Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Physics Forum Gravity Waves

Gizmodo:

"Excited rumors began circulating on Twitter this morning that a major experiment designed to hunt for gravitational waves—ripples in the fabric of spacetime first predicted by Albert Einstein—has observed them directly for the very first time. If confirmed, this would be one of the most significant physics discoveries of the last century."

[Alan Weinstein, who heads the LIGO group at Caltech, had this to say via email: “My response to you is no more or less than the official one, which is the truth: ‘We are analyzing 01 data and will share news when ready.’ I’d say that it is wisest to just be patient.”]

This needs extreme care before getting to excited.

Yes we are all expecting to see gravity waves and due to that, the experiment has a testing protocol.

The full rumour is they saw the predicted chirp of two black holes merging. Such an observation means not only direct observation of gravity waves but direct evidence of black holes and the ability to merge
http://phys.org/news/2015-09-black-holes-collide.html

However good scientists are wary they don't fool themselves.


Whoever tweeted it broke protocol because this could be nothing more than a test. As you can see the analysis will take a couple of months before even the staff are told if it was a test or not.

This is one of those experiments where there is no easy background test open to it so "blind injection" protocol.

The result being in the category almost too good to believe has many guessing it was a test. However it will be massive if the result rumour is correct.

Watching all the crackpots either deny such a result or try to invent some reason their theory predicted it will be funny. Even on this forum there will be a couple with explaining to do

I don't see any reason for the excitement myself.

personally I don't think gravity has waves , there may have
been a wave generated for some undisclosed reason , but I
have always considered that gravity has a field and does not
travel much like a magnetic field.

its field may be increased or decreased by the amount of mass that makes up the field , so at that point of increase or decrease of mass the field intensity would move outwards or inwards but it shouldn't move like a wave moves.

more like a intensity increase or decrease at any given point
along the radius of the field.

An increase or decrease in a field? Isn't that pretty much the definition of a wave?

Bill Gill

your thinking about the intensity of a wave that moves like
a sound wave or light wave or a ocean wave.

Im saying that gravity does not have waves and does not
move , its like a magnetic field.

You are technically correct but because its such a slow rate and hence a very low frequency we tend not to call it a wave and a layman never would.

For example the earths magnetic field is weakening, you will find many articles on it. However none will describe it as a wave.

Technically the magnetic field itself is also composed of localized EM waves but again that is simply playing with descriptions as it is clear Paul is talking about field strength variation over time like the earth field variation.

I guess in the same way, a sound is made of waves but it may get louder or softer. We don't describe that as a wave just simply louder or softer sound.

For Paul you question is, if they find gravity waves does that mean your physics is wrong. You seem pretty adamant they won't find them. If they find one, they will will find a lot just based on the size of the universe (I think the predicted rate is around 1 per month, it may even be higher not my area).

For Pokey I read this in your link

This guy sounds like a dipstick, as per the previous tests no-one in the team would know that. If the blind testing protocol was broken then the whole result comes into doubt and the "blind test" officers would be instantly sacked. Those test officers will no doubt be admin staff not involved in the analysis teams. There will be some questions asked by the LIGO team who Krauss has been speaking too because he is undermining the whole blind protocol. The protocol is well established in detail here (http://www.ligo.org/news/blind-injection.php).


Krauss is implying someone has already opened the letter before the analysis is complete ... a serious NO NO. I seriously doubt anyone in the analysis team even has access to the letter and so I think Krauss is full of it.

AR2 care to delete the above from Marosz, we are showing a glimmer of hope by insisting Marosz post just one image and then write about it.

Marosz: nobody understands that group of drawings, it's just a pile of unrelated things. The airplane wing was in a discussion on time and now here it is about gravity waves?. Are you are saying airplane wings make gravity waves that travel backwards/forwards in time?

Just posting more and more images wont help us, and everyone ends up just ignoring you. Then they start asking AR2 to delete the drawing spam because it's length interrupts the thread.

So planes fly underwater but their propellers cavitate because of force Va, and the metal bars pit because of EM waves and pressure?

That is what those children drawings seem to indicate.

Apparently now we aren't allowed to talk about time now even when you use the same drawing.

Marosz, all that makes absolutely no sense to anyone but you, it's just a bunch of unrelated things. All I get is completely confused.

More and more drawings isn't helping, you have been told that by many many people. Try one drawing and write about it.

Marosz do you know what ONE DRAWING means?

they wont find waves of gravity , there may have been some
slight wave produced for some undisclosed reason but gravity
is due only to mass and its density. <---( PERIOD )

look at the planet Mercury.

Mercury surface area is 0.147 earths.
Mercury mass is 0.055 earths
Mercury density is 5.427 g/cm^3

Mercury gravity is 3.7 ms^2 vs earths 9.8 ms^2

earths density is 5.514 g/cm^3

gravity is not due to the space that surrounds a planet
even if the pictures and illusions seem to point in that
direction.

else the planet Mercury would have a gravity field much
weaker than the 3.7 ms^2 because of the volume of space
that it occupies.



Yes, I am.



they may find loads of things that seem to be a wave of
gravity , that does not equate to those things being waves
of gravity just because they name them gravity waves , and
with all the false doctrine that is constantly being applied
to prop up the magician and his theories I highly doubt
that many in actual science will see these newly thought
up things as anything more than more lies , illusion
and parlor tricks coming from the illusion of the magicians supportive foundation.

of course there will be those who must suck butt against
their better judgement if they still have any in order
to retain their position within the modern (puke) science
community.

mass and its density does not fluctuate the way that light
and sound fluctuates.

with no fluctuations in mass or its density there can be
no fluctuations in gravity and therefore no gravity waves.

Paul, that is all fine I understand your belief and position.

You have however sort of backed yourself into a corner. So if they do find Gravity waves will you re-evaluate your beliefs, or are you going to go for a giant science conspiracy path?

However just a side note, there is no point discussing things like a planets gravity both GR and Classical physics predict EXACTLY the same answer. This is a throw back to the Space Station problem .. either framework gives the same answer. It is only worth discussing situations in which GR and classical physics predict different things. The whole example with Mercury given above is a waste of time, it can't settle the argument.

You could be in trouble Paul the physics rumour mill has gone into over-drive that LIGO has seen another event. That would be about right as it was predicted it would see roughly one event a month. A release date of February 11th has been suggested for the first event and the rumour still persists that it is indeed a two black hole merger.

So if announced as indicated how do you intend to deal with it?

For science the result would not be on the same scale as say the Higgs discovery as the gravity waves have already been already largely detected by indirect means. Really all it does is put numbers to the direct measured behaviour of the waves which will help with full theories of gravity.

For crackpots, anti-relativity and anti-Einstein crowd however they will be looking for the excuses

Krauss has taken some blowback for his first up rumor-mongering with most complaining he is damaging scientific credibility by undermining the blind injection process. As I suspected no one in the analysis team knows if the event is a test or not, so his tweet that it wasn't a test is complete BS.

if two black holes merge then that would cause a merger of
the two gravity fields of the two black holes.

that would increase the intensity of the resultant gravity
field and that increase is a one time event not a wave that
is anything like a light wave or sound wave.

and the increase of a gravity field shouldn't be called
a wave at all.

wave your hand , notice there is an repeated up and down motion in a wave.

you have no down motion to complete the first oscillation of
a wave you only have the increase / up motion.

if this is reported as a wave then it will not affect my
brand of physics and I will deal with it the same way I
have dealt with modern science , I will consider it some
prop job to pacify some person not science.

are they even certain that it is a merger of two black holes?

and not a merger of two atoms that have had their electrons
stripped away or two atoms whose electrons have been drained of energy and have collapsed and orbit really close to the nucleus.

if the proposed gravity waves increase in magnitude as they are seen over time it might not be that these are isolated events but a reoccurring event that is feeding
on a unknown food source.

if so then at that point it may be necessary to build a spaceship for it and send it chasing the voyagers as slow as possible.

So now all you need to do is what they have done, show the mathematics of your waves, frequency and amplitude relative to black hole masses ... please

Get in early like they did show the working before the observation.

Now while you are at that can you show how a black hole forms under your physics, I mean a black hole is a creation of GR and only predicted by GR.

That isn't 100% true. There had been speculation about light not being able to escape from extremely massive stars under Newton's gravitational theory. I don't think anybody gave much heed to the idea, but it had been suggested.

Wiki:Dark star (Newtonian mechanics)

As pointed out in the article it does not involve the actual collapse of the star so you are mostly correct.

Bill Gill

why would it have to come from two black holes , I asked you
if they were certain if it was black holes and you then asked
another question without answering.



...



a creation of gr?

So illusion gives birth to more illusion.

I guess the illusions would be generally related.

They would be certain because they have calculated the frequency an amplitudes that you would see if black holes exist and they merged

layman discussion: http://www.ligo.org/science/GW-Inspiral.php

So the odds of you seeing a random gravity wave matching the prediction are high enough as is. Then they will track the wave back to the binary star system creating it. It will continue to make the chirp on a repeat rate based on the binary star revolution rate, allowing you to do even more checking.

So they will be more than a bit certain.


Yes Newtonian physics doesn't predict black holes it predicts a different beast all together which Bill G gave the link to.

I can't speak for Paul physics so was curious how this all worked for your physics.

then you follow with this...



that's still not a wave , just increasing and decreasing due to the gravity of
the two stars causing a fluctuation in the gravity field of the binary system ...

neither stars gravity would fluctuate but because of the rotation there would be a fluctuation observed from outside the binary system.

think of it as a planetary alignment in our solar system ...

Now you are doing what Bill G did to you with waves. Yes technically that is a wave but we tend to call them orbital resonances. It does get frustrating using these stupid layman terms which have such wide meaning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_resonance

Using your layman concepts that effect would be felt as a change in the local value of gravity here and you describe it as such. LIGO measures the expansion and contraction between two fixed points on earth. That sort of effect you are describing would just role thru the detector sort of not noticed (there is a hand waving in that statement it does require analysis). What they are measuring directly is the expansion and contraction of space itself which is what a GR gravity wave is.

If you prefer we could use the term ripples in space and time rather than gravity waves which is more accurate to what they are measuring and gets rid of the layman wave concept.

To a degree your sort of gravity wave is self evident by the fact we have tides on our oceans etc. The irony is Earth/Moon must make GR gravity waves according to GR but it's to small for even LIGO to detect. So if GR is right both your sort and the GR ripple in time and space wave are created by the moon/earth movement, the second being to small to measure with our current instruments.

So I guess all I can say is your sort of gravity wave is way off topic since we are talking about GR and LIGO detection.

All right , I guess this is where I leave then.

I don't have a belief that space expands or contracts
nor do I believe that time exist.
so that stuff is below my intelligence level and since I
don't feel compelled to lower myself I wont really say much
more than that ... peeking behind the curtain watching the
wizard pressing the buttons and pulling the levers that
make him look fearless , amazing and possibly important.



according to my non beliefs in the above requirements of
your brand of physics I will now state that the LIGO machine
is some crackpot device based on fakery and false physics.

And its official we have direct gravity wave detection of a two black hole merger detected on two independent LIGO units at exactly the same time stamps ( September 14, 2015 at 5:51 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time). The have only released the area of sky for the event is southern hemisphere but they would know the origin closer than that.

The 7 millisecond difference between the signals in Louisiana and Washington sets the speed of the detected gravity waves at or very close to the speed of light c.

http://phys.org/news/2016-02-scientists-glimpse-einstein-gravitational.html
http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithab...s/#5e1367f64b15

Lots of crackpots will be wheeling out the excuses or going the whole conspiracy path I guess.

Apparently there is also another event under investigation which had also been leaked. The likely detection rate with the current detectors will be one every two-three months, if we have the black hole numbers right. I guess what all the scientists hope for is the gravity wave from an exploding star as it will give data on the metric under completely different conditions.

So we have the first physical proof that black holes exist and that the theory of relativity is the only theory that correctly describes them. I suspect we will see a lot of improvements in black hole physics as the discovery rules some stuff in and lots of stuff out.

There will be lots of countries scrambling to build there own versions of LIGO, Italy will be the next as it has an old LIGO which just needs detector upgrades. Everyone is expecting China to announce plans sooner rather than later.

I hadn't been checking in on a regular basis today. I knew about the rumors but wasn't wanting to get my hopes up too high. The news that they definitely did find the gravity waves is great! It has been a long time coming but is very welcome.

Bill Gill

Finally got my question answered by the team, the source is in the direction of the Magellanic Clouds but far further out at 1.3 Billion light years compared to the clouds at 200,000 light years.

Weiss has also dropped a some hints when talking about the run analysis:

"We’re very happy that there are other, smaller ones, this is not unique"

The first event is given a designation GW150914, which almost certainly means they have multiple events as the analysts will need a reference to events so they know which they are talking about.

I love to burst your bubble there orac.

so I must.

1) the images that I looked at on the bottom link do not
appear to be due to two black holes merging.

1a) the images show an increase and then a decrease.

1b) if there would have been a merger the images would not
have shown an decrease only a steady increase.

1c) as the two black holes merged the two gravity fields
would merge and there would never have been a lower gravity
as shown on the images.

2) I don't know what the devices picked up and neither do
they if they are saying it was two black holes merging.

2a) the article states that it was predicted by einsteins
e=mc^2 , if mass cannot travel faster than the speed of
light in a vacuum then the mass used in the equation
cannot be multiplied by c^2.



lies lies and lies heaped upon lies.

plus: the article states that the merger spewed out a gravity wave spiral.

gravity does not spiral or move it only increases
or decreases in intensity with increased or decreased mass.

I was curious how the crackpots would describe the findings
to make it seem as if Einstein had predicted something correctly and lawd was I right.

are we really supposed to believe that these two massive
black holes merged in only the 15 seconds depicted on the
images?

and that the only detectable differences in gravity occurred
in a mere 20 milliseconds?

I find these last two claims to be unbelievable.

You are entitled to a view Paul, but I really don't think anyone cares what you believe. That is like worrying what Marosz thinks, I am sure he will be full of equal stories and drama of how his theory is right. Sorry to burst your bubble

Why don't you hit the forums and convince people that you a want a vote on the result, that is democratic. I am sure you can round up a few in the religious groups to vote with you

The fact is LIGO and further advancements of it will be come the new telescopes and every country involved in Astronomy will have one or collaborate with one. Good luck trying to stop that. I am pretty sure you will have lots to complain about in coming years as politicians spend more of your taxes on this, just to irritate you more. If your god exists he has a wicked sense of humour.

Now I think we are done, Marosz is your man I am sure he will love to discuss it. I will leave you to your ranting.

Back to release details. There was a push put on people about the "other events". Unofficially there are 7 other events in the first run but much lower signals. Some of those may be ruled out as verifiable in the publication phase.

If that rate of event holds there is going to be a lot of data to analyze every year from the universe and they are going to need to develop technology and processes to deal with it. This is most definitely just the start of a whole new way of seeing the universe.

................................^
................^V1............^V2
X2------R-----source----R----sensor


X2 Earth is making rotation respect to own axis

if R=R

V2 = 2*V1

WE HAVE RED SHIFT



Please study very slowly below Example 3 Hz and 1 Hz

R= 300 000 km

V1 = 52 000 km/s (EM source)

V2 = 104 000 km/s ( EM sensor )





PLEASE MARK YOUR SELF POINT ON BELOW ILUSTRATION

Earth is making rotation respect to own axis ? (Yes)
if (yes) please imagine more long distance (more long table )

You will be able or not to see Doppler?






WE HAVE DOPPLER RED or WE HAVE ZERO ???
WHAT IS REAL IN THIS WHAT THEY PUBLIC ABOUT EINSTEIN ?

LIGO = GREAT PLACE TO SHOW DOPPLER THEY HAVE TWO IDEAL THE SAME
STATION A and B

WE CAN MEASURE ALL VERY PRECISSION !!!

B--------3000 km------------A


FUNDAMENTAL EXPERIMENT FOR EINSTEIN = ZERO or RED SHIFT !!!

Something I need to understand is this: It has taken a lot of time and effort to gain the first glimpse (presumably) of gravity waves. What will make the next “sighting” easier than the first?

let me get these images and post them here to discuss them.



the image below the label (Livingston louisiana)

shows two images H1 and L1 one on top of the other.
I can understand why the image H1 was shifted
possibly to try to get the lines to line up
but why would there be a need to invert the H1 image?

inverting the images to make them fit seems a little
shifty to me and reminds me a little of the manipulated
climate data images we get to see all the time.

Bill S , I don't really see what the big deal is about this
it most likely was some gravity differences measured from
our earth due to some disturbance in the earths gravity field
because the starting point on all the graphs is the exact
same ending point on all the graphs and there is no increase
of gravity shown at the ending point of any of the graphs.

Im not against technical advances to better mankind but
I don't think they are thinking this through it seems like
they may be pushing it through in hopes of getting funding
to build more of the same.

I certainly would wait several decades before I would just
dump any funding into it myself if I were in charge of the
funding programs that they might apply for.

they have waited 5 months to release their findings
on this which tells me that there must have been a lot of
political drama going on in their social community to
decide what would look best to release and how to spin it.

anyway to answer your question in my opinion the thing
that would make it more easier for them to get the next
result would be for them to need the next result before they
could get more funding.

oh and orac , I don't have bubbles.

"Something I need to understand is this: It has taken a lot of time and effort to gain the first glimpse (presumably) of gravity waves. What will make the next “sighting” easier than the first?"

Bill S, I think the Ligo set up was being upgraded for about the previous 4 years and finally went back online in early Sep15.

This "sighting" took place on September 14, 2015 at 5:51 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time, according to Orac.

So it seems to have gotten a "hit" very soon after this version started.

That would make sense.

That is always the case. The first time something is done it takes a lot of effort and time. After that you know a lot more about what works and what doesn't. Then it gets easier as time goes by.

And of course once you know something can be done, then you start thinking of all the ways it could be done more easily.

Bill Gill

That's one way of looking at it. Another might be that they were taking care not to fall into the trap of early, unfounded exaltation. Think of OPERA's faster-than-light neutrinos fiasco and BICEP2's gravitational waves from inflation that turned to dust.

Whatever the final verdict, caution seems appropriate.

Have you taken into account the distinct possibility that what was observed was not a "head on" collision, but that the objects orbited each other; in that case the last seconds would have given rise to fluctuating waves, rather than a steady increase.



It has been estimated that in the final seconds, objects such as two massive black holes could be orbiting at about 100 times per Sec. and travelling close to the speed of light. In that sort of scenario, a lot can happen in fifteen Secs.

like I said in an earlier post , if the two black holes
lined up with the earth as in an orbit around each other
like the planetary alignments seen in our solar system then
the planetary alignment should cause a gravity fluctuation that should be seen from outside of our solar system.

likewise if two black holes lined up there should also be
a fluctuation seen from outside the two black hole system
as the black holes orbit each other.

you would see and measure both a increase and decrease in
gravity intensity.



if the two were orbiting at 100 times per second then
the increase detected would have been at 100 iterations
per second and steadily increasing with each iteration
until the two merged , after which there would be a final
and observable increase.

the graphs describe more of a passing of the two masses
than a merger.

slow approach with steady increase in intensity
followed by a faster departure with a steady decrease in
intensity then the graph shows a return to normal intensity.

they did a slingshot , judging from the faster departure
shown on the graph.

I could understand two grains of sand orbiting at 100 times
per second , but not at a angular velocity close to the speed
of light in a vacuum.

personally and logically I don't know that two massive masses
could be held in an orbit by any force if they are traveling
at such an enormous rate of angular velocity.

logic tells me without even breaking out my calculator
that the centrifugal forces would greatly overcome any
gravity field that the two masses could produce combined
and the orbit would be broken.

they would then go their separate ways.

now if the two black holes simply collide head on then
sure this would stick them together but there would have been
a distinct increase seen after the two merged not a increase
followed by a decrease to the previous gravity intensity as
depicted on the graphs.

You will probably recall from previous discussions that I have serious misgivings about singularities, or any scenario in which anything can become infinite. However, my scientific knowledge is limited, so I try to keep an open mind.

I take your point, but if at the heart of each BH is a singularity in which gravity is infinite, then even breaking out your calculator will not prevent collision.

The psychologist, Rob Brotherton says: “We [also] suffer from the “illusion of understanding”, a tendency to overestimate our knowledge of how things work”. What he doesn’t mention is that experts almost certainly suffer from a slightly different version of the same “illusion”.

I look forward to an “expert” response to your reasoning.

Paul, I just found this; I've not read it yet, but I thought the video might amuse you.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-35524440

Paul, I don’t know if anything here will address any of your thoughts.

http://www.astro.cardiff.ac.uk/research/gravity/tutorial/?page=4blackholecollisions

For example:

“Chirps and ringdowns
Gravitational waves from a binary are predominantly emitted at twice the orbital frequency and carry away the binary's energy and angular momentum. Since the system loses its rotational energy, the two black holes gradually inspiral towards each other. Black holes that are closer together emit more radiation, thereby accelerating the inspiral. This produces a characteristic chirp waveform whose amplitude and frequency both increase with time until eventually the two bodies merge together. Prior to merger, the two black holes approach each other at speeds very close to that of light; their collision will be astounding.
The merger will result in a highly deformed single black hole which rids itself of its deformity by emitting gravitational radiation that is characteristic of the mass and spin of the final black hole. This is called the quasi-normal mode or the ring down signal. Laser interferometric detectors, such as LIGO, GEO600 and Virgo, should be able to detect the waves from the last few minutes of the binary's evolution. The ring-down signal is not unlike the radiation from a bell that is stuck with a hammer except that black holes are far more simple objects than a bell and the frequency and damping time of the radiation depends only on the final black hole's mass and spin.”

I had my time mixed up.

ok , here is a mag 4.5 seismic event that occurred
at 10:10 am utc/gmt on sep-14-2015

M 4.5 - 29km ESE of Linxi, China
Time2015-09-14 10:10:11 UTC
Location39.606°N 118.753°E
Depth10.0 km


http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/m...ime%22%7D%7D%7D

not certain if a mag 4.5 seismic event could cause gravity fluctuations that could register on the machines used to
detect these astrological events but if they could then
this could explain the time differences recorded and maybe
the need to invert the images to line the lines on the
graph up.

what do you think Bill S.

Just to help, I understood the time to be: 14 SEP 2015 @ 9:51 UTC.

https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/news/ligo20160211

“The gravitational waves were detected on September 14, 2015 at 5:51 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time (09:51 UTC) by both of the twin Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory (LIGO) detectors, located in Livingston, Louisiana, and Hanford, Washington, USA.”

ok thanks I will redo that tomorrow then.

9:51 utc/gmt

for now heres a search of 9:00 utc - 11:00 utc

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/m...ime%22%7D%7D%7D

I don't know how to determine if there would have been
a gravity fluctuation or if it would be delayed or not.

maybe tomorrow.

thanks for the time update pokey.

You have been told the answer to this a number of times and still seem to repeat layman untruths.

The sort of singularity you describe only appears directly in the static black hole situation.

The static solution is probably totally unnatural like finding a sun not rotating. Conceptually you can imagine such a thing and the mathematics will explode in your face as an indication of how unnatural and unstable the thing is you have described much less how you would ever create the situation.

As I said the simple laws that govern the ignition coil on your car says that it will produce infinite voltage ... you don't seem to have a problem with that?

How about if I ignore friction then a pushed ball rolls infinitely you don't seem to have a problem with that?

BE CONSISTENT you have a problem with projected infinities start with more down to earth ones.

The detected black holes were rotating (as expected) and merged to a rotating black hole (as expected).

There are only two known exact solutions to a rotating black hole being (a)Kerr and (b)Kerr–Newman descriptions. Most scientists prefer the Kerr metric because the Kerr-Newman has a characteristic we generally don't see by observation.

Perhaps Bill S rather than repeat layman junk and BS you do some reading on what the exact Einstein solutions of a rotating black hole predict. That is bother to actually check rather than parrot other layman.

In a Kerr metric you get metric infinities in a surface description. So "no point" like in the static solution its a surface and the infinity is no different than the projected voltage infinity of an ignition coil. It's simply a value that if you ignore all the actual other details it mathematically projects to it isn't real. One of the things we will now be able to determine is what local factors control the maximum value. For your car ignition coil that is characteristics of the wire and air in and around the coil.

Now getting back to release data

As is normal for science all the data for the signal release has been published including the signal processing code and algorithms.

https://losc.ligo.org/s/events/GW150914/GW150914_tutorial.html

There will be 4 LIGO's online by January and the detections and data will be made public in realtime. As the new sensors obviously have the required sensitivity the detections will be continually coming in. There is work to increase the detector sensitivity by an estimated 10 fold and that will increase the detection rate even higher.

One of the two new detectors will obviously be Virgo in Italy but the 4th detector site to be operational by January isn't so obvious. Doing some asking about that at the moment and I will let you know when I get an answer. I would expect China and Russia will be scrambling with plans to get involved.

This is going to be like the first telescope and radio telescope, the data is suddenly going to start pouring in now the detection thresholds have been achieved. The really interesting stuff will be when we can project something going to happen with normal telescopes and then watch for the signal with ligo.

The first detection data is currently up but only available for creditted users. The first screenshots provided by Lubos show the current listings

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https://losc.ligo.org/timeline/query/GW151226/

You can see the two new entries GW151012 & GW151226 as well as background data which are obviously close to publication so stay tuned.

ok , as far as I understand the ligo machines are simply
laser beams in long tunnels that must have sensors used to
detect the movement of the laser caused by gravity
fluctuations.

1) a seismic event on earth would cause a false astronomical
event reading as the ground the ligo is sitting on would tremble.

2) the ligo graphs not too surprisingly look exactly like
a graph of an earthquake.

3) if an seismic event occurred on the earth that was
strong enough to cause a gravity fluctuation of the
earths gravity field then this would also cause false
astronomical event readings.

I haven't yet looked into the possibilities of seismic
events causing a gravity field fluctuation of the earths
gravity field but it seems that it should be a normal occurrence due to the large volume of mass movement
found in a seismic event.

logic is telling me that these machines should be placed
away from the earth if precise measurements are desired
that do not correspond with earth seismic events.

there would be no need for long tunnels.
tiny satellites could be used to measure the location
of the laser beam as it passes through a series of detection
satellites.

the satellites positions could be remotely adjusted to the
desired frequency pattern and desired direction to record
any event that causes light to bend in the cosmos.

ok, looks like the earths gravity field is affected by
earth seismic events , lots of reading on the subject.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=is+earths+gravity+field+affected+by+earthquakes

unless the ligo machines have some type of anti gravity
field built in to remove the effects of earths gravity
field on the laser then the earths gravity field would
cause the laser to bend and tremble during a seismic event
occurring on the earth.

but having anti gravity built into the ligo would defeat the purpose of the ligo wouldn't it.

LOL ...

time lapse gravity anomalies from grace.

if the earth had a thick layer of water the waters
surface would deform to follow these differences in
gravity intensities.

there would be mountain ranges of water...
and water valleys...
it could be a really fun water park.

You could actually bother to read stuff

https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/page/vibration-isolation

Yeah they have to suppress seismic activity and all earthquake stuff is well out of frequency but you layman never actually want to learn anything.

One of the tests of LIGO is to turn off the active suppression and actually detect seismic activity.

You could also google LIGO noise floor plots and actually look at the levels. The main stuff they have trouble with is man made and close to the LIGO's hence the signifcance of having two detectors separated by long distances. Each LIGO will also go thru a calibration process before and after runs to make sure they held calibration throughout the run.

Love the grasping at straw efforts. Never let the truth get in the way of a good religious story hey Paul. Perhaps GOD coughed or Pink Aliens did a war dance on top of LIGO they haven't calibrated those.

How about before posting ever more stupid things you all bother to actually read about the operation of LIGO, which is actually half the story of LIGO how to eliminate more and more noise and get detection sensitivity to what was required.

All of this stuff is really easy to find before posting stupid arguments.

orac , are you saying that they do have anti gravity
built into the ligo's to isolate the recordings of earth
gravity fluctuations from cosmic gravity fluctuations?

that's brilliant !

Orac, I think you missed the point of this post, which was simply to suggest to Paul that our amateur “calculations” might not always be sufficient to see the whole picture.

Recall that I also said:



I think this indicates that I am not arguing in favour of misplaced singularities. Quite a long time ago you gave a very informative explanation of different kinds of singularity. I’m sure I have it somewhere in my notes, but can’t find it at the moment.

I suppose you are saying that the gravitational force would
be infinite as well.

and since I don't think that mass has a set speed limit
because men gave it one I would have to say that if gravity were infinite anywhere in the cosmos we wouldn't be here now.

because everything with mass would have been sucked into it long long ago.

but in order to support the first flawed theory you must
continue to use flawed logic infinitely.

No they trapped your GOD and get him to adjust it. They pay him by sacrificing a few goats.

Sorry I don't discuss stupidity but I do like to practice my satire.

You can't believe the result because of your beliefs and that is fine .. just say it, stop making silly stuff up.

The technical detailing of the active/passive suspension is quite clear and how it achieves suppression of interference, try reading instead of posting EVER MORE STUPID POSTS. All the suppression is calibrated and tested and they have lovely test series results.

At the moment all you are doing is insulting years of hard work by scientists and making a fool of yourself.


Gravity is not a force in GR so that is impossible and beyond wrong but is just stupid.

However in Newtonian gravity it is a force which goes to infinity at R=0, so using Paul logic it is wrong ... PAUL, SCORES AN OWN GOAL

Rose my dear so how would you like me to handle this under our new liberal discussion policy?

We have one of the more important and interesting scientific advancements which it would be interesting to discuss. Then we have our resident religious elements wanting to post the usual science is bad, science is wrong posts continually.

Should I argue with what is a completely ridiculous trash or just ignore it? I fear this is going to try and end up like arguing with Marosz an exercise in stupidity.

I am will be happy to ignore them so long as they keep posts brief so they don't break up the discussion. How many words do you really need to say science is evil/bad/wrong every post.

As expected with the policy you are getting quite a band of crackpots here and it's starting to look nothing like a science forum. I however do get fun practicing my English, and at least for me I gain something

In preprint the Fermi Space telescope has recorded a gamma ray burst which is consistent with the LIGO result.

http://gammaray.nsstc.nasa.gov/gbm/publications/preprints/gbm_ligo_preprint.pdf

Unfortunately the telescope wasn't looking directly at the event area at the time and so can only say the results are consistent.

In techno speak:
"The most likely location of GW150914-GBM falls within the likely location of the gravity wave source GW150914"

As discussed in future when events can be predicted both Ligo and the normal telescopes will be able to synchronize observations.

As the above shows even unplanned there is a high probability given the number of telescopes in operation that events from Ligo will be able to be directly confirmed. There is even a good chance as the other events of the first run are released they may be able to be matched to telescope observations.

The interesting part technically is that for a gamma ray emission to be made by the event there had to be matter close but still outside the black holes event horizon during the merger. If that is common then it is going to open ability for some sort of "x-ray" analysis of matter very close to a black hole during a merger which has got lots of scientists thinking about new space instruments.

I’ve not had time to read all of this, nor am I likely to, but, from what I have read, it seems like the sort of cautious record of an observation that would be classed as sound science, whatever the ultimate outcome.



One of the reasons I have stuck with SAGG is that “non-scientific” opinions are not usually stamped flat on sight. However, it seems a shame that a combination of trolling and politics makes it the sort of forum that people looking for scientific answers, or willing to give such answers, would find off putting.

I see someones tail between his legs as he runs away
whinning .... boo hoo hoo

they may have a suspension system installed to counteract
any ground movement below the ligo but there is
no counteraction available that would counteract any
gravity fluctuations due to seismic activity...



BTW orac , SAGG isn't a pat on the back forum where know
it all's gather to confirm each others intelligence.

if you cant handle criticism or if your version of science
isn't respected on SAGG the way you personally believe it
should be then you should go find yourself a nice
compatible pat on the back forum , there a dime a dozen but theres no discussion available.

BTW...

the gravity from outside the earths gravity field would
be a pull away from the earth correct?

then why is it that the beginning lines in
both the H1 and L1 graphs show the direction of the
intensity of gravity as being towards the earth
and not away from the earth?

zoom in ... zooooom wayyy in... see for yourselfishness.

REPEATING LIES DOES NOT MAKE THEM TRUE.

Ready it's really simple even religious practitioners should be able to understand.

You have two LIGO's turn the seismic suppression off one and leave it on the other .... DOH.

Wait for a reasonable earthquake now compare results

You can tell if the seismic suppression works pretty dam easy and put error bars and numbers around the suppression ability.

So the seismic suppression is calibrated .... SO STOP LYING OR AT BEST MAKING THINGS UP.

Those scientists are pretty dam sneaky and we didn't even have to sacrifice a goat.

I shouldn't laugh but that was pretty funny. I am not sure how to even start with this one ... hmm lets try.

Here is a graph of an electrical AC waveform of a power mains on an oscilloscope which looks like this



So are you saying the positive waveform means the voltage is going away from earth and the negative part towards earth?

If you get the problem with that, then you will get why I was laughing at your comment. I really am not sure how you want me to answer it as it's really really silly.

So Paul, does turning the graph upside down make it different?

I agree which is why I questioned Rose. I think the science/NQS division was much better, when enforced it stopped the trolling and interrupting.

For me the forum works because I can practice my English, mixed with science. I often wonder what you get from here you sort have graduated beyond most of the discussions here.

I laughed over at one of the Paul's thread AR2 posted

Not sure why this particular post was singled out.

Here's a thought. Part of the definition of a field is that it can have waves in it. In quantum fields, these waves are also particles.

Now that (hopefully) gravity waves have been detected, will one of the next steps be to try to find out if wave/particle duality applies to gravity?

WHAT IT IS GRAVITATION ?


1861 J. C. Maxwell, published his theory of electromagnetic fields and radiation, which shows that light has momentum and thus can exert pressure on objects.
1901 P. N. Lebedev EXPERIMENTAL EXAMINATION OF LIGHT PRESSURE
2011 Grover Swartzlander first began to examine a revolutionary concept in optical physics after studying the flight of a moth. He watched the animal use its wings to create lift, which led to flight. Swartzlander asked : Could light be used to create the same effect?


HOW HEAVY IS 1kg ???

0,001 mm sheet has got near 100 m^2 area !!!

[img]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-a5r9GtqfrbY/Vb3ULiRMuKI/AAAAAAAACcs/EOVyEkykhcU/s1600/galileo.jpg
[/img]

we have normal AIR's preasure /temperature
we need ADD TO PHYSICS
NORMAL EM CONDITION !!!

How heavy is 1kg wood and steel ?




EXIST TWO TYPES EM PREASURE
static and dynamic !!!

m=m but ?


DYNAMIC PROBLEM




HOW MOTION IS CHANGING Q ?



EM praeasure = ENERGY's density !!!




PLEASE COMPARE EARTH TO TRUCK !!!

EARTH's ATOMS are changing local EM preasure !!!
EM radiation around Earth want to destroy LOWER PREASURE AREA
( C speed = cavitation for EM preasure )





ABOVE MODEL = CLASSICA not STUPID THEORY but Simple DYNAMICA
IDEAL GAS MODEL !!!







PLEASE TAKE PENCIL and CONFIRM 45 degrees problem




EM DRIVE ?
[img]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-spFELf_xcJ0/U_CBPKLmCEI/AAAAAAAAB5M/FfYELmw3M6c/s1600/pytanie1.jpg[/img]


[img]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-vyrJ7RJ11uU/VoETV6_ew0I/AAAAAAAACj0/0XmMIP-rYy4/s1600/cv.jpg[/img]


WHY WE NEED STABILISATION FOR VEHICLE ?

[img]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-S0fy0L8E410/Vb3UhuFVICI/AAAAAAAACcw/HAb9cVlSj4M/s1600/SunEarth.jpg[/img]

[img]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-F9IkgNl8SaU/VeGJvlxWUQI/AAAAAAAACek/S0jKA-zP6rg/s1600/123.jpg[/img]


PLEASE EVALUATE A-A area ( Joul/cubic meter = N/m^2 = Pascal )

[img]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-XOxE9OYcVys/VP1HK3fFPgI/AAAAAAAACQc/EnJXXu4d2lg/s1600/CIMG3541.JPG[/img]

ROCKET IS ONLY MORE FAR FROM PLANET !
ROCKET CAN NOT ESCAPE FROM UNIVERSE ( because rocket = one body from big system - each body is important )




HOW FAR FROM SUN IS MASS m on the table ?



PLEASE MAKE ABOVE TEST INSIDE ROCKET or NEAR SUN ?m= m but what about Q =Q ?



DO YOU UNDERSTAHND THAT UNIVERSE = MANY BODIES !

ACCELERATION it is not GRAVITATION !!!

I can not understand all ?

Einstein ? what is inside this theory

I proved that Exist Doppler ( Red)
Copernicus = Huge and strong evidence !

I showing that Acceleration it is not gravitation !

m=m but Q ??? to evaluate Q we must describe motion by dynamica

HOW BIG FORCE IS REGISTERING MASS m ?
where is mass m ?
haw fast is moving m ? and motion's direction





EXPERIMENT WITH AIRPLANE and CLOCK ?

How heavy are electrons ? why clock is slowing down

DYNAMIC TEST FOR ABSOLUTE ROTATION !

Light is pushing Air during below test


WORK = FORCE x DISTANCE

We have master sample for ENERGY PoRTION
(1 mol hydrogen explosion - FLASH )

how many Jouls will lost Light to push AIR ?
how bright signal will register FILM ?

AIR IS DANCING !!!

EXIST OMEGA !!!



PLEASE ADD TO ABOVE TEST BELOW PROBLEM






MACIEJ MAROSZ POLAND 2012
DYNAMICA inside MICHELSON MORLEY

so if the ligo suppresses the seismic motion effects
then that seismic suppression also nulls any gravitation
fluctuations that are the result of seismic activity?



how does the ligo suppress gravity fluctuations?

does it only suppress the earths gravity fluctuations?

have they discovered some type of gravity shield?

the ligo uses a laser beam in a long tunnel
to detect gravity fluctuations.

the laser beam will move up away from the earth if there
is a increase in gravity intensity coming from above

likewise the laser will move downwards towards the earth
if there is a gravity intensity coming from the earth.

does that make sense to you ?

to me its obvious that the detection is taking place
when the laser beam bends due to gravity fluctuations.

unless Im wrong , figure the odds of me being wrong and
you being right...LOL

plus , you should practice your paragraph comprehension
your flawed comprehension does not equate to you being right.



also: a laser beam that is being moved up and down to
suppress seismic motion will cause the laser beam to
form a wave.

and: seismic motion waves caused at the earths surface
radiate outwards from the epicenter so the two ends of the tunnel will respond to each seismic wave at different times.

I did not read where there was a detected motion wave
during the recording of the proposed gravity wave detection
event but the graphs show that what was detected was
coming from below the ligo.

the graph shows the gravity intensity in both (+)and(-)
since the desired ligo detection was the detection of the
gravity of a black hole system beyond the earth then I
would think that the engineers and designers of the ligo
would have used the (+) side to show positive gravity
fluctuations of the black hole system not the gravity
fluctuations of the earth.

Paul lets just say yes you are wrong and it isn't worth even discussing such blatant stupidity any more than Marosz's spam.

Paul go and read the LIGO site and what LIGO is actually measuring which has nothing to do with any gravitational field. LIGO doesn't measure voltages, air pressure or force either, strange as it may be to you. That is why your post is spam and why I will ask Rose to treat it as such and won't answer silly nonsense.

Rose my dear would you like to do the honors and remove both these sets of spam. If they want to make there own threads on their stupidity I have no issue but can they get these longs posts of rubbish out of this thread. I am sure if people are interested they will flock to Paul and Marosz's thread to discuss it with them. To get back to an actual discussion post we now have to scroll back an entire page between these two sets of spam. As discussed above with Paul he hasn't even bothered to work out what LIGO measures and we have long posts on completely unrelated things.

I am not sure what you want to do with Marosz he doesn't seem to ever get the message no matter how much we ask he writes and doesn't post massive walls of spam images.

Just another 334 posts and Paul will be top poster; perhaps he will not need to blanket threads with posts then, and will be able to return to a less frenetic style of posting.

I would hold out no such hope for Marosz.

SPAM ???

DOPPLER = SPAM ???

are You joking ?

3Hz example = spam BUT Michelson Morley = Einstein

Marosz Bad
Eaisten Good


DOPPLER ( RED SHIFT )


MICHELSON MORLEY (Earth is making rotation please mark X axis (Earth around own axis omega ) please take more longer arm




HI HITLA ORAC
ZIG HI
ARBACH MACH FRIE !



next "famous paradox"
EXIST SMALL RED SHIFT inside MICHELSON MORLEY
this red SHIFT is very very ... very Small
AND MR EINSTEIN = GENIUS


DEAR CHILDREN TAKE INTERFEROMETER COPERNICUS = IDIOT
DOPPLER is VERY VERY SMALL
BONAPETIT
- relativity is unlogic
HARD TO EAT BUT WE CONFIRMED ALL
You need close nose by EQUATIONS and more theories !:):)

LIGO ? ???

today I found next s... bonapetit

this s.. is about gravitation

EAT EAT THIS S...

I am with Rose on the other thread Marosz seek help .... honestly.

You obviously have at least realized the observation says your theory is wrong so we have made a small step forward. There were ten others before that but I don't mind we have progress with you.

Yes your theory is wrong and science told you to take a running jump putting it a bit nicer than you. You have worked out your chances of anyone listening is about zero and that is true.

That is called a falsification and your theory is stone dead ... we read it the last rights and cremated it.

Now why don't you try actually learning how they knew what to predict and try reading and studying rather than getting angry. You may then actually be able to get a job in the area and away from CNC programming which is what you said you wanted.

DOPPLER = THEORY ???

V1 = 54 000 km/s
V2 = 108 000 km/s
R1= 300 000 km/s
R2= 600 000 km/s

DO YOU RECOGNIZE DOPPLER ?
OR I MADE MISTAKE !!!



DIAGRAMS ? my camera = diagram hologram in my brain ?
DOPPLER and RED shift not exist
MAROSZ = spamer ?



WE HAVE ZERO or DOPPLER RED ??!!!



ZIG HI
HI HITLA !!!


BONAPETIT ORAC !!!
Michelson–Morley experiment
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Michelson and Morley's interferometric setup, mounted on a stone slab that floats in an annular trough of mercury.
The Michelson–Morley experiment was performed over the spring and summer of 1887 by Albert A. Michelson and Edward W. Morley at what is now Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, and published in November of the same year.[1] It compared the speed of light in perpendicular directions, in an attempt to detect the relative motion of matter through the stationary luminiferous aether ("aether wind"). The result was negative, in that the expected difference between the speed of light in the direction of movement through the presumed aether, and the speed at right angles, was found not to exist; this result is generally considered to be the first strong evidence against the then-prevalent aether theory, and initiated a line of research that eventually led to special relativity, which rules out a stationary aether.[A 1] The experiment has been referred to as "the moving-off point for the theoretical aspects of the Second Scientific Revolution".[A 2]

IN LIGO THEY are using MICHESLON MORLEY TOOL
BUT THEY NOT SEE RED SHIFT ????
famous zero ?
how THEY WANT TO MEASURE SPACE OSCYLATION WITHOUT
ACCEPT FACT THAT exist doppler ?

we have to disprove zero ON THE table = we not have relativity !

Not sure why you are ranting at me Marosz, I don't see I can do anything about it, but lets try.

Marosz, what exactly is it you want me to do in easy concise instructions?

Please Evaluate Doppler


Earth's rotation respect to own AXIS X point




...................^V1............V2
X-----------------SOURCE----R---SENSOR2
.....................
.....................
.....................R distance
.....................
....................^V3
.................sensor1>V4


Earth is making rotation = Each sensor = Doppler RED shift

V1 ,V2 , (V1 + V2 )


WHY IN BOOKS ( physics ) we have FAMOUS ZERO ( Michelson Morley )
it it basic experiment for Einstein ? or it is stupid test



Michelson Morley = Evidence HOW ZERO is NOT ZERO
( it is evidence how theory is stupid ... and empty )




LIGO? they are using INTERFEROMETER to confirm Einstein's Theory ( Marosz' FUNY ! they need use this tool to DISPROVE EINSTEIN to show DOPPLER and COPERNICUS and MAROSZ's effect! they are able read DOPPLER ! not ZERO ! )

THEY ARE ABLE MEASURE
ABSOLUTE MOTION !!!!

BIG QESTION ? WHY LIGO is doing this idiotism ?
in my opinion not exist nothing without logic

IT CAN BE SPECIAL ACTIVITIY they blocking knowledge about
NEW VERY precission GPS SYSTEM to protect SECRET THEY SALING
stupid story about TIME AND SPACE ..

REAL GPS is very simple to build

peple who like BOATS - very well understand
that to evaluate position I need only 3 vectors and
astronomy time algoitme





to steering GPS we must understand INTENSITY problem

1861 J. C. Maxwell, published his theory of electromagnetic fields and radiation, which shows that light has momentum and thus can exert pressure on objects.
1901 P. N. Lebedev EXPERIMENTAL EXAMINATION OF LIGHT PRESSURE


WHERE THE SIGNAL STARTED
WHERE IS SENSOR ?






HOW BIG FORCE IS PUSHING BEARINGS ???

I can't understand that wall of pictures, it is like childrens scribble to me. Lots of weird unrelated things.

You have been told this by every person I have seen discussing things with you and still you persist ... your images make no sense.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result !!!!

EXPLAIN TO ME IN WORDS WHAT IT IS YOU WANT ME TO DO.

Even your bad English makes more sense to me than your images.

HOW WORKS GPS ?


A(source)....................B (sensor )

each sensor optica has got SENSITIVE ( parameter)
for Example I see You = I'm registering ( 10 Jouls per sec )

Each Source has got POWER ( parameter ) 100 Joul/ sek ( emmision )


HOW BIG INTESITY IS REGISTERING SENSOR ( camera )


A >>> V1 ..................B >>> V1



Absolute motion it is BASIC info to wrote algoritms
Where the signal started ? where I see signal ? where is object now !



A > V1 ..................B >>>>>>>>>>>>> V2


Sensor will not register the same intesity ( compare to V1)

evidence?

this boat can not cross C speed




Exist in universe bodies FASTER tnan Light ?
we need ver special observations

45 degree? gives 1,41... C




BR TO ALL PEOPLE WHO LIKE KNOWLEDGE and RESPECT LOGICA
!!