"Peter Webb" <webbfamily-diespamdie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> "George Dishman" <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> "Mike" <M.GS...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>> Does anyone have any new information on anything new being done to the
>>> After hearing the LIGO gravity wave detector was not sensitive enough to
>>> detect gravity waves what are the steps being done to fix it? Are they
>>> planning to rip the guts out of it?
>>> That project sucked quite a bit of money out of the NSF piggy bank and I
>>> hope more funds are not going to be solicited unlessss they're
>>> sure LIGO is going to work.
>> LIGO will work (and they are already working
>> on LIGO 2 which improves the sensitivity) but
>> whether it will detect gravitational waves is
>> another matter. The point is that a null result
>> at a sensitivity better than predicted for
>> detection would also be significant.
> ... a significant waste of money!
> But it won't be - they computer post-process the data, and answers they
> get will be have to be probabilities.
The answers they get will be something like
probable amplitudes for waves from specific
sources and can be compared against known
objects in those locations
> So they will say "almost certain" or "very likely". And the calculations
> can reasonably only be done on their own computers, and so the realistic
> options for peer review are zero, the incentive for exaggeration is
The data is what it is. The algorithms used
can and will be reviewed. It is also possible
that the data will be independently reprocessed
as Markwardt did for the Anderson data on Pioneer
Those who exaggerate tend to get found out.