| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"cliff wright" |
| Date: |
17 Jan 2008 05:17:16 AM |
| Object: |
Update on LIGO. |
I guess its about time again for my regular question re experimental
results from the LIGO observatories. I just checked some of their sites
and papers and unless I missed it they STILL after several years do not
have a single definite detection of a "Gravitational Wave". This is
despite the observation of a very powerful, cosmologically close GRB
,which, so Physcists have told me, should be a powerful source of
Gravitational radiation.
How long are we expected to wait and maintain these expensive and
complex sets of apparatus before it becomes clear that either this
radiation does not exist, or, even more likely, LIGO is as incapable of
detecting it as an optical telescope with lead lenses.
What I would like to know is: just how strong is the theoretical and
experimental basis for the present accepted theories involving this
radiation?
Have those involved already modified their models in the light of the
non results from LIGO?
I'm old enough to have been involved in science back in 1972 when the
first alleged detection of "Gravity Waves" took place but so far it
still seems even more of a Chimera than Fusion power.
Cliff Wright.
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Update on LIGO. |
18 Jan 2008 03:42:02 PM |
|
|
On 17 jan, 06:17, cliff wright <c.c.wri...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
I guess its about time again for my regular question re experimental
results from the LIGO observatories. I just checked some of their sites
and papers and unless I missed it they STILL after several years do not
have a single definite detection of a "Gravitational Wave". This is
despite the observation of a very powerful, cosmologically close GRB
,which, so Physcists have told me, should be a powerful source of
Gravitational radiation.
That's what their model indeed asserts. Now proven false.
How long are we expected to wait and maintain these expensive and
complex sets of apparatus before it becomes clear that either this
radiation does not exist, or, even more likely, LIGO is as incapable of
detecting it as an optical telescope with lead lenses.
As long as there will be ignorant politics and burocrats willing to
keep the grant tap open at the mere submission of a faxed copy
of a doctors degree.
What I would like to know is: just how strong is the theoretical and
experimental basis for the present accepted theories involving this
radiation?
Have those involved already modified their models in the light of the
non results from LIGO?
You can bet on it. Careers are at stake.
I'm old enough to have been involved in science back in 1972 when the
first alleged detection of "Gravity Waves" took place but so far it
still seems even more of a Chimera than Fusion power.
Cliff Wright.
There has been no progress whatsoever in fundamental physics
for the past 40 years (not talking about applied research).
If you think for a minute, considering this void, you will realize
that
there is no way the payroll of so many thousands "researchers"
can be funded without confusion being maintained like the first fire
users carefully kept their little fires alight before a means was
found
to light fires by friction.
Andr=E9 Michaud
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greg Neill" |
|
| Title: Re: Update on LIGO. |
18 Jan 2008 04:30:04 PM |
|
|
<srp2inc@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2fa34fb8-a12e-4096-8a44-4d5993487ab1@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
There has been no progress whatsoever in fundamental physics
for the past 40 years (not talking about applied research).
To criticize is to volunteer. Where's your empirically
validated contribution to fundamental physics? Does
it come with instructions for a easily replicated
diagnostic experiment that can be performed at home
with components from your kitchen? If not, why not?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Update on LIGO. |
17 Jan 2008 05:49:27 AM |
|
|
On Jan 17, 2:17 am, cliff wright <c.c.wri...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
I guess its about time again for my regular question re experimental
results from the LIGO observatories. I just checked some of their sites
and papers and unless I missed it they STILL after several years do not
have a single definite detection of a "Gravitational Wave". This is
despite the observation of a very powerful, cosmologically close GRB
,which, so Physcists have told me, should be a powerful source of
Gravitational radiation.
....assuming the GRB was produced by a certain process. The non-
observation of the expected gravitational waves ruled out the process.
What's so hard about that?
You may want to investigate how slow it has been in investigating the
LIGO output. The data set S3 is the most recently analyzed set, and we
are on S5. We have no way of knowing if anything has been seen or not
until the analysis is complete.
How long are we expected to wait and maintain these expensive and
complex sets of apparatus before it becomes clear that either this
radiation does not exist, or, even more likely, LIGO is as incapable of
detecting it as an optical telescope with lead lenses.
Leave physics to those who understand what is going on.
A significant amount of money was invested into building the LIGO
facilities, and the money for Advanced LIGO has already been budgeted.
The amount of money it takes to operate the facilities is absolutely
tiny compared to the ~1 billion USD/day for the American sandbox
adventures.
Are you yelling proportionally louder at the waste of money at us
being in Iraq, or are science projects the only thing catching your
ire?
What I would like to know is: just how strong is the theoretical and
experimental basis for the present accepted theories involving this
radiation?
www.google.com "how to use google"
A Nobel was awarded to Hulse and Taylor regarding a subject that is
relevant.
Have those involved already modified their models in the light of the
non results from LIGO?
Yes. Which is the whole fucking point.
I'm old enough to have been involved in science back in 1972 when the
first alleged detection of "Gravity Waves" took place but so far it
still seems even more of a Chimera than Fusion power.
Cliff Wright.
Things have progressed just a little since Weber's aluminum cylinders.
.
|
|
|
| User: "James" |
|
| Title: Re: Update on LIGO. |
17 Jan 2008 12:06:18 PM |
|
|
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7821b947-584b-40cd-83f1-ce73b8a0dd56@d70g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 17, 2:17 am, cliff wright <c.c.wri...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
I guess its about time again for my regular question re experimental
results from the LIGO observatories. I just checked some of their sites
and papers and unless I missed it they STILL after several years do not
have a single definite detection of a "Gravitational Wave". This is
despite the observation of a very powerful, cosmologically close GRB
,which, so Physcists have told me, should be a powerful source of
Gravitational radiation.
...assuming the GRB was produced by a certain process. The non-
observation of the expected gravitational waves ruled out the process.
What's so hard about that?
You may want to investigate how slow it has been in investigating the
LIGO output. The data set S3 is the most recently analyzed set, and we
are on S5. We have no way of knowing if anything has been seen or not
until the analysis is complete.
How long are we expected to wait and maintain these expensive and
complex sets of apparatus before it becomes clear that either this
radiation does not exist, or, even more likely, LIGO is as incapable of
detecting it as an optical telescope with lead lenses.
agreed,
last I heard they had two orders of magnitude (powers of 10) to go in terms
of increasing sensitivity and decreasing noise.
Leave physics to those who understand what is going on.
A significant amount of money was invested into building the LIGO
facilities, and the money for Advanced LIGO has already been budgeted.
because the first one was ill designed.
The amount of money it takes to operate the facilities is absolutely
tiny compared to the ~1 billion USD/day for the American sandbox
adventures.
Are you yelling proportionally louder at the waste of money at us
being in Iraq, or are science projects the only thing catching your
ire?
What I would like to know is: just how strong is the theoretical and
experimental basis for the present accepted theories involving this
radiation?
www.google.com "how to use google"
A Nobel was awarded to Hulse and Taylor regarding a subject that is
relevant.
and so was Al Gore, inventer of Global Warming AND the Internet.
Have those involved already modified their models in the light of the
non results from LIGO?
Yes. Which is the whole fucking point.
they havent got below the noise level yet.
I'm old enough to have been involved in science back in 1972 when the
first alleged detection of "Gravity Waves" took place but so far it
still seems even more of a Chimera than Fusion power.
Cliff Wright.
Things have progressed just a little since Weber's aluminum cylinders.
and still have a long way to go
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Update on LIGO. |
17 Jan 2008 12:50:24 PM |
|
|
James wrote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7821b947-584b-40cd-83f1-ce73b8a0dd56@d70g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 17, 2:17 am, cliff wright <c.c.wri...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
I guess its about time again for my regular question re experimental
results from the LIGO observatories. I just checked some of their sites
and papers and unless I missed it they STILL after several years do not
have a single definite detection of a "Gravitational Wave". This is
despite the observation of a very powerful, cosmologically close GRB
,which, so Physcists have told me, should be a powerful source of
Gravitational radiation.
...assuming the GRB was produced by a certain process. The non-
observation of the expected gravitational waves ruled out the process.
What's so hard about that?
You may want to investigate how slow it has been in investigating the
LIGO output. The data set S3 is the most recently analyzed set, and we
are on S5. We have no way of knowing if anything has been seen or not
until the analysis is complete.
How long are we expected to wait and maintain these expensive and
complex sets of apparatus before it becomes clear that either this
radiation does not exist, or, even more likely, LIGO is as incapable of
detecting it as an optical telescope with lead lenses.
agreed,
last I heard they had two orders of magnitude (powers of 10) to go in terms
of increasing sensitivity and decreasing noise.
Leave physics to those who understand what is going on.
A significant amount of money was invested into building the LIGO
facilities, and the money for Advanced LIGO has already been budgeted.
because the first one was ill designed.
The amount of money it takes to operate the facilities is absolutely
tiny compared to the ~1 billion USD/day for the American sandbox
adventures.
Are you yelling proportionally louder at the waste of money at us
being in Iraq, or are science projects the only thing catching your
ire?
What I would like to know is: just how strong is the theoretical and
experimental basis for the present accepted theories involving this
radiation?
www.google.com "how to use google"
A Nobel was awarded to Hulse and Taylor regarding a subject that is
relevant.
and so was Al Gore, inventer of Global Warming AND the Internet.
Have those involved already modified their models in the light of the
non results from LIGO?
Yes. Which is the whole fucking point.
they havent got below the noise level yet.
GPS Satellite signals are buried in the noise!
Not a problem!
Correlation!
I'm old enough to have been involved in science back in 1972 when the
first alleged detection of "Gravity Waves" took place but so far it
still seems even more of a Chimera than Fusion power.
Cliff Wright.
Things have progressed just a little since Weber's aluminum cylinders.
and still have a long way to go
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jan Panteltje" |
|
| Title: Re: Update on LIGO. |
17 Jan 2008 01:10:10 PM |
|
|
On a sunny day (Thu, 17 Jan 2008 18:50:24 GMT) it happened Sam Wormley
<swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in <QrNjj.304076$Fc.5875@attbi_s21>:
GPS Satellite signals are buried in the noise!
Not really
Not a problem!
Oh yes it can be
Correlation!
*****.
Use grey matter for a moment, (hire or buy some if needed):
'They' are looking for a signal that they have no clue what frequency,
science is not 100% sure about even the supposed propagation speed,
AND IT IS NOT PERIODIC, IT ARE ONE TIME EVENTS,
'Correlation' is the direct enemy of bandwidth, in a way.
Like Seti, you can look at noise for ever, end even detect wonderful things
(nature of infinite random is that anything will happen),
but it will have no value.
And if you correlated anyways, you likely did mean auto-correlation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocorrelation
and if not try reading this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation
'correlation' proves NOTHING.
And there are no gravity waves (only graffiti waves), if a Le Saga model
is what makes gravity tick.
And I bet on that before Einsteins crap.
Because such a model also predicts the ever fasting expanding universe
if the LS particles reside in B holes and or stars, a whole different and more
beautiful picture of the universe, without need for spaghetti theory and
over-dimensioned science and scientists (or science *****).
I would take that null result, and print it on every Einstein paper.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Update on LIGO. |
17 Jan 2008 04:41:42 PM |
|
|
Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Thu, 17 Jan 2008 18:50:24 GMT) it happened Sam Wormley
<swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in <QrNjj.304076$Fc.5875@attbi_s21>:
GPS Satellite signals are buried in the noise!
Not really
Not a problem!
Oh yes it can be
Correlation!
*****.
Use grey matter for a moment, (hire or buy some if needed):
'They' are looking for a signal that they have no clue what frequency,
science is not 100% sure about even the supposed propagation speed,
AND IT IS NOT PERIODIC, IT ARE ONE TIME EVENTS,
'Correlation' is the direct enemy of bandwidth, in a way.
Like Seti, you can look at noise for ever, end even detect wonderful things
(nature of infinite random is that anything will happen),
but it will have no value.
And if you correlated anyways, you likely did mean auto-correlation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocorrelation
and if not try reading this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation
'correlation' proves NOTHING.
And there are no gravity waves (only graffiti waves), if a Le Saga model
is what makes gravity tick.
And I bet on that before Einsteins crap.
Because such a model also predicts the ever fasting expanding universe
if the LS particles reside in B holes and or stars, a whole different and more
beautiful picture of the universe, without need for spaghetti theory and
over-dimensioned science and scientists (or science *****).
I would take that null result, and print it on every Einstein paper.
Research correlation receivers Jan... learn something new.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jan Panteltje" |
|
| Title: Re: Update on LIGO. |
17 Jan 2008 05:04:46 PM |
|
|
On a sunny day (Thu, 17 Jan 2008 22:41:42 GMT) it happened Sam Wormley
<swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in <GQQjj.39943$Ux2.14887@attbi_s22>:
Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Thu, 17 Jan 2008 18:50:24 GMT) it happened Sam Wormley
<swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in <QrNjj.304076$Fc.5875@attbi_s21>:
GPS Satellite signals are buried in the noise!
Not really
Not a problem!
Oh yes it can be
Correlation!
*****.
Use grey matter for a moment, (hire or buy some if needed):
'They' are looking for a signal that they have no clue what frequency,
science is not 100% sure about even the supposed propagation speed,
AND IT IS NOT PERIODIC, IT ARE ONE TIME EVENTS,
'Correlation' is the direct enemy of bandwidth, in a way.
Like Seti, you can look at noise for ever, end even detect wonderful things
(nature of infinite random is that anything will happen),
but it will have no value.
And if you correlated anyways, you likely did mean auto-correlation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocorrelation
and if not try reading this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation
'correlation' proves NOTHING.
And there are no gravity waves (only graffiti waves), if a Le Saga model
is what makes gravity tick.
And I bet on that before Einsteins crap.
Because such a model also predicts the ever fasting expanding universe
if the LS particles reside in B holes and or stars, a whole different and more
beautiful picture of the universe, without need for spaghetti theory and
over-dimensioned science and scientists (or science *****).
I would take that null result, and print it on every Einstein paper.
Research correlation receivers Jan... learn something new.
Maybe you should learn the basics.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Poe" |
|
| Title: Re: Update on LIGO. |
17 Jan 2008 01:33:53 PM |
|
|
On Jan 17, 2:10 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On a sunny day (Thu, 17 Jan 2008 18:50:24 GMT) it happened Sam Wormley
<sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote in <QrNjj.304076$Fc.5875@attbi_s21>:
GPS Satellite signals are buried in the noise!
Not really
Not a problem!
Oh yes it can be
Correlation!
*****.
Use grey matter for a moment, (hire or buy some if needed):
'They' are looking for a signal that they have no clue what frequency,
science is not 100% sure about even the supposed propagation speed,
AND IT IS NOT PERIODIC, IT ARE ONE TIME EVENTS,
'Correlation' is the direct enemy of bandwidth, in a way.
Like Seti, you can look at noise for ever, end even detect wonderful things
(nature of infinite random is that anything will happen),
but it will have no value.
And if you correlated anyways, you likely did mean auto-correlation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocorrelation
and if not try reading this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation
'correlation' proves NOTHING.
More to the point:
http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jos/sasp/Processing_Gain.html
Coherent integration increases SNR, helps you pull
signals out that are buried in noise.
- Randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Update on LIGO. |
17 Jan 2008 01:36:48 PM |
|
|
"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c2ffc0cf-4bd3-4c7b-917e-082078b1feb2@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
| On Jan 17, 2:10 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| > On a sunny day (Thu, 17 Jan 2008 18:50:24 GMT) it happened Sam Wormley
| > <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote in <QrNjj.304076$Fc.5875@attbi_s21>:
| >
| > > GPS Satellite signals are buried in the noise!
| >
| > Not really
| >
| > > Not a problem!
| >
| > Oh yes it can be
| >
| > > Correlation!
| >
| > *****.
| >
| > Use grey matter for a moment, (hire or buy some if needed):
| > 'They' are looking for a signal that they have no clue what frequency,
| > science is not 100% sure about even the supposed propagation speed,
| > AND IT IS NOT PERIODIC, IT ARE ONE TIME EVENTS,
| >
| > 'Correlation' is the direct enemy of bandwidth, in a way.
| >
| > Like Seti, you can look at noise for ever, end even detect wonderful
things
| > (nature of infinite random is that anything will happen),
| > but it will have no value.
| > And if you correlated anyways, you likely did mean auto-correlation:
| > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocorrelation
| >
| > and if not try reading this:
| > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation
| >
| > 'correlation' proves NOTHING.
|
| More to the point:
|
| http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jos/sasp/Processing_Gain.html
|
| Coherent integration increases SNR, helps you pull
| signals out that are buried in noise.
|
You should give it a try, incoherent raving lunatic.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jan Panteltje" |
|
| Title: Re: Update on LIGO. |
17 Jan 2008 01:48:05 PM |
|
|
On a sunny day (Thu, 17 Jan 2008 11:33:53 -0800 (PST)) it happened Randy Poe
<poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in
<c2ffc0cf-4bd3-4c7b-917e-082078b1feb2@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com>:
On Jan 17, 2:10 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On a sunny day (Thu, 17 Jan 2008 18:50:24 GMT) it happened Sam Wormley
<sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote in <QrNjj.304076$Fc.5875@attbi_s21>:
GPS Satellite signals are buried in the noise!
Not really
Not a problem!
Oh yes it can be
Correlation!
*****.
Use grey matter for a moment, (hire or buy some if needed):
'They' are looking for a signal that they have no clue what frequency,
science is not 100% sure about even the supposed propagation speed,
AND IT IS NOT PERIODIC, IT ARE ONE TIME EVENTS,
'Correlation' is the direct enemy of bandwidth, in a way.
Like Seti, you can look at noise for ever, end even detect wonderful things
(nature of infinite random is that anything will happen),
but it will have no value.
And if you correlated anyways, you likely did mean auto-correlation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocorrelation
and if not try reading this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation
'correlation' proves NOTHING.
More to the point:
http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jos/sasp/Processing_Gain.html
Coherent integration increases SNR, helps you pull
signals out that are buried in noise.
Yes, and it says this:
<quote>
Each halving of the low-pass cut-off frequency adds another 3 dB to the
SNR. Since the signal is a dc component (zero bandwidth), this process can
be repeated indefinitely to achieve any desired SNR. The narrower the
lowpass filter, the higher the SNR. Similarly, for sinusoids, the narrower
the bandpass filter centered on the sinusoid's frequency, the higher the
SNR.
<end quote>
Now here are 2 problems with gravity waves:
1) they are not DC,
2) the exact frequency is an unknown (depends on the event)
Now I hope that it is clear to even so called mathematician Wormley that the wider
the bandwidth (the bigger the range over which you look for 'events') the worse
the SNR will be.
In fact they really do not even know the frequency of those signals, they cannot.
So they are looking for some idea of some brain fart, and if bandwidth is
made big enough, one day they will see someting that is actually noise but
looks a lot like what they want to see, and then let's hope not just some
flash happened at the same time.
That is, to prevent that horrible error, why LIGO should be nuked.
.
|
|
|
| User: "local host" |
|
| Title: Re: Update on LIGO. |
17 Jan 2008 05:06:39 PM |
|
|
"Jan Panteltje" <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fmobdq$rvp$1@aioe.org...
On a sunny day (Thu, 17 Jan 2008 11:33:53 -0800 (PST)) it happened Randy
Poe
<poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in
<c2ffc0cf-4bd3-4c7b-917e-082078b1feb2@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com>:
On Jan 17, 2:10 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On a sunny day (Thu, 17 Jan 2008 18:50:24 GMT) it happened Sam Wormley
<sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote in <QrNjj.304076$Fc.5875@attbi_s21>:
GPS Satellite signals are buried in the noise!
Not really
Not a problem!
Oh yes it can be
Correlation!
*****.
Use grey matter for a moment, (hire or buy some if needed):
'They' are looking for a signal that they have no clue what frequency,
science is not 100% sure about even the supposed propagation speed,
AND IT IS NOT PERIODIC, IT ARE ONE TIME EVENTS,
'Correlation' is the direct enemy of bandwidth, in a way.
Like Seti, you can look at noise for ever, end even detect wonderful
things
(nature of infinite random is that anything will happen),
but it will have no value.
And if you correlated anyways, you likely did mean auto-correlation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocorrelation
and if not try reading this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation
'correlation' proves NOTHING.
More to the point:
http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jos/sasp/Processing_Gain.html
Coherent integration increases SNR, helps you pull
signals out that are buried in noise.
Yes, and it says this:
<quote>
Each halving of the low-pass cut-off frequency adds another 3 dB to the
SNR. Since the signal is a dc component (zero bandwidth), this process can
be repeated indefinitely to achieve any desired SNR.
WRONG. google "Allen Variance" SNR is limited.
The narrower the
lowpass filter, the higher the SNR. Similarly, for sinusoids, the narrower
the bandpass filter centered on the sinusoid's frequency, the higher the
SNR.
<end quote>
Now here are 2 problems with gravity waves:
1) they are not DC,
2) the exact frequency is an unknown (depends on the event)
Now I hope that it is clear to even so called mathematician Wormley that
the wider
the bandwidth (the bigger the range over which you look for 'events') the
worse
the SNR will be.
In fact they really do not even know the frequency of those signals, they
cannot.
So they are looking for some idea of some brain fart, and if bandwidth is
made big enough, one day they will see someting that is actually noise but
looks a lot like what they want to see, and then let's hope not just some
flash happened at the same time.
That is, to prevent that horrible error, why LIGO should be nuked.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jan Panteltje" |
|
| Title: Re: Update on LIGO. |
17 Jan 2008 05:16:10 PM |
|
|
On a sunny day (Thu, 17 Jan 2008 17:06:39 -0600) it happened "local host"
<Dorkus@spamless.com> wrote in <fmon13$oom$1@registered.motzarella.org>:
http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jos/sasp/Processing_Gain.html
Coherent integration increases SNR, helps you pull
signals out that are buried in noise.
Yes, and it says this:
<quote>
Each halving of the low-pass cut-off frequency adds another 3 dB to the
SNR. Since the signal is a dc component (zero bandwidth), this process can
be repeated indefinitely to achieve any desired SNR.
WRONG. google "Allen Variance" SNR is limited.
Yep. sample accuracy, and a whole lot of other stuff Wormley does not
know, because he _never_ designed a receiver, a sampling system, or any electronics
recently for that matter, all limit SNR quality.
Only a total know-nothing can claim to get any signal from noise.
Hey, I may seem pretty arrogant claiming LIGO is crap, crap science, bad physics,
and generally crap, not to forget crap, but really, I have predicted their null
now as long as I have been posting to this group.
While the Wormley has provided nothing but links with no hands on experience
and no real understanding.
He's a parrot.
Like all Einstein-reciters.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Update on LIGO. |
17 Jan 2008 04:23:45 PM |
|
|
"Jan Panteltje" <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fmobdq$rvp$1@aioe.org...
| On a sunny day (Thu, 17 Jan 2008 11:33:53 -0800 (PST)) it happened Randy
Poe
| <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in
| <c2ffc0cf-4bd3-4c7b-917e-082078b1feb2@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com>:
|
| >On Jan 17, 2:10 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| >> On a sunny day (Thu, 17 Jan 2008 18:50:24 GMT) it happened Sam Wormley
| >> <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote in <QrNjj.304076$Fc.5875@attbi_s21>:
| >>
| >> > GPS Satellite signals are buried in the noise!
| >>
| >> Not really
| >>
| >> > Not a problem!
| >>
| >> Oh yes it can be
| >>
| >> > Correlation!
| >>
| >> *****.
| >>
| >> Use grey matter for a moment, (hire or buy some if needed):
| >> 'They' are looking for a signal that they have no clue what frequency,
| >> science is not 100% sure about even the supposed propagation speed,
| >> AND IT IS NOT PERIODIC, IT ARE ONE TIME EVENTS,
| >>
| >> 'Correlation' is the direct enemy of bandwidth, in a way.
| >>
| >> Like Seti, you can look at noise for ever, end even detect wonderful
things
| >> (nature of infinite random is that anything will happen),
| >> but it will have no value.
| >> And if you correlated anyways, you likely did mean auto-correlation:
| >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocorrelation
| >>
| >> and if not try reading this:
| >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation
| >>
| >> 'correlation' proves NOTHING.
| >
| >More to the point:
| >
| >http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jos/sasp/Processing_Gain.html
| >
| >Coherent integration increases SNR, helps you pull
| >signals out that are buried in noise.
|
| Yes, and it says this:
| <quote>
| Each halving of the low-pass cut-off frequency adds another 3 dB to the
| SNR. Since the signal is a dc component (zero bandwidth), this process can
| be repeated indefinitely to achieve any desired SNR. The narrower the
| lowpass filter, the higher the SNR. Similarly, for sinusoids, the narrower
| the bandpass filter centered on the sinusoid's frequency, the higher the
| SNR.
| <end quote>
|
| Now here are 2 problems with gravity waves:
| 1) they are not DC,
| 2) the exact frequency is an unknown (depends on the event)
| Now I hope that it is clear to even so called mathematician Wormley that
the wider
| the bandwidth (the bigger the range over which you look for 'events') the
worse
| the SNR will be.
|
| In fact they really do not even know the frequency of those signals, they
cannot.
| So they are looking for some idea of some brain fart, and if bandwidth is
| made big enough, one day they will see someting that is actually noise but
| looks a lot like what they want to see, and then let's hope not just some
| flash happened at the same time.
| That is, to prevent that horrible error, why LIGO should be nuked.
A real gravity wave:
http://tinyurl.com/2a47bh
Plenty of signal, some noise expected from local conditions
(predominantly wind).
The same, phase shifted:
http://tinyurl.com/ytzw6t
.
|
|
|
| User: "local host" |
|
| Title: Re: Update on LIGO. |
17 Jan 2008 05:08:20 PM |
|
|
"Androcles" <Engineer@hogwarts.physics_d> wrote in message
news:RzQjj.216432$S37.209695@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"Jan Panteltje" <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fmobdq$rvp$1@aioe.org...
| On a sunny day (Thu, 17 Jan 2008 11:33:53 -0800 (PST)) it happened Randy
Poe
| <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in
| <c2ffc0cf-4bd3-4c7b-917e-082078b1feb2@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com>:
|
| >On Jan 17, 2:10 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| >> On a sunny day (Thu, 17 Jan 2008 18:50:24 GMT) it happened Sam
Wormley
| >> <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote in <QrNjj.304076$Fc.5875@attbi_s21>:
| >>
| >> > GPS Satellite signals are buried in the noise!
| >>
| >> Not really
| >>
| >> > Not a problem!
| >>
| >> Oh yes it can be
| >>
| >> > Correlation!
| >>
| >> *****.
| >>
| >> Use grey matter for a moment, (hire or buy some if needed):
| >> 'They' are looking for a signal that they have no clue what
frequency,
| >> science is not 100% sure about even the supposed propagation speed,
| >> AND IT IS NOT PERIODIC, IT ARE ONE TIME EVENTS,
| >>
| >> 'Correlation' is the direct enemy of bandwidth, in a way.
| >>
| >> Like Seti, you can look at noise for ever, end even detect wonderful
things
| >> (nature of infinite random is that anything will happen),
| >> but it will have no value.
| >> And if you correlated anyways, you likely did mean auto-correlation:
| >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocorrelation
| >>
| >> and if not try reading this:
| >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation
| >>
| >> 'correlation' proves NOTHING.
| >
| >More to the point:
| >
| >http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jos/sasp/Processing_Gain.html
| >
| >Coherent integration increases SNR, helps you pull
| >signals out that are buried in noise.
|
| Yes, and it says this:
| <quote>
| Each halving of the low-pass cut-off frequency adds another 3 dB to the
| SNR. Since the signal is a dc component (zero bandwidth), this process
can
| be repeated indefinitely to achieve any desired SNR. The narrower the
| lowpass filter, the higher the SNR. Similarly, for sinusoids, the
narrower
| the bandpass filter centered on the sinusoid's frequency, the higher the
| SNR.
| <end quote>
|
| Now here are 2 problems with gravity waves:
| 1) they are not DC,
| 2) the exact frequency is an unknown (depends on the event)
| Now I hope that it is clear to even so called mathematician Wormley that
the wider
| the bandwidth (the bigger the range over which you look for 'events')
the
worse
| the SNR will be.
|
| In fact they really do not even know the frequency of those signals,
they
cannot.
| So they are looking for some idea of some brain fart, and if bandwidth
is
| made big enough, one day they will see someting that is actually noise
but
| looks a lot like what they want to see, and then let's hope not just
some
| flash happened at the same time.
| That is, to prevent that horrible error, why LIGO should be nuked.
A real gravity wave:
http://tinyurl.com/2a47bh
Plenty of signal, some noise expected from local conditions
(predominantly wind).
The same, phase shifted:
http://tinyurl.com/ytzw6t
These waves out weigh gravity waves and will swamp LIGO
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Update on LIGO. |
17 Jan 2008 11:11:38 PM |
|
|
On Jan 17, 2:08 pm, "local host" <Dor...@spamless.com> wrote:
"Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics_d> wrote in message
news:RzQjj.216432$S37.209695@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"Jan Panteltje" <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fmobdq$rvp$1@aioe.org...
| On a sunny day (Thu, 17 Jan 2008 11:33:53 -0800 (PST)) it happened Randy
Poe
| <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in
| <c2ffc0cf-4bd3-4c7b-917e-082078b1f...@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com>:
|
| >On Jan 17, 2:10 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| >> On a sunny day (Thu, 17 Jan 2008 18:50:24 GMT) it happened Sam
Wormley
| >> <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote in <QrNjj.304076$Fc.5875@attbi_s21>:
| >>
| >> > GPS Satellite signals are buried in the noise!
| >>
| >> Not really
| >>
| >> > Not a problem!
| >>
| >> Oh yes it can be
| >>
| >> > Correlation!
| >>
| >> *****.
| >>
| >> Use grey matter for a moment, (hire or buy some if needed):
| >> 'They' are looking for a signal that they have no clue what
frequency,
| >> science is not 100% sure about even the supposed propagation speed,
| >> AND IT IS NOT PERIODIC, IT ARE ONE TIME EVENTS,
| >>
| >> 'Correlation' is the direct enemy of bandwidth, in a way.
| >>
| >> Like Seti, you can look at noise for ever, end even detect wonderful
things
| >> (nature of infinite random is that anything will happen),
| >> but it will have no value.
| >> And if you correlated anyways, you likely did mean auto-correlation:
| >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocorrelation
| >>
| >> and if not try reading this:
| >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation
| >>
| >> 'correlation' proves NOTHING.
| >
| >More to the point:
| >
| >http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jos/sasp/Processing_Gain.html
| >
| >Coherent integration increases SNR, helps you pull
| >signals out that are buried in noise.
|
| Yes, and it says this:
| <quote>
| Each halving of the low-pass cut-off frequency adds another 3 dB to the
| SNR. Since the signal is a dc component (zero bandwidth), this process
can
| be repeated indefinitely to achieve any desired SNR. The narrower the
| lowpass filter, the higher the SNR. Similarly, for sinusoids, the
narrower
| the bandpass filter centered on the sinusoid's frequency, the higher the
| SNR.
| <end quote>
|
| Now here are 2 problems with gravity waves:
| 1) they are not DC,
| 2) the exact frequency is an unknown (depends on the event)
| Now I hope that it is clear to even so called mathematician Wormley that
the wider
| the bandwidth (the bigger the range over which you look for 'events')
the
worse
| the SNR will be.
|
| In fact they really do not even know the frequency of those signals,
they
cannot.
| So they are looking for some idea of some brain fart, and if bandwidth
is
| made big enough, one day they will see someting that is actually noise
but
| looks a lot like what they want to see, and then let's hope not just
some
| flash happened at the same time.
| That is, to prevent that horrible error, why LIGO should be nuked.
A real gravity wave:
http://tinyurl.com/2a47bh
Plenty of signal, some noise expected from local conditions
(predominantly wind).
The same, phase shifted:
http://tinyurl.com/ytzw6t
These waves out weigh gravity waves and will swamp LIGO
Do you even know what a gravitational wave is?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Cain" |
|
| Title: Re: Update on LIGO. |
17 Jan 2008 09:16:17 PM |
|
|
Randy Poe wrote:
On Jan 17, 2:10 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On a sunny day (Thu, 17 Jan 2008 18:50:24 GMT) it happened Sam Wormley
<sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote in <QrNjj.304076$Fc.5875@attbi_s21>:
GPS Satellite signals are buried in the noise!
Not really
Not a problem!
Oh yes it can be
Correlation!
*****.
Use grey matter for a moment, (hire or buy some if needed):
'They' are looking for a signal that they have no clue what frequency,
science is not 100% sure about even the supposed propagation speed,
AND IT IS NOT PERIODIC, IT ARE ONE TIME EVENTS,
'Correlation' is the direct enemy of bandwidth, in a way.
Like Seti, you can look at noise for ever, end even detect wonderful things
(nature of infinite random is that anything will happen),
but it will have no value.
And if you correlated anyways, you likely did mean auto-correlation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocorrelation
and if not try reading this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation
'correlation' proves NOTHING.
More to the point:
http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jos/sasp/Processing_Gain.html
Coherent integration increases SNR, helps you pull
signals out that are buried in noise.
- Randy
Randy, I think this only applies to periodic processes and not to one-off events.
Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."
A. Einstein
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jan Panteltje" |
|
| Title: Re: Update on LIGO. |
17 Jan 2008 12:37:42 PM |
|
|
On a sunny day (Thu, 17 Jan 2008 12:06:18 -0600) it happened "James"
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
<478f9909$0$47146$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net>:
Yes. Which is the whole fucking point.
they havent got below the noise level yet.
Ridiculous, they knew that, when it was first proposed.
Either that, or they had the math wrong.
The math was Einsteins folly of course.
Only a complete nut case would build a million dollar machine
that he first mathematically proved could not work because of
lack of sensitivity..
So however you slice it, it is a failure.
And now they blabber about other dimensions eating up the graffity waves.
Life long job security.
It should be nuked.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Update on LIGO. |
17 Jan 2008 01:28:47 PM |
|
|
On Jan 17, 9:37 am, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On a sunny day (Thu, 17 Jan 2008 12:06:18 -0600) it happened "James"
<nos...@nospam.com> wrote in
<478f9909$0$47146$892e7...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net>:
Yes. Which is the whole fucking point.
they havent got below the noise level yet.
Ridiculous, they knew that, when it was first proposed.
Either that, or they had the math wrong.
The math was Einsteins folly of course.
Only a complete nut case would build a million dollar machine
that he first mathematically proved could not work because of
lack of sensitivity..
You know not of which you speak.
So, stop.
So however you slice it, it is a failure.
And now they blabber about other dimensions eating up the graffity waves.
Life long job security.
It should be nuked.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Cain" |
|
| Title: Re: Update on LIGO. |
17 Jan 2008 09:13:19 PM |
|
|
Eric Gisse wrote:
On Jan 17, 2:17 am, cliff wright <c.c.wri...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
I guess its about time again for my regular question re experimental
results from the LIGO observatories. I just checked some of their sites
and papers and unless I missed it they STILL after several years do not
have a single definite detection of a "Gravitational Wave". This is
despite the observation of a very powerful, cosmologically close GRB
,which, so Physcists have told me, should be a powerful source of
Gravitational radiation.
...assuming the GRB was produced by a certain process. The non-
observation of the expected gravitational waves ruled out the process.
What's so hard about that?
Eric, wouldn't any event that radiated that much energy be required to send mass
equivalent energy off in all directions so as to result in a local mass
reduction and rearrangement that would generate a gravity wave? Why does it
matter how that radiation was generated as long as it occurred quickly enough
and with sufficient intensity? It seems, naively I would bet, that the
magnitude of the wave would be fully parameterized by those two variables.
Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."
A. Einstein
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Update on LIGO. |
17 Jan 2008 11:09:07 PM |
|
|
On Jan 17, 6:13 pm, Bob Cain <arc...@arcanemethods.com> wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
On Jan 17, 2:17 am, cliff wright <c.c.wri...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
I guess its about time again for my regular question re experimental
results from the LIGO observatories. I just checked some of their sites
and papers and unless I missed it they STILL after several years do not
have a single definite detection of a "Gravitational Wave". This is
despite the observation of a very powerful, cosmologically close GRB
,which, so Physcists have told me, should be a powerful source of
Gravitational radiation.
...assuming the GRB was produced by a certain process. The non-
observation of the expected gravitational waves ruled out the process.
What's so hard about that?
Eric, wouldn't any event that radiated that much energy be required to send mass
equivalent energy off in all directions so as to result in a local mass
reduction and rearrangement that would generate a gravity wave? Why does it
matter how that radiation was generated as long as it occurred quickly enough
and with sufficient intensity? It seems, naively I would bet, that the
magnitude of the wave would be fully parameterized by those two variables.
Do you expect that a neutron star merger has the exact same
characteristics as say perhaps a supernova?
Gravitational waves are created by a changing gravitational quadrupole
moment - different configurations behave differently.
Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."
A. Einstein
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Cain" |
|
| Title: Re: Update on LIGO. |
18 Jan 2008 10:33:31 PM |
|
|
Eric Gisse wrote:
Do you expect that a neutron star merger has the exact same
characteristics as say perhaps a supernova?
Gravitational waves are created by a changing gravitational quadrupole
moment - different configurations behave differently.
I did say that my simple picture was probably naive. :-)
Can you give any examples of configurations that would be similarly energetic
and quick but that differ significantly in gravity radiation?
Thanks,
Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."
A. Einstein
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Update on LIGO. |
18 Jan 2008 11:16:18 PM |
|
|
On Jan 18, 7:33 pm, Bob Cain <arc...@arcanemethods.com> wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
Do you expect that a neutron star merger has the exact same
characteristics as say perhaps a supernova?
Gravitational waves are created by a changing gravitational quadrupole
moment - different configurations behave differently.
I did say that my simple picture was probably naive. :-)
Can you give any examples of configurations that would be similarly energetic
and quick but that differ significantly in gravity radiation?
Not really.
Every scenario I'm aware of is energetically very different barring
the black hole merger.
My favorite scenario, the ol' black hole bomb [nee superradiant
instability, http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0404096] would shine in the
EM spectrum but I don't expect a large graviational wave signature
because the system is pretty much axially symmetric.
Other scenarios based off of supernovae should retain spherical
symmetry and not have much in terms of gravitational radiation.
I'm willing to bet that the exclusion of a neutron star merger also
ruled out a black hole merger. Then again, I don't know what part of
the expected spectrum is within LIGO's sight.
Thanks,
Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."
A. Einstein
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Cain" |
|
| Title: Re: Update on LIGO. |
19 Jan 2008 02:46:23 AM |
|
|
Eric Gisse wrote:
My favorite scenario, the ol' black hole bomb [nee superradiant
instability, http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0404096] would shine in the
EM spectrum but I don't expect a large graviational wave signature
because the system is pretty much axially symmetric.
Very cool but what on earth (so to speak) is a black hole instability? Seems a
contradiction in terms, but again I'm sure that's naive. :-)
What can happen to a black hole that becomes unstable? Bomb implies explosion
but that's out of the question for a black hole.
Other scenarios based off of supernovae should retain spherical
symmetry and not have much in terms of gravitational radiation.
No quadrupole moment in a spherically symmetric event, eh?
Thanks,
Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."
A. Einstein
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Update on LIGO. |
19 Jan 2008 03:01:24 AM |
|
|
On Jan 18, 11:46 pm, Bob Cain <arc...@arcanemethods.com> wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
My favorite scenario, the ol' black hole bomb [nee superradiant
instability,http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0404096] would shine in the
EM spectrum but I don't expect a large graviational wave signature
because the system is pretty much axially symmetric.
Very cool but what on earth (so to speak) is a black hole instability? Seems a
contradiction in terms, but again I'm sure that's naive. :-)
I highly suggest reading the papers that I have found, it is a /very/
interesting scenario.
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0404096
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/284/5411/115
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/312456
I originally found out about this by researching a reference in MTW
that obliquely referenced a paper by saying under a suitable
configuration of matter, an exponentially growing energy release from
a Kerr black hole could be obtained. I immediately thought "gamma ray
burst" - I was happy to find out that someone thought the same thing
and worked on it. To my knowledge it is still a viable theory though
the 3rd paper I cited casts a shadow on it...
Remember the classical potential energy diagram for the 1/r^2 central
force that had an effective boundary as r--->0 that would cause
anything approaching to reflect? The same thing exists for null paths
[the paths photons take] in the Kerr geometry. That the barrier is
finite isn't relevant in this case.
Basically what is required is that light bounces off the inner
potential barrier and a reflective plasma barrier outside the black
hole. What happens is that the light extracts energy from the Kerr
hole and starts gaining energy until the plasma barrier is shattered,
precipitating a large explosion. The black hole doesn't explode, but
the plasma torus does.
What can happen to a black hole that becomes unstable? Bomb implies explosion
but that's out of the question for a black hole.
Other scenarios based off of supernovae should retain spherical
symmetry and not have much in terms of gravitational radiation.
No quadrupole moment in a spherically symmetric event, eh?
In a /truly/ spherically symmetric event, no. Supernovae aren't
perfectly symmetric though [eg, some have cores kicked out at
significant speed] but I don't expect [but I'm not /sure/] that the
signature would be strong enough for us to detect.
Thanks,
Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."
A. Einstein
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
