Criticism and refutation of Nielsen et al. 2018, Green-Moffat 2017/2018, Ian Harry 2017 blog post, and Van Putten et al. 2018

UPDATE
two new responses to Nielsen et al. 2018 became available  Spring 2019:

1. [Jackson et al. 2019] Noise residuals for GW150914 using maximum likelihood and numerical relativity templates

2. [Maroju et al. 2019] Looking for ancillary signals around GW150914

Both papers find that results of attempted refutations of residual correlations around GW150914 (e.g. Nielsen et al. 2018 and Green-Moffat 2017/8) are intrinsically spurious, in that complex lag correlations do in fact persist despite use of improper ML templates with uncorrelated synthetic/sampled noise to simulate robustness. Nielsen et al. 2018 is especially inconsistent and problematic given the circular logic necessary to rationalize the incompatibility of the decorrelated best fit template with the models from which "confident" source parameters were calculated by LVC. The conclusions of Jackson et al. 2019 and Maroju et al. 2019 are supported throughout the blog author's prior and parallel multiscaled analyses [ LIGO-Virgo signals are generated by strong compound coupling/decoupling within a scale-invariant, nonstationary, degenerate, and persistent propagating rarefacted ground state supporting instanton-soliton transient production transverse to time domain, identical to expected circular cavity artifacts]. My prompt critical response as Nielsen et al. 2018 became available on arXiv follows, finding the same methodological biases and blunders found by Jackson et al. 2019, while Maroju et al. 2019 supports the presence of extended lag correlations for tens of minutes around trigger, supporting  prior criticism of GW150914 signal extraction/interpretation in Creswell et al 2017 and elsewhere]


[2018-12-11] LIGO-Virgo collaboration continues to deny foreground contamination while publicly-devaluing purpose for meta-analysis of LVC statistical error, and such choices are continuing to plague LIGO phenomenological consistency, eroding confidence in extended cosmological application of LIGO findings; instead, by appealing to a series of improper reanalyses presented against Creswell et al. 2017, public obligation for LIGO response to an outspoken critic was restricted onto a piecemeal series of incommensurate tests for empirical cross-correlations by using synthetic data, deliberately avoiding exact replication in so many words. The deceptive incongruity of LIGO reanalyses with respect to Creswell et al 2017 is a troubling index of a more disturbing trend. Wording plays too important a role in the presentation of LIGO reanalyses in this context. That these publications are brandished as apotropaia (without acknowledgment of their fundamental deviations from proper methodological replication), and that their conclusions are as such not being understood or adequately explained, demands reassessment of LIGO as a social institution as well as a simplistically-tenebrous research effort.

Below, I venture toward critiques of three very recent papers (2nd half of 2018) published and/or strongly promoted by LIGO and collaboration as New Scientist (Oct. 31 2018) rekindles a debate that had not merely evaporated otherwise, but first we revisit Ian Harry's sophomoric phase space analysis. These short notes are followed by a supplementary section introducing foreground noise sources and reports detailing LIGO instrumental response with respect to the current state of signal/noise discrimination protocols; sections are enumerated. The first two papers examined are Nielsen et al 2018 ([1811.04071] Investigating the noise residuals around the gravitational wave event GW150914) and Green and Moffat 2018 ([1711.00347] Extraction of black hole coalescence waveforms from noisy data), followed by van Putten et al. 2018 ([1806.02165] Observational evidence for Extended Emission to GW170817). As not all problems inherent with LIGO-Virgo science are exclusive to the confirmation and classification of GW150914, we must include interpretive inconsistencies with GW data and BH population scaling. Excessive correlation between LIGO event parameter/source property error and arrival time, driven noise floor phase coherence and coincident geophysical/space physical events during all seven LIGO-Virgo events compounds apparent GW170817/GRB170817A/NGC 4993/AT 2017gfo incompatibility and multiple comparisons expressed uniquely by several equally-credible research collaborations.

Ongoing multi-disciplinary work with LIGO data is summarized and presented with an open data protocol on this blog, beginning with GW150914: orphans of abductivism and extending into GW170817 orphans of abductivism and beyond orphans of abductivism.

Cosmologist Peter Coles presents his own highly-informed feedback, on his blog, to both late-2018 New Scientist articles and consequential LIGO and NBI statements, in the wake of this renewed controversy, regularly expressing his discomfort with LIGO opposition to an analytical-quality open science protocol. He has been present at colloquia between NBI and LIGO, and his blog has been a valuable resource throughout ongoing NBI/LIGO debate. He was quoted in the Oct. 31, 2018 New Scientist article https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24032022-600-exclusive-grave-doubts-over-ligos-discovery-of-gravitational-waves/, who reassures the reader as to the credibility of the NBI collaboration.

https://telescoper.wordpress.com/2018/11/01/grave-wave-doubts/
https://telescoper.wordpress.com...
LIGO and Open Science
Questioning LIGO

One should consider that the NBI collaboration's work with LIGO data is not limited to a single peer-reviewed paper, and that several papers involving signal processing with LIGO data, dating from 2016–2018 are available on the website of the NBI collaboration: http://www.nbi.ku.dk/gravitational-waves/gravitational-waves.html

I. It should also be noted that conclusions asserted through attempts at synthetic reproduction of trivialized systematic residual phase correlations from the oft-cited guest post by Ian Harry on Sean Carroll’s popular blog have not been valid since July, 2017 at the very latest, yet no retractions have been made. This is outrageously-unethical, as a non-retraction crisis plagues many fields, yet physicists and astronomers seem to be exempt from the responsibility of apprising the public of epistemic error. GW Comments 2

Ian Harry’s code error (consisting of several coding errors throughout the workbook) undermines any validity to analysis or phenomenological/methodological arguments on Sean Carroll’s blog [A Response to “On the time lags of the LIGO signals” (Guest Post)]. It had been gingerly acknowledged by the LIGO collaboration only after the Danish collaboration pointed it out to LIGO [Gravitational waves], but Ian Harry’s guest post was not retracted or corrected, who had promised by July, 2017 to publish an appropriate journal-length refutation of the Creswell et al. 2017 findings. The corrected LIGO workbook also fails to refute the correlations claimed by Creswell et al. 2017 [1706.04191] On the time lags of the LIGO signals and extended to show further events are roughly identical to driven non-Gaussian noise by A. Raman [1711.07421] On the Signal Processing Operations in LIGO signals to such a serious extent that bogus FM templates cross-correlated with non-signal LIGO noise around events triggers LIGO CCF searches, regardless of amplitude.

Green and Moffat 2018 (v1 2017) and Nielsen et al. 2018 implicitly-acknowledge Ian Harry’s code errors, which were identified swiftly by the NBI team. Duncan Brown, a co-author of Nielsen et al. 2018, was present at discussions between LIGO team members and NBI critics. Window functions are no longer being considered responsible for excess phase correlations as identified in Creswell et al. 2017 and elsewhere.
______________________________________________________________________________

II. A strategically-timed paper submitted to the arXiv November, 2018 (Nielsen et al. 2018 ([1811.04071] Investigating the noise residuals around the gravitational wave event GW150914) was scheduled to superficially-quell recent renewed alarm raised by NS and the NBI group. It contains terminological and representational errors that affect transparency, was not peer-reviewed, and has been heavily promoted by the LIGO collaboration, Alexander Nitz and Christopher Berry on Twitter within the first week of its submission (which I had the pleasure of confronting in real time, pointing out multiple methodological errors and circuitous lapses of transparency directly to Alexander Nitz). The paper, in fact, is yet another incommensurate and incomplete reanalysis of lag correlations between template-signal residuals and template-synthetic colored noise residuals. All four listed authors (including Duncan Brown), according to Chris Berry on twitter, have left the LIGO collaboration (he apprised me of this without much hesitation in order to distance himself from responsibility in the name of the LIGO collaboration for problems I was pointing out). Is it that their paper is so transparently a dilatory strategy, or is it that well-known LIGO authors truly care about mathematical rigor and logical consistency that has compelled the authors of yet another improper falsification of Creswell et al. 2017 to have departed the prestigious LIGO-Virgo consortium? Duncan Brown, a computational astrophysicist, is still apparently giving talks on GW, but to what degree the content of his lectures of personal work now depends on analysis of LIGO GW event data is unknown to me.

It must be strongly emphasized that no analysis of L1|H1 direct CCF for the entire 40 minute correlation period claimed in Creswell et al. 2017 was performed in Nielsen et al. 2018, and so there isn't any actual replication of the total critical domain of Creswell et al 2017, let alone any attempt to satisfy demands of rigorous argument given the degree of data manipulation and unwarranted introduction of a new template as employed by Nielsen et al. A single family of arguments is superficially exhausted, distracting us from the more insidious trend in LIGO-Virgo ignorance of their own systematic error.

Using Pearson coefficients of modeled colored Gaussian noise instead of those from paired real noise samples neglects that noise and signal in real h(t) strain are argued to be coherent and indivisible; an ML template optimized to select strongest GW frequency components is chosen to minimize phase correlations, but synthetic Gaussian noise is colored with amplitude information. Modeled noise is therefore fundamentally-incomparable to phase of signal, if we admit the necessity for rejecting the null hypothesis that noise and signal phase are not independent. Subharmonic distributions from colored Gaussian noise will not correlate with real noise, and this is also required to test the fitness of samples. Synthetic noise  is processed incorrectly without attention to the ASD of near-event strain noise. The windowed time series amplitude peak (inspiral phase) residuals should be cross-correlated continuously with the remainder of the extended (>0.2 s) strain signal, as mode clarity for partition-sensitive quasiperiodic phase evolution is time-dependent. [Non-Gaussian] dual-detector h(t) data, transformed into Pearson cross-correlations, cannot be intrinsically-compared with whitened h(t) data or colored Gaussian noise, as h(t) data are phase encoded at a finite sampling rate, with residual correlations broken due to performance of an improper amplitude-biased template subtraction (NR, ML template) on Gaussian (inherently uncorrelated) test data.

By far, this is the most serious methodological mistake in Nielsen et al. 2018. Subtle H1 phase shift, or H1 ML template time reversal symmetry deviation displaces, fractionally-distributes, and inverts cross-correlations and preserves multiple partial correlations. Prior ACF classification, not merely cross-correlation of standardized data, is crucial.

Anticorrelation in the semi-empirical curves is inverted at the same interval with joint correlation at -7 and 7 ms in the synthetic data. The [Bayesian] maximum likelihood (ML)-subtracted curves do not show lag interval fits, but do not fit primary, analytical LIGO NR template, which means the paper does not succeed in producing a convincing falsification of Creswell et al. 2017. Noise was not modeled directly upon signal unique to each detector, as the claim goes. As there are still multiple correlations at significant ratios in the results of Nielsen et al. 2018, manipulation of output of the replication analysis shows Gaussian partitioning was selected to preferentially EXCLUDE +/- 7 ms in two-sided cross-correlations. To retain independence from systematic error, ML template must show the same partial autocorrelation partitions as the NR template; the ACF of the ML template doesn't fit the official LIGO NR template used to calculate source parameters found in what I assume all LIGO collaboration publications. The ML data also show partial correlation with the real/NR data with the same positive correlations at -7 ms and 7 ms.

Actual shifted cross-correlations in Creswell et al. are technically anticorrelations, and signal lags are inverted and symmetric around 0. The shifting of a priori lagged data with periodic phase correlations produces an anticorrelated positive time lag; synthetic noise generated from real GW signal modes that may be dispersive, encoding nonstationary terrestrial Doppler information (GW150914-H1 shows less degeneracy, lower Q-factor, and flatter power distribution - with greatest density <140 Hz – than GW150914-L1; this, and the mostly negative ASD phase spectrum). Band-specific and phase-specific spectral artifacts can be conflated with NR template, given incomplete notching and simple shifting-inversion of lagged LIGO strain signal assumed to be dispersionless, but polarized.

Considering that respective LIGO detector strain may not be bijective due to time-dependency, correlations between noise and signal residuals did not simply go away provided the simplistic way the data are treated. Relative nonstationarity in H1|L1 data can be found by considering negative lag symmetry of cross-correlated ML-subtracted data, with the signal of the NR-subtracted shifted data – strongly-negative cross-correlation (anticorrelation) at +7 ms – showing the propagated mismatch effect between NR templates utilized to subtract GW150914 and estimate source properties. -7 ms positive cross-correlation between ML-subtracted data preserves lower significance +7 ms positive cross-correlation, but without NR template-subtracted negative cross-correlation found in Creswell et al. 2017. This recalcitrant displacement reveals the non-triviality and intrinsicity of time reversal-asymmetry. Transverse strain density and envelope are correlated, and the mere inversion and shifting of lagged detector data cannot conceal time dependency, nor can the ASD phase spectrum of lagged  strain, such as GW150914-L1, which is dominated by negative power, while L1 is dominated by positive phase. Another possibility arises: the emitter is located horizontally in mutual line-of-sight of LIGO.  Shifting 0.007s cannot correctively-weight the evolution of H1 in phase space; the wavelength of a 0.0069-0.0072s signal (139-145 Hz) at v=c is identical to the propagation distance between H1 and noise source. If noise prior to and following transient arrival contains a strong lag locked with GW150914, the CSD of unshifted L1|H1 noise will show enhanced power with discrete features at 138-145 Hz.
(see 1. orphans of abductivism, 2. orphans of abductivism, 3. orphans of abductivism, 4. orphans of abductivism, 5. orphans of abductivism)

By treating the data as dispersive, one can remove insignificant periodic phase correlations and other evidence of nonlinear monotonic cross-talk (systematic error) sensitive to sample window size, given that all calibration lines are properly notched. Conversely, using both versions or both sampling resolutions of public LIGO strain data sets together, with the 1 ms shifted difference in v1, would effectively split, invert, and fractionalize cross-correlations, similar to the results obtained in Nielsen et al. 2018. If posterior ML analysis treats lag-corrected NR|signal as time independent, asymmetry and phase mismatch relegated to spin, polarization, redshift, Doppler effect, and binary source dynamical ellipticity and tidal potentials from quasinormal envelopes in LIGO-Virgo strain may, in effect, be spurious - the systematic effect of dispersive broadband propagation of superposed caustic-like horizons observed non-orthogonally, with elliptical TM polarization. Relativistic, radial, annular EM wavefront collisions are common in thunderstorms (in ELVES and sprites), as are ducted gamma glows: Lightning produces afterglow of gamma radiation (Lightning produces afterglow of gamma radiation)

The v2 LIGO strain data were not available at the time the original NBI findings were presented. V1 is assumed to be crucial to original parameter estimation and signal isolation of GW150914. A proprietary LIGO process is not explicated to show differences between v1 and v2 other than a 1 ms shift in the 4096 Hz data.

As it is claimed that public data are being used in the spirit of open science (LIGO has come under fire by supporters as well, for a lack of transparency), it is still not known how LIGO modified public dataset v2. Sample locations, sample lengths, and sampling rate used to generate synthetic colored test noise [Nielsen et al 2018] are not specified. As sampling rates of the datasets are not specified in the paper, is this not a proprietary data usage? Methods are broadly described, and a workbook is supplied. There is no explicit symbolic mathematical formalism presented for any quantitative choice taken within the bounds of the paper except the conventional CCF formula used in Creswell et al 2017. The work is not reproducible from simulated non-Gaussian noise from unspecified LIGO data modes and Gaussian noise to compare with a coherent kind of non-Gaussian noise in the pre-arrival and post-decay samples. These data are lag-correlated at different sample lengths by the same dimensionless mapping as quasinormal cycle bifurcations in GW signals at each station.

To recap: Nielsen et al 2018 employs synthetically-colored Gaussian noise for subtraction of a previously-fitted-to-data ML template, but ML and NR templates are not mutually lag-correlated, decorrelated from each other while +[τ] anticorrelations shifted and inverted to -[τ] correlations at identical absolute 0.007 s lag, which is expected for relatively-dispersive and randomly-attenuated second-arrival H1 data (which possesses greater Gaussianity than L1 data, with stronger nonlinear features and quasiperiodic band partitions - affected by degeneracy - and more narrow Q-factor than H1). Annoyingly, the term 'cross-correlation[s]' only appears in the abstract of both versions of the Nielsen et al 2018 paper, otherwise implying shifted window correlation throughout the text, de-emphasizing differences between H1 and L1 data that reflect their absolute time-dependent non-stationarity. Normalization of nonstationary h(t)|h(t|τ), with dramatically different raw absolute strain values, given ordinary dispersion, amplifies incommensurate time-reversal symmetry. We reject assumptions as to the nondispersive nature of GW in space, or that h(t) signal is necessarily a GW signal, and it becomes clear that H1|L1 are not directly comparable as such. Notice how new negative lags that appear upon Nielsen et al use of colored Gaussian noise and ML templates are truncated by labels in this actual plot from Nielsen et al 2018 v2, followed by a tell-tale attempt to obfuscate the intrinsic meaning of these shifted and inverted values:

“In this section, we investigate the effect of modifying some of the correlation parameter choices. We separately try tripling the window size, shifting the start time of the window earlier by 5 ms, and narrowing the bandpass filter to the range 60–220 Hz. As can be seen in Fig. 5, these changes do not have a significant effect on the location of the peak correlation for data containing the GW150914 signal, but they do have a noticeable effect on the value of the correlation statistic for the maximum-likelihood waveform subtracted residual data. Indeed, at the low levels of correlation seen for these residuals, relatively small changes in the correlation parameters can shift the location of the anti-correlation peak and even turn an anti-correlation into a correlation near 7ms time separation. However, none of these correlations in our residual data are at a level that is statistically significant when compared to simulated Gaussian noise. “

All tests of X-corr suffer from optimal window selection, and the persistence of this peak is complementary to the fractional characteristics of the GW150914 waveform, which is mode/phase locked between polarization, amplitude, phase density, and lag values to scale-invariant cavity resonances that include the common LIGO instrument coordinate-specific Earth-ionosphere waveguide modes, their specific spectral density modulated by line-of-sight/radio horizon attenuation conditions.

____________________________________________________________________________

III. The "independent" Green and Moffat 2018 falsification of Creswell et al. 2017 utilizes decimated 16384 Hz h(t) data (recall that noise floor exceeds GW signal on the order of 10^2–10^3), whitening this dataset (obscuring non-Gaussian transverse signal components inappropriate for 1D strain data, which encodes only real phase). Noise and signal are subsequently treated as statistical quantities, which obey wide-band wavelet transforms with arbitrary signal termini. The paper was originally submitted to the arXiv Oct 5 2017. Green-Moffat 2018 required two revisions before PhysletB published v3 Sept 10, 2018 (v3 24 Aug 2018); as of December 15, 2018 Green-Moffat 2017/2018 is being presented as a recent and conclusive study in a highly-biased popular science article: https://www.quantamagazine.org/studies-rescue-ligos-gravitational-wave-signal-from-the-noise-20181213/.

By far, this is the most serious methodological mistake in Nielsen et al. 2018. Subtle H1 phase shift, or H1 ML template time reversal symmetry deviation displaces, fractionally-distributes, and inverts cross-correlations and preserves multiple partial correlations. Prior ACF classification, not merely cross-correlation of standardized data, is crucial.

Prior assumptions in Green-Moffat, that non-Gaussian noise is not intrinsic with signal and that H1|L1 is non-dispersive and stationary, with identical time derivatives, leads to the implication that empirical, raw transverse modes are negligible, as templates and wavelets may virtually interpolate any transverse continuum desired from notched, bandpassed and decimated broadband noise containing self-similar chirp-like bifurcations. One wonders if Laplace wavelets have been considered for ML template design.
Invariant CCF time reversal symmetry cannot be assumed due to this absolute H1-L1 lagged entropic time dependency.

Compelling ~40 minute high-SNR quasiperiodic phase-locked dual-detector noise (which shares spectral envelope, log-normal empirical frequency distribution, and scaled eigenmodes with the coincident GW signals themselves) is being denied without being ignored, leading to seemingly rudimentary solutions that hide fatal flaws unlikely to be pointed out by science communicators or peer reviewers sympathetic to LIGO-Virgo phenomenology. Wavelet interpolation with almost featureless spectral information performed with extremely wide bin selection is not appropriate in this light. It changes the conditions of the debate and unsuccessfully tackles a less relevant point made by the Danish collaboration:

“In response to Creswell et al. 2017 [https://arxiv.org/pdf/1706.04191], Green and Moffat 2018 [https://arxiv.org/pdf/1711.00347...] have found that residual correlations between detector phase can be eliminated without utilizing matched templates, demonstrating that improper choice of templates is not responsible for any artifacts of imperfect template subtraction. This is accomplished by assuming smooth signals (prior filtering) and only selecting very large bins to generate restricted bandwidths and performing wavelet transforms – hardly an unbiased approach. Success of a method effective in other, generally mutually-incommensurate areas of signal processing becomes an implied a priori argument for the adequacy of wavelet transforms in this context - given the persistence of a suppressed prior assumption (that the signal is real, and that this necessarily implies that it is a GW signal).” orphans of abductivism

A widely-echoed, often naïve obsession with window functions is prescriptive and does not seem to admit understanding of selective applicability and robustness of the Fourier transform and its family of related transforms. Active use of “appropriate” window functions is redundant, obscuring partial autocorrelation symmetry and increasing spectral leakage in many circumstances where data are represented in frequency domain. For the now-irrelevant analysis by LIGO’s Ian Harry, window functions are a red herring exploited by LIGO.

The use of the DCT is recommended with broadband quasiperiodic data, as it does not treat the data as cyclical, no window function is required. DCT and DST residuals are also highly cross-correlated, it turns out (amplitude and phase are both correlated with noise). Discussion of non-uniqueness of lags in LIGO signals and their reproduction from coincident terrestrial source-observer geometry can be found on my blog: orphans of abductivism. Bandpass filters (LIGO use both time and frequency domain bandpassing at different stages of data cleaning and signal isolation) can also introduce signal-like error into time series, which is a much worse problem than windowing, as phase artifacts from improper windowing will be discontinuous with lag-affine partial  correlations within sample window. Other Fourier transforms are not sensitive to edge effects, as the data are not treated as cyclical.

Since problematic correlations with discrete, non-random derivatives remain in phase AND amplitude values of spectral residuals after template subtraction in frequency domain, I suggest one transforms time series to Z-scores before Fourier transforming, which will emphasize strongest correlations, with better amplitude sensitivity for identification of self-affine components and scale-invariant energy distributions; the DCT on cross-correlated [PCCF] variates yields real cross-spectral density; time domain GW templates are not appropriate (and not used for NR matches template searches or the work of the NBI collaboration), and one may classify cross-correlations from [Z-score] standardized output of CCF of inverse transforms of frequency domain template-subtracted signal, real noise samples surrounding signal periods, and their residuals. One may additionally classify residuals between CSDs of joint raw signal, joint noise surrounding signal, and joint template, as well as combinations of different data types between different stations. Some work is being done with Fourier-domain and mixed GW templates, which are viewed as being more successful for the identification of GW signals in the stochastic GW background. Fractional Fourier transforms and Laplace transforms may establish, with minimal filtering, purer identity between quasinormal mode evolution in strain data from true binary source signal.
______________________________________________________________________________

IV. Van Putten et al. 2018 dredge noise in an attempt to make sense of GW170817 given late stage evolution of the purported remnant AT 2017gfo, assumed to be located in NGC 4993. The study located terrestrial noise eigenmodes and strain channel feedbacks and applied a magnetar model to explain apparent additional signal components in modulus of GW170817 L1|H1 spectrographic information. These new frequency components are identical to expected systematic error, granted that GW170817 is also an artifact of non-astrophysical instrumental response to driven phase coherence coincident to magnetospheric sawtooth mode. This effort by van Putten et al. digs the LIGO collaboration a deeper hole. Notice the Phys.org - News and Articles on Science and Technology headline, presenting this post hoc study as a new finding:
"Gravitational waves from a merged hyper-massive neutron star"

…and the actual title of van Putten et al. 2018:
“Observational evidence for extended emission to GW170817"

Selected plots and tabulated values with respect to noise:signal conflation underlying confirmation bias:
GW170817/GRB170817A [contra van Putten-Valle 2018

Investigation of research surrounding NGC 4993/AT2017gfo
orphans of abductivism
Claimed analogy between GRB150101B and GRB170817A
orphans of abductivism
GW170817 foreground investigation
orphans of abductivism

GW170817 strain signal arrived and remained for ~100 s at 23 Hz =13034 km, w/respect to Earth d=12742 km; ((13034-12742)/2)=146 km, the exact upper bound of metal ion-dominated sporadic E-region layer formation - also upper z-bound for auroral current sheet (~150 km).

L1-H1 LOS:ground propagation domain (139.96 Hz=2142 km=0.007145 s, 3030/2142=1.4146~sqrt(2)) is involved with the enhancement of GW150914 coupled noise lag (~0.007 s), phase artifacts of LIGO orientation to the Earth-ionosphere waveguide with respect to elliptical Schumann TM modes.

“Properties of the binary neutron star merger GW170817”
[1805.11579] Properties of the binary neutron star merger GW170817
“Gravitational Waves and Gamma-Rays from a Binary Neutron Star Merger: GW170817 and GRB 170817A”
http://iopscience.iop.org/articl...
New signal components are found to be enhanced by continental waveguide orientation of LIGO network to multiple supercell thunderstorm noise sources in TX/OK (exactly 700 Hz/428 km), the geographic distance between L1 and H1 (99-100 Hz/3000-3030 km, feedback-enhanced modes during L1 glitch).

GRB170817A consists of mostly <100 keV photons, peaking at 300 keV, as magnetospheric soft proton flares, not an s-GRB. Ord. dispersion from geomagnetic response to proton injections explains lag from a generic modified Bessel function of the first kind from ELF to keV (1.7 s) transient.
Mitigation of the instrumental noise transient in gravitational-wave
data surrounding GW170817
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Mod...
___________________________________________________________________________

V. Background on correlated noise sources and LIGO instrumental response:

Globally coherent short duration magnetic field transients and their effect on ground based gravitational-wave detectors
Anomalously strong vertical magnetic fields from distant ELF/VLF sources
Magnetism and Advanced LIGO
Characterization of transient noise in Advanced LIGO relevant to gravitational wave signal GW150914

From https://arxiv.org/pdf/1602.03844...:

“electromagnetic noise sources include lightning, solar events and solar-wind driven noise[... .] If electromagnetic noise were strong enough to affect h(t), it would be witnessed with high SNR by radio receivers and magnetometers."

North American ground magnetometer data around GW150914: https://fulguritics.blogspot.com...

https://dcc.ligo.org/public/0116/P1400210/002/SURF%20Final%20Paper.pdf:

“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."

According to LIGO logbooks, vital magnetometers at both stations were overlooked - left inoperative - for over a month, and as such both GW150914 and LVT151012 were recorded during high-noise periods with active magnetospheric sawtooth/SMC events during a dual detector false trigger arrival rate of 0.01 Hz (every 100 seconds). LIGO will not release their magnetometer data (which are scientifically important in their own right and can very effectively discount LIGO confidence levels):
https://alog.ligo-wa.caltech.edu...
https://alog.ligo-la.caltech.edu...
Signal power less than 10^-2 than noise amplitude from a broadband spectrum sharing phase correlations will not preserve a clear signal, but will allow filtering to boost signal strength. As noise is not modeled with the same set of filter algorithms and with the same problem bands removed, we cannot say that signal, also containing superposed quasinormal modes and low-Q broadband CSD components, is dynamically different than correlated noise preserving phase lags with GW transients between LIGO strain. https://www.spaceweatherlive.com...
https://www.spaceweatherlive.com...
https://www.spaceweatherlive.com... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Look-elsewhere_effect

There was not enough information available to LIGO engineers on September 14, 2015 to understand non-Gaussian noise floor regardless of choices in statistical methodology; calibration lock would have been nearly impossible only two days after O1 engineering run commenced on September 12,2015, as many calibration lines do that do not overlap instrumental violin modes https://cds.cern.ch/record/40949...are identical to known environmental noise modes excited during space weather events and substorms during an active magnetospheric sawtooth/SMC event. Calibration lock is inexact; the wide Q-factor for selected array of calibration modes perilously overlaps magnetic Schumann modes.

Complex electromagnetic signals can have statistically-identical two-body solutions, and elliptical polarization is also demonstrated elsewhere among noise sources, the most distressing being magnetic modes of Schumann resonances. Signals from BBHs and BNSs are metrically non-unique given a scaling factor, and [broken] power law magnitude relationships hold for almost every critically-self-organized coupled oscillator in nature. Precisely where may one remove noise from such simple information when we can call upon an out-of-scale estimation like GW150914 remnant mass?

 Templates in targeted noise are just scalable functions similar to Airy functions of the first kind with modified Bessel time evolution. Months of computational time are dedicated to the NR generation of a best-fitting template from a limited catalogue of templates. NR cannot produce all templates for all theorized classes of GW transient. For LIGO-Virgo events, buried in non-Gaussian noise in strain data, >200,000 templates must be rejected to select high-confidence parameters. Band-passing and eliminating unwanted calibration lines and other signal power affecting desired waveform can simulate discrete bounds in degenerate broadband spectra; stimulated waveguided TE-TM modes from harmonics of instrumental and terrestrial spatial eigenmode series with irrational intervals can be simulated mathematically and observed to generate identical amplitude spectral densities and inverse transforms as purported GW signals. As on-site LIGO-Virgo magnetometers were not functioning or their channels saturated and ground magnetometers throughout North America detected interesting peaks during events, we must be overlooking their inevitable waveguided transverse modes and harmonics.

Where are these tunneling annular/horizon-like/caustic-like Airy-Bessel separatrix instantons, which are expected inherently during sawtooth events (globally-coherent changes in local ground state with quasiperiodic phase locked singular shocks with delta shock subdomains from the vacuum tunneling of topological energy)?

compendium of observations, references, and data representing known LIGO-Virgo false trigger rate, known/unrecognized systematic error, and terrestrial coupling sources

INTRODUCTION: 

1. From Magnetism and advanced LIGO (Daniel and Schofield, October 6, 2014) https://dcc.ligo.org/public/0116/P1400210/002/SURF%20Final%20Paper.pdf:

"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. "

2. From Characterization of transient noise in Advanced LIGO relevant to gravitational wave signal GW150914

(Abbott et al. 2016)

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/33/13/134001:

“Potential electromagnetic noise sources include lightning, solar events and solar-wind driven noise, as well as RF communication. If electromagnetic noise were strong enough to affect h(t), it would be witnessed with high SNR by radio receivers and magnetometers.”  

3. High SNR structured-coherent magnetic coupling in North American ground magnetometer data surrounding GW150914:
https://fulguritics.blogspot.com/2018/06/httpswww.html

4. Internal LIGO report on non-operative magnetometers during GW150914 and LVT/GW151012 arrival times:
https://alog.ligo-la.caltech.edu/aLOG/iframeSrc.php?authExpired=&content=1&step=&callRep=22818&startPage=&preview=&printCall=&callUser=&addCommentTo=&callHelp=&callFileType=#

“12:46, Tuesday 17 November 2015
[… . …]
Magnetometers at End Station VEAs Fixed
I went this morning to investigate the end station VEA magnetometers.
Turns out we left the EY magnetometer off since Sep 12. I turned it on, spectrum looks reasonable now.
At EX I swapped the PSU box from the new model to the old model and two types of noise went away: a comb of lines at 1 and 1.5 Hz and a high frequency slope that I don’t understand. We’ll have to look into this and complain to Bartington about it. I’ve seen this “feature” in other PSUs and I’ve relegated those to EBAY magnetometers, where we don’t have the x100 filter boxes. Spectrum attached. Not sure what the 1-2kHz noise is, maybe the old box is losing it too… Will investigate”

I.
It is not common knowledge that few empirical controls are applied to LIGO signal discrimination, as many kinds of signals can engage search pipelines, be fitted by NR and ML templates, and as such simulate gravitational wave findings. 
North American ground magnetometer station data for September 14, 2015 UTC around GW150914

LIGO single-detector trigger rate for transient events of all sources at SNR>8 is ~100 seconds (0.01 Hz).
https://cdn.iopscience.com/images/0264-9381/33/13/134001/Full/cqgaa2683f5_lr.jpg

legend for 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.”

For O3, LIGO relaxed discovery criteria to include events that have a false alarm rate of >1 event/30 days. Magnetospheric sawtooth events [MSEs] occur on average once every 33 days (11 MSEs/yr; LIGO O1-O2 N=11 events for almost exactly 1 yr. quality data).

SNR<8 threshold is accepted for network candidates that have single detector triggers increased H1-L1 max. lag to 15 ms (~0.67 c), which is the default central tendency remnant spin rate found to be degenerate with other parameters, such as polarization, and is itself a measure of signal velocity that, if relaxed as such, implies that LIGO triggers commonly are accompanied by the effect of system feedback from GPS lock/clock reference errors, time code signal mismatch, indistinguishable signal/phase coherence in noise and lags between station datastream time codes, and further data quality issues.

GWTC-1: A Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog of Compact Binary Mergers Observed by LIGO and Virgo during the First and Second Observing Runs

To introduce LIGO-Virgo sampling and noise discrimination, the most conservative rate of false triggers that have permitted properties fit by NR and ML templates at SNR higher than signals now believed by some to be true, analytical gravitational wave signals is >3 per every high-quality data hour, with 5.75 non-rejected O3 signals/mo. for O3. Some have called this relationship into question, as multiple station SNR/template fit/arrival lag correspondence have been relaxed to include N=4 additional O2 signals, dredged from noise and highly model-dependent. A recent trend in LIGO signal analysis is to break from Numerical Relativity and use Maximum Likelihood methods, which are optimal but not empirical. They involve Bayesian probability estimation:

"[...]that sense of the near miraculous may return with the new devices." 

-Harry Collins, lead ideologist for LIGO https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.5.3023/full/

cf: Peirce on Miracles: The Failure of Bayesian Analysis
Harry Collins and the Empirical Programme of Relativism

 "Collins rejects... that explanation should be causal, and eschews explanation of the genesis of theories: only their reception can be accounted for. [... .] ...the matter is decided by social forces."

https://etherwave.wordpress.com/2011/07/19/harry-collins-methodological-relativism-and-sociological-explanation-pt-1/

False alarm rate (FAR) and luminosity distances (DL) are correlated for several events.

 All O3 triggers warrant a second look due to sheer inconsistency in event update information, but especially unspecified conditions by which events are retracted; mixed probabilities can affect the choice for assignment of a candidate trigger to an astrophysical origin (any terrestrial prob higher than 4% should be explained at the very least). The possibility that terrestrial signals can trigger the device with proper time lags (GW150914 and GW151012, which arrived while magnetometers were not operating/inoperable, would have been rejected by these standards, their acceptance leading to reduced control of bias and an increased false discovery rate) implies that likely events are selected without attention to systematic/theoretical bias or inadequacy of knowledge/system data. Ambiguous results may be exploited given the poor statistical framework LIGO-Virgo have chosen.

https://twitter.com/Fulguritics/status/1259250554187833344
#LIGO-Virgo #O3isHere putative #GravitationalWaves population over-correlated; squared, golden, cubic modes intrinsic w/magnetosphere-ground coupling; resonant gaps preserved between O3 retractions and non-retractions (e.g. retractions[60, 129]≈non-retractions[62, 130]≈0.43|𝐾

Virgo events, in this case with retractions and non-retractions combined as a population. Strong integer-irrational scaling precludes LIGO claims of uncorrelated events.

https://twitter.com/Fulguritics/status/1261478113944367104

𝑁=56 non-retracted, 𝑁=24 retracted 1/(56/24)≈0.43

Fourier modes: non-retracted[(130-62)/𝐾]≈retracted[(129-60)/𝐾]≈0.43, 𝐾=160
for 𝑁=56 non-retractions and 𝑁=24 retractions.
Precision non-empirical Schumann peaks: v|c:≈0.43, r=1/(2φ^(1/3))=0.42589... f0=(rc/(2πRE)) fn=(rc/(2πRE))√(n(n+1)), for n2,n4,...

A. Cai-Clauer 2013 solar cycle 23 sawtooth event list (annual) max N=19, mid[mean, max]=15, mean N=11
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2013JA018819 B. O1-O2 events: Nitz et al 2018 N=11, Nitz et al 2020 N=15
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/ab733f/meta C. O3: N=56 confident, N=24 retracted LIGO-Virgo triggers 19*3:≃O3 confident events 24/15=1.6≈φ
(24/19)^2≈1.6≈φ
O1+O2 duty cycle, two simultaneous stations, total observations days: 155.8 days
155.8/365.25=0.4265575≃(1/(2φ^(1/3))=0.4258998)

annual day of yr correlations for two consecutive LIGO runs (intervals of two years) are direct and consecutive, considering that July-August O2 events were generally upgraded from low SNR, non-fits to NR templates, unlikely masses, and unacceptable/poorly explicated noise/glitch content and/or coincidence:

O2: GW170729 GW170809 GW170814 GW170817, GW170818, GW170823 

O3: S190727h S190728q S190808ae S190814bv S190816i S190822c

Retracted BNS trig. S190822c >99% BNS;
Retracted NS-BH S190816i nearly identical luminosity dist. as putative NS-BH S190814bv. Notice confidence in a mass-gap assessment was 100% for S190814bv, then 100% NS-BH. https://gracedb.ligo.org/superevents/public/O3/

S190910h BNS FAR 1.1312/T=1 yr, DL 241±89 same DL as S190901ap
S190901ap BNS FAR 1/T=4.5093 yr, DL 241±79 same DL as S190910h

21-min interval: S190828j (10th LIGO-Virgo trigger/day), S190828l (12th LIGO-Virgo trigger/day)
58-min interval: S190930s (19th  LIGO-Virgo trigger/day), S190930t (20th  LIGO-Virgo trigger/day)

DL ~40 Mpc #GW170817 BNS

DL  ~40 Mpc #S190822c BNS retracted

DL ~267 Mpc #S190814bv NSBH

DL ~261 Mpc #S190816i NSBH retracted

Correlated/recurring arrival times for July-August-September O2, O3 LVC events (centroid can be linearly-mapped from 2015-0914 to 2019-0914): 

Spin-time correlations for remnant bodies for O1 N=11:

List of N=37 (61.666...% of O3 event total N=60) retracted and non-retracted O3 LIGO-Virgo events bearing high FAR and/or luminosity distance recurrence/joint anomaly; the sample period can be noted as itself critical, roughly equal to simultaneously-updated retracted sample count N=61 (N=43 O1+O2, N=18 O3, for sum of retracted events) as of S191225aq :

S191225aq FAR 1/T=2.501yr [event retracted], DL 24±7 Mpc 
S191220af FAR 1/T=79.956 yr [event retracted], DL 166±53 Mpc 
S191213ai FAR 1/T=1.5816 yr [event retracted], DL 258±121 Mpc 
S191213g FAR 1.1197 /T=1 yr, DL 201±81Mpc 
S191212q FAR 1.0631/T=1 yr  [event retracted], DL 95±27 Mpc 
S191205ah FAR 1/T=2.5383 yr, DL 385±154 Mpc 
S191124be FAR 1/T=1.1958e+27 yr [event retracted], DL 35±10, S190822c FAR 1/T=5.1566e+09,  DL 35±10 Mpc
S191120at FAR 1/T=5.1871 yr [event retracted], DL 266±146 Mpc 
S191120aj FAR 1/T=1.1079 yr [event retracted], DL 303±111 Mpc
S191117j FAR 1/T=2.8433e+10 yr .[event retracted], closest DL 7±2 Mpc; S190822c FAR 1/T=5.1566e+09*5.5≈2.84e+10] former closest DL 35±10 Mpc, (35/10)/(7/2)=1, 35/5=7, 10/5=2.   

S191110af FAR 1/T=12.681 yr,[event retracted] DL N/A (unmodeled burst transient) S191110x FAR 1/T=1081.7 yr, [event retracted] DL 204±87 Mpc S191105e FAR 1/T=1.3881 yr, DL 1168±330 Mpc S190930t FAR 1/T=2.0536 yr, DL 108±38 Mpc

S190930s FAR 1/T=10.534 yr, DL 752±224 Mpc

S190928c FAR  1/T=4.7092 yr, [event retracted] no DL reported
S190923y FAR 1.5094/T=1 yr, DL 438±133 Mpc

S190910h FAR 1.1312/T=1 yr, DL 241±89 Mpc same DL as S190901ap
S190910d FAR 1/T=8.5248 yr, DL 632±186 Mpc
S190901ap FAR 1/T=4.5093 yr, DL 241±79 Mpc same DL as S190910h
S190829u FAR 1/T=6.1522 yr, [event retracted] DL 157±45 Mpc
S190822c FAR 1/T=5.1566e+09 yr, [event retracted] former closest LIGO DL 35±10 Mpc
S190816i FAR 1/T=2.2067 yr, [event retracted] DL 261±100 Mpc
S190808ae FAR 1/T= 1.0622 yr, [event retracted] DL 208±77 Mpc
S190720a FAR 1/T=8.3367 yr, DL 869±283 Mpc same FAR as S190521g
S190718y FAR 1/T=1.1514 yr, DL 227±165 Mpc; event 98% terrestrial source, yet unretracted
S190706ai FAR 1/T=16.673 yr, furthest LIGO DL 5263±1402 Mpc - same FAR as S190602aq
S190701ah FAR 1/T=1.6543 yr, DL 1849±446 Mpc
S190602aq FAR 1/T=16.673 yr, DL 797±238 Mpc same FAR as S190706ai
S190524q FAR 1/T=4.5458 yr, [event retracted] DL 192±101 Mpc
S190521g FAR 1/T=8.3367 yr, former furthest LIGO DL 3931±953 Mpc - same FAR as S190720a
S190519bj FAR 1/T=5.56 yr, former furthest LIGO DL 3154±791 Mpc
S190518bb FAR 1/T=3.16 yr, closest DL [event retracted] 28±15 Mpc
S190517h FAR 1/T=13.35 yr, former furthest LIGO DL 2950±1038 Mpc
S190426c FAR 1/T=1.63 yr, DL 377±100 Mpc
S190421ar FAR 1/T=2.13 yr; DL 1628±535 Mpc
S190405ar FAR 6756.4/T=1 yr, [event retracted] DL 268±129 Mpc


FAR and retractions are evidently only weakly correlated, indicating that signal rejection has little to do with absolute signal content, which in the case of GW170817, signal was accompanied by exceptional noise that persisted continuously from an asymptotically-integrated exact midrange between excited Schumann modes minutes prior to transient peak.

#LIGO-Virgo retracted #S191225aq - #PyCBC frozen GPS time code error 0.870117, solar eclipse, enhanced SW stream arrival, IMF theta dipolarization (cf. #GW151226), ground overcharging; as all prior LVC triggers, global synchronized CG lightning bursts: https://photos.app.goo.gl/SK3Y9vcSYEEr1AZ69…
https://twitter.com/Fulguritics/status/1210181273878056960

More adventures in the exploration of #LIGO systematic error for event #S191222n 03:35:58 ToA correlated w/#GW15226 3:38:53: S191222n revised DL from 868±265 Mpc revised to 2518±679 #S191215w 2216±590 Mpc revised to 1770±455 1770/2=885 GW15226 DL 440*2=880 Mpc 2518/1770≈√2

Paired triggers - candidates with respect to retractions - show almost no dependency on FAR:

Another #GstLaL RETRACTION, #LIGO-Virgo trigger #S191220af, 2019-12-20 12:24:45 UTC; GPS time code fractional error 0.690032, magnetospheric coherent coupling, correlated global synced bursting CG lightning:https://photos.app.goo.gl/s77Loetkdusad2zeA

#S190930s #S190930t TOA interval ~58 minutes, daily #S191215w #S191216ap UTC TOA interval ~57 minutes. LIGO events, a correlated set of error-bound iterations of higher-order quasi-mechanistic discontinuity reveal long-range cyclo-topological correlations for heliosphere.
https://twitter.com/Fulguritics/status/1206890766548664320

12th pair, >24 hr., both non-retracted candidates:
S191216ap 21:33:38 UTC FAR 1/T=2.8035e+15 yr, DL 376±70 Mpc
S191215w 22:30:52 UTC FAR 1/T=0.0000000010064617405131.485 yr,  DL 1770±455 Mpc

10th, 11th pair of LVC events, with first and third retracted; prevailing event, S191213g, central event, and cluster may represent a bifurcation:
S191213ai 15:59:05 UTC FAR 1/T=1.5816 yr [event retracted], DL 258±121 Mpc 
S191213g 04:34:08 UTC FAR 1.1197 /T=1 yr, DL 201±81Mpc 
S191212q 08:27:28 UTC FAR 1.0631/T=1 yr  [event retracted], DL 95±27 Mpc 


6th #LIGO-Virgo RETRACTION in a row: #MBTAOnline #S191124be (57th trigger by 10:00 UTC!) GPS 0.099619 frozen clock error, same 35±10 Mpc DL as retracted #S190822c (#GstLaL frozen at 0.589203). (MBTAOnline former retraction w/FCE: #S190816i 0.757789); CG: https://photos.app.goo.gl/MSmifaLHjAuCMThi6

9th pair [within 24 hr] O3 #LIGO-Virgo events, 225 min. interval=6*lag, both retracted:

#S191120aj 16:23:51 UTC (17:23:51 CET, Virgo dusk)

CG #lightning

https://photos.app.goo.gl/9c7y32hh7L29zB5u6

#S191120at 20:09:03 UTC (12:09:03 PST, Hanford noon)

CG #lightning

https://photos.app.goo.gl/3gRfzgdo5L3DK1GNA

8th pair [within 24 hr] O3 #LIGO events:

1.#S191110x 18:09:03 UTC/12:08:42 CST (Livingston noon, retracted) CG #lightning around event https://photos.app.goo.gl/rQiHryMxrHVy8VMC6… 2.#S191110af 23:10:58 UTC/00:06:44 CET (Virgo midnight, retracted as of 2019-1114 UTC https://twitter.com/LIGO/status/1195118903225176064)
CG lightning around event https://photos.app.goo.gl/ztRTURHoGqqwgjC47… sawtooth modes, shear, proton flares, SMC
https://twitter.com/Fulguritics/status/1194353421811273728
Candidate events, like many of the retractions, occur during the magnetic reconnection phase at full magnetospheric mode, but arrive as intermittent bursting becomes decoherent during the half-phase of approx. 3-min interval truncated by non-activity.  Pipeline latency has similar period, established empirically, and calibrated by the properties of these non-astrophysical patterns. Signals are self-similar and have degeneracies that render exact time intervals meaningless, with waveforms merely the sampled local maxima of a critical sea of quasinormal modes.

#S191117j FAR 1/T=2.8433e+10 yr .[event retracted], closest DL 7±2 Mpc; #S190822c FAR 1/T=5.1566e+09 DL former closest 35±10 Mpc

5.1566e+09*5.5≈2.84e+10

(35/10)/(7/2)=1, 35/5=7, 10/5=2.

- both are GstLaL pipeline triggers and retracted, showing GPS time code frac. error.

dawn/dusk/midnight/noon trigger correlations: 

All 7 #O3b
#S191105e 06:35:21 PST Hanford dawn #S191109d 17:07:17 PST Hanford dusk #S191110x 12:08:42 CST Livingston noon #S191110af 00:06:44 CET Virgo midnight #S191117j 00:08:46 CST Livingston midnight #S191120aj 17:23:51 CET Virgo dusk #S191120at 12:09:03 PST Hanford noon
#LIGO clock error and retraction correlation associated with GstLAL/foreground coupling:

GstLAL has been involved in most retracted #LIGO-Virgo putative gravitational wave signals having clock error issues, as a higher-order mapping degeneracy/intrinsic aliasing exists over the domain of parameters, not just between parameters.
Reported GstLAL 3-minute minimum delay and 1/2 phases correlated to center and partition values for CG burst/cessation intervals during LVC trigger windows. Local dawn/noon/dusk trigger times are too numerous; ask why geoelectromagnetic phases with most transverse noise/shocks prevail as the sole LIGO-Virgo trigger times.

All retractions and reported triggers having "frozen" GPS time stamp fractional parts (which coincide - only one retraction, S190928c lacks this error as reported, note oscillation of values and clock error partitioning over intervals with respect to sequence as ordered time series):

#LIGO-Virgo #S191216ap, 21:34:01 UTC: "Up until 21:33:21 UTC IceCube was collecting good quality data, at which point power issues at the experimental site caused issues with data quality." https://gcn.gsfc.nasa.gov/other/GW191216ap.gcn3… global CG https://photos.app.goo.gl/x8PicyBzfxU2kWxg8… NA https://photos.app.goo.gl/oELApi2bhSkwMBrcA…

#LIGO-Virgo event #S191216ap, substorm relax., solar wind-magnetosphere decoupling, global CG lightning burst sync https://photos.app.goo.gl/nxQWqDtCpUDkAyuc7… Earth-facing coronal hole, Microseism (T-storm, wind, earthquake activity)->Livingston down. Evolution of global CG lightning maps all.

#S191216ap sky localization latitude, as usual for #LIGO events, superimposes over centroids on Earth; mis-scaling-related longitude offset of 1.162 from terrestrial source allows radial transformation into BAYESTAR probability domain map. See projections, calculations:

Updated sky map shows 50% confident range restricted to an area 40-42° (previously ~46°), which I calculated to propagate the normal front range for coherent burst from radar-active T-storm domain extrema. Circle degeneracies from critical ellipse mis-scaling preserve measures.

Subtended angle delimiting active region is 33.3°, min. at 30°. Reference source and period, #LIGO-Virgo trigger #S191216ap (2019-12-16, 21:34:01 UTC): North American CG during trigger https://photos.app.goo.gl/1zFCAerm3kmMuo9R7… Global CG during trigger https://photos.app.goo.gl/Ps4AoaNmN6TK7d3c6…

The #S191110af signal is centered at 1781.72 Hz, virtually identical to the [inverse Compton scattered] cutoff of the magnetospheric lower hybrid resonance (LHR), half the duration - at 0.1 s - of #GW150914, and occurred during local Virgo midnight.
for background on the LHR, magnetosphere, and shock-induced heliopause radio emission correlation at LHR:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1972SSRv...12..810R
https://hal-insu.archives-ouvertes.fr/insu-01291266/document
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017JA024416
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0032-1028/18/2/007
http://www-pw.physics.uiowa.edu/~dag/publications/1996_RadioEmissionsfromtheOuterHeliosphere_SSR.pdf
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1701/1701.04701.pdf
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg13818793-000-science-radio-blast-reveals-edge-of-suns-domain/
http://www-pw.physics.uiowa.edu/~dag/publications/1993_RadioEmissionFromTheHeliopauseTriggeredByAnInterplanetaryShock_S.pdf


#S191110af: gradient extinction of lower hybrid resonance frequency of nightside reconnection:heliospheric coupling, affecting Virgo at local midnight; CG Lightning, as during all prior #LIGO-Virgo events, is QP burst-synchronized [reconnection-driven].

PRIOR TO RETRACTION OF S191110af:
self-similarity and degeneracy in LIGO-Virgo sample:duty time:foreground correlations: 
#LIGO O3: A/O #S191110af, N=36+9 retracted, duty cycle~6.33 mo. [04/01-09/31, 11/01-11/10]; O1,O2: N=11, 365/11=1 per 33.181818...days 36/2=18, 18/2=9, 36+3=39, 36/9=4, 39+4=43 (39+5=44)/11=4 44/5=8.8 8.8/2=4.4 9-5-4=0
UPON RETRACTION OF S191110af:
#LIGO O3 N=35[+10 retract.] for 6.33 mo.[#S191110af RETRACTED 19-1114]; O1,2 N=11[+43 retract.];11 mag. sawtooth/yr: 43-3^3=33, 365.25d/11=33.204545... (35/5=7)-(10/5=2)=5,((35-2=33)/3=11)-6=5 (35+5=40)/10=4,10-4=6,((35+4=39)+5=44)/11=4, ((44/10=4.4)*5=22)/2=11,(35-10=25)/5=0

[vacuum integer self-similarity/arithmetic degeneracy for quasiperiodic-cyclical orbit-modulation] interplanetary mechanics representing scale-invariant quantum integration from self-similar circle degeneracy: LIGO's discovery. See
Divakaran 2004
https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0404167.pdf
Istas and Lacaux 2011
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00193203/file/IL-LASS.pdf
Iagar and Laurencot 2018
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1606.01724.pdf

#S191109d, 2019-11-08 17:07:17 PST-Hanford dusk, directly correlated with relativistic proton flare, as many other LIGO-Virgo events, including GW170817 and S190521g:

LIGO-Virgo arrival time correlations yet again: #S191105e 2019-11-05 14:35:45 UTC, formerly 87% terrestrial; #S190718y 2019-07-18 14:35:32 UTC 98% terrestrial, #S190930t 2019-09-30 14:34:27 UTC, 26% terrestrial

https://twitter.com/Fulguritics/status/1192313628902322176

First #O3bisHere trigger #S191105e: 14:35:45 UTC FAR 1/1.3881 yrs FInal O3a trigger #S190930t: 14:34:27 UTC
#S190718y 14:35:32 UTC 98% terrestrial; @mpi_grav
claims display "glitch" prevented prompt notice, timed w/upgraded prob. (87% terrestrial,13% BBH->95% BBH, 5% terrestrial)
https://twitter.com/Fulguritics/status/1192341330174726144

A month-long LIGO observation hiatus was quietly announced July 12, 2019 https://twitter.com/Fulguritics/status/1179831916041654273, after the last two LVC events arrived highly correlated to solar flare prompt geomagnetic disturbance; ramifications of this interruption were not made public until October 1, 2019, on the day that this operational hiatus was scheduled to begin. Following the original July announcement, the next LVC event was problematic S190718y, a putative BNS trigger that remains unretracted at 98% terrestrial probability. S190718y may have similar signal and noise properties to GW170817 (itself only salvaged given excessive disordered noise/"glitches" due to desired association with GRB170817/AT2017gfo), and its outright rejection would cast doubt on decision to promote GW170817 as GW signal of BNS merger. 
See modules on this blog for GW170817/GRB170817A/AT2017gfo/NGC4993:
https://fulguritics.blogspot.com/2018/06/gw170817-occurs-at-green-bar.html
https://fulguritics.blogspot.com/2018/10/why-is-information-on-ngc-4993.html
https://fulguritics.blogspot.com/2018/10/a-short-grb-analogue-with-multi.html

Paired events S190930s and S190930t (S190930t a single detector trigger - absolutely unreliable https://twitter.com/Fulguritics/status/1179844395677274112 - as was S190910h), have 58:25 interval, with actual solar wind 54:10 arrival, which involves feedback between L1 invariant and asymmetrical bow shock, which terminates a 33-day non-random/cyclically-correlated arrival block of LIGO-Virgo triggers; GW150914 corresponds to midpoint of this series, which may show an approx. two-year cycle given LIGO-Virgo event time recurrence:

GPS clock error evident, also found for S190718y, 98% terrestrial BNS trigger and still not retracted.
https://twitter.com/Fulguritics/status/1179907360254390272
https://twitter.com/Fulguritics/status/1180028237658783744: 

Dual UTC day LIGO-Virgo arrivals:



LIGO-Virgo proton flare at S190521g; geoelectric field variation conformal to critical state of magnetosphere, phase-locked w/time of arrival of N=24 LVC events
https://spaceweather.gc.ca/plot-tracee/geo-en.php
https://satdat.ngdc.noaa.gov/sem/goes/data/full/2019/05/goes15/csv/
ftp://ftp.swpc.noaa.gov/pub/lists/ace/




similar dynamics from initial N=7 O1+O2 LIGO-Virgo event (prior to O2 catalog December 2018) predicted sawtooth day May 21, 2016; May 21, 2019 may not be coincidental
https://www.swsc-journal.org/articles/swsc/full_html/2019/01/swsc190002/swsc190002.html:



May 21. 2016, day 249/250 from GW150914 is day 141 (~sqrt(2)*10^2), which is a critical point for expected periodic phase underlying the activation mechanisms for sawtooth events:


August 17, 2017 UT, the 24-hour period surrounding GW170817 and its proton density time evolution:


trailing CME shocks (303 km/s) map to S190521g-S190521r/N=24 ToA:

 

LIGO events S190706ai and S190707q lag-correlated directly to relativistic signal from recently dormant solar flare cycle,with LIGO-Virgo events demonstrating possible rapid substorm triggering criticality at much lower lags than conventional shock/CME arrivals:

coronal holes for events S190706ai and S190707q

sunspot recurrence after hiatus at statistically-sig. discrete jump (12) from 0 during multiple flare even for S190706ai and S190707q continues double-peaked behavior, at a phase undergoing higher-order bifurcation

LIGO-Virgo trigger histograms, for N=79 events (O1,O2,O3 N=47 rejected/near rejected triggers, N=32 putative GW events), as of July 23, 2019 UTC (with ~21% of all reported events represented by two triggers within 5-min arrival bins [N=16/2=8]):

II.

Consider the following recurring LIGO study, released in two versions, which is the extent of LIGO event-order analysis of statistical techniques for the rejection of events. The papers are not explicating an empirical and realistic analysis of event false alarm probabilities (FAP), but offer a circumlocutory report of the behavior of a series of statistical experiments in parameter space. It is largely inconclusive and relies on heuristic hypothesis revision informed by non-rigorous judgment of the successes of multiple prior observations by including hypothetical weight from prior experiments it has not rejected as observational priors. As there is no way to know a signal is truly astrophysical if particular loopholes are not closed and safeguards are discarded with external controls to favor boosting confidence levels, LIGO claims are strong circular logic in this context; LIGO FAP is dictated by demands for lowest uncertainty, not actual uncertainty reflected by the degree or prior knowledge of experimental variables and source properties:

"Systematic errors in estimation of gravitational-wave candidate significance"
Collin Capano et al 2016/2017
version 1: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1601.00130.pdf
version 2: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1708.06710.pdf

This 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"

[1711.07421] On the Signal Processing Operations in LIGO signals
https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~araman/files/ligo_tests/ligo_EM_v2.pdf
[1706.04191] On the time lags of the LIGO signals

LIGO has not published a complete refutation of NBI findings as vociferously-promised by July, 2017, at the time ongoing NBI controversy became public. LIGO and the NBI collaboration were engaged in active, persisting conferences in the months to follow. LIGO, in a statement published to Facebook a few days after the Oct. 31, 2018 New Scientist article featuring the resurgent NBI position, promised to complete another tutorial-like paper, which does not conceal their evasion of the issue, nor acknowledges their former neglect of their 2017 pledge. LIGO-Virgo transparency, like problematic correlations in data and cyclical behavior of systematic error and arrival times of signals, extends beyond their proprietary attitude. All questions posed by the author regarding magnetometer and power mains data releases or well-established magnetometer failure surrounding geophysical coupling to space weather events and all LIGO events (which I claim are one and the same) have been deflected to assumed competence by various LIGO task groups or ignored completely. LIGO has committed to direct confrontation with NBI through recently-departed LIGO team members (all authors of Nielsen et al. 2018 and Nitz et al. 2018 are only recently-"unaffiliated," as of late Summer/early Autumn 2018). The professional rapport of such groups with current LIGO members has not been well-established. See https://fulguritics.blogspot.com/2018/12/extended-criticisms-of-three-very.html for more discussion of the aforementioned reanalyses. 

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.”

No remarkable improvements for aLIGO to magnetometers are listed on the official LIGO website, although I suspect the list is not exhaustive About aLIGO.

…after having reported improvements by October 6, 2014 Monitoring Magnetic Fields for Advanced LIGO:

“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”

From Magnetism and Advanced LIGO (Daniel and Schofield, October 6, 2014) https://dcc.ligo.org/public/0116/P1400210/002/SURF%20Final%20Paper.pdf:

"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."[... . ...]"One environmental factor that can affect the interferometer is magnetism because first, tiny magnets are used to control the position of each test mass and second, a magnetic field can induce a current in a wire that is a part of the detector. First, each test mass is hung in a suspension system containing electromagnets. The current carrying the gravitational wave signal runs through the electromagnets to produce magnetic fields which move the test mass back to its original position. Second, a magnetic field can induce a current in a wire such as the wire containing the gravitational wave signal and the wire within one of the electromagnets. An ambient magnetic field can not only displace a test mass via the tiny magnets but also induce a current in a wire. Monitoring magnetic fields around each interferometer is necessary in order to prevent a false gravitational wave detection."[... . ...] "A global magnetic field, or a magnetic field detectable on the global scale, is of interest to LIGO because gravitational waves and magnetic fields both travel at the speed of light. LIGO consists of two interferometers to provide a strong statistical confirmation of a gravitational wave detection, but this confirmation is void if the gravitational wave signal was actually caused by a magnetic field. An ambiguity in whether the signals from both interferometers were due to a gravitational wave or a magnetic field is conceivable because there are globally correlated magnetic fields. This ambiguity limits the low end of the sensitivity range of the current state of LIGO, or Advanced LIGO. The low end of the Advanced LIGO sensitivity range is expected to be 10 Hz, which means that the interferometers are predicted to confidently detect gravitational waves varying at frequencies of 10 Hz." [… . …]"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.”

[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]

 Difference in noise floor between GW channels (non-Gaussian during GW intervals) and magnetometer channels (nearly-white noise during known enhanced correlated noise intervals linked to global and local thunderstorm activity) challenges the efficacy of cross-correlation searches between undersampled LIGO mag. and GW channel data. Hidden power in transverse modes invisible to these sample lengths can cause significant charging and magnetic disturbances to LIGO instrumental modules, vacuum, and suspension hardware https://arxiv.org/pdf/1707.09047.pdf. 

Placement choice for magnetometers must consider the cumulative field feedback enhancement generated between magnetometers, which obscures signal symmetry (their own and as an addition to background EM with thermal noise) and can saturate signals. This is usually presented conservatively, as only a challenge to gravitational wave astronomy from the stochastic gravitational wave background, with filtering schemes to remove correlated noise signals for residual/null signal analysis Calibration to data-quality signal sensitivity lock between both detectors during science runs is achieved no more than 60% of total LIGO runs, not considering Virgo (as only two detectors are required to identify a high-likelihood LIGO GW transient candidate). Simple joint probability for maximum quality coverage for data completion during dual active science run phases with full calibration lock hovers around 0.2.

According to “open” LIGO logbooks (which may have have been redacted, judging by various missing internal responses and a lack of information surrounding actual gravitational wave trigger times), vital LIGO magnetometers were overlooked – left inoperative – for over a month, and as such both GW150914 and LVT151012 were recorded during a high-noise period with active magnetospheric sawtooth events during a dual detector SNR>8 false trigger arrival rate of 0.01 Hz (100 seconds). This lack of urgency given obvious deficiencies in on-site magnetometer readouts can be explained if we consider that LIGO required an extended posterior noise record in order to calculate FAR and FAP. That the magnetometer arrays still do not function adequately, and were not switched on and tested exactly as O1 engineering run commenced on September 12, 2015, cannot be explained with any generosity to LIGO.
LIGO will not release their magnetometer or power monitor/mains data (which are scientifically important in their own right, but can lead to reduced confidence levels if a terrestrial magnetic source is involved with channel saturation and enhanced noise coherence in multiple instruments). Some highlights from magnetometer-related internal LIGO logs from O1:

https://alog.ligo-la.caltech.edu/aLOG/iframeSrc.php?authExpired=&content=1&step=&callRep=22818&startPage=&preview=&printCall=&callUser=&addCommentTo=&callHelp=&callFileType=#

“12:46, Tuesday 17 November 2015
[… . …]
Magnetometers at End Station VEAs Fixed
I went this morning to investigate the end station VEA magnetometers.
Turns out we left the EY magnetometer off since Sep 12. I turned it on, spectrum looks reasonable now.
At EX I swapped the PSU box from the new model to the old model and two types of noise went away: a comb of lines at 1 and 1.5 Hz and a high frequency slope that I don’t understand. We’ll have to look into this and complain to Bartington about it. I’ve seen this “feature” in other PSUs and I’ve relegated those to EBAY magnetometers, where we don’t have the x100 filter boxes. Spectrum attached. Not sure what the 1-2kHz noise is, maybe the old box is losing it too… Will investigate”

Both Livingston and Hanford LIGO facilities report this (implied) total magnetometer inadequacy, which persisted during the first two LIGO events. here is a record from Hanford:

https://alog.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/aLOG/iframeSrc.php?authExpired=&content=1&step=&callRep=22077&startPage=&preview=&printCall=&callUser=&addCommentTo=&callHelp=&callFileType=#

“14:34, Tuesday 29 September 2015
[…]
Reinstalled power supplies to end station EBAY magnetometers
[…]
We put power supplies back in place that were removed here. The EY magnetometer in the SEI rack was disconnected now has an old style power supply and seems to be working ok. The EX magnetometer in the SUS rack was disconnected and is now connected with a new style power supply which has 1hz charging glitches.”

I take “1hz charging glitches” to indicate that “glitches” are occurring in the magnetometer channel specified at a rate of 1/second, rather than anomalous excitation of a 1 Hz spectral band. Please correct me on this.

Interview with Anamaria Effler, Caltech (stationed at LIGO Livingston during O1) https://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/ligoevent/pdfs/LIGO_Testimonials_v02.pdf:

“Robert Schofield and I were testing the L1 detector’s sensitivity to environmental noise at LIGO Livingston on the night of September 13. Our tests were part of LIGO’s preparations for the O1 run. We were still working at 2am on Monday, September 14. Pausing until about 4am to evaluate our data, we debated whether or not to do “car injections” in which one of us would drive a large car near the main detector building and apply the brakes violently every five seconds to see if the seismic noise from the car would appear in the interferometer data. But the GPS wristwatch that we needed for the test had become disconnected from the satellite signal. This was the last straw. We said, “Fine, we can live without this test.” I distinctly remember (because I was asked many times during the next few days) looking at my car clock as I was driving away from the site and seeing that the time was 4:35am. I knew that my clock was three minutes in error, which annoyed me.
The next day or the following, I saw some email traffic on GW150914 and my heart stopped because of the possibility that it occurred during our tests (although this couldn’t have happened because we keep the detector out of observation mode while we’re testing). Nevertheless I experienced a second or two of “oh no . . . (the polite version of what I thought). Then I breathed a giant sigh of relief knowing that we were off-site by the time of the event and that we didn’t do the last few tests. But knowing how close we were . . .
I didn’t expect a detection during this run and I didn’t believe that GW150914 was real for quite a while. Not until it was established that no injections had occurred and that the signal didn’t appear in other data channels; even then I didn’t dare believe. The realization slowly seeped in over time. The event was too big and I can’t imagine how people feel who have been in the field for a long time.”

Data channel searches referenced by A. Effler are not power monitor and magnetometer channels, by the way (see above). There is little mention of any observation of excessive charging during LIGO runs in any discovery-explicating LIGO publications, but the fact that it happens frequently is ubiquitous in LIGO technical literature.
Below are examples of LIGO internal logs describing magnetometer noise - apparently inexplicable - that can be associated with proton and shock arrivals during a ramping steady convection event, with solar wind stable in range of 450–500 km/s and nT values showing recurrence of values oscillating around 5 and 10. It is unknown why space weather is not mentioned at all (seismic noise is explicitly-dismissed). Critical space weather conditions excite Schumann modes and ionospheric transients. Both are known to plague study of the stochastic GW signal background. Remember: sawtooth events are special cases where solar wind-magnetospheric coupling is sustained by self-driving KAM-like dynamics, with steadily-ramping convection. Please note that the direction of the IMF (the Bz component of the IMF) inverts to South (red) during substorm phases; rapid quasiperiodic oscillation between North and South, with double-well and split peak periodic components, is a characteristic of sawtooth events, which DO occur at the same rate as LIGO counts annually (with respect to joint quality data acquisition duty cycle).

III.

The 8:20 UTC reported initial signal contamination for the July 2017 report corresponds directly to changes in trend for solar wind density and strength of the IMF, for instance (the initial disturbance time for the March 2018 LIGO report is not clear, but has an 11:50 UTC time stamp):

https://alog.ligo-la.caltech.edu/aLOG/iframeSrc.php?authExpired&content=1&step&callRep=38419&startPage&preview&printCall&callUser&addCommentTo&callHelp&callFileType&fbclid=IwAR2nXLJe688dRefHET7M_EF5rTEKpFmHpUpBl3ttK0usbOemldK9ATOw6uE

"posted 11:50, Thursday 29 March 2018 - last comment - 12:15, Monday 16 April 2018 (38419)
Unknown 20Hz feature in the magnetometer channel
A unknown peak at 20Hz in the low noise magnetometer channels is concerning as this feature lies within the bandwidth of the Schumann resonances. This feature is coupled to mains supplied to the site. The channels are the following: L1:PEM-EY_VAULT_MAG_LEMI_X_DQ L1:PEM-EY_VAULT_MAG_LEMI_Y_DQ L1:PEM-EY_VAULT_MAG_COIL_Z_DQ I am looking at data between July/August of 2017 as this is a period of time when all the seismometers were working nominally. 2 figures attached to this log. Both show the 20Hz feature with the 1st of the figures showing the relative amplitude to the known 60Hz mains line and the 2nd figure zooming in closer to the 20Hz feature to inspect the local PSD. (The BW=0.1) I will be using the tool IWAVE/APL to track the line in order to understand how the 20Hz feature evolves in amplitude, frequency and phase over time." 

https://alog.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/aLOG/iframeSrc.php?authExpired&content=1&step&callRep=37680&startPage&preview&printCall&callUser&addCommentTo&callHelp&callFileType&fbclid=IwAR2nXLJe688dRefHET7M_EF5rTEKpFmHpUpBl3ttK0usbOemldK9ATOw6uE

"posted 10:52, Friday 21 July 2017 (37680)
noise in Magnetometer around 8:20UTC on Jul 20th
K. Mogushi I witnessed glitches below 100Hz around 8:20UTC on Jul 20th in magnetometer x, y and z, but I do not know the cause of it. HAM 6 (OMC) x-axis: https://ldas-jobs.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/~detchar/summary/day/20170720/plots/H1-ALL_72E7D4_MEDIAN_RATIO_SPECTROGRAM-1184544018-86400.png LEVA x-axis: https://ldas-jobs.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/~detchar/summary/day/20170720/plots/H1-ALL_20971E_MEDIAN_RATIO_SPECTROGRAM-1184544018-86400.png EY x-axis: https://ldas-jobs.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/~detchar/summary/day/20170720/plots/H1-ALL_1D4533_MEDIAN_RATIO_SPECTROGRAM-1184544018-86400.png HAM 6 (OMC) y-axis: https://ldas-jobs.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/~detchar/summary/day/20170720/plots/H1-ALL_62EF30_MEDIAN_RATIO_SPECTROGRAM-1184544018-86400.png LEVA y-axis: https://ldas-jobs.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/~detchar/summary/day/20170720/plots/H1-ALL_1E6840_MEDIAN_RATIO_SPECTROGRAM-1184544018-86400.png EX y-axis: https://ldas-jobs.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/~detchar/summary/day/20170720/plots/H1-ALL_AA5283_MEDIAN_RATIO_SPECTROGRAM-1184544018-86400.png HAM 6 (OMC) z-axis: https://ldas-jobs.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/~detchar/summary/day/20170720/plots/H1-ALL_29F575_MEDIAN_RATIO_SPECTROGRAM-1184544018-86400.png LEVA z-axis: https://ldas-jobs.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/~detchar/summary/day/20170720/plots/H1-ALL_14CF11_MEDIAN_RATIO_SPECTROGRAM-1184544018-86400.png EX z-axis: https://ldas-jobs.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/~detchar/summary/day/20170720/plots/H1-ALL_60E63E_MEDIAN_RATIO_SPECTROGRAM-1184544018-86400.png"

[24 Hz, the initial mean frequency for the real non-diagonal >60 second arrival duration of the GW170817-L1 signal, is almost exactly midrange between Schumann resonance modes at 20.8 and 27.3 Hz: 20.8+(0.5*(27.3-20.8))=24.05]



IV.
A series of code errors had been made by Ian Harry of LIGO in an over-confident attempt to discredit selected results from Creswell et al. 2017 and other publications of the NBI collaboration. 

This is the response of the Danish research team regarding LIGO’s implicit libel: Gravitational waves

The LIGO gaffe can be reviewed here: A Response to “On the time lags of the LIGO signals” (Guest Post) 

The paper in question is an analysis of problematic correlations remaining in phase spectral residuals after NR template subtraction, but not an attempt at falsification of the more compelling ~40 minute high-SNR detector quasiperiodic noise (which shares band structure, spectral envelope, log-normal EDF, and scaled eigenvalues with extracted coincident GW signal components themselves during off-signal phases more than 30 minutes after transient arrival). Ian Harry's code errors had eventually been acknowledged by the LIGO collaboration, but Sean Carroll has not added any corrigendum, and LIGO affiliates continue to cite the uncorrected results.

 Improper falsifications of piecemeal components of critical findings do not constitute a complete response to criticism, as noise contamination must be understood. True distinction between signal and coupled environmental noise is yet to be empirically and rigorously-demonstrated.  

I am suggesting that the Creswell et. al correlated lags are from real geomagnetic signals and that echoes of black hole merger signals reported by several teams of authors in cross-spectral density are merely artifacts of these coincident quasiperiodic coupling intervals during magnetospheric sawtooth events. They may be induced by GW propagation into plasma-magnetic field structures at critical stages, but is this the most parsimonious explanation?

In response to Creswell et al. 2017 [https://arxiv.org/pdf/1706.04191], Green and Moffat [https://arxiv.org/pdf/1711.00347.pdf] have found that residual correlations between detector phase can be eliminated without utilizing matched templates, demonstrating that improper choice of templates is not responsible for any artifacts of imperfect template subtraction. This is accomplished by assuming smooth signals (prior filtering) and only selecting very large bins to generate restricted bandwidths and performing wavelet transforms – hardly an unbiased approach. Success of a method in many areas of signal processing alone becomes an argument for the adequacy of wavelet transforms given the persistence of a suppressed prior assumption (that the signal is real, and that this necessarily implies that it is a GW signal). Green and Moffat are promoting a fundamental prior fallacy as a refutation, and who is noticing?

Realize that correlated phase in broadband noise signal, having the same time lags as arriving LIGO transients, becomes significant many minutes prior to and following the peaks of these transients without any application or subtraction of template (as LIGO GW signals are extracted from a band-passed and whitened signal with prior mean noise component amplitude a magnitude above strongest GW peak strain). So, template matching error may or may or may not be an artifact that necessitates LIGO parameter revision (hopefully, refinement) for source signal properties, but the correlated strain noise that surrounds the detections will not go away, and foreground effects are a viable possibility in this light.

At the very least, future revisions to LIGO source values are expected to constrain LIGO objects within the cutoffs for conventionally-detected x-ray black holes, not provide evidence against the detection of GW from cosmic objects per se.

So inconclusive obfuscation utilizing Bayesian parameter space is accepted as a proxy solution to poor installation protocols for magnetometers at LIGO. FAP, given the low GW detection rate, should be low, but because we don't know what to look for in terms of how a "copy-cat" GW signal may appear, identity can be arbitrary (insofar a generic NR template fit can be coaxed, and signal arrival lag is lower than an accepted limit) . Of course, I have proposed that LIGO signals are, regardless of their origin or nature, too highly correlated with ground magnetometer data, lightning data, orbit-linked periodic events, space weather, and all other members of the small set of GW event parameters to support the claim that LIGO signals are pure and/or did not perturb the magnetosphere. If the magnetosphere can be studied as if it functions like a gravitational wave detector, why would LIGO remain necessary, and how could classical interferometric GW detection withstand new formalisms and phenomenological principles? https://arxiv.org/abs/1601.00130

Be cautious to cite all versions when writing on LIGO events and be careful not to overwrite past versions when downloading LIGO publications, as LIGO updates parameters without retraction of prior hypothetical statements based on former estimations - all while ignoring minimal consideration of problems admitted in their own publications. Revision upload history on LIGO site (as opposed to arXiv) is not always maintained. Since you may require past publications to trace critical theoretical tension, arXiv may not host former versions of LIGO papers unavailable through LIGO partners.