaxies and stars. Scattering will spread the photons out over distance, but by and large the bright and dark regions in the processed image represent an over abundance and an under abundance of galaxies and stars in those areas.

and this in turn suggests the whole conventional "inflation" hypothesis) . (Merely see a 'map of the Universe' for example, of which there are many such.)

Meh. That's *one* belief about why we see what we see when we *clean* all the foreground out of any particular microwave image. The universe also has an x-ray background "glow' to it as well, and there are bright foreground effects in those raw images too which we could clean out if we wanted to if we just wanted to see a 'smooth backround' in x-ray. Between scattering and the relative homogeneity of star/galaxy density, we might get a pretty smooth glow from any wavelength we happen to pick.

I'm assuming you don't buy the inflation hypothesis (which I don't really care about either way myself, it's merely a hypothesis).

I reject the whole "redshift=expansion" claim by the way. It's nothing personal to inflation or Guth in any way. I just believe that photon redshift is likely to be the result of ordinary inelastic scattering in plasma as we observe in the lab. I "lack belief' that space does expansion tricks in places that humans cannot reach in their lifetime, and I lack belief that inflation cause space to expand.

Now to the question I'm trying to ask you, and let me try to make more sense this time....

For the relationship between the distance as shown by the appearance of the galaxy in the image -- apparent angular width as a rough suggestion of distance for various galaxy types -- that suggested distance as compared to the measured red shift -- for that relationship of red shift to general distance, graphed, for instance, to be so consistent requires in turn that the cause of the red shift be highly consistent over distance *AND* also well distributed everywhere (as above via inflation), that is far more so than galaxies themselves.

With me on that? Is the wording clear to this point?

I think so.

ALCOCK-PACZYŃSKI COSMOLOGICAL TEST - IOPscience

The only paper I've seen thus far on that topic would be that one which tested one specific tired light hypothesis (Holushko's model I believe) and his model seemed to pass many of those same difficult angular tests that you're describing. I'm not sure I'm personally qualified to explain how they tested it to you, but you might read the paper for yourself. I think you'll understand it better than I do.

So, if that cause of the large observed red shifts ("cosmological red shift") is scattering, and 2nd, the scattering material has to be distributed with only small variation--

Hmm. Well it probably has to *average* out to something with only a modest variation over vast distances, but I don't think it necessarily has to be homogeneously distributed at every given point along the way.

So...then, for that putative scattering material to be so close to evenly distributed in all directions and places....has to mean the inflation hypothesis or other means to cause it....

Well, my bet would be on gravity, distance and electricity. IMO I'm better off with no explanation or answer for homogeneity rather than just 'making one up" out of whole cloth.

-- inflation hypothesis is all about explaining the background radiation being so highly even everywhere.

And yet it's not as 'even' at Guth predicted, and you keep *insisting* that it has to be "background" radiation, whereas I think it's basically just related to solar output, scattering and distance just like every other wavelength we might look at. Without "cleaning" the microwave images, it's not as smooth as you seem to think it is. If you go ahead and "smooth it out", the "smoothness" is a function of your filtering process, it's not a function of inflation.

Thus, putatively inflation would be the cause of the scattering material being very evenly distributed>>??

But galaxies aren't really evenly distributed, they run along very large "Birkeland currents" which wire the galaxies together in a spaghetti string like pattern. The material *between* galaxies is probably reasonably evenly distributed *on average*

Or....in your view, if inflation isn't the cause of that in your own hypothesis (that scattering causes cosmological red shift)....then how did the scattering material become so evenly distributed, UNLIKE GALAXIES....??

It would simply be the plasma and dust that isn't much influenced by any particularly deep gravity wells or strong EM fields in deep intergalactic space. It's evidently pretty evenly distributed over distance *on average*, but there are clouds of dust that appear in many Hubble images.

I think the basic flaw in your argument is that you're *assuming* that the microwave wavelength isn't just an "average temperature" of spacetime as Eddington first predicted based upon the scattering of starlight off the dust of spacetime. Eddington actually nailed that background temperature to within 1/2 of one degree on his first attempt. It took big bangers *several* attempts to get any closer than Eddington.

I think you should also take a look at *unfiltered* microwave images and compare them to unfiltered x-ray images of the universe. The universe has a "background" in x-ray too, and a "background" in every wavelength that is related to the *suns* and scattering, not a "surface of last scattering".

Why arbitrarily pick *one* specific wavelength and claim that the one wavelength is directly related to something *other than* stars? That seems like an arbitrary assumption. You wouldn't (and don't) assume that the x-ray background is not related to stars do you?

i.e. -- this makes scattering seem unlikely as the cause of cosmological red shift, unless there is a plausible reason for the scattering material to be so close to evenly distributed, unlike galaxies. This would then support cosmological red shift from velocity as more plausible instead, right?

Not the way I see it. We have a relatively homogeneous layout of dust between galaxies that isn't much affected by EM influence or gravity wells in it's vicinity so it spreads out reasonably evenly over time. Areas where we find strong gravity or strong EM influences, we end up with "clumps" in the dust sheet.

I guess I just begin with an infinite and relatively homogeneous layout of galaxies and I go from there. I don't know for sure why it's reasonably homogeneous, and I know it's not entirely homogeneous. That's all I can really say. I see no point in simply *inventing* a supposed 'explanation' for that "relative' homogeniety that only creates more questions than it answers. Before we even get to "inflation", you'll need to explain to me why you believe that "space" does any sort of expansion process in the first place. Moving objects would also explain that redshift without the need for "space expansion" or inflation. An expanding (moving object) universe is still consistent with EU/PC theory. All you can't do in EU/PC theory is insert "expanding space" claims or other claims that don't work in the lab. The way you use empirical physics to explain redshift is entirely up to you actually.

[astro-ph/0601171] Is space really expanding? A counterexample

Also, here's an interesting bit I just saw, which I think you will like:

https://phys.org/news/2017-06-galaxy-alignments-ten-billion-years.html

I do like that observation because it demonstrates that galaxies are aligned and arranged around large scale Birkeland currents and various circuitry in space as Alfven's cosmology model predicts. It also demonstrates that while spacetime is *sort of* homogeneously distributed, it's not a completely even distribution. When you add enough distance however, things probably do 'average out' pretty well.

IMO I think you're making a mistake by "assuming" that Eddington's calculation of the background temperature of spacetime is somehow inferior to inflation theory. I'll grant you that I may not have a "perfect" answer as to why the universe has an "average density over distance", but no answer is still better than a made up one IMO.

One of the things that is observed in current carrying plasma in the lab is that it tends to form current carrying threads where the mass is most concentrated. The magnetic fields that form around the current carrying thread tends to evacuate charged particles immediately around the thread. The non-ionized material tends to spread out. I'd start in the lab to look for those kinds of answers. I would not start with 'imagined new forces of nature'. That just seems like counterproductive behavior if I'm trying to actually 'understand' something that I think is unusual.

 

[Halbhh]

It's just an observation of relative homogeneity of mass that may have *nothing* to do with extra and unnecessary constructs like inflation. It's not even clear that it's entirely 'background' radiation to start with. It's not 'foreground' radiation from our own galaxy once we remove that foreground contamination from the image, but every galaxy and every sun produces those wavelengths, and the "bright spots' in the 'cleaned up' images are simply areas where the stars and galaxies are more concentrated than in the darker regions. Scattering tends to smooth it out over distance.



When you say "variations", what you mean is *after they clean up the image*, it looks pretty much the same. If they didn't first start by cleaning up the image using a bunch of techniques, those variations would be huge. Our own sun emits those very same wavelengths of light as does every sun in every galaxy.



But those dark areas *are* just gaps in the galaxy concentration patterns, or at least areas of under density of galaxies and stars. Scattering will spread the photons out over distance, but by and large the bright and dark regions in the processed image represent an over abundance and an under abundance of galaxies and stars in those areas.



Meh. That's *one* belief about why we see what we see when we *clean* all the foreground out of any particular microwave image. The universe also has an x-ray background "glow' to it as well, and there are bright foreground effects in those raw images too which we could clean out if we wanted to if we just wanted to see a 'smooth backround' in x-ray. Between scattering and the relative homogeneity of star/galaxy density, we might get a pretty smooth glow from any wavelength we happen to pick.



I reject the whole "redshift=expansion" claim by the way. It's nothing personal to inflation or Guth in any way. I just believe that photon redshift is likely to be the result of ordinary inelastic scattering in plasma as we observe in the lab. I "lack belief' that space does expansion tricks in places that humans cannot reach in their lifetime, and I lack belief that inflation cause space to expand.



I think so.

ALCOCK-PACZYŃSKI COSMOLOGICAL TEST - IOPscience

The only paper I've seen thus far on that topic would be that one which tested one specific tired light hypothesis (Holushko's model I believe) and his model seemed to pass many of those same difficult angular tests that you're describing. I'm not sure I'm personally qualified to explain how they tested it to you, but you might read the paper for yourself. I think you'll understand it better than I do.



Hmm. Well it probably has to *average* out to something with only a modest variation over vast distances, but I don't think it necessarily has to be homogeneously distributed at every given point along the way.



Well, my bet would be on gravity, distance and electricity. IMO I'm better off with no explanation or answer for homogeneity rather than just 'making one up" out of whole cloth.



And yet it's not as 'even' at Guth predicted, and you keep *insisting* that it has to be "background" radiation, whereas I think it's basically just related to solar output, scattering and distance just like every other wavelength we might look at. Without "cleaning" the microwave images, it's not as smooth as you seem to think it is. If you go ahead and "smooth it out", the "smoothness" is a function of your filtering process, it's not a function of inflation.



But galaxies aren't really evenly distributed, they run along very large "Birkeland currents" which wire the galaxies together in a spaghetti string like pattern. The material *between* galaxies is probably reasonably evenly distributed *on average*



It would simply be the plasma and dust that isn't much influenced by any particularly deep gravity wells or strong EM fields in deep intergalactic space. It's evidently pretty evenly distributed over distance *on average*, but there are clouds of dust that appear in many Hubble images.

I think the basic flaw in your argument is that you're *assuming* that the microwave wavelength isn't just an "average temperature" of spacetime as Eddington first predicted based upon the scattering of starlight off the dust of spacetime. Eddington actually nailed that background temperature to within 1/2 of one degree on his first attempt. It took big bangers *several* attempts to get any closer than Eddington.

I think you should also take a look at *unfiltered* microwave images and compare them to unfiltered x-ray images of the universe. The universe has a "background" in x-ray too, and a "background" in every wavelength that is related to the *suns* and scattering, not a "surface of last scattering".

Why arbitrarily pick *one* specific wavelength and claim that the one wavelength is directly related to something *other than* stars? That seems like an arbitrary assumption. You wouldn't (and don't) assume that the x-ray background is not related to stars do you?



Not the way I see it. We have a relatively homogeneous layout of dust between galaxies that isn't much affected by EM influence or gravity wells in it's vicinity so it spreads out reasonably evenly over time. Areas where we find strong gravity or strong EM influences, we end up with "clumps" in the dust sheet.

I guess I just begin with an infinite and relatively homogeneous layout of galaxies and I go from there. I don't know for sure why it's reasonably homogeneous, and I know it's not entirely homogeneous. That's all I can really say. I see no point in simply *inventing* a supposed 'explanation' for that "relative' homogeniety that only creates more questions than it answers. Before we even get to "inflation", you'll need to explain to me why you believe that "space" does any sort of expansion process in the first place. Moving objects would also explain that redshift without the need for "space expansion" or inflation. An expanding (moving object) universe is still consistent with EU/PC theory. All you can't do in EU/PC theory is insert "expanding space" claims or other claims that don't work in the lab. The way you use empirical physics to explain redshift is entirely up to you actually.

[astro-ph/0601171] Is space really expanding? A counterexample



I do like that observation because it demonstrates that galaxies are aligned and arranged around large scale Birkeland currents and various circuitry in space as Alfven's cosmology model predicts. It also demonstrates that while spacetime is *sort of* homogeneously distributed, it's not a completely even distribution. When you add enough distance however, things probably do 'average out' pretty well.

IMO I think you're making a mistake by "assuming" that Eddington's calculation of the background temperature of spacetime is somehow inferior to inflation theory. I'll grant you that I may not have a "perfect" answer as to why the universe has an "average density over distance", but no answer is still better than a made up one IMO.

One of the things that is observed in current carrying plasma in the lab is that it tends to form current carrying threads where the mass is most concentrated. The magnetic fields that form around the current carrying thread tends to evacuate charged particles immediately around the thread. The non-ionized material tends to spread out. I'd start in the lab to look for those kinds of answers. I would not start with 'imagined new forces of nature'. That just seems like counterproductive behavior if I'm trying to actually 'understand' something that I think is unusual.

Fun.

Here's something to look at though (unless you wrongly worded): you wrote: "a relatively homogeneous layout of dust between galaxies..."

But isn't what we observe actually just hydrogen, not dust, except for dust created and ejected by stars, such as during novae/supernovae?

No 'dust' without it being made by stars, right? If you say dust is out there in non-galactic areas [not between galaxies, but far from galaxies], space far from galaxies, without stars to make the dust, then you've got yet another new hypothesis differing from the more conventional view? It would take some serious explaining, eh?
(We do know at least that stars are the observed source we do understand and see happening to make stuff heavier then hydrogen, dust, leading to planets like Earth; we see directly that novae eject dust into interstellar space. That's merely from lots of observations.)

 

[Halbhh]

A bit more info, some new to me from the wiki:

"Intergalactic space is the physical space between galaxies. [note this isn't the space far from galaxies I am asking about just above] Studies of the large scale distribution of galaxies show that the Universe has a foam-like structure, with clusters and groups of galaxieslying along filaments that occupy about a tenth of the total space. The remainder forms huge voids that are mostly empty of galaxies. Typically, a void spans a distance of (10−40) h−1 MPc, where his the Hubble constant in units of 100 km s−1 Mpc.[122]

"Surrounding and stretching between galaxies, there is a rarefied plasma[123] that is organized in a galactic filamentary structure.[124] This material is called the intergalactic medium (IGM). The density of the IGM is 5–200 times the average density of the Universe.[125] It consists mostly of ionized hydrogen; i.e. a plasma consisting of equal numbers of electrons and protons. As gas falls into the intergalactic medium from the voids, it heats up to temperatures of 105 K to 107 K,[126]which is high enough so that collisions between atoms have enough energy to cause the bound electrons to escape from the hydrogen nuclei; this is why the IGM is ionized. At these temperatures, it is called the warm–hot intergalactic medium (WHIM). (Although the plasma is very hot by terrestrial standards, 105 K is often called "warm" in astrophysics.) Computer simulations and observations indicate that up to half of the atomic matter in the Universe might exist in this warm–hot, rarefied state.[125][127][128] When gas falls from the filamentary structures of the WHIM into the galaxy clusters at the intersections of the cosmic filaments, it can heat up even more, reaching temperatures of 108 K and above in the so-called intracluster medium.[129]

(underlining added by me -- it's interesting that even the 'rarified' plasma between galaxies is still many multiples more dense than the average of the whole Universe, which is by implication mostly very empty space further away from galaxies)

Outer space - Wikipedia

 

[SelfSim]

So .. an update:

This non-peer reviewed refutation paper was produced recently, by apparently reputable scientists who nonetheless, were not LIGO specialists, and were thus working outside of their speciality fields. It nonetheless basically calls into question the 5-sigma detection claim of GW150914 (and the subsequent GW detections).

The paper has caused a stir across several web-forums and has, in turn, produced a number of interesting responses. Probably the most relevant is this one authored by Ian Harry, postdoctoral physicist at the Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics, Potsdam-Golm, as recently as June 18, (ie: just yesterday)!

I have emboldened certain sections relevant to the recent discussions in this thread as follows:

Creswell et al. claim that correlations between the Hanford and Livingston data, which in their results, appear to be maximized around the time delay reported for GW150914, raised questions on the integrity of the detection. They do not. The authors claim early on in their article that LIGO data analysis assumes that the data are Gaussian, independent and stationary. In fact, we know that LIGO data are neither Gaussian nor stationary and if one reads through the technical paper accompanying the detection PRL, you can read about the many tests we run to try to distinguish between non-Gaussianities in our data and real signals. But in doing such tests, we raise an important question: “If you see something loud, how can you be sure it is not some chance instrumental artifact, which somehow was missed in the various tests that you do”. Because of this we have to be very careful when assessing the significance (in terms of sigmas—or the p-value, to use the correct term). We assess the significance using a process called time-shifts. We first look through all our data to look for loud events within the 10ms time-window corresponding to the light travel time between the two observatories. Then we look again. Except the second time we look we shift ALL of the data from Livingston by 0.1s. This delay is much larger than the light travel time so if we see any interesting “events” now they cannot be genuine astrophysical events, but must be some noise transient. We then repeat this process with a 0.2s delay, 0.3s delay and so on up to time delays on the order of weeks long. In this way we’ve conducted of order 10 million experiments. For the case of GW150914 the signal in the non-time shifted data was louder than any event we saw in any of the time-shifted runs—all 10 million of them. In fact, it was still a lot louder than any event in the time-shifted runs as well. Therefore we can say that this is a 1-in-10-million event, without making any assumptions at all about our noise. Except one. The assumption is that the analysis with Livingston data shifted by e.g. 8s (or any of the other time shifts) is equivalent to the analysis with the Livingston data not shifted at all. Or, in other words, we assume that there is nothing special about the non-time shifted analysis (other than it might contain real signals!). As well as the technical papers, this is also described in the science summary that accompanied the GW150914 PRL.

Nothing in the paper “On the time lags of the LIGO signals” suggests that the non-time shifted analysis is special. The claimed correlations between the two detectors due to resonance and calibration lines in the data would be present also in the time-shifted analyses—The calibration lines are repetitive lines, and so if correlated in the non-time shift analyses, they will also be correlated in the time-shift analyses as well. I should also note that potential correlated noise sources was explored in another of the companion papers to the GW150914 PRL. Therefore, taking the results of this paper at face value, I see nothing that calls into question the “integrity” of the GW150914 detection.

Section V: Wrapping up

I have tried to reproduce the results quoted in “On the time lags of the LIGO signals”. I find the claims of section 2 are due to an issue in how the data is Fourier transformed, and do not reproduce the correlations claimed in section 3. Even if taking the results at face value, it would not affect the 5-sigma confidence associated with GW150914. Nevertheless I am in contact with the authors and we will try to understand these discrepancies.

The point here is that even a serious challenge, (as distinct from Michael's nonsensical one), concerning the 5-sigma confidence level, is still not good enough to cause any significant doubt about it.

 

[Michael]

So .. an update:

This non-peer reviewed refutation paper was produced recently, by apparently reputable scientists who nonetheless, were not LIGO specialists, and were thus working outside of their speciality fields. It nonetheless basically calls into question the 5-sigma detection claim of GW150914 (and the subsequent GW detections).

The paper has caused a stir across several web-forums and has, in turn, produced a number of interesting responses. Probably the most relevant is this one authored by Ian Harry, postdoctoral physicist at the Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics, Potsdam-Golm, as recently as June 18, (ie: just yesterday)!

I have emboldened certain sections relevant to the recent discussions in this thread as follows:
The point here is that even a serious challenge, (as distinct from Michael's nonsensical one), concerning the 5-sigma confidence level, is still not good enough to cause any significant doubt about it.

You'll have to bear with me a bit this week. I've been back East since Thursday attending my oldest daughter's wedding, and I'm still playing catch up today.

I did briefly skim the original paper you cited, but I haven't been through it yet, nor any of the rebuttals. I'm not sure what makes you label that particular paper a "serious" challenge to LIGO's claim other than the fact that it was signed by several reputable scientists.

I never personally questioned the conclusion that these three candidate signals are "real" signals from an unidentified source, so it really doesn't surprise me that the *cherry picked* data set and the corresponding sigma calculation on that cherry picked data verifies that the signal is "real", nor does it change or excuse the fact that LIGO's sigma calculation still does *not* relate to their claim as to the *cause* of that signal.

None of the content of the new paper or any of the corresponding rebuttals even begins to address any of the numerous problems that are listed in my paper, starting with the blatant confirmation problem. There's still been no "serious" rebuttal to any of the points that I made in my paper.

I'm really curious to find out if the next LIGO paper contains any type of external visual or neutrino support, or whether it's just another blatant example of confirmation bias run amuck just like the first three claims. If the article in Nature is correct about the fact that LIGO has a half dozen more "candidate signals" to work with, and they *still* can't come up with a single one of them which enjoys any external validation of any sort, it's just going to make me 9 for 9, and it will mean that LIGO is 0 for 9. That should tell the whole story. If they can't correlate any of their so called "candidate signals" to a celestial event, it only demonstrates the blatant confirmation bias problem which *eliminates every other* possible claim as to cause based on a *lack* of external corroboration, and automatically favors all celestial origin claims when there is no actual external "evidence" to support that claim.

I'm really looking forward to the new 3rd LIGO station coming online this summer. It's going to significantly 'constrain' LIGO dramatically and it should allow us to "test" some of their assumptions about "blip transients" as well. That should be *very* interesting.

I'm actually not at all surprised that the original signal is probably "real". That was never even in dispute in my paper. I simply lack belief that the signal(s) is(are) related to any type of celestial events. Period. This "lack of belief" is directly related to LIGO's *utter lack* of any external verification of any sort of celestial event that can be correlated back to any of the candidate signals.

LIGO's whole case is based on flat out *cherry picking* only hand selected dates and times from the entire environmental data set, and it is based on a blatantly biased technique that automatically favors all celestial origin claims, and that automatically disfavors any other potential environmental cause of the signals. Every *other* potential cause of the signal is *eliminated* based on a lack of external corroboration, whereas all celestial origin claims are *not* eliminated by the same process of elimination technique. It's blatant confirmation bias on a stick.

Nothing I've skimmed through so far even addresses any of the issues and points that were raised in my paper, and nobody on the internet has poked even a single hole in my paper.

 

[Michael]

Fun.

Here's something to look at though (unless you wrongly worded): you wrote: "a relatively homogeneous layout of dust between galaxies..."

But isn't what we observe actually just hydrogen, not dust, except for dust created and ejected by stars, such as during novae/supernovae?

No 'dust' without it being made by stars, right? If you say dust is out there in non-galactic areas [not between galaxies, but far from galaxies], space far from galaxies, without stars to make the dust, then you've got yet another new hypothesis differing from the more conventional view? It would take some serious explaining, eh?
(We do know at least that stars are the observed source we do understand and see happening to make stuff heavier then hydrogen, dust, leading to planets like Earth; we see directly that novae eject dust into interstellar space. That's merely from lots of observations.)

AFAIK, "dust" has existed eternally in this universe, as has plasma galore. Suffice to say that it's far more likely IMO that photons lose some momentum to the dusty plasma in space, just like they lose momentum in the lab. Chen even demonstrated a correlation between the amount of redshift and the number of free electrons that were present in the plasma.

Admittedly the term "dust" is a bit misleading on my part because non ionized particles aren't the only things that the photons interact with.

 

[Michael]

A bit more info, some new to me from the wiki:

"Intergalactic space is the physical space between galaxies. [note this isn't the space far from galaxies I am asking about just above] Studies of the large scale distribution of galaxies show that the Universe has a foam-like structure, with clusters and groups of galaxieslying along filaments that occupy about a tenth of the total space. The remainder forms huge voids that are mostly empty of galaxies. Typically, a void spans a distance of (10−40) h−1 MPc, where his the Hubble constant in units of 100 km s−1 Mpc.[122]

"Surrounding and stretching between galaxies, there is a rarefied plasma[123] that is organized in a galactic filamentary structure.[124] This material is called the intergalactic medium (IGM). The density of the IGM is 5–200 times the average density of the Universe.[125] It consists mostly of ionized hydrogen; i.e. a plasma consisting of equal numbers of electrons and protons. As gas falls into the intergalactic medium from the voids, it heats up to temperatures of 105 K to 107 K,[126]which is high enough...

Er, how and why does gas "heat up" between galaxies again?

 

[SelfSim]

... I never personally questioned the conclusion that these three candidate signals are "real" signals from an unidentified source, so it really doesn't surprise me that the *cherry picked* data set and the corresponding sigma calculation on that cherry picked data verifies that the signal is "real",

How can you claim that the dataset (which is key to verifying that the signal is a legitimate light-speed "real" signal), which on one hand you concur with, and then in the exact same breath, you make the arm-waving accusation it of being 'a cherry-picked' dataset?

This is a totally confused hypocritical position coming from you! Either the dataset has been processed correctly, (thus verifying that the signal is "real"), or it hasn't been processed correctly (meaning that it doesn't verify the "realness")! So which is it?

.. nor does it change or excuse the fact that LIGO's sigma calculation still does *not* relate to their claim as to the *cause* of that signal.

Yes it does.
It underwrites their claim that the signal corresponds with a significantly intense incoming light-speed signal generating event, closely matching GW predictions, correlated in time, (within the light-speed window), at both sites.

None of the content of the new paper or any of the corresponding rebuttals even begins to address any of the numerous problems that are listed in my paper, starting with the blatant confirmation problem. There's still been no "serious" rebuttal to any of the points that I made in my paper.

And there won't be .. because 'the points' in your paper are pure unadulterated gobbledygook ... and its up to you to learn more about what you're attempting to grapple with (something which you appear to be sadly expecting others to do for you)!

No .. its far better to spend some time refuting scientifically researched refutations (like Creswell etal's paper) than to waste time on one that demonstrates no attempt, whatsoever, at research, or trying to understand any of the published background LIGO literature, (aka your paper).

 

[Michael]

How can you claim that the dataset (which is key to verifying that the signal is a legitimate light-speed "real" signal), which on one hand you concur with, and then in the exact same breath, you make the arm-waving accusation it of being 'a cherry-picked' dataset?

I think I'll start by posting this link from TB where I posted my response to their paper earlier today:

Thunderbolts Forum • View topic - Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

The data set is absolutely cherry picked with the express intent of minimizing the effects of *ordinary background* noise on the sigma figure. If they didn't cherry pick the data set, then the sigma figure drops below the psychologically magical 5 sigma level and the "discovery" charade is over.

This is a totally confused hypocritical position coming from you! Either the dataset has been processed correctly, (thus verifying that the signal is "real"), or it hasn't been processed correctly (meaning that it doesn't verify the "realness")! So which is it?

All background noise is "real", and any given spike in the data is "real" and caused by something that is real. So what? Nothing about their technique demonstrates that the signal is anything other than "real", which we already knew in the first place! The concept of "realness" is irrelevant. All noise is "real" and caused by something "real".

Yes it does.
It underwrites their claim that the signal corresponds with a significantly intense incoming light-speed signal generating event,

That much I do accept. All EM events would have the same "speed" however, and perhaps the same "chirp" frequency too. Their technique only demonstrates a speed of light signal took place, it does not mean they "discovered" anything other than the fact that some signals travel at the speed of light. We already knew that too, so that's not actually a "discovery" either.

closely matching GW predictions,

With all those fudge factors, even ordinary "blip transients" fit those same mass merger 'prediction" sets as demonstrated in figure 12. So what? Again, all you might demonstrate is the *possibility* that some bit of noise *might be* related to gravitational waves, not the *probability* based on some match to a *template* with lots of wiggle room.

correlated in time, (within the light-speed window), at both sites.

Again, all that might demonstrate is that *some* signals travel at C. That's not an actual "discovery" of anything, because we've known about that for a very long time. All you can demonstrate is that *something* travels at C and it has an influence on both LIGO detectors. EM discharge signals fall into that same category, they routinely effect the LIGO equipment, and they occur all over the planet "naturally".

And there won't be .. because 'the points' in your paper are pure unadulterated gobbledygook ...

Oh boloney. You guys just have no logical excuse for the blatant double standard of evidence being used, and the blatant confirmation bias problem so you're running for the hills. You have no way to logically differentiate between ordinary blip transients and gravitational wave transients without making a whole host of *assumptions* about blip transient events which LIGO could not possibly even know during the engineering run, and without actually knowing the actual *cause* of blip transients.

and its up to you to learn more about what you're attempting to grapple with (something which you appear to be sadly expecting others to do for you)!

If I'm actually wrong, I do expect you to educate me if you can legitimately pick my criticisms apart. You obviously cannot to that. You've conclusively demonstrated that point in this very thread in fact. The only way you could even deal with my paper is by trying to play "kill the messenger" and it totally blew up in your face.

You never even *touched* the blatant confirmation bias problem in fact.

No .. its far better to spend some time refuting scientifically researched refutations (like Creswell etal's paper)

Translation: Since you can't refute anything in my paper, it's better to focus on papers that you can refute. Got it. IMO they simply fell for your magic tricks and thereby fell into your trap. I didn't.

than to waste time on one that demonstrates no attempt, whatsoever, at research, or trying to understand any of the published background LIGO literature, (aka your paper).

What a load of horse manure. I carefully and methodically researched their *methodology* and I found it woefully lacking in the areas I described in my paper. I also researched their equipment and I was duly impressed. You're just miffed because I focused on the actual magic tricks, and the actual problems in the paper that LIGO didn't want anyone to see, and you can't handle any of my criticisms.

I give the authors their due credit for trying to crosscheck LIGO's comparison methodology, but I think they're barking up the wrong tree, which makes them low hanging fruit for criticism. It's just easier to pick on their paper, that's all.

 

[SelfSim]

... The data set is absolutely cherry picked

No, it hasn't .. and this is the bee you seem to have caught under your bonnet ... its like a broken record with you. You have never demonstrated just how they managed to achieve this miraculous feat! All we keep getting from you is the conspiracy theory Gregorian chant ... with absolutely zip evidence to back it up!

..with the express intent of minimizing the effects of *ordinary background* noise on the sigma figure. If they didn't cherry pick the data set, then the sigma figure drops below the psychologically magical 5 sigma level and the "discovery" charade is over.

Wrong!
If you think not, then prove what you say!

All background noise is "real", and any given spike in the data is "real" and caused by something that is real. So what? Nothing about their technique demonstrates that the signal is anything other than "real", which we already knew in the first place! The concept of "realness" is irrelevant. All noise is "real" and caused by something "real".

And when something stands above and beyond that noise floor .. then that is not noise .. its a signal and not noise.

That much I do accept. All EM events would have the same "speed" however, and perhaps the same "chirp" frequency too. Their technique only demonstrates a speed of light signal took place, it does not mean they "discovered" anything other than the fact that some signals travel at the speed of light. We already knew that too, so that's not actually a "discovery" either.

You forget the intensity of the signal. GWs are known to produce such intensity (and chirp-like) and nothing else is known to do that on 3 separate distinct occasions, across two detectors simultaneously (within the c lag window).

With all those fudge factors, even ordinary "blip transients" fit those same mass merger 'prediction" sets as demonstrated in figure 12.

Not with the same intensity and not across two detectors simultaneously (within the c lag window) and not on 3 distinct occasions ... again you keep ignoring these crucial facts.

So what? Again, all you might demonstrate is the *possibility* that some bit of noise *might be* related to gravitational waves, not the *probability* based on some match to a *template* with lots of wiggle room.

The template doesn't account for what was measured ... and neither can the noise!

Again, all that might demonstrate is that *some* signals travel at C. That's not an actual "discovery" of anything, because we've known about that for a very long time. All you can demonstrate is that *something* travels at C and it has an influence on both LIGO detectors. EM discharge signals fall into that same category, they routinely effect the LIGO equipment, and they occur all over the planet "naturally".

EM discharge signals do not fall into the same intensity category ... an even 'blind Freddy' can see that!

If I'm actually wrong, I do expect you to educate me if you can legitimately pick my criticisms apart.

Your expectations are at fault here ... you should do something about those, because no-one else can do that, except you.

You never even *touched* the blatant confirmation bias problem in fact.

Because what you label as 'blatant', is about as clear as mud to every other soul you have hounded with your conspiracy theory alternatives.

Translation: Since you can't refute anything in my paper, it's better to focus on papers that you can refute. Got it. IMO they simply fell for your magic tricks and thereby fell into your trap. I didn't.

Your paper is pure rubbish. There's nothing to refute about rubbish .. it simply is what it is.

What a load of horse manure. I carefully and methodically researched their *methodology*

Pardon me whilst I burst out into guffaws of outright laughter! You haven't understood even the basics yet .. let alone the complexity and subtlety of the analysis.

.. and I found it woefully lacking in the areas I described in my paper. I also researched their equipment and I was duly impressed. You're just miffed because I focused on the actual magic tricks, and the actual problems in the paper that LIGO didn't want anyone to see, and you can't handle any of my criticisms.

I'm yet to see any valid criticisms .. there's nothing to handle ..

 

[Michael]

No, it hasn't .. and this is the bee you seem to have caught under your bonnet ... its like a broken record with you. You have never demonstrated just how they managed to achieve this miraculous feat! All we keep getting from you is the conspiracy theory Gregorian chant ... with absolutely zip evidence to back it up!

The mere fact that they chose *not* to use *all* the data from *every single* day of operation is more than ample evidence to "back it up". They didn't use *all* the available data they had collected, they just hand selected the data that allowed them to achieve the highest sigma value. The data they *wanted* was *cherry picked* from a much larger data set of dates and times. That's about as blatant of a cherry picking operation as I can think of in fact.

Wrong!
If you think not, then prove what you say!

The only proof I need is the fact that they chose a hand selected subset of the full data set. There's nothing more to "prove" in terms of demonstrating a cherry picking operation took place.

And when something stands above and beyond that noise floor .. then that is not noise .. its a signal and not noise.

Any type of ordinary "spike" in the data set, including a big spike that was caused by someone banging on the walls of the chamber would be a "signal" by that definition. So what if it's above and beyond the ordinary noise floor? That still says nothing about the *cause* of the signal in question. That spike from someone banging on the wall can be considered a "signal" by your definition of that term.

The only thing that's particularly unique about this specific spike in the data set is that it's observed by both detectors which suggests that the source of that particular noise is likely to be traveling at C. It still doesn't eliminate all environmental influences from consideration.

You forget the intensity of the signal.

No I didn't forget it, I accept it's an intense, once in a blue moon type of event. It's not all that uncommon however since they've seen at least 3 of them, perhaps as many as 9 of them already. Electrical discharge activity might sometimes effect just one detector, but with the right conditions and locations it might rarely effect both detectors. The intensity of the signal suggests that it's a powerful event, but that's about all I can take from the intensity of the signal. EM power grid events can be "intense". Electrical discharge process can be intense too. Even rare solar storm events an produce rare but intense events. Intensity might allow us to differentiate one type of noise from another, but that's about all I can say about it.

GWs are known to produce such intensity

This is the kind of verbiage that is highly misleading IMO. GW's are *hypothetical* constructs as are "black holes" for that matter. We don't actually "know" that they exist exactly in the manner that the mainstream imagines. They're all *hypothetical* constructs. In order to take LIGO's claim at face value, we have to simultaneously move black holes *and* GW's out of the "hypothetical" category and into the 'knowledge' category. It's not even "knowledge", it's *theory* at best case. Yes, GW's can *theoretically* produce such intensity, but *many other known sources* also produce intense effects on the LIGO instruments.

(and chirp-like)

Meh. I'd have to go through every bit of LIGO data from both detectors to see if 'chirp-like' signals sometimes show up only in *one* detector at a time, but I'm almost certain that it happens occasionally. The chirp feature according to that paper you cited earlier was described as an 'ad hoc' variable that wasn't necessarily a show stopper in terms of making a fit to those templates. The templates can accommodate a chirp, but they don't seem to *require* it.

and nothing else is known to do that

Are you claiming that no "chirp" like signals are ever observed in just one detector at time? If that is not your claim then your core argument is false because other environmental influences can also produce "chirps".

on 3 separate distinct occasions, across two detectors simultaneously (within the c lag window).

I'd have to assume that you're only interested in "chirps" that happen to show up in *both* detectors within 10 milliseconds, and all other chirps that show up in one detector are going to be categorized as "background noise", is that correct? If you're claiming that *all* chirps are *always* gravitational waves, that's a whole different argument. You'll have to be specific in terms of what you're claiming because your answer has far reaching implications. If you accept that some "chirps" are not gravitational waves (because they only show up in a single detector sometimes), then you must also accept that environmental factors can in fact produce the same "chirps", and we need to figure out what those factors might be. We can't just "assume" that such environmental influences cannot *ever* have an effect on both detectors at once, only because they "usually" only affect one or the other detector.

Not with the same intensity and not across two detectors simultaneously (within the c lag window) and not on 3 distinct occasions ... again you keep ignoring these crucial facts.

All those 'crucial" facts seem to suggest is that the signal is likely to be a discharge related phenomenon, or some other high energy event that travels at close to the speed of light. The fact that these chirps have been seen several times suggests it's a relatively rare, but not uncommon event. I'd grant you that whatever the cause, it's probably EM field related *or* it could be gravitational wave related, but you've still offered me no viable way to distinguish between the two.

The template doesn't account for what was measured ... and neither can the noise!

Which "noise"? You can't make that claim about *all environmental noise" because you cherry picked it *out* of the data set before you made that sigma calculation!

EM discharge signals do not fall into the same intensity category ... an even 'blind Freddy' can see that!

How can they see that exactly? Are you actually claiming that no electrical discharge related phenomenon (like lightning) have ever produced a spike of that magnitude in either detector?

Your expectations are at fault here ... you should do something about those, because no-one else can do that, except you.

I have the same expectations and requirements of evidence related to cause as I applied to every other potential cause of the signal. I have no evidence to support any specific external cause of those three signals, so they all end up in the "unknown origin" category at best case IMO. You seem to have extremely *low* expectations from gravitational waves (and all celestial claims of origin), and extremely *high* expectations and requirements as it relates to any other potential cause of the signal which must pass an external test or face elimination.

I'm not imposing any greater or lesser standard of evidence on gravitational wave claims than I am for anything else, whereas you're imposing a *much lower* standard of evidence on *only* gravitational wave claims.

Because what you label as 'blatant', is about as clear as mud to every other soul you have hounded with your conspiracy theory alternatives.

The only aspect of that first paper that I might personally categorize as a "conspiracy" was LIGO's inaccurate and whitewashed account of veto events in the very first paper. In terms of the actual *errors* they made, I'd simply call them flaws in their *methodology*. I'm sure they're all quite sincere about "believing" their own claims.

Your paper is pure rubbish. There's nothing to refute about rubbish .. it simply is what it is.

The only rubbish around here is the blatant double standard of evidence being used by LIGO. If every *other* potential cause of the signal has to pass an external test or face elimination, then LIGO's claim as to cause must also pass that same rigorous standard. It doesn't. That flaw in their methodology isn't going to go away unless they change it. It's easy to refute my criticisms with just *one* visual confirmation of a celestial event, but they don't have one. That's the part that is pure "rubbish" in their claim.

Pardon me whilst I burst out into guffaws of outright laughter! You haven't understood even the basics yet .. let alone the complexity and subtlety of the analysis.

Quite the contrary. I spent quite a bit of time trying to figure out if the methodology was consistent, and it was not. I spent quite a bit of time trying to understand the subtleties too, which is why I was able to cite *numerous* problems in those methods, not just one or two.

I'm yet to see any valid criticisms .. there's nothing to handle ..

I'd say that you're "seeing" only what you wish to see, and ignoring the double standard of evidence. If LIGO had applied the very same process of elimination methodology to celestial origin clams as they applied to every other claim as to cause, this signal should have ended up in the "unknown origin" category at best case. The mere fact that LIGO doesn't even allow for an "unknown cause" category in the first place is your first clue that there is a *serious problem* in their methodology. The fact that you refuse to "see" or deal with those glaring problems isn't my fault.

 

[Michael]

FYI, besides this specific thread at CF, I've also discussed my paper in the following threads which are listed by the order of the number of posts in each thread:

Thunderbolts Forum • View topic - Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?
Evidence of Gravitational Waves or Evidence of Confirmation Bias? • r/Astronomy
Gravitational Astronomy? How Detecting Gravitational Waves Changes Everything - Universe Today • r/Astronomy

 

[SelfSim]

... GW's are *hypothetical* constructs as are "black holes" for that matter. We don't actually "know" that they exist exactly in the manner that the mainstream imagines. They're all *hypothetical* constructs. In order to take LIGO's claim at face value, we have to simultaneously move black holes *and* GW's out of the "hypothetical" category and into the 'knowledge' category. It's not even "knowledge", it's *theory* at best case ...

Yep .. sure .. right .. 'The Universe according to St. Michael' ... :
Groundbreaking discovery confirms existence of orbiting supermassive black holes

For the first time ever, astronomers at The University of New Mexico say they've been able to observe and measure the orbital motion between two supermassive black holes hundreds of millions of light years from Earth - a discovery more than a decade in the making.

 

[Michael]

So .. an update:

This non-peer reviewed refutation paper was produced recently, by apparently reputable scientists who nonetheless, were not LIGO specialists, and were thus working outside of their speciality fields. It nonetheless basically calls into question the 5-sigma detection claim of GW150914 (and the subsequent GW detections).

The paper has caused a stir across several web-forums and has, in turn, produced a number of interesting responses. Probably the most relevant is this one authored by Ian Harry, postdoctoral physicist at the Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics, Potsdam-Golm, as recently as June 18, (ie: just yesterday)!

I have emboldened certain sections relevant to the recent discussions in this thread as follows:
The point here is that even a serious challenge, (as distinct from Michael's nonsensical one), concerning the 5-sigma confidence level, is still not good enough to cause any significant doubt about it.

FYI, it turns out that Ian had a bug in his code.

http://www.nbi.ku.dk/gravitational-waves/