tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148573551417578681.post761038046718459958..comments2024-03-27T19:47:13.475-07:00Comments on Dark Buzz: Sapolsky book opposes free willRogerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03474078324293158376noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148573551417578681.post-2750092822287773482017-07-18T11:48:26.984-07:002017-07-18T11:48:26.984-07:00Would it be OK if I cross-posted this article to W...Would it be OK if I cross-posted this article to WriterBeat.com? There is no fee; I'm simply trying to add more content diversity for our community and I enjoyed reading your work. I'll be sure to give you complete credit as the author. If "hOK" please let me know via email.<br /><br />Autumn<br />AutumnCote@WriterBeat.comAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17692984934301525727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148573551417578681.post-9414433720758341502017-07-13T08:58:29.839-07:002017-07-13T08:58:29.839-07:00His Jewishness is relevant because (1) Christians ...His Jewishness is relevant because (1) Christians believe in free will, while non-Christians often do not; (2) Jews tend to be big believers in psychiatry and psychology; (3) Jews have a doctrine called tikkun olam; and (4) Jews tend to be leftists, especially academic Jews. Not all Jews, of course. Any discussion of "Humans at Our Best and Worst" usually brings out one's religious beliefs, so I mentioned it as background info. Coyne is also a Jewish atheist professor.Rogerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03474078324293158376noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148573551417578681.post-22919160245593859892017-07-13T03:01:46.386-07:002017-07-13T03:01:46.386-07:00Why is it relevant that the guy is Jewish? Jews of...Why is it relevant that the guy is Jewish? Jews often give different answers to traditional "biggie" questions like "Is there an afterlige?" Sort of like what are called Cafeteria Catholics; people who seek to align themselves with an organized faith, but pick/choose only the doctrinal elements they like best.Jon Burdickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02548776058585897717noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148573551417578681.post-50503789005064980652017-07-09T12:45:13.402-07:002017-07-09T12:45:13.402-07:00Yes Roger,
The way they sell it is that they had ...Yes Roger,<br /><br />The way they sell it is that they had HUGE signals over the noise in both detectors. <br /><br />But they didn't.<br /><br />The hype and disclosure have been atrocious--perhaps intentionally so.<br /><br />Sometimes they sate they have released the data. Other times they state they are the only ones who have it.<br /><br />Sometimes they state they published tutorials on how to analyze the data. Other times they state the tutorials are wrong/not accurate.<br /><br />MIT team members state things and then beg to have their statements retracted:<br /><br />http://gizmodo.com/controversial-new-gravitational-waves-paper-shows-scien-1796343357<br /><br />"I reached out to Salvatore Vitale at MIT who works at LIGO as well to see if the new paper holds any water. “No,” he said, “they screwed up basic things,” listing some specifics of their analysis. The LIGO collaboration ultimately responded via physicist Sean Carroll’s popular blog, Preposterous Universe, in a guest post by postdoctoral physicist Ian Harry, which you can read here."<br /><br />Then they report:<br /><br /><br />"Update 6/23/2017 10:21PM: Salvatore Vitale asked us to remove his quotation from the story because he felt the writer was misleading about his intentions when obtaining information over email. We declined due to editorial policy, however the writer regrets this misunderstanding. We offered Vitale an opportunity to provide a statement on the matter. In response to a later query, David Shoemaker, the LIGO Scientific Collaboration Spokesperson, got in touch to let us know that there is a very active and productive conversation ongoing between members of the LSC and the NBI group. “We are happy to be able to explain our methods in more detail to the NBI folks, and look forward to making our tutorials clearer on some key points.”"<br /><br />After all of this "hadwavy confusion/hype/noise," the conclusion is that LIGO is all noise.<br /><br />Here’s the final, definitive response to the lame LIGO response:<br /><br />http://www.nbi.ku.dk/gravitational-waves/gravitational-waves.html<br /><br />They conclude:<br /><br />“It would appear that the 7 ms time delay associated with the GW150914 signal is also an intrinsic property of the noise. The purpose in having two independent detectors is precisely to ensure that, after sufficient cleaning, the only genuine correlations between them will be due to gravitational wave effects. The results presented here suggest this level of cleaning has not yet been obtained and that the identification of the GW events needs to be re-evaluated with a more careful consideration of noise properties.”<br /><br />LIGO has not refuted this dire conclusion.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11811856497202846228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148573551417578681.post-29201613964141804972017-07-09T12:25:13.432-07:002017-07-09T12:25:13.432-07:00It is interesting that they need both detectors to...It is interesting that they need both detectors to even find a data event. I would think that, if the black hole collisions really have such unique signatures, they could find the signature using just one detector. But they cannot.<br /><br />It would be a lot more convincing if they found the signature data for a black hole collision in one detector, and then used the other detector to confirm the finding. But that is now what they are doing at all.<br /><br />The LIGO raw data is the correlation between the two detectors. There is no independent confirmation of anything.<br /><br />Am I wrong about this? The LIGO team acts as if they have independent observations, but if I am right, they really don't. And the residual correlations would seem to prove that they don't.<br /><br />Supposedly one or two new detectors are being built in Europe, and these could serve as independent confirmation of the data. If so, maybe they should hold up that Nobel Prize until the Europeans can confirm the data.Rogerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03474078324293158376noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148573551417578681.post-38370516805072951632017-07-09T11:59:26.041-07:002017-07-09T11:59:26.041-07:00Link to the above passage at the Ligo Skeptic:
htt...Link to the above passage at the Ligo Skeptic:<br />https://ligoskeptic.wordpress.com/<br /><br />https://ligoskeptic.wordpress.com/2017/07/09/final-word-ligo-was-all-just-overhyped-noise-like-bicep2-no-nobel-4u-lol-ligo-in-the-same-way-bicep2-was-the-smoking-gun-for-inflation-ligo-is-the-smoking-gun-for-string-theory-and-thus-inflat/Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11811856497202846228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148573551417578681.post-17639327554036539082017-07-09T11:58:27.523-07:002017-07-09T11:58:27.523-07:00There would be no mythology, nor stories, nor life...There would be no mythology, nor stories, nor life, nor philosophy, nor religion, nor art, nor science without free will. :) <br /><br />More awesomeness and news from "The Ligo Skeptic":<br /><br />"Final Word: LIGO was all just overhyped noise, like BICEP2. No Nobel 4U! LOL LIGO! In the same way BICEP2 was the smoking gun for inflation, LIGO is the smoking gun for string theory. Too bad inflation & string theory are going up in smoke, alongside LIGO. Sean Carroll’s solution to save the multiverse and string theory? Get rid of falsifiability in science! Keep the billions of dollars flowing so as to destory science and god and philosophy, whence Carroll et al. will reign supreme!<br /><br />Here’s the final, definitive response to the lame LIGO response:<br /><br />http://www.nbi.ku.dk/gravitational-waves/gravitational-waves.html<br /><br />They conclude:<br /><br />“It would appear that the 7 ms time delay associated with the GW150914 signal is also an intrinsic property of the noise. The purpose in having two independent detectors is precisely to ensure that, after sufficient cleaning, the only genuine correlations between them will be due to gravitational wave effects. The results presented here suggest this level of cleaning has not yet been obtained and that the identification of the GW events needs to be re-evaluated with a more careful consideration of noise properties.”<br /><br />fig6<br /><br />LOL LIGO!!<br /><br />http://www.nbi.ku.dk/gravitational-waves/gravitational-waves.html <br /><br />We focussed our attention mainly on the first event, GW150914, with special attention to the time lag between the arrival times of the signal at the Hanford and Livingston detectors. In our view, if we are to conclude reliably that this signal is due to a genuine astrophysical event, apart from chance-correlations, there should be no correlation between the “residual” time records from LIGO’s two detectors in Hanford and Livingston. The residual records are defined as the difference between the cleaned records and the best GW template found by LIGO. Residual records should thus be dominated by noise, and they should show no correlations between Hanford and Livingston. Our investigation revealed that these residuals are, in fact, strongly correlated. Moreover, the time delay for these correlations coincides with the 6.9 ms time delay found for the putative GW signal itself.<br /><br />http://www.nbi.ku.dk/gravitational-waves/gravitational-waves.html<br /><br />CHECKMATE LIGO!!<br /><br />LOL LIGO!!!<br /><br />This is science in the stringy LIGO/BICEP2/multiverse era:<br /><br />1. Fake the data/analysis<br /><br />2. Launch the fake-news media storm<br /><br />3. Secure funding, tenure, cash, book deals, and the Nobel<br /><br />4. Have Sean Carroll rage against testability, god, truth, and philosophy.<br /><br />LOL LIGO!!!"Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11811856497202846228noreply@blogger.com