worlov

6 hours ago, studiot said:

What about the traveller?

Well he can take a clock with him that starts as he leaves and is read again when he returns.
He will find this clock reads a different time from that of the Earth twin.
His reading however is the transit time in his system.

But what about the distance?

He has no means of measuring distance.

He has no means of directly measuring speed.

The rocket can be built like a catamaran. In this way, the traveling twin can apply geometric parallax to determine the distance. And he will measure the time with his own clock. And calculate the speed from it. 

13 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

Did you not read the very short piece I referred to? The Earth twin doesn't go anywhere so makes no journey at all.

How long flies the traveling twin from the perspective of the twin on earth?

1 hour ago, swansont said:

However, this is a new measurement you have added to the problem. Such additions usually just complicate the situation.

37 minutes ago, studiot said:

swansont: "The earth never gets to the destination, because the earth is not moving relative to the destination."

@worlov

Since you are not interested in my comments look very carefully at this one.

It contains the a most important piece of information.

Of course, always the traveling twin flies. In the first case, his journey for the twin on earth takes the longest.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Why? We've already established that the rocket will see the distance as half of what the earth sees. It can't simultaneously be half and twice that value.

As I said, it depends on who determines the journey. 

In usual representation this makes the twin on earth. He chooses a star that rests in his frame. In his view, the traveling twin must fly the full length of the route. That's why the journey takes the longest. The traveling twin, however, sees the route shortened due to the length contraction. As a result, the journey takes shorter.

Now we let the traveling twin determine the destination of the journey. He finds an object, e.g. a meteroid, in the direction from the other side of the earth (see picture). This meteroid rests in the frame of the traveling twin. Together they fly relative to the earth (sun). From the perspective of the traveling twin, the earth should pass the full distance to the meteroid. That's why the journey takes the longest in his frame. However, because of the length contraction, the twin on Earth sees the meteroid closer. That's why the journey will be shorter for him.

In addition, the twin paradox is mutual.

2 hours ago, swansont said:

If the destination was 2 LY away according to the earth observer and gamma was 2, then the rocket observer will see the trip as lasting half the time as in the earth frame because the distance in that frame was 1 LY.  The physics of d = vt works exactly the same, as it must.  

And that applies vice versa. If the destination was 2 LY away according to the rocket observer (the lower half of the picture), then the earth observer will see the trip 1LY long.

The time dilation in relativity is relative. Every observer sees that the clock of another moving observer slows down. However, the twin paradox shows that time can indeed slow down. The twin paradox is not mutual... But I think I have discovered the trick. Everything depends on who determines the distance of the trip. Does the twin who remained on Earth do that, then this twin ages faster. And vice versa: Does the travelling twin do that in his frame during the outward journey, then this twin ages faster. 

The difference is the length contraction. The twin who sees the route from another reference system sees this route shortened. Therefore, he needs less time to travel this route.

Best regards
Walter Orlov

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.

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!

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.

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

POLARIZATION....

These attempts to describe the signal as the same as electromagnetic is 100 percent wrong. Doesn't make any difference what you set your filtering at or what internal errors are involved.

 

It's not about the electromagnetic influence. The "power line harmonic" coming from the electrical outlet. With 60Hz, 120Hz, 180Hz etc. pulsating supply voltage entire electronics. To suppress these pulsations entirely, should LIGO switch to battery supply.

Well I did ask if you looked at the specific formulas to generate the left hand graph. Have you? Did you understand the different requirements to detect a GW wave vs a dipole wave?

I'm really trying to get a handle on your objections as its seemingly oriented toward calibration issues rather than the GW vs dipole differences.

Thanks for your patience. Actually, I'm to blame, because I immediately addressed several problems. Hence it is a mess. But we can also conclude the discussion.

absolutley...

I doubt this. In this way one has not directly confirmed the relativistic simulation. Meanwhile, the relativistic curve is changed significantly by the filtration. There remained only a "zilch". I lack a convincing return from "zilch" to the original function. Then the evidence would have been perfect.

The graphs above include the whitening background noise. You need to filter that noise out in order to see the GW Chirp.

 

Back to GW150914. The key to understanding of the data processing provides the following picture:

https://physics.aps.org/articles/v9/52

The numerical relativity (NR) template is band and notch filtered as well as the measurement data itself. In this way it fit with 5.1-sigma to the measurement data.

I have this also checked. We can fetch the data of "matched NR waveform" from the following URL: https://losc.ligo.org/s/events/GW150914/GW150914_4_NR_waveform.txt

Find you this justified?

 

I have no idea of the signal algorithms used to extract data from the measurements...

 

That's true even. If you have time, you can try out here: https://losc.ligo.org/s/events/GW151226/LOSC_Event_tutorial_GW151226.html

Mechanical damping is necessary because otherwise even a distinguishable signal is swamped by noise...

 

As you can see that signature is identical on both detectors.

This is even one and the same curve... only flipped horizontally. It does not come from the measurement data. It is considered as matching to the measured data... How many signatures are still fit to this noise?

Probably not - this sort of thing is not my area of expertise.

 

It is GW151226

Here you can read quite a lot of signatures. A unique signature is the idealism.

So your suggesting a lightning strike occured precisely halfway between two detectors 300 miles apart.

 

Allright. Then one can look for other sources... Finally, America is not a desert, but an industrial country

I mean you have read the literature on this, right? You understand the kind of analysis involved? You do understand how well the signal matches the predictions?

 

 

 

What's the relevance of one to the other?

The sensitivity. 1 billion light years is a lot. The intensity falls also with distance. I think, one lightning is a piece of cake for LIGO detectors.

A lightning strike has a different wave signature. Electromagnetic radiation ie lightning induction follows a transverse dipole wave pattern.

 

The signature received by LIGO is a transverse quadrapole. This signature is only possible via gravity waves due to spin 2 statistics.

You mean electromagnetic radiation. But I think about short punch < 0.1s.

 

 

They are 3000 km apart. How, pray tell, does a lightning strike affect both of them?

 

And the black holes are distant from Earth over 1 billion light years, nevertheless, the detectors should have felt whose merger.

 

I am sure that they took their time in eliminating such things.

Perhaps there is still a discrepancy between optical sensitivity and mechanical stability. The detectors were originally built with smaller sensitivity. They were optical upgraded, but mechanically they may not be good enough for very small signals.

I meant: for example. I imagined that lightning strikes somewhere between two LIGO-detectors. Maybe they are sensitive enough. There may be other sources, but no earthquake, because the disruption must be of short duration.