-1
$\begingroup$

Here is a quote from an online article: "A gust is on the way. NOAA forecasters expect a stream of high-speed solar wind to reach Earth on Sept. 14th-15th, sparking renewed displays of high-latitude auroras." Ref: http://www.spaceweather.com/archive.php?view=1&day=14&month=09&year=2015

Did the LIGO group actually detect a gravitational wave from the merger of two black holes, or did they detect the Sun-Earth weak coupling of the helioseismic burst generated by the solar flare eruption on September 14, 2015? It is clear from the LIGO data that the phenomenon was detected by Livingston, LA first at 09:50:45 UTC before it arrived at Hanford, WA, which is consistent with an EM pulse vectoring from the Sun in the east.

Also the waveform of the detected signal is indicative of dispersion consistent with what would be expected from a helioseismic burst. “A unique characteristic of solar seismic waves is acceleration. The solar waves accelerated from an initial speed of 22,000 miles per hour (9.8 km/sec) to a maximum of 250,000 miles per hour (112 km/sec) before disappearing. In contrast, water ripples on Earth travel outward at a constant velocity.” Ref: http://www.vibrationdata.com/Newsletters/August2001_NL.pdf

I just wonder.

$\endgroup$

closed as off-topic by Danu, user36790, David Z Feb 17 '16 at 16:48

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

  • "We deal with mainstream physics here. Questions about the general correctness of unpublished personal theories are off topic, although specific questions evaluating new theories in the context of established science are usually allowed. For more information, see Is non mainstream physics appropriate for this site?." – Danu, Community, David Z
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Why would a solar phenomenon mimic the signal from a black hole merger? Do you have a model for the probability of that? $\endgroup$ – CuriousOne Feb 13 '16 at 10:40
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Not even the time scale is correct... and I really can't see anything that would even remotely resemble "perfectly". $\endgroup$ – CuriousOne Feb 19 '16 at 23:14
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ LIGO didn't wait 14 years, they didn't have enough sensitivity to measure at this level. Even so the time scale of what you are showing and the signal the LIGO has received are not the same. Even if they were the same none of the signals that you are showing match. Since it's your hypothesis that what they have seen is an unrelated phenomenon, it's your responsibility to show evidence, which you have not. For me that pretty much sends your case back to your drawing board. $\endgroup$ – CuriousOne Feb 19 '16 at 23:37
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Either that... or one would actually read the documentation of how it was done and why it was expected to work. In any case, you still don't have anything but hot air... if you can upgrade it to some giant foam hands flapping in the wind, then I will be interested. $\endgroup$ – CuriousOne Feb 20 '16 at 0:00
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Also worth noting that the Sun is far from the direction deduced for GW150914. $\endgroup$ – Rob Jeffries Feb 21 '16 at 19:05
8
$\begingroup$

There is always some chance that the signal that has been measured could be caused by something other than a pair of coalescing black holes.

The refereed paper assesses the probability that the signal might have arisen as a consequence of some sort of noise in the detectors. The estimates are imprecise but range from about 1 false detection every 10,000 years for a signal with this power (seen in both detectors) to 1 every 200,000 years for a signal conforming to the characteristics of a merging black hole system.

Of course, these statistics do not preclude some other completely unknown and unpredicted astrophysical phenomenon causing the lengths of the detector arms to oscillate in a similar way.

If you have a theory, then now is the time to publish it, because once there is a population of such events (I note the paper says that another source was detected with a false alarm probability of one in two years and also looked like a black hole merger), then their spatial distribution will also become apparent. If they are indeed dominated by distant massive black hole mergers then one expects the distribution to be isotropic, modulo the directional sensitivity of the detectors.

$\endgroup$

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.