LIGO gravitational wave announcement

[MikeG]

We need detectors that are 1000km long. That way the detector would be a lot more sensitive. This distance is half a wavelength. Could they be built? Do we have tunnels that long? Remember we need two of them at right angles........

In space.

Setting something up in space means not having to build tunnels (it's already a vacuum). It should just mean parking satellites set distances apart, and that could, in theory, be millions of kilometres apart eventually.

 

[fuelair]

Ask yourself this question: would James Randi accept a 'move' of my spoon of less then 1/1000th of the size of a proton to accept the existence of telekinesis? I don't think so. Where is James Randi when we need him?

A simple unnoticeable puff of air would move a normal spoon more than that but you would not notice it had happened and you would have to pay for the rental/cost of the device that would be able to measure it. And, no, that would not be enough evidence for telekinesis. I will leave the student to explain why.................

BUT no functional human believes in anything so silly as telekinesis. Gravity waves, on the other hand, were predicted logically by the math and it's applications . The prediction and strength of same have now been proved correct.

Seriously go to university and learn from your betters or give up trying to play with the big boys.........

 

[fuelair]

That's all? Just that? That's enough 'signal' to interprete this as 'huge evidence' and 'a ripple in spacetime'?

Yep and just because (as above) it is the movement and force Einstein predicted. See above post .

 

[fuelair]

How do you know that for sure? Maybe there are other, unexplained phenomena outhere wich are no gravitational waves. How do you know for sure that it is not something else yet unknown? It is just an interpretation (confirmation bias) to interprete this 'signal' as evidence for your theory, because you are so focused on it, to find it. Maybe it is something we don't know yet. Why jumping to conclusions that 'it can only be a gravitational wave'.
The claim of the existence of gravitational waves is an extra-ordinary claim. You need exta-ordinary evidence.
You need a lot more then one 'move' of one thousandth the width of a proton to convince the public.

Have you even read the details of how the finding was done and why the measurement was expected to be what it was????????? Do you understand the word RESEARCH????????

 

[fuelair]

Perhaps. But this observation matches predictions of gravitational waves so well that there's currently no reason to suspect "something else".




Dark matter doesn't work like that.




Neutrinos don't work like that. A single neutrino isn't going to separately alter the lengths of two 4km-long tunnels. Also, the waves were detected at both LIGO observatories, which are, I think, roughly 2,000 miles apart.

If you're interested, why not try reading up on the topic?

It's had over 5 years to happen (since Nov. 2010) so I predict that particle won't fly!!!

 

[Dave Rogers]

BUT no functional human believes in anything so silly as telekinesis. Gravity waves, on the other hand, were predicted logically by the math and it's applications . The prediction and strength of same have now been proved correct.

And, let's be fair, if someone claiming telekinetic powers were able to produce, on demand, an effect - even of this magnitude - at two separate locations, with this good agreement between the two traces and this good agreement between what he expected to produce and what was actually produced, then that would be a pretty convincing proof of telekinesis.

Maartenn1000, look at the actual traces. They're easy to find, just follow the links upthread. There's clear and convincing data published, and it's far more comprehensive than the random single movement you seem to think it is.

Dave

 

[Wudang]

I loved this quote

“We’re saying that we made a measurement that is about a thousandth the diameter of a proton, that tells us about two black holes that merged over a billion years ago,” Reitze said. “That is a pretty extraordinary claim and it needs extraordinary evidence.”

I remember one of my physics lecturers at Glasgow Uni in 1978 talking about the gravity wave team "compared to them I'm like a *********** butcher with his thumb on the scales"

 

[Slings and Arrows]

Reaction to the recent news:

The latest report on LIGO’s ‘discovery’ of Einstein gravitational waves is no more connected to reality than the fictitious black hole.

Those who believe in ghosts and goblins see them lurking in the shadows and assign their action to what they don’t understand. Cosmologists likewise see their beliefs lurking in their shadows and assign the action of their beliefs to what they don’t understand.

Mass-media induced mass-hysteria over ghosts and goblins, holes and bangs, Einstein gravitational waves, Higgs bosons and higgsinos, CMB, etc. does not constitute science. The BICEP2 report was also surrounded with similar hysterical scientists and mass-media induced mass-hysteria. That science is now done but mass media hysteria is a symptom of its decay, not a sign of achievement. Rational thought no longer prevails.

https://drmyronevans.wordpress.com/2016/02/12/agreed-with-criticism-by-steve-crothers/

 

[JeanTate]

The force is strong in young Stephen ... the force of denial ...

 

[MaartenVergu]

Reaction to the recent news:

Finally some scepticism.

 

[MikeG]

Maarten, can you come up with anything at all that would explain receiving identical signals at two different locations 3000 km apart, separated by 7 milliseconds?

 

[MaartenVergu]

You see, this is a fallacy of some critical thinkers on this forum: "when you can't give a better theory to explain the observed phenomena, we will keep our bad science."

No, it's possible to say: we don't have a good theory at all at the moment. We don't know what these signals mean. We don't know. Period. No alternative explanation for these signals is necessary to reject the current theories.

 

[Tolls]

Crother's really doesn't understand how this works.

One of the predictions for GR was gravity waves. So LIGO was a search for gravity waves. The results fit GR. Had they not then they would have had an equally big story...something that falsified GR.

GR made a prediction, LIGO tested it.

 

[JeanTate]

You see, this is a fallacy of some critical thinkers on this forum: "when you can't give a better theory to explain the observed phenomena, we will keep our bad science current explanation/theory/etc."

A critical thinker would be critical of "bad science", but would not dump something that has been shown - repeatedly, etc - to work.

No, it's possible to say: we don't have a good theory at all at the moment.

Sure. It's also possible to say: we have an extraordinarily good theory at the moment.

How do you decide?

We I don't know what these signals mean. We I don't know. Period.

FTFY

You don't speak for me, Maartenn100. Nor, I suspect, a great many others.

Please stop pretending that you do.

No alternative explanation for these signals is necessary to reject the current theories.

You want to 'reject' GR?!?!?!?!?

Cool!

When can I expect to read your paper on this, in Physics Reviews?

 

[MikeG]

You see, this is a fallacy of some critical thinkers on this forum: "when you can't give a better theory to explain the observed phenomena, we will keep our bad science."

That isn't what I said. I asked out of interest if you had an alternative explanation.

........We don't know what these signals mean. We don't know. Period. No alternative explanation for these signals is necessary to reject the current theories.

Have you read the paper, Maarten?

No, I thought not. Then how can you so quickly dismiss it as "bad science"?

 

[MaartenVergu]

[QUOTE="JeanTate]You want to 'reject' GR?!?!?!?!?[/QUOTE]

GR cannot explain the observed motions of galaxies or the way the universe seems to expand. If Einstein’s model of gravity is correct, around 96 percent of the cosmos is missing. To make up the difference, cosmologists have posited two mysterious, invisible, and as yet unidentified ingredients: dark matter and dark energy. Fudgefactors in order to keep your falsified theory of gravity. A theory of gravity, falsified by the evidence. Falsified by the motion of stars and galaxies.

 

[surreptitious57]

Myron Evans might have a first class honours degree in science but if he seriously thinks that the Big Bang and black holes are mathematical
nonsense and general relativity is dogma his opinion on matters scientific especially pertaining to physics should not be given much credence

 

[thedopefishlives]

GR cannot explain the observed motions of galaxies or the way the universe seems to expand. If Einstein’s model of gravity is correct, around 96 percent of the cosmos is missing. To make up the difference, cosmologists have posited two mysterious, invisible, and as yet unidentified ingredients: dark matter and dark energy. Fudgefactors in order to keep your falsified theory of gravity. A theory of gravity, falsified by the evidence. Falsified by the motion of stars and galaxies.

Okay, here's your problem: General Relativity explains an awful lot of things. It is the best theory we currently have that fits most of the known phenomena. When a better theory comes along, we can test it against these known phenomena to verify that it is, in fact, a better theory. Rejecting GR just because it doesn't explain some certain things to your satisfaction is moronic; what about all the things it DOES explain? Do you have a better theory that fits all of those observations?

Let's add some icing on this cake: General Relativity, as a theory, resulted in some predictions made by physicists who used Einstein's mathematical framework to calculate certain hypothetical scenarios. One of these predictions is that two massive objects swirling around each other would radiate waves of gravitational energy. Since this is a mathematical calculation, the prediction resulted in an actual calculated waveform. When LIGO detected its event, the detected waveform was compared against the calculated waveform and it matched exactly. Tell me, if GR is bunk, how did the math result in an exact prediction of the event that just occurred?

 

[JeanTate]

You want to 'reject' GR?!?!?!?!?

GR cannot explain the observed motions of galaxies or the way the universe seems to expand.

Um, no. In this you are wrong. At many levels.

Maartenn100, if you want to discuss things like 'rejecting GR', you first need to understand what you're trying to talk about.

In this case, clearly you don't.

If Einstein’s model of gravity is correct, around 96 percent of the cosmos is missing.

To make up the difference, cosmologists have posited two mysterious, invisible, and as yet unidentified ingredients: dark matter and dark energy.

Yet more concrete evidence that you seem to have no idea of what you're talking (writing) about.

Instead of projecting your own imaginations, why not take the time and trouble to read up on the actual history of the development of the concepts of DM and DE?

Fudgefactors in order to keep your falsified theory of gravity.

Irrespective of the crazy myths you seem so enamored with, this leap of logic is quite breathtaking!

You might want to seriously consider learning a bit about logic.

A theory of gravity, falsified by the evidence. Falsified by the motion of stars and galaxies.

Would you care to cite a primary source for your conclusion/claim "falsified by evidence"? I assume you know what primary sources are, in this field, right?

 

[JeanTate]

You want to 'reject' GR?!?!?!?!?

GR cannot explain the observed motions of galaxies or the way the universe seems to expand. If Einstein’s model of gravity is correct, around 96 percent of the cosmos is missing. To make up the difference, cosmologists have posited two mysterious, invisible, and as yet unidentified ingredients: dark matter and dark energy. Fudgefactors in order to keep your falsified theory of gravity. A theory of gravity, falsified by the evidence. Falsified by the motion of stars and galaxies.

Oh, and here's the whole of the relevant part of my post (sans the smilies), the one you quoted:
- - - - -
You want to 'reject' GR?!?!?!?!?

Cool!

When can I expect to read your paper on this, in Physics Reviews?
- - - - -

So, would you care to answer my question?

When can I expect to read your paper on this, in Physics Reviews?