Re: LIGO.

On Feb 12, 8:30 pm, cliff wright <c.c.wri...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
On Feb 11, 7:40 pm, cliff wright <c.c.wri...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
...

No I'm not one of those people you speak of with regard to science being
a con job. Just as well that it usually isn't. Religion and Politics are
quite enough in that department.
I might add that it would be remarkable if I gave up many hours of my
time to listen to a lot of Con men while spending a lot of my time in
retirement building telescopes and observatories and researching the
history of electronics, one of my pet subjects, if I was anti science.
The fact is most people think of me as fanatically pro Science
especially the local Creationists and members of the anti Space lobby.
regards Cliff Wright.

Cliff makes a point, we can all see faces
in clouds, that's human, but what he fails
to realize is the effort put into the evolving
the algorithm that combines the signals.
Dr. Baez explained that awhile ago, it takes
serious processing power + algorithm.
Ken
BTW, Al Gore did NOT invent the algorithm!

Oh Dear Ken! I'm afaraid I still don't seem to be getting through!
My son for example is an expert (and highly qulified and experienced)
software engineer so I have acess to pretty good technical advice on
software.
My WHOLE POINT is that the detection of a previously unobserved
phenomenon requires definitive and independent proof. This was for
example fortunately insisted on in the case of "Cold fusion" and the
infamous "n" rays early last century. No matter what results the 2
LIGO's give the definitive prooof of "gravitational radiation" is not in
until a source for the signal can be at least strongly suggested which
agrees with the current state of Physics knowledge, or which by
observation extends our knowledge.
I have seen just how far astray the use of massive computing power can
lead in the case of Acoustics modelling. Indeed a post doc student I was
working with once discovered that the algorithm used in the standard
reverberation tests for auditoria by some of the worlds best equipment
companies was seriously flawed.
No matter what the old maxim still applies GIGO to LIGO just as much as
any other use of computing analysis.
Doing maths on its own does not constitute complete scientific
investigation, it remains a thought experiment or model until tested in
the real world.
Regards Cliff Wright.



You just registered a "2.7 Wright"

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: LIGO.
    ... a con job. ... the algorithm that combines the signals. ... No matter what results the 2 LIGO's give the definitive prooof of "gravitational radiation" is not in until a source for the signal can be at least strongly suggested which agrees with the current state of Physics knowledge, or which by observation extends our knowledge. ... I have seen just how far astray the use of massive computing power can lead in the case of Acoustics modelling. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: LIGO.
    ... a con job. ... the algorithm that combines the signals. ... agrees with the current state of Physics knowledge, ... It reminded me of a very good book on Physics I came across probably 20 years ago, I think it was by a lady physicist actually but I can't remember her name. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: LIGO.
    ... a con job. ... history of electronics, one of my pet subjects, if I was anti science. ... the algorithm that combines the signals. ... a verification algorithm is straightforward. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: LIGO.
    ... a con job. ... the algorithm that combines the signals. ... and that in turn leads to a Unified Field Theory. ... a verification algorithm is straightforward. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: LIGO.
    ... a con job. ... The fact is most people think of me as fanatically pro Science ... especially the local Creationists and members of the anti Space lobby. ... the algorithm that combines the signals. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)