*

Offline Rounder

  • *
  • Posts: 779
  • What in the Sam Hill are you people talking about?
    • View Profile
Re: Other confirmations of general relativity
« Reply #20 on: September 07, 2018, 02:40:07 PM »
I can’t make up my mind whether you are willfully being deceitful in your ‘interpretations’, just mistaken, or perhaps just sloppy.
I can.  This was no innocent copy-paste of someone else’s incomplete quote.  Tom sought out this article, strategically copied only the words which appear to support the story he’s telling, and excised the words that fill in the truth.  That’s deliberate.
Proud member of İntikam's "Ignore List"
Ok. You proven you are unworthy to unignored. You proven it was a bad idea to unignore you. and it was for me a disgusting experience...Now you are going to place where you deserved and accustomed.
Quote from: SexWarrior
You accuse {FE} people of malice where incompetence suffice

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6458
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Other confirmations of general relativity
« Reply #21 on: September 07, 2018, 03:15:26 PM »
I can’t make up my mind whether you are willfully being deceitful in your ‘interpretations’, just mistaken, or perhaps just sloppy.
I can.  This was no innocent copy-paste of someone else’s incomplete quote.  Tom sought out this article, strategically copied only the words which appear to support the story he’s telling, and excised the words that fill in the truth.  That’s deliberate.

What I posted was the facts. What you want posted is the excuse commentary of the scientist: "this is how we get better!!" Of course they are going to say something stupid like that in defense.

What the facts say is that they validated something that was entirely fake.
« Last Edit: September 07, 2018, 11:22:17 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5594
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Other confirmations of general relativity
« Reply #22 on: September 07, 2018, 04:35:13 PM »
I can’t make up my mind whether you are willfully being deceitful in your ‘interpretations’, just mistaken, or perhaps just sloppy.
I can.  This was no innocent copy-paste of someone else’s incomplete quote.  Tom sought out this article, strategically copied only the words which appear to support the story he’s telling, and excised the words that fill in the truth.  That’s deliberate.

What I posted was the facts. What you want posted is the excuse commentary of l the scientist: "this is how we get better!!" Of course they are going to say something stupid like that in defense.

What the facts say is that they validated something that was entirely fake.
No, you declaring it fake have is simply you editorializing.  Even if there is doubt as to the results of LIGO, and it looks like there are people that do have legitimate doubts, that is different than fake.  You literally are acting the same as what you criticize.  This doesn't have much to do with the fact of the matter, and indeed you have not established anything about Ligo, except that a team of Danish scientists objects to Ligo's findings.

It is also incredibly strange that you give more credence to the Danish team's criticism, which has not been peer-reviewed, than Ligo, which was by the publishing journal.  There was an in-depth rebuttal by one of the Ligo leads, not just the defensive hand-waving you have characterized.  There have also been physicists who have looked at the Danish paper and said that it was a poor analysis of the Ligo data.  I think it is fair to say that your characterization of the Ligo finding is a bit extreme, but I would also agree that until they start getting more results from their 3 detector set up, gravity waves aren't as well established as the media would have us believe.  Of course, I am just a layperson, and would happily be corrected by someone who knows more than me.

One thing that has been lost in all this though, is that Ligo's discovery, even if it were fake, would not invalidate GR.
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6458
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Other confirmations of general relativity
« Reply #23 on: September 07, 2018, 05:17:36 PM »
No, you declaring it fake have is simply you editorializing.  Even if there is doubt as to the results of LIGO, and it looks like there are people that do have legitimate doubts, that is different than fake.

I didn't say that it was all fake. I said that their the credibility of their science is questionable since they "validated" fake data, and that their actions in preventing Peer Review is dishonest.

Quote
You literally are acting the same as what you criticize.  This doesn't have much to do with the fact of the matter, and indeed you have not established anything about Ligo, except that a team of Danish scientists objects to Ligo's findings.

It is also incredibly strange that you give more credence to the Danish team's criticism, which has not been peer-reviewed, than Ligo, which was by the publishing journal.  There was an in-depth rebuttal by one of the Ligo leads, not just the defensive hand-waving you have characterized. 

From your June 2017 LIGO reply to the Danish Scientists there is this message in the comments:

Quote
Camilo Delgado-Correal: The reply to the reply is here: http://www.nbi.ku.dk/gravitational-waves/gravitational-waves.html

This is the reply to the reply, and addresses the criticism:

Quote
Our recent arXiv posting of arXiv:1706.04191 "On the time lags of the LIGO signals" has generated considerable interest - both positive and negative. This is understandable given the significance of the claimed discovery of gravitational waves resulting from the merger of two black holes. In our opinion, a discovery of this importance merited a genuinely independent analysis of the data. It was the aim of our manuscript to perform such an analysis using publicly available data from LIGO and methods that were as close as possible to those adopted by the LIGO team. We focussed our attention mainly on the first event, GW150914, with special attention to the time lag between the arrival times of the signal at the Hanford and Livingston detectors. In our view, if we are to conclude reliably that this signal is due to a genuine astrophysical event, apart from chance-correlations, there should be no correlation between the "residual" time records from LIGO's two detectors in Hanford and Livingston.

... Article Continues ...

It would appear that the 7 ms time delay associated with the GW150914 signal is also an intrinsic property of the noise. The purpose in having two independent detectors is precisely to ensure that, after sufficient cleaning, the only genuine correlations between them will be due to gravitational wave effects. The results presented here suggest this level of cleaning has not yet been obtained and that the identification of the GW events needs to be re-evaluated with a more careful consideration of noise properties.

We hope that our comment will improve the undestanding of the major results in our paper. We are thankful to Alessandra Buonanno and Ian Harry for scientific discussions, and for making their Python script available to us and the scientific community.

In August, after various seminars and discussions with their colleagues participating in the LIGO collaboration, the conclusions are still the same:

http://www.nbi.ku.dk/gravitational-waves/gravitational-waves-comment2.html

Quote
Comments on recent developments regarding our paper, 'On the time lags of the LIGO signals'
James Creswell, Sebastian von Hausegger, Andrew D. Jackson, Hao Liu, Pavel Naselsky
August 21, 2017

 During a two-week period at the beginning of August, we had a number of "unofficial" seminars and informal discussions with colleagues participating in the LIGO collaboration. A number of versions of the contents and conclusions of this meeting have subsequently appeared on the internet. Since we feel that none of these reports provides an accurate description of the content or conclusions of these meetings, we would like to offer our own summary. Given the media hype surrounding our recent publication, these meetings began with some measure of scepticism on both sides. The atmosphere improved dramatically as our meetings progressed.

The focus of these meetings was on the detailed presentation and lively critical discussion of the data analysis methods adopted by the two groups. While there was unofficial agreement on a number of important topics - such as the desirability of better public access to LIGO data and codes - we emphasize that no consensus view emerged on fundamental issues related to data analysis and interpretation.

In view of unsubstantiated claims of errors in our calculations, we appreciated the opportunity to go through our respective codes together - line by line when necessary - until agreement was reached. This check did not lead to revisions in the results of calculations reported in versions 1 and 2 of arXiv:1706.04191 or in the version of our paper published in JCAP. It did result in changes to the codes used by our visitors.

... Article Continues ...


In light of the above, our view should be clear: We believe that LIGO has not yet attained acceptable standards of data cleaning. Since we regard proof of suitable cleaning as a mandatory prerequisite for any meaningful comparison with specific astrophysical models of GW events, we continue to regard LIGO's claims of GW discovery as interesting but premature.
« Last Edit: September 07, 2018, 05:37:12 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6458
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Other confirmations of general relativity
« Reply #24 on: September 07, 2018, 05:32:09 PM »
In September, after the above and after another seminar discussing the validity of LIGO in AEI Hannover, the Danish team released another paper:

http://www.nbi.ku.dk/gravitational-waves/hannover-presentation.html

Quote
The results described here provide additional support for our conviction that LIGO's current data analysis techniques are not sufficiently reliable to support their claims. These extraordinary discoveries require far better proof.

*

Offline markjo

  • Purgatory
  • *
  • Posts: 3756
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Other confirmations of general relativity
« Reply #25 on: September 07, 2018, 05:46:08 PM »
Tom, is there the same level of skepticism for the August 2017 neutron star merger gravitational wave observation that was optically confirmed as there is for the black hole merger observation?
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6458
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Other confirmations of general relativity
« Reply #26 on: September 07, 2018, 06:26:47 PM »
Tom, is there the same level of skepticism for the August 2017 neutron star merger gravitational wave observation that was optically confirmed as there is for the black hole merger observation?

GW170817 is the event detected on August 17 2017.

The last article I posted from September 2017 and details that there was still disagreement. In September the Danish team maintained that LIGO's data analysis techniques were not reliable enough to support their claims. And we know how they can spin stories about events in the stars (which are probably constantly happening the more and 'further' one looks), as with the "Big Dog" event that never happened.

Another group of researchers looked at LIGO's GW170817 Gravity Wave signal from the Aug 17 2017 event and conclude that it is actually inconsistent with General Relativity, despite that we were all told that these Gravity Wave signals were a "proof" of General Relativity:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1804.03520.pdf

Quote
The observation of gravitational waves by the three LIGO-Virgo interferometers allows for the first time the examination of the polarization of gravitational waves. Here we analyze the binary neutron star event GW170817, whose source location and distance are determined precisely by concurrent electromagnetic observations. Applying a correlation averaging algorithm to the LIGO-Virgo strain data, we find ratios of the signals detected by the three interferometers. We conclude that signal ratios are inconsistent with general relativity, but consistent with the recently proposed vector theory of gravity [Phys. Scr. 92, 125001 (2017)].
« Last Edit: September 08, 2018, 02:10:05 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline markjo

  • Purgatory
  • *
  • Posts: 3756
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Other confirmations of general relativity
« Reply #27 on: September 07, 2018, 07:30:54 PM »
Tom, is there the same level of skepticism for the August 2017 neutron star merger gravitational wave observation that was optically confirmed as there is for the black hole merger observation?

GW170817 is the event detected on August 17 2017.

The last article I posted from September 2017 and details that there was still disagreement. In September the Danish team maintained that LIGO's data analysis techniques were not reliable enough to support their claims. And we know how they can spin stories about events in the stars (which are probably constantly happening the more and 'further' one looks), as with the "Big Dog" event that never happened.
That article didn't mention the GW170817 event, so it doesn't answer my question.

Another group of researchers looks at LIGO's GW170817 Gravity Wave signal from the Aug 17 2017 event and conclude that it is actually inconsistent with General Relativity, despite that we were all told that these Gravity Wave signals were a proof of General Relativity:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1804.03520.pdf

Quote
The observation of gravitational waves by the three LIGO-Virgo interferometers allows for the first time the examination of the polarization of gravitational waves. Here we analyze the binary neutron star event GW170817, whose source location and distance are determined precisely by concurrent electromagnetic observations. Applying a correlation averaging algorithm to the LIGO-Virgo strain data, we find ratios of the signals detected by the three interferometers. We conclude that signal ratios are inconsistent with general relativity, but consistent with the recently proposed vector theory of gravity [Phys. Scr. 92, 125001 (2017)].

Hmm...  Apparently you missed (or ignored) the last sentence in that paragraph:
Quote
If our analysis is correct, Einstein’s general theory of relativity is ruled out in favor of vector gravity and future gravitational wave detections by three or more observatories should confirm this conclusion.

So in other words, the jury is still out and GR isn't dead just yet.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5594
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Other confirmations of general relativity
« Reply #28 on: September 07, 2018, 08:21:46 PM »
No, you declaring it fake have is simply you editorializing.  Even if there is doubt as to the results of LIGO, and it looks like there are people that do have legitimate doubts, that is different than fake.

I didn't say that it was all fake. I said that their the credibility of their science is questionable since they "validated" fake data, and that their actions in preventing Peer Review is dishonest.

Speaking of dishonest, they are not and have done nothing to prevent peer review.  Their paper was peer reviewed prior to publishing and this process that we are in the process of describing here with our quotes is also peer review.

Quote
From your June 2017 LIGO reply to the Danish Scientists there is this message in the comments:

Quote
Camilo Delgado-Correal: The reply to the reply is here: http://www.nbi.ku.dk/gravitational-waves/gravitational-waves.html

This is the reply to the reply, and addresses the criticism:

Quote
Our recent arXiv posting of arXiv:1706.04191 "On the time lags of the LIGO signals" has generated considerable interest - both positive and negative. This is understandable given the significance of the claimed discovery of gravitational waves resulting from the merger of two black holes. In our opinion, a discovery of this importance merited a genuinely independent analysis of the data. It was the aim of our manuscript to perform such an analysis using publicly available data from LIGO and methods that were as close as possible to those adopted by the LIGO team. We focussed our attention mainly on the first event, GW150914, with special attention to the time lag between the arrival times of the signal at the Hanford and Livingston detectors. In our view, if we are to conclude reliably that this signal is due to a genuine astrophysical event, apart from chance-correlations, there should be no correlation between the "residual" time records from LIGO's two detectors in Hanford and Livingston.

... Article Continues ...

It would appear that the 7 ms time delay associated with the GW150914 signal is also an intrinsic property of the noise. The purpose in having two independent detectors is precisely to ensure that, after sufficient cleaning, the only genuine correlations between them will be due to gravitational wave effects. The results presented here suggest this level of cleaning has not yet been obtained and that the identification of the GW events needs to be re-evaluated with a more careful consideration of noise properties.

We hope that our comment will improve the undestanding of the major results in our paper. We are thankful to Alessandra Buonanno and Ian Harry for scientific discussions, and for making their Python script available to us and the scientific community.

In August, after various seminars and discussions with their colleagues participating in the LIGO collaboration, the conclusions are still the same:

http://www.nbi.ku.dk/gravitational-waves/gravitational-waves-comment2.html

Quote
Comments on recent developments regarding our paper, 'On the time lags of the LIGO signals'
James Creswell, Sebastian von Hausegger, Andrew D. Jackson, Hao Liu, Pavel Naselsky
August 21, 2017

 During a two-week period at the beginning of August, we had a number of "unofficial" seminars and informal discussions with colleagues participating in the LIGO collaboration. A number of versions of the contents and conclusions of this meeting have subsequently appeared on the internet. Since we feel that none of these reports provides an accurate description of the content or conclusions of these meetings, we would like to offer our own summary. Given the media hype surrounding our recent publication, these meetings began with some measure of scepticism on both sides. The atmosphere improved dramatically as our meetings progressed.

The focus of these meetings was on the detailed presentation and lively critical discussion of the data analysis methods adopted by the two groups. While there was unofficial agreement on a number of important topics - such as the desirability of better public access to LIGO data and codes - we emphasize that no consensus view emerged on fundamental issues related to data analysis and interpretation.

In view of unsubstantiated claims of errors in our calculations, we appreciated the opportunity to go through our respective codes together - line by line when necessary - until agreement was reached. This check did not lead to revisions in the results of calculations reported in versions 1 and 2 of arXiv:1706.04191 or in the version of our paper published in JCAP. It did result in changes to the codes used by our visitors.

... Article Continues ...


In light of the above, our view should be clear: We believe that LIGO has not yet attained acceptable standards of data cleaning. Since we regard proof of suitable cleaning as a mandatory prerequisite for any meaningful comparison with specific astrophysical models of GW events, we continue to regard LIGO's claims of GW discovery as interesting but premature.

Again, the Danish team has not undergone any formal peer review.  I understand that they have what they say are legitimate problems with the LIGO conclusions, but as you are conveniently ignoring, there are many people who have problems with the Jackson et al's analysis.  This criticism is not necessarily correct, just because it exists.  LIGO studied the criticism, and formally rebutted it, what else should they be doing?  Your characterization of LIGO's science and their response to criticism is entirely self-serving.  You cherry-pick the response that suits you and do nothing to address the views that disagree with you, other than to reassert your position.  Fine, you can do what you like, but it's obvious that LIGO has been acting above board with this process and have opened their work to peer-review.  It is a matter of public record and no matter how much you lie or obfuscate that, it will remain true.
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6458
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Other confirmations of general relativity
« Reply #29 on: September 07, 2018, 09:18:06 PM »
Again, the Danish team has not undergone any formal peer review.

What they are providing is the LIGO Peer Review.

    Scientist 1: Here is my study. Peer Review it please.

    Scientist 2: Okay, here is your Peer Review.

    Scientist 1: Where is the Peer Review for your Peer Review?

That's not how it works. Scientist 1 then needs to address the issues or modify his procedures. The LIGO team responsed, and the Danish team then proceeded to hold various seminars and meetings with their colleagues in the LIGO collaboration, has been addressing the LIGO concerns, and the Danish team still came away from those discussions with the conclusion that the LIGO procedures were not adequate, publishing additional material stating:

"The results described here provide additional support for our conviction that LIGO's current data analysis techniques are not sufficiently reliable to support their claims. These extraordinary discoveries require far better proof."

Is LIGO going to respond to the continued criticism and evidence varnished against them, or are they going to just ignore it?

That article didn't mention the GW170817 event, so it doesn't answer my question.

The article and the quote above says "discoveries," meaning that they are talking about all of them.
« Last Edit: September 07, 2018, 09:42:16 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5594
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Other confirmations of general relativity
« Reply #30 on: September 07, 2018, 10:25:08 PM »
Again, the Danish team has not undergone any formal peer review.

What they are providing is the LIGO Peer Review.

    Scientist 1: Here is my study. Peer Review it please.

    Scientist 2: Okay, here is your Peer Review.

    Scientist 1: Where is the Peer Review for your Peer Review?

That's not how it works. Scientist 1 then needs to address the issues or modify his procedures. The LIGO team responsed, and the Danish team then proceeded to hold various seminars and meetings with their colleagues in the LIGO collaboration, has been addressing the LIGO concerns, and the Danish team still came away from those discussions with the conclusion that the LIGO procedures were not adequate, publishing additional material stating:

"The results described here provide additional support for our conviction that LIGO's current data analysis techniques are not sufficiently reliable to support their claims. These extraordinary discoveries require far better proof."

Is LIGO going to respond to the continued criticism and evidence varnished against them, or are they going to just ignore it?

The LIGO paper was peer reviewed before publishing, and before Jackson er al published, so again, you are misrepresenting the situation.
Jackson et al. also need to have their analysis peer-reviewed since they are simply presenting a competing analysis, but you don’t seem to care about that, you only have your standard for those you disagree with. 

LIGO has not ignored anything. I pointed you to a rebuttal by one of the LIGO project leads directly to Jackson et al’s paper. So again, you are being extremely dishonest in your representation of the situation.

I don’t have anything further to say on this but I will continue to set the record straight if you persist in you disingenuous cherry picking and willful misrepresentation of the facts.
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6458
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Other confirmations of general relativity
« Reply #31 on: September 07, 2018, 10:35:19 PM »
Quote
LIGO has not ignored anything. I pointed you to a rebuttal by one of the LIGO project leads directly to Jackson et al’s paper. So again, you are being extremely dishonest in your representation of the situation.

I don’t have anything further to say on this but I will continue to set the record straight if you persist in you disingenuous cherry picking and willful misrepresentation of the facts.

You pointed me to the LIGO reply. And then I pointed you to three separate papers the Danish team uses to corroborate their position, how they held various seminars and meetings with their LIGO colleguges, and which all postdate the LIGO reply.

Yet you are pointing us to the original LIGO reply again? LIGO needs to address the continued reviews and evidence against them.

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5594
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Other confirmations of general relativity
« Reply #32 on: September 07, 2018, 10:35:40 PM »
Why? Because you feel like they should? Maybe there are events transpiring that we are not privy to?

What if the corroborating papers are nothing more gam spinning wheels? Does the Ligo team have to rehash the same point over and over again?
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6458
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Other confirmations of general relativity
« Reply #33 on: September 07, 2018, 11:16:49 PM »
Quote
Why? Because you feel like they should? Maybe there are events transpiring that we are not privy to?

What if the corroborating papers are nothing more gam spinning wheels? Does the Ligo team have to rehash the same point over and over again?

The Danish team at the Niels Bohr Institute claims to have collected additional supporting evidence for their position. LIGO should address it.

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

Funny. LIGO stopped reporting "Gravity Wave" discoveries right around the time they were getting awards, accolades, money, and the time of the criticism. There are no detected discoveries after Aug 2017 and none in 2018. What happened? Did gravity stop working?

*

Offline markjo

  • Purgatory
  • *
  • Posts: 3756
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Other confirmations of general relativity
« Reply #34 on: September 08, 2018, 12:37:39 AM »
Quote
Why? Because you feel like they should? Maybe there are events transpiring that we are not privy to?

What if the corroborating papers are nothing more gam spinning wheels? Does the Ligo team have to rehash the same point over and over again?

The Danish team at the Niels Bohr Institute claims to have collected additional supporting evidence for their position. LIGO should address it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gravitational_wave_observations
It seems to me that the GW170817 observation being confirmed optically should be irrefutable evidence that the LIGO team's data analysis procedures are valid.
« Last Edit: September 08, 2018, 12:59:25 AM by markjo »
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6458
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Other confirmations of general relativity
« Reply #35 on: September 08, 2018, 12:54:34 AM »
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gravitational_wave_observations
It seems to me that the GW170817 observation being confirmed optically should be irrefutable evidence that the LIGO team's data analysis procedures are valid.

Remember this quote?

https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/news/ligo20170601

Quote
    While LIGO continues to detect gravitational waves from merging black holes, electromagnetic (EM) observers are still hoping to spot a glimmer of light emanating from a gravitational wave event. To help make this happen, LIGO has partnered with 77 observatories around the world (including a couple in orbit), agreeing to let them know when we’ve detected a gravitational wave so they can look for some afterglow.

    After this latest event, all 77 partners were alerted and 34 were able to search for some light. As with our previous two detections, nothing was seen, but that’s not surprising for two big reasons:

    First, black holes are “black” because no light can escape them, even when they smash into each other, so we don’t expect to see light coming from the black holes themselves.

They have institutions working with them all over the world searching for the glow of some kind of event to correlate it with. Things are happening in the stars all the time, the closer and more you look.

Should it be any surprise that they were able to correlate it with something, considering the $1 Billion+ put into this and the desperate efforts of hundreds of scientists to do so?

If they had seen nothing, they would have just called it "black holes" as it is implied that they do in the above quote.
« Last Edit: September 08, 2018, 02:08:41 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline markjo

  • Purgatory
  • *
  • Posts: 3756
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Other confirmations of general relativity
« Reply #36 on: September 08, 2018, 01:00:13 AM »
Since you replied before my edit, I'm reposting this.

Funny. LIGO stopped reporting "Gravity Wave" discoveries right around the time they were getting awards, accolades, money, and the time of the criticism. There are no detected discoveries after Aug 2017 and none in 2018. What happened? Did gravity stop working?
No, gravity didn't stop working, but the observation run did end on Aug 25, 2017. 

https://www.ligo.org/news.php
Quote
Update on the start of LIGO's 3rd observing run

24 Apr 2018 -- LIGO's second observing run (O2) ended on August 25, 2017, and preparations for the third observing run (O3) began shortly thereafter. The detector installation and commissioning program between O2 and O3 has generally been proceeding well at all the LIGO and Virgo detector sites. Along with this progress we have also incurred delays in the start of full interferometer commissioning. As as result, the start of O3 is currently projected to begin in early 2019. Updates will be provided once the installation phase is complete and the commissioning phase has begun. An update on the engineering run prior to O3 will be provided by late summer 2018.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.