GW170608, Hanford's Chirp

[worlov]

Hello!

We have the following

"GW170608 was observed during a routine instrumental procedure at LHO..." http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/aa9f0c

The authors claim that this did not disturb the signal itself. But let's take a closer look at the spectrogram. I have made these a bit more contrasting
and brighter (see below). You can see in the spectrogram that the structure of the noise has changed: http://vixra.org/pdf/1804.0095v1.pdf Before the maintenance work we see the point-shaped fluctuations structure. And during the maintenance work it can be seen horizontal - along the time - noise lines, also in the frequency range above 30Hz. And this has obviously an aftermath: Hanford's Chirp is more than four times longer than Chirp by Livingston. Even if we accept the GW-event as real, the relativistic template is too long, because it was adapted to Harford's Chirp. That's why I think the data needs to be overhauled.

Regards

 

 

 

[Strange]

You appear to have based your "analysis" on looking at some pictures rather than the data. 

22 minutes ago, worlov said:

Before the maintenance work we see the point-shaped fluctuations structure

I have no idea what you are talking about. Before the -2 minutes mark, there is no data (because they were not injecting the test signal into the actuators).

24 minutes ago, worlov said:

And during the maintenance work it can be seen horizontal - along the time - noise lines, also in the frequency range above 30Hz.

There is no data outside of the narrow range centred on 20 Hz. (This is confirmed by the other diagram in the original paper.)

I can only assume you are looking at the noise and JPEG artefacts (exacerbated by you manipulating the image) and thinking that it is data.

44 minutes ago, worlov said:

Hanford's Chirp is more than four times longer than Chirp by Livingston.

What data do you base this claim on?

45 minutes ago, worlov said:

the relativistic template is too long, because it was adapted to Harford's Chirp

According to the paper, both signals were matched against templates (separately) and the results were consistent.

46 minutes ago, worlov said:

That's why I think the data needs to be overhauled.

And what did the LIGO people say when you told them this?

Finally ... Vixra? Really?

[beecee]

16 minutes ago, Strange said:

Finally ... Vixra? Really?

Yeah, that's the first thing that grabbed me. 

Then I checked out the "content history" 

 

[Strange]

5 minutes ago, beecee said:

Then I checked out the "content history"

I did that after replying. Should have done it first, then I could have avoided wasting my time on this.

[koti]

9 minutes ago, beecee said:

Yeah, that's the first thing that grabbed me. 

Then I checked out the "content history" 

 

Their mission seems especially "compelling":

"The visual design of viXra.org (but not its content) is a parody of arXiv.org to highlight Cornell University's unacceptable censorship policy. Vixra is also an experiment to see what kind of scientific work is being excluded by the arXiv. But most of all it is a serious and permanent e-print archive for scientific work. Unlike arXiv.org it is truly open to scientists from all walks of life. You can support this project by submitting your articles"

Calls for a thread - "Is hacking always a bad thing?"

Edited April 19, 2018 by koti

[beecee]

22 minutes ago, koti said:

Their mission seems especially "compelling":

"The visual design of viXra.org (but not its content) is a parody of arXiv.org to highlight Cornell University's unacceptable censorship policy. Vixra is also an experiment to see what kind of scientific work is being excluded by the arXiv. But most of all it is a serious and permanent e-print archive for scientific work. Unlike arXiv.org it is truly open to scientists from all walks of life. You can support this project by submitting your articles"

Calls for a thread - "Is hacking always a bad thing?"

Yes I do have a rough idea of how it works with comparison to arXiv, and I don't doubt that on occasion some possibly worth while work may be excluded: Still I believe that censorship is a necessary evil.

 

 http://vixra.org/why

"We will not prevent anybody from submitting and will only reject articles in extreme cases of abuse, e.g. where the work may be vulgar, libellous, plagiaristic or dangerously misleading.

It is inevitable that viXra will therefore contain e-prints that many scientists will consider clearly wrong and unscientific."

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

 

On the subject matter of the thread though, I certainly believe for many reasons that the scientists involved in the 5 detections of binary BH collisions and 1 Neutron star binary collision, have been fairly diligent and thorough in eliminating and ruling out anomalous and false readings attributed to other sources other then gravitational waves.

[Strange]

They only make passing reference in this paper to some of the techniques used to eliminate false results. But there have been large numbers of papers released before which go into great details on how signals are identified, the multiple methods used to eliminate noise, extraneous signals and false positives, and so on.

The idea that someone could spot an error by looking at a noisy JPG is laughable. It is up there with the "face on Mars" and "Jesus in my toast" stories.

[worlov]

The spectrogram ('a noise JPG') is a visual representation of the measurement data. If you say it is not relevant, then you're also rejecting the data behind it. I did not paint this spectrogram. Take the original picture and you will see the same thing.

[Strange]

1 hour ago, worlov said:

The spectrogram ('a noise JPG') is a visual representation of the measurement data.

Yes, it is a representation. It is not the data.

1 hour ago, worlov said:

If you say it is not relevant, then you're also rejecting the data behind it.

Don't be ridiculous. I didn't say it wasn't relevant. And I am not rejecting the data behind it. I said you should use the data for your "analysis".

Most of the data is lost in the image. JPG is a a lossy format that introduces errors and noise, apart from anything else.

As you haven't answered my questions I will take this as confirmation of my conclusions that:

1. You are looking at the noise in the image and thinking it is significant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia)

2. You don't have a clue what you are talking about - confirmed by looking at your previous posts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect)

 

Feel free to prove me wrong by going back to the original data, using statistical analysis to support your case or showing what is wrong with the procedures used by LIGO.

[worlov]

Your theory about JPG effect can not be right. I painted a similar picture in Microsoft Paint. The file was first saved as BMP and afterwards as JPG. But I could not see any difference with my naked eyes. See also this picture below. The white stripe does not change the background. Certainly there is an effect in the pixel area, but for us this is insignificant. (So much for my alleged paranoia.)

The horizontal noise chains in the original spectrogram are therefore real!

[Strange]

1 hour ago, worlov said:

Your theory about JPG effect can not be right. I painted a similar picture in Microsoft Paint. The file was first saved as BMP and afterwards as JPG. But I could not see any difference with my naked eyes.

This is because you don't understand how JPEG encoding works.

1 hour ago, worlov said:

(So much for my alleged paranoia.)

Who said you are paranoid?

1 hour ago, worlov said:

The horizontal noise chains in the original spectrogram are therefore real!

Yes. They are real noise. In other words, not signal.

 

How about answering the questions in my first post?

[worlov]

The cause of the distorted noise is obviously in the maintenance procedure. Both noise and signal are measured by the same equipment during this maintenance procedure. Therefore it is to be expected that the signal itself will be distorted as well as the noise.

If the signal has been stretched, it should be compressed so that it gets its original appearance. But then it will have different curvature than in Livingston. That way the chirps will not agree with each other. As result they can be treated only as random glitches. The consequence, there was no GW170608 event in reality.

[Phi for All]

5 hours ago, Strange said:

Who said you are paranoid?

Paranoiadolia: when you think the images you're imagining are out to get you. 

[Strange]

1 hour ago, worlov said:

The cause of the distorted noise is obviously in the maintenance procedure. Both noise and signal are measured by the same equipment during this maintenance procedure. Therefore it is to be expected that the signal itself will be distorted as well as the noise.

1. It's noise. 

2. You can't deduce anything from looking at a photo. Use the data.

1 hour ago, worlov said:

If the signal has been stretched

But it hasn't been.

1 hour ago, worlov said:

The consequence, there was no GW170608 event in reality.

There was no event in your fantasy world. That exists only in your head. 

Back in reality, real scientists used real statistical analysis on real data to confirm that a real event really happened.

Edited April 20, 2018 by Strange

[beecee]

1 hour ago, worlov said:

The consequence, there was no GW170608 event in reality.

 Not only was the event real, it was real also on five other occasions. Of course if you had anything real or of substance indicating that the scientists involved were wrong or mistaken, you would not be here conducting your fruitless campaign: You would write up a professional paper for proper peer review. But you havn't and you won't.

22 hours ago, Strange said:

The idea that someone could spot an error by looking at a noisy JPG is laughable. It is up there with the "face on Mars" and "Jesus in my toast" stories.

And the "faked Moon landings" and UFO's of Alien origin nonsense.

[John Cuthber]

This thread makes as much sense as weighing a picture of an elephant rather than weighing the elephant itself.