ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 12th February 2016, 01:27 AM   #81
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,376
Originally Posted by rjh01 View Post
We need detectors that are 1000km long. That way the detector would be a lot more sensitive. This distance is half a wavelength. Could they be built? Do we have tunnels that long? Remember we need two of them at right angles........
In space.

Setting something up in space means not having to build tunnels (it's already a vacuum). It should just mean parking satellites set distances apart, and that could, in theory, be millions of kilometres apart eventually.
__________________
"The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place." The Don That's what we've sunk to here.
MikeG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2016, 01:42 AM   #82
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 57,930
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
Ask yourself this question: would James Randi accept a 'move' of my spoon of less then 1/1000th of the size of a proton to accept the existence of telekinesis? I don't think so. Where is James Randi when we need him?
A simple unnoticeable puff of air would move a normal spoon more than that but you would not notice it had happened and you would have to pay for the rental/cost of the device that would be able to measure it. And, no, that would not be enough evidence for telekinesis. I will leave the student to explain why.................

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

Seriously go to university and learn from your betters or give up trying to play with the big boys.........
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2016, 01:43 AM   #83
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 57,930
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
That's all? Just that? That's enough 'signal' to interprete this as 'huge evidence' and 'a ripple in spacetime'?
Yep and just because (as above) it is the movement and force Einstein predicted. See above post .
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2016, 01:46 AM   #84
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 57,930
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
How do you know that for sure? Maybe there are other, unexplained phenomena outhere wich are no gravitational waves. How do you know for sure that it is not something else yet unknown? It is just an interpretation (confirmation bias) to interprete this 'signal' as evidence for your theory, because you are so focused on it, to find it. Maybe it is something we don't know yet. Why jumping to conclusions that 'it can only be a gravitational wave'.
The claim of the existence of gravitational waves is an extra-ordinary claim. You need exta-ordinary evidence.
You need a lot more then one 'move' of one thousandth the width of a proton to convince the public.
Have you even read the details of how the finding was done and why the measurement was expected to be what it was????????? Do you understand the word RESEARCH????????
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2016, 01:49 AM   #85
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 57,930
Originally Posted by Cl1mh4224rd View Post
Perhaps. But this observation matches predictions of gravitational waves so well that there's currently no reason to suspect "something else".




Dark matter doesn't work like that.




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

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

It's had over 5 years to happen (since Nov. 2010) so I predict that particle won't fly!!!
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2016, 02:05 AM   #86
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 28,165
Originally Posted by fuelair View Post
BUT no functional human believes in anything so silly as telekinesis. Gravity waves, on the other hand, were predicted logically by the math and it's applications . The prediction and strength of same have now been proved correct.
And, let's be fair, if someone claiming telekinetic powers were able to produce, on demand, an effect - even of this magnitude - at two separate locations, with this good agreement between the two traces and this good agreement between what he expected to produce and what was actually produced, then that would be a pretty convincing proof of telekinesis.

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

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2016, 03:07 AM   #87
Wudang
BOFH
 
Wudang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: People's Republic of South Yorkshire
Posts: 11,382
I loved this quote
Quote:
“We’re saying that we made a measurement that is about a thousandth the diameter of a proton, that tells us about two black holes that merged over a billion years ago,” Reitze said. “That is a pretty extraordinary claim and it needs extraordinary evidence.”
I remember one of my physics lecturers at Glasgow Uni in 1978 talking about the gravity wave team "compared to them I'm like a *********** butcher with his thumb on the scales"
Wudang is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2016, 03:32 AM   #88
Slings and Arrows
Graduate Poster
 
Slings and Arrows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 1,743
Reaction to the recent news:

Originally Posted by Stephen J. Crothers (February 12, 2016)

The latest report on LIGOís Ďdiscoveryí of Einstein gravitational waves is no more connected to reality than the fictitious black hole.

Those who believe in ghosts and goblins see them lurking in the shadows and assign their action to what they donít understand. Cosmologists likewise see their beliefs lurking in their shadows and assign the action of their beliefs to what they donít understand.

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

https://drmyronevans.wordpress.com/2...teve-crothers/
Slings and Arrows is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2016, 04:17 AM   #89
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,016
The force is strong in young Stephen ... the force of denial ...
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2016, 04:23 AM   #90
Maartenn100
Illuminator
 
Maartenn100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,082
Originally Posted by Slings and Arrows View Post
Reaction to the recent news:
Finally some scepticism.
__________________
spacetime exists 'outthere'. It's all events together.
We, minds, experience moment by moment the unfolding of events. But that's not how the phenomena exist outthere. In spacetime all events already exist simultaniously in past, present and future.(Einstein) Only the interaction with a mind, establishes the experience of the unfolding of these events, moment by moment.
Maartenn100 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2016, 04:30 AM   #91
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,376
Maarten, can you come up with anything at all that would explain receiving identical signals at two different locations 3000 km apart, separated by 7 milliseconds?
__________________
"The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place." The Don That's what we've sunk to here.
MikeG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2016, 04:39 AM   #92
Maartenn100
Illuminator
 
Maartenn100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,082
You see, this is a fallacy of some critical thinkers on this forum: "when you can't give a better theory to explain the observed phenomena, we will keep our bad science."

No, it's possible to say: we don't have a good theory at all at the moment. We don't know what these signals mean. We don't know. Period. No alternative explanation for these signals is necessary to reject the current theories.
__________________
spacetime exists 'outthere'. It's all events together.
We, minds, experience moment by moment the unfolding of events. But that's not how the phenomena exist outthere. In spacetime all events already exist simultaniously in past, present and future.(Einstein) Only the interaction with a mind, establishes the experience of the unfolding of these events, moment by moment.

Last edited by Maartenn100; 12th February 2016 at 04:40 AM.
Maartenn100 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2016, 04:45 AM   #93
Tolls
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,327
Crother's really doesn't understand how this works.

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

GR made a prediction, LIGO tested it.
Tolls is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2016, 04:51 AM   #94
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,016
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
You see, this is a fallacy of some critical thinkers on this forum: "when you can't give a better theory to explain the observed phenomena, we will keep our bad science current explanation/theory/etc."
A critical thinker would be critical of "bad science", but would not dump something that has been shown - repeatedly, etc - to work.

Quote:
No, it's possible to say: we don't have a good theory at all at the moment.
Sure. It's also possible to say: we have an extraordinarily good theory at the moment.

How do you decide?
Quote:
We I don't know what these signals mean. We I don't know. Period.
FTFY

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

Please stop pretending that you do.

Quote:
No alternative explanation for these signals is necessary to reject the current theories.
You want to 'reject' GR?!?!?!?!?

Cool!

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

Last edited by JeanTate; 12th February 2016 at 05:37 AM. Reason: typos
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2016, 04:56 AM   #95
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,376
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
You see, this is a fallacy of some critical thinkers on this forum: "when you can't give a better theory to explain the observed phenomena, we will keep our bad science."
That isn't what I said. I asked out of interest if you had an alternative explanation.

Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
........We don't know what these signals mean. We don't know. Period. No alternative explanation for these signals is necessary to reject the current theories.
Have you read the paper, Maarten?

No, I thought not. Then how can you so quickly dismiss it as "bad science"?
__________________
"The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place." The Don That's what we've sunk to here.
MikeG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2016, 05:00 AM   #96
Maartenn100
Illuminator
 
Maartenn100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,082
Originally Posted by "JeanTate
You want to 'reject' GR?!?!?!?!?
GR cannot explain the observed motions of galaxies or the way the universe seems to expand. If Einstein’s model of gravity is correct, around 96 percent of the cosmos is missing. To make up the difference, cosmologists have posited two mysterious, invisible, and as yet unidentified ingredients: dark matter and dark energy. Fudgefactors in order to keep your falsified theory of gravity. A theory of gravity, falsified by the evidence. Falsified by the motion of stars and galaxies.
__________________
spacetime exists 'outthere'. It's all events together.
We, minds, experience moment by moment the unfolding of events. But that's not how the phenomena exist outthere. In spacetime all events already exist simultaniously in past, present and future.(Einstein) Only the interaction with a mind, establishes the experience of the unfolding of these events, moment by moment.

Last edited by Maartenn100; 12th February 2016 at 05:05 AM.
Maartenn100 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2016, 05:09 AM   #97
surreptitious57
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 403
Myron Evans might have a first class honours degree in science but if he seriously thinks that the Big Bang and black holes are mathematical
nonsense and general relativity is dogma his opinion on matters scientific especially pertaining to physics should not be given much credence
__________________
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious57 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2016, 05:18 AM   #98
thedopefishlives
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,696
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
GR cannot explain the observed motions of galaxies or the way the universe seems to expand. If Einsteinís model of gravity is correct, around 96 percent of the cosmos is missing. To make up the difference, cosmologists have posited two mysterious, invisible, and as yet unidentified ingredients: dark matter and dark energy. Fudgefactors in order to keep your falsified theory of gravity. A theory of gravity, falsified by the evidence. Falsified by the motion of stars and galaxies.
Okay, here's your problem: General Relativity explains an awful lot of things. It is the best theory we currently have that fits most of the known phenomena. When a better theory comes along, we can test it against these known phenomena to verify that it is, in fact, a better theory. Rejecting GR just because it doesn't explain some certain things to your satisfaction is moronic; what about all the things it DOES explain? Do you have a better theory that fits all of those observations?

Let's add some icing on this cake: General Relativity, as a theory, resulted in some predictions made by physicists who used Einstein's mathematical framework to calculate certain hypothetical scenarios. One of these predictions is that two massive objects swirling around each other would radiate waves of gravitational energy. Since this is a mathematical calculation, the prediction resulted in an actual calculated waveform. When LIGO detected its event, the detected waveform was compared against the calculated waveform and it matched exactly. Tell me, if GR is bunk, how did the math result in an exact prediction of the event that just occurred?
__________________
Truthers only insist that there must have been some sinister purpose behind [WTC7] because they already think there's a sinister purpose behind everything. -Horatius
thedopefishlives is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2016, 05:33 AM   #99
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,016
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
Originally Posted by JeanTate
You want to 'reject' GR?!?!?!?!?
GR cannot explain the observed motions of galaxies or the way the universe seems to expand.
Um, no. In this you are wrong. At many levels.

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

In this case, clearly you don't.
Quote:
If Einsteinís model of gravity is correct, around 96 percent of the cosmos is missing.

Quote:
To make up the difference, cosmologists have posited two mysterious, invisible, and as yet unidentified ingredients: dark matter and dark energy.
Yet more concrete evidence that you seem to have no idea of what you're talking (writing) about.

Instead of projecting your own imaginations, why not take the time and trouble to read up on the actual history of the development of the concepts of DM and DE?
Quote:
Fudgefactors in order to keep your falsified theory of gravity.
Irrespective of the crazy myths you seem so enamored with, this leap of logic is quite breathtaking!

You might want to seriously consider learning a bit about logic.
Quote:
A theory of gravity, falsified by the evidence. Falsified by the motion of stars and galaxies.
Would you care to cite a primary source for your conclusion/claim "falsified by evidence"? I assume you know what primary sources are, in this field, right?
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2016, 05:36 AM   #100
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,016
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
Originally Posted by JeanTate
You want to 'reject' GR?!?!?!?!?
GR cannot explain the observed motions of galaxies or the way the universe seems to expand. If Einstein’s model of gravity is correct, around 96 percent of the cosmos is missing. To make up the difference, cosmologists have posited two mysterious, invisible, and as yet unidentified ingredients: dark matter and dark energy. Fudgefactors in order to keep your falsified theory of gravity. A theory of gravity, falsified by the evidence. Falsified by the motion of stars and galaxies.
Oh, and here's the whole of the relevant part of my post (sans the smilies), the one you quoted:
- - - - -
You want to 'reject' GR?!?!?!?!?

Cool!

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

So, would you care to answer my question?

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

Last edited by JeanTate; 12th February 2016 at 05:44 AM.
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2016, 05:38 AM   #101
surreptitious57
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 403
Dark energy and dark matter are placeholders for phenomena which are not fully understood. Now while they might be
invisible they are not undetectable. They may be impervious to light but are not to gravity because anything with mass
will have gravitational effect. Dark matter is attractive and dark energy is repulsive. But dark energy accounts for most
of the missing ninety six per cent of the universe which also includes dark matter. And which is why its effect is greater
__________________
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious57 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2016, 05:43 AM   #102
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,016
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
Originally Posted by Slings and Arrows
Reaction to the recent news:
Finally some scepticism.
You use words in a very funny way, Maartenn100 (at least, funny to me).

I had not - to my knowledge - encountered "scepticism" as a synonym for "denial" before; has any other reader (other than by Maartenn100)?
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2016, 05:52 AM   #103
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,538
Originally Posted by Cl1mh4224rd View Post
It increased as the black holes drew closer (and orbited faster), but... 2000 km at it's peak, according to this factsheet, if I'm reading that correctly.
In one second the merging black holes released energy which was equivalent to three solar masses, and emitted this energy at a wavelength of 2000km. That's quite startling. One gets used to reading about bigger and bigger cosmic bangs like gamma ray bursts and so forth, but this one is stupendous even by these standards.

I have two questions, if anyone has the information.

Was most or all of the energy released by this event emitted in the form of gravity waves, or was there a pulse of electro-magnetic radiation associated with the gravity disturbance? If so, what part of the spectrum did it peak in, and how much of the three solar masses of energy would it have accounted for?

In its entire life as a normal star, (ten billion years, not one second!) how much energy will the Sun emit, expressed as a fraction of its mass?
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2016, 05:58 AM   #104
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,016
Originally Posted by surreptitious57 View Post
Why do stars in a binary system not die at the same time? Does one have larger mass than the other or is one older than
the other? Are binary black holes rare because the stars have insufficient mass to become black holes? Or is that one dies
first and becomes a black hole and sucks the other one in when it becomes a black hole that then leaves only just the one
Answers to all these questions can be found in the paper (preprint actually) I cited in my earlier post, Astrophysical Implications of the Binary Black-Hole Merger GW150914, although answers to your first question ("Why do stars in a binary system not die at the same time?") are in the papers cited, rather than the paper itself.

May I ask, did you read arXiv:1602.03846?

Assuming that you did, in fact, read it, would you care to have a go at answering your own questions?
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2016, 06:08 AM   #105
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,016
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
<snip>

Was most or all of the energy released by this event emitted in the form of gravity waves, or was there a pulse of electro-magnetic radiation associated with the gravity disturbance? If so, what part of the spectrum did it peak in, and how much of the three solar masses of energy would it have accounted for?

<snip>
As I read it, the results (~3 sols of mass turned into energy, in a fraction of a second) refer to energy carried by gravitational waves (not gravity waves), and are based on 'numerical relativity' models.

How much EMR is expected to be released in such a BBH inspiral? This was asked at the DC news conference yesterday (and is in the livestream); the answer was, IIRC (my paraphrase), "unknown, but likely very little, cf the GWR, even if there was an accretion disk".

Elsewhere, I asked about what effect intense GWR is expected to have on the immediate environs of an inspiral BBH, but no answer (so far).

Swift looked for a gamma-ray and x-ray signal from GW150914, but found none ("Swift follow-up of the Gravitational Wave source GW150914" - link is to astro-ph preprint)
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2016, 06:44 AM   #106
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,538
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
As I read it, the results (~3 sols of mass turned into energy, in a fraction of a second) refer to energy carried by gravitational waves (not gravity waves), and are based on 'numerical relativity' models.

How much EMR is expected to be released in such a BBH inspiral? This was asked at the DC news conference yesterday (and is in the livestream); the answer was, IIRC (my paraphrase), "unknown, but likely very little, cf the GWR, even if there was an accretion disk".

Elsewhere, I asked about what effect intense GWR is expected to have on the immediate environs of an inspiral BBH, but no answer (so far).

Swift looked for a gamma-ray and x-ray signal from GW150914, but found none ("Swift follow-up of the Gravitational Wave source GW150914" - link is to astro-ph preprint)
Thank you for that informative response.

The "gravity waves" in my post was a simple slip. I know that these are something different.
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2016, 06:46 AM   #107
thedopefishlives
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,696
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
As I read it, the results (~3 sols of mass turned into energy, in a fraction of a second) refer to energy carried by gravitational waves (not gravity waves), and are based on 'numerical relativity' models.

How much EMR is expected to be released in such a BBH inspiral? This was asked at the DC news conference yesterday (and is in the livestream); the answer was, IIRC (my paraphrase), "unknown, but likely very little, cf the GWR, even if there was an accretion disk".

Elsewhere, I asked about what effect intense GWR is expected to have on the immediate environs of an inspiral BBH, but no answer (so far).

Swift looked for a gamma-ray and x-ray signal from GW150914, but found none ("Swift follow-up of the Gravitational Wave source GW150914" - link is to astro-ph preprint)
Part of the problem with trying to detect an EM spectrum signal, as I understand it, is that with only two operational observatories, LIGO was unable to pinpoint the source of the gravitational wave event to a reasonable degree of accuracy; IIRC, it was something like a 140-degree sector of sky in the Southern Celestial Hemisphere. That's a lot of space to search for an EM signal, and not a lot of time to capture it in - and that's assuming that the EM burst wouldn't be directional, like a relativistic jet, which would also have the constraint of needing to be aimed in our general direction to be detectable.
__________________
Truthers only insist that there must have been some sinister purpose behind [WTC7] because they already think there's a sinister purpose behind everything. -Horatius
thedopefishlives is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2016, 07:06 AM   #108
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,538
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
... Elsewhere[/url], I asked about what effect intense GWR is expected to have on the immediate environs of an inspiral BBH, but no answer (so far).
Yes, I was wondering what would have happened if we had been much closer to the event, so that let's say the arms of the LIGO momentarily changed length by a hundred metres. Would that have caused utter disruption of all material structures, including the planet, or would it just have rippled past leaving things as unaffected as is a cork floating on a pond agitated by a breeze?
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2016, 07:11 AM   #109
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,016
The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment, by Clifford Will, is, I suggest, essential reading for all those who wish to 'reject GR' (link is to his 2014 version; there are earlier ones too).

It's also of potential interest for those curious to know just how extensively GR has been tested, in labs here on Earth, in experiments in space, and by (astronomical) observations. It's not an easy read, even if you have a degree in physics, but I think well worth the effort of persevering. One great thing: Will has an enormous number of references, so you can, relatively easily, go read the primary sources.
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2016, 07:19 AM   #110
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,016
Originally Posted by thedopefishlives View Post
Part of the problem with trying to detect an EM spectrum signal, as I understand it, is that with only two operational observatories, LIGO was unable to pinpoint the source of the gravitational wave event to a reasonable degree of accuracy; IIRC, it was something like a 140-degree sector of sky in the Southern Celestial Hemisphere. That's a lot of space to search for an EM signal, and not a lot of time to capture it in - and that's assuming that the EM burst wouldn't be directional, like a relativistic jet, which would also have the constraint of needing to be aimed in our general direction to be detectable.
(my bold)

600 square degrees. And yes, if Advanced Virgo had been 'up' at the time, the likely direction could have been nailed down to ~10 square degrees (90% confidence). With a fourth observatory, perhaps even ~1 square degree (depends on where they're all located, and where, in the sky, the signal comes from).

There's also the issue of 'local' absorption ... if the source were 'behind' a GMC (giant molecular cloud), or just a lot of dust, either in the host galaxy or our own (or the LMC!), it's likely only hard x-rays and gammas (and, maybe, radio) would have been observable.

On top of which, as I understand it, there is nothing to suggest what part(s) of the electromagnetic spectrum any associated EM signal would be strong in ... and if it were EUV, for example, we'd never see it.
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2016, 07:27 AM   #111
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,455
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
Maarten, can you come up with anything at all that would explain receiving identical signals at two different locations 3000 km apart, separated by 7 milliseconds?
not only that but also the very good correspondence with a model signal
__________________
20 minutes into the future
This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages

(Max Headroom)
follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC
tusenfem is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2016, 08:04 AM   #112
Daald
Muse
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Queens, New York
Posts: 577
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
I had not - to my knowledge - encountered "scepticism" as a synonym for "denial" before; has any other reader (other than by Maartenn100)?
You have to check out the conspiracy theory section A lot of conspiracy theorists do this to look like they know what they are talking about to the layman. When they try their BS on people educated on the topic they just end up looking foolish.
Daald is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2016, 08:27 AM   #113
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 57,930
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
And, let's be fair, if someone claiming telekinetic powers were able to produce, on demand, an effect - even of this magnitude - at two separate locations, with this good agreement between the two traces and this good agreement between what he expected to produce and what was actually produced, then that would be a pretty convincing proof of telekinesis.

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

Dave
Maartenn is only 100 not 1000!!!!
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2016, 08:46 AM   #114
Denver
Penultimate Amazing
 
Denver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 10,015
I wonder how long until someone begins selling special material, cleansing drinks, or gadgets to protect one’s health from the harmful effects of gravity waves?
__________________
Dreams inevitably lead to hideous implosions -- Invader Zim
Denver is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2016, 08:52 AM   #115
thedopefishlives
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,696
Originally Posted by Denver View Post
I wonder how long until someone begins selling special material, cleansing drinks, or gadgets to protect oneís health from the harmful effects of gravity waves?
As we've clearly seen, these waves have the power to shift anything in their path by nearly 1/1000 the width of a proton. Therefore, they can have significant negative effects on your mental and physical health. This is why you need to carry my special depleted uranium wallet; it will redirect the nasty movement of gravitational waves to the money contained therein, causing said money to land in my bank account. But it'll keep you safe!
__________________
Truthers only insist that there must have been some sinister purpose behind [WTC7] because they already think there's a sinister purpose behind everything. -Horatius
thedopefishlives is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2016, 08:55 AM   #116
mbarrett
New Blood
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 1
From some locations in space of merging black holes, the angle of arrival of the gravitational wave at the two arms of a detector will be equal. At this angle no differential length change will occur, thus cancellation, and no output signal seen. In these directions in space (which encompass a whole plane) the observatory has zero sensitivity i.e. is blind. I see no discussion of this limiting effect.
mbarrett is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2016, 08:59 AM   #117
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 28,165
Originally Posted by fuelair View Post
Maartenn is only 100 not 1000!!!!
Whoops. Still, we're talking about cosmology, so it's OK to be out by only one order of magnitude.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2016, 09:03 AM   #118
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 84,267
Originally Posted by Denver View Post
I wonder how long until someone begins selling special material, cleansing drinks, or gadgets to protect oneís health from the harmful effects of gravity waves?
Or claim they are GW intolerant!
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2016, 09:28 AM   #119
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
This is damn fascinating. A whole new way to look at the universe! Visible light, Radio Waves, IR... and now Gravity Waves. Amazing. We need to learn how build an observatory that can be pointed like a telescope.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2016, 09:31 AM   #120
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by Slings and Arrows View Post
Reaction to the recent news:
What's this guy's area of expertise?
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:52 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.