0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
What exactly is their logic?
Quote from: mad aetherist on 07/11/2018 06:00:03What exactly is their logic?It worked.
So, we have the word of a man who thinks he has better data from detectors where a signal may give a response that is positive, negative or zero (and which weren't designed for this job). Do you see why I might not be convinced?
And thus we have another accusation that all of those people who designed, built and run LIGO (and implicitly VIRGO as well) are imbeciles who don't know what they are doing.
Quote from: mad aetherist on 05/11/2018 22:24:23The fact that they had to look for experts re laser stability sort of supports my assertion. No.Quote from: mad aetherist on 05/11/2018 22:24:23Lasers need to keep a constant orientation to the aetherwind. Stop begging the question. We have things like LIGO. They are so sensitive they can pick up just the signals they were expected to from gravity waves. They work. And if your nonsense about variations in ether wind were anything like true then those signals would be washed out, and LIGO wouldn't work. Since it does, we know that, at best, the ether wind variations must be tiny; less than about 1 in 10^18.
The fact that they had to look for experts re laser stability sort of supports my assertion.
Lasers need to keep a constant orientation to the aetherwind.
I dont believe in quadrupole GWs -- & that GWs might travel at c -- & that GWs if existing can affect the length of legs but not affect the speed of light in thems legs (ie i reckon that LIGO is blind to GWs). And Alby if he were still alive would agree with me. Re the scientists at LIGO & VIRGO its hard to know what category they are in -- for starters all Einsteinians have a loose screw. There is a possibility that they have been tricked by some other sort of event. I will study up on LIGO today, i have forgotten most of this stuff.
If u read his wordage u will see that thems detectors are sensitive to orientation -- he duznt know their orientations -- hencely he divided their 47 responses into plus minus & neutral -- the neutral can be ignored.
Quote from: mad aetherist on 07/11/2018 21:20:58I dont believe in quadrupole GWs -- & that GWs might travel at c -- & that GWs if existing can affect the length of legs but not affect the speed of light in thems legs (ie i reckon that LIGO is blind to GWs). And Alby if he were still alive would agree with me. Re the scientists at LIGO & VIRGO its hard to know what category they are in -- for starters all Einsteinians have a loose screw. There is a possibility that they have been tricked by some other sort of event. I will study up on LIGO today, i have forgotten most of this stuff.So what I said is true. You think the people who ran the experiments are imbeciles and that you understand the physics of gravitational waves better than they do.
Light has nothing to do with space
someone who is an expert on something that doesnt exist
Quote from: mad aetherist on 07/11/2018 21:07:48If u read his wordage u will see that thems detectors are sensitive to orientation -- he duznt know their orientations -- hencely he divided their 47 responses into plus minus & neutral -- the neutral can be ignored.Do you realise I could do the same thing with, for example, the price movements of the FTSE 100 shares? And, of course, I could get it to fit any data I liked. Say I wanted to "prove" that the share price variations "detected" my birthday.I could get hold of the share price changes that day, find the ones that went up and label them as positive (the detectors were "facing up"). And I could get all the prices that fell that day and label them as "facing down" (and the ones that didn't change much could be labeled as "neutral- just for completeness)Then, if I plotted a graph of the sum of the prices for each share multiplied by 1 if it was "positive", and by -1 if it was "negative" then there would be a big spike on my birthday. But all I would have proved is that I can lie with statistics.Now, here's the important thing. You are not clever enough to have worked that out. Why do you think you are clever enough to "outthink" all the scientists involved in LIGO?
Quote from: mad aetherist on 07/11/2018 22:05:55Light has nothing to do with space The speed of light is calculable from independently measurable properties of space- specifically the permeability and the permittivity. Wouldn't it be better if you stopped saying stuff that's plainly wrong?
Quote from: mad aetherist on 07/11/2018 22:05:55someone who is an expert on something that doesnt existDo you really not understand that begging the question is a logical fallacy?
Its hard to know what to think about intelligence etc. And its hard to know what to think about someone who is an expert on something that doesnt exist (eg the physics of GWs).
Except that praps the silliest thing is that Einsteinians say that gravity itself has infinite speed, it is instantaneous.
Quote from: mad aetherist on 07/11/2018 22:05:55Its hard to know what to think about intelligence etc. And its hard to know what to think about someone who is an expert on something that doesnt exist (eg the physics of GWs).What I'm saying is that you must be sufficiently well-educated on how gravitational waves are theorized to work in order to know better than the LIGO experimenters themselves what a genuine gravitational wave signature would look like if one was in fact detected. This in turn means that you must have gone through the LIGO data in detail yourself and made the determination based on the properties of gravitational waves based on existing theory that the signal did not in fact look like a gravitational wave signature was supposed to look. Surely you must have actually done all of this, otherwise you yourself would know that you are just blowing hot air.QuoteExcept that praps the silliest thing is that Einsteinians say that gravity itself has infinite speed, it is instantaneous.This statement right here proves that you don't know as much as you think you know.
The detection of a chirp is a worry for me. It more or less eliminates the soft answer that LIGO were hoodwinked by a non-GW event of some sort. It leads to the hard alternatives that LIGO are correct -- or they lied.
i mean that modernday Einsteinians say that.
Quote from: mad aetherist on 07/11/2018 23:36:00The detection of a chirp is a worry for me. It more or less eliminates the soft answer that LIGO were hoodwinked by a non-GW event of some sort. It leads to the hard alternatives that LIGO are correct -- or they lied.And everybody knows that there was some big secret meeting between the American scientists at LIGO and the Italian scientists at VIRGO to fabricate the data. They sat down, drew up graphs on a computer, debated when the best dates would be to initiate their hoaxes (because they did it multiple times). Oh, and they also got the operators of several spacecraft and ground-based observatories (The Fermi Gamma Ray Space Telescope, INTEGRAL, VISTA, DECam, Las Cumbras Observatory and others) in on the conspiracy so that they could claim that there was a (non-existent) observation of a gamma ray burst linked to one of those GW detections. Right...Quote from: mad aetherist on 07/11/2018 23:36:00i mean that modernday Einsteinians say that.If by "Einsteinians" you mean "physicists who study relativity" then you have still demonstrated that you don't know what you are talking about. If you are only talking about lay-people with a passive interest in relativity, then it's more understandable that they would make that mistake.