3 ms·
> That's not to say that what the phenomena measured -- the earth resonating That's not what the detector measures. RTFA.
by gaur 11y ago
> That's not to say that what the phenomena measured -- the earth resonating
That's not what the detector measures. RTFA.
- dang 11y ago> RTFA Please don't be rude like that here. It breaks the HN guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Your comment would be fine without that bit, and better still if it stated briefly what the detector does measure.
- gaur 11y agoFine, but I find comments like "I don't really grasp what's going on, but I can show it's crap using high school logic" to be extremely low-quality, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.
- dang 11y agoUnderstood, but please post comments that make the thread better rather than worse. It sounds like you know a lot and are thus in a position to do so.
- brudgers 11y agoI read the article. I am in the habit of calling periodic changes in dimension "resonance." I consider it rather consistent with the use of "wave" in the discussion and hence a handy way of describing what the instruments measured rather than what the theory suggests as the first cause.
- gaur 11y agoThe instruments are intentionally constructed to be as insensitive as possible to earth motion. Implicit in the detection claim is that the signal does not originate from earth motion.
- nanofortnight 11y agoResonance is quite a bad term if that's what you use it for. Resonance would require some amount of positive feedback. Vibration or oscillation would be a much better terms for simple periodic changes.
- brudgers 11y agoIt's consistent with vibration caused by a wave which is why it seemed appropriate to me in this context...even if I think the claim of waves is an over-reach, I am not being deliberately argumentative.