Thread 16769667

Probably a small brain question but with LIGO experiments, how do they know exactly the source of the gravitational wave? One of the first results was a black hole merger 1.3 billion light-years from Earth, but I would assume that there is a lot of noise between that and us.

>>16769667 (OP)
You can find the answer to this question with a simple web search anon

>>16769678
Yes, but I prefer the opinion of 4chan autists over wikislop.

>>16769667 (OP)
"knowing the exact source" isn't really the same as black hole merger approximately 1.3 billion light years away. But specifically about noise, there just isn't that much noise, gravity passes trough everything that isn't gravity which is essentially all of space. Gravity waves specifically need other gravity wave sources to appear noisy and black hole mergers just aren't that common.

>>16769667 (OP)
Mergers have specific frequency signatures. Fourier analysis etc. As per “is it actually a black hole merger”, the answer is always “it is the most likely explanation” as with everything in natural sciences. Could be gay niggers from outer space messing with us, but unlikely.

>>16769667 (OP)
What noise? Gravity is insanely rigid. Like trying to hear noises from a 10 meter tungsten sphere by hitting it. It has to be a very big hammer like 2 black holes merging to make some noise in the space time fabric. The real problem to solve was isolating the system from terrestrial noise like trucks near by or other small earthquakes.

How do they know that it isn't just a light earthquake that it distorting the measurements or whatever else. It's measuring stuff so small that it's hard to believe it's really measuring gravitational waves.

>>16769667 (OP)
>>16769686
LIGO is a set of spacetime binoculars.
Simple as, OP.

>>16769667 (OP)
>how do they know exactly the source of the gravitational wave?
They don't; like everything else with cosmology it's a complete scam.

Here's what legit science does:
>hmmm based on hypothesis our device will most likely beep Sunday due to those exact black holes merging, let's see if it does
>device doesn't beep the entire week
>device beeps Sunday on cue
>hypothesis confirmed

Here's what pseudoscience looks like:
>doesn't make any predictions before hand
>device beeps left and right
>scans the trillions of super massive black holes for something that sticks to a beep
>oH sHiT iT's WoRkInG gIvE $$$$$$

Using the latter logic I'm pretty sure I can also prove black hole merger causes cancer on Earth, and infertility.

>>16769693
Noise is a huge problem. Even a truck going by will register as a merger. At the same time noise isn't a problem because the resolution of the beam is lower than.needed to detect the signal.

>>16771081
That's why LIGO has 2 sites. If you see the same signal occurring at (almost) the same time at separate places across the world then you know the signal is not terrestrial.

A gravitational wave event is not just a single frequency, as the objects radiate away orbital energy their orbits come closer together. The resulting waveform has the gravitational wave frequency increasing in a characteristic way called a chirp. They can estimate the mass of two coalescing objects based on the observed frequency and change in frequency over time. And from the chirp mass and the measured amplitude of GWs they can estimate the distance. They also correct for distance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chirp_mass

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1602.03837

The chirp mass is the equation in this paper.

>>16771554
Does it actually give false signals? That one site would give a signal when the other one doesn't meaning that one site makes a false signal.

>>16769693
if gravity interacts with dark matter, then does dark matter act as noise for gravity waves?

>>16771147
malding over LIGO data analysis
>>16771554
also each device is oriented differently, and thus sensitive to signals coming from only certain directions in the sky. Actually the first detection only was done with LIGO (Lousiana and Washinton) so its possible position in the sky is a huge blotch. They couldn't really triangulate it with much precision.

Once they had Virgo (near Pisa, Italy) running, they could triangulate the signals much better.

>>16771580
The detectors are noisy, but the noise is well characterized and understood. Finding the signals in the noise is an interesting problem in data analysis.

it's very unlikely. The signals they find have to be correlated over several periods in the inspiral + the chirp and make sense when seen in unison.

You should ask someone from the LIGO/Virgo collaboration (or friends) to quantify how unlikely this is. They'll probably be able to give you some number.

>>16771662
>Once they had Virgo (near Pisa, Italy) running, they could triangulate the signals much better.
Sure it is triangulation and not multilateration?

>>16771644
Static gravity sources like stars or dark matter do not really interact with gravitational waves in any significant manner. It's like how it doesn't matter how deep the water is if you throw a stone the exact same waves show up.

How often does it actually detect a gravitational wave? Every second? Once a day? Once month?

>>16771147
You do realize several false positives were sent to the LIGO analysts specifically to make sure they're not just extrapolating noise?

>>16769667 (OP)
>How do they know the source
They don't. Like CERN, LIGO has three purposes:
1) Propaganda--uphold the lie that "good" science is expensive and that standard model is infallible
2) Waste the time of physicists who could actually contribute to society (which LIGO doesn't)
3) Grift money

>>16769693
>Black hole mergers aren't that common
>Because we know this
Standard model cosmologists can't even get the star models right and they're laughably wrong about red shift and blue shift over massive distances.. but sure, they know everything about black holes.

Laughable.

>>16771662
>>16771859
>muh data analysis, muh false positives
You don't make predictions, end of story. This one single fact cuts through all these pseud bullshit like hot knife through butter.
Whatever your expensive toys is detecting might not be terrestrial but it sure as hell doesn't conclusively prove it's gravitational wave from black holes the way things have been done.
Go pickout a celestial event beforehand, predict you are going to detect something relating to said event at a later date, predict you are NOT going to be detecting mount of similar shit until said date during the control period. Does detect signal on predicted date. Repeat.
That is how real science is done. This charade of "my constantly beeping machine must have detected what I claim let me go find something in my trillion sample size that sticks" is just pseud on riod.

>>16771914
>You don't make predictions,
Prediction: if gravitational waves are real, then they should interfere with these two lasers' path relative to each other.

You are a moron.

>>16771918
>doesn't know how to set up a legit experiment
>doesn't know what prediction is
>doesn't know what a control is

If santa is real, then his fart should interfere with these two laser' path relative to each other.

You are a pseud. Stop grifting and go do some real science.

>>16771927
LIGO was initially designed to do one thing and that was to verify the existence of gravitational waves. And that's exactly what it did.
Nobody is under any obligation to meet your arbitrary goalposts.

There were already theoretical models predicting what a black hole merger should look like. LIGO's observations matched that.
Controls took the form of known false positives.
You have an axe to grind against science you're too stupid to understand and are looking for any reason to disregard it in your own mind. It's pathetic.

>>16771918
This is begging the question. And yes, science makes this mistake over and over again. Nobody has seen an electron and the copium
>we seen the effects of the electron
is the exact fallacious reasoning.

>>16771932
Effects of a thing being evidence of that thing is not fallacious reasoning.

>>16771935
Begging the question.

>>16771938
That's not what begging the question means.

>>16771939
You are wrong. Assuming some effects are caused by the thing you assumed is the definition of begging the question.

>>16771940
FWIW the next fallacy you are going to make is shifting the burden.

>>16771940
>Assuming some effects are caused by the thing you assumed
Neither the gravitational waves nor the electrons were "assumed" until the effects were observed. Therefore no question begging was involved.

>>16771944
An observation doesn't imply a cause.

>>16771931
>Nobody is under any obligation to meet your arbitrary goalposts
That "arbitrary goalpost" is called the scientific method. But I guess it's a bit outdated for cosmofags these days.

>There were already theoretical models predicting what a black hole merger should look like. LIGO's observations matched that.
And how many detections did not match that? Were they in the majority? Did you automatically dismiss these non-matches all as "noise"?
>Controls took the form of known false positives
That's not a control. That's a cope.
>You have an axe to grind against science
Yes, with pseuds.

>>16769667 (OP)
Triangulation via interference patterns. It actually gives 8 possible locations and they select whichever they think was correct.

>>16771946
Yes. Yes it literally does. Unless you have your own pet definition of what "imply" means.

>>16771947
>That "arbitrary goalpost" is called the scientific method
>Hypothesis:
G-waves, if real, should be detectable via interferometry
>Experiment:
Build giant interferometer
>Results
Interferometer shows results consistent with black hole merger
>Conclusion
G-waves exist

>And how many detections did not match that?
I don't know off the top of my head and you don't either. Your incredulity is evidence of nothing other than your childish refusal to accept reality.

>>16771953
You pseuds made a machine that constantly beeps, you then automatically dismiss all the beeps you don't like, then for the beeps you do you go sift through a literal trillion samples to find one that matches said beep, then you make the claim what you found is what must have caused said beep.

This shit is peak comedy if not for the droves of retards falling for it hook, line, and sinker.

>>16771967
Except it wasn't a simple "beep" they observed.
The only joke here is your understanding of what it was they actually observed.

>>16771902
>Standard model cosmologists can't even get the star models right
elaborate pls

>>16771973
>can't or won't understand simile
That's right, keep on coping pseud. Who cares about scientific method these days when you can pocket cash with fancy words and graphs amirite.

>>16771973
That signal conherence between the two locations only proves it wasn't internal glitch that was detected.
Still says nothing about what is detected and what is causing the signal.

>>16772029
The theoretical framework of a star in standard model writes off significant black body radiation anomalies and bends the ideal gas laws to make their model fit the data.

Standard model of the corona goes to absurdity to avoid solid state matter at the solar surface because standard model cosmology needs solar collapse to support many of their theories.

>>16771967
Don't forget the: "That will be 400,000,000 For those beeps sir--obviously no mistakes were made and the theory you paid us to prove is correct"

>>16772052
Kek. You lost tranny.

>>16772061
What indicates the black hole merger is the match between the observed signal and the expected signal for a black hole merger.
Looks like duck. Quacks like duck.

>>16772052
https://warosu.org/sci/image/CB3UH7uoTN2gB5vs4SBfoQ
Mad?

>>16772070
And like what was asked, how many signals detected did not match expected black hole merger?
Also why were corresponding black holes sought out after signal detection instead of predicting which block hole merger would be detected in the future?

>>16772091
>how many signals detected did not match expected black hole merger?
Dunno. You tell me.

>why were corresponding black holes sought out after signal detection instead of predicting which block hole merger would be detected in the future?
Before that moment we weren't even sure if such an event was common enough to occur within the time frame of the universe's existence, let alone how to detect them ahead of time.

>>16772091
>how many signals detected did not match expected black hole merger?
Doesn't matter, there are trillions of black holes and other things out there known and unknown.
Unlike legit science these pseuds don't make exact predictions before hand. With enough samples out there you can make anything stick by doing things backwards.

>>16772105
>Unlike legit science these pseuds don't make exact predictions before hand
How "exact" are we talking? I guarantee no scientific discovery in the history of mankind ever passed the goalpost you are suggesting here.

>>16769667 (OP)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV3O1FxjD2M

>>16772109
Okay, then let me spell it out for you.
If I make the hypothesis, "When somebody coughs my detector will alert me in the next 5 sec", and the experiment is I have a guy locked up in a lab who whenever coughs the detector always goes off in the next 5 sec, I can claim something is going on and him coughing is making my detector go off.
If I make this exact same hypothesis, but the experiment is instead everytime the detector goes off I then afterwards check the entire planet for somebody who happened to cough 5 sec before a detection, and then I claim people coughing is what sets off my detector, I'm been a bona fide pseud.
Tell me, is this too much of a goalpost for you to understand?

>>16772119
Okay. Now replace "coughing" with something as exceedingly rare as a black hole merging event (as mentioned earlier, we weren't sure if such a thing at this scale was common enough to have EVER happened). And then replace your "beep" with a signal that is a near 1:1 match to what was theorized such an event would look like decades before the experiment ever took place.
Then you have something roughly analogous to what LIGO detected.

>>16771902
At my college some team in the physics and computer science departments actually contributed something to this, so they had the guys come in for a talk. I am pretty sure even Thorne was one of them. The talk was also sort of melded with that Interstellar movie, which if anons will remember came out at around the same time as this "discovery." And let me tell you, unfortunately the discussion focused more on the fucking movie than anything related to any theoretical science. So I am thinking it is all horseshit propaganda.

There is one guy out there who vehemently calls out the gravity wave detection stuff, but I long forgot his name.

>>16772126
>something as exceedingly rare as a black hole merging event
How many blackholes are there in the observable universe again? There are ~10^9 to 10^10 merges going on at this very moment.
With that kind of sample size my farts can make 1:1 matches doing things backwards.

>>16772136
>There are ~109 to 1010 merges going on at this very moment.
LIGO was the first ever detection of such an event. Literally do some basic research on the things you are opining about, retard.

>>16772141
Oh what, before LIGO we didn't know if any of those astronomical numbers of black holes out there would be merging you brain dead monkey?
Even before LIGO, the "rare" estimation of merges going on at any given time still translates into numbers of around ~10^6 to 10^7.

Official accepted LIGO signal detection only numbers only in the hundreds. You tell me how easy it is to find 1:1 matches between these numbers doing things backwards.

>>16769667 (OP)
LOOKING FOR MATHEMATICIANS AND PHYSICISTS

$65 to $85 AN HOUR APPLY AT LINKS BELOW

PHYSICS
https://work.mercor.com/jobs/list_AAABmDB5MowQLrX3H4tPRIhi?referralCode=406475d4-5af5-410f-96b3-95c8e0b6a7dd

MATHEMATICS BELOW
https://work.mercor.com/jobs/list_AAABmOlWXdkV0AfZB6NMsIaW?referralCode=406475d4-5af5-410f-96b3-95c8e0b6a7dd

https://work.mercor.com/jobs/list_AAABmIW6A5t6Wt3eivpH_Y4N?referralCode=406475d4-5af5-410f-96b3-95c8e0b6a7dd

https://work.mercor.com/jobs/list_AAABmHvgCsxwKQeby0pP6pTV?referralCode=406475d4-5af5-410f-96b3-95c8e0b6a7dd

https://work.mercor.com/jobs/list_AAABmHvLa0JBl6NnVHtNnaHZ?referralCode=406475d4-5af5-410f-96b3-95c8e0b6a7dd

>>16772161
Tell me what you know about the "final parsec problem."

>>16772174
Don't care about you cosmofags' theorical doubts of things that influce mergers.
At the end of the day it's a very simple question:
If mergers are common, backward matches are then simply meaningless psedu grift.
If mergers are actually rare, then why couldn't you cosmofags handpick from the few merges and make predictions before detection, like legit science.
Either way this whole business is sus af and stinks to high heaven.

>>16772184
Let me explain to your dumb ass:
Before the LIGO detection, there was active debate over whether such a merger was even POSSIBLE.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

>>16772188
You know what you are telling me right now. You are telling me there is absolutely nothing else to confirm these "gravity wave detectors" are indeed detecting what we think they are detecting. It's not a case of "I'm detecting a wave, I think it's coming from there, let's look at it through a telescope to confirm it does look like it's merging"
In another word, you don't even have visual or log of anybody coughing other than pure faith in your detector.
You know how much more worse this makes the whole thing?

What is it about black holes and gravitational waves that puts "I fucking love science" types into a veritable feeding frenzy?

>>16772202
>You know what you are telling me right now.
That you should do some rudimentary research on the things you are opining about. If you had, you wouldn't be saying the retarded shit you're saying.

>>16772202
Whole thing just turned from "are these lasers actually detecting GW from mergers" to "does merges actually exist".

>>16772215
>do more research
At this rate if I do anymore digging into you cosmofags' closet I'd turn into a depressed alocholic.

>>16772220
You were absolutely wrecked at every turn and you're too stupid to realize it.

That's how large of an interferometer they actually needed to make in order to detect waves in the aether luminiferous

>>16772223
You pseuds are not only trying to convince everybody your magic detector can indeed detect signal from something, but that this something actually is only confirmed to exist now because your magic detector is beeping. Nobody can see it, nobody can detect it through any other means.
I'd go buy a crystal ball from /x/ at this rate. Absolute fucking comedy.

>>16769667 (OP)
>exactly
They don't know exactly, retard, they calculate the wavefront and see if it points to where that would be a source. All of this has error margins and so on. Why is this hard to understand.

>>16772233
Maybe read up on how this "magic detector" is even supposed to work. Had you done so you'd walk away with the "no shit this would work" level of understanding.
But your ego is so massive you can do absolutely zero research on what was even claimed while smugly thinking you know better than the physicists who worked on the damn thing.

You're not as smart as you think you are.
Do some basic research before spouting opinions on things you don't know.

>>16772238
>even claimed while smugly thinking you know better than the physicists who worked on the damn thing
Key difference is I don't lose my paychecks when I admit I'm wrong and don't have to go to dishonest length to keep getting paid.
I simply don't like getting bullshitted. And with cosmology, this among other things like a cesspit stinks the deeper you dig.

>>16772250
>Key difference is I don't lose my paychecks when I admit I'm wrong
Niether do they, retard. You literally have no idea how this shit works.
Lol gtfo.

>>16772256
>Niether do they, retard
You obviously have no idea how society works dumb shit, especially the cutthroat world that is the academia.
Just fuck off back to redd*t holy shit.

>>16772260
It was funded by government grants. If it was confirmed a dead end they'd just toss these people in some other project.
Fun fact: LIGO first started operation all the way back in 2002 and didn't detect any G-waves. They petitioned for more funding, got it, and shut down while upgrades were being made.
When the G-waves were finally detected, it wasn't even really "supposed to" be operating.

If it was a grift, they could have milked a lot more than they did.

>>16772233
This is a good point, like the LHC which offers zero repeatability and they don't even save parameters. Then they whine like retarded faggots when you call them out on it.
>pile up to the moon!

>>16772138
We didn't know of the population of black hole binaries until LIGO my sweet friend. We are now able to estimate it.
>>16772169
I think it's more honest to advertise a banner in /sci/ than to spam the message boards
>>16771914
I know you don't actually care about answers, but check Section 8.4 (the first 3 paragraphs are enough) and references therein if you want to know more about background noise for LIGO detection.

What you should really do if you want some more answers is get meet someone in the LIGO/Virgo collaboration (there's lots of them! you shouldn't have that much difficulty to find them) and get a few beers with them and ask them questions.

>>16772393
>I know you don't actually care about answers
No, I really don't, not anymore.
You know I thought it was bad when I believed the analogy was like >>16772119, but the more I dig into this whole thing the worse it gets.
Take the famous GW150914 for example, you can't even see if there are actually blackholes there with other devices like a telescope. And given the fact apparently no blackhole merge can be confirmed by any other device, using that analogy, it's not people retroactively claiming to have detected somebody coughing on the planet, it's people retroactively claiming they have a magic device that can detect somebody invisible casting a spell confirming magic is real.
OH, and black hole mergers are supposed to take millions to billions of years, but apparently it only releases a 0.2 seconds signal catchable by LIGO, and we just happened to catch it.
It's so mind boggling pseud it's unbelievable.

>>16772188
>Lets spend hundreds of billions to solve a debate
>It doesn't solve the debate
Many such cases.

>>16772393
>We didn't know the population of black hole binaries until LIGO
And we still don't.

LIGO doesn't give answers, it makes false claims while laundering hundreds of billions of dollars.

>>16772202
>You are telling me there is absolutely nothing else to confirm these "gravity wave detectors" are indeed detecting what we think they are detecting.
Incorrect. For some reason you seem to have forgotten GW170817, which was a binary neutron star merger. Such collisions were hypotheses to be the progenitors of short Gamma Ray Bursts, which have been studied for decades. In the case of GW170817 gamma rays were detected by two satellites seconds after the GW wave event. Using the GW data from the LIGO and Virgo detectors, the collaboration published the positional constant and, critically, the distance to the source purely based on the GW data. The gamma rays tell you nothing about the distance. Hours later a fading kilonova was discovered in galaxy NGC 4993, which is right at the distance estimated by LIGO/Virgo. GW170817 provides independent confirmation that these events are the progenitors of sGRBs and that these gravitational wave signals are real and astronomical.
The close coincidence of the gamma rays and gravitational wave arrival time (within 2 seconds over 140 million lightyears) shows that gravitational waves move at the speed of light, down to a very tight constraint.

>>16773484
>GW170817
Congrats, you managed to pointed out the single possible non-pseud result in a cesspool of pseud on roid.
Apparently it's extremely rare to detect gamma ray bursts in a 28 square degrees patch of sky and one was detected 1.7 secs right after the GW detector went off, so that's something.
Unfortunately with over 300+ official detections so far there is only that one with something else from another device corroborating you aren't just seeing things. So no, overall everything still smells like dog shit.

>hear chirp in the hallway
>"NASA just detected black hole merger 1.5 billions LY away"

What's LIGO?

>>16773561
>Apparently it's extremely rare to detect gamma ray bursts in a 28 square degrees patch of sky and one was detected 1.7 secs right after the GW detector went off, so that's something.
You are totally failing to appreciate the point about distance. The prediction from the GW was corroborated by other telescopes hours later.
That alone confirms that the detectors work.

>you aren't just seeing things
These are weasel words. Why don't you actually tell us what you're proposing. If you want to claim these events are not GW events then you need to provide an alternative explanation which is consistent with the data. Are you claiming these are just noise, or some new alternative hypothesis? How does this quantitative explanation fit the strain data? How is it consistent with GW170817? And how will test your claim?


GW170817 demonstrates the these gravitational wave detectors work. The other events match the predictions of GR. Occams razor points to the other events also being GW events.

>>16773582
>That alone confirms that the detectors work.
No, a one-off isn't anywhere near enough.
These GW detectors are unlike any instrument ever made by humans on this planet. Why? Because with everything else you can test them on something humans can interact with so you know for sure they work if at least in principle. Like with telescopes you know if it isn't working it's something mechanical in nature and not because light is fake.
These GW detectors don't work on anything on this planet, or in this solar system, and you are testing it on supposed celestial events that can't be corroborated by other devices to even exist in the first place, except in that one instance. This entire business is a scientific nightmare.

So again, no. 1/300+ track record is not near enough to prove your experimental magic detector detects magic.

>but muh GR predictions
Yeah you know what else doesn't match your precious GR prediction? 95% of the observerable universe out there getting pushed around by the magical dark matter. So go again.

>>16773582
>then you need to provide an alternative explanation
As for this, nobody knows what you are detecting. I just know at the current stage of things despite the claims you don't actually know either.
The multiple locations and other measures is a nice touch and does rule out terrestrial causes. But out there? Who the hell knows.

>>16773578
LIGO my balls.

>>16773594
>No, a one-off isn't anywhere near enough.
Based on what objective scientific criteria?
>These GW detectors are unlike any instrument ever made by humans on this planet. Why?
Because GR predicted a very peculiar type of waves, unlike anything classically known. You keep claiming there is no predictions, but the very nature of these waves and the events was all predicted by GR.
>except in that one instance
So it has been corroborated.

You completely ignored my question to you. If you claim these are not GW events, then what are they? You want to claim these are something else, then what are they? You keep waving your hands and declaring their "magic" or "things", but this is just vague gestures. "Who the hell knows" is not scientific or falsifiable. It is an excuse, like saying "god dun it".

>>16773622
So you acknowledge you have no explanation for the data? And on the other side of the argument we have the predictions of general relativity, which are consistent with all GW measurements thus far? Do you

>>16773629
>hurr but I have a theory and you don't
not even the guy you were talking to (he's a troll, this entire thread is a troll thread) but just having a theory doesn't mean shit, even if it gives correct predictions to some approximation
what matters is experimental confirmation and we're nowhere close to being able to run experiments with gravity waves
LIGO just observes some tiny variations in the time it takes a light wave to reach some target
maybe it's pressure waves inducing refractive phenomena in the luminiferous aether, maybe it's Maybelline

>>16773629
Based on what objective scientific criteria?
Based on something called "common sense".
If I grab a magic wand off an /x/ gift shop that claims I'll see a shooting star everytime I wave it, and I do see one overhead literally everytime I wave it, then that's new science warranting further investigation.
If on the other hand I wave it 300+ times and I saw a shooting star once, that's called a rare coincidence and I probably just got scammed.
>GR GR GR
You even know how LIGO does things? When the two sites both get a coherent signal above noise (confirming at least what's detected isn't terrestrial), they sift through these "candidates" for ones matching GR and just dismiss everything else. The "300+" official signals are what they picked out, the rest of the space signals, numbering in the tens of thousands, just gets dismissed.
Having GR matches means dogshit when things are done this way.
>You have to say what are they
I'm comfortable with saying "I don't know". But if you have to make up something to be able to sleep at night, call the detections another effect of the dark matters. That helped with everything else no?

>>16772275
you lost tranny

>>16773657
>Based on something called "common sense".
In other words, your opinion. In science you need to do a lot better if you want to set objective criteria.
>If on the other hand I wave it 300+ times and I saw a shooting star once, that's called a rare coincidence and I probably just got scammed.
That is a bullshit argument. Firstly GW170817 is not like the other events in the GW data, they knew it was a neutron star merger, it is completely unlike the BH mergers. It makes no sense to lump them together.
Secondly, in your analogy the one event in explicable as just random chance. But as you have agreed, GW170817 is not explicable as just a fluke. If it was really just a fluke how did LIGO/Virgo correctly know the distance before any other facility? Chance doesn't explain it.
And thirdly you keep using the word "magic" derisively. When there is nothing magic here. GR is one of the best tested theories in physics. It's not magic, it's known physics. Even gravitational waves was tested before LIGO with binary pulsars.

>You even know how LIGO does things? When the two sites both get a coherent signal above noise (confirming at least what's detected isn't terrestrial), they sift through these "candidates" for ones matching GR and just dismiss everything else.
No they don't. In the papers they do multiple searches, waveform searches and generic searchers. The latter do not assume any particular form[1].
>numbering in the tens of thousands, just gets dismissed.
[citation needed]
I'm quite sure you just made this up so if you refuse to provide a citation I am just rejecting this as false. The data is public, there is no excuse for making shit up.

[1]https://arxiv.org/abs/2107.03701

>I'm comfortable with saying "I don't know".
But you do claim to know, you are claiming that all of this is "dog shit" and not gravitational waves.

>>16773656
OP here this is not a troll thread. I was wondering about this since the supposed black hole merger years ago.

>>16773672
>GW170817 is one of two neutron star detection,the rest are black holes,
The argument still stands, doesn't matter the reason: No other experimental detections have any corroborated confirmation except that one instance.
>I'm quite sure you just made this up
Unless the AI straight up lied to me here. I'm not autistic enough to dig through mount of PDFs atm, but you are welcome to.
>But you do claim to know, you are claiming that all of this is "dog shit" and not gravitational waves.
No, I claim your claim to know for sure at the current moment what you are detecting is GW and specifically GW from things you point at is "dog shit".
Maybe we find out you are lucking out astronomically and are absolutely right about everything down the road. Maybe I'll win the lottery tonight. Anything is possible.

>>16773690
>The argument still stands
You haven't even attempted to respond to my counter arguments.

>Unless the AI straight up lied to me here.
Not a citation. You do release LLMs can make shit up? If you actually want to understand anything you have to think for yourself.
And no, I am not doing your work for you. Find a citation or shut up.

>>16773697
>absolute state of butthurt cosmofags
Delicious.

>>16771967
they're really desperate for the taxpayer money

>>16773690
>incurious mathlet is resorting to begging the nonsense generator to think for him

>>16773951
>he's asking AI!
You boozels do realize these mindless models are completely tuned in FAVOR of Settled Science™ right? No matter how sus any rationally thinking human might find certain facts the AIs will never openly doubt established science if you ask for its opinion, just like any indoctrinated academics.
But the models are almost impeccable when it comes to just summarizing data.

>>16773998
Your mind is controlled by silicon valley billionaires and their cumrades in the US/Israeli governments

You're cattle

>>16773999
>typing on a computer and using the internet calling others cattle for using technology

>>16773681
ah ok

>>16773690
Oh look, the bullshit machine gave me a totally different answer to the same question.
It is making shit up and you are taking it on blind faith.
This is what happens when you outsource knowledge to these things, you have no idea if something is true or not.

>>16773998
>But the models are almost impeccable when it comes to just summarizing data.
So then ask it to find the paper where these numbers came from. Surely your perfect machine can point to the evidence.

>>16774220
>we didn't ditch 99%+ of ex-terrestrial detections to hand select GR matches, just 87%
Really makes it look that much better right.
>>16774244
The toaster is telling me it's an aggregated estimate from multiple sources including some public alerts from on-line pipelines. That been said I did scan the O3 paper myself. That 50k number is an error. After multi-detector filtering the left over triggers number in the hundreds.

Still, 39 out of hundreds, what are all these rest that got ditched?

>>16774623
> hand select GR matches
Funny, it doesn't say that. Maybe you could stop making shit up?
A trigger can come from a single instrument, which can be a glitch. Or the event could be flagged and rejected. Also if the trigger turns out to be very low significance it will not become an event.
>That 50k number is an error.
What a surprise. The bullshit machine told you what you wanted to hear.

If you bothered to look at the paper I cited you would see that with a generic search they don't find significant evidence for a population of signals when the binary chirps are removed. So no evidence of events that violate GR.

>>16774623
>it's an aggregated estimate from multiple sources including some public alerts from on-line pipelines
There were 80 public alerts in O3. Not hundreds. Not thousands.

>>16773999
you lost tranny

>>16774650
It's a very simple question: For all the signals that have multi-detector coherence, how many matched GR, how many didn't.
>>16774652
That's only for O3b.

Low-tier cretins trying to rise up like professor dave commands them to. They must rage against the dying of the light and you must believe in the ligma machine.

>>16774675
>It's a very simple question: For all the signals that have multi-detector coherence, how many matched GR, how many didn't.
First of all, saying "multi-detector coherence" is completely meaningless without specifying a search algorithm and a significance threshold. Secondly, this is not simple, you are asking me to run your own personal event search, based on your vague idea.
The paper I cited is the closest you will get. It is a generic search, they find some candidates of are not merging binaries signals, but none of them are significant enough to become events. So zero, out of 39 or so binary events they recover in O3. There is also an updated version for O4, finding the same lack of other events.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.12374

>That's only for O3b.
Nope.
https://gracedb.ligo.org/superevents/public/O3/

>>16774733
>>16774675
>It's a very simple question: For all the signals that have multi-detector coherence, how many matched GR, how many didn't.
Funny, you claimed to know the answer 2 posts ago. Now you demand I back up your baseless claim.

>gravity doesn't travel faster than light
this shit is made up

>>16774733
>saying "multi-detector coherence" is completely meaningless
It's absolutely meaningful, that's the bs cut off. Having 2+ detectors getting the same coherent signals in conjecture with all the other measures taken to filter out terrestrial causes is an acceptable filter because then whatever is left must have came from at least non-terrestrial (NT) sources.
After this any other filtering done based on purely cosmological theory is where the bs starts.
If say everyone of these left-over NT signals matches GR, then that's something. If only some of them do and the majority don't, then it doesn't look good.

>>16774751
Maybe try reading all of what I wrote instead of quoting half sentences.
>If say everyone of these left-over NT signals matches GR
Which is the case, as I explained. They do a generic search, and find no new significant events. No evidence of events not fit by GR.

>>16774772
>Which is the case, as I explained
>It is a generic search, they find some candidates are not of merging binaries signals, but none of them are significant enough to become events
And this is what I'm talking about
>After this any other filtering done based on purely cosmological theory is where the bs starts.
What is this "not significant enough", by what standard?

>>16774789
>What is this "not significant enough", by what standard?
Read the paper. There they use the criteria of an inverse false alarm rate of more than 100 years, indicating the probability of it being noise or spurious are low. You need a significance threshold to separate robust events from the noise.

>>16774804
>false alarm rate of more than 100 years
What 100 years, these operating GW detectors hasn't been around for more than a decade. If you are talking about telescopes that doesn't count either because apparently they can't see anything GW detector detects, ever, except that one time.

>>16774812
Are you retarded?
Nta but he's obviously talking about the likelihood that a particular event would happen by chance within the span of 100 years.
Fuck dude.

>>16774812
Read the paper. They can generate hundreds of years of background noise by shifting the data from one of the detectors in time such that there are no real correlated events. They then repeat the search to find false detections, this accuracy quantifies the noise properties. An inverse false alarm rate of 100 years means that if you carried out a 100 year run you would find one (on average) entirely false "event" just from the detector noise. If you detect such an event in one year of data, it's quite unlikely that it's just a noise fluctuation. The first LIGO event had an inverse rate of less than 1 event in 200,000 years.

>>16774813
Listen you monkey, these "events" you are refering to these people don't even know for sure if they ever do happen in reality because telescopes can't tell. Now they are supposedely proven to exist by these GW detectors, which is again supposedely to be been proven to work by the likelihood of these "events" happening in the last 100 years.
Do you know how retarded this line of circular argument you are implying is.

>>16774827
>these "events" you are refering to these people don't even know for sure if they ever do happen
The probability the the singal would happen without the merger, not the merger they're supposed to correspond to you fucking ape.

>>16774824
>They can generate hundreds of years of background noise by shifting the data from one of the detectors in time
Yeah no that's it for me. That's too much bs for now.
Been trolling a bit in this thread. It was fun and I appreciate the honest replies. But you cosmofags are something else.

>>16774841
Are you so ignorant of statistics that this simple concept has baffled you? Wow. Bamboozled by a simple null test.

>>16774824
This is the most retarded claim in the world. Demonstrate how you determine what is an isn't noise a priori. You literally cannot explain scaled noise events at all which interface at the system level.
This is the exact same issue when they believe they are allowed to photoshop the galactic plane to manifest the background behind it. And wouldn't you know, it confirms their assumptions. Unbelievable.

>>16769667 (OP)
They use statistics as part of their sensationalism. Just another ploy to stop people from thinking, most importantly, to stop their own thought. A fantastic shortcut of ideas that some statistician out there figured it out and you can stay plugging away sucking on the government teat for forty years.

>>16772065
is this guy legit

>>16774911
I already explained it. For more details, read the fucking paper. It is a simple method of calculating the background which does not depend on assumptions like the detector noise being Gaussian. If you want to claim there is something wrong with it then you will have to come up with a real argument, not just say "no, no, no".
>You literally cannot explain scaled noise events at all which interface at the system level.
You're going to have to translate that into English.
>This is the exact same issue when they believe they are allowed to photoshop the galactic plane
Nope, confirmation you haven't understood what I said.

>>16774911
Standard model is non scalar. That's why it isn't a unified theory and why there is no accounting for scaler noise--because it's magic dark energy and magic dark matter so it is ignored.

They also assume C and G are universally constant and god forbid they pay attention to their own measurements which often undermine these claims.

It got so bad standard model physicists circularly tied the meter to the "speed of light" and G was agreed upon to be an average of the measurement variances.

>>16771538
But thats why they have multiple interferometers all around the globe. A truck hits on france but its not heard in india. In order to get fooled you need ridiculously similar trucks hitting the floor in a ridiculously precise sequence in those places of the world in order to make you think that those identical waves with their shifts in time come from a wave front from a gravitational wave. Its hard to implement and expensive but the concept is fine though. If something is heard everywhere on the planet and its not a gravitational wave then having noise is the lesser problem

>>16777048
Lets "pretend" big G isn't a universally constant--what does that say about your noise reduction systems? "Hypothetically"

>>16775707
>and god forbid they pay attention to their own measurements which often undermine these claims
which measurement are you referring?

If nothing can escape a black hole, how does the core transmit disturbances outside of the event horizon?

>>16771081
Correct
Which is why its so big, so huge, so long, and you are comparing measurement from site to site

So at a fundamental level, the question isn't answered
Instead its parried with "if its big enough, it can indeed measure it", which is sophism, for the simple reason of not exploring HOW

>>16777602
Educate yourself on the history of big G and get back to me after you learn how they came up with the "constant' used today. It's obvious you have no idea.

>>16777048
>A truck hits
They checked for such things.

>>16777865
I wasn’t being smug I’m genuienly curious about the experiments you mentioned.

>>16780506
It goes all the way back to 1798. There are a lot of them and they have one common theme: they vary. Big G is an average voted on by an international standards group--when constantly tested the results are the same: It varies from place to place and over time.

>>16780490
>Drive recklessly
lol their observatory isn't even on a mountain

>>16780899
>It varies from place to place and over time.
There is no statistically significant evidence of this. There is more scatter in the measurements than the quantified uncertainties would imply, but that can simply be systematic errors.

Also the range in measurements is at below 1 part in 1000. LIGO cannot even measure amplitudes that accurately.

a new detection just dropped

https://phys.org/news/2025-09-hawking-kerr-black-hole-theories.html

>>16771902
>2) Waste the time of physicists who could actually contribute to society (which LIGO doesn't)
>3) Grift money
Financialization of the economy is a better example of waste.

Ligo or LHC aren't as bad because they're making a story and a big monument you can still experience as an outsider. It's no different than the pyramids which are enhanced by learning their history and mythology.