LIGO: Water water everywhere, but not a drop to drink......
It's worth noting that the 03 LIGO run has now found 50+ "signals" which LIGO claims are celestial in origin, yet they've failed to provide a single new example of a multimessenger event in 2019/2020. Thus far it's been signals, signals everywhere and not a drop of light (or neutrinos) to see.
While the 2017 mutlimessenger event seemed impressive even to a skeptic like me, it is still statistically possible that the one 2017 example of multimessenger astronomy was a statistical fluke, and a random coincidence.
_
I had hoped that my concerns about LIGO's biased and sloppy methodology would have been put to rest by now, but alas I'm more skeptical of their claims today than I've ever been. There's no particular or logical reason why all BBH merger events should never produce EM radiation that is visible on Earth, nor is there any logical reason why the none of the six or so claims about BNS mergers could be verified by visual support._
IMO this whole LIGO mess reeks of the Joseph Weber scenario all over again, only this time the "LIGO bars" cost 200+ billion dollars to build.
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/E ... fbf96907cc
In the paper that I wrote in 2017, I cited five specific major problems with LIGO's methodology, a bias in favor of celestial claims as to cause, including a lack of a veto method associated with all claims of celestial origins of signals, a fuzzy sigma figure that has no relationship to the actual cause of any given signal, no logical ability to distinguish between what LIGO calls "blip transients" and GW signals, etc.
I half expected that my concerns about their questionable methodology might be put to rest in 03, but unfortunately LIGO seems to have painted themselves into a scientific corner.
Joseph Weber claimed to have observed hundreds of gravitational wave events using his 'Weber bar" design, but when other individuals/groups tried to build their own device and replicate his findings, they could not. Virgo is the closest thing to a modern day equivalent of such an effort, but it's costs are orders of magnitude greater, and the results are certainly damning when you look at the 03 data.
Around 20 or so of the so called "signals" reported to the gracedb database during the 03 LIGO/Virgo run, which were originally categorized as being celestial in origin because they were picked up by multiple detectors (sometimes all three), were later "retracted" and later attributed to terrestrial sources. This seems to support my concern that it's virtually impossible to distinguish between a "blip transient" which might be observed in multiple detectors and a real GW signal. Furthermore, we can see by LIGO's new naming convention in 03 (adding letters to the end of signals), that "blip transients", which look extremely similar to gravitational wave signals, are routinely picked up on pretty much a daily basis. In short, LIGO has no logical method to differentiate between terrestrial blip transient events, and gravitational waves. The only way to correct that problem would be to add a veto "method" to their methodology that requires multimessenger support for celestial origin claims. We all know that's never going to happen.
It's also very telling that LIGO has reported 6 new binary neutron star mergers, and 45 or so BBN mergers, yet even with improved sensitivity and better triangulation potential, LIGO has yet to duplicate a single new instance of multimessenger support.
It took years for Joseph Weber's claims to eventually be debunked, and it was only possible by building additional detectors. In this case however, the detectors don't just cost a few thousands of dollars to replicate, they cost 200 billion+ dollars to replicate. The difficulty involved in debunking such claims has increased my many orders of magnitude. In this case, unlike the case with Weber, even when Virgo (or a LIGO detector) fails to detect a signal when the other two detectors do, they do not use that lack of detection to cast doubt on the LIGO claims, rather they handwave and make up excuses for that lack of detection. Admittedly, the Virgo detector isn't quite as sensitive as the LIGO systems, and it's orientation is different, but that's now being used an excuse to not attempting to "debunk" the celestial origin claims. Essentially no effort is being made to test the veracity of LIGO's claims, at least not yet. That may change as other detectors in India and Japan come online, but at the moment there's been no effort made to test the veracity of LIGO's GW claims. All we can therefore go by is LIGO (now terrible) track record at replicating multimessenger astronomy. They're 0 for 50+ in the 03 run of 2019/2020. If this trend continues, they'll be 0 for around 70 by the end of the 03 run in April/May.
I must say that I'm not surprised, but I'm disappointed. It would have been a real game changer in astronomy if LIGO's claims of a celestial origin of these signals were proven during the 03 run, but apparently that's not going to happen. Now what?
#gravity #astrophysics #physics #LIGO #VIRGO #corruption #science #regressive
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum3/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=159
