Talk:GEO600

message: 1021? or 10−21? cm? Pérez 19:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

message: I just added the section on the Space-Time limit discovery. I've cited the link for the source of the information, but I'm afraid my writing style is somewhat poor. Would really appreciate it if someone could touch up my work. Thanks. --¬¬¬¬  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pavithran (talk • contribs) 09:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Space-Time Convolution Section

message: I did a lot of rewriting to reflect the fact that the supposed connection between 'excess noise' at the detector, and Hogan's claim of a theory of 'holographic noise', is highly speculative - to the extent that only one person (Hogan himself) is making any clear claim about it. 
Now we have the following 2 sentences tacked on the end:
This noise appears to be the smallest measure of space time. At the moment this confirms Planck's length as being the smallest unit of measure.[7] (referring to New Scientist article)
There are three problems. First, it presents a highly speculative theory as if it were 'apparent' fact: this noise appears to be the smallest measure of space time. This is extremely vague, and weasel phrasing. One might also say, The moon appears to have a human face... what is "appearing" to who? Second, one can never meaningfully talk about the 'confirmation' of any speculative theory by a currently unexplained experimental glitch. As I carefully explained in the previous text, and as appears in the New Scientist article, the observational glitch might result from any number of things within the detector which have nothing to do with 'holography'. Third, the New Scientist article itself does not claim to 'confirm' anything: the article only says that the noise might have something to do with Hogan's 'holography' theory.
On these grounds I am going to delete these sentences as inaccurate (and also edit the Planck length article). --Tdent (talk) 17:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree---thanks for the edit. -- Spireguy (talk) 19:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  how to discuss / source 'holographic noise' claims 

message: Does anyone know if GEO stands for something? — BobQQ  (talk) 14:12, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Acronym?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on GEO600. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130726184925/http://www.geo600.org/research-highlights/geo600-has-reached-a-sensitivity-of-2b710-22-221ahz-1 to http://www.geo600.org/research-highlights/geo600-has-reached-a-sensitivity-of-2b710-22-221ahz-1
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on GEO600. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090925011452/http://www.geo600.de/general-information/history-purpose to http://www.geo600.de/general-information/history-purpose/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721133448/http://www.ligo.caltech.edu/docs/G/G070506-00.pdf to http://www.ligo.caltech.edu/docs/G/G070506-00.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)