Gravity waves detected for the first time ever

You pretty much figured it out, but I was using trig functions, so it must have been atan(1.5/150)=0.57.

I'm not sure how discussion of it gon into this thread, though, but it does give a window into The God's mindset: it is no wonder that someone who thinks a simple typo that didn't cause any problems was such a big deal would be so afraid of doing math and learning himself.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

your professional mental malfunction-ist mentality that is clearly institutionalized from being mentally disabled, is hampering your reality.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

James R and others:

Please refer to my post #163 and James R's post #246 for relevant context.

The question I asked the forum to help answer for myself has effectively been answered by a mainstream article I read somewhere (can't recall where) describing the proposal to use a network of millisecond pulsars as a blunt instrument for detecting glitch patterns which may be due to GWs from merging BHs and or Neutron Stars. Apparently such a network would be closely monitored to detect transient glitches in the usually stable and dependable most accurate clock-like rates of the pulse signals.

I had asked what possible caustics or other attenuating effect from passing GWs would have on background Quasar light streams received here on Earth. Many suggested that the effect wouldn't be strong enough to make caustics (or glitches etc) related to GW affected Quasar beams observable to any useful degree. Now that I hear from astronomers that pulsar light would be affected by a GW so far from merger sources billions of LYrs distant from them and us, it makes me think it reasonable to suppose that background Quasar light beams passing close to the merger event itself might be also detectable if appropriate monitoring was instituted via a round-the clock Quasar Watch system to compliment the proposed Millisecond-pulsar network Watch.

Regardless of future developments in this regard, I have got about as close to a reasonable answer to my question as I could have expected given the subject matter.

Thank you James R and others who tried to help me answer the question here. I may have found a more authoritative answer to my question elsewhere, but nevertheless I appreciated every bit of the discussion here, in this thread, on this and other related aspects. A very nice site for discussions lately. Thanks, James, rpenner, and all moderators and learned and helpful layperson members involved.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I am surprised after reading this thread that there is so much in the way of controversy over this.

1. This result (detection of gravity waves) was predicted by one of the most wildly successful theories in the history of science, General Relativity Theory.
   
2. If it were merely one wave, it might be controversial; it is not. It is a wave train, with a very definitive signature: the "ringdown" signature of a coalescence of two very massive objects. This is as firm a signature as the signature of a chemical element in a spectrogram.
   
3. The characteristics of the detected waves are sufficiently complex to allow fairly detailed analysis of the event that led to them, viz., the coalescence of two bodies too massive and too compact to be anything but black holes, that is, bodies with so high a gravity field that light cannot escape them, according once again to GRT. We were even able to infer their distance from us.

This is an extremely strong result, in support of the existence of black holes, gravity waves, and the correctness of GRT. I don't see a way to wriggle out of it.

 

It may seem to you there is no possible other game in town, but that may only indicate not wandering around town enough. Not much incentive maybe if the 'only game' is being played in a lavish, very well patronized casino complex with lots of bright flashing lights to entice. Yeah, metaphor heavy. Anyway, there are other games in town. One I came across recently looks promising from one aspect. The predicted GW's of Carver Mead & Co's G4v theory have the nice property of being logically allowable, unlike those of the main game in town (no I will not elaborate on why so - here and now anyway):
http://arxiv.org/abs/1503.04866
You could also try typing "Carver Mead G4v" into a YouTube search-bar. Another one to think about was 'discussed' (he he, no - heatedly attacked) elsewhere at SF, but I just give the arXiv link: http://arxiv.org/abs/1507.07809

Careful though, showing any actual interest in such can very quickly bring on a 'crank' label, and I gather from your intro 'cranks' = not-mainstream, turn you off big time.

 

You are playing "God of the gaps." If you have an alternative explanation then provide it. If you don't then this claim is without foundation. "Maybe we'll find something someday" and a dollar will get you a cup of coffee at a cheap diner.

This is completely irrelevant to the question of whether the data are accurate or not, and whether the mainstream interpretation is correct or not. Meanwhile, scientists don't make enough money to do it for the money; they do it for the scratching of their curiosity bumps. I see a lot of claims like this from global warming deniers, and I dismiss them just like I dismiss this one.

If you aren't going to elaborate I'm not doing your work for you. You make a claim. Support it or admit you were wrong. You made the claim, the burden of proof (and not just some links and a "here go read this") is yours. Publish or perish.

I have no interest in pursuing fringe theories through a thicket of questionable links. I repeat, the burden of proof is yours; put up some real arguments to support your position or (whether tacitly or, if you have any integrity, explicitly) admit you were wrong.

Your tactics are not those of one who has real information to impart. If you can support your arguments, then I will respect that; a post like this, however, is not IMO respectable. Two logical fallacies and an attempt to shift the burden of proof do not inspire me to think you're going to tell me anything I haven't already heard, and rejected, a thousand times.

To make a better beginning, you might try providing an alternative explanation of the "ringdown" sequence being detected at geographically widely separated locations with no sign of seismic activity to explain it.

 

Sorry Schneib, but you come across as being wholly unreasonable, though I strive to fight back the impression of disingenuous and proxy agent as well. You really would benefit from reading those articles I linked to - with of course a proverbial 'open mind'. Anyway, enjoy that cigar, buddy.

 

No, I'm very reasonable; you just haven't made any cogent arguments. You have made two logical fallacies and attempted to shift the burden of proof, and now you're descending to an ad hominem attack. And that's not particularly reasonable, so this looks like projection to me.

I try not to open my mind so much my brains fall out. Meanwhile, I repeat that I'm not allowing you to shift the burden of proof by link-spamming. Make a cogent argument without logical fallacies or tacitly admit you don't have a leg to stand on.

My avatar is General Jack D. Ripper from Dr. Strangelove, or How I Stopped Worrying and Learned to Love the Bomb; it is an ironic statement, and you appear not to "get it." Explaining further will only ruin the joke.

 

Damn! I actually was going to comment on your avatar: I thought it was Edwin Hubble!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

BTW, nice couple of posts.

 

No, you're not. Rather, I get the impression of a nasty gun for hire, like the character Jack Wilson played by Jack Palance in the western classic Shane:

The very convenient timing of your arrival, the extreme aggression levels that neatly deflect attention from recent postings elsewhere here (that you have carefully avoided commenting on), is just too suspect.

See what I mean about being unreasonable? That I was expected to somehow recognize the avatar as a particular movie character, and then, somehow 'get' an ironic joke implied by such. Gee, how dull of me!

 

Most cu-rious, Q-reeus...

 

The guy has almost admitted that he has been planted [aggro for invited]...but by whom ?

In normal circumstances I would have also commented on his avatar as 'enjoying the cigar'...there is no problem with that as long as it is not Bill Clinton style......

 

Well it sure is interesting that an initial personal page that had bio info like location, career, and listing of recent postings, has very quickly changed to the bland "This member limits who may view their full profile." Still, reading too much into that is 'a sure sign of crank paranoia'.
Anyway, while there are obvious suspects, nothing gained by speculating, as no-one will ever own up. It disappoints that someone(s) would stoop to such tactics, but doesn't surprise. For some, it's necessary to always 'win' - by any and all means. Oh my, just more 'crank paranoia' coming out.
Scneib is here now, so best just engage objectively and try and forget the suspicious arrival timing and selectively aggressive targeting upon arrival. Hell, it might actually all be just incredible coincidence!

 

Wow!!! Such vitriol!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Even if what you are rambling on about were true, so?
I see more under handed tactics from the anti mainstream brigade in fact and the possible use of sneaky double handles etc.
Oh but of course...you havn't noticed.

 

No, just pertinent observations. Vitriol is one of your specialties - and you were recently mod chided for such among other things.

Then it speaks of underhanded 'agenda', one which is immoral by nature but by it's nature can only be deduced indirectly, never proven.

Yes, you 'see' lot's of 'agendas', and accuse of sockpuppetry, but fail to recognize your own mostly unwarranted attack style is itself less than noble agenda based.
The formula being "Not mainstream - therefore go all in with the boots." Every so often a mod will call for restraint 'on all sides'. It will typically moderate you for a brief period, but inevitably you soon slip back to bashing/denigrating as the norm. It's your basic nature, and a Leopard cannot change it's spots.
Now, if want to attempt to offer some useful new insight into GW detection, that might be a useful contribution here, rather than filling up pages with contentious tripe.

 

The thread is full of many papers supporting the confirmation of GW's, BH's and GR.
That's the ball game old friend!

 

The scientist in the experiment would have measured a difference in the local speed of light, because the measuring rod which they used to make this measurement would have changed in size. I bold "measured" here, because this is the means at which the result of the experiment is taken. I underline "measuring rod", because I am implying the actual distance, like Einstein used it to explain and convince scientist about the effects of Special Relativity. In this case, the measuring rod is a beam of light. That distance his theorized to change, because of the gravitational wave passing through it.

I think that is an important distinction to make here, because relativity claims that "the speed of light has to always be measured to travel at the same speed" in Special Relativity. Then it also claims that this is not always true in General Relativity. One of the main reasons why I have had doubts about the existence of gravitational waves was from me thinking that this, principal of light always being measured to be constant, should carry over to General Relativity. Then the detection of gravitational waves would be the first experimental proof of this principal only being valid in Special Relativity and not in General Relativity. If you assume that the results of this single experiment are absolutely correct, then the speed of light would have actually been measured to be something other than "c" for the first time ever, because the tool used to measure it had shrank.

Then it would also mean that this discrepancy between Special and General Relativity couldn't be responsible for dark matter, and it is actually valid. This is the only circumstance where a fundamental principal is valid in one case but not in another in science... It then brings this fundamental principal into question, in my opinion.

 

Yes the measuring rod will have changed. Since gravity waves are a ripple in space time the time will also change with the length change - the bottom line is that the speed of light would still be measured as c in the local frame.

 

Must say that I concur 100%, Q-reeus!

Again, Q-reeus, 100% concurrence!

...32 pages with quite a bit of the usual 'vitriol'...all due to a 1/2 second anomalous signal...listen to it at link :

http://podcasts.nytimes.com/podcasts/2016/02/11/science/space/ligo-chirp/LIGOChirp.mp3

...the ^^above quoted^^ and much more at Link : http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/12/science/ligo-gravitational-waves-black-holes-einstein.html?_r=0

 

It is nothing more than just understanding the basics of the experiment. It is just the one thing they were looking for in order to detect a gravitational wave...