Search This Blog

20180603

Excess parametric correlations between LIGO trigger times and relative amplitudes indicating signal nonstationarity, location dependency for signal properties, and pervasive systematic error

Cyclical correlations in LIGO-Virgo parameters and arrival times

[Under construction continuing 2019-0728, to be updated to incorporate N=7, N=11, N=32, and N=47 O1+O2+03 LIGO-Virgo event catalogues]


When one is attentive to reported standard bounds and error bars of LIGO statistical signals, which in the worst case offer no significance for LIGO luminosity distances, only GW170817 is distinctive, but all events are consecutively-correlated by measure-preserving oscillatory behavior of the estimator:





Local arrival times are physically and (given strong monodromy and self-affinity of GW event properties at known scales) numerically-significant relative to geomagnetic noon/midnight modulation by continental dawn/dusk feedback behavior within a strongly-coupled magnetosphere-ionosphere system, where high correlation between quasi-stationary solar wind dynamics, magnetic rarefaction/substorm triggering, and transverse magnetospheric mode coherence precedes magnetic reconnection events, resulting in local shock-acceleration of particles, field domain bifurcation, and plasmoid nucleation/injection. such conditions are associated together with magnetospheric sawtooth events. Magnetic field lines are directed outward with heavy ion outflow recorded from ionospheric observation and at various geostationary and L1 orbits.

Sunspot number (SSN) and daily count change (d[SSN]_+/-t), containing harmonic correlations and eigenvalue recurrence:













 bound-normalized power spectrum (discrete cosine transform, fk|DCT|of LIGO GW sky area deg2 values


   
Space weather cyclical correlations with deterministic phase relations and symmetries with respect to discrete properties of LIGO events:



















  
 System-wide global bifurcations in boundary conditions emerge at self-organizing quasiperiodic critical points stabilized by bound correlations between many-bodied gravitational system determinisms. Such sawtooth events correspond in this view to a complex cross section of a the behavior of bifurcating quasi-stationary non-relativistic KAM torus; boundary rationalization error upon approach to limit cycle drives Hopf bifurcation and saddle point nucleation of nonresonant quasiperiodic equilibria, their transverse injection driving paired soliton formation and elliptical torii in phase space.
LIGO data do appear to contain local, dense cyclical information that indicates unresolved, non-stationary scale-free oscillatory behavior with discrete traits as is expected for time evolution through global minimum, a system analogue in the electromagnetic regime for what he calls 'conformal cyclic cosmology,' which I believe to be a fecund concept, as scale-invariance and anisotropic universal structure are concomitant in some scenarios if we permit deterministic ergodic dynamics with mass gaps. There is no mystery here though that interplanetary-planetary EM currents and resonant background tend to obey multiscaled, nonequilibrium annular/loop-ordered oscillating current systems that are not unlike inelastic anomalously-dispersive Lorentz force-driven particle systems.

Gyroradii and related spatial quantities and flux energies of particles and particle-like action in potential-like charged domains in thunderstorms may be at least minor components of the broadband harmonics in GW150914 strain data. Strain may record both random (uncorrelated) and Gaussian componens. In the case of detector noise surrounding GW150914 and the remainder of LIGO-Virgo events), the spectra bear strongly colored modes and are boundary-like with self-similar with scale-invariant eigenvalues, autocorrelations, quasinormal envelopes. Noise components during detection intervals also contain transverse modes with quasiperiodic phase and bifurcated/upchirped modes. Colored, quasiperiodic noise also results in GW channels from nonstationary instrumental hardware error during spontaneous charging events, which can be overlooked due to poor calibration and placement of magnetometers, in addition to inadequate analysis of coincident and extended continuous magnetometer flux anomaly.
Time lag of ~0.0069 s reported by LIGO authors between Livingston, LA and Hanford, WA for gravitational wave event GW150914

Roger Penrose (Penrose 2017) can perhaps be credited to have approached dimensionless functional-structural validity for a higher-order relationship that is, in effect, the quantized constant-curvature causal framework of a Universe, while being phenomenologically vacant and, as follows, cosmologically-incorrect.  Regarding his oft-ridiculed recent paper on the presence of evidence for Conformal Cyclic Cosmology (CCC) in LIGO GW data. Pardon blatant typographical errors for GW event names in the abstract on arXiv (see image), which I find ironic given that CCC would imply that event dates, which are encoded into the names of physical events detected from space in this scheme, would be considered themselves a kind of evidence, especially when one expects recurrence relations to underlie low frequency generalized cosmological causality/action, and especially to a thinker who is now resurrecting BICEP-2. https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.06755:

Here is some background on the open controversy surrounding the methodology and interpretation of LIGO data practiced by LIGO scientists and by most of those working with LIGO data in various research fields:
Measurement and subtraction of Schumann resonances at gravitational-wave interferometers
As LIGO did not include any ground magnetometer plots or even a simple analysis of complex phase behavior in North American magnetometer data on the day of GW150914, I did. Surprise - it became practically evident, upon plotting the magnetometer data and recognizing the same autocorrelations and scaled eigenvalues in ground mag. station data, that these underwent the same kind of symmetry breaking with the same boundaries and spectral properties as GW150914 and for so many other sources - all synchronously-related to GW150914 (and other putative GW detections). LIGO doesn't veto putative GW triggers based on the properties of longer timescale flux/charging structure, complex magnetic field behavior, and higher-order correlations between many coupled systems, and so those involved in analysis should not be expected to be instructed to become aware of terrestrial/ionospheric "noise" feedbacks (and especially known feedbacks between station test channels that experience 'intermittence' behavior during charging events). 
Here, for example, http://fulguritics.blogspot.com/2018/06/httpswww.html we have magnetometer data with GW150914 event nearly centered.

Self-reinforced, scale-equivalent/invariant quasiperiodic vacuua partitioned within sawtooth intervals supported by ramping steady solar wind convection truncated by spontaneous tearing modes and quasiperiodic shock fronts are ubiquitous in GOES, ACE, and ground magnetometer data hours preceding and following LIGO events (~10 hours total for GW150914).  Boundary-like intermittency correlated with conditions for strong solar-magnetospheric-ionospheric-geomagnetic coupling in fact do explain the cyclical timing of LIGO events, driven by periodic orbital perturbations of solar coronal dynamics through the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) and gravitational tidal effects alike.

The physics of magnetic reconnection and coronal mass ejections do not require solar flare progenitors. With respect to deterministic behavior of orbital perturbations and shock dynamics on solar wind, sunspots, and solar magnetic fields,  extended electromagnetic transient behavior and bifurcation at almost-periodic intervals with quasinormal modes recurs at infinitely-increasing timescales/wavelengths/phase intervals with elliptically-bound degrees of freedom.  We can point toward a large family of degenerate subsystems possessing KAM torii that are not possible to understand uniquely and have not been unified by a single theory due to mathematical impediments between well-established and effective theory and new, open topological and fibration/foliation approaches; Implications are unsettling. 


Plots of LIGO event parameters showing singular and bound behavior of LIGO source properties:

Time of day (UTC) for time-ordered GW triggers:
GW event triggers, day/100, from 150101; log luminosity distance, GW events:

asymmetric double-well in scatterplot for day/distance correlations for all GW events.


Event parameters associated with GW triggers have been revised by LIGO into increasingly broader uncertainties over time, which now seem to undermine luminosity distance, spin, and mass estimations required for several unretracted AT2017gfo models that still are considered viable by those that may build further onto scale-corrupted afterglow models that are now lacking any single report of an observation of the GW170817 precursor since early August 2018. The effort is transparent, simplistic, and scurrilous: obscure the discrete and rather uncanny total correlation motif relationships within LIGO event parameters (luminosity distances, masses, spins correlated with day of year and time of day spanning events, in turn correlated with the same variables comprising the descriptions of other events). Make it seem that there is no arrival time pattern - no instrumental/observer bias, no explained noise without colloquial trivialization - and who will pay attention to what is missing, the significance of instrumental response as and to non-random channel artifacts, or to discarded and embedded non-signal anomalies that accompany all GW signals, distorting parameters?





With a FAP on the scale of 1:200,000 for GW150914 - the strongest LIGO signal to date - uncertainty in most bands asymptotically converges onto 1 (100%). You’ll see how LIGO engineers deliberately omit strong references to their magnetometer issues and have not attempted to calculate an estimated noise contribution from magnetic leakage and overcharging due to induction from hidden transverse sectors of TE-TM modes. To attempt this would also undermine confidence levels, leading to signal rejection.


















No comments:

Post a Comment