It's useless science Friday in my head - Welcome to the show.

[Strychnine]

I'd like to make a poster of that Galaxy that Hubble took...

Go here: http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/archivepix.html

Prepare to waste a TON of time. Many much better pics of much cooler stuff, and most have links to hi-res files.

[DON SVO]

Whatever, Matt. Don't be a killjoy. I can't wait to see those fuckin' dinosaurs!!!

I think it'll be something like this:

[Ruffdaddy]

As soon as i read the gravity waves thing...i immediately thought that it sounded like something someone was out to prove was true. If thats your only goal...youll make the data "prove" it every time.

[YALE]

As soon as i read the gravity waves thing...i immediately thought that it sounded like something someone was out to prove was true. If thats your only goal...youll make the data "prove" it every time.

[Strychnine]

As soon as i read the gravity waves thing...i immediately thought that it sounded like something someone was out to prove was true. If thats your only goal...youll make the data "prove" it every time.

Isn't that the point? Or are you saying they lied about the data collected?

The current results are better than five sigma - that's a 1:3,500,000 chance that it was just a coincidence. That's a "99.9999% certainty, or more correctly a 0.00001% chance that you have made a faulty observation — is the threshold for an observation to be labeled a scientific discovery"


So first they had to use the theory to make predictions about how two black holes might interact

Simulating the merger of black holes is no small scientific feat. For one thing, it requires a lot of computing horsepower — the kind you can get only from a supercomputer. It also involves solving complex, multilayered equations of Einstein’s theory of general relativity at lightning speed. Using supercomputers, researchers in the field of numerical relativity hope to shed light on the physics of the most violent events in the cosmos. Black hole mergers and colliding neutron stars are two primary candidates.

But numerical relativity demands that researchers take on Albert Einstein full bore. Solving the equations of general relativity — Einstein’s grand theory of gravity — is a difficult enough problem. Their additional challenge is to digitally animate the most complex behaviors hiding inside those equations.

http://astronomy.com/magazine/2016/02/putting-einstein-to-the-test

Then they had to use the same mathmatical theory to predict how those interactions would create gravity waves....
Here's an animation of what happens when two black holes collide. Watch the trace along the bottom - that's the gravitational wave pattern showing the "chirp" they were looking for.





Then they had to build an intstrument capable of measuring something like that.

On the dusty plains of the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, about 200 miles (320 kilometers) southeast of Seattle stands numerical relativity’s reason for existence. It consists of two long vacuum chambers that meet to form an L-shaped gravity observatory. The facility is called LIGO, the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory.

The LIGO Hanford Observatory, along with a sister facility, the LIGO Livingston Observatory in Louisiana, represents a new kind of telescope. Engineers designed LIGO to pick up gravitational waves — ripples on the surface of space-time’s ocean that are a key prediction of Einstein’s general theory of relativity.

Wiggling any mass back and forth produces gravity waves that move across the fabric of space-time. Wiggling a massive, compact object like a black hole creates gravity waves so powerful that scientists hope instruments can detect them across astronomical distances.

Here's how it actually works - Animation --> https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/system/...mp4?1447873693

To measure the relative lengths of the arms, a single laser beam is split at the intersection of the two arms. Half of the laser light is transmitted into one arm while the other half is reflected into the second arm. Mirrors are suspended as pendula at the end of each arm and near the beam splitter. Laser light in each arm bounces back and forth between these mirrors, and finally returns to the intersection, where it interferes with light from the other arm. If the lengths of both arms have remained unchanged, then the two combining light waves should completely subtract each other (destructively interfere) and there will be no light observed at the output of the detector. However, if a gravitational wave were to slightly (about 1/1000 the diameter of a proton) stretch one arm and compress the other, the two light beams would no longer completely subtract each other, yielding light patterns at the detector output. Encoded in these light patterns is the information about the relative length change between the two arms, which in turn tells us about what produced the gravitational waves.

Many things on Earth are constantly causing very small relative length changes in the arms of LIGO. These every-present terrestrial signals are regarded as noise (and would sound very much like static when the signal is sent through a speaker). In science, noise is defined to be anything that is measured that is not what was intended to be measured. Here, LIGO is trying to measure the change in length of its arms due to a gravitational wave and not the incessant little motions of LIGO’s components caused by the environment. To help minimize local effects on the detector, LIGO has made many enhancements to the basic interferometer design (besides requiring both detectors to detect the same signal within the light travel time between detectors).

And then you have to remember that there are TWO of these instruments in different parts of the US that compare data against each other. Did you see that comparison of the data expected at each and the data collected at each?




Humanity is capable of building a machine that can measure a wavelength offset equal to 1/1000 the diameter of a proton...
But you still think it was some dude messing with data just to get more grant funding for reaserch? I know when it comes to SpaceX specifically you like to call people fanboys, but you have to realize the universal significance of this... right?

[Darren M]

Allow me to qualify your peanut gallery statement thus:

"Don't argue with the king if you're stupid"

Did you mean to say quantify?

[Rick Modena]

That was straight up served.

Actually its pretty simple to understand if you just read the articles and paid a little attention in science class.

[Ruffdaddy]

Haha...man there's not need to get yourself all offended and butt hurt over this. I can't believe the tantrum you just threw over skepticism. It's like 10pm on a Friday night and you get so worked up that you put this much effort into a post. You had to sit there and think "Ruffdaddy is skeptical about scientific research?!?! I'll show him with the same data that he's skeptical of!"...That's like using the bible to argue with people who don't believe in the bible.

Isn't that the point? Or are you saying they lied about the data collected?

That's the point if you're only setting out to prove what you want. But that's not the point of unbiased research. Like I said...data can be made to tell whatever story you want.

...
Blah Blah Blah
....


Humanity is capable of building a machine that can measure a wavelength offset equal to 1/1000 the diameter of a proton...
But you still think it was some dude messing with data just to get more grant funding for reaserch? I know when it comes to SpaceX specifically you like to call people fanboys, but you have to realize the universal significance of this... right?

I'm not sure why you threw a hissy fit..but I'll call you out here and give you a reason to cry.

You're a hypocrite and a fake. You are trying to skew my words about spaceX just to side with your rhetoric? Rodney is right about you man...you post a few articles and highlite some words...but complain when others do it? Now you're changing my words to suit your biased point? What was it you said Rodney was doing with his "informational" posts?

You know damn well when I talk about spaceX fanbois...it's because they are trying to discredit what Bezos is doing with the same technology. It has nothing to do with spaceX, it has to do with the people that think anything spaceX does is better than blue origin simply because it's spaceX.

You lost any technical credibility with me when you posted an article about a damn wireline wellbore cleaner and thought it was going to revolutionize fracking (or whatever that basic bitch tool was that you assumed was a big deal). It was a clear demonstration that you read a sales sheet or press release, didn't understand the technology...but decided to blab about it as if you're an expert. I see guys like you everyday at work...you feel for a sales pitch.

You lost any respect I had for you when you tried to stretch my words to suit your case.

If I had to guess...you're a pretengineer (IE) that cares more about science fiction than real world technology. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that...but don't throw a fit when when stuff is questioned. Don't try to skew my words because your feelings are hurt.

Now...how about you tell me how this research is going to change my world. Quantify it...don't copy and paste a bunch of data. How about you have some original content of your own here.

Or at least stick to Responses like Yale...that was at least funny.

[slow99]

Oh snap.

[Ruffdaddy]

Oh snap.

Hahaha...as I was typing that...all I could think was that i knew you were going to be by shortly with popcorn.

[46Tbird]

As soon as i read the gravity waves thing...i immediately thought that it sounded like something someone was out to prove was true. If thats your only goal...youll make the data "prove" it every time.

I'm all for skepticism, but what makes you think the "gravity waves things" is inherently based on biased research?

[Ruffdaddy]

I'm all for skepticism, but what makes you think the "gravity waves things" is inherently based on biased research?

Any time someone is setting out to prove something...the research is inherently biased. When youre looking for any correlation to prove your point...its easy to get tunnel vision and ignore the fact that other sources may be contributing to the data trends.

Im not saying biased research is always wrong, but its more prone to error and manipulation. Thats the main source of my skepticism.

IIRC, you're an engineer. So im sure youve seen people go about solving a problem that they thought they already knew the answer to...only to end up wasting a lot of money and time.

[Ruffdaddy]

Ill try to post a real world example tomorrow if i have more time. Right now im about to get rowdy and will probably end up on 6th...so any post later probably will be full of stupid.

[Rick Modena]

Oh you butt hurt alright!

[YALE]

Since you're asking Strychnine to disprove himself Ruffdaddy, why not do the same and pick apart the paper you presume is bunk? What's good for the goose is good for the gander. You don't even have to disprove the math. Just browse it for bias and logical fallacies.