LIGO GW150914 dual signal arrival lag of ~0.0069 s between first arrival at Livingston, LA and delayed trigger at Hanford, WA becomes prominent ~10 minutes prior to and ~30 minutes subsequent to GW150914 transient within enhanced an enhanced noise floor at both stations. This delay between L1 and H1 strain can readily be reproduced using LIGO binary and remnant spin velocity parameters reported by LIGO, extended from thunderstorm centroid/boundary locations. The aforementioned replication of this very specific lag through non-astrophysical source analysis is explored and demonstrated below, following an initial presentation of global, continental, and local cloud-ground lightning information relevant to Creswell et al. 2017 correlated noise lag periods.

Some preliminary reading:

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

On the Signal Processing Operations in LIGO signals

On the time lags of the LIGO signals

Comments on recent developments regarding our paper, 'On the time lags of the LIGO signals'

Magnetism and Advanced LIGO

A Response to “On the time lags of the LIGO signals” (Guest Post)

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

5-min CG lightning record preceding GW150914 event, Central Oklahoma, USA https://www.blitzortung.org

GW150914 event: UTC 09:50:45, coincident with global, superimposed CG lightning at [almost] exact 10-minute intervals beginning with a sudden loss of CG activity sensed by the Blitzortung.org array in North America: ~9:40, ~(9:50, 10:00, 10:10, 10:20,...) and globally, with activity falling to zero at 9:40 and remaining at zero prior to a global superimposed/asymptotically-overlapping CG discharge burst at ~9:45 with stochastic continuity suddenly ceasing at 9:50, inverse of 10 minute North American region falling rate, with continental burst at 9:50 corresponding to final global burst oscillation episode.Unusually high global CG lightning activity detection is conceivably attenuated through sensor saturation, anomalous feedback, power loss, or instrumental clock error, with total CG remaining a significant artifact of pulse-coupled magnetospheric vacuum instability.

24-hours surrounding event:

Reconstructed direct time lags and corresponding signal distances relating domain and centroid coordinates of problematic OK thunderstorm during GW150914 detection, with 0.67-0.679 c, virtually identical to remnant ringdown spin 0.67 c (+0.05 -0.07). Distance from stationary storm centroid to Livingston LIGO approx. 813 km, and to Hanford approx 2199 km. Arrival at Livingston mean [dispersive] group impulse velocity propagation at 0.67-0.68 c, 2199-813 km =1386 km at 0.67 c. LIGO signal velocity is assumed to be c, but this is indistinguishable in the Bayesian regime with theoretically-restricted hypotheses from any other group velocity. TE waveguide modes and further derived frequency and wavelength data from LIGO parameters relative to storm centroid with equivalent EM Hz (yellow cells, Q-factor-included semi-empirical model values; blue cells, LIGO and theoretical bound modes), establishing domain-bound ELF harmonic scaling equality between LIGO 35-350 Hz effective sensitivity and geomagnetic spectral content. Please refer initially to the LIGO fact-sheet for GW150914:

https://losc.ligo.org/s/events/GW150914/GW150914-FactSheet-BW.pdf

[total spherical propagation distance between detectors]-([Rot. Speed|c]*c)*([max calculated linear signal delay at c]-observed L1-H1 LIGO inter-detector delay for GW150914):

3,001-((((0.67* c))*(0.01095-0.0069))=2187.51316522 km

(0.67* c))*(0.01095-0.0069)=813.486834783 km

2187.51316522+813.486834783=3001 km

2187.51316522-813.486834783=1374.02633044 km

adjusted for line-of-sight atmospheric source bound by ionosphere and troposphere emission altitude: 0.88 c is value for global ELF propagation velocity quoted in Schumann resonance transients and the search for gravitational waves:

3,030-((0.88* c)*(0.01-0.0069))=2212.16617458 km

(0.88* c))*(0.01-0.0069)=817.833825424 km

(3030-(2*((0.88* c)*(0.01-0.0069))))=1394.33234915 km

((((0.679+0.67)/2)* c)*(0.0069))=1395.24908915 km

time lag after arrival of L1 signal, assuming group velocity dispersion:

1394.33234915 km/(c*(0.679+0.67)/2))=0.00689546639 s.

https://losc.ligo.org/events/GW150914/

For relativistic particles accelerated through thunderstorm-supported complex elecromagnetic ion cyclotron waves involved with the stimulation of bremsstrahlung cascades, RREA, or terrestrial wakefield acceleration in thunderstorm plasmas, with respect to LIGO remnant spin:

**GW150914 BH maximum remnant spin range, 0.57-0.72 c**

**LIGO GW150914 remnant ringdown freq, ~250 Hz**

**LIGO GW150914 frequency/wavelength peak strain, 150 Hz, 2000 km**

with
Lorentz factor,

*γ*
speed
of light,

*c*
group
velocity,

*v_g*
(

*v_g=*0.71*c*)*(*γ=*1.42) ≈1
(0.0069*

*c*)=2068.568 km

*c***/((0.0069***

*c*)*0.58)=249.88 Hz;
consider
the error interval for LIGO remnant spin bounds:

0.72-0.57=0.15

0.71-0.58=0.13

1-(0.13/0.15)=0.133333

...and
maximum SR-permitted range-bound LIGO signal lag:

(t=0.01
s)/(

GW150914 was reportedly composed of ten discrete cycles, which is identical to the discrete ~60 minute sawtooth cycle count for the September 14, 2015 magnetospheric sawtooth injection interval, a period of 10 hours (4:40-14:40 UTC).*γ=*1.441|*v_g=*0.72*c*)=0.00693962526 s.Tabulated lag distance/frequency equivalent values for selected crucial intervals and spin/propagation velocities (model critical values: yellow; empirical inter-detector domain lengths with respect to thunderstorm signal propagation: aqua; LIGO model-calculated spin (upper limit c) and velocity values <0.72c [with empirical upper limits]: indigo, green):

first three circular TE (transverse electric) and TM (transverse magnetic) waveguide cutoff frequencies from signal domain modes defined by LIGO detector positions and thunderstorm measurements (in Hz; 60 Hz, 150 Hz, and 250 Hz filled with yellow):

The circularly-waveguided TE mode 0 and TM mode 1 lower cutoff [pm1] for the total domain length as an input hovers around 60–61 Hz for the range of values for total path length between detectors, which indicates possible feedback that may have little to do with total detector noise undifferentiated from GW signal, although it is compelling to recognize that there was potentially lower attenuation of both TE and TM mode cutoff values through the complex framework modeled by waveguide networks.

Magnetism and Advanced LIGO (Daniel and Schofield, October 6, 2014:

"When starting to calibrate one of the magnetometers in the LVEA, DTT’s time series plot was saturated. The maximum number of counts provided by the ADC was consistently exceeded. In other words, all the data was not fitting on the DTT time series plot, so calibrating in this state would produce an incorrect calibration factor. The power spectrum showed a tall peak at 60 Hz. The surrounding, fluctuating magnetic fields from the 60 Hz wires which power the entire LVEA, especially the clean rooms, were so strong that magnetometer’s sensitive measurements could not be accurately viewed on DTT. To calibrate the magnetometers, one must wait until the clean rooms are gone.”These coherent, impulsive, quasiperiodic magnetic phase noise sources - with SNR two orders of magnitude above putative GW SNR as calculated by LIGO - apparently are known to exist without knowledge of their physics, as addressed by several authors in multiple papers over the last two years, and can be readily-plotted by those who find interest in doing so by following the complete data links on the blog (accompanying their plots and analytical projections or prominently featured inline).

A detained critique of LIGO statistical bias, problems with magnetic contamination, magnetometer failure, and a substantial collection of excerpts from LIGO and collaboration documents explicating serious instrumental inadequacies in distinguishing geomagnetic foreground from astrophysical signal is available

__https://fulguritics.blogspot.com/2018/11/ligo-single-detector-trigger-rate-for.html.__

line-of-sight altitude, dl=line-of-sight distance, dr=radio horizon, followed by physical significance of input coordinate distances:

116 km, dl=1215.89818653 km, dr=1403.22143655 km

113 km (E-layer of ionosphere dawn height), dl=1200.07237282 km, dr=1384.95747227 km

84 km dl=1034.68429968 km, dr=1194.08944389km

52 km, dl=814.08525352 km, dr=939.50455028 km

39 km (upper bound of ozone layer, upper terminus blue jets, altitude of bifurcation of gigantic jets Sprites, blue jets, and elves), dl=705.0185104 km, dr=813.63480752 km

(113 km/52 km)^(1/1.618033)≃(84 km/52 km); Earth-ionosphere waveguide inf. 84 km (range 84-91 km). ELECTROMAGNETIC STUDIES OF IONOSPHERIC AND MAGNETOSPHERIC PERTURBATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE EARTH. This is also a co-boundary

for the most energetic TLEs, as an upper critical boundary for sprites and typical height for ELVES.

Sprites, blue jets, and elves

Time and space correlation between sprites and their parent lightning flashes for a thunderstorm

52+7 km=59 km, the minimum boundary height of the Earth ionosphere.

91-84 km=7 km (range of relative boundary oscillation of Earth-ionosphere waveguide;

7 km height of upper bound of high-reflectivity critical zones detected in thunderstorm supercells

AN ANALYSIS OF LIGHTNING HOLES IN A DFW SUPERCELL

ELVES are annular, giant TLEs, and their spatial frequencies are strongly bound - in the case of the image above -to approx twice model deterministic boundary of 183.9 km (367.8 km). The LIGO binary remnant diameter for GW150914 is estimated to be 350-400 km, with a mode at approx 366-370 km. Ring "quasi-singularities" from many oscillatory sources may interact to simulate two-bodied coalescence, and thunderstorms responsible for discharge superposition with strongest signal power in LIGO strain are ALL double-cell structures that share the same set of spatial eigenmodes with LIGO GW source characterization measures.

http://wellbeing.ihsp.mcgill.ca/elves/

model thunderstorm spatial eigenmodes (m):

((1.8385E+05)*2)=3.677E+05,

3.49E+05,

4.10E+05

Cardiff's graphic showing scale of the GW150914 black hole merger remnant, superimposed by an identically-scaled (approx. sum of lateral dimensions of both 183-km 'supercells,' ranging from 350-370 km) www.blitzortung.org graphic from five-minutes of CG lightning preceding 9:50 UTC over Oklahoma. This graphic displays a phase-restricted trace of active sprite-producing regions of an explanatory Oklahoma thunderstorm (phase-locked with magnetosphere field during a magnetospheric sawtooth injection event), which is a possible nonstationary magnetic noise source during the 45-51 minute phase-locked lag correlation period reported by several authors:

https://blogs.cardiff.ac.uk/chrisnorth/2016/02/15/gw150914-birth-of-a-monster/.

https://blogs.cardiff.ac.uk/chrisnorth/2016/02/15/gw150914-birth-of-a-monster/.

Could any further parallels be drawn between these different systems in the same time frame? Yes.

Map legend:

1. Blitzortung.org lightning ground flash data for 24 period surrounding GW150914

2. Yellow points are major CG lightning strikes occurring within 60 seconds of GW150914; I extend my boundaries from the cluster centroid, also a CG strike.

3. INTEGRAL gamma discharge upper limit for Fermi reading - ensconcing the lightning regime which in turn scales by the boundaries projected from the OK lightning event.

4. Range antipode from central OK point, extrapolated intersect for GW140914

5. Double antipodal range for centroid of hemispheric gamma ray counterpart predicted by Fermi-INTERGRAL, its centroid and boundaries delimited by strongly correlated lightning cells

6. Highly-ordered circular region of lightning cells with active centroid. Its predictive range boundaries, as cleft antipodal centroids, are tangent and longitudinally aligned with GW150914, as well as non-trivial harmonic fits for all aforementioned systems

7. Fermi probability range for hard x-ray/gamma ray burst associated with GW150914, version 1 from 2016 publication

8. Fermi probability range for hard x-ray/gamma ray burst associated with GW150914, version 2 from revised 2016 publication

9. Sky source constrained probability space for LIGO GW150914

10. Antipodal scaling range for OK lightning centroid, edge intersecting with INTEGRAL model gamma hemispheric counterpart

11. antipodal centroid in hemispheric gamma ray counterpart predicted by Fermi-INTERGRAL

12. Secondary antipodal centroid (a known stationary point in the domain of the oscillation of the SW boundary of the SAA http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2017/EGU2017-7555-3.pdf)

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1602.03920.pdf

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1801.02305.pdf

NA model and data array with one-minute ground-strike lightning around GW150914 (yellow points); yellow dashed line transects interdetector distance, with endpoints Hanford (NW), and Livingston (SE). Yellow rings are 813 km great circle domains. Colored areas are carbonate and igneous-metamorphic aquifers, and with major rivers and lake boundaries.

OK storm centroid to Hanford, GW150914

Hanford, surrounded by faults.

Spatial models over Sept 14, 2015 OK thunderstorm:

measurements of OK storm lobes active during five minutes surrounding GW150914 are 183-184 km, which is the total size of the same data projection of ground strikes occurring at five minutes prior to GW170817 measured in a TX storm, also intersected by the line-of-sight domain between detectors [see https://fulguritics.blogspot.com/2018/06/gw170817-occurs-at-green-bar.html]. https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1608/1608.01940.pdf

The nebulous green domain is a 2D parametric reconstruction from a LIGO publication (Effects of waveform model systematics on the interpretation of GW150914 [B. P. Abbott et al. 2016]) of GW150914 from dual spectral data, showing it scaling and morphologically-embedding into thunderstorm activity domain linearly interposed between LIGO detectors during GW150914. The overlay (over Blitzortung ground strike data around the five-minute period surrounding GW150914) is rotated 144° (the interior angle of a regular decagon), and was directly aligned into a deterministic spatial range capturing thunderstorm scaling (253 km [506 km]).

No rotation, over lower resolution 24-hour lightning, scaled upward

216°, scaled upward

Map legend:

1. Blitzortung.org lightning ground flash data for 24 period surrounding GW150914

2. Yellow points are major CG lightning strikes occurring within 60 seconds of GW150914; I extend my boundaries from the cluster centroid, also a CG strike.

3. INTEGRAL gamma discharge upper limit for Fermi reading - ensconcing the lightning regime which in turn scales by the boundaries projected from the OK lightning event.

4. Range antipode from central OK point, extrapolated intersect for GW140914

5. Double antipodal range for centroid of hemispheric gamma ray counterpart predicted by Fermi-INTERGRAL, its centroid and boundaries delimited by strongly correlated lightning cells

6. Highly-ordered circular region of lightning cells with active centroid. Its predictive range boundaries, as cleft antipodal centroids, are tangent and longitudinally aligned with GW150914, as well as non-trivial harmonic fits for all aforementioned systems

7. Fermi probability range for hard x-ray/gamma ray burst associated with GW150914, version 1 from 2016 publication

8. Fermi probability range for hard x-ray/gamma ray burst associated with GW150914, version 2 from revised 2016 publication

9. Sky source constrained probability space for LIGO GW150914

10. Antipodal scaling range for OK lightning centroid, edge intersecting with INTEGRAL model gamma hemispheric counterpart

11. antipodal centroid in hemispheric gamma ray counterpart predicted by Fermi-INTERGRAL

12. Secondary antipodal centroid (a known stationary point in the domain of the oscillation of the SW boundary of the SAA http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2017/EGU2017-7555-3.pdf)

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1602.03920.pdf

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1801.02305.pdf

NA model and data array with one-minute ground-strike lightning around GW150914 (yellow points); yellow dashed line transects interdetector distance, with endpoints Hanford (NW), and Livingston (SE). Yellow rings are 813 km great circle domains. Colored areas are carbonate and igneous-metamorphic aquifers, and with major rivers and lake boundaries.

OK storm centroid to Hanford, GW150914

Hanford, surrounded by faults.

Spatial models over Sept 14, 2015 OK thunderstorm:

measurements of OK storm lobes active during five minutes surrounding GW150914 are 183-184 km, which is the total size of the same data projection of ground strikes occurring at five minutes prior to GW170817 measured in a TX storm, also intersected by the line-of-sight domain between detectors [see https://fulguritics.blogspot.com/2018/06/gw170817-occurs-at-green-bar.html]. https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1608/1608.01940.pdf

The nebulous green domain is a 2D parametric reconstruction from a LIGO publication (Effects of waveform model systematics on the interpretation of GW150914 [B. P. Abbott et al. 2016]) of GW150914 from dual spectral data, showing it scaling and morphologically-embedding into thunderstorm activity domain linearly interposed between LIGO detectors during GW150914. The overlay (over Blitzortung ground strike data around the five-minute period surrounding GW150914) is rotated 144° (the interior angle of a regular decagon), and was directly aligned into a deterministic spatial range capturing thunderstorm scaling (253 km [506 km]).

No rotation, over lower resolution 24-hour lightning, scaled upward

216°, scaled upward

0°, scaled upward

rotational asymmetry appropriate for storm-bound ground strike density for GW150914 event

rotational asymmetry appropriate for storm-bound ground strike density for GW150914 event

rotated 216°

180°

180°

As I am a believer in gravitational waves and a proponent of General Relativity, my harmless study must be regarded for its purpose: an attempt at exhaustive application of robust, multi-scaled and multi-contextual signal processing and spatial modelling. Such should have been delivered by LIGO, but who cared?

LIGO utilized frequency conversion values (e.g. 0.01 Hz, rather than 100 s) in their calibration and background noise studies following the declaration of GW150914 to describe time intervals for false triggers and have systematically ignored their own magnetometer malfunctions. LIGO refused and continues to refuse to release their on-site magnetometer data. This is a professional breech of scientific transparency to say the least, considering that this fact contradicts official LIGO statements, and that their data have been released in total has been widely-disseminated in absence of any LIGO expectations for exhaustive falsification by a rightfully-critical public (a public who paid for the project, funded by the NSF).

references:

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/GL009i004p00314

LIGO utilized frequency conversion values (e.g. 0.01 Hz, rather than 100 s) in their calibration and background noise studies following the declaration of GW150914 to describe time intervals for false triggers and have systematically ignored their own magnetometer malfunctions. LIGO refused and continues to refuse to release their on-site magnetometer data. This is a professional breech of scientific transparency to say the least, considering that this fact contradicts official LIGO statements, and that their data have been released in total has been widely-disseminated in absence of any LIGO expectations for exhaustive falsification by a rightfully-critical public (a public who paid for the project, funded by the NSF).

references:

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/GL009i004p00314

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

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bc/ROSAT_SAA.gif

https://arxiv.org/abs/1605.08205

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1801.02305.pdf

https://www.cosmos.esa.int/documents/332006/1402684/VSavchenko_t.pdf

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8205/820/2/L36/pdf

http://www.inaf.it/it/sedi/sede-centrale-nuova/direzione-scientifica/ufficio-spazio/inafafter-gw150914/Ubertini.pdf

https://newatlas.com/lightning-gamma-rays-antimatter/52312/

https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2014/31dec_tgfs

https://phys.org/news/2017-10-lightning-afterglow-gamma.html

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2017/nasas-fermi-sees-gamma-rays-from-hidden-solar-flares

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bc/ROSAT_SAA.gif

https://arxiv.org/abs/1605.08205

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1801.02305.pdf

https://www.cosmos.esa.int/documents/332006/1402684/VSavchenko_t.pdf

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8205/820/2/L36/pdf

http://www.inaf.it/it/sedi/sede-centrale-nuova/direzione-scientifica/ufficio-spazio/inafafter-gw150914/Ubertini.pdf

https://newatlas.com/lightning-gamma-rays-antimatter/52312/

https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2014/31dec_tgfs

https://phys.org/news/2017-10-lightning-afterglow-gamma.html

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2017/nasas-fermi-sees-gamma-rays-from-hidden-solar-flares

## No comments:

## Post a Comment