Bob, Your analysis is pretty correct. We don't know how to solve even computationally full GR equations but we can do approximation expansion to correct newtonian equations with many decimal places.
You use the detected signal from the 2 detectors (that have different antenna patterns as explained in a previous comment) and from the different parts of the signal (the inspiraling part, the merger and ring down after the merger) you can deduce the properties of the system, like the masses of the black holes, spins, distance and orientation of the plane of the orbit relative to earth. It is pretty unique solution once you have data from both detectors. The most uncertain parameter is the location of the source in the sky. They claim using only 2 detector they can narrow it down to a 600 degree area in the sky (moon is half a degree radius). If they had 3 detectors they could have narrowed down this even further. As far as I know there is not an EM radiation counterpart at least yet. I think mostly because the energy of the event was mostly radiated into GW and this event was so far away so difficult to detect with EM telescopes. They have also 2 other papers besides the observational one were they discuss the astrophysical implications and the rate for these events that were before this detection considered extremely rare. Astrophysical consequences paper: https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-P1500262/public/main Giovanni On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 11:32 AM, Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Dave-- > > Each of the LIGO devices have 2 orthogonal arms. Thus, the frequency of > the passing plane wave (assumed) measured is different. These differences > in the 4 arms of the 2 interferometers allows the calculation of the > direction of the incoming wave. I assume that the distance is determined > by calculation that assumed a model of circulating black holes and the > resulting attendant frequencies of the radiated gravity wave. With the > frequency of the precursor wave it was determined the mass of the > respective black holes and hence the expected final burb of radiated energy > as they disappeared. This final burp amplitude which was, I believe, > assumed to be radiated uniformly in all directions from the local event. > > I think it would be nice to know, if the event was correlated in time with > any visual events from the point identified. Also I did not read what the > speed of the passing wave was. I think it is supposed to be the speed of > light without correction for mass, since there is nothing comparable to a > refractive index for light when it comes to gravity waves, to my > knowledge. Giovanni may shed some light on this statement. > > Was the speed of the gravity wave confirmed? > > Bob Cook > *From:* David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> > *Sent:* Friday, February 12, 2016 7:57 AM > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:LIGO Gravity Waves... So what? > > How can we be confident that this is not just a false alarm? It seems a > bit premature to make this announcement since the claimed event is a > billion light years away from Earth. Are we to assume that this particular > event at that great distance is the only one that is showing up on the > instrument? What proof is there that millions more are not present at > closer distances which would be noise to filter out? > > Has anyone released information concerning the signal to noise for this > discovery? Also, it is a bit difficult to believe that the device can tell > the actual distance and direction of the black hole collision. > > Has this been replicated? There is much more evidence for cold fusion > than for this discovery and I have a strong suspicion that it will be > overturned one day. Big science making big claims again...I hope it is > true but it is unlikely. > > Dave > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Giovanni Santostasi <gsantost...@gmail.com> > To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Thu, Feb 11, 2016 9:28 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]:LIGO Gravity Waves... So what? > > By the way, gravitational waves were the topic of my dissertation so feel > free to ask any question about the topic. It is very fascinating. > > On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 9:26 PM, Giovanni Santostasi < > gsantost...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> It opens a complete different window on the Universe. >> The analogy that is often given is imagine the cosmic show is like a TV >> show. Until now we had video but not audio. Finally we turned the audio on. >> Gravitational waves are a different but complementary way to observe the >> universe. >> We already learning things we could not learn before just using EM >> radiation. For example that there are black holes systems with such large >> masses. >> This has consequences in terms of galaxy evolution and how stars were >> formed. >> And this is just the beginning. >> The ultimate price is when we will see the gravitational waves from Big >> Bang. >> While the Microwave Cosmic Background tell us abut the universe at a very >> early stage (500 K years) we cannot receive any earlier information about >> the universe using EM radiation. >> The equivalent gravitational wave background when detected will tells >> information from a fraction of a second after the Big Bang. Only >> gravitational radiation can give us a picture of the universe that early. >> >> Also information from events like the one just observed eventually would >> give us clues on how gravity and quantum mechanics work together. >> The consequences of this discovery are enormous. >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 8:22 PM, Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> It seems the announcement of showing gravity waves are real is only of >>> value to obscure academic discussions. Unless someone here might illuminate >>> us about some practical derivatives that might be revealed due to the >>> findings. >>> >> >> > >
