First direct evidence of cosmic inflation (Update)

Mar 17, 2014
In this 2007 photo provided by Steffen Richter, the sun sets behind the BICEP2 telescope, foreground, and the South Pole Telescope in Antarctica. In the faint glowing remains of the Big Bang, scientists found "smoking gun" evidence that the universe began with a split-second of astonishingly rapid growth from a seed far smaller than an atom. To find a pattern of polarization in the faint light left over from the Big Bang, astronomers scanned about 2 percent of the sky for three years with the BICEP2 at the south pole, chosen for its very dry air to aid in the observations, said the leader of the collaboration, John Kovac of Harvard. (AP Photo/Steffen Richter)

(Phys.org) —Almost 14 billion years ago, the universe we inhabit burst into existence in an extraordinary event that initiated the Big Bang. In the first fleeting fraction of a second, the universe expanded exponentially, stretching far beyond the view of our best telescopes. All this, of course, was just theory.

Researchers from the BICEP2 collaboration today announced the first direct evidence for this cosmic inflation. Their data also represent the first images of gravitational waves, or ripples in space-time. These waves have been described as the "first tremors of the Big Bang." Finally, the data confirm a deep connection between quantum mechanics and general relativity.

"Detecting this signal is one of the most important goals in cosmology today. A lot of work by a lot of people has led up to this point," said John Kovac (Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics), leader of the BICEP2 collaboration.

These groundbreaking results came from observations by the BICEP2 telescope of the cosmic microwave background—a faint glow left over from the Big Bang. Tiny fluctuations in this afterglow provide clues to conditions in the early universe. For example, small differences in temperature across the sky show where parts of the universe were denser, eventually condensing into galaxies and galactic clusters.

Since the cosmic microwave background is a form of light, it exhibits all the properties of light, including polarization. On Earth, sunlight is scattered by the atmosphere and becomes polarized, which is why polarized sunglasses help reduce glare. In space, the cosmic microwave background was scattered by atoms and electrons and became polarized too.

This video is not supported by your browser at this time.

"Our team hunted for a special type of polarization called 'B-modes,' which represents a twisting or 'curl' pattern in the polarized orientations of the ancient light," said co-leader Jamie Bock (Caltech/JPL).

Gravitational waves squeeze space as they travel, and this squeezing produces a distinct pattern in the cosmic microwave background. Gravitational waves have a "handedness," much like light waves, and can have left- and right-handed polarizations.

This image provided by the BICEP2 Collaboration shows slight temperature fluctuations, indicated by variations in color, of the cosmic microwave background of a small patch of sky and the orientation of its polarization, shown as short black lines. Researchers say since the cosmic microwave background is a form of light, it exhibits all the properties of light, including polarization. The changes in a particular type of polarization, indicated here, are theorized to be caused by gravitational waves. These waves are signals of an extremely rapid inflation of the universe in its first moments. (AP Photo/BICEP2 Collaboration)

"The swirly B-mode pattern is a unique signature of gravitational waves because of their handedness. This is the first direct image of gravitational waves across the primordial sky," said co-leader Chao-Lin Kuo (Stanford/SLAC).

The team examined spatial scales on the sky spanning about one to five degrees (two to ten times the width of the full Moon). To do this, they traveled to the South Pole to take advantage of its cold, dry, stable air.

This image provided by the BICEP2 Collaboration shows slight temperature fluctuations, indicated by variations in color, of the cosmic microwave background of a small patch of sky and the orientation of its polarization, shown as short black lines. Researchers say since the cosmic microwave background is a form of light, it exhibits all the properties of light, including polarization. The changes in a particular type of polarization, indicated here, are theorized to be caused by gravitational waves. These waves are signals of an extremely rapid inflation of the universe in its first moments. (AP Photo/BICEP2 Collaboration)

"The South Pole is the closest you can get to space and still be on the ground," said Kovac. "It's one of the driest and clearest locations on Earth, perfect for observing the faint microwaves from the Big Bang."

They were surprised to detect a B-mode polarization signal considerably stronger than many cosmologists expected. The team analyzed their data for more than three years in an effort to rule out any errors. They also considered whether dust in our galaxy could produce the observed pattern, but the data suggest this is highly unlikely.

The bottom part of this illustration shows the scale of the universe versus time. Specific events are shown such as the formation of neutral Hydrogen at 380 000 years after the big bang. Prior to this time, the constant interaction between matter (electrons) and light (photons) made the universe opaque. After this time, the photons we now call the CMB started streaming freely. The fluctuations (differences from place to place) in the matter distribution left their imprint on the CMB photons. The density waves appear as temperature and "E-mode" polarization. The gravitational waves leave a characteristic signature in the CMB polarization: the "B-modes". Both density and gravitational waves come from quantum fluctuations which have been magnified by inflation to be present at the time when the CMB photons were emitted.

"This has been like looking for a needle in a haystack, but instead we found a crowbar," said co-leader Clem Pryke (University of Minnesota).

When asked to comment on the implications of this discovery, Harvard theorist Avi Loeb said, "This work offers new insights into some of our most basic questions: Why do we exist? How did the universe begin? These results are not only a smoking gun for inflation, they also tell us when inflation took place and how powerful the process was."

Explore further: Rumours fly that gravitational waves have been detected

More information: bicepkeck.org/

Provided by Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics

4.8 /5 (135 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Rumours fly that gravitational waves have been detected

Mar 17, 2014

Last week the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA) stated rather nonchalantly that they will be hosting a press conference on Monday, March 17th, to announce a "major discovery." Without a potential ...

Researchers propose a new way to detect the elusive graviton

Mar 04, 2014

(Phys.org) —Among the four fundamental forces of nature, only gravity has not had a basic unit, or quanta, detected. Physicists expect that gravitational force is transmitted by an elementary particle called a graviton, ...

Long-sought pattern of ancient light detected

Oct 22, 2013

(Phys.org) —The journey of light from the very early universe to modern telescopes is long and winding. The ancient light traveled billions of years to reach us, and along the way, its path was distorted ...

Recommended for you

Witnessing the early growth of a giant

3 minutes ago

Astronomers have uncovered for the first time the earliest stages of a massive galaxy forming in the young Universe. The discovery was made possible through combining observations from the NASA/ESA Hubble ...

Evidence for supernovas near Earth

6 hours ago

Once every 50 years, more or less, a massive star explodes somewhere in the Milky Way. The resulting blast is terrifyingly powerful, pumping out more energy in a split second than the sun emits in a million ...

What lit up the universe?

13 hours ago

New research from UCL shows we will soon uncover the origin of the ultraviolet light that bathes the cosmos, helping scientists understand how galaxies were built.

Eta Carinae: Our Neighboring Superstars

21 hours ago

(Phys.org) —The Eta Carinae star system does not lack for superlatives. Not only does it contain one of the biggest and brightest stars in our galaxy, weighing at least 90 times the mass of the Sun, it ...

User comments : 135

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

shavera
4.8 / 5 (40) Mar 17, 2014
Before you post your own personal crackpot theory, please do post exactly where your theory had a published prediction of these results, rather than back-fitting these new results to your nuttery.
Q-Star
4.8 / 5 (22) Mar 17, 2014
Before you post your own personal crackpot theory, please do post exactly where your theory had a published prediction of these results, rather than back-fitting these new results to your nuttery.


This may be well one of the most challenging and constrained predictions I can think of in modern cosmology, it's a true milestone. I'm trying to think of another like it. Maybe Lemaitre's prediction of lambda in 1927-9,,,, maybe Gamow, Alpher and Herman's prediction for the CMB in 1946-8. It's one for the short list of great discoveries.
Zachia
1.3 / 5 (32) Mar 17, 2014
IMO the BICEP data just replicate older findings of Penrose and Gurzadyan. It could be considered as an evidence of Conformal cyclic cosmology or whatever else model. Try to think about it in context of water surface analogy of AWT. The ripples at the water surface are spreading in regular circles first, they get scattered fast at the end. If the water surface would contain some density inhomogeneities, it would manifest itself just during this final phasis of scattering, when the wavelenght of ripples is changing fast and which is interpreted like the "inflation". That is to say, there is nothing controversial about this finding in context of water analogy of the red shift.
axemaster
5 / 5 (19) Mar 17, 2014
The paper is here:
http://bicepkeck.org/b2_respap_arxiv_v1.pdf" title="http://http://bicepkeck.org/b2_respap_arxiv_v1.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://bicepkeck....v_v1.pdf

Supplementary materials for the paper are here:
http://bicepkeck.org

The press conference is here:
http://www.cfa.ha...ces.html

HUGE deal guys! This is on the same scale as discovering the Higgs boson. The detection of primordial gravitational waves all but confirms the inflationary theory!
Zachia
1.2 / 5 (24) Mar 17, 2014
If I remember the L-CDM cosmology well, the alleged inflation did happen before most of CMBR was ever formed, the observation of B-modes in nearby areas of Universe should be therefore prohibited. The B-mode of polarization should be therefore constrained to the highest values of z (red shift) and with higher frequencies of CMBR it should disappear gradually. Therefore the dependence of B-mode on frequency of CMBR could provide the clue about actual origin of it. IMO the B-mode is related to dark matter fluctuations instead and they appear everywhere in our universe. It just indicates the density gradients of dark matter, which manifest itself like the rings around galaxies (they were filtered out from data as a "lensing") and the streaks of dark matter between them (the weren't).

So if we find, that the B-mode of CMBR polarization follows some dark matter fiber BETWEEN existing galaxies, it can serve as an evidence, it wasn't formed during inflation, but much later. Got it?
Zachia
1.2 / 5 (23) Mar 17, 2014
At any case, every evidence can be only as "direct", as low number of alternative models we are considering in a given moment. Currently the mainstream science suffers with social pressure for experimental proof of the existence of gravitational waves and inflation from the side of theorists, so there is indeed a tendency for confirmational bias following from synergy: one finding would prove them both!

Who couldn't resist it?
indio007
3 / 5 (4) Mar 17, 2014
I'm still wondering about the unaddressed C-type polarization.
GSwift7
5 / 5 (13) Mar 17, 2014
Finally, the data confirm a deep connection between quantum mechanics and general relativity


and

they also tell us when inflation took place and how powerful the process was


That's going to stir up a few debates. I wonder where this will lead?
Zachia
1 / 5 (13) Mar 17, 2014
I'm still wondering about the unaddressed C-type polarization
It would be even much more difficult to recognize, than the B-mode. Also, the C-type is much more affected with lensing background and with methods of its separation from data.
rah
1 / 5 (5) Mar 17, 2014
How does the data from BICEP2 compare to Planck Telescope and other CMB space telescopes? I don't understand much of the article. Hopefully they're on to something, but I think they got ahead of themselves. If they're right, it's Nobel Prizes, otherwise they will be living at the South Pole writing requests for extraction by a guy on an ultralight.
kelman66
5 / 5 (11) Mar 17, 2014
Zachia, did you not read the first post?
billpress11
1.3 / 5 (15) Mar 17, 2014
Oh brother, I don't even want to get involved with this. But before everyone gets all giddy just let me point out that there is another simple explanation for the polarized light in these images. More distant light sources shining through closer spiral galaxies that have magnetic fields.
GSwift7
4.7 / 5 (15) Mar 17, 2014
This is from a previous article on this site, when they announced today's press conference.

Only last year the signal was detected in the CMB for the first time using the South Pole Telescope, but it was in fact distorted by intervening clusters of galaxies and not intrinsic to the CMB itself


You can safely bet that the results will be checked and criticized by enough people so that any problems will be pointed out. If I'm reading it correctly, they're claiming a high level of certainty here though.

The more I read about this, the more I'm realizing what an OMG moment this is. Someone above mentioned a comparison to the Higgs, but I think this is bigger than that.

If it's confirmed, it will deserve a Nobel. It 'could' also enable someone else to figure out something even more amazing. There's no telling where the ability to 'observe' gravitational waves might lead us.
Dr_toad
Mar 17, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
marklade
Mar 17, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Shitead
1.6 / 5 (20) Mar 17, 2014
The one observable fact arising from this experiment is that photons, if they travel far enough, become polarized in a distinctive pattern. Everything beyond this is conjecture! Assigning a cause for the polarization, be it gravity waves or Marvin the Martian's ray gun, is also conjecture. But given that light becomes polarized, it follows that every event that changes a photon's plane of polarization, whatever the cause, also reduces the energy of that photon, thus increasing its wavelength. Voila! Red shift without the big bang.
Dr_toad
Mar 17, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Pippero
Mar 17, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Pippero
Mar 17, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (18) Mar 17, 2014
What an amazing story! The findings appear robust and well considered, the constraints and possible errors have been exhaustively reviewed, even the cranks (well excepting Zephyr) are going to have a tough go arguing against this discovery.

What a great day for science! They have been predicted for nearly 100 years and amid all the tripe and crank theories, there they are! Congrats to the team!

By the way Zeph - seems to me I remember you just a few days ago saying they would never be found. Your hubris in posting your garbage in this thread is epic. And sad. In fact, here is what you said Zeph:
The reason, why I'm instinctively downvoted without any arguments, when I'm talking about nonexistence of WIMPs, gravitational waves or big bang cosmology is, these theories became a religious thing for proponents of mainstream physics
Non-existent you said.

Your new handles will be banned shortly. Good riddance.
Pippero
Mar 17, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Dr_toad
Mar 17, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Dr_toad
Mar 17, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Pippero
Mar 17, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
4.7 / 5 (15) Mar 17, 2014
This is just an indicia, I'm doing my work well.

Stifling debate? Demonstrating new lows to which a human can sink? Demonstrating your own stupidity?

Yep. You're doing your work extremely well.
MandoZink
5 / 5 (13) Mar 17, 2014
A good explanation of this effort and it's significance is addressed by physicist Matt Strassler on his website. He clarifies a few things that some of those here espousing alternate explanations might want to read.

"A Primer On Today's Events"
http://profmattstrassler.com/2014/03/17/a-primer-on-todays-events/" title="http://http://profmattstrassler.com/2014/03/17/a-primer-on-todays-events/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://profmattst...-events/

That primer is among several other sequential posts related to this event, also on his site:
http://profmattstrassler.com

Sean Carroll of Caltech has a very good rundown of this also:
"Gravitational Waves in the Cosmic Microwave Background"
http://www.prepos...kground/
Pippero
Mar 17, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
MandoZink
5 / 5 (9) Mar 17, 2014
By the way, the BICEP2 measurements verify to 5.2 sigma that the level of the detection of B-mode polarization is not due to lensing. (that's more that 1 in 2 million)
Pippero
Mar 17, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Pippero
Mar 17, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Gawad
5 / 5 (17) Mar 17, 2014
To call me stupid for objection


@ Zeph, Jigga, Sloten, Alizee, sabine hossenfelder (yes, this little piece of garbage actually came on here for a while trying to impersonate Sabine Hossenfelder to sockpuppet support for his babbling nonsense), etc., etc., etc., You just don't get it, do you, you poor little anonymous internet troll? You're stupid whether you object or not. It doesn't matter what you do, Stupid is just you.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (15) Mar 17, 2014
to piggyback on Gawad...
Why I should be stupid, when I propose the alternative for inflation? Isn't the ability to observe the problem from many perspectives just the sign of opened mind, if not an intelligence?

@Zachia/Pippero/Zephir
it is NOT that you have an OPEN mind, but that you have a mind so crowded with BAD PSEUDOSCIENCE that the REAL SCIENCE cannot fit in there with all your BIASES floating around telling you it cant be true!
you have a tendency to promote FAILED ideas, or ideas that have been REFUTED, which means that you would do better to argue PHILOSOPHY than SCIENCE, as science requires EMPIRICAL DATA and all you usually provide is argument
IOW - TROLLING
Pippero
Mar 17, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (13) Mar 17, 2014
My biases are just your biases from dual observational perspective. You're sitting inside of gravity lens and you're observing the path of light straight and space-time curved, whereas I'm sitting outside of it, so I can see, this space-time is actually flat and the path of light gets curved instead. Your problem is, I do realize the duality of both these perspectives well, whereas you're not

@Zachia/Pippero/Zephir
I changed my mind
you really should invest all this time you have into writing science fiction. With your imagination and your ability to philosophize so much BS into a world view, you would do well in sci-fi (or as a cult leader... but I dont think you have the personality for that kind of controlling domination, really)
you would be able to get all the stupid and scientifically illiterate to follow you and you could speculate away and get paid for it... and we would be left alone
maybe you should look into that instead? (here's hoping, anyway)
Pippero
Mar 17, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Q-Star
5 / 5 (15) Mar 17, 2014
to piggyback on Gawad..


To piggyback on Gawad and Captain Stumpy,,,,

Zeph, ya really gone extra bonkers today, I realize that this is a great disappointment for ya, but ya really need to lighten up on just how "special" and great your crackpottery is. It's just crackpottery after all. I will admit that it is some of the more entertaining crackpottery to found on the internet, but that is only because it (and ya) are truly unique and singular, there is but one Zephyr.

Just grit your teeth and bare the pain,,, try be a tad more gracious in the joy people find in this very special discovery. Publicly sucking sour grapes only makes their achievement seem that much larger and petty-fies your crackpottery.
Dr_toad
Mar 17, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Vyhea
4.7 / 5 (15) Mar 17, 2014
I has been my observation of late that the one predictability of AWT is the frequent spontaneous appearance of previously unseen sockpuppets with similar attributes.

Pippero
Mar 17, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Q-Star
5 / 5 (15) Mar 17, 2014
]LOL, "sabine hossenfelder" was a true Sabine Hossenfelder..:-)) A poor girl... Anyway, she deserved it for sure, she's censoring me too at her blog...;-)


Sabine is not censoring ya Zeph. Tell the true story if ya're going to tell it at all.

She had to ban/block ya because ya were intentionally vandalizing her page with the stated purpose of "paying her back" because she had the temerity of exposing that "other" Czech Republic miscreant for his falsehoods, misrepresentations and out right lies. She even had to seek legal relief.

Ya creeped her out just as ya did Laura M-H and others.
Dr_toad
Mar 17, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Pippero
Mar 17, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Pippero
Mar 17, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (14) Mar 17, 2014
Reposted from the earlier thread:
Even on a first read through the pdf, at least 4 fatal flaws jump out. At least 1 systemic flaw, at least 2 assumptive flaws and at least 1 procedural flaw. I won't bother to read through it again until I have more time to spare for reading such patently obvious 'wishful thinking' and 'publish-or-perish' and 'Nobel coveting' so-called 'scientific work'. Since there is nothing in this that merits wasting valuable time that I can better apply elsewhere, I will leave it to you all to see if you can spot the 4 (at least!) fatal flaws for yourselves (leave ego and bias aside or you'll fail).

As you know I'm too busy to start new conversations. Maybe I'll put a 'cautionary tale' footnote about this latest 'joke science' in my upcoming ToE book. For now, I just wanted to put it on the phys.org record that the 'science work' of this 'team' is more 'iffy' than much of what I've read in/from the 'mainstream' literature/activities over the years! Bye. :)
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (7) Mar 17, 2014
Damn...they haven't put up the press conference video yet...and it isn't on youtub, either. Anyone have it?
Uncle Ira
3.7 / 5 (7) Mar 17, 2014
@ Heeyou Zephir, don't let them get to you no podna. The other day the Ira made the one couyon mad because I mistake him for you me. So Neg how you go? I been looking for you at the other place me, but I think they must have give you the super banneded.

Laissez les bons temps rouler Zephir-Skippy
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (14) Mar 17, 2014
Another repost from that earlier thread:
Hi CaptS. :) Take it easy, mate; you know I've no time for BS.
@RealityCheck really, BAD FORM to throw out a claim and NOT POST/LINK PROOF you slam them and then just "move on" without showing the data/proof? Thats nothing but Trolling, and you should be ashamed of yourself especially because you dont back up what you say!
I'll tell you what is the ultimate in "Bad Form", BS like this masquerading/publishing as 'science'.
add this to your list of reading, RC http://bicepkeck.org/ AND maybe you missed this part from axemaster?
...they claim to have excluded r=0 to order sigma=7. In other words, they have extremely high certainty that primordial gravity waves exist.
Note it's "CLAIM", not objective fact. A 'mainstream' claim based on such BS 'work' is worse than "bad form" in my book. Calm down and re-read it all properly and find those fatal BS flaws for yourself. I haven't time to read such BS again.
antialias_physorg
4.7 / 5 (12) Mar 17, 2014
Another repost from that earlier thread:

Why do you repost your own stuff? Stop spamming. If it didn't get a response over there it isn't going to get one here.
Uncle Ira
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 17, 2014
Reposted from the earlier thread:


Really-Skippy, it was the stupid over there so what for you want to repeat it over here, eh? But you do look nice in that silly looking pointy cap on your head.

Until you tell these smart people what these morte flaws is you just got to keep wearing that silly looking thing and sit yourself in the corner.

Laissez les bons temps rouler Really-Skippy and please stop disrupting the smart peoples some of us want to learn things.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (13) Mar 17, 2014
Hi a_a. :)
Another repost from that earlier thread:

Why do you repost your own stuff? Stop spamming. If it didn't get a response over there it isn't going to get one here.

Who said it didn't get a response there? It did. That is the point of reposting it here for the information of those reading this 'update' thread who may have missed the relevant posts/exchange in that earlier thread.

No further comments on this from me. No time to waste on patent BS like that. Take the time to read the pdf/papers for yourself (without the giddy schoolgirl-like excitement) and without 'wishful thinking' bias, and you'll see the fatal flaws for yourself.

Gotta go, can't stay and chat. Very busy. Good luck. Cheers. :)
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (11) Mar 17, 2014
Why do you repost your own stuff? Stop spamming. If it didn't get a response over there it isn't going to get one here.

@AA_P
he is sharing a post that I put up about his first post above.
He said
Even on a first read through the pdf, at least 4 fatal flaws jump out. At least 1 systemic flaw, at least 2 assumptive flaws and at least 1 procedural flaw.
and I felt it wrong, and replied
really, BAD FORM to throw out a claim and NOT POST/LINK PROOF you slam them and then just "move on" without showing the data/proof? Thats nothing but Trolling, and you should be ashamed of yourself especially because you dont back up what you say!

so he felt it necessary to defend it, as well as his comments here as well as on the other thread

I still feel it was wrong to sling that comment without posting links/references at LEAST to proof that the
'science work' of this 'team' is more 'iffy' than much of what I've read in/from the 'mainstream' literature/activities over the years
antialias_physorg
4.7 / 5 (14) Mar 17, 2014
Who said it didn't get a response there? It did.

So doubly no reason to spam it here again. Go troll somewhere else.

That is the point of reposting it here for the information of those reading this 'update' thread who may have missed the relevant posts/exchange in that earlier thread.

You may have a tiiiiiny bit overinflated sense of self - you know that, don't you?

No further comments on this from me.

That's a relief. Promise?
Captain Stumpy
4.7 / 5 (13) Mar 17, 2014
Take it easy, mate; you know I've no time for BS like that

@RealityCheck
then why did you sling the below comment without PROOF
Maybe I'll put a late-edit 'cautionary tale' footnote about this latest 'joke science' effort in my upcoming ToE book. For now, I just wanted to put it on the phys.org record that the 'science work' of this 'team' is more 'iffy' than much of what I have read in/from the 'mainstream' literature/activities over the years!

I am not dropping THIS one... you can say what you want about the PDF's, because you may/may not understand them, and I dont care
BUT
you made a claim about the team, now JUSTIFY it or retract it. It is BAD FORM to post it without links/proof supporting you.
I really thought you were above this particular type of trolling!
Q-Star
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 17, 2014
I really thought you were above this particular type of trolling!


He's known far and wide for this type of trolling. Ask anyone who has been here for more than a year or so.
Pippero
Mar 17, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (15) Mar 17, 2014
Hi CaptS. :)

@RealityCheck
then why did you sling the below comment without PROOF

I am not dropping THIS one... you can say what you want about the PDF's, because you may/may not understand them, and I dont care
BUT
you made a claim about the team, now JUSTIFY it or retract it. It is BAD FORM to post it without links/proof supporting you.
I really thought you were above this particular type of trolling!
I just posted that for the record, no more than that. Like I said, I haven't any more precious time to waste on BS like that, nor on long discussions of that or anything else lately. So, mate, since when does the post/opinion of a 'troll' have any bearing on the 'due diligence' reading/understanding you and others should be doing for yourselves, instead of getting all hot and bothered about what a 'troll' says? Go to it, CaptS, everyone! Bye for now. :)
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.1 / 5 (10) Mar 17, 2014
Zephyr, you odious and ignorant little SOB, you are nothing but a wind from your better's backside.
I cant help but admire his audacity.

So we havent yet detected gravity waves directly, only the effects of them on the CMB. Does this suggest a similar way of imaging them for more mundane events like supernovae and neutron star or black hole mergers? Just wondering.
I just posted that for the record, no more than that. Like I said, I haven't any more precious time to waste on BS like that
-But you had time to waste claiming to find fault with an exhaustively-vetted study, after only a casual glance at it.

So honored to be visitated by such an extreme intellect as you must possess sir. Why with sufficient time you could have conjured the whole thing by yourself I bet.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (14) Mar 17, 2014
Hi Ghost. :)
So honored to be visitated by such an extreme intellect as you must possess sir. Why with sufficient time you could have conjured the whole thing by yourself I bet.

No sweat, mate. It took little time to find the obvious flaws. And since I was reading through here anyway, I just took a few moments to post a 'heads up' for the record, especially to those who may want to read the above paper/work with less 'rose colored glasses', that's all. You can do your own due diligence and come to your own conclusions, can't you? Go to it. :)

Lex Talonis
1 / 5 (14) Mar 17, 2014
I can prove and have concrete evidence of gravity waves.

And no, the big bang never happened.

I can prove and have concrete evidence of this too.

Gawad
5 / 5 (9) Mar 17, 2014
the space-time curvature monotonously increases with distance.


Q: Can you guess what is more monotonous than the increase of a BH's ST curvature at infinity?

A: Your infinate droning.

It simply gives no meaning.
Well, yes, you're certainly THE expert at that.
Gawad
4.6 / 5 (11) Mar 17, 2014
sabine hossenfelder (yes, this little piece of garbage actually came on here for a while trying to impersonate Sabine Hossenfelder to sockpuppet support for his babbling nonsense
LOL, "sabine hossenfelder" was a true Sabine Hossenfelder..:-))
No, it was actually you, confirmed by MORE than just your typical, idiomatic bad grammer. It also makes you an inveterate, pathological liar. But of course, we know that already. Between you and Motl I have to wonder what the hell they're putting in the damn Pilsner to give organic brain damage. No wonder the Slovaks wanted to get the hell away from you guys.
big_hairy_jimbo
5 / 5 (21) Mar 17, 2014
To Zeph and Sockpuppets, why, why, why do you continue to post here.
Surely by now it is obvious that no one appreciates your posts whatsoever. You've sprouted far too much shit, and lost all credibility with your blatant disregard to the scientific method, and your continual preaching of pseudoscience. Just give it up mate, and move on to somewhere else. Look you can still read stuff from here, just don't post here!! Most of this thread is full of your shit, and people (like me right now) wasting everyone's time by telling you to piss off.

Right, we should get back to appreciating this moment in scientific history.
Hopefully this research will now shed some light on how to fine tune our gravitational wave detectors, given their high probability (if not certainty) of existence.
A pat on the back for all those researchers who didn't give up on gravitational wave research.

Einstein would be proud.
meBigGuy
5 / 5 (11) Mar 17, 2014
Realitycheck spends more time posting how he doesn't have time than it would take to post 1 flaw. Obviously a total fraud. Quite pathetic.

Not that I ever agreed or ever will agree with Zephyr the data discovered can be interpreted as supportive of inflationary theory, but not proof. In other words, if you assume inflationary theory is correct, the findings have interesting implications. But they don't prove inflationary theory is correct (not that I don't generally assume it is correct).

http://www.prepos...kground/

Zephyr provides useful input in that we know that most everything he says is wrong, so we know what things the new findings probably do not represent. Perhaps an inverse meta study of Zephyr's ramblings could uncover the truth!

Pippero
Mar 17, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
yyz
5 / 5 (11) Mar 17, 2014
It seems these results greatly strengthen the case for primordial gravitational waves seen in Planck and WMAP data and recently posted here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.3919
Gawad
5 / 5 (12) Mar 17, 2014
Which reason I could have for promotion and linking her ArXiv articles at PhysOrg under her name?


Why none at all, of course, which completely explains why Ms Hossenfelder would be on Physorg all of a sudden, of all places, to post in support of your psychosis, while spontaneously displaying YOUR "speech impediments" in her posts but only her posts on Physorg. Wow, you're an even bigger joke than you can understand.

Think twice...
Twice? Tell you what, how about you start by thinking just ONCE. Oh, and all that oxygen you've used up since you were born, you OWE us that back, man.
indio007
1.4 / 5 (11) Mar 17, 2014
It's amusing watching the knives come out when the datasets this is a derivative of is flawed if not outright fraud.
WMAP: A Radiological Analysis

http://www.ptep-o...8-01.PDF]http://www.ptep-o...8-01.PDF[/url]

COBE: A Radiological Analysis

http://www.ptep-o...8-01.PDF]http://www.ptep-o...8-01.PDF[/url]

Major journals have reported scientific fraud is at epidemic proportions and that it has risen 10000% since the 1970's.

People's are directly related to being able to pay themselves via grants.
http://goo.gl/HO62iI

Imagine if an entire field on inquiry disappeared along with the billions of dollars that goes with it because a theory has proven untenable.

Pippero
Mar 17, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
orti
1.7 / 5 (3) Mar 17, 2014
Wow. Everything, everything – space, time, matter, energy, and physical forces and law – sprang into existence in an instant.
Howhot
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 17, 2014
Yeah, this is good stuff. This is Nobel material. Someone is going to Sweden on this.
Eddy Courant
1 / 5 (3) Mar 17, 2014
WOW!!! First the Higgs, now g-waves. Can the triple 7 be far behind?
TransmissionDump
5 / 5 (10) Mar 17, 2014
His fiction would be on par with the crap that hateful Westboro Baptist spreads. He's dying, so there really may be a god, but it won't be "AWT".

May Zephyr learn wisdom and pigs fly.


i just had a visual of a small bunch of people waving ":God hates mainstream science" placards at the AWT and EU funeral.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (14) Mar 18, 2014
So when someone refuses to parrot the mainstream interpretation and uses his own head, it just means, it disregards the scientific method?

@zeph
no... it means that because you continually refuse to utilise the scientific method, there is no basis which underpins your conjecture, and as there is no empirical data supporting your claims, they therefore have all the same validity as saying "Panther urine causes illegitimate babies to be born leprechauns"
just because you believe in pseudoscience, doen't mean it is legitimate, or even true. It is NO DIFFERENT than believing in a religion. In fact, the correlations are quite the same: you have no valid scientific base for the belief, no empirical data to support the claims of the belief, and it is more of a belief even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, therefore it is your religion
it is NOT scientific, nor insight, if it is blatantly false and already debunked
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (11) Mar 18, 2014
HUGE deal guys! This is on the same scale as discovering the Higgs boson. The detection of primordial gravitational waves all but confirms the inflationary theory!

Thanks for posting the links, AM. To me (as with finding the Higgs boson), more remarkable than the discovery is the genius, ingenuity and effort on the part of many to first predict the nature of it, and then to design, make, calibrate and operate the equipment to detect and display it.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (12) Mar 18, 2014
HUGE deal guys! This is on the same scale as discovering the Higgs boson. The detection of primordial gravitational waves all but confirms the inflationary theory!

A HUGE THANK YOU to axemaster for his posts of the links
and for his reddit and video contributions as well
http://www.reddit...ontext=3
see thread here for more
http://phys.org/n...nal.html
bluehigh
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 18, 2014
The beam maps do not provide a good estimate of differential gain so we substitute estimates.

- from the arXiv preprint.

A guess?

Add an assumption, a presumption and "uncertainty in foreground modeling is currently the lack of a polarized dust map".

Flawed research with manipulated data to fit a model.

Independent replication please.

Maybe they have a loose cable or simply have a screw loose.

yep
1.7 / 5 (11) Mar 18, 2014
And what these philosophers of science are saying is, give us one free miracle, and we will roll from that point forward – from the birth of time to the crack of doom! – just one free miracle, and then it will all unravel according to natural law, and these bizarre equations which nobody can understand but which are so holy in this enterprise. "Terence McKenna"
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (8) Mar 18, 2014
Too much to write about in these short comments. However: new, mostly unexpected, physics, the biggest thing since dark energy and a most needed injection into physics.

Quantum gravity (likely quantum fluctuations = gravitons, not classical fluctuations)! And consistent with Planck et cetera, in fact smack on its (weak at 1-2 sigma) evidence for "spectral running" (tilt of the spectra) at ~ -0.015, unless I'm mistaken.

Nit: "just theory" confuse layman use of "theory" with the established of "scientific theory". It should be "insufficiently tested theory" (since the physics consensus had trouble with the implications of inflation outside its benefits).
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (10) Mar 18, 2014
If there was one instance that I wished trolls and crackpots of "alternate science/philosophy of science" and "alternate reality/miracle magic" stayed away, it is then something really exciting is presented.

Alas, human nature dictates that even small-brained idiots get excited if hit with something large enough. :-/
Gawad
5 / 5 (8) Mar 18, 2014
OH MY GOD! Someone on Physorg staff STILL CARES! All of, what was it, Pippero's (?) posts have just gone POOF! It seems like YEARS!

Hey Staff, "Zachia" IS THE SAME GUY. If it deserves to be banned, no sense in banning just one copy. And yes, I'm reporting my own post to make sure you know.
GSwift7
5 / 5 (8) Mar 18, 2014
Okay, so now we get to make popcorn and wait for the other experiments examining this to release their results, and compare (assuming nobody finds a fatal flaw in Bicep2 before then).

I believe the Planck mission is planning to release their polarization data sometime in the near future, and that should be very high quality data.

It's always interesting to get independent data sets from different instruments. It's even more interesting when they don't agree, because you always learn something you didn't know before when that happens.

This is surely Nobel level work, but with multiple projects working on it, do you just give the prize to the first one to cross the finish line? Planck data is likely to reveal detail that Bicep2 was incapable of revealing, for example.
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (11) Mar 18, 2014
Awww, isn't it cute! I see some 'scientists' here still naively believe/trust that 'the right maths' will 'obviate' all logical and/or assumptive and/or procedural/setup errors inherent in the exercise itself? GIGO guaranteed no matter the 'maths techniques'.

Touching in a way; like little children still believing in Santa Clause even when grown up.

Take my hint. Re-read papers/work without 'maths-trust' biased 'blinkers' on. Then see just how quickly the flaws jump out at you out of the 'blizzard' of 'pretty maths overlays' in inherently flawed exercise no 'maths' can rescue from its inherent flaws.

If you've 'read it through' and can't see the flaws, then no wonder 'peer review' gives 'passes' to overwhelming instances of fraudulent/nonsense 'science' (as recent experiment reported on here in phys.org patently proved happens too often).

"Remember: Reality first; Maths second; Always." ---RC.

And what was it Einsten said about "mathematicians" taking over his theory etc? :)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Mar 18, 2014
RC,
Linearity is a process not to be mistaken for stupidity. Remember, reality is only 2/3rds of the whole.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (7) Mar 18, 2014
Take my hint. Re-read papers/work without 'maths-trust' biased 'blinkers' on. Then see just how quickly the flaws jump out at you


I see a lot of words... I feel a lot of hot air.

All talk and no substance is sort of sad to watch.
indio007
1 / 5 (1) Mar 18, 2014
Have any of you considered this polarization phenomena is caused by super oscillations?

Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 18, 2014
RC,
Linearity is a process not to be mistaken for stupidity. Remember, reality is only 2/3rds of the whole.


It's hard not to mistake the Really-Skippy for being stupid like he is. So far he says nothing around here that a person could mistake as smart.
indio007
not rated yet Mar 18, 2014
Polarization singularities in the clear sky
M V Berry, M R Dennis and R L Lee Jr

http://www.dtic.m...5834.pdf
Abstract. Ideas from singularity theory provide a simple account of the
pattern of polarization directions in daylight. The singularities (two near the
Sun and two near the anti-Sun) are points in the sky where the polarization
line pattern has index +1/2 and the intensity of polarization is zero. The
singularities are caused by multiple scattering that splits into two each of
the unstable index +1 singularities at the Sun and anti-Sun, which occur
in the single-dipole scattering (Rayleigh) theory. The polarization lines are
contours of an elliptic integral. For the intensity of polarization (unnormalized
degree), it is necessary to incorporate the strong depolarizing effect of multiple
scattering near the horizon. Singularity theory is compared with new digital
images of sky polarization, and gives an excellent description of the pattern
of polarization directions. For the intensity of polarization, the theory can
reproduce not only the zeros but also subtle variations in the polarization maxima.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Mar 18, 2014
Take my hint. Re-read papers/work without 'maths-trust' biased 'blinkers' on.

@RealityCheck
how about taking THIS hint: put up or shut up!
You've crashed this thread and TROLLED enough... now either post your proofs or troll elsewhere!

It is ESPECIALLY irritating that you bashed the team in your initial TROLL comment, but bashing the work without linking/showing proof is nothing short of a ZEPHIR move
talk is cheap
and your continual bashing is irritating
lay it out for the working joe's on the page and spell out your GIGO proof! Show us all how brilliant you are... or are you now going to CONTINUE to post that crap about "not having time"
you sure had enough TIME to post your OWN GARBAGE and TROLL the thread!

failure to provide PROOF of your CLAIMS is just reinforcing the fact that you are TROLLING and it makes YOU NO BETTER than the people you have condemned here in the past with your admonishments.

POST PROOF OR GO AWAY
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (6) Mar 19, 2014
Not sure it will work, Cap'n. All those dang plagiarists, you know...
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Mar 19, 2014
deleted...
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (8) Mar 19, 2014
FYI repost
a_p: :)
I don't suffer from 'publish or perish disease' like you/they do
You couldn't publish if your life depended on it... ...so yeah: 'perish' is your only option in life.
There is a perfect example of what passes for 'due diligence' in the minds of mainstream pretenders today. You've no actual coherent idea of what my complete and consistent ToE work entails/explains, yet you make a self-satisfied 'interpretation' which confirms your bias and soothes your personal ego. The fact that 'peer review' has failed all too many times (as recently confirmed via internet experiment reported on this site), doesn't even bother you at all. Instead you lash out at the messenger who calls "OBVIOUS BS". It's lose-lose proposition engaging with you lot. Blame yourselves for why I won't say anymore. I am lone, scrupulously independent researcher into the real universal physics, in it 'for the long haul'. So "Publish or Perish" is MOOT for me and my work/goals. Capisce? :)
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (9) Mar 19, 2014
You've no actual coherent idea of what my complete and consistent ToE work entails/explains

True, because you obviously don't have an idea yourself. So how am I going to know what your ToE entails if you haven't got one? That would be a miracle.

The fact that 'peer review' has failed all too many times (as recently confirmed via internet experiment reported on this site), doesn't even bother you at all.

What do you mean by 'too many times'? Substantially less than 1% of times? I don't see that as the sort of 'massive' crisis that you do. the kind of failure rate peer review has is better than...well... a lot of other things you're actually staking your life on. So I call 'hypocritical BS' on that claim.

Blame yourselves for why I won't say anymore

I don't know if there would be anyone (in the world) that wouldn't be ecstatic if you'd just shut up. So yeah: I guess we can all live with the 'blame' of losing your input. Don't worry your pretty little head.
Q-Star
5 / 5 (8) Mar 19, 2014
You've no actual coherent idea of what my complete and consistent ToE work entails/explains,


Neither do ya, neither do ya. Your TOE is just as I described, one of your trolling tools. Ya made your reputation with it.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (8) Mar 19, 2014
a_p: :)

You've no actual coherent idea of what my complete and consistent ToE work entails/explains
True, because you obviously don't have an idea yourself.
More self-justifying 'interpretation' of data you've missed/hasn't been divulged? You lot want it both ways: You 'don't know', yet you 'know for sure'. Is that it?

fact that 'peer review' has failed too many times (as recently confirmed via internet experiment reported on this site), doesn't even bother you... What do you mean by 'too many times'? Substantially less than 1% of times? Does 'tip of the iceberg' mean anything to you? If peer review can seriously FAIL ONCE, it can have failed MANY MORE TIMES than that. Especially if fails are unnoticed in the headlong rush by 'peers' to 'publish' their own BS.

Blame yourselves for why I won't say more

I don't know if there would be anyone (in the world) that wouldn't be ecstatic if you'd just shut up.
Yeah, kill the messenger!
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (8) Mar 19, 2014
Quote corrections:
a_p: :)

You've no actual coherent idea of what my complete and consistent ToE work entails/explains
True, because you obviously don't have an idea yourself.
More self-justifying 'interpretation' of data you've missed/hasn't been divulged? You want it both ways: You 'don't know', yet you 'know for sure'. That it?

fact that 'peer review' has failed too many times (as recently confirmed via internet experiment reported on this site), doesn't even bother you...
What do you mean by 'too many times'? Substantially less than 1% of times?
Does 'tip of the iceberg' mean anything? If peer review can seriously FAIL ONCE, it can have failed MANY MORE TIMES than that. Especially if fails are unnoticed in the headlong rush by 'peers' to 'publish' their own BS.

Blame yourselves for why I won't say more

I don't know if there would be anyone that wouldn't be ecstatic if you'd just shut up.
Yeah, kill the messenger! :)
animah
5 / 5 (8) Mar 19, 2014
Yeah, kill the messenger!

You can't be a messenger without a message. Present your TOE or shut up.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (8) Mar 19, 2014
Hi animah. :)

Yeah, kill the messenger!

You can't be a messenger without a message. Present your TOE or shut up.

I've posted over many years, bits of it to encourage original/objective discussion of the salient issues. The forums aren't conducive to more, since they are infested with mod-troll gangs who will distort/censor and otherwise 'bury' under character assassination and lies and banning tactics whatever the points being made which did not suit their 'mainstream orthodoxy' beliefs/interpretations of data irrespective of new evidence/interpretations presented.

Why hit your head against a brick wall made of clowns and mainstream pretenders who would rather troll and gossip about the personality than the science? Go figure why I've 'shut up' posting more ToE tidbits!

Please read my replies to you/others in the other threads related to this gravity-waves etc papers/topic. Don't believe their lies re RealityCheck. Good luck and good thinking to you, animah. :)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Mar 20, 2014
Please read my replies to you/others in the other threads related to this gravity-waves etc papers/topic. Don't believe their lies re RealityCheck.
@RealityCheck
provide proof of me lying just once (even my mis-statements/mistakes I correct). Better yet, provide proof of me lying about YOU as you claim. It is NOT PRESENT, in this thread or any other.
HOWEVER, I CAN provide proof that you TROLLED the threads, offered NO EMPIRICAL DATA TO BACK UP YOUR CONJECTURES and STILL will not address any point I asked you address...
I have NOT asked about your ToE ITT, only for you to support your claims

If you are going to throw derogatory comments, I suggest you provide support for those arguments... if I wont back down from Otto or anyone else, what makes you think I will back off from YOU?

As far as I am concerned right now... you are a TROLL until you start supporting your arguments with proof

time to put up or shut up.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Mar 20, 2014
Does 'tip of the iceberg' mean anything to you?

Since they took representative samples: it means nothing in this context. You fail at statistics. If you fail at such a simple observation I can guess how badly your 'ToE' is constructed. it'll boil down to "god did it" using tech-terms you haven't the slightest grasp of yourself.

Peer review works remarkably well if you consider that it's not like quality checks in ANY other field humans are engaged in. In all other fields you have things you can compare to - objective quality standards to test against. But every scientific paper is something entirely new and at the point of publishing NO other expert to that degree exists in the world besides the author(s) and NO other publication on exactly the same matter exists to compare it to.
That there are so many engaged people doing peer review to such a good degree is amazing.
Rutzs
3.3 / 5 (3) Mar 20, 2014
I am so glad that there is a rating filter in these comments. Unfortunately its filled 5stars of people replying to the loonies. Just ignore them and they will go away. Rate them 1, and default the filter to view anything above 3 stars.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Mar 20, 2014
If you fail at such a simple observation I can guess how badly your 'ToE' is constructed. it'll boil down to "god did it" using tech-terms you haven't the slightest grasp of yourself.

Peer review works remarkably well if you consider that it's not like quality checks in ANY other field humans are engaged in. In all other fields you have things you can compare to - objective quality standards to test against. But every scientific paper is something entirely new and at the point of publishing NO other expert to that degree exists in the world besides the author(s) and NO other publication on exactly the same matter exists to compare it to.
That there are so many engaged people doing peer review to such a good degree is amazing.

Peer review is how we statistically observe. Tier one analyzes the data, Tier 2 analyzes the 1st, Tier 3 does the same to 2 and so on... Watching the detectives... LOVE it!
version782
not rated yet Mar 20, 2014
Where is the best place to read up on aether wave theory?
Q-Star
5 / 5 (10) Mar 20, 2014
Where is the best place to read up on aether wave theory?


Why right here of course. It generally makes it's way into every discussion. Biology, chemistry, astrophysics, sociology, cold fusion, war on drugs,,,, doesn't matter, the AWT is a very flexible "theory of everything".
rockwolf1000
5 / 5 (6) Mar 20, 2014
Where is the best place to read up on aether wave theory?


Why right here of course. It generally makes it's way into every discussion. Biology, chemistry, astrophysics, sociology, cold fusion, war on drugs,,,, doesn't matter, the AWT is a very flexible "theory of everything".


Or possibly your local garbage dump.
Gawad
5 / 5 (8) Mar 20, 2014
Where is the best place to read up on aether wave theory?


Why right here of course. It generally makes it's way into every discussion. Biology, chemistry, astrophysics, sociology, cold fusion, war on drugs,,,, doesn't matter, the AWT is a very flexible "theory of everything".


Absolutly. To add to what Q-Star has said, AWT is the Great oversung hero of the ToA (Theories of Anything). Indeed, Jigga, Zephyr, Sloten, Alizee, Zachia, et al. have repeatedly and convincingly demonstrated that Dense (and we mean REALLY, REALLY DENSE) AWT can predict Anything and Everything from NO PRINCIPALS. It's like, you know, "gee whiz bang! Or really more like "Gee Whiz Whosh!" It's like Magic and God all rolled into One.

You really must check it out, version782.
Jizby
Mar 20, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Jizby
Mar 20, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Mar 20, 2014
Hi Captain Stumpy. :)

Please see my two posts to you in the 'cosmic dust' thread:
http://phys.org/n...sus.html

I wasn't accusing YOU of lying, mate; I did NOT have you in mind when I posted that the Q-S et al trolls and frauds were lying about me.

Will link to something in the near future for your interest. Cheers. :)

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Mar 20, 2014
Hi Whyde. :)

Peer review is how we statistically observe. Tier one analyzes the data, Tier 2 analyzes the 1st, Tier 3 does the same to 2 and so on... Watching the detectives... LOVE it!

And when the latest internet experiment (reported on here in phys.org recently) proves that a more than significant number of 'computer generated nonsense' were 'passed by peer review', does it make you stop and think twice about trusting the 'practice/reality' of the 'peer review system' as much as you admire the 'intent' of that 'Tier structure/process'?

Beware mistaking expectation with actuality when outcomes are so flawed (as proven there by experiment!).

Imagine how many 'scientific' papers 'passed peer review' simply because reviewers either automatically assumed they were 'correct' because reviewers were 'inculcated' in the same 'assumptive vein' which led to the papers! Then imagine how many papers did NOT pass because the reviewers could not 'accept' novel concepts not 'in vein'?
Uncle Ira
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 20, 2014
I wasn't accusing YOU of lying, mate; I did NOT have you in mind when I posted that the Q-S et al trolls and frauds were lying about me.

Will link to something in the near future for your interest. Cheers. :)


@ Really-Skippy you really playing the couyon today you. Why you call every one the liar when they answer the questions and you tell the smart peoples what you know and for them to just believe you know, eh?

Captain-Skippy and Maggnus-Skippy and Q-Skippy and Whydening-Skippy all tell the truth since ol Ira has been watching them. It is not bad that you don't know anything about anything no, there is lots that ol Ira-Skippy don't know peoples just mistake me for the scientist because I use the google.

You should sit down and be the quiet man now and maybe one day you won't have to wear that silly looking pointy cap for all the smart peoples to make fun of you, eh?

Laissez les bons temps rouler, eh? How old you is Really-Skippy, about 14 or 12 years you?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Mar 20, 2014
Hi a_p. :)

Does 'tip of the iceberg' mean anything to you?

Since they took representative samples: it means nothing in this context. You fail at statistics. If you fail at such a simple observation I can guess how badly your 'ToE' is constructed. it'll boil down to "god did it" using tech-terms you haven't the slightest grasp of yourself.


You know what they say: There are lies; then there damn lies; and then there are statistics. :)

And the slew of recent 'computer program generated nonsense papers' demonstrated fatal flaws in the peer review process. Some flaws due to some of the very things you just mentioned.

That was my point. If even ONE paper passes that should not have passed, and that paper is later used/cited by others and those are 'trusted' and help to 'convince/pass' that later paper, and so on and on...the cascade of nonsense soon becomes INBUILT into the 'process' and the 'science' base from which reviewers work!

ONE serious fail is too many. :)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Mar 20, 2014
Hi Whyde. :)

Peer review is how we statistically observe. Tier one analyzes the data, Tier 2 analyzes the 1st, Tier 3 does the same to 2 and so on... Watching the detectives... LOVE it!

And when the latest internet experiment (reported on here in phys.org recently) proves that a more than significant number of 'computer generated nonsense' were 'passed by peer review', does it make you stop and think twice about trusting the 'practice/reality' of the 'peer review system' as much as you admire the 'intent' of that 'Tier structure/process'?

And that's why there are more tiers - called "commentors" on sites like this...
BTW the way - not even a HINT of your TOE? Or is it so simple those dang plagiarists would figure it out?
Gawad
5 / 5 (5) Mar 20, 2014
How old you is Really-Skippy, about 14 or 12 years you?


Yeesh! He's been pickin' at his big toe for something like ten years at least; hate to think he started when he was 4 years old. Then again, it could explain why he's so fucked up...

Y peut bien avoir besoin de s'laisser rouler dans les bon temps (ou au moins se rouler un joint ;^)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Mar 20, 2014
Personally I do believe, that the B-mode anisotropy can really serve as an evidence of gravitational waves, just because these waves are so giant and slow, they appear frozen in time. In 4D general relativity the gravitational wave is already 4D artifact, so it has no additional time arrow available - it cannot simply move there in the same way, like the gravitational waves observed inside of deep space.

What do you think is driving space/time?
DarkHorse66
5 / 5 (5) Mar 21, 2014
How old you is Really-Skippy, about 14 or 12 years you?


Yeesh! He's been pickin' at his big toe for something like ten years at least; hate to think he started when he was 4 years old. Then again, it could explain why he's so fucked up...

Y peut bien avoir besoin de s'laisser rouler dans les bon temps (ou au moins se rouler un joint ;^)

Toe Jam? -->Theory?

Ya know, some people eat the stuff that they pick outta their noses. Perhaps some people do the same with the stuff they pick from 'elsewhere'. Hate to think where some of that could have come from (there's all kinds of nasties on the ground...), or just how toxic THAT might be. Toast, anyone...

Non! Il c'est laisse rouler dans la boue. Maintenant c'est sale. Les pauvres cochons!
(Sorry, english keyboard only)

Salut! Dh66
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Mar 21, 2014
Hi Captain Stumpy. :) Please see my two posts to you in the 'cosmic dust' thread
@RC
and please read my three posts in reply
read them all the way through... You seem to not understand what I keep asking and you cannot seem to address it
Will link to something in the near future for your interest
unless it is proof/links supporting your claims about the team or a retraction, I am not sure I am interested

you still seem to misunderstand what I am driving at. you posted about people saying things that you claim are lies, but you did the exact same thing when you posted unsubstantiated derogatory comments about the team

again: read my reply posts: http://phys.org/n...sus.html

I am specific in what you should be addressing
Gawad
5 / 5 (4) Mar 21, 2014
How old you is Really-Skippy, about 14 or 12 years you?

Toe Jam? -->Theory?

Ya know, some people eat the stuff that they pick outta their noses. Perhaps some people do the same with the stuff they pick from 'elsewhere'. Hate to think where some of that could have come from (there's all kinds of nasties on the ground...), or just how toxic THAT might be.
Salut! Dh66


Wait a minute...are you suggesting RC's psychological problems are actually the result of intoxication from the fungus on his Big TOE? Now things are starting to fall into place! Poor lad! And to think this may have started when he was little more than a toddler! Where the hell were his parents? Well I'm glad at least that we can act as a sort of support group.

(C'est terrible d'en être réduit à ingérer les champis de ses orteilles, mais ça en dit long!)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Mar 21, 2014
@Captain Stumpy. :)
Please first see my posts here: http://phys.org/n...low.html

...and here: http://phys.org/n...nal.html

...and here: http://phys.org/n...sus.html

Ok, if that's your attitude, I won't link to or otherwise bring your attention to anything at all anymore. Your loss.

As for the integrity/tactics of the mod-troll types, just look at the latest string of 'shite' personal garbage from idiots and pretenders above, who pretend they have "seen nothing" from me about my ToE, but then immediately pretend to have any sensible comment to make on it?

At least I READ the work/papers which I cautioned/opined about; but these morons you seem to prefer to run with haven't even a clue as to what they are disparaging, either as to person or work!

But Q-S et al lies and innuendo and distorting/sabotaging real conversation has the effect they intend: it has prejudiced even YOU.

Bye! :)
Q-Star
5 / 5 (6) Mar 21, 2014
At least I READ the work/papers which I cautioned/opined about;


If that were true, ya could point out the "obvious flaws" that jumped out ya. But since ya can't articulate the flaws, ya either didn't read the material. Or more likely didn't get past the first few paragraphs before ya were overwhelmed.

but these morons you seem to prefer to run with haven't even a clue as to what they are disparaging, either as to person or work!


Since ya refuse to discuss the work, all we are left with is the person who has been claiming to have done some work for better on ten years. I left links,,,,,, what have ya left other "woe I'm a poor victim, and the troll-mods and every single person on every forum has abused me sorely".

But Q-S et al lies and innuendo and distorting/sabotaging real conversation


"real conversation"? That is funny thing. Ya like to direct the conversation without contributing anything. That's been your MO for 10 years, I've posted links.

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Mar 21, 2014
Poor Q-S.
If that were true, ya could point out the "obvious flaws" that jumped out ya. But since ya can't articulate the flaws, ya either didn't read the material.
Look who's talking. What original work/understandings have come from YOU? Why waste time pointing out the OBVIOUS that mainstreamers (some have already) will point out quicksmart? You trolls would only make it 'personal' and buried objective info/observations under usual trollshite anyway.
Since ya refuse to discuss the work, all we are left with is the person who has been claiming to have done some work for better on ten years.
I have stopped because of you trolls and risk of plagiarism. How many times will you ignore and lie about that?
Ya like to direct the conversation without contributing anything. That's been your MO for 10 years, I've posted links.
Conversations elsewhere as well, not just here; and I have offered all sorts of novel perspectives. You know but deny and lie about that too. Fraud. :)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Mar 22, 2014
Toe Jam? -->Theory?

Wasn't that a Frank Zappa song...?
(j/k)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (6) Mar 22, 2014
As for the integrity/tactics of the mod-troll types, just look at the latest string of 'shite' personal garbage from idiots and pretenders above, who pretend they have "seen nothing" from me about my ToE, but then immediately pretend to have any sensible comment to make on it?


Once again, RC. Not a mod, troll or even a scientist. Just a simple guy that tries to create beauty with my hands (sometimes successful, sometimes not). Personally, if I had an idea that would aid humanity's growth, I wouldn't give 2 shits about the "plagiarists".
I have see nothing resembling nor even indicating a grand ToE, except your say so that it is.
Along with snide derisive crap about the cabal of "evil", scheming scientists conspiring to steal your ideas.
You need some help, lad...
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Mar 22, 2014
Whyde.
Once again, RC. Not a mod, troll or even a scientist. Just a simple guy that tries to create beauty with my hands (sometimes successful, sometimes not). Personally, if I had an idea that would aid humanity's growth, I wouldn't give 2 shits about the "plagiarists".
Haven't you been reading the news? Plagiarists, scoundrels abound in the scientific 'profession'. What are you, a naive 'artist' or something (sarcasm intended). Why should crooks, frauds, trolls get rich/famous and make the real innovators fight forever for their rights? Come back and tell me how sanguine you would be at this stage if you spent decades of self-sacrificing in terms of family/personal/financial etc in order to work out a complete and consistent ToE which will solve all the arguments. It took decades, like Darwin's, Newton's, Einstein's efforts. Why the 'troll's rush' now that I am soon publishing the lot anyway? And I've discussed only FRACTION of my ToE bits on forums. Get real, 'artist'. :)
MandoZink
5 / 5 (8) Mar 22, 2014
Here's a recent quote from a brilliant theoretical physicist:

"The way I like to think about it, or like to pose it when addressing this issue with people who raise questions about the scientific process, is that one needs to understand that scientists in general do not trust scientists, they trust science. There is a distinction."

Apparently some people here are poorly informed as to the current efforts towards the theory of inflation. You need to have a clue as to the reasons for the theory before you can discuss it. You might download Alan Guth's 2007 paper "Eternal inflation and its implications". Guth did a great interview yesterday explaining both the findings and the absolute need for peer review and verification of the BICEPS2's results.

Reposting statements like
"I will leave it to you all to see if you can spot the 4 (at least!) fatal flaws for yourselves"

and then failing to point them out to those who are currently well informed on this research is just poor.
TheMandorian
3 / 5 (2) Mar 22, 2014
Even cooler.. if This is true then Max Tegmark (Our Mathematical Universe) is also probably true. Because that would indicate that level 1 - 4 multiverses also exist.

Now if someone would only invent a sliding machine.
JimD
2 / 5 (4) Mar 22, 2014
The whole theory of inflation is speculative at best.
MandoZink
5 / 5 (2) Mar 22, 2014
Even cooler.. if This is true then Max Tegmark (Our Mathematical Universe) is also probably true. Because that would indicate that level 1 - 4 multiverses also exist.

Verification of the mechanisms of inflation would lend tremendous evidence to the considerations of Tegmark's multiverse scenarios. The mathematics support it.

Of course some recent mathematical calculations also say there's a statistical certainty we're likely living in a advanced computer simulation. Regardless, you gotta love math. It makes the rules.
TheMandorian
5 / 5 (3) Mar 22, 2014
Hi a_p. :)

That was my point. If even ONE paper passes that should not have passed, and that paper is later used/cited by others and those are 'trusted' and help to 'convince/pass' that later paper, and so on and on...the cascade of nonsense soon becomes INBUILT into the 'process' and the 'science' base from which reviewers work!


Except that's not really how it works. Big Bang cosmology was originally proposed by a Mathematician nearly 100 years ago. He was rejected and considered a quack for decades. It was only years later when mounting evidence started coming in and technology and observation improved that they had to go back and say Wow, it looks like the data really does point us in that direction that guy was not a quack after all. There are several cases like this where ideas that were rejected were later embraced and accepted because of the data.

Those Math guys seem to always be ahead of the curve.

(for some reason I cant remember his name this morning)
Q-Star
5 / 5 (6) Mar 22, 2014
Except that's not really how it works. Big Bang cosmology was originally proposed by a Mathematician nearly 100 years ago. He was rejected and considered a quack for decades. It was only years later when mounting evidence started coming in and technology and observation improved that they had to go back and say Wow, it looks like the data really does point us in that direction that guy was not a quack after all. There are several cases like this where ideas that were rejected were later embraced and accepted because of the data.

Those Math guys seem to always be ahead of the curve.

(for some reason I cant remember his name this morning)


de Sitter (working with Einstein), Friedmann (independently), and Lemaitre (independently and the acknowledged father of BB cosmology) building on the work of Einstein.
Vyhea
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 22, 2014
The whole theory of inflation is speculative at best.


So much more-so than your comment.
Vyhea
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 22, 2014
The whole theory of inflation is speculative at best.

So much more-so than your comment.


Pardon me. I believe I meant to say much LESS-so than your comment.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Mar 22, 2014
if that's your attitude, I won't link to or otherwise bring your attention to anything at all anymore. Your loss
@RC
1-I addressed your points here: http://phys.org/n...sus.html
2-you STILL seem to MISUNDERSTAND MY POINT, but I will give you time to reply
3-as you have not provided empirical data supporting your argument, there is NO LOSS but the time it takes to continue this argument/type the posts
"seen nothing" from me about my ToE
i hate to point this out but I havent seen anything other than conjecture: NOT ONE link/proof supporting an argument, nor ANY EMPIRICAL DATA, so I guess you want to add me to that list(I am not going to go internet hunting for obscure posts on forums to find your ToE as until it is published/supported with empirical data it is no more/better than speculation)
At least I READ the work/papers which I cautioned/opined about
so did I, but I also didnt opine about prior "iffy science"
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Mar 22, 2014
Q-S et al lies and innuendo and distorting/sabotaging real conversation has the effect they intend: it has prejudiced even YOU
@RC
1-no man/woman has the power to make up MY MIND for ME
2-you STILL misunderstand my argument
3-I hate to say this, but Q-Star et al have provided links/proof for their argument, whereas you have NOT done so.
I have the ability to at least go to their LINKS and check out their story and verify what they said, then MAKE UP MY OWN MIND what is going on...
YOU HAVE NOT PROVIDED A SINGLE SUPPORTING LINK/PROOF/DOCUMENTATION/EVIDENCE that the team consistently publishes "iffy science"
I try not to argue historical posts inaccuracy, BUT when I DO (in other posts) I provide links/references to support my argument (which is my primary problem with your SMEAR tactic of the team!)
likely you will assume this is a character attack and that I am "siding with people against you"...
I will tell you what it is: THIS is a REALITY CHECK for YOU.
its Your, not MY, fault
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Mar 22, 2014
But Q-S et al lies and innuendo and distorting/sabotaging real conversation has the effect they intend: it has prejudiced even YOU
@RCheck
one last thing about my personality/thought process
you have plenty of time to argue aback and forth with Q et al, but not enough time to provide proof/links supporting your argument to me?
When a certain person made a comment against/about me, and I argued against him, I PROVIDED LINKS/REFERENCES/PROOF to support my argument, EVEN when it was a personal attack against me and there was a misunderstanding. You can verify this with Maggnus and a few others
YOU personally attacked the historical publications of a WHOLE TEAM and provided exactly ZERO links/references for your comment thus far
In order to make a decision I need evidence. if you DONT provide it, it is a black mark against YOU as I am NOT going to do your homework

this also reinforces Q-stars comments above, and it undermines your argument
it makes you seem whiny and conspiratorial
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Mar 22, 2014
@CptS. Please see my post to you in: http://phys.org/n...sus.html

Goodbye.

PS: I research through Phy.Org ARCHIVES every day while doing my work on screen. I keep a Phys.Org window open even while I work on my other documents. I take regular breaks and check to see what trolls/pretenders have been up to. No time at all to call the troll/BS shite. It will help others if a reality check is given regularly to trolls/BS pretending to mainstream 'authority' and using the RATINGS system as a weapon of intimidation and ganglike tactics. Good luck! :)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (6) Mar 22, 2014
Haven't you been reading the news? Plagiarists, scoundrels abound in the scientific 'profession'. What are you, a naive 'artist' or something (sarcasm intended). Why should crooks, frauds, trolls get rich/famous and make the real innovators fight forever for their rights? Come back and tell me how sanguine you would be at this stage if you spent decades of self-sacrificing in terms of family/personal/financial etc in order to work out a complete and consistent ToE which will solve all the arguments. It took decades, like Darwin's, Newton's, Einstein's efforts. Why the 'troll's rush' now that I am soon publishing the lot anyway? And I've discussed only FRACTION of my ToE bits on forums. Get real, 'artist;)

Anybody detect the indications a persecution/God complex, here?
Q-Star
5 / 5 (7) Mar 22, 2014
Come back and tell me how sanguine you would be at this stage if you spent decades of self-sacrificing in terms of family/personal/financial etc in order to work out a complete and consistent ToE which will solve all the arguments.


Anybody detect the indications a persecution/God complex, here?


At least God sent down a bible with some ideas to ponder on. I'm hoping he doesn't "solve all the arguments", because there would be nothing to talk about on this forum.

But then, if he does "solve all the arguments" my place in history is guaranteed when they teach about his trials and tribulations in the science history classes.

"solve all the arguments", that's rich.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Mar 22, 2014
"solve all the arguments", that's rich.

Just leads to more arguments...:-)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Mar 22, 2014
Come back and tell me how sanguine you would be at this stage if you spent decades of self-sacrificing in terms of family/personal/financial etc in order to work out a complete and consistent ToE which will solve all the arguments. It took decades, like Darwin's, Newton's, Einstein's efforts.

I see it now... All I can say is - don't worry, be happy. Hopefully you still have your family around. Enjoy them and live forward. THEY are all that counts...

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Mar 23, 2014
@Whyde.
Anybody detect the indications a persecution/God complex, here?
No. But I detect a silly troll there.

Just leads to more arguments...:-)
Abstraction-based partial theories do that. Reality based complete theory will obviate all that. That's the point of a complete ToE after all.

I see it now... All I can say is - don't worry, be happy. Hopefully you still have your family around. Enjoy them and live forward. THEY are all that counts...
They and truth in science are equally important. The Humanity and the Science discourse and advancement go hand in hand.

Thanks for the sentiment, though, much appreciated (whether or not it was sarcasm :) ).

Good luck and regards to you and yours also. :)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Mar 23, 2014
[
Thanks for the sentiment, though, much appreciated (whether or not it was sarcasm :) ).

Good luck and regards to you and yours also. :)

No sarcasm intended. Just an understanding and a suggestion.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (1) Mar 24, 2014
@Whyde. Understood. Taken at face value. No hard feelings. Thanks again. Will let you know when publication of the whole is imminent. Good luck. :)
Jizby
Mar 24, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
o_i
1 / 5 (1) Mar 24, 2014
hello everybody can you help me with this thought please , if the universe expanded thousands of light years in a few seconds how did matter travel faster than light :_)
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Mar 24, 2014
Hi Jizby. :) I'd appreciate your comments on a particularly fantastical BB-related mainstream fiction:

The mainstream 'depiction' of the early inflationary feature 'ringing like a bell' with gravitational waves seems a little far fetched. Can you explain how mainstream can seriously and with a straight face still promulgate the obviously self-contradictory notion that a universal feature which contains 'everything' already has boundaries from which hypothetical gravity waves 'reverberate/rebound' etc while the inflation was supposed to proceed at faster than light in earliest hypothesized 'growth' of hypothesized BB-universal construct?

If you don't want to touch that mainstream fantasy even with a ten-foot-pole, then maybe some mainstream pretender here can do the necessary, and try to explain logically, physically (even philosophically if it would help) and lucidly, coherently such obvious starting non-sequitur from which all BB hypothesized 'aftermath' is supposed to 'result'? Ta.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Mar 25, 2014
hello everybody can you help me with this thought please , if the universe expanded thousands of light years in a few seconds how did matter travel faster than light :_)

Wasn't matter til it cooled and slowed down...
Jizby
Mar 25, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Jizby
Mar 25, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Mar 25, 2014
hello everybody can you help me with this thought please , if the universe expanded thousands of light years in a few seconds how did matter travel faster than light :_)

Wasn't matter til it cooled and slowed down...

Try to think of it like this -
Once a packet of anything energetic travels a certain distance, it has had to share some of that energy with the "space" it has travelled thru (along with any other "thing" that occupied that "space". Put a few of them together all travelling in slightly different speed and direction and you will begin to see "coherence". All that jostling around amongst themselves, creates a logjam (if you will.)
Sayeth Dave Bowman - " I see it all so clearly, now"
o_i
1 / 5 (1) Mar 25, 2014
so energy set the speed limit till mass happened then created light ......... :_)
Jizby
Mar 25, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Gawad
5 / 5 (3) Mar 25, 2014
so energy set the speed limit till mass happened then created light ......... :_)


You are confusing mass and matter. You first said matter, now you say mass, as if the two are the same; there're not. Mass is required for matter, but that's only part of it. And you can have mass that doesn't form matter. You'll need to get that sorted out first:

http://profmattst...chotomy/

For clear, level-headed, sensible explanations of physics aimed at the non-expert, Matt Strassler's blog is pure gold, esp. compared to the pseudoscience gobbledygook you'll get from Jizby (a.k.a Zephyr, Aliee, Sloten, etc.--he's had over two dozen log in sockpuppets over the last four years).
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Mar 25, 2014
@Whyde. :)
...share some of that energy with the "space" it has travelled thru (along with any other "thing" that occupied that "space". Put a few of them together all travelling in slightly different speed and direction and you will begin to see "coherence". All that jostling around amongst themselves, creates a logjam...
If mainstream scientists haven't yet been able to identify the coupling mechanism between 'space' and everything in it, how do you know what happened? Can you explain how anything "shares its energy with space"? And then how a 'space' expanding faster than lightspeed can have anything interacting with its neighbors who are all supposedly moving along some DIVERGING radial vector of their own in that expanding 'space' at faster than lightspeed too? And how can a universe containing everything inflating at faster than light speed can have 'boundary walls' supposedly "ringing like a bell/reverberating with gravity waves"?

Should be interesting. Go to it! :)
o_i
1 / 5 (1) Mar 26, 2014
thank you Gawad just read through the article and all the following views and answers , there is quite a lot to wrap my head around but it is explained in an understandable way , almost , the matter and mass thing is a mad one but i get the gist of it , but i still don't get how everything in whatever state of energy or near matter obtained light speed or faster than light speed in the first few seconds of the start :_)
Gawad
5 / 5 (4) Mar 26, 2014
but i still don't get how everything in whatever state of energy or near matter obtained light speed or faster than light speed in the first few seconds of the start :_)
The answer to that is simple in a way, but can also be difficult to wrap your head around, as it doesn't speak to our ordinary human experience. All the stuff you're thinking about here–particles, both massive and massless–while moving IN space at light speed or less (given that THAT's speed limit they must obey), were also being drawn apart by the expansion of space itself. And SPACE was expanding must faster than light because SPACE itself doesn't have a limit as far as how fast it can grow, or shrink, or twist–unlike the stuff moving IN IT. In fact, because of the continued expansion of SPACE even now, there are galaxies on opposite sides of our observable patch of the universe moving fast then light with respect to each other. http://curious.as...mber=575
Jizby
Mar 26, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Mar 26, 2014
@Gawad. :)

Very glib, but unfortunately mainstream physics has not yet identified 'coupling mechanism' with spacetime that allows mass of a planet to 'curve' its surrounding spacetime.

Nor has it yet explained how universally 'flat' geodesics are 'curved' and how 'spacetime' couples to infalling masses to redirect that mass from otherwise 'flat' spacetime geodesic path.

Let alone yet explain how 'expanding spacetime' couples to galaxies mass to 'grab' them and 'take/push' them ALONG with 'expanding spacetime' at whatever 'expansion speed'.

Until mainstream physics DOES identify & explain 'spacetime-to-mass' COUPLING mechanism and 'necessary forces' to make masses 'move along with it' (hypothesized inflation/expansion) or 'change course within it' (gravitationally affected geodesics), then it's all mainstream hypothesis/conjecture, not 'explanation' of anything.

Perhaps those 'glib' non-explanatory 'fairy tales' should have a 'disclaimer' like that above attached until then? :)
Gawad
5 / 5 (4) Mar 26, 2014
Very glib, but unfortunately mainstream physics has not yet identified 'coupling mechanism' with spacetime that allows mass of a planet to 'curve' its surrounding spacetime.
Congrats, that's the 1st non-stupid thing I've seen you write! You are correct!

Let alone how 'expanding spacetime' couples to galaxies mass to 'grab' them and 'take/push' them ALONG with 'expanding spacetime' at whatever 'expansion speed'.
True AGAIN! (With one tiny caveat: there's no pushing or pulling, it's just the space being added between).

Until mainstream physics DOES identify & explain 'spacetime-to-mass' COUPLING mechanism...then it's all mainstream hypothesis/conjecture.
You don't need every part to know you're on to something. E.g., current expansion has solid evidence.

Perhaps those 'glib' [blah, blah] should have a 'disclaimer' like that above attached until then?
Mainstreamer Penrose has some really relevent concerns (IMO) about inflation if you care to look them up.
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (4) Mar 27, 2014
Gawad, :)
Congrats, that's the 1st non-stupid thing I've seen you write! You are correct!
I'm sure that if I read back in archives I could find something which would allow me to return compliment. Thanks. :)
True AGAIN! (With one tiny caveat: there's no pushing or pulling, it's just the space being added between).
Then that leaves you to explain where your 'recession velocity faster than light' geodesics come into it for distant galaxies, doesn't it? But you now on the right track if not quite there yet. :)
You don't need every part to know you're on to something. E.g., current expansion has solid evidence.
Interpretations from abstract assumptive-laden theory (Epicycles, remember?) may lead you astray. Danger Will Robinson! :)
Mainstreamer Penrose has some really relevent concerns (IMO) about inflation if you care to look them up
I've quoted him often re 'time' and 'before BB' etc to remind people he at least is prepared to re-think! :)
o_i
not rated yet Mar 27, 2014
thank you Gawad , Jizby , Realitycheck , so it's like blowing a balloon up the stuff the air going in can only go as fast or as far as the balloon allows them to , sort of , so what is the balloon pressing out against if the balloon is supposed to be everything that is , and could inflation be centrifugal force sort of :_)
Uncle Ira
4 / 5 (4) Mar 27, 2014
@ Really-Skippy I got the suggestion for you me. I'm not the scientist so maybe ol Ira is missing something in your game, eh? But you still seem like you want to be the Big Chief you.

Now podna, why you don't tell the smart peoples what you think? All you ever do is ask them what they think and then tell them that is wrong. You try to make them think you know the big things better and they are missing something but you never say what is right. Only the beaucoup words to say they missing something. Is that your game Cher? Pretend you know by asking what you think is the smart question without getting out on the branch by telling them what you know that they don't know?

It only work for the little time before they all realize that you Really-Don't-Have-The-Smarts that you Really-Skippy want thems to thing you have, eh?
o_i
1 / 5 (1) Mar 28, 2014
i'm not sure if that is aimed at my question or not Uncle Ira ..... but i am not a scientist either i am a poet really who is thinking about stuff that i do not seem to be able to find satisfactory answers to , but i think the big bang stuff has slipped well past theory into pure imagination , instead of saying we do not know , some are saying light speed has been passed and some say no , some say we are all from a iddy biddy super stuffed point in nothing , but to be there in the first place there must of been something to be there in , and that life came from an interaction of cells in a chemical soup , but what is that thing floating around inside your head we call thought , it is not just a held together result of external stimuluse , is that how you spell stimuluse hehe , if you have your eyes shut and your ears filled you are still able to think and imagine things that do not exist in your senses , but all thoughts on any of my unknowingnessess are welcome ty :_)
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Mar 30, 2014
@Poor poor poor Uncle Ira.

Poor poor poor Uncle Ira can't make any sense at all with all that cognitive dissonance floating round in the form of that haze of weed smoke and booze mist he's made all by himself. Lay off the puff 'n stuff, dude!
mohammadshafiq_khan_1
Apr 10, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
o_i
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 17, 2014
aye sort of what i was thinking , ty mohammadshafiq khan 1 :_)