Will the LIGO team kindly update their PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS paper with the correct diagrams using actual data analysis algorithms that are not “done by eye,” nor “hand-tuned”?

Here is a wonderful 2018 lecture given by Andrew D. Jackson regarding the myriad shortcomings and rather alarming problems with LIGO:

Will the LIGO team kindly update their PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS paper with the correct diagrams using actual data analysis algorithms that are not “done by eye,” nor “hand-tuned”?

The New Scientist reports that the plots published by the LIGO team were “done by eye” and “hand tuned.”  In other words, they were not scientifically real.  Where are the real plots?  Have they been made public?  If not, will they be made public?

Today, November 5th 2018, I screen captured some of the LIGO plots from Physical Review Letters, which I share below.  Which of these plots represent real data?  Which of these plots are not “hand tuned”? Which of these plots are not “done by eye?” Will LIGO’s PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS paper

Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger

be updated or rescinded?

The New Scientist reports :

Purely illustrative

And there are legitimate questions about that trust. New Scientist has learned, for instance, that the collaboration decided to publish data plots that were not derived from actual analysis. The paper on the first detection in Physical Review Letters used a data plot that was more “illustrative” than precise, says Cornish. Some of the results presented in that paper were not found using analysis algorithms, but were done “by eye”.

Brown, part of the LIGO collaboration at the time, explains this as an attempt to provide a visual aid. “It was hand-tuned for pedagogical purposes.” He says he regrets that the figure wasn’t labelled to point this out.

What do the plots which are NOT hand tuned, nor done by eye, look like? Have they been made public?

Is not the chief aim of science to exalt the TRUTH of physical OBSERVATION?  Is not a great responsibility of science to be HONEST with the PUBLIC who funds it to the tune of billions?

Today, November 5th 2018, I screen captured some of the LIGO plots from Physical Review Letters review, which I share below.  Which of these plots represent real data?  Which of these plots are not “hand tuned”? Which of these plots are not “done by eye?”

 

Are these plots not true?  If they are not plots of the actual data, or if they are “done by hand,” or “hand-tuned,” or “done by eye,” will Physical Review Letters label them as “Fake Physics?”

What do the plots which are NOT hand tuned, nor done by eye, look like? When will they be made public?

Hopefully today’s leading theoretical physicists like Sabine Hossenfelder will run the data, which is now available to the public, herself, and let us see her analysis.  Indeed, as a leading theoretical physicist with a vast following, it is Dr. Hossenfelder’s duty to analyze the data herself.  We await her expert insight and judgment.

Until then, here is a wonderful 2018 lecture given by Andrew D. Jackson regarding the myriad shortcomings and rather alarming problems with LIGO:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s