[mad aetherist (OP)]

LIGO reckon that a gravity wave (1) can change the length tween mirrors in their two 4 km legs (set at 90 deg) -- & at the same time the gravity wave will (2) change the wavelength of the laser light (used to give an interference fringe) by the same amount -- but (3) that a gravity wave cannot change the speed of the laser light in any leg at any time -- (4) hencely giving a fringeshift (if the change in length in each leg is non-equal).

This looks silly.
Do they think that (5) a GW can change length, ie space, but cannot change time?
Or do they look at it in a different way -- eg do they think (6) that a GW can change length in spacetime but cannot change time in spacetime?

According to (2) the number of light waves in each leg always stays exactly the same (except for unwanted noise) & according to (3) the light speed in each leg stays the same (c), so i dont see how there could be a fringeshift in (4).
(7) I dont see a fringeshift, i see a paradox.
What exactly is their logic?

[Bored chemist]

What exactly is their logic?

It worked.

[mad aetherist (OP)]

What exactly is their logic?

It worked.

It didnt. Reg Cahill said that 47 random event generators around the world detected an event during the 4 sec of LIGOs suppozed GW event.  http://vixra.org/pdf/1603.0232v1.pdf
LIGO Gravitational Wave Event as Observed by Network of Quantum Gravity Detectors
ReginaldT. Cahill – March 2016.
4 Data from Quantum Gravity Detectors
We now reveal the data from the GCP network [9] of Quantum Gravity Detectors, known as Random Event Generators (REG),but with better physics now known as Quantum Gravity Detectors (QGD).The LIGO event occurred at 9:50:45hrs UTC on September 14, 2015. Data from that day was downloaded from [10], which has data every 1 sec recorded against UTC for 47 detectors located in numerous countries.. An issue with these commercial detectors is that the orientation of the diodes is unknown, which means that the effect of the angle dependence  k*v = kv cos() in (3) is unknown. So a detector response may vary from a decreased E, and so decreased signal, or an increased E and an increased signal, or even an unchanged E resulting in no change in signal. For this reason the data from the various detectors is split into three groups, and shown in Figs.5, 6, 7. The data in Figs.5 and 6 show a remarkable coincidence with the LIGO event, subject to the 1 sec nominal timing of the QGD data. However the data in Fig.5, Top, also shows another significant effect, namely in-phase responses of the detectors in the 2 secs before and after the LIGO event. The LIGO reported data [1] does not reveal data during these times. Overall it is not possible to determine the origin of this event other than it could be consistent with a major Earth centred mass movement.
5 Conclusion
Most of physics of the last 100 years has been confused by the design flaw in the Michelson interferometer, but that is now understood, and the light speed anisotropy of +- 500km/s has been repeatedly measured by using numerous techniques, and so invalidating the key assumption of SR and GR, and the supposed existence of spacetime [5]. A dynamical space does exist, and plays a key role in all phenomena. Dynamical space is the cause of gravity, a quantum phenomenon, as confirmed by experiment [8]. The QGD network, fortuitously run by the Global Consciousness Project (GCP), has confirmed the existence of a space flow event, but whose interpretation by LIGO remains doubtful. Note that the events in the 2 sec interval before and after the LIGO event, in Figs.5 and 6, are inconsistent with the black hole merger interpretation. We are now entering an era of new physics.

[Bored chemist]

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?

[Kryptid]

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.

[mad aetherist (OP)]

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?

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.

But it appears that u ignore the fact that detectors that werent designed to detect GWs detected a major isolated event probly not related to GWs at that exact time -- & the inference being that LIGO was also affected, & adopted the event as being a GW event.

And if thems REGs did detect GWs, then  LIGO should turn their 4 km detectors into some sort of Einstein museum & build some arrays of 0.00001 km long zener diode detectors @ say $100 each.

[mad aetherist (OP)]

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.

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.

[mad aetherist (OP)]

[HERE IS SOME LIGO STUFF FROM ANOTHER THREAD FOR INFO]

The fact that they had to look for experts re laser stability sort of supports my assertion.

No.

Lasers 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.

No, LIGO easily clips out most of the noise, they are looking for a chirp tween say 30 Hz to 300 Hz, & this nett signal is about 1/1000th of the noise, so they must clip 99.9% of the total signal.
The change in the aetherwind is a very gradual daily sort of thing -- much less than 1 Hz -- not a problem.
Cahill has identified a turbulence in the aetherwind, which he calls gravitational waves -- the turbulence passing south to north throo Earth at about 500 kmps -- & being the cause of the Shnoll effects. However this aetherwind turbulence happens at more than 1000 Hz, hencely shouldnt be a problem for LIGO.
So, the two kinds of change in aetherwind lay well outside LIGOs target signal.
LIGOs headache is moreso the swing of the aetherwind, the lasers trace out an ellipse, hencely LIGO need large spherical mirrors, & hencely lots & lots of watts -- giving lots of thermal problems -- poor poor LIGO.

[Kryptid]

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.

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

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?

[mad aetherist (OP)]

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.

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.

I agree with Alby that GWs dont exist -- he said so twice -- then later in life he gave up & went along with the science mafia -- even Alby knew on which side his bread was buttered.
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).
 
The silliest part of the whole GW fable is for me the bit where they reckon that GWs travel at c. How in hell do they come up with something like that?  Gravity is supposedly a bending of spacetime. GWs are supposedly a compression of space or time or spacetime. Light has nothing to do with space or time or spacetime. Yet light & GWs both supposedly travel at c.

Crothers (& Engelhardt) show that [edit: clock synchronisation] in SR arises out of the choice of location for the observer, ie [edit: clock synchronisation] is co-ordinate dependent, ie the whole thing is a sham. I suppose that the same can be said for GWs.

Except that praps the silliest thing is that Einsteinians say that gravity itself has infinite speed, it is instantaneous. Van Flandern has explained that gravity must travel at at least 20 billion c. But we can ignore that for now.

[Bored chemist]

Light 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?

[Bored chemist]

someone who is an expert on something that doesnt exist

Do you really not understand that begging the question is a logical fallacy?

[mad aetherist (OP)]

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.

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?

It appears that u dont understand the effect of orientation on zener diode detectors (depending too on design). It is u who is not clever -- u dont understand that u have not given a similar analysis -- u have not shown a spike in the FTSI -- Cahill showed a spike, ie he looked at the pluses & minuses & neutrals for a number of periods -- u did not consider a number of periods, u said that there would be a big spike on your birthday, no, the info u gave did not necessarily show a spike, so, u are not clever -- eg there might be such a spike on every day before & after your birthday, in which case there is no spike (u know what i mean).

Anyhow, any such evidence must be logical -- there needs to be a micro cause for the macro effect. 

[mad aetherist (OP)]

Light 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?

I edited my  posting. When i said that Light has nothing to do with space or time or spacetime the space here was the space that forms a part of SR spacetime, i didnt mean ordinary space. But i will repeat what i asked with that bit edited out ---
The silliest part of the whole GW fable is for me the bit where they reckon that GWs travel at c. How in hell do they come up with something like that?  Gravity is supposedly a bending of spacetime. GWs are supposedly a compression of space or time or spacetime. Light has nothing to do with spacetime -- yet light & GWs both supposedly travel at c (re light -- in vacuo)(re light -- not near mass).
What equivalents of permeability & permittivity apply to GWs -- & how does that give 300,000 kmps for GWs?
Crothers in the linked article explains the GR derivation of c for GWs.
But i am amazed that GWs are not slowed by anything -- not by air etc, not by a blackhole etc.
GWs are a compression-expansion of spacetime, and are spawned by the movement of the bending of spacetime, but are not affected by the bending of spacetime itself when that bending is stationary.
But light is slowed by everything (eg radiation, other light, plasma, air, water, glass, the nearness of mass (gravity fields)) -- but light is not slowed by GWs themselves.
All of that is hard to swallow.

Stephen J Crothers -- 2016 -- A Critical Analysis of LIGO's Recent Detection of Gravitational Waves Caused by Merging Black Holes.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1603.0127v5.pdf
“All the coordinate-systems differ from Galilean coordinates by small quantities of the first order. The potentials gμν pertain not only to the gravitational influence which has objective reality, but also to the coordinate-system which we select arbitrarily. We can ‘propagate’ coordinate-changes with the speed of thought, and these may be mixed up at will with the more dilatory propagation discussed above. There does not seem to be any way of distinguishing a physical and a conventional part in the changes of gμν.  “The statement that in the relativity theory gravitational
waves are propagated with the speed of light has, I believe, been based entirely upon the foregoing investigation; but it will be seen that it is only true in a very conventional sense. If coordinates are chosen so as to satisfy a certain condition which has no very clear geometrical importance, the speed is that of light; if the coordinates are slightly different the speed is altogether different from that of light. The result stands or falls by the choice of coordinates and, so far as can be judged, the coordinates here used were purposely introduced in order to obtain the simplification which results from representing the propagation as occurring with the speed of light. The argument thus follows a vicious circle.” Eddington [38 §57]

[mad aetherist (OP)]

someone who is an expert on something that doesnt exist

Do you really not understand that begging the question is a logical fallacy?

I am not begging the question -- there is no logical fallacy there. I am merely making a point -- i am not trying to prove a point. Making a point has its own set of rules -- proving a point has its own set of rules.

[Kryptid]

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).

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.

Except 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.

[mad aetherist (OP)]

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).

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.

Except 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.

Re gravity having an infinite speed, i dont mean that Einstein said that, i mean that modernday Einsteinians say that.

[Kryptid]

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.

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...

i 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.

[mad aetherist (OP)]

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.

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...

i 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.

I dont think that Einstein ever said that gravity is felt instantly (ie has in effect infinite speed). But instant action at a distance is certainly the standard modern explanation -- i dont know who-when this was invented -- as is usual we might find that there was a version going back to Newton -- & then a version going back to Hipperstotle or someone.
I dont buy the IAAAD stuff. I reckon that gravity has a speed -- Van Flandern said at least 20 billion c -- methinks at least say 10 times that. But IAAAD duznt appeal to me. Its very interesting that this question aint as simple as it looks.

Re conspiracy & re gamma ray bursts -- we will see. BICEP didnt get a Nobel. GWs have given Einsteinians two sets of Nobels i think. And gravity itself has directly or indirectly given Einsteinians praps another 6 sets of Nobels. Time will tell whether spacetime survives.