LIGO’s Gravitational Wave Discovery Is Still In Question, But Why?

ArticlesBlog

Written by:


In 2015, scientists observed gravitational
waves. For the first time ever, we could actually
‘see’ the distortion of space-time as it reacted to huge events in space, like the
collision of black holes. This was one of the most exciting physics
discoveries of our age, and the team involved were even awarded the Nobel Prize in physics
last year….so why is this discovery now being called into question? Ok, this is some pretty earth-shaking, heck,
even space-shaking drama. Scientific tea, if you will. Some scientists are now questioning the methods
used at the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory, which we all commonly know as
LIGO, where gravitational waves were first observed. It’s kind of like a really polite, but really
nitpicky episode of the real housewives of astrophysics. Just so we’re all clear, detecting gravitational
waves is really freakin’ hard, which is one of the reasons why it was such a big deal. When black holes, for instance, collide with
each other, they can merge, and in that merging process, some of the energy of that collision
is released into the universe as gravitational radiation. This is essentially a ripple that distorts
the earth by about the width of an atomic nucleus. So you can see why it was impressive when
the LIGO Scientific Collaboration said they were able to detect this wave. But the minuteness of a gravitational wave
is not the only problem LIGO faces. Yes, the detector has to be unprecedentedly
sensitive to observe and measure a gravitational wave, but it also has to be able to pick out
that wave from the endless buzz of other background noise, like the natural vibration of the earth
itself. So, in order to make sure that what they’re
measuring is really a gravitational wave and not something else, LIGO has two independent
sites: one in Louisiana and one in Washington. Between these two detectors, almost a continent
away from each other, there shouldn’t be any overlap in their noise patterns, but the
wave–the signal they’re actually looking for, should show up in corresponding places
at both observatories. So we should be able to easily identify what
is noise–all that stuff that doesn’t match up between detectors. Then when you subtract that away you’re
left with only the signal–the gravitational wave. That’s the ideal, anyway. And this is where the friendly collegial discussion
starts. A team of physicists at the Niels Bohr Institute
in Copenhagen made their own analysis of the LIGO’s freely and publicly available data
and they take issue with some of the methods used. When the Danish team re-analyzed LIGO’s
data, they found that while the wave signal matched up between the two detectors, so did
some of the noise. Which it shouldn’t, because the noise is
supposed to be random and independent between observatories. Which introduces the problem that maybe, the
signals that LIGO picked out are…less clear than the world would like to believe? As you can imagine, there’s been a LOT of
back and forth on this. The LIGO team has responded to the Danish
team’s concerns by basically saying that the methods and computer programs they used
to extract the original data are extremely complicated and the Danish team wasn’t using
them correctly. Which then prompts responses from some people
(like me) who say, “Ok, but even if your science is right it should be at least be
repeatable for other teams in your field, LIGO, ya diva”. And the Danish responded by saying “thank
you for teaching us more about your computer program, we re-did our analysis and we still
think your results are funky” And here’s the thing. This kind of kerfuffle…has happened before. Einstein predicted gravitational waves’
existence in 1916, and if we’ve actually detected them, we’ve now observed his theory
of general relativity in the tangible, physical properties of our universe. Which helps us better understand gravity and
where it comes from and why it behaves how it does–pretty huge and important mysteries
we’re still facing in physics. Since Einstein’s original proposal, several
other noteworthy experiments have tried to detect gravitational waves, with two standouts
claiming that they had, to much excitement…only to then be debunked, very publicly. Rather embarrassing for all involved. So it’s right to be skeptical, especially
about something as huge and groundbreaking as this particular phenomenon. But. When all is said and done and when the dust
settles around this flurry of agitated physicists, even in the most extreme scenario, scientists
agree that we’ve still definitely detected gravitational waves. This is the real deal this time, guys. It’s not that LIGO didn’t detect the waves,
it’s simply that their analysis may need improvement. And if it remains unimproved, these methods
could be introducing room for error that no one wants to have to deal with. This is the scientific process in action. As you watch this video, LIGO is putting together
a detailed document revealing how they got their results, so what could have been a potential
rift has instead opened up some important dialogue in the scientific community and will
hopefully be productive and just help us do the science better. And as of this early December, LIGO detected four more black hole mergers while looking through their previous observational data. he researchers say that these dectections weren’t as “loud” and needed more careful analysis. With that in mind, maybe this new paper will help qualm any debates about their techniques. As dramatic as it sounded like
it was gonna be, I don’t think it’s gonna provide enough material for an ultra-exciting
Hollywood reimagining. At least not yet. I guess we’ll see what happens. What do you think about this science saga? Let the the world know with your very own
website! Domain dot com is awesome, affordable, reliable,
and has all the tools you need to build a new website. They can fulfill all your website needs. They offer dot com and dot net domain names,
and intuitive website builders. They have over three hundred domain extensions
to fit your needs, from dot club to dot space, dot pizza! Take that first step in creating an identity
online and visit domain dot com. For more science drama check out this video
here, and keep coming back to Seeker for more breaking science news. Thanks for watching!

100 Replies to “LIGO’s Gravitational Wave Discovery Is Still In Question, But Why?”

  1. oldi184 says:

    Because black holes dont exist you silly woman in fake plastic glasses to look more smart.

  2. SnoopyDoo says:

    Except that you failed to mention that when the gravitational wave was detected, they informed the astronomy community where to point their telescopes. And sure enough, astronomers were able to see a blip of light at the location where none existed before. So even if the way they are detecting these waves is not entirely precise, they are able to verify the results visually.

  3. sharpbananas says:

    The title is very misleading. You literally say the discovery is not in question at the end of your video.

  4. ThisIsSolution says:

    The girl is dumb but she can read

  5. Otie Brown says:

    Excellent review.

  6. KingJacobElijah hajilEbocaJgniK says:

    Even if they detect a force from the black holes, like a wave, doesn't mean it is a gravity wave. It could be a force of energy or particles rushing towards us

  7. magnvss says:

    What do I think you ask? I think if you put enough effort and money on seeing something you will see something. Like the famous imaginary dragon in my garage. Indirectly, I mean. All the signs are there, you only need the words that point towards it, like in the Sherlock movies. (Ok, I will go but the all phrase that says that in science you have to wait until the paint is dry, and set and don’t rush to conclusions while is still wet). Time (and may be another types of experiments, if possible) will tell.

  8. Patavinity says:

    It was questioned immediately when the research was released. Clearly you weren't paying attention.

    Also – fewer moronic reality TV references might be a good idea.

  9. ecbravo999 says:

    Another goverment funded boondoggle! Over half a billion $ spent and it doesn’t work….

  10. Roi Cab says:

    Shes astronomically hot. Based on my own gravitational attractiveness meter…

  11. Jacob Kluza says:

    Garbage ass video why did I even click

  12. Don Jiaye says:

    Straight Fire…and all true

  13. Testpilot says:

    Am I the only one seeing the holy ”Space Owl”? 0:08

  14. PP Ray Chaudhury says:

    Great

  15. Dr Scott says:

    Maybe the problem is there is No such things as gravitational waves ! What they are measuring certainly is not gravity waves

  16. Mati Stein says:

    There's visual observation followed LIGO detection of a merger in 2017.
    This story is done.

  17. Mister Tea says:

    I already told the scientists at LIGO they got a leaky faucet. Why doesn't anybody listen to me? :/

  18. Abdega says:

    Since waves in later observations later allowed astronomers to observe neutron stars merge, shouldn’t that be more proof that the proof of concept is working?
    It just seems that it needs some more error correction and it might allow it to be more accurate

  19. jenish kachhadia says:

    Title is slightly clickbait.

  20. Dr Do-Little says:

    I think with the difficulty of detecting gravitational waves and the ground breaking tech required to do so. It's not surprising to see some healthy questioning about it.That is how science work and why peer review is important.

  21. peace to the world says:

    ok…so what's the app for mcdelivery? 😅

  22. Niraj Yadav says:

    She is lovely😍

  23. Eric Porter says:

    What about the time they detected a Neutron star merger? Wasn't that also confirmed in the visual and other light spectrum?

  24. Ethan b05 says:

    Yeah… But when they measured the merge of two neutron stars it was confirmed by LIGO, VIRGO and actual visual observation… So there isn't any doubt that we DID discover gravitational waves.

  25. Anthony Smith says:

    So Ive heard physicists sometimes describe existence as this series of fields and everything that exists is simply a vibration in said fields and that particles are just what we see as the manifestation of the vibrations. So I thought perhaps there isn't a graviton because the vibration in the gravitational field doesn't manifest as a "visible" particle.

  26. Daniel Dulu says:

    Keep trying, cannot justify this research really. I stand by the fact that you are analyzing very distant phenomena and there is much room for errors especially since you keep saying the effect is slight.

  27. Science Revolution says:

    All scientists think the speed of gravity is light speed C. They are all wrong.

    Gravity is inherited force between masses, it is co-existed, indestructible, immortal, always there. Therefore gravity is instantaneous, it has infinite speed.

    Gravity is like invisible, mass less real connection between masses.

    If the sun has a quake, all planets will instantly sense the quake at the same time.

    Gravity has to be instantaneous, otherwise, no planet can have a stable orbit.

  28. Jarid Williams says:

    one of the points of this is to say “ok were going to test every possible way this could have been a false positive” before jumping to conclusions

  29. Anonymous says:

    Let’s not turn this into some kind of drama show. Science is innocent.

  30. Neutron Star says:

    You see this shit conspiracy theorist? This is what happens when a certain group of scientist questions a groundbreaking discovery. They don't just go to youtube and upload and made up shit about the targetted topic, they write and publish a journal about it. This is what we call science, and this is why I trust science more than some bullshit youtube videos.

  31. Rich B says:

    Scientists should be skeptical, and should undergo close scrutiny and debate.

  32. Jeremiah Mullikin says:

    The discovery of gravitational waves is also the birth of gravitodynamics. We'll be using them to communicate and for propulsion in the future.

  33. Raul Perez says:

    what do i think about this? i think you are hot wink wink

  34. jerry jackson says:

    Sounds like a bunch a bs . Use the funding for the poor

  35. Weldon Oliver says:

    I just love this stuff. Your presentation is great. Love your cheerful approach to unanswered questions in order to keep them going.

  36. nightmisterio says:

    Come on anyone in the real world knows it's a fraud and a crime and people should be arrested!

  37. ICONIC MUSIC says:

    OMG, still want to get hitched with her. She's my dream girl 😘

  38. Ross Jennings says:

    I'm surprised to see this video now. This back-and-forth happened about 18 months ago, and as far as I can tell, the criticisms turned out not to have much weight. A reasonably detailed rebuttal by a postdoc in the field can be found at http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2017/06/18/a-response-to-on-the-time-lags-of-the-ligo-signals-guest-post/.

  39. Crimson Khan says:

    Small peek on higher dimensions deserves Nobel prize…but if the idea is 100 years old and there is a correlation in randomness? maybe this is where we discovered the calculable chaos. But the tool (math) we use is not that strong enough. We should reinvent math like Newton did once. Thanks Seeker!

  40. Kirritz zz says:

    what if we make another ligo in the moon too? that would make it way more reliable.

  41. Ahmet aa says:

    liars get nobel price, what a world

  42. BigNewGames says:

    Black holes cannot collide. In 2004 I discovered a missing variable in Einstein's field equation. He never addressed the action causing gravity. Sure, his equation perfectly describes the motion of small mass, like something falling to the Earth but it does not accurately describe anything about a black hole.

    When LIGO detected it's first GW they automatically assumed it was caused by a pair of black holes colliding. I said they were in error. I said that a pair of black holes are not able to collide. I said the GW event was not a collision of anything but instead was an electromagnetic event. I said to prove it they simply needed to look at the gamma ray burst data, that they would discover a GRB that occurred at the same moment and location where the GW was detected. Sure enough, astrophysicists went over the data of GRBs and discovered I was right. A gamma ray burst occurred at the same location and time the GW was detected by LIGO. Like I said, it was not a collision of anything but was an electromagnetic event, with universal proportions.

    I had proposed several years ago that this type of electromagnetic event would be discovered, based on James Maxwell's field equations and the quantum entanglement that occurs to the potential information contained within every EM field. The event they detected had nothing to do with gravity or the collision of anything, a pair of black holes or a pair of neutron stars. Two stars spewing million mile per hour solar winds would not be able to get close enough to one another to collide. Their winds would push them away from one another. The same thing would occur to a pair of black holes.

    I predicted that EHT, the event horizon telescope would not detect an event horizon around the black hole Sgr A* in the center of the Milky Way. The radio telescopes would detect gas and dust orbiting the black hole but the gas and dust would not fall into it. I also deduced that the energy the radio telescopes have been detecting is actually coming from the surface of the black hole and that Einstein's field equation was incorrect, that nothing is able to fall into a black hole, not dust or anything else let alone another black hole or a star. Black holes do not consume matter, they create new matter. Black holes slowly create the galaxies around them over time. They are the real trees of life giving rise to all the matter, energy and consciousness the galaxy could ever contain. Black holes are the givers of information, i.e., trees of knowledge. They do not destroy anything and black holes exist forever, never evaporating out of existence.

  43. denijane says:

    The problem is in the management of the LIGO collaboration.Before they took the Nobel prize, everything was ridiculously secretive. Probably because there are billions of dollars involved. But that's not how science is done. Science needs to be reproducible. Which means, once you have published successfully your discovery, everything related to it should be published as well. Which is particularly true when it comes to ground-breaking discoveries. They did open their data, but that happened this year. But that's not enough, because their algorithms are so sophisticated, they need to also educate people how to use them. In short, it's really complicated and really hard to check the science. Even for astrophysicists, even for experts in grav. waves, it's just HARD. So even though the neutron stars merger was an absolute confirmation on their ability to detect grav. waves, we still have to be able to understand all the details before we can say if everything else but the pure existence is correct.

  44. Catalin Mihai says:

    Maybe are more gravity waves.
    Each gravity wave has it's owns rules.

  45. Matteo O'Connor says:

    I don't understand the problem. Random noise is likely to match up in certain spots with other random noise. But it should be easy to identify the nonrandom signal between the two.

  46. Paul Kim says:

    smart is sexy.
    my brain hurts

  47. ionoi says:

    Wouldn't any object that moves closer and away create gravity waves? It's just most of the time they're too weak to measure. I'm missing why it's so important

  48. Jonny Dadras says:

    With all due respect, you should have an actual physicists explain this….

  49. Christopher Sadoun says:

    Maybe the LIGO will be able to detect gravitational waves that come from the warp drives in the flying saucers if warp drive exists in flying saucers if flying saucers exist.

  50. WestOfEarth says:

    The match up in several other signals would be other gravity-related events, right? I don't have their data, and not that I could understand it, but from what I've seen in this vid, this appears to be the case? Except that the lower amplitude correlations were within margins of error, and so weren't reliable. The black hole merger is a clear spike in the data.

  51. Siyanda Madlala says:

    Just say God did it

  52. Allan Dohkan says:

    Did you say ligma?

  53. Bart barry says:

    Until we get inside a black hole it's only theory.

  54. Mauricio Acosta says:

    Really wanted to hear more about the two previous failed attempts to detect gravitational waves

  55. Helgefan says:

    Then again, they managed to deduce pretty accurately where to look optically for those colliding neutron stars just from the time delay and signal strength in the results of the different detectors. And they actually observed plausible chemistry in the light for that event, so it seems rather unlikely that not only the gravitational wave detectors, but also the optical telescopes would agree just by accident….

  56. SondeBeeches says:

    https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/12/two-independent-analyses-confirm-ligos-discovery-of-gravitational-waves/

  57. Shannon Sims says:

    The supposed collaborative optical component everyone keeps mentioning was merely a coincidence. According to their own findings the object was located at the 50% range of their gravitational wave location probability map. This is not science and neither is LIGO. For the LIGO team to think they can detect something one-ten-thousandth the diameter of a proton is at best hubris, at worst delusional.
    Their paper can be found here: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/aa9059/meta

  58. koo jaba says:

    LIGO's Detect Black-hole collision .. maybe
    LIGO's Detect gravitational waves … NO
    gravitational waves is a gravity as wave its can in-phase and out-phase = the spot in space that have gravity 0 = Lagrangian point
    Somebody found it many years ago NOT a LIGOs

  59. Raj Raj says:

    but indian vedic astrology already has talk bout it few thousand years back,,and no one talk it here..lol ..good luck

  60. Staminist says:

    THANK YOU!
    See? THIS is legit straight to the point attitude in science we should all abide by. The counterclaim was not silenced (like it happens sometimes), I mean – Nobel prizes were at stake!! Yet truth won! I applaud the Danish team and all who stood behind them!

  61. John Adams says:

    She's pretty hot! Definitely sent a wave my way 😘

  62. Eric Holmquist says:

    Great breakdown of the scrutiny of the finding. While I'm sure the respective scientific communities will ultimately sort out the methods and findings, I'm still a little unsure what we do with the information, assuming that we do confirm, that we have in fact observed this cosmic wrinkle from billions of miles away. Does it simply support our understanding of something, or tell us something new?

  63. Tahir Ahmed says:

    She's cute

  64. Tom Mallard says:

    Consider that gravity can be a fluid that conducts forces, not a force itself, akin to the Higgs concept as omnipotent, yet, beyond resolution on what the fluid actually is …

  65. InfinityDagger says:

    wtf

  66. GG says:

    Build a 3rd Ligo here in Australia. If all 3 correlate, we can then assume it isn’t grav. waves.

  67. Alex O says:

    The issue is that they think that gravitational waves are vastly different than all other waves, I don't that's the case. In fact I think that the other waves greatly contribute to how gravity works, in the manner in which it displaces the matter between the objects making "gravity" possible.

  68. Veselka says:

    ligo is overall interesting machine and building to see

  69. sprinter768 says:

    Maren <3

  70. David Williams says:

    And why didn't you mention the use of templates? Once the 'noise' was removed from the raw data, the filtered data were 'compared' with a number of templates (250,000 plus 'chirps') based on what gravitational wave signal might be measured if black holes, of various sizes, and various distances, were to coalesce. Thus, a best fit of the processed data to one of these templates resulted in the 'discovery of gravitational waves'. Fantastic feat of engineering – measuring down to the diameter of a proton, etc – but the embedded statistical analysis is, unfortunately, open to question, as shown by the criticisms from the Niels Bohr Institute and others. There are also some doubts as to the existence of black holes – infinite density in an infinitely small location, etc – which reduces further the validity of such templates.

  71. SD Marlow says:

    So my doubts from 3 years ago are still relevant. Cool. https://medium.com/@sd_marlow/the-gravitational-dilemma-57c8b51b5977

  72. Hillary's emails to Lorne says:

    thanks for posting:)

  73. Aaerk Xaiedrschtaufenbach Aaerkhaezxahaenlock-e says:

    Personally I think black holes are "actual holes" in space time fabric or the plane of the universe, due to that, the hole causes infinite density because nothing can escape and it's a hole things don't get out of some holes (in this case black holes are that kind of un-escapable hole. Since nothing leaves it I think there's absolutely nothing on the other side, just pitch pitch black, the blackest black ever

  74. havenly shamblin says:

    There are more than one wave.

  75. havenly shamblin says:

    Distortion

  76. havenly shamblin says:

    All we are and perceive is waves down to atoms and electrons.

  77. havenly shamblin says:

    Look at sound light the brain ect. The whole picture was laid out by more than eighn stien. Its just peices brought together. Really you could tell water and space have alot in common. Waves in space just prove that.

  78. havenly shamblin says:

    Ask my nephew Dillion Cotrill from wv.

  79. Lennart Hedlund says:

    They have detected several waves since 2015. She forgot to mention that.
    https://www.ligo.org/detections/O1O2catalog/pr-english.pdf

  80. Euan McMurtrie says:

    Can you really deny their methods when they have detected not only binary black hole mergers but also a neutron star merger which was detected by Earth based telescopes in multiple points in the EM spectrum?

  81. john doe says:

    Can you move your hands a little more, please? Also, talk more like a teenager.

  82. Jaganath Muni says:

    U bitch

  83. hasina banu says:

    Well we're sure at least one instance: that case when two Neutron star merged and produced elector-magnetic wave beside gravitational wave. Signal pattern in that one vs noise pattern surrounding that signal can be used as a reference. Just saying.

  84. Andrew Murphy says:

    Oversensationalize your clickbait headlines much? You said as much yourself, they all agreed it was detected, just a minor note that the data processing could be improved.

    This is clickbait and you should be ashamed of yourselves – this video was 2018, clickbait is so 2013.

  85. Hand Solo says:

    2:02 They didn't detect shit, all they did was using a facility they designed to gather noises and then use an algorithm they wrote to generate a curve that matches one of their thousands of predictions. Same shit by climate change alarmist.

  86. SPillay says:

    Danish fellas are jealous, i guess. And we have one more in ligo in italy, maybe a mafia conspiracy 😜😂😂😂

  87. Graeme Lastname says:

    Makes me wonder if some of the noise could be gravitational waves of an unknown or unexpected source.

  88. Anston Dsouza says:

    can't we just make a small observatory and just blast it off to space?? it will be easier as there will be no noise or any kind of other vibrations…. but I agree that it'll be expensive, heavy and really complex but if it works! the time, work and money will pay off!! and be careful of the space junk too.

  89. Miles Marcuson says:

    I'm still waiting for the ESA's LISA (a space based laser interferometer).

  90. L Lou says:

    LOL, okay, it is clear this is NOT science discovery until it can be redone again & again. You know what it is THEY want a GRANT, money & those guys who showed there was a problem have now got a slice of the pie. They ain't got s*it.

  91. josiah john samuel says:

    Damn, she's hot. 💙🥺🌸

  92. Real M says:

    Not all scientists agree that there are such things as gravitational waves. And that LIGO is very much in the wrong. It's not the friendly disagreement as you put it but simply a total disagreement.

  93. MB D says:

    we are not allowed to be skeptical about climate science why should we be allowed to be skeptical about physics aka LIGO. if the media reported it, it becomes fact and we must accepted it ;/ we should call those who question it LIGO deniers LOL

  94. Алибек Баккельдие says:

    New gravitational-wave detector, for a closed laboratory in a simulator with orbital gravity of the SUN. The invention KZ-33869

    http://g55ton.narod.ru/patent.html

  95. Nowhy says:

    aww too good, the Ligo dudes used the same technique as noise canceling headphones do (subtraction can also be used in music production to separate, let's say a voice from music), but forgot that there is always some noise left (I could be wrong here). Also, shouldn't there be three or more measurement centers if they want to "prove" the occurance of a 3D phenomenon? If so, it's embarrassing if they didn't even figure that out, but don't ask me, I don't understand the math behind it. Also, isn't there no sound in "space" (outside of our liquid atmosphere)? Hmm, maybe a detector would need to be outside of the atmosphere of the earth, but this again is just another intuitive thought. I surely don't want give some scientist the idea to want to go build a moonstation just for such a silly experiment. Blackholes could have all kinds of funky attributes which we can't observe – I am not sure if they are a good basis when it comes to scientific truth, but that could be my prejudice when it comes to thing that "attract" a lot mass, or should I say masses; especially if that observation involves traveling "into" one. Even the movie interstellar had one very obvious flaw, which nobody seem to care about, for it's only a movie and it's stupid to watch a movie/documentary with the expectation to see life as it is.

    I could be wrong eveywhere…

  96. Thaddeus Gutierrez says:

    LIGO relaxed discovery criteria to produce the N=4 (N=5 including LVT151012) O2 catalogue to include events that have a false alarm rate of slightly over 1 event every 30 days., which increased putative LIGO-Virgo signals from N=6[7] to N=11. Magnetospheric sawtooth events [MSEs], which are substorm-like intervals in which quasiperiodic intermittent coupling between ground and solar wind directly drives dipolarization of ground-ionosphere through magnetospheric mode, are accompanied by anomalous particle acceleration, burst-synchronized global CG lightning, and atmospheric ion outflow with plasmoid ejection from Earth’s magnetosphere into space. MSEs occur on average approx.. once per 33 days (~11 MSEs/yr; LIGO O1-O2 N=11 total events for almost exactly 1 yr. accumulated quality data for network duty cycle).

    https://arxiv.org/pdf/1811.12907.pdf

  97. Thaddeus Gutierrez says:

    LIGO-Virgo are exploiting bandwagon mentality and cultural over-reliance on computation/overspecialization. Insufficient differentiation of successive samples generates cumulative error/false positives; sensitivity of tests to false positive bias is lost. Model-free parameters impossible, including signal source inference.

    EM noise transients fit LIGO templates:
    https://fulguritics.blogspot.com/2018/11/ligo-single-detector-trigger-rate-for.html

    GW150914 signal and foreground analysis:

    https://fulguritics.blogspot.com/2018/06/progress-on-ligo-event-analysis-here.html

    GW150914 lags and eigenmodes from coherent foreground mode, T-storm spatial paramters and detector network geometry relative to attenuation at coordinate-bound continental horizon:

    https://fulguritics.blogspot.com/2018/06/blog-post.html

    Geomagnetic ground response in North America for GW150914

    https://fulguritics.blogspot.com/2018/06/httpswww.html

    CG lightning response surrounding LIGO-Virgo triggers:

    https://fulguritics.blogspot.com/2018/06/continent-wide-blitzortung.html

    GW170817

    https://fulguritics.blogspot.com/2018/06/gw170817-occurs-at-green-bar.html

    GRB170817A:

    https://fulguritics.blogspot.com/2018/10/why-is-information-on-ngc-4993.html

  98. Beautiful Korea says:

    I think an underground nuclear experiment in North Korea could have caused what LIGO detected.

  99. An Dre says:

    plis guys.. they discovered nothing! it's just noice! they can't filter all the noice and say the rest is gravitational waves! they don't know how it should look, so they don't know what they are searching for! Plus: the background noice is so loud it is impossible to extract everything.. it's also not a "single" backgound noice which is stable… it is impossible! Ask some radiologists how they use filters to erase the noice!
    Just ask yourself: how much money do they get to build and maintain this shit!? even if they discoverd the waves: what did it changed?! nothing! guys, they are hunting unicorns with your money. With a lot of money

  100. Cymoon RBACpro says:

    When Seeing is not- here’s the issue, the LIGO system picks up more than expected And they will never tell the Public this; Did you know that LIGO system is receiving signals that number in the hundreds and they classify them as “glitches” ! And Scientist have no idea the sources of these so-called glitches. Could it be that this GW chirp is actually just a glitch which was misinterpreted to be a gravitational waves. Please note the excerpts of the article which follows;
    LIGO glitches are detector events of unknown origin whose frequency spectrum does not look like the expected gravitational wave signals. I don’t know exactly how many of those the detector suffers from, but the way they are numbered, by a date and two digits, indicates between 10 and 100 a day. LIGO uses a citizen science project, called “Gravity Spy” to identify glitches. There isn’t one type of glitch, there are many different types of them, with names like “Koi fish,” “whistle,” or “blip. Now you have to ask yourself ; are these scientists cherry picking the data? who is determining what’s valid? These proclamation of gravitational waves are self-serving, indeed!
    See this glitches https://image.slidesharecdn.com/deeptransferlearningforglitchclassification-170724055302/95/deep-transfer-learning-a-new-deep-learning-glitch-classification-method-for-advanced-ligo-4-1024.jpg?cb=1500875658

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *