Gw Operations: Fill & Download for Free

Please consider a disinterested view, supported by non-astrophysical controls, and please forgive the length of this answer. I have included LIGO publication excerpts below to justify investigation, and some key measurements are included from personal work following some crucial excerpts from LIGO document with links to full texts.GW150914-coincident space weather/geophysical information with autocorrelated and cross-correlated GW data support presence of significant signal contamination orphans of abductivismIn particular for the relevance of this answer, 250 Hz is bound to LIGO detector spatial geometry in relation to broadband, often degenerate structured noise sources, as can be found by examining known non-astrophysical glitches. Signal lags and terrestrial signal contamination in GW150914 are indistinguishable orphans of abductivism.For LIGO posterior parametric and analytic values,GW150914 BH maximum remnant spin range, 0.57-0.72 cLIGO GW150914 remnant ringdown freq, ~250 HzLIGO GW150914 frequency/wavelength peak strain, 150 Hz, 2000 kmwith Lorentz factor, γspeed of light, cgroup velocity, v_g(v_g=0.71c)*(γ=1.42) ≈1(0.0069*c)=2068.568 kmc/((0.0069*c)*0.58)=249.88 Hz;consider the error interval for LIGO remnant spin bounds:0.72-0.57=0.150.71-0.58=0.131-(0.13/0.15)=0.133333...and maximum SR-permitted range-bound LIGO signal lag:(t=0.01 s)/(γ=1.441|v_g=0.72c)=0.00693962526 s.One should not be afraid of admitting a challenge to LIGO conclusions regarding the identity and measurement of strain transients. Here is some further background information highlight LIGO’s unavoidable crisis in interpretation:North American ground magnetometers surrounding LIGO detectors for September 14, 2015 UT record correlated-coherent field dynamics, with peak boundary-like events occurring at time of GW150914 orphans of abductivism.GW170817-coincident space weather/geophysical information indicates that a magnetospheric sawtooth event - a kind of feedback-driven injective boundary event where the solar wind can couple to and promote anomalous quasiperiodic behavior in the reconnection and charging dynamics of the ionosphere orphans of abductivism.global and continental lightning during GW events, time symmetrically-corresponds to reported correlated quasiperiodic noise during all seven GW events. Pulse-locked boundary-like driving in magnetospheric mode from solar wind supports extended periods of almost-periodic five-minute interval cloud-ground discharge sequences orphans of abductivism.Here are excerpts from LIGO publications on these issues:Magnetism and Advanced LIGO (Daniel and Schofield, October 6, 2014:"When starting to calibrate one of the magnetometers in the LVEA, DTT’s time series plot was saturated. The maximum number of counts provided by the ADC was consistently exceeded. In other words, all the data was not fitting on the DTT time series plot, so calibrating in this state would produce an incorrect calibration factor. The power spectrum showed a tall peak at 60 Hz. The surrounding, fluctuating magnetic fields from the 60 Hz wires which power the entire LVEA, especially the clean rooms, were so strong that magnetometer’s sensitive measurements could not be accurately viewed on DTT. To calibrate the magnetometers, one must wait until the clean rooms are gone.”“Systematic errors in estimation of gravitational-wave candidate significance”Capano et al 2016/2017version 1: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1601.00130.pdfversion 2: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1708.06710.pdfThis paper was originally submitted to the arXiv early January 2016, and "shortened" in late August 2017, a few days after the GW170817 trigger (which was yet the subject of rumor). Results are identical:"The relative uncertainty in the estimation is larger when the FAP is smaller. The relative uncertainty reaches 100% when the FAP is about 10^−4, for the experiment parameters chosen in this MDC. This value depends on the expected number of coincident events and the number of single detector triggers"LIGO vector magnetometer data analysis is inadequate given state of data quality. Magnetometer positions in LIGO instruments have been unsatisfactory as of February 6, 2018 https://arxiv.org/pdf/1802.00885.pdf:“In this paper, we have described magnetometer measurements at various gravitational wave detector sites. We computed optimal filters to perform subtraction between magnetometers. We achieved subtraction near the level expected from an uncorrelated time series. This shows that magnetometers near to the interferometers can effectively subtract magnetic noise with Wiener filtering. Going forward, it will be important to compute magnetometer correlations with gravitational-wave detector data in order to measure the effect from the Schumann resonances. From there, subtraction using magnetometers can be performed. Bayesian techniques that aim to separate magnetic contamination from gravitational-wave signals in cross-correlation search statistics are also being developed in parallel to those presented in this paper. It is important to approach the issue of magnetic contamination with many different methods as it promises to be a significant problem for cross-correlation-based SGWB searches in the future.”[However, none of these purported subtraction methods have been applied effectively to existing GW magnetometer data sets in publications, and nowhere in the literature I can access have I found LIGO on-site magnetometer data surrounding GW events; the problem stands that such filtering and follow-up validation has not been significantly-addressed, despite being absolutely crucial for high-SNR transient periods to be considered true events from specified sources]…after having reported improvements by October 6, 2014 Monitoring Magnetic Fields for Advanced LIGO:“LIGO plans to monitor magnetic fields because they can affect the interferometer’s signals. A magnetic field from a Schumann Resonance can affect both LIGO interferometers in a similar way as a gravitational wave. Magnetic field data can be used to figure out whether a signal was caused by a gravitational wave or a magnetic field. We evaluated the quality of four remote locations that can be used to measure Schumann Resonances and Ultra Low Frequency (ULF) waves. Furthermore, eleven magnetometer set-ups around the LIGO Hanford Observatory (LHO) will allow for monitoring magnetic fields specific to LHO. All eleven magnetometer set-ups were improved. Filter boxes were modified in order to obtain accurate magnetic field measurements at 10 Hz”No remarkable improvements for aLIGO to magnetometers are listed on the official LIGO website, although I suspect the list is not exhaustive About aLIGO.LIGO trigger rate for transient events of all sources at SNR>8 is ~100 seconds.legend for LIGO plots above: “The rate of single interferometer background triggers in the CBC search for H1 (above) and L1 (below), where color indicates a threshold on the detection statistic, X^2-weighted SNR. Each point represents the average rate over a 2048 s interval. The times of GW150914 and LVT151012 are indicated with vertical dashed and dotted–dashed lines respectively.”LIGO fact-sheet for GW150914:https://losc.ligo.org/s/events/GW150914/GW150914-FactSheet-BW.pdf________________________________________________Dual-signal lag and distance values are calculated from signal arrival to LIGO detectors from geographically-bound discharging cells of a thunderstorm active in Oklahoma. These excessively-correlated non-astrophysical parameters indicate a global geomagnetic-magnetospheric sawtooth event is affecting LIGO-measurable signal power at the very least. All seven LIGO GW events occur during such odd geomagnetic events that correspond also to cloud-ground lightning discharge synchronization over continental and global scales:LIGO terrestrial domain length values for inter-detector Oklahoma thunderstorm for September 14, 2015 UT, adjusted for line-of-sight atmospheric source bound by characteristic ionosphere and troposphere emission altitude; 0.88 c is value for global ELF propagation velocity I utilized below, quoted in Schumann resonance transients and the search for gravitational waves:3,030-((0.88* c)*(0.01-0.0069))=2212.16617458 km(0.88* c))*(0.01-0.0069)=817.833825424 km(3030-(2*((0.88* c)*(0.01-0.0069))))=1394.33234915 km((((0.679+0.67)/2)* c)*(0.0069))=1395.24908915 kmtime lag after arrival of L1 signal, assuming group velocity dispersion:1394.33234915 km/(c*(0.679+0.67)/2))=0.00689546639 s.LIGO GW150914 H1|L1 (lag-correction) time shift: 0.0069 s.LIGO parameter estimation is highly synthetic, with most calculations performed on whitened, decimated, and wavelet-transformed strain data. Despite these shortcomings, LIGO strain data are surprisingly accurate descriptions of non-astrophysical dynamics occurring during GW detection days; namely, globally-coherent magnetic pulsation driven by magnetospheric sawtooth events presents a direct case against arguments in support of pure stochastic noise to explain mode coupled LIGO noise floor surrounding and coinciding with GW transients. Sawtooth events occur at identical annual rates as empirical LIGO triggers (20%-50% LIGO O1 operational data quality). During O1, dual detector false triggers with SNR>8 arrived at an approximate rate of every 100 seconds. GW150914 was reportedly comprised of ten analytically-discrete cycles, which is identical to the discrete ~60 minute sawtooth cycle count for the September 14, 2015 magnetospheric sawtooth injection interval, a period of 10 hours (4:40-14:40 UTC).LIGO experimental design is hindered by an ambiguous and non-unique conceptual approach toward modeling prior measurement of gravitational wave sources, as many transients with quasinormal modes (with or without significant quasiperiodic scaling/gap relations) with rich transverse components exactly mimic GW signals. Manipulation of hypothetical coordinate, mass, and energy values extracted from computer-generated templates fitted to highly-filtered LIGO strain data may otherwise have more prosaic interpretations. As LIGO will not release their magnetometer data, and as multiple LIGO researchers have reported in aLIGO-era publications (see links in text below) that on-site magnetometers were generally saturated during GW triggers, we may view GW discovery claims premature and cherry-picked. The timing and content of LIGO public communication, characterized by a rigid discourse unconcerned with logical validity, and a strongly-declarative, repetitive style that complements an overuse of Bayesian methods.