| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Sam Wormley" |
| Date: |
17 Jan 2008 01:13:23 AM |
| Object: |
Cosmic explosion, but no gravitational waves |
Cosmic explosion, but no gravitational waves
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/32461
Physicists searching for gravitational waves with the LIGO detector
in the US have released their first major scientific result. But
instead of heralding the much-anticipated first direct detection of
these tiny ripples in space-time, the team announced that
gravitational waves did not appear to emanate from the source of a
gamma-ray burst detected last year. The LIGO team has used this
apparent absence of gravitational waves to gain further insight into
the origins of the dramatic astrophysical events that produce intense
bursts of gamma rays.
"I wish that the first major announcement were a detection of
gravitational waves, but this is not the primary goal of our
field," Kip Thorne of Caltech told physicsworld.com. Thorne, who
is a long-time member of the LIGO team, also said: "As I see it, that
goal is to open up the gravitational wave window onto the universe so
that we can explore poorly understood processes. The LIGO
non-observation is in that spirit."
Disturbances in space-time
Gravitational waves are predicted by Einstein\u2019s general theory
of relativity, in which gravity arises from the curvature of
space-time. The waves are oscillations of space-time that are
produced when a mass accelerates. However, despite strong indirect
evidence for their existence -- in particular from measurements
of the rate at which neutron stars in binary systems lose energy and
spiral towards one other (a result that earned Russell Hulse and Joe
Taylor the 1993 Nobel Prize for Physics) -- there is no direct
proof. This is partly because their amplitude is so small, with even
the most violent astrophysical events disturbing space-time by less
than one part in 10^22.
LIGO (the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory) is the
largest of several facilities designed to detect such disturbances.
It comprises two giant interferometers, one located at Hanford,
Washington state, and the other at Livingston in Louisiana. By
bouncing a laser off mirrors located at the ends of two 4::km-long
arms at right angles to one another, any changes in the relative
lengths of the arms caused by the passage of a gravity wave would
produce a characteristic interference pattern.
Crucially, LIGO's Hanford interferometer was in "science mode" on
February 1st last year, when several space telescopes registered a
short burst of gamma rays in the direction of the nearby Andromeda
galaxy.
First glimpsed 40 years ago, gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) are among the
most energetic and mysterious events in the universe. They come in
two broad types: "long", lasting between 2::s and a few minutes; and
"short", lasting from a few milliseconds to 2::s. In 2003 researchers
successfully traced the former to supernovae, but astrophysicists are
only beginning to understand the origins of short GRBs.
Colliding black holes
The leading candidate for the majority of short GRBs is the merger of
two ultra-dense objects such as neutron stars or black holes -
events that should also produce a burst of gravitational waves.
However, at a conference on GRBs held in Santa Fe last November, the
LIGO team announced that its interferometers had detected no such
signature at the time when "GRB070201" went off.
"We know that coalescing binary have to produce gravitational waves,"
says Jim Hough of Glasgow University , who is principle investigator
for the UK of the GEO600 gravitational wave detector based in
Hannover, Germany. "Therefore, either the source was not a coalescing
binary or there is some exotic situation where the gravitational
waves disappear into another dimension. The latter seems unlikely,
but would be very exciting of course!"
Other causes for the event, such as a "soft gamma ray repeater" (SGR)
or a binary merger from much further away, are now the most likely
contenders. However, Stan Woosley of the University of California at
Santa Cruz -- who was one of the first to link long-lived GRBs with
supernovae -- points out that the merger of neutron stars is excluded
only to the 90% level, which is not as tight as astrophysicists would
like. " If the event was indeed in Andromeda, it was likely a SGR.
The likelihood of two neutron stars merging in this nearby galaxy
while we happen to be watching is perhaps one in a million years ,"
he says. "However, the result is a technological tour de force which
illustrates the potential of co-ordinated gravity wave and gamma-ray
observations."
The result has recently been accepted for publication in the
Astrophysical Journal.
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Cosmic explosion, but no gravitational waves |
17 Jan 2008 10:41:58 AM |
|
|
On 17 jan, 02:13, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Cosmic explosion, but no gravitational waves
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/32461
Physicists searching for gravitational waves with the LIGO detector
in the US have released their first major scientific result. But
instead of heralding the much-anticipated first direct detection of
these tiny ripples in space-time, the team announced that
gravitational waves did not appear to emanate from the source of a
gamma-ray burst detected last year. The LIGO team has used this
apparent absence of gravitational waves to gain further insight into
the origins of the dramatic astrophysical events that produce intense
bursts of gamma rays.
"I wish that the first major announcement were a detection of
gravitational waves, but this is not the primary goal of our
field," Kip Thorne of Caltech told physicsworld.com. Thorne, who
is a long-time member of the LIGO team, also said: "As I see it, that
goal is to open up the gravitational wave window onto the universe so
that we can explore poorly understood processes. The LIGO
non-observation is in that spirit."
Disturbances in space-time
Gravitational waves are predicted by Einstein\u2019s general theory
of relativity, in which gravity arises from the curvature of
space-time. The waves are oscillations of space-time that are
produced when a mass accelerates. However, despite strong indirect
evidence for their existence -- in particular from measurements
of the rate at which neutron stars in binary systems lose energy and
spiral towards one other (a result that earned Russell Hulse and Joe
Taylor the 1993 Nobel Prize for Physics) -- there is no direct
proof. This is partly because their amplitude is so small, with even
the most violent astrophysical events disturbing space-time by less
than one part in 10^22.
LIGO (the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory) is the
largest of several facilities designed to detect such disturbances.
It comprises two giant interferometers, one located at Hanford,
Washington state, and the other at Livingston in Louisiana. By
bouncing a laser off mirrors located at the ends of two 4::km-long
arms at right angles to one another, any changes in the relative
lengths of the arms caused by the passage of a gravity wave would
produce a characteristic interference pattern.
Crucially, LIGO's Hanford interferometer was in "science mode" on
February 1st last year, when several space telescopes registered a
short burst of gamma rays in the direction of the nearby Andromeda
galaxy.
First glimpsed 40 years ago, gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) are among the
most energetic and mysterious events in the universe. They come in
two broad types: "long", lasting between 2::s and a few minutes; and
"short", lasting from a few milliseconds to 2::s. In 2003 researchers
successfully traced the former to supernovae, but astrophysicists are
only beginning to understand the origins of short GRBs.
Colliding black holes
The leading candidate for the majority of short GRBs is the merger of
two ultra-dense objects such as neutron stars or black holes -
events that should also produce a burst of gravitational waves.
However, at a conference on GRBs held in Santa Fe last November, the
LIGO team announced that its interferometers had detected no such
signature at the time when "GRB070201" went off.
"We know that coalescing binary have to produce gravitational waves,"
says Jim Hough of Glasgow University , who is principle investigator
for the UK of the GEO600 gravitational wave detector based in
Hannover, Germany. "Therefore, either the source was not a coalescing
binary or there is some exotic situation where the gravitational
waves disappear into another dimension. The latter seems unlikely,
but would be very exciting of course!"
Other causes for the event, such as a "soft gamma ray repeater" (SGR)
or a binary merger from much further away, are now the most likely
contenders. However, Stan Woosley of the University of California at
Santa Cruz -- who was one of the first to link long-lived GRBs with
supernovae -- points out that the merger of neutron stars is excluded
only to the 90% level, which is not as tight as astrophysicists would
like. " If the event was indeed in Andromeda, it was likely a SGR.
The likelihood of two neutron stars merging in this nearby galaxy
while we happen to be watching is perhaps one in a million years ,"
he says. "However, the result is a technological tour de force which
illustrates the potential of co-ordinated gravity wave and gamma-ray
observations."
The result has recently been accepted for publication in the
Astrophysical Journal.
They found NOTHING.
In normal society, which is funding this *****, this is named a major
scientific FAILURE.
Only in the physics community can such a non event be termed a major
scientific result.
Andr=E9 Michaud
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greg Neill" |
|
| Title: Re: Cosmic explosion, but no gravitational waves |
17 Jan 2008 11:34:20 AM |
|
|
<srp2inc@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c7e381b9-2d57-448b-93ed-b009661d3985@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
They found NOTHING.
In normal society, which is funding this *****, this is named a major
scientific FAILURE.
Only in the physics community can such a non event be termed a major
scientific result.
Typical Michaud stupidity. The negative result indicates
that the monitored event was not what it was thought to
be. This is an important result for the people who
study these objects, allowing them to refine or select
among candidate physics models for the phenomena.
The archetypal experiment of this nature was the
Michelson-Morley interferometric null result for
the detection of the Earth's velocity through the
Luminiferous Aether; It did *not* show that
interferometers don't work.
.
|
|
|
| User: "greysky" |
|
| Title: Re: Cosmic explosion, but no gravitational waves |
17 Jan 2008 10:10:40 PM |
|
|
"Greg Neill" <gneillREM@OVEsympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:478f8d64$0$14066$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
<srp2inc@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c7e381b9-2d57-448b-93ed-b009661d3985@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
They found NOTHING.
In normal society, which is funding this *****, this is named a major
scientific FAILURE.
Only in the physics community can such a non event be termed a major
scientific result.
Typical Michaud stupidity. The negative result indicates
that the monitored event was not what it was thought to
be. This is an important result for the people who
study these objects, allowing them to refine or select
among candidate physics models for the phenomena.
Translation:
This null result is successful because it allows us to keep pulling crazy
theories out of our asses. I will never admit that the entire theoretical
construct grandly cobbled together by esteemed luminaries in physics since
the time of Newton could be just plain wrong. If at first we don't succeed,
we will try, try, try again, until the funding runs out (which will be
never).
The archetypal experiment of this nature was the
Michelson-Morley interferometric null result for
the detection of the Earth's velocity through the
Luminiferous Aether; It did *not* show that
interferometers don't work.
Oh, Hippicratic One, if this were true, why do you and your ilk belittle,
deride, and generally poke your noses at anyone who still believes in the
aether? According to your self serving words, we should continue to support
those scientists who believe in the aether because the idea isn't wrong,
it's just the wrong experiment? Michelson-Morley didn't prove the Aether as
a grand failure in science, because it was just a 'null result'. Everyone
here knows that you can continue to keep your tenure track position no
matter how many null results you get.
So how many null results do you need to have before gravity itself becomes
null and void?
Greysky
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Florian" |
|
| Title: Re: Cosmic explosion, but no gravitational waves |
17 Jan 2008 05:36:41 PM |
|
|
Greg Neill <gneillREM@OVEsympatico.ca> wrote:
The archetypal experiment of this nature was the
Michelson-Morley interferometric null result for
the detection of the Earth's velocity through the
Luminiferous Aether; It did *not* show that
interferometers don't work.
Indeed, it showed that the aether is not static and immobile as it was
thought at the time but a dynamic superfluid:
http://tinyurl.com/3cer3o
--
Florian
"Toute vérité passe par trois phases. D'abord, elle est ridiculisée;
ensuite, elle rencontre une vive opposition avant d'être acceptée comme
une totale évidence" - Arthur Schopenhauer
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Cosmic explosion, but no gravitational waves |
17 Jan 2008 11:36:13 AM |
|
|
wrote:
On 17 jan, 02:13, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Cosmic explosion, but no gravitational waves
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/32461
Physicists searching for gravitational waves with the LIGO detector
in the US have released their first major scientific result. But
instead of heralding the much-anticipated first direct detection of
these tiny ripples in space-time, the team announced that
gravitational waves did not appear to emanate from the source of a
gamma-ray burst detected last year. The LIGO team has used this
apparent absence of gravitational waves to gain further insight into
the origins of the dramatic astrophysical events that produce intense
bursts of gamma rays.
"I wish that the first major announcement were a detection of
gravitational waves, but this is not the primary goal of our
field," Kip Thorne of Caltech told physicsworld.com. Thorne, who
is a long-time member of the LIGO team, also said: "As I see it, that
goal is to open up the gravitational wave window onto the universe so
that we can explore poorly understood processes. The LIGO
non-observation is in that spirit."
Disturbances in space-time
Gravitational waves are predicted by Einstein\u2019s general theory
of relativity, in which gravity arises from the curvature of
space-time. The waves are oscillations of space-time that are
produced when a mass accelerates. However, despite strong indirect
evidence for their existence -- in particular from measurements
of the rate at which neutron stars in binary systems lose energy and
spiral towards one other (a result that earned Russell Hulse and Joe
Taylor the 1993 Nobel Prize for Physics) -- there is no direct
proof. This is partly because their amplitude is so small, with even
the most violent astrophysical events disturbing space-time by less
than one part in 10^22.
LIGO (the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory) is the
largest of several facilities designed to detect such disturbances.
It comprises two giant interferometers, one located at Hanford,
Washington state, and the other at Livingston in Louisiana. By
bouncing a laser off mirrors located at the ends of two 4::km-long
arms at right angles to one another, any changes in the relative
lengths of the arms caused by the passage of a gravity wave would
produce a characteristic interference pattern.
Crucially, LIGO's Hanford interferometer was in "science mode" on
February 1st last year, when several space telescopes registered a
short burst of gamma rays in the direction of the nearby Andromeda
galaxy.
First glimpsed 40 years ago, gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) are among the
most energetic and mysterious events in the universe. They come in
two broad types: "long", lasting between 2::s and a few minutes; and
"short", lasting from a few milliseconds to 2::s. In 2003 researchers
successfully traced the former to supernovae, but astrophysicists are
only beginning to understand the origins of short GRBs.
Colliding black holes
The leading candidate for the majority of short GRBs is the merger of
two ultra-dense objects such as neutron stars or black holes -
events that should also produce a burst of gravitational waves.
However, at a conference on GRBs held in Santa Fe last November, the
LIGO team announced that its interferometers had detected no such
signature at the time when "GRB070201" went off.
"We know that coalescing binary have to produce gravitational waves,"
says Jim Hough of Glasgow University , who is principle investigator
for the UK of the GEO600 gravitational wave detector based in
Hannover, Germany. "Therefore, either the source was not a coalescing
binary or there is some exotic situation where the gravitational
waves disappear into another dimension. The latter seems unlikely,
but would be very exciting of course!"
Other causes for the event, such as a "soft gamma ray repeater" (SGR)
or a binary merger from much further away, are now the most likely
contenders. However, Stan Woosley of the University of California at
Santa Cruz -- who was one of the first to link long-lived GRBs with
supernovae -- points out that the merger of neutron stars is excluded
only to the 90% level, which is not as tight as astrophysicists would
like. " If the event was indeed in Andromeda, it was likely a SGR.
The likelihood of two neutron stars merging in this nearby galaxy
while we happen to be watching is perhaps one in a million years ,"
he says. "However, the result is a technological tour de force which
illustrates the potential of co-ordinated gravity wave and gamma-ray
observations."
The result has recently been accepted for publication in the
Astrophysical Journal.
They found NOTHING.
In normal society, which is funding this *****, this is named a major
scientific FAILURE.
Only in the physics community can such a non event be termed a major
scientific result.
André Michaud
I wonder what you, André, think is the "success" rate for scientific
observations and experiments! The real "successes" often come from
the unexpected. Null results are important in science!
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Cosmic explosion, but no gravitational waves |
17 Jan 2008 02:37:30 PM |
|
|
On 17 jan, 12:36, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
srp2...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 jan, 02:13, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Cosmic explosion, but no gravitational waves
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/32461
Physicists searching for gravitational waves with the LIGO detector
in the US have released their first major scientific result. But
instead of heralding the much-anticipated first direct detection of
these tiny ripples in space-time, the team announced that
gravitational waves did not appear to emanate from the source of a
gamma-ray burst detected last year. The LIGO team has used this
apparent absence of gravitational waves to gain further insight into=
the origins of the dramatic astrophysical events that produce intens=
e
bursts of gamma rays.
"I wish that the first major announcement were a detection of
gravitational waves, but this is not the primary goal of our
field," Kip Thorne of Caltech told physicsworld.com. Thorne, who
is a long-time member of the LIGO team, also said: "As I see it, tha=
t
goal is to open up the gravitational wave window onto the universe s=
o
that we can explore poorly understood processes. The LIGO
non-observation is in that spirit."
Disturbances in space-time
Gravitational waves are predicted by Einstein\u2019s general theory
of relativity, in which gravity arises from the curvature of
space-time. The waves are oscillations of space-time that are
produced when a mass accelerates. However, despite strong indirect
evidence for their existence -- in particular from measurements
of the rate at which neutron stars in binary systems lose energy and=
spiral towards one other (a result that earned Russell Hulse and Joe=
Taylor the 1993 Nobel Prize for Physics) -- there is no direct
proof. This is partly because their amplitude is so small, with even=
the most violent astrophysical events disturbing space-time by less
than one part in 10^22.
LIGO (the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory) is th=
e
largest of several facilities designed to detect such disturbances.
It comprises two giant interferometers, one located at Hanford,
Washington state, and the other at Livingston in Louisiana. By
bouncing a laser off mirrors located at the ends of two 4::km-long
arms at right angles to one another, any changes in the relative
lengths of the arms caused by the passage of a gravity wave would
produce a characteristic interference pattern.
Crucially, LIGO's Hanford interferometer was in "science mode" on
February 1st last year, when several space telescopes registered a
short burst of gamma rays in the direction of the nearby Andromeda
galaxy.
First glimpsed 40 years ago, gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) are among the
most energetic and mysterious events in the universe. They come in
two broad types: "long", lasting between 2::s and a few minutes; and=
"short", lasting from a few milliseconds to 2::s. In 2003 researcher=
s
successfully traced the former to supernovae, but astrophysicists ar=
e
only beginning to understand the origins of short GRBs.
Colliding black holes
The leading candidate for the majority of short GRBs is the merger o=
f
two ultra-dense objects such as neutron stars or black holes -
events that should also produce a burst of gravitational waves.
However, at a conference on GRBs held in Santa Fe last November, the=
LIGO team announced that its interferometers had detected no such
signature at the time when "GRB070201" went off.
"We know that coalescing binary have to produce gravitational waves,=
"
says Jim Hough of Glasgow University , who is principle investigator=
for the UK of the GEO600 gravitational wave detector based in
Hannover, Germany. "Therefore, either the source was not a coalescin=
g
binary or there is some exotic situation where the gravitational
waves disappear into another dimension. The latter seems unlikely,
but would be very exciting of course!"
Other causes for the event, such as a "soft gamma ray repeater" (SGR=
)
or a binary merger from much further away, are now the most likely
contenders. However, Stan Woosley of the University of California at=
Santa Cruz -- who was one of the first to link long-lived GRBs with
supernovae -- points out that the merger of neutron stars is exclude=
d
only to the 90% level, which is not as tight as astrophysicists woul=
d
like. " If the event was indeed in Andromeda, it was likely a SGR.
The likelihood of two neutron stars merging in this nearby galaxy
while we happen to be watching is perhaps one in a million years ,"
he says. "However, the result is a technological tour de force which=
illustrates the potential of co-ordinated gravity wave and gamma-ray=
observations."
The result has recently been accepted for publication in the
Astrophysical Journal.
They found NOTHING.
In normal society, which is funding this *****, this is named a major
scientific FAILURE.
Only in the physics community can such a non event be termed a major
scientific result.
Andr=E9 Michaud
I wonder what you, Andr=E9, think is the "success" rate for scientific
observations and experiments! The real "successes" often come from
the unexpected. Null results are important in science!
To me, a success for an experiment is showing something more at the
end of an experiment than at the beginning.
In this case, the net output is zero, just like all other
experiments
aimed at confirming so-called gravitational waves.
But I have no doubt that some day, common sense and basic logic will
again prevail in the community.
Andr=E9 Michaud
.
|
|
|
| User: "greysky" |
|
| Title: Re: Cosmic explosion, but no gravitational waves |
17 Jan 2008 10:15:37 PM |
|
|
<srp2inc@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1eae490f-48dd-431c-8f73-04a23914c2a7@t1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
On 17 jan, 12:36, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
srp2...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 jan, 02:13, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Cosmic explosion, but no gravitational waves
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/32461
Physicists searching for gravitational waves with the LIGO detector
in the US have released their first major scientific result. But
instead of heralding the much-anticipated first direct detection of
these tiny ripples in space-time, the team announced that
gravitational waves did not appear to emanate from the source of a
gamma-ray burst detected last year. The LIGO team has used this
apparent absence of gravitational waves to gain further insight into
the origins of the dramatic astrophysical events that produce
intense
bursts of gamma rays.
"I wish that the first major announcement were a detection of
gravitational waves, but this is not the primary goal of our
field," Kip Thorne of Caltech told physicsworld.com. Thorne, who
is a long-time member of the LIGO team, also said: "As I see it,
that
goal is to open up the gravitational wave window onto the universe
so
that we can explore poorly understood processes. The LIGO
non-observation is in that spirit."
Disturbances in space-time
Gravitational waves are predicted by Einstein\u2019s general theory
of relativity, in which gravity arises from the curvature of
space-time. The waves are oscillations of space-time that are
produced when a mass accelerates. However, despite strong indirect
evidence for their existence -- in particular from measurements
of the rate at which neutron stars in binary systems lose energy and
spiral towards one other (a result that earned Russell Hulse and Joe
Taylor the 1993 Nobel Prize for Physics) -- there is no direct
proof. This is partly because their amplitude is so small, with even
the most violent astrophysical events disturbing space-time by less
than one part in 10^22.
LIGO (the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory) is
the
largest of several facilities designed to detect such disturbances.
It comprises two giant interferometers, one located at Hanford,
Washington state, and the other at Livingston in Louisiana. By
bouncing a laser off mirrors located at the ends of two 4::km-long
arms at right angles to one another, any changes in the relative
lengths of the arms caused by the passage of a gravity wave would
produce a characteristic interference pattern.
Crucially, LIGO's Hanford interferometer was in "science mode" on
February 1st last year, when several space telescopes registered a
short burst of gamma rays in the direction of the nearby Andromeda
galaxy.
First glimpsed 40 years ago, gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) are among the
most energetic and mysterious events in the universe. They come in
two broad types: "long", lasting between 2::s and a few minutes; and
"short", lasting from a few milliseconds to 2::s. In 2003
researchers
successfully traced the former to supernovae, but astrophysicists
are
only beginning to understand the origins of short GRBs.
Colliding black holes
The leading candidate for the majority of short GRBs is the merger
of
two ultra-dense objects such as neutron stars or black holes -
events that should also produce a burst of gravitational waves.
However, at a conference on GRBs held in Santa Fe last November, the
LIGO team announced that its interferometers had detected no such
signature at the time when "GRB070201" went off.
"We know that coalescing binary have to produce gravitational
waves,"
says Jim Hough of Glasgow University , who is principle investigator
for the UK of the GEO600 gravitational wave detector based in
Hannover, Germany. "Therefore, either the source was not a
coalescing
binary or there is some exotic situation where the gravitational
waves disappear into another dimension. The latter seems unlikely,
but would be very exciting of course!"
Other causes for the event, such as a "soft gamma ray repeater"
(SGR)
or a binary merger from much further away, are now the most likely
contenders. However, Stan Woosley of the University of California at
Santa Cruz -- who was one of the first to link long-lived GRBs with
supernovae -- points out that the merger of neutron stars is
excluded
only to the 90% level, which is not as tight as astrophysicists
would
like. " If the event was indeed in Andromeda, it was likely a SGR.
The likelihood of two neutron stars merging in this nearby galaxy
while we happen to be watching is perhaps one in a million years ,"
he says. "However, the result is a technological tour de force which
illustrates the potential of co-ordinated gravity wave and gamma-ray
observations."
The result has recently been accepted for publication in the
Astrophysical Journal.
They found NOTHING.
In normal society, which is funding this *****, this is named a major
scientific FAILURE.
Only in the physics community can such a non event be termed a major
scientific result.
André Michaud
I wonder what you, André, think is the "success" rate for scientific
observations and experiments! The real "successes" often come from
the unexpected. Null results are important in science!
To me, a success for an experiment is showing something more at the
end of an experiment than at the beginning.
In this case, the net output is zero, just like all other
experiments
aimed at confirming so-called gravitational waves.
But I have no doubt that some day, common sense and basic logic will
again prevail in the community.
André Michaud
Your belief may no doubt be true, but I fear by the time humanity wakes up
to the truth, those far future thinkers may once again be writing their
papers by oil lamps in mud huts, because the world will once again only be
lit by fire.
Greysky
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Cosmic explosion, but no gravitational waves |
18 Jan 2008 04:43:57 AM |
|
|
"greysky" <greysky@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:GJVjj.385$nK5.176@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
|
| <srp2inc@gmail.com> wrote in message
| news:1eae490f-48dd-431c-8f73-04a23914c2a7@t1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
| On 17 jan, 12:36, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
| > wrote:
| > > On 17 jan, 02:13, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
| > >> Cosmic explosion, but no gravitational waves
| > >> http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/32461
| >
| > >> Physicists searching for gravitational waves with the LIGO
detector
| > >> in the US have released their first major scientific result. But
| > >> instead of heralding the much-anticipated first direct detection
of
| > >> these tiny ripples in space-time, the team announced that
| > >> gravitational waves did not appear to emanate from the source of a
| > >> gamma-ray burst detected last year. The LIGO team has used this
| > >> apparent absence of gravitational waves to gain further insight
into
| > >> the origins of the dramatic astrophysical events that produce
| > >> intense
| > >> bursts of gamma rays.
| >
| > >> "I wish that the first major announcement were a detection of
| > >> gravitational waves, but this is not the primary goal of our
| > >> field," Kip Thorne of Caltech told physicsworld.com. Thorne, who
| > >> is a long-time member of the LIGO team, also said: "As I see it,
| > >> that
| > >> goal is to open up the gravitational wave window onto the universe
| > >> so
| > >> that we can explore poorly understood processes. The LIGO
| > >> non-observation is in that spirit."
| >
| > >> Disturbances in space-time
| >
| > >> Gravitational waves are predicted by Einstein\u2019s general
theory
| > >> of relativity, in which gravity arises from the curvature of
| > >> space-time. The waves are oscillations of space-time that are
| > >> produced when a mass accelerates. However, despite strong indirect
| > >> evidence for their existence -- in particular from measurements
| > >> of the rate at which neutron stars in binary systems lose energy
and
| > >> spiral towards one other (a result that earned Russell Hulse and
Joe
| > >> Taylor the 1993 Nobel Prize for Physics) -- there is no direct
| > >> proof. This is partly because their amplitude is so small, with
even
| > >> the most violent astrophysical events disturbing space-time by
less
| > >> than one part in 10^22.
| >
| > >> LIGO (the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory) is
| > >> the
| > >> largest of several facilities designed to detect such
disturbances.
| > >> It comprises two giant interferometers, one located at Hanford,
| > >> Washington state, and the other at Livingston in Louisiana. By
| > >> bouncing a laser off mirrors located at the ends of two 4::km-long
| > >> arms at right angles to one another, any changes in the relative
| > >> lengths of the arms caused by the passage of a gravity wave would
| > >> produce a characteristic interference pattern.
| >
| > >> Crucially, LIGO's Hanford interferometer was in "science mode" on
| > >> February 1st last year, when several space telescopes registered a
| > >> short burst of gamma rays in the direction of the nearby Andromeda
| > >> galaxy.
| >
| > >> First glimpsed 40 years ago, gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) are among the
| > >> most energetic and mysterious events in the universe. They come in
| > >> two broad types: "long", lasting between 2::s and a few minutes;
and
| > >> "short", lasting from a few milliseconds to 2::s. In 2003
| > >> researchers
| > >> successfully traced the former to supernovae, but astrophysicists
| > >> are
| > >> only beginning to understand the origins of short GRBs.
| >
| > >> Colliding black holes
| >
| > >> The leading candidate for the majority of short GRBs is the merger
| > >> of
| > >> two ultra-dense objects such as neutron stars or black holes -
| > >> events that should also produce a burst of gravitational waves.
| > >> However, at a conference on GRBs held in Santa Fe last November,
the
| > >> LIGO team announced that its interferometers had detected no such
| > >> signature at the time when "GRB070201" went off.
| >
| > >> "We know that coalescing binary have to produce gravitational
| > >> waves,"
| > >> says Jim Hough of Glasgow University , who is principle
investigator
| > >> for the UK of the GEO600 gravitational wave detector based in
| > >> Hannover, Germany. "Therefore, either the source was not a
| > >> coalescing
| > >> binary or there is some exotic situation where the gravitational
| > >> waves disappear into another dimension. The latter seems unlikely,
| > >> but would be very exciting of course!"
| >
| > >> Other causes for the event, such as a "soft gamma ray repeater"
| > >> (SGR)
| > >> or a binary merger from much further away, are now the most likely
| > >> contenders. However, Stan Woosley of the University of California
at
| > >> Santa Cruz -- who was one of the first to link long-lived GRBs
with
| > >> supernovae -- points out that the merger of neutron stars is
| > >> excluded
| > >> only to the 90% level, which is not as tight as astrophysicists
| > >> would
| > >> like. " If the event was indeed in Andromeda, it was likely a SGR.
| > >> The likelihood of two neutron stars merging in this nearby galaxy
| > >> while we happen to be watching is perhaps one in a million years
,"
| > >> he says. "However, the result is a technological tour de force
which
| > >> illustrates the potential of co-ordinated gravity wave and
gamma-ray
| > >> observations."
| >
| > >> The result has recently been accepted for publication in the
| > >> Astrophysical Journal.
| >
| > > They found NOTHING.
| >
| > > In normal society, which is funding this *****, this is named a major
| > > scientific FAILURE.
| >
| > > Only in the physics community can such a non event be termed a major
| > > scientific result.
| >
| > > André Michaud
| >
| > I wonder what you, André, think is the "success" rate for scientific
| > observations and experiments! The real "successes" often come from
| > the unexpected. Null results are important in science!
|
| To me, a success for an experiment is showing something more at the
| end of an experiment than at the beginning.
|
| In this case, the net output is zero, just like all other
| experiments
| aimed at confirming so-called gravitational waves.
|
| But I have no doubt that some day, common sense and basic logic will
| again prevail in the community.
|
| André Michaud
|
| Your belief may no doubt be true, but I fear by the time humanity wakes up
| to the truth, those far future thinkers may once again be writing their
| papers by oil lamps in mud huts, because the world will once again only be
| lit by fire.
|
| Greysky
You confuse homo neanderthalensis with homo sapiens sapiens
when you lump them together under the one banner, "humanity".
Those "oil" lamps are fuelled by animal fat, not mineral oil.
Gravity waves have been confirmed since primordial creatures
first settled on land, right under your nose. Trying to detect them
with LIGO is like trying to detect reflected sunlight from a duckpond,
hoping to read the fine print in the depths of your cave.
http://tinyurl.com/2wsrsu
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Cosmic explosion, but no gravitational waves |
17 Jan 2008 10:47:13 PM |
|
|
greysky wrote:
<srp2inc@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1eae490f-48dd-431c-8f73-04a23914c2a7@t1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
On 17 jan, 12:36, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
srp2...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 jan, 02:13, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Cosmic explosion, but no gravitational waves
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/32461
Physicists searching for gravitational waves with the LIGO detector
in the US have released their first major scientific result. But
instead of heralding the much-anticipated first direct detection of
these tiny ripples in space-time, the team announced that
gravitational waves did not appear to emanate from the source of a
gamma-ray burst detected last year. The LIGO team has used this
apparent absence of gravitational waves to gain further insight into
the origins of the dramatic astrophysical events that produce
intense
bursts of gamma rays.
"I wish that the first major announcement were a detection of
gravitational waves, but this is not the primary goal of our
field," Kip Thorne of Caltech told physicsworld.com. Thorne, who
is a long-time member of the LIGO team, also said: "As I see it,
that
goal is to open up the gravitational wave window onto the universe
so
that we can explore poorly understood processes. The LIGO
non-observation is in that spirit."
Disturbances in space-time
Gravitational waves are predicted by Einstein\u2019s general theory
of relativity, in which gravity arises from the curvature of
space-time. The waves are oscillations of space-time that are
produced when a mass accelerates. However, despite strong indirect
evidence for their existence -- in particular from measurements
of the rate at which neutron stars in binary systems lose energy and
spiral towards one other (a result that earned Russell Hulse and Joe
Taylor the 1993 Nobel Prize for Physics) -- there is no direct
proof. This is partly because their amplitude is so small, with even
the most violent astrophysical events disturbing space-time by less
than one part in 10^22.
LIGO (the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory) is
the
largest of several facilities designed to detect such disturbances.
It comprises two giant interferometers, one located at Hanford,
Washington state, and the other at Livingston in Louisiana. By
bouncing a laser off mirrors located at the ends of two 4::km-long
arms at right angles to one another, any changes in the relative
lengths of the arms caused by the passage of a gravity wave would
produce a characteristic interference pattern.
Crucially, LIGO's Hanford interferometer was in "science mode" on
February 1st last year, when several space telescopes registered a
short burst of gamma rays in the direction of the nearby Andromeda
galaxy.
First glimpsed 40 years ago, gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) are among the
most energetic and mysterious events in the universe. They come in
two broad types: "long", lasting between 2::s and a few minutes; and
"short", lasting from a few milliseconds to 2::s. In 2003
researchers
successfully traced the former to supernovae, but astrophysicists
are
only beginning to understand the origins of short GRBs.
Colliding black holes
The leading candidate for the majority of short GRBs is the merger
of
two ultra-dense objects such as neutron stars or black holes -
events that should also produce a burst of gravitational waves.
However, at a conference on GRBs held in Santa Fe last November, the
LIGO team announced that its interferometers had detected no such
signature at the time when "GRB070201" went off.
"We know that coalescing binary have to produce gravitational
waves,"
says Jim Hough of Glasgow University , who is principle investigator
for the UK of the GEO600 gravitational wave detector based in
Hannover, Germany. "Therefore, either the source was not a
coalescing
binary or there is some exotic situation where the gravitational
waves disappear into another dimension. The latter seems unlikely,
but would be very exciting of course!"
Other causes for the event, such as a "soft gamma ray repeater"
(SGR)
or a binary merger from much further away, are now the most likely
contenders. However, Stan Woosley of the University of California at
Santa Cruz -- who was one of the first to link long-lived GRBs with
supernovae -- points out that the merger of neutron stars is
excluded
only to the 90% level, which is not as tight as astrophysicists
would
like. " If the event was indeed in Andromeda, it was likely a SGR.
The likelihood of two neutron stars merging in this nearby galaxy
while we happen to be watching is perhaps one in a million years ,"
he says. "However, the result is a technological tour de force which
illustrates the potential of co-ordinated gravity wave and gamma-ray
observations."
The result has recently been accepted for publication in the
Astrophysical Journal.
They found NOTHING.
In normal society, which is funding this *****, this is named a major
scientific FAILURE.
Only in the physics community can such a non event be termed a major
scientific result.
André Michaud
I wonder what you, André, think is the "success" rate for scientific
observations and experiments! The real "successes" often come from
the unexpected. Null results are important in science!
To me, a success for an experiment is showing something more at the
end of an experiment than at the beginning.
In this case, the net output is zero, just like all other
experiments
aimed at confirming so-called gravitational waves.
But I have no doubt that some day, common sense and basic logic will
again prevail in the community.
André Michaud
Your belief may no doubt be true, but I fear by the time humanity wakes up
to the truth, those far future thinkers may once again be writing their
papers by oil lamps in mud huts, because the world will once again only be
lit by fire.
Greysky
If it's lit at all.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Cosmic explosion, but no gravitational waves |
17 Jan 2008 04:44:33 PM |
|
|
wrote:
On 17 jan, 12:36, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
srp2...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 jan, 02:13, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Cosmic explosion, but no gravitational waves
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/32461
Physicists searching for gravitational waves with the LIGO detector
in the US have released their first major scientific result. But
instead of heralding the much-anticipated first direct detection of
these tiny ripples in space-time, the team announced that
gravitational waves did not appear to emanate from the source of a
gamma-ray burst detected last year. The LIGO team has used this
apparent absence of gravitational waves to gain further insight into
the origins of the dramatic astrophysical events that produce intense
bursts of gamma rays.
"I wish that the first major announcement were a detection of
gravitational waves, but this is not the primary goal of our
field," Kip Thorne of Caltech told physicsworld.com. Thorne, who
is a long-time member of the LIGO team, also said: "As I see it, that
goal is to open up the gravitational wave window onto the universe so
that we can explore poorly understood processes. The LIGO
non-observation is in that spirit."
Disturbances in space-time
Gravitational waves are predicted by Einstein\u2019s general theory
of relativity, in which gravity arises from the curvature of
space-time. The waves are oscillations of space-time that are
produced when a mass accelerates. However, despite strong indirect
evidence for their existence -- in particular from measurements
of the rate at which neutron stars in binary systems lose energy and
spiral towards one other (a result that earned Russell Hulse and Joe
Taylor the 1993 Nobel Prize for Physics) -- there is no direct
proof. This is partly because their amplitude is so small, with even
the most violent astrophysical events disturbing space-time by less
than one part in 10^22.
LIGO (the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory) is the
largest of several facilities designed to detect such disturbances.
It comprises two giant interferometers, one located at Hanford,
Washington state, and the other at Livingston in Louisiana. By
bouncing a laser off mirrors located at the ends of two 4::km-long
arms at right angles to one another, any changes in the relative
lengths of the arms caused by the passage of a gravity wave would
produce a characteristic interference pattern.
Crucially, LIGO's Hanford interferometer was in "science mode" on
February 1st last year, when several space telescopes registered a
short burst of gamma rays in the direction of the nearby Andromeda
galaxy.
First glimpsed 40 years ago, gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) are among the
most energetic and mysterious events in the universe. They come in
two broad types: "long", lasting between 2::s and a few minutes; and
"short", lasting from a few milliseconds to 2::s. In 2003 researchers
successfully traced the former to supernovae, but astrophysicists are
only beginning to understand the origins of short GRBs.
Colliding black holes
The leading candidate for the majority of short GRBs is the merger of
two ultra-dense objects such as neutron stars or black holes -
events that should also produce a burst of gravitational waves.
However, at a conference on GRBs held in Santa Fe last November, the
LIGO team announced that its interferometers had detected no such
signature at the time when "GRB070201" went off.
"We know that coalescing binary have to produce gravitational waves,"
says Jim Hough of Glasgow University , who is principle investigator
for the UK of the GEO600 gravitational wave detector based in
Hannover, Germany. "Therefore, either the source was not a coalescing
binary or there is some exotic situation where the gravitational
waves disappear into another dimension. The latter seems unlikely,
but would be very exciting of course!"
Other causes for the event, such as a "soft gamma ray repeater" (SGR)
or a binary merger from much further away, are now the most likely
contenders. However, Stan Woosley of the University of California at
Santa Cruz -- who was one of the first to link long-lived GRBs with
supernovae -- points out that the merger of neutron stars is excluded
only to the 90% level, which is not as tight as astrophysicists would
like. " If the event was indeed in Andromeda, it was likely a SGR.
The likelihood of two neutron stars merging in this nearby galaxy
while we happen to be watching is perhaps one in a million years ,"
he says. "However, the result is a technological tour de force which
illustrates the potential of co-ordinated gravity wave and gamma-ray
observations."
The result has recently been accepted for publication in the
Astrophysical Journal.
They found NOTHING.
In normal society, which is funding this *****, this is named a major
scientific FAILURE.
Only in the physics community can such a non event be termed a major
scientific result.
André Michaud
I wonder what you, André, think is the "success" rate for scientific
observations and experiments! The real "successes" often come from
the unexpected. Null results are important in science!
To me, a success for an experiment is showing something more at the
end of an experiment than at the beginning.
In this case, the net output is zero, just like all other
experiments
aimed at confirming so-called gravitational waves.
But I have no doubt that some day, common sense and basic logic will
again prevail in the community.
André Michaud
Null results are extremely important in science.
Failure to detect aether wind was one of them!
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Cosmic explosion, but no gravitational waves |
18 Jan 2008 09:42:51 AM |
|
|
On 17 jan, 17:44, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
srp2...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 jan, 12:36, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
srp2...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 jan, 02:13, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Cosmic explosion, but no gravitational waves
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/32461
Physicists searching for gravitational waves with the LIGO detecto=
r
in the US have released their first major scientific result. But
instead of heralding the much-anticipated first direct detection o=
f
these tiny ripples in space-time, the team announced that
gravitational waves did not appear to emanate from the source of a=
gamma-ray burst detected last year. The LIGO team has used this
apparent absence of gravitational waves to gain further insight in=
to
the origins of the dramatic astrophysical events that produce inte=
nse
bursts of gamma rays.
"I wish that the first major announcement were a detection of
gravitational waves, but this is not the primary goal of our
field," Kip Thorne of Caltech told physicsworld.com. Thorne, who
is a long-time member of the LIGO team, also said: "As I see it, t=
hat
goal is to open up the gravitational wave window onto the universe=
so
that we can explore poorly understood processes. The LIGO
non-observation is in that spirit."
Disturbances in space-time
Gravitational waves are predicted by Einstein\u2019s general theor=
y
of relativity, in which gravity arises from the curvature of
space-time. The waves are oscillations of space-time that are
produced when a mass accelerates. However, despite strong indirect=
evidence for their existence -- in particular from measurements
of the rate at which neutron stars in binary systems lose energy a=
nd
spiral towards one other (a result that earned Russell Hulse and J=
oe
Taylor the 1993 Nobel Prize for Physics) -- there is no direct
proof. This is partly because their amplitude is so small, with ev=
en
the most violent astrophysical events disturbing space-time by les=
s
than one part in 10^22.
LIGO (the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory) is =
the
largest of several facilities designed to detect such disturbances=
..
It comprises two giant interferometers, one located at Hanford,
Washington state, and the other at Livingston in Louisiana. By
bouncing a laser off mirrors located at the ends of two 4::km-long=
arms at right angles to one another, any changes in the relative
lengths of the arms caused by the passage of a gravity wave would
produce a characteristic interference pattern.
Crucially, LIGO's Hanford interferometer was in "science mode" on
February 1st last year, when several space telescopes registered a=
short burst of gamma rays in the direction of the nearby Andromeda=
galaxy.
First glimpsed 40 years ago, gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) are among the=
most energetic and mysterious events in the universe. They come in=
two broad types: "long", lasting between 2::s and a few minutes; a=
nd
"short", lasting from a few milliseconds to 2::s. In 2003 research=
ers
successfully traced the former to supernovae, but astrophysicists =
are
only beginning to understand the origins of short GRBs.
Colliding black holes
The leading candidate for the majority of short GRBs is the merger=
of
two ultra-dense objects such as neutron stars or black holes -
events that should also produce a burst of gravitational waves.
However, at a conference on GRBs held in Santa Fe last November, t=
he
LIGO team announced that its interferometers had detected no such
signature at the time when "GRB070201" went off.
"We know that coalescing binary have to produce gravitational wave=
s,"
says Jim Hough of Glasgow University , who is principle investigat=
or
for the UK of the GEO600 gravitational wave detector based in
Hannover, Germany. "Therefore, either the source was not a coalesc=
ing
binary or there is some exotic situation where the gravitational
waves disappear into another dimension. The latter seems unlikely,=
but would be very exciting of course!"
Other causes for the event, such as a "soft gamma ray repeater" (S=
GR)
or a binary merger from much further away, are now the most likely=
contenders. However, Stan Woosley of the University of California =
at
Santa Cruz -- who was one of the first to link long-lived GRBs wit=
h
supernovae -- points out that the merger of neutron stars is exclu=
ded
only to the 90% level, which is not as tight as astrophysicists wo=
uld
like. " If the event was indeed in Andromeda, it was likely a SGR.=
The likelihood of two neutron stars merging in this nearby galaxy
while we happen to be watching is perhaps one in a million years ,=
"
he says. "However, the result is a technological tour de force whi=
ch
illustrates the potential of co-ordinated gravity wave and gamma-r=
ay
observations."
The result has recently been accepted for publication in the
Astrophysical Journal.
They found NOTHING.
In normal society, which is funding this *****, this is named a major
scientific FAILURE.
Only in the physics community can such a non event be termed a major
scientific result.
Andr=E9 Michaud
I wonder what you, Andr=E9, think is the "success" rate for scientif=
ic
observations and experiments! The real "successes" often come from
the unexpected. Null results are important in science!
To me, a success for an experiment is showing something more at the
end of an experiment than at the beginning.
In this case, the net output is zero, just like all other
experiments
aimed at confirming so-called gravitational waves.
But I have no doubt that some day, common sense and basic logic will
again prevail in the community.
Andr=E9 Michaud
Null results are extremely important in science.
Failure to detect aether wind was one of them!
Indeed!
But at the time, there were still coherent scientists able to draw
the right conclusion then.
Nobody in sight in the community today.
Andr=E9 Michaud
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Cosmic explosion, but no gravitational waves |
18 Jan 2008 11:00:11 AM |
|
|
wrote:
On 17 jan, 17:44, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Null results are extremely important in science.
Failure to detect aether wind was one of them!
Indeed!
But at the time, there were still coherent scientists able to draw
the right conclusion then.
Nobody in sight in the community today.
André Michaud
You have to go with what the data tells you André, not what
you want to believe. That is at the heart of science. Kepler
comes to mind.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Cosmic explosion, but no gravitational waves |
18 Jan 2008 01:13:09 PM |
|
|
On 18 jan, 12:00, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
srp2...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 jan, 17:44, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Null results are extremely important in science.
Failure to detect aether wind was one of them!
Indeed!
But at the time, there were still coherent scientists able to draw
the right conclusion then.
Nobody in sight in the community today.
Andr=E9 Michaud
You have to go with what the data tells you Andr=E9, not what
you want to believe. That is at the heart of science. Kepler
comes to mind.
Well, Kepler had gathered ample non-zero data to work with.
That's the point.
The LIGO team gathered zip. zero. NO DATA.
Interestingly this confirm them into their certainty that they are
on the right track
How can rational beings paint themselves any tighter into an
empty corner!
Like Eric, they probably are certain that worm holes do exist
simply because the haven't been able to detect even one.
They need no other confirmation. Just blind faith. No science
whatsoever involved.
You are a joke. All of you.
Andr=E9 Michaud
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greg Neill" |
|
| Title: Re: Cosmic explosion, but no gravitational waves |
18 Jan 2008 02:50:21 PM |
|
|
<srp2inc@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bdfabb5f-ebf2-477f-9370-dfd49d3d2aea@v29g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On 18 jan, 12:00, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
srp2...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 jan, 17:44, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Null results are extremely important in science.
Failure to detect aether wind was one of them!
Indeed!
But at the time, there were still coherent scientists able to draw
the right conclusion then.
Nobody in sight in the community today.
André Michaud
You have to go with what the data tells you André, not what
you want to believe. That is at the heart of science. Kepler
comes to mind.
Well, Kepler had gathered ample non-zero data to work with.
Zero is a perfectly valid data value.
That's the point.
The LIGO team gathered zip. zero. NO DATA.
They had plenty of data. After processing they
found that it did not show evidence of a gravitational
wave accompanying the observed event. It is a very
useful result for astrophysicists who are in the
business of deriving models for such phenomena.
Interestingly this confirm them into their certainty that they are
on the right track
How can rational beings paint themselves any tighter into an
empty corner!
Like Eric, they probably are certain that worm holes do exist
simply because the haven't been able to detect even one.
Now there's a well thought out statement to make, Michaud.
Very scientific of you, ascribing your imaginary peeves
to people you don't know personally so that you can
proceed to declaim them.
They need no other confirmation. Just blind faith. No science
whatsoever involved.
If they had blind faith as you are alleging, they would
not have bothered building LIGO or checking the data
stream that was obtained at the time of the event; They
would simply have assumed that their current model for
the event was correct and moved on.
You are a joke. All of you.
Well then at least, unlike you, we're amusing.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Cosmic explosion, but no gravitational waves |
19 Jan 2008 12:22:23 AM |
|
|
wrote:
The LIGO team gathered zip. zero. NO DATA.
You should check out the LIGO achievements before spewing
out of ignorance, André.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Cosmic explosion, but no gravitational waves |
19 Jan 2008 11:11:47 AM |
|
|
On 19 jan, 01:22, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
srp2...@gmail.com wrote:
The LIGO team gathered zip. zero. NO DATA.
You should check out the LIGO achievements before spewing
out of ignorance, Andr=E9.
So will you now be arguing that they actually detected
gravitational waves?
Contrary to reports.
Not even the tiniest flutter. Zip. Zero.
No gravitational waves in sight. None detected.
That's what they reported, which to them is an
actual confirmation of their existence as they so
skillfully report.
Andr=E9 Michaud
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Cosmic explosion, but no gravitational waves |
19 Jan 2008 11:44:55 AM |
|
|
On Jan 19, 8:11 am, wrote:
On 19 jan, 01:22, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
wrote:
The LIGO team gathered zip. zero. NO DATA.
You should check out the LIGO achievements before spewing
out of ignorance, Andr=E9.
So will you now be arguing that they actually detected
gravitational waves?
Contrary to reports.
Nobody claims that LIGO has detected gravitational waves.
Detection and data are separate subjects - LIGO has, as you have
already whined about, been placing a crapload of limits on
astronomical events through non-detection.
The fact remains that we have seen several binary systems that decay
as if gravitational radiation is being emitted. Until you have an
explanation, you might want to consider that physicists aren't stupid.
Not even the tiniest flutter. Zip. Zero.
No gravitational waves in sight. None detected.
That's what they reported, which to them is an
actual confirmation of their existence as they so
skillfully report.
Andr=E9 Michaud
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ken S. Tucker" |
|
| Title: Re: Cosmic explosion, but no gravitational waves |
19 Jan 2008 12:00:05 PM |
|
|
On Jan 19, 9:11 am, wrote:
On 19 jan, 01:22, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
wrote:
The LIGO team gathered zip. zero. NO DATA.
You should check out the LIGO achievements before spewing
out of ignorance, Andr=E9.
So will you now be arguing that they actually detected
gravitational waves?
Contrary to reports.
Not even the tiniest flutter. Zip. Zero.
No gravitational waves in sight. None detected.
That's what they reported, which to them is an
actual confirmation of their existence as they so
skillfully report.
Andr=E9 Michaud
IIRC there are similiar detectors in Germany,
Italy and Japan, so there was an international
consensus that they would work.
I/we have calculated g-wave detection would
violate the Principle of Equivalence, so I don't
expect the'll ever work, but it had to be tried.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Cosmic explosion, but no gravitational waves |
20 Jan 2008 09:02:19 AM |
|
|
On 19 jan, 13:00, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
On Jan 19, 9:11 am, wrote:
On 19 jan, 01:22, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
wrote:
The LIGO team gathered zip. zero. NO DATA.
You should check out the LIGO achievements before spewing
out of ignorance, Andr=E9.
So will you now be arguing that they actually detected
gravitational waves?
Contrary to reports.
Not even the tiniest flutter. Zip. Zero.
No gravitational waves in sight. None detected.
That's what they reported, which to them is an
actual confirmation of their existence as they so
skillfully report.
Andr=E9 Michaud
IIRC there are similiar detectors in Germany,
Italy and Japan, so there was an international
consensus that they would work.
I/we have calculated g-wave detection would
violate the Principle of Equivalence, so I don't
expect the'll ever work, but it had to be tried.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
Definitely had to be tried. Agreed.
What I find totally unacceptable is the so obvious
sidestepping hinting that detetecting gravitational
waves was not the main purpose of the LIGO
experiment.
This will of course fool ignorant politics and burocrats
into funding this useless search further but it
can't fool everybody.
We all know that the real stake is payroll money.
Nothing to do with science nor real research.
Maybe you and many others don't agree with this
Ken, but I have been around long enough to have
finely analyzed the way some operate int the
community.
This one simply stinks.
Best.
Andr=E9 Michaud
Andr=E9 Michaud
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Cosmic explosion, but no gravitational waves |
20 Jan 2008 09:42:49 AM |
|
|
On Jan 20, 6:02 am, wrote:
On 19 jan, 13:00, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
On Jan 19, 9:11 am, wrote:
On 19 jan, 01:22, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
wrote:
The LIGO team gathered zip. zero. NO DATA.
You should check out the LIGO achievements before spewing
out of ignorance, Andr=E9.
So will you now be arguing that they actually detected
gravitational waves?
Contrary to reports.
Not even the tiniest flutter. Zip. Zero.
No gravitational waves in sight. None detected.
That's what they reported, which to them is an
actual confirmation of their existence as they so
skillfully report.
Andr=E9 Michaud
IIRC there are similiar detectors in Germany,
Italy and Japan, so there was an international
consensus that they would work.
I/we have calculated g-wave detection would
violate the Principle of Equivalence, so I don't
expect the'll ever work, but it had to be tried.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
Definitely had to be tried. Agreed.
What I find totally unacceptable is the so obvious
sidestepping hinting that detetecting gravitational
waves was not the main purpose of the LIGO
experiment.
This will of course fool ignorant politics and burocrats
into funding this useless search further but it
can't fool everybody.
We all know that the real stake is payroll money.
Nothing to do with science nor real research.
Maybe you and many others don't agree with this
Ken, but I have been around long enough to have
finely analyzed the way some operate int the
community.
USENET is not the scientific community, and you still haven't
explained why binary systems decay in a manner consistent with the
existence of gravitational radiation.
This one simply stinks.
Best.
Andr=E9 Michaud
Andr=E9 Michaud
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ken S. Tucker" |
|
| Title: Re: Cosmic explosion, but no gravitational waves |
20 Jan 2008 10:02:36 AM |
|
|
On Jan 20, 7:02 am, wrote:
On 19 jan, 13:00, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
=2E..
IIRC there are similiar detectors in Germany,
Italy and Japan, so there was an international
consensus that they would work.
I/we have calculated g-wave detection would
violate the Principle of Equivalence, so I don't
expect the'll ever work, but it had to be tried.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
Definitely had to be tried. Agreed.
What I find totally unacceptable is the so obvious
sidestepping hinting that detetecting gravitational
waves was not the main purpose of the LIGO
experiment.
If the experimenters get time, I'd like to know what
effect differing voltages would have on the interfero-
meter.
This will of course fool ignorant politics and burocrats
into funding this useless search further but it
can't fool everybody.
Experimentation is risky. Fella's I've studied are
honestly convinced g-waves are real, there is no
need for a "fool factor".
We all know that the real stake is payroll money.
Nothing to do with science nor real research.
Naaa, the fella's are way to bright and skilled to
knowingly waste time and money for a few bucks.
Maybe you and many others don't agree with this
Ken, but I have been around long enough to have
finely analyzed the way some operate int the
community.
Ok, but there are some extremely bright fella's
who won't make a penny one way or the other
that support the project. On the contrary, if the
experiment doesn't work there's going to a lot
of obsolete text books.
This one simply stinks.
Well there are a lot of reputations at stake, and
that, I'm afraid may soil the reputation of GRist's,
if the experiment never works.
Best.
Andr=E9 Michaud
Same to you.
Ken S. Tucker
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Cosmic explosion, but no gravitational waves |
20 Jan 2008 10:57:46 AM |
|
|
On 20 jan, 11:02, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
On Jan 20, 7:02 am, wrote:
On 19 jan, 13:00, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
...
IIRC there are similiar detectors in Germany,
Italy and Japan, so there was an international
consensus that they would work.
I/we have calculated g-wave detection would
violate the Principle of Equivalence, so I don't
expect the'll ever work, but it had to be tried.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
Definitely had to be tried. Agreed.
What I find totally unacceptable is the so obvious
sidestepping hinting that detetecting gravitational
waves was not the main purpose of the LIGO
experiment.
If the experimenters get time, I'd like to know what
effect differing voltages would have on the interfero-
meter.
This will of course fool ignorant politics and burocrats
into funding this useless search further but it
can't fool everybody.
Experimentation is risky. Fella's I've studied are
honestly convinced g-waves are real, there is no
need for a "fool factor".
We all know that the real stake is payroll money.
Nothing to do with science nor real research.
Naaa, the fella's are way to bright and skilled to
knowingly waste time and money for a few bucks.
Maybe you and many others don't agree with this
Ken, but I have been around long enough to have
finely analyzed the way some operate int the
community.
Ok, but there are some extremely bright fella's
who won't make a penny one way or the other
that support the project. On the contrary, if the
experiment doesn't work there's going to a lot
of obsolete text books.
This one simply stinks.
Well there are a lot of reputations at stake, and
that, I'm afraid may soil the reputation of GRist's,
if the experiment never works.
Admittting error or failure of an experiment never
soilled any reputation. What it shows is only
recognizing that the underlying theory is flawed,
which in turns induces all to start looking for
a better foundation.
I know of course that there are a lot of honest
believers involved and have not a bad word to
say about them. But hinting that the LIGO
experient was not meant to detect g-waves
after all definitely doesn't look like a straight
pull from the collar to me.
That's my opinion. May be wrong.
To reconsider I would need definite statements
from formal papers issued before the LIGO
project was started that it was not originally
meant to detect g-waves.
Hey Ken! Speaking of formal publication.
Maybe you remember that paper that
I built on one of Paul Marmet's paper
For memory, my paper:
http://pages.globetrotter.net/srp/discrete_electromagnetic_fields.pdf
and Marmet's paper
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/magnetic/mass.html
Well, the Kazan State U International IFNA-ANS Journal
just published my own article in their last issue (No.2 (28),
v.13, 2007, 123-140), no doubt as a follow up of Marmet's.
When I got new from them a few weeks ago, I did not
even remember I had submitted it to them. I then found
trace of my submission more than 2 years ago and
remembered that I simply thought they might be interested
since the paper it was based on had been published by
them.
Remember that Fred was of the opinion that even if he
couldn't pinpoint any error in it, it must be wrong somehow.
Well these guys don't seem to be of the same opinion.
Best
Andr=E9 Michaud
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ken S. Tucker" |
|
| Title: Re: Cosmic explosion, but no gravitational waves |
20 Jan 2008 02:00:00 PM |
|
|
On Jan 20, 8:57 am, wrote:
On 20 jan, 11:02, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
On Jan 20, 7:02 am, wrote:
On 19 jan, 13:00, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
...
IIRC there are similiar detectors in Germany,
Italy and Japan, so there was an international
consensus that they would work.
I/we have calculated g-wave detection would
violate the Principle of Equivalence, so I don't
expect the'll ever work, but it had to be tried.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
Definitely had to be tried. Agreed.
What I find totally unacceptable is the so obvious
sidestepping hinting that detetecting gravitational
waves was not the main purpose of the LIGO
experiment.
If the experimenters get time, I'd like to know what
effect differing voltages would have on the interfero-
meter.
This will of course fool ignorant politics and burocrats
into funding this useless search further but it
can't fool everybody.
Experimentation is risky. Fella's I've studied are
honestly convinced g-waves are real, there is no
need for a "fool factor".
We all know that the real stake is payroll money.
Nothing to do with science nor real research.
Naaa, the fella's are way to bright and skilled to
knowingly waste time and money for a few bucks.
Maybe you and many others don't agree with this
Ken, but I have been around long enough to have
finely analyzed the way some operate int the
community.
Ok, but there are some extremely bright fella's
who won't make a penny one way or the other
that support the project. On the contrary, if the
experiment doesn't work there's going to a lot
of obsolete text books.
This one simply stinks.
Well there are a lot of reputations at stake, and
that, I'm afraid may soil the reputation of GRist's,
if the experiment never works.
Admittting error or failure of an experiment never
soilled any reputation. What it shows is only
recognizing that the underlying theory is flawed,
which in turns induces all to start looking for
a better foundation.
To soon to *admit* failure. New tools take time.
I know of course that there are a lot of honest
believers involved and have not a bad word to
say about them. But hinting that the LIGO
experient was not meant to detect g-waves
after all definitely doesn't look like a straight
pull from the collar to me.
That's my opinion. May be wrong.
To reconsider I would need definite statements
from formal papers issued before the LIGO
project was started that it was not originally
meant to detect g-waves.
Hey Ken! Speaking of formal publication.
Maybe you remember that paper that
I built on one of Paul Marmet's paper
For memory, my paper:
http://pages.globetrotter.net/srp/discrete_electromagnetic_fields.pdf
and Marmet's paper
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/magnetic/mass.html
Dr. Marmet and I had a lively email debate some
years back. I never quite understood his dislike
of tensor analysis.
Well, the Kazan State U International IFNA-ANS Journal
just published my own article in their last issue (No.2 (28),
v.13, 2007, 123-140), no doubt as a follow up of Marmet's.
When I got new from them a few weeks ago, I did not
even remember I had submitted it to them. I then found
trace of my submission more than 2 years ago and
remembered that I simply thought they might be interested
since the paper it was based on had been published by
them.
I hope that's a "CONGRADS" moment.
Remember that Fred was of the opinion that even if he
couldn't pinpoint any error in it, it must be wrong somehow.
Yup, sure do, that was a good debate.
Well these guys don't seem to be of the same opinion.
Best
Andr=E9 Michaud
Once again, same to you.
Ken S. Tucker
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Cosmic explosion, but no gravitational waves |
20 Jan 2008 03:20:50 PM |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
