Search This Blog

20181020


A short GRB analogue with multi-wavelength followup of the GW170817 event was reported in Troja et al. 2018, published October 16, 2018 in Nature  https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-06558-7.pdf. It must be emphasized that the authors do not restrict their conclusions to particular kilonova models favored by LIGO and collaborators: 
“It’s a big step to go from one detected object to two. Our discovery tells us that events like GW170817 and GRB 150101B could represent a whole new class of erupting objects that turn on and off in X-rays and might actually be relatively common.” 

For background studies focusing on problems and phenomenological exceptions emerging through post-GW170817 analysis of its putative astrophysical source, please consult these resources: 
https://fulguritics.blogspot.com/2018/06/gw170817-occurs-at-green-bar.html

Many unusual (and often conflicting) observations - and conclusions reached - decorate GW170817/AT2017gfo, an assumed kilonova believed to be in NGC 4993. We can be more confident that AT2017gfo is behaving contrary to expectations informed by many discrete periods of observation dependent on putative (now openly-disputed) GW170817 strain data, from which crucial scaling statistics underlie all subsequent calculations, conditioning models. Further observation of the transient source in multiple wavelengths is plagued by use of erroneous light curves constructed from a non-coincident maze of uncertain luminosity distances and sky locations relative to foreground objects. As the electromagnetic transient over time have been re-scaled freely by researchers to suit theoretical demands.This practice has led to all post-merger models becoming mutually-incompatible, with little subsequent discussion. Unfortunately, a lack of follow-up observations available to researchers is plaguing the entire enterprise of gravitational wave astronomy and related branches of astrophysics and cosmology.

 Troja et al. 2018 was published as Chandra – two weeks prior to publication  - can no longer monitor the locations believed to be associated with the emission of GW170817/GRB170817A and GRB150101B. https://phys.org/news/2018-10-nasa-space-telescope-orbit.html. The GRB150101B finding, however, had been submitted for publication by other researchers as early as August, 2016 https://arxiv.org/pdf/1608.08626.pdf.

The angular localization of a distant luminous transient utilizing such methods as employed for the recognition of GRB150101B is a highly imprecise exercise in induction from multiple nonstationary data sources with very wide systematic error: https://gcn.gsfc.nasa.gov/other/150101B.gcn3
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy

 GRB150101B and GW170817 are both described as 'blue kilonovas' (lanthanide-poor) in Troja et al. 2018 and in other studies, due to their early flat and weak blue spectral evolution; an early confident fitting of a red kilonova model to GW170817 is, in retrospect, puzzling, as apparent strong spectral evidence of r-process lanthanide nucleosynthesis (associated with red kilonovas) can also be presented with equal confidence, given the length of avilable observations http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/aa905c/pdf:

 To clarify: GW170817 itself is unlike the two known prior observed kilonova events, which indicates that this new transient is not also similar to these better-resolved prior events, which were also not observed in gravitational waves (assuming this is also true for GW170817, which coincided with an energetic magnetospheric phase transition and the midlatitude arrival of an MeV proton event lasting almost two minutes). Notice the sloppy misuse of interchangeable event names to describe the same event https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-06558-7/figures/2. For instance, 'GRB17081A'  labels a year-long sample of smoothed XMM-Newton/Chandra X-ray luminosity data from an ill-behaved astrophysical source appearing to be in NGC 4993, rather than the more appropriate and correct application of this event-specific label to classify the threshold GRB detected by Fermi-INTEGRAL ~1.7 seconds after instrument-limited peak frequency arrival of a fairly low SNR strain signal at LIGO Livingston of a generic up-chirp (such are known to near-simultaneously arrive at LIGO on the order of 1 every 100 seconds https://dcc.ligo.org/public/0122/P1500238/024/P1500238_GW150914_noise_characterization.pdf, https://cdn.iopscience.com/images/0264-9381/33/13/134001/Full/cqgaa2683f5_lr.jpg)

"Optical light curves of short GRBs normalized to the observed gamma-ray energy release" 
Normalization of electromagnetic data to an assumed spectral model scaled by a simple inverse square law can be circularly-bound to a cherry-picked source distance identified by an arbitrary selection rule, then bolstered by Bayesian confidence in the expected hard spectrum from the mean SED of previous short GRBs relative to the spectral dispersion GRB150101, which yields apparent z-shift (like all other energy, luminosity, coordinate, and mass parameters, a quantity only estimated after successive rescaling and curve-fitting operations to suit posterior distributions within meager 68% confidence bounds): 
“X-ray light curves of short GRBs normalized to the observed gamma-ray energy release. The shaded area shows the 68% dispersion region.”
“The optical afterglow of GRB170817A became visible >100 days after the merger and is not reported in the plot”
 The above quote from Troja et al. 2018 is absolutely false. The optical emission of GW170817/GRB170817A/SSS17a/AT 2017gfo was visible within 11 hours of the putative LIGO GW signal (near-IR identified first by Swope), 15.3 hours later in UV (Swift), X-rays after 9 days (Chandra), and radio emission at 16 days (Jansky VLA) https://dcc.ligo.org/public/0145/P1700294/007/ApJL-MMAP-171017.pdf.

Many liberties have been taken to "confirm" the association of GRB150101B with the putative distance of its source transient, within an active hypothesis development regime:
"The earliest follow-up observations of GRB150101B were performed by the Swift satellite starting 1.5 days after the burst. Swift monitoring lasted for 4 weeks and shows a persistent X-ray source. The study of GRB150101B at X-ray energies is complicated by its proximity to a low-luminosity AGN, which contaminates the Swift measurements. Observations with the Chandra X-ray Observatory were critical to resolve the presence of the two nearby sources, and to characterize their properties. [... . ...] The flat Swift light curve, although dominated by the AGN contribution, provides an important indication on the behavior of the early GRB afterglow, which had to remain sub-dominant over the observed period. [... .] Two leading models are commonly adopted to describe the broadband afterglow evolution of GRB170817A: a highly relativistic structured jet seen off-axis, and a choked jet with a nearly isotropic mildly relativistic cocoon. We fit both models to the GRB150101B afterglow with a Bayesian MCMC parameter estimation scheme, using the same priors and afterglow parameters as in ref. https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.06516. For the structured jet, we assumed that the energy follows a Gaussian angular profile" https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-06558-7
Data presented by Troja et al. 2018 are rendered deceptively-comparable by log-log plotting or scaling to frame, presenting a highly-processed >350 keV photon count as a much more energetic trigger. Data are presented after weighting and mask subtraction informed by posterior fits to expected hypothetical models – of which only one family can be chosen (with one putative member: GW170817, also known as GRB170817A/SSS17a/AT 2017gfo). The proposed GW170817-like kilonova family does not fit the only two prior observations of short GRB-kilonova sequences – themselves very similar to each other (cf. GRB 080503 and GRB 130603B http://www.mpe.mpg.de/~jcg/grb080503.html).
The ~20 ms 15-350 keV trigger for a short GRB is very weak in absolute terms, contributing to the search for a nearly directionless signal from a deep source (1.7 bly), closely resembling NGC 4993, and implying similar signal contamination from luminous background and dusty foreground. This is a serious problem, not an asset, for this finding. Many ionospheric and magnetospheric particle events can imitate criteria for distant GRB signals, and solar impulses with extreme energy (>50 GeV) and many duration modes consistent with those expected for much more powerful and distant astrophysical transients suspected to be GRBs https://www.sciencenews.org/article/strange-gamma-rays-sun-magnetic-fields?fbclid=IwAR2n2LE-j51KCsud2s02MFCB-4YSpsjPK8mlbmeBCGOoNWPIARqNiZKlRnE:
"There were more high-energy gamma rays, above 50 billion electron volts, or GeV, than anyone predicted, the team reports. Weirder still, rays with energies above 100 GeV appeared only during the solar minimum, when the sun’s activity level was low. One photon emitted during the solar minimum had an energy as high as 467.7 GeV." 
Long TGF transients, extending >100 ms are not uncommon:
 “Terrestrial gamma-ray flashes (TGFs) are gamma-ray bursts detected from space that are associated with lightning activity. In the present paper, we show that the shorter TGF durations (50 ms) recently discovered by the gamma-ray burst monitor (GBM) aboard the Fermi Gamma-Ray Space Telescope are consistent with the temporal dispersion associated with the Compton scattering of photons produced by an instantaneous TGF source. This new result suggests that short TGF pulses observed from satellites correspond to very short TGF sources with durations less than ~10 ms and that the observed long TGF pulses (≳100 ms) may be due to overlapping of emissions produced by a sequence of elementary processes with much shorter temporal durations.” 

The Livingston GW1701817 signal was contaminated by a glitch for the same period that the delayed LIGO Hanford signal exceeds background noise amplitude. Virgo detected nothing, which was interpreted to indicate that the Fermi-INTEGRAL signal also originated in a >30 deg2 blind spot for the Virgo station:
“Investigation of L1 data identified a noise transient from a known class
of instrumental glitches during the inspiral signal. The duration of this
glitch is a small fraction of a second and does not appear to affect the
signal at times away from the glitch. To make an improved preliminary
estimate of the sky position, we re-analyzed the data, removing the L1
noise transient at GPS time 1187008881.389 by multiplying the strain data
with a Tukey window, such that the total duration of the zeroed data is
0.2 s and the total duration of the Tukey window is 1.2 s.”
https://gcn.gsfc.nasa.gov/other/G298048.gcn3

The GW150914 transient signal also has a strict duration of 0.2 seconds: https://fulguritics.blogspot.com/2018/06/progress-on-ligo-event-analysis-here.html

A Prior kilonova observation by Hubble (first image), showing very convincing collocation of an anomalous luminous transient within a critical co-boundary of a galactic shell. Indistinguishable distances between Milky Way foreground stars and both putative GW170817 and GRB150101B sources complicate observations (2nd and 3rd images):
  

http://chandra.si.edu/photo/2017/2nstars/

Fong et al 2018 (draft dated February 22, 2018), showing galactic core at center, which saturates observations prior to application of synthetic models derived from ensuing GRB170817A/GW170817 research https://arxiv.org/pdf/1608.08626.pdf
Image result for grb150101b
Galactic core is ambiguously visualized with saturated GRB150101B, which may be deceptive upon a cursory reading, resembling a compact pair: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-06558-7

Solar activity during GRB150101B was intriguing, with three C-class flares and definite shock arrival and substorm oscillation throughout the day; a polar coronal hole, as expected to be common during solar maximum, grows, while sunspot number increases by 7 to >100; the time of arrival of GRB150101B at 15:23 UTC corresponds to a bifurcation in several interplanetary magnetic field time series https://www.spaceweatherlive.com/en/archive/2015/01/01:

20181015

[updated: the Chandra X-ray observatory had been forced into safe mode due to a gyroscope failure, a week following the temporary deactivation of the Hubble telescope Another NASA space telescope shuts down in orbit; it is now reported to be operational again as of 11/2017]

An issue one can raise regarding confidence in prior survey data from the NGC 4993 sky area is that these surveys do yield significant evidence for a faint GW170817 precursor in all available images, and at a relative spatial scale too large to be an NGC 4993 object (especially neutron stars and their domain of influence). Without being able to account for possible significant relative motion with respect to foreground and contamination in images from NGC 4993 AGN, SSS astronomers involved in the localization of the putative GW170817 compact binary source have possibly violated many robust analytical protocols. There is a strong variable X-ray source captured in NGC 4993 imaging by Chandra and XMM-Newton that has not been emphasized for its similarity to the possibly variable x-ray profile of SSS17a. Authors are vague and appeal to broad consistency with uncorrelated parameters, but never admit that well-behaved multiparametric correlations can be obtained:
"We find no clear evidence for a prior outburst at the location of SSS17a between 2004 and 2016 to V-mag limits varying from 18 to 19 (depending on observing conditions and telescope). However, since the data during this period is relatively sparse, we are unable rule out prior outbursts with timescales as short as the SSS17a event itself."
http://www.astronomerstelegram.org/?read=10856
"We also examine the three previously-detected X-ray sources CXOU J130948, CXOU 130946, and the host galaxy NGC 4993. The fluxes of CXOU 130946 and the host-galaxy NGC 4993 are consistent with our previous deep Chandra observations, while CXOU J130948 appears to be variable in X-rays (Margutti et al. 2017; Haggard et al. 2017)." http://www.astronomerstelegram.org/?read=11041
 






GRB 170817A-GW170817-AT 2017gfo and the observations of NS-NS, NS-WD and WD-WD mergers


Compilation of light curve values from Chandra and XMM-Newton for X-ray flux/luminosity and 90% CI of SSS17a/GW170817 from Burnichon et al.2018 and  Haggard et al.2018, assuming luminosity distance of 42.5 Mpc:
                                       Days from                                           GW170817      Flux, 10^-14        erg/s/cm^2                           +                     - Luminosity,10^38 erg/s                +                -               dFlux    dLuminosity
                                                            2.3                          <0.13                              N/A                         N/A                                     <3.2                         N/A                         N/A                              <0.13                                    <3.2
9.2 0.34 0.15 0.11 9.2 4.6 4.9 0.21 6
15.6 0.36 0.17 0.12 10.8 5.2 2.6 0.02 1.6
109.2 1.88 0.38 0.28 51 8.2 9.3 1.52 40.2
135 1.9 1.7 0.9 52 24 19 0.02 1
159.7 2.06 0.34 0.3 55.3 12.9 8.9 0.16 3.3
162 1.7 0.6 0.5 46 15 15 -0.36 -9.3
260 1.09 0.24 0.2 29.6 7.1 6.5 -0.61 -16.4
358.6 0.63 0.38 0.21 17 11 5 -0.46 -12.6



The best and most direct information available on GW170817 post-merger does not reside in peer-reviewed publication, but in direct information disclosure in a 9th August update on The Astronomer's Telegram:
“Below, we provide a light curve table of all currently-available Chandra and XMM-Newton observations of GW170817. We note that all flux and luminosity measurements are from our own independent analysis of the data (reported here and in Nynka et al., 2018), except for the Chandra observations at 2.3 days, which are rescaled from Margutti et al. (2017).
Days, Telescope, Flux*, Luminosity**
2.3, Chandra, <0.13, <3.2
9.2, Chandra, 0.34 (+0.15/-0.11), 9.2 (+4.6/-4.9)
15.6, Chandra, 0.36 (+0.17/-0.12), 10.8 (+5.2/-2.6)
109.2, Chandra, 1.88 (+0.38/-0.28), 51.0 (+8.2/-9.3)
135, XMM-Newton, 1.9 (+1.7/-0.9), 52.0 (+24/-19)
159.7, Chandra, 2.06 (+0.34/-0.30), 55.3 (+12.9/-8.9)
162, XMM-Newton, 1.7 (+0.6/-0.5), 46 (+15/-15)
260.0, Chandra, 1.09 (+0.24/-0.20), 29.6 (+7.1/-6.5)
*Flux units: [10^-14 erg/s/cm^2], 0.3 - 8 keV absorbed flux
**Luminosity units: [10^38 erg/s], 0.3 - 10 keV unabsorbed luminosity, assuming DL = 42.5 Mpc
(all uncertainties are 90% c.l.)”

and four days later in The Astronomer's Telegram:

“We report new Chandra X-ray observations of neutron star merger GW170817 at 358.6 days post-merger, which now reveals fading at a t^-1.6 rate.Chandra obtained a 67.16 ks observation of GW170817 (obsID: 21371, PI: Troja) on 10 August 2018, at 358.6 days post-merger. GW170817 is still clearly detected, and we measure a 0.5-8 keV count rate of 4.9 (+0.9/-0.9) cts/s. We extract and fit the X-ray spectrum assuming an absorbed power-law spectral model, with fixed NH = 7.5e20 cm^-2. We measure an absorbed flux of f(0.3-8 keV) = 6.3 (+3.8/-2.1) x10^-15 erg/s/cm^2 (90% c.l.) and photon index of Gamma = 1.6 (+1.3/-0.9), which corresponds to an unabsorbed luminosity of L(0.3-10 keV) = 1.7 (+1.1/-0.5) x10^39 erg/s assuming a luminosity distance of 42.5 Mpc.The previous Chandra observation at 260.0 days showed an absorbed flux of f(0.3-8 keV) = 1.09 (+0.24/-0.20) x10^-14 erg/s/cm^2 (Nynka et al. 2018). A power-law fit of this previous 260.0 day flux to the new 358.6 day flux reveals fading at a t^-1.6 rate. This is steeper than the t^-1.3 fading observed between 159.7 and 260.0 days post-merger, and thus the X-ray afterglow light curve is now fading more rapidly.”

I contest the technique used by Daryl Haggard et al. to fit their data to a power law curve, which indicated that luminosity is decreasing at an increased rate. Their methodology is poorly explained; prima facie, the rate of decrease of luminosity is actually decreasing, not increasing, and absolute magnitude may now be rising. The series of Chandra/XMM-Newton values are well-modeled with a 3rd degree polynomial with very high R^2 (>0.98), which extrapolates that rising flux|luminosity may be occurring, an inconvenience complicated by the coincidental [temporary?] deactivation of the Chandra satellite only eight weeks after the last Chandra observation was reported in AT. We may be prudent to consider that SSS17a/GW170817 may be brightening again, which could further signal that a kind of kilonova imposter (which would be the first identified - the term in quotations produced no hits in a Google search) or foreground X-ray variable star, completely uncorrelated to GW170817/GRB170817A arrival. 

[LIGO-Virgo GW transient arrival from 150101 and luminosity distances of all seven GW transients, with LIGO standard bounds; notice how reliable distance-dependent calculations may become unreliable at very few inductive steps; a study on excess LIGO event parameter correlations associated with unacknowledged observational and orbital bias is available here: https://fulguritics.blogspot.com/2018/06/roger-penrose-penrose-2017-may-be.html]
Information on foreground effects during GW170817 trigger: https://fulguritics.blogspot.com/2018/06/gw170817-occurs-at-green-bar.html
Information on foreground effects during GW150814: https://fulguritics.blogspot.com/2018/06/progress-on-ligo-event-analysis-here.html
Calculated time lags and other crucial properties of the GW150914 event from terrestrial source[s]: https://fulguritics.blogspot.com/2018/06/blog-post.html
Plotted ground magnetometer data for coincident anomalous geomagnetic behavior in North America surrounding LIGO stations during GW150914: https://fulguritics.blogspot.com/2018/06/httpswww.html

As learnt from comparing information from 13th August 2018 on The Astronomer's Telegram to various conflicting observations and peer-reviewed interpretations of the post-merger emission, odd X-ray luminosity brightening with unpredictable error oscillation are captured implicitly by the provisional light curve (see plots). Possible non-monotonicity can remain unobserved given choice for arbitrary observation intervals and days-long photon collection yielding means from summation values.
What are being described as among the largest neutron stars are now being claimed to have produced the smallest known black hole with weakest EM transients (despite any off-axis modeling); expectations are perhaps too open with respect to closed theory of the polemical LIGO variety, however true such assumptions. Possibly the strangest feature of the post-merger luminous time domain behavior of the putative GW170817 source is precisely in time signatures of observations: some attempts to observe the source have failed on fractionally-incompatible days or for weeks or months at a time, notwithstanding occlusion by the sun. Very few observations with wide wavelength coverage exist. Dusts, lensing, and plasmas interfering with photon path will modulate Earth orbit-determined observation window time series. Key almost-invariant light curve envelope period lengths for certain long-period X-ray variable stars seem to accompany the few successful, information-laden observations of the GW170817 source believed to be in NGC 4993 (and the particular luminosity distance adaptively-calculated by LIGO at 40 ^+8_-17 Mpc, which a posteriori scales analytical parameters). Considering there is serious discussion about possible variable star activity perhaps being conflated with a GW170817 source (Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy), and as kilonova evolution models are unexpectedly failing the more we inject expectation into the empirical GW170817 portrait - its outcome seemingly hanging from a cliff by a finger at the margins of residual distributions - we should probably stop pretending to be convinced that we even understand what happened on August 17, 2017 UTC. It is also important to note a failure to detect expected neutrino emission, explained away by the supposed off-axis orientation of the initial relativistic jet responsible for the GRB170817A trigger: No neutrino emission from a binary neutron star merger.

20180628




Multiple-coordinate mutual signals of planetary orbits, as dimensionally-compacted estimators, are gravitationally-correlated to sunspot cycle length and variation through magnetohydrodynamic tidal forces and nonlinear coronal feedbacks with solar magnetic field, with respect to the nonstationary distribution of solar wind stream and shock interaction regions.

A series of plots of conventional analyses of time series and Fourier analysis of sunspot and radio flux cyclicity are included below.

 Charge potential modulation of electromagnetic field boundary density and coupling relations at vacuum gaps may result from bifurcations and shocks in solar-interplanetary stream interaction regions, intimately related both to the formation and stability of coronal holes, cyclical behavior of ICMEs, and to the triggering of sawtooth trans-magnetospheric mode propgating between Earth, and the interplanetary magnetic field [Cai and Clauer 2013]; deterministic aspects of metastable vacuua in co-rotating interaction regions [Cairns 1999] are expressed in the eigenmodes and eigenphases of sawtooth events. Solstice-Equinox clustering is significant for LIGO events and Sawtooth events, with effective geomagnetic maxima and minima often preceding or following seasonal boundaries with intervals of 3,5,7, and 21 days (consistent with LIGO trigger days) [Cai and Clauer 2013]. Magnetic outflow, mirroring the dynamics of coronal holes, may drive sawtooth events, which may produce transients due to plasma instability at bifurcating vacuum gaps with enhanced solar wind pressure.

Here, the 12-year Jupiter orbit seems to control the Schwabe cycle reciprocally with Earth's orbital perturbation, resulting [with perturbative power from multiple-bodied planetary gravitational harmonics] in strong 8-year sub-cycles. The 6 to 8-year component is strongly-resolved, paired with the 10 to 12-year component in PSDs (with integer z-scores as powers of 2) of solar radio flux and sunspots (SSN). Just as compelling, the165 year orbit of Neptune is also a strong mode in the PSD of solar radio flux. When applied to the available extended sunspot count model after 11-year trend smoothed and with respect to harmonic conjugation, these partitions can be integrated directly (see PSD and DCT analysis below). Mercury and Uranus in relation to the gravitational interplay between the sun and Earth-Moon explain the data better than the norms of consecutive planetary vectors, the orbital paths of intervening planets omitted. These 3-bodied systems are indicated M-E-J and E-J-U. The entire eight-planet system follows the same consecutive rule: M-V-E-M-J-S-U-N.



 Examples of event embeddings into extended time domain superpositions I have performed toward the elimination of correlations between LIGO event timing and various geomagnetic, ionospheric, magnetospheric, interplanetary magnetic field, and solar coronal data: time domain histograms (superposed epoch analyses) and statistical functions for solar, IMF/solar wind, magnetosphere, and ionosphere records

These are some admittedly strange (but formally correct) results demonstrating that particular anomalous space weather intervals are also correlated with sawtooth oscillations and magnetospheric proton injection events through LIGO triggers.


https://ccmc.gsfc.nasa.gov/modelweb/

https://data.nasa.gov/Space-Science/HelioWeb/


http://www.sidc.be/silso/datafiles


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gravitational_wave_observations






The Saturn orbit-asynchronous great storm of 2010-11 is a strong peak in the RMS signal of the mutual orbits of M-V-E-M-J-S-U-N, with respect to body-specific variations in solar distance around barycenter [Sánchez-Lavega et al. 2016]






sunspots, zero daily counts/yr; LIGO GW events, day/yr, luminosity distance



sunspots, zero and all Fibonacci number daily counts/yr; LIGO GW events, day/yr, luminosity distance


Sunspots, January 1749-Feb. 2009, y/x=count/mo.







There should be no multiple-correlations to exact changes in broad, coupled planetary orbit and interplanetary-solar magnetic field change with the timing, distance, energy, and magnitudes of gravitational wave events; this ensemble covariance appears throughout the analysis. Revision of LIGO GW event parameter estimation is now unavoidable, unless coincident sawtooth events are found to be causally independent from LIGO noise floor (which shares power with "signal" during LIGO events and cannot be merely symmetrically subtracted)

 A public, exhaustively-controlled, multiply-falsifiable, and analytically/mathematically-rigorous program that applies the most stable numerical methods equally and exhaustively onto all available datasets for any time scale possibly comparable to any possible domain of LIGO GW stochastic-transient density has been lacking. LIGO magnetometer data are not available for O1 or O2, nor data completion/coverage intervals and quality flag times available for O2, which are necessary for calculating the extended joint probability for coincident sampling periods with paired detection. 
https://losc.ligo.org/data/
https://losc.ligo.org/events/
https://losc.ligo.org/O1/
https://losc.ligo.org/timeline/show/O1/H1_DATA*L1_DATA/1126051217/11203200/



LIGO has failed to express their concern for checking the complementary fitness of statistical-numerical NR models with the evolution of phase behavior in strain noise surrounding putative GW transients; noise levels exceed GW signal amplitude during detection periods by more than an order of magnitude.