"We have detected gravitational waves. We did it."

I recall asking Mr Michael Mozina were the blip transients separated by around 10ms between the detectors if they were generated by EMP events.
Never got a response but the pontification continued as if this issue was never a problem.

Yet when you point out the lies and inconsistencies the stock response is that he is being to subjected to personal attacks which is motivated by deflecting the issue.

 

LOL, how did I know that you would decide that LIGO's detection was somehow wrong. Hahahahahahahahahaha.

Needless to say, you are completely wrong. It's kind of like a spam email filter that filters out certain messages. You have to train it, to some extent, in the beginning. An email is either spam or it is not spam...but the statistical system has to learn which to reject or confirm based on analysis - but this doesn't change the content of the email. It's possible it'll pick out a real email and mark it as spam, because the differences are pretty subtle. The likelihood of that right when it is installed are pretty high, as it's as yet untrained.

In this instance, it was akin to someone watching emails come in - they saw the SN and instantly everybody on the team's instinct was "no ways, this can't be a signal, it's too good"....which they then spent forever confirming that no, it definitely was. a signal.

What you are missing is that none of the other aux channels - which number in the thousands - including microphones, photodiodes, current and voltage monitors, seismometers, anemometers, and most certainly some of the most sensitive magnetometers ever built (which discounts your EMP suggestion, which would also be easy to spot because the signal to noise ratio of a local source would be incredibly high compared to a celestial source) - had anything at that time that could have affected the gravitational wave strain signal h(t) observed. You know they even measure and account for molecular vibrations in the mirrors themselves - quantum effects? I mean seriously, man, come on.

By the way, I saw you also aver that they had no "visual" data to back it up with...actually, they did, very much so - but what they were looking for visually was not, say, a big bright flash...as I think you are imagining...but the absence of certain things visually...such as gamma ray bursts. They had a sky map almost immediately (15 minutes after the signal was first spotted). It's not possible to tell precisely, even down to the galaxy, even down to the galaxy cluster, where this signal came from, but it was undoubtedly celestial in origin - this can be calculated very easily because of the differences in the signal strength and signal to noise ratios observed at Hanford and Livingston and the specific time delay involved. It was definitely 1.3 billion light years away, and it was within a pretty small crescent-shaped area. We almost certainly CAN see the source, or more likely the source galaxy, and yes - as you said, it is probably bright (assuming it isn't obscured by something, which is also entirely possible) - we just don't know which it is in that rather large patch of sky and there's no way to tell which it might be. That might change in the future, but the difference in SNR involved to localize the signal is pretty tiny and the resolution involved just isn't good enough to get it down to a pinpoint yet. It's pretty amazing that we can narrow it down as far as is possible now! One day hopefully. That isn't a problem for the detection itself though. We know where it came from in all ways that are important for that (which is precisely one - not local to this solar system!). It cannot have been local - mathematically and physically impossible. On a very rudimentary level. That's kind of the point.

Anyhow, the paper you want to read is this, it (exhaustively) addresses your concerns in section 4.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1602.03844

as well as

https://dcc.ligo.org/public/0123/T1600011/003/DQdoc.pdf

note in particular the deadtimes.

 

Ya, ya, ya. I heard the same laughing when I decided that the BICEP2 paper was a scientific disaster after reading it too, but eventually I got the last laugh. I think it took a year for that claim to turn to dust, but that's pretty much the blink of an eye with astronomy "discovery" claims. I doubt this LIGO claim will last much longer actually.

But that is exactly what *did* happen David. Something *did* have an affect on h(t). Those various auxiliary channel inputs and sensors *did* observe input that did cause the exact signal in question to be rejected as "spam" as you call it with *high confidence*!

http://www.ligo.org/magazine/LIGO-magazine-issue-8.pdf

What I never got from the LIGO group however was any detailed explanation of which specific channels were involved, or exactly which channel input "caused" the original rejection! I didn't even get the common decency of *mentioning* the original rejection in the published papers in fact.

So come on and explain to us exactly which channels *did* pick up environmental influences that caused the signal to be rejected, and explain *exactly* why the software got changed *after* the fact, and nobody bothered to mention it?

Right. It's what they *don't* see that somehow verifies their claim. Give me a break.

That time difference alone doesn't demonstrate it was necessarily "celestial" in origin, as in outside of our solar system. It only demonstrates that there was a delay between reception at both detectors that is consistent with a signal that travels at the speed of light. EMP events in the atmosphere do the same thing.

Ok, I'll bite. *Other* than basing this claim on the *needs* of your own pet model, what *empirical evidence* can you offer in terms of the "distance" involved?

Fine, I'll buy those statements given the limitation of having only two online detectors, but it's now been over a month, and not a single team anywhere on Earth has offered any visual support for this claim.

How can you possibly rule out an ordinary EMP event in the ionosphere/magnetosphere as the origination point of this signal?

I'll take a gander at them today as I get time. Thanks for the links.

(Edit): Actually I've already seen (and read) both links. Section four never mentioned the original rejection of the signal or the specific reasons for the change of heart. It's a more generic explanation of the overall process, not a specific explanation related to the original rejection. The list of vetoes *still in use* aren't really that useful to me now. What I need is the exact code and channel information related to the veto that was *removed* after the fact.

 

All your 10ms time delay demonstrates is a "speed of light" propagation speed by the signal in question. Any signal that must travel at C would suffice, including ordinary EMP events. How in your mind does the delay aspect eliminate EMP events?

What "lies"? You have made false statements in this thread that you haven't retracted. You made brightness claims about a three solar mass conversion of energy into light that were irrational, and you never bothered to retract your error. Even your emotional need to use the term "lie" is directly related to your need to *personalize* the conversation and to *attack the individual*. You've made mistakes in this very thread which you then compounded by not retracting them, but I didn't go out of my way to call you a "liar".

You made up those so called "inconsistencies" in your own head based upon cherry picking two specific sentences from several posts. It was you own strawman that was inconsistent. One sentence related to a *specific* event, and the other to signals in *general*.

You're projecting again. It's you that insist on deflecting the conversation away from the *topic* and onto the *person*. It's indicative of your ad hom style of debate.

 

Considering the fact that 95 percent of LCDM is a placeholder term for human ignorance, you've got some nerve picking on Thunderbolts. Admittedly it has it's share of "characters", but so does every board in cyberspace.

Actually "blip transients" do have "chirp" characteristics, both in terms of frequency shift over time, and they occur in *exactly* these frequency ranges. In fact that very same 'chirp' description is *routinely* used to describe whistler waves.

You mean *except* for the specific channels that originally resulted in a high confidence veto of that signal originally, and which they simply ignored and never talked about in the paper?

You left out this part:

That "quite similar" aspect blows away your claim about them not having the "chirp" characteristics, and it's just one signal that just so happens to pretty much follow that black line "best-match" template very nicely. In fact the yellow line pretty much follows the overall curve characteristics quite nicely, deviating only slightly both above and below the black line over the course of the signal. That's not bad for a *known* influence on your gear.

You also ignored this issue:

Actually the single biggest lie of the entire paper was this specific claim from that same paper:

That was the biggest lie told to the public and to the peer reviewers too. There was in fact a data quality veto active within *the first few seconds* of the detection of this signal!

http://www.ligo.org/magazine/LIGO-magazine-issue-8.pdf

Someone lied.

 

http://literarydevices.net/ad-hominem/

Your entire basis of debate revolves around your incessant use of ad homs in every single post. It's the ultimate low road in debate.

Let me demonstrate:

All of these are great examples of you using ad homs like a crutch in debate. Since you cannot and will not address the *10 specific problems* with the paper, you go after the *person* instead! It's the oldest, cheapest, dirtiest, most underhanded trick in the book.

It's adversarial in nature only because you keep fixated on the *person* rather than the *10 items* under debate. It's your constant use of ad hominems in debate that makes it adversarial.

 

As long as we're on the topic of Holy Delusions, and parades about claims being "true".......

I am not trying to make any claims on Thunderbolts or anywhere else about a great "discovery" that I made in physics. I'm posting the personal opinions of a single individual as it relates to various scientific problems that I see with a single paper.

On the other hand, the LIGO team is currently parading around their papers as "being true", and claiming to have a made a great "discovery" in physics and astronomy. When I poked around a bit however, I found some things that weren't actually "true", specifically that highly erroneous claim about there being no iDQ vetoes within an hour of the signal. That particular statement wasn't true at all. It was utterly false in fact.

Extraordinary claims of discovery require extraordinary evidence to support such extraordinary claims. There isn't any "extraordinary" evidence to be found in these published LIGO papers. There certainly is no visual evidence to corroborate it. That type of evidence might be considered 'extraordinary' evidence, but without it, all we have is some very "ordinary" evidence that doesn't look all that solid to start with.

Even the BICEP2 paper didn't have that tainted feeling of missing information that was intentionally withheld. The Planck data simply had not been publicly released yet, and they didn't have full access to it either. It was a very honest, if somewhat "overzealous" mistake. The lack of a mention or explanation of the original veto in this paper simply makes the hairs on the back of my neck rise. That's not the kind of information that should be "missing' from an "extraordinary" paper. The peer reviewers and the public should have known about those facts from the published papers.

 

The "nasty environment" is the due to the fact that both of you insist on ad hom style debate tactics and fixate on the person rather than the arguments being made.

As I explained before, I'm not complaining about the fact that humans overrode the software veto, I'm complaining because they claimed that no veto ever occurred.

Yet what fool claimed in the published paper that no software veto took place within an hour around the signal in question when in fact it was vetoed within the first minute?

Again, I'm not complaining about them "deciphering" whatever they want. I'm complaining because they claimed that no deciphering was necessary in the published whitewash!

I'd love to take a poll to find how how they "feel" about the fact that the published papers didn't include any mention of the iDQ veto that took place, or any explanation as to their override of that veto? I'm not sure they be laughing about it.

Huh? I have discussed it. You just don't like my answer.

Ya, and it's purely empirical nature has been a virtual death sentence for stable forms of CDM claims to date. You better pray they find something soon.

As much as you folks love to pretend to be mind readers, you really should keep your day job. I like LIGO. I'd continue to fund the project and put more detectors online. I'd love to be able to triangulate the signal. I'd love to find out if it's really related to celestial events. Even a "fail" is OK by me in fact, and I do consider it to be 'empirical' at it's most fundamental level. The problem is that while the signal is likely to be "empirical", it's "cause" isn't as easily determined. As with all instruments, it has it's limits, but overall I support the concept.

Well, I can certainly generate mass/plasma movement/concentration patterns with it, so I can influence the gravitation patterns inside the ball. Gravity waves are another issue entirely however.

Eh? Do you have specific quote you're basing that on?

I have delved into the material, probably more than most folks at this point. I've pointed out 10 key problems with those papers, and I've listed them for you to discuss anytime you'd like to discuss the *topics* rather than *individuals*.

 

I'm sure that a six year old might believe you too, but I'm slightly older now. Can you demonstrate that they even *know* how to mathematically model it to begin with?

I'm sure they spent an inordinate amount of time on mathematically modeling all the other 'wave signal' aspects of the BH-BH merger process, but I suspect that nobody really has a clue how to even begin to model a BH-BH merger in terms of brightness.

 

Selfsim,

Notice how Mr Michael Mozina decides to redefine the LIGO definition of a blip transient into his own account.

He then applies his new definition in order to illustrate the signals must be 10ms apart and could be due to EMP events, yet his entire argument falls apart if he stuck to the original LIGO definition where the blip transients occur independently in each detector.
Hence we have another example of either an unintelligent or dishonest comment where the LIGO definition has been taken out of context to achieve his objective that the signal "could" be an EMP event.

Mr Michael Mozina conveniently ignores the fact my statement was based on whether the three solar mass conversion involving BH mergers would form a "bright" event.

At this stage 6 arXiv.org papers and two presentations later, shows that one or both of the merging objects needs to be a NS for this to occur.
Can Mr Michael Mozina even show one paper where BH mergers form a "bright" event of similar magnitude to a supernova or GRB?
Note the parallels with the blip transient issue, Mr Michael Mozina takes my original statement completely out of context in order to show it is a "false statement" that requires retraction.
Yet again another example of either an unintelligent or dishonest comment.

Perhaps this should give an insight to Mr Michael Mozina why he has been booted out of every moderated SF he has participated in.
The lies are very real and not concocted to form a personal attack.

 

FYI, after reviewing the caption on figure 12 of the Characterization paper, I realize that I confused the black and grey lines the first time through. I'd actually have to admit that the waveform of a blip transient isn't quite the "fit" that I though it was based on that specific diagram. I don't really have the luxury of tinkering around with blip transient wave forms at will as you do with BH-BH merger maths, but it's still not that bad of a fit all things considered.

 

Notice how sjastro can't even just stick to just using my CRUS handle, and seems to have a strong emotional need to interject both my first and last name into every single post as many times as possible? What's with you and the ad hom extravaganza routine?

I did interject that thought, yes, since I do happen to think that's the most likely cause of those events. Nobody seems to have any specific channel data to confirm or deny anything as it relates to the actual cause of blip transients, all we know is they are seen by both detectors.

Eh? That's not what I did. I simply pointed out to you that your 10ms variation only demonstrates the signal in question travels at C, it doesn't eliminate any specific EMP event from consideration, including whistler waves.

Except maybe for the two instances listed in this paper? How can you be absolutely sure they only happen to LIGO detectors "independently" every single time? Let me guess? You went by 16 days worth of "clean" data?

Nobody did anything "dishonest" until you went back to the ad-hom circus routine again.

You specifically said that "even if" all the mass energy of three solar masses was turned into EM emissions in less than a second, it would register as a -2 absolute brightness.

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...waves-we-did-it.7932180/page-19#post-69388088

Do you retract that statement, yes or no?

All they demonstrate is that NS mergers emit light. They do not demonstrate that BH-BH mergers are invisible.

I don't know. Why is that my job, and why should I really even care?

Yet another example of a pure dishonest ad-hom.

Yawn. More (untrue) ad homs. Who would have guessed that you'd attack the messenger *again*?

The only lie going on here is your use of ad-homs in debate. That's the real lie. There's no interest in your case in "truth". You took two sentences out of context and tried to build a federal case over them. You refused to show your math, and you blamed me for your own mistakes *repeatedly* in this thread. Your entire debate style involves hurling endless numbers of ad hominems at the individual while avoiding the *topic* as much as possible. It's a very sleazy debate style.

 

Well thank you .. finally some progress towards a more balanced account of what Figure 12 is really about!

We can expect appropriate corrective actions at Tbolts then?

 

The amplitudes and waveform evolutions are dissimilar also.

EM signals from lightning strikes over Burkino Faso were measured by the magnetometer arrays as being three orders of magnitude less than the GW150914 signal. Proposing EM phenomena as the cause of GW150914 is 'pushing it uphill with a stick' (because of the low intensities from the magnetometer evidence, and because of the other EM injection evidence of even more intense local EM phenomena).

A simultaneous blip transient across both detectors would be more interesting than the local EM phenomenon idea ..

I incidentally don't see your above statement as an ad-hom. I too, see it as merely the only logical alternatives that come immediately to mind when I see a Mozinaism. Its still Michael's choice about which of these alternatives he's going to select, (especially when he's pushed his misinterpretation as far as he has on this front too, no(?)

Yep I agree. Michael's been pirouetting all over the place since you supplied the scenario.

Actually, if it is a lie as we now suspect, then it is a personal attack on LIGO scientists by Michael, eh?

 

Let's hope he makes a formal retraction at T-bolts.
(Fat chance!)

 

Well duh, what did you think the gravitational wave signal was?

Because the network of physical environment sensors is vastly sensitive enough to detect such an event, and geomagnetic effects on the h(t) signal at the time were eight orders of magnitude too small...they measured!!

But I'm glad you've found your latest conspiracy theory...this one is pretty amazing. Enjoy...

 

BTW they spotted 29 candidates spectroscopically and 1 via radio signals, but there's a million galaxies in that patch of sky...

 

A valid point.
Mr Michael Mozina however not be outdone comes up with this pearler.

Apart from the obvious flaw in this argument that EMP including whistler waves do in fact travel at C, even if this wasn't the case the delay time between the detectors would increase.
However in real time a blip transient found at one detector may not necessarily be seen at the other.

If Mr Michael Mozina's mechanism is true, the whistler wave or EMP reaches one detector comes to a grinding halt and never reaches the other.

The equation is simple, if Mr Michael Mozina decides to stop with the lies and tries to construct coherent statements then what he perceives as personal attacks would not occur.
Does he think every SF he has been thrown out is the result of moderators making personal attacks on him or based on factual evidence regarding his behaviour.

Yes it is funny how Mr Michael Mozina is so desperately clinging to this at all costs.
He seems to have forgotten I gave him a major concession of taking the absolute magnitude up to -9 and still the relative magnitude at 1.3 billion light years is too faint for it to be a visual event.
As a reference one of the brightest X-ray binaries known in our own galaxy involving matter falling into a BH is Cygnus X1 is at -6.5 absolute magnitude.
He is trying to use the false dichotomy principle, by showing that I am wrong somehow automatically implies that the merger should have been visible at 1.3 billion light years.
Since nothing was found this somehow validates his idea it was not a celestial event and therefore not a GW. But if that is not confusing enough as it is, let's not forget he has admitted the event at 1.3 billion light years may not be visible (ie his statement 2).

To keep the confusion going he turns up with this statement.

Can you make any sense of this?
The topic was on the papers showing NS-NS and NS-BH mergers producing "bright" EM emissions.
BH-BH mergers do not produce "bright" EM emissions and are therefore were not included.
There seem to be some logic malfunction going on here.

He has openly admitted that LIGO scientists have been lying.

 

David,

Good luck in trying to impress this point on Michael, it was attempted ages ago in this thread only to be completely ignored.
But then you know what to expect.....

 

I've used both names also. This is because you have chosen to post misinformation and confusion across two completely separate websites .. (this one, and TBolts). You, yourself, make cross references in your posts at both sites. Your name here is Michael'. Your name at TBolts is 'Michael Mozina'. In order for us to correct your misinformation and confusion, we must be specific in directing those corrections at the source ... which is you ... regardless of what you choose to call yourself at the respective sites.

What's the big problem with using either or both names?
You seem to enjoy the notoriety and attention, (when it suits you), anyway?