Is cosmic radiation the dawn of new physics or statistical slip-up?

Aug 05, 2014 by Geraint Lewis, The Conversation
The universe still holds many secrets. Credit: Aaron Landry/Flickr, CC BY-NC-SA

Recent observations suggest that there is something not quite right with our view of our universe – that something is skewing our view of the oldest radiation arriving at our telescopes.

What's causing this skewing? Is it new fundamental physics, or something as bizarre as a collision with another universe?

While these are extremely exciting, a study published today in the Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics suggests the solution is much more mundane – it's the way the data was originally analysed that produced apparently significant anomalies.

Science fiction author Isaac Asimov famously said: "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'that's funny'."

So what's so funny?

Scientists are always looking for anomalies, those bits of experimental data and observations that disagree with prevailing theories and ideas. Anomalies point the way to new research directions and open new doors to revealing the universe's secrets.

For today's cosmologists, the search has taken on a new urgency, not because things are so terrible, but because things are so good. Our current models of the universe work amazingly well. They accurately explain the distributions and motions of galaxies as the result of dark matter, dark energy and gravity.

They also accurately explain the patterns on the Cosmic Microwave Background, the radiation left over from the overheated birth of the universe. This pattern is the result of the complex physics of the early universe, from the growth of the first seeds of galaxies.

Through successive experiments – with the Cosmic Background Explore (COBE) satellite in the 1990s, the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) in the 2000s and most recently the Planck telescope – we have revealed finer and finer detail. And within the finery, no anomalies have been uncovered.

This map shows the cosmic microwave background from the Planck satellite in March 2013. The image along the galactic plane is problematic and was removed and then treated with an interpolation method by the Planck consortium to study the anomalies in the microwave sky. The circle shows a cold spot region. Credit: Planck consortium

This worries cosmologists, as we know that our mathematical models cannot be complete. We know that the two leading scientific theories, gravitation and quantum mechanics, do not work together. We would hope therefore that the patterns on the Cosmic Microwave Background would give us some clues.

Anomalies in the system

But while the fine detail agreed, the larger-scale aspects of the patterns appeared to deviate from expectations. Cosmologists have jumped upon these anomalies (given affectionate names such as the Axis of Evil and the cold spot) as evidence for a whole range of exotic physics, including uneven expansion, left-handed universes and cosmic collisions. Perhaps these are the clues we've all been waiting for?

Except it is not that simple. One of the complexities of observing the cosmos is that our sun is embedded deep within the Milky Way galaxy, surrounded by other stars, gas and dust. This means that large tracts of the sky are effectively unobservable, hidden by our own galactic foreground.

And this is particularly bad for observations of the Cosmic Microwave Background, as the dusty material in the Milky Way emits at similar wavelengths, contaminating the signal cosmologists are searching for.

A new look at the image data

Today's paper re-examined the approach typically used when faced with such contamination, masking out the regions of the sky where galactic emission appears to dominate.

The work, by European cosmologist Anaïs Rassat and collaborators, revealed something surprising, that the very act of masking appeared to artificially enhance some of the anomalous signals. This, of course, is quite a worry if you hoped these anomalous signs were pointing to something interesting!

The Milky Way is bit of a barrier between us the extra-galactic universe. Credit: NASA, CC BY

But Rassat went further and examined additional sources of background signal that had previously been considered inconsequential. These included a detailed examination of the motion of the Milky Way through the local environment, and a subtle signal due to the path of Cosmic Microwave Background photons over billions of light years.

And the results were that these apparently inconsequential effects were not so inconsequential after all, and the significance of anomalies decreased even further.

Good news or bad news?

Now, you might think this is a great success, as our current theoretical expectations and observations are an even better match. And, in truth, it is. But if you are hunting for clues to new physics, the Cosmic Microwave Background is proving very uncooperative.

It's important to acknowledge that observations of the feeble cosmic radiation are not easy to obtain and analyse, and accounting for contamination and backgrounds within a weak signal is never going to be easy. This new paper helps bring clarity to this in our observations of the Cosmic Microwave Background.

We should expect anomalies to pop up when we scrabble about in the noise of experiments and observations at the cutting-edge, to be followed by rampant theoretical speculation. Some will melt away when examined with deeper scrutiny, while others will get stronger, providing new clues and new directions.

Science at the cutting-edge is rarely clear-cut, and answers are hardly ever black and white. It's always important to remember that.

Explore further: Baby universe picture brought closer to theory

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Baby universe picture brought closer to theory

Aug 04, 2014

Last year, the Planck Telescope revealed the most detailed picture of the cosmic microwave background, the relic radiation from the Big Bang. But this map contains features that challenge the standard model of cosmology, ...

Astronomers measure weight of galaxies, expansion of universe

Jul 30, 2014

Astronomers at the University of British Columbia have collaborated with international researchers to calculate the precise mass of the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies, dispelling the notion that the two galaxies have similar ...

First direct evidence of cosmic inflation (Update)

Mar 17, 2014

(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 ...

Have cosmologists lost their minds in the multiverse?

May 13, 2014

The recent BICEP2 observations – of swirls in the polarisation of the cosmic microwave background – have been proclaimed as many things, from evidence of the Big Bang and gravitational waves to something ...

Recommended for you

Gravitational waves according to Planck

9 hours ago

Scientists of the Planck collaboration, and in particular the Trieste team, have conducted a series of in-depth checks on the discovery recently publicized by the Antarctic Observatory, which announced last spring that it ...

Infant solar system shows signs of windy weather

9 hours ago

Astronomers using the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) have observed what may be the first-ever signs of windy weather around a T Tauri star, an infant analog of our own Sun. This may help ...

Finding hints of gravitational waves in the stars

15 hours ago

Scientists have shown how gravitational waves—invisible ripples in the fabric of space and time that propagate through the universe—might be "seen" by looking at the stars. The new model proposes that ...

How gamma ray telescopes work

16 hours ago

Yesterday I talked about the detection of gamma ray bursts, intense blasts of gamma rays that occasionally appear in distant galaxies. Gamma ray bursts were only detected when gamma ray satellites were put ...

The frequency of high-energy gamma ray bursts

18 hours ago

In the 1960s a series of satellites were built as part of Project Vela.  Project Vela was intended to detect violations of the 1963 ban on above ground testing of nuclear weapons.  The Vela satellites were ...

User comments : 417

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

cantdrive85
1.2 / 5 (19) Aug 05, 2014
Statistical gymnastics, indeed!
billpress11
1.2 / 5 (18) Aug 05, 2014
Quote from article: "They also accurately explain the patterns on the Cosmic Microwave Background, the radiation left over from the overheated birth of the universe. This pattern is the result of the complex physics of the early universe, from the growth of the first seeds of galaxies."

Well ya, if you want to introduce the unproven magic of the "inflationary period and the accelerating expansion of the universe".

Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (20) Aug 05, 2014
Statistical gymnastics, indeed!
@cantthinkORdrive
considering your historical postings about EU and your fallacious pseudoscience, is this supposed to be Irony or Hyperbole?

if you want to introduce the unproven magic of
@billpress11
personal conjecture:
can you justify this with legitimate science or a proven scientific theory?
(links/references)
DeliriousNeuron
1 / 5 (7) Aug 05, 2014
I'm not saying a word stumpy....its all coming together.
krundoloss
1.5 / 5 (8) Aug 05, 2014
Just curious, why do we have to look towards our own galaxy? Are not we kind of nearer to the edge of it? Why not look away from our galaxy, towards darker parts of the sky? Obviously I don't know much about cosmology, other than the 100+ hours of TV shows I have watched on the subject. Any response?
TulsaMikel
4.7 / 5 (12) Aug 05, 2014
@Krundoloss We do look in every direction. The movement of our solar system is insignificant as far as the galaxy is concerned. It's still in the way. Unless we wait for the galaxy to rotate 180 degrees. I'm to busy for that!
billpress11
1.7 / 5 (23) Aug 05, 2014
"@billpress11
personal conjecture:
can you justify this with legitimate science or a proven scientific theory?
(links/references)"

Captain Stumpy, well as a matter of fact NO, and neither can they offer any facts to support the inflationary period. No they don't have a shred of evidence to back up their claim. It is all speculation to backup what is observed and the BB theory. That is not good science when one has to resort to using MAGIC.

At least I admit it, they pass it off to the public as a fact. Where are your links that factually support their claims. And I mean the ones that offer scientific proof that space can expand, and that anything can travel faster than the speed of light.
Urgelt
3.9 / 5 (16) Aug 05, 2014
You don't have to be a crank to wonder at the verisimilitude of 'cosmic inflation.' It does seem magical; it's a trick to make the equations come out right, for which evidence is weak (mainly CMB analyses, which today's article places into perspective as scrabbling around in the noise).

Inflation might yet be discarded as an hypothesis. It's sure not at the slam-dunk consensus stage among cosmologists; most are tentative about it, and many are downright uncomfortable with it.

The accelerating expansion of the universe is on much firmer evidentiary ground, however, regardless of what cranks say about it. Only problem is, we have no idea *why* the universe is doing that. 'Dark energy' isn't an explanation, it's a place-holding label for something - a force? Quantum vacuum properties? Gravitation external to the observable universe? Something else? - that is completely unknown.

There *must* be physics beyond what we know. Big stuff. Accolades await those who figure it out!
cantdrive85
2.1 / 5 (15) Aug 05, 2014
There *must* be physics beyond what we know. Big stuff. Accolades await those who figure it out!


"There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened." Douglas Adams
Scroofinator
1 / 5 (7) Aug 06, 2014
Inflation might yet be discarded as an hypothesis. It's sure not at the slam-dunk consensus stage among cosmologists; most are tentative about it, and many are downright uncomfortable with it

Nicely stated. I wish this were the case with most of our scientific theories as many aren't slam-dunks either.

If inflation is true, and the BB is true, then to me there is only one logical explanation for inflation. Imagine the entirety of the universe as a single plane of spacetime before the BB. When the BB occurs, it throws out a toroid of matter that starts to warp spacetime around the original singularity relatively evenly throughout the universe. Since the matter will continue to move outward, spacetime will be warped further, thus continually increasing the slope/acceleration.

The original singularity is like a "negative mass deformation" since all the matter exploded away from it, thus the universal spacetime fabric would have a single "high point" with everything moving away.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (14) Aug 06, 2014
I'm not saying a word stumpy....its all coming together
@Delerious
and when it does...?
either can they offer any facts to support the inflationary period
@billp
how about this:
the basic picture makes a number of predictions that have been confirmed by observation
from https://en.wikipe...ysics%29
Steinhardt, Paul J. (2011). "The inflation debate: Is the theory at the heart of modern cosmology deeply flawed?" (Scientific American, April; pp. 18-25). "...inflationary theory is powerfully predictive. For example, numerous observations of the cosmic microwave background radiation and the distribution of galaxies have confirmed that the spatial variations in energy in the early universe were nearly scale-invariant."
http://arxiv.org/...57v1.pdf
we made a lot of models, and the observations to date most closely match the inflation model and predictions based upon KNOWN physics
Can you do better?
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (13) Aug 06, 2014
At least I admit it, they pass it off to the public as a fact.
@billp
no, they pass it off as what is KNOWN ans what is theorised based upon known physics... see Urgelt's comment
Inflation might yet be discarded as an hypothesis. It's sure not at the slam-dunk consensus stage among cosmologists; most are tentative about it, and many are downright uncomfortable with it
it is only YOU who assume that it is presented as fact. perhaps because you don't understand how science works?
scientific proof that space can expand, and that anything can travel faster than the speed of light
I like this comment by Urgelt
There *must* be physics beyond what we know. Big stuff. Accolades await those who figure it out!
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.7 / 5 (15) Aug 06, 2014
Cool that they could remove masking (because of Planck many wavelengths), and that it had such a large effect. What remains (besides the high-l anomalies that the analysis doesn't affect) is the quadrupole near anomaly (the l=2 pole, AFAIU) which is even stronger (but not quite strong enough) - further attesting to the correctness of the new analysis.

"We know that the two leading scientific theories, gravitation and quantum mechanics, do not work together."

Of course they do, we can put quantum mechanics on a relativistic background (semiclassical quantum field theory) and we can quantize gravity (gravitons). What happens is that general relativity breaks down at high energies/curvatures, because it is an effective and not the complete theory of gravity.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.7 / 5 (14) Aug 06, 2014
@billpress: Inflation is the simplest physics of the LCDM cosmology, and it has been tested sevearl times. It has one more test to pass, it tentatively did and all the other ideas failed (BICEP2), it just needs a repeat.

@Urqelt: A hatchet job, which you would know if you had read the Planck papers on LCDM.

- "'cosmic inflation.' It does seem magical; it's a trick to make the equations come out right,"

Erroneous. The analysis we are looking at here would not be possible without inflation and more crucially its quantum fluctuations that couple structure formation to cosmic microwave background data. The simplest physics model predicting inflation and its fluctuations is a particle field similar to, but much simpler, than the Higgs.

It is a natural process, not 'magical', since it obeys the 2nd law of thermodynamics going down the inflation field potential energy.

[tbctd]
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.7 / 5 (15) Aug 06, 2014
[ctd]

"which today's article places into perspective as scrabbling around in the noise)."

Erroneous. The analysis we are looking at here clarifies remaining systematic errors, which are known to be small. Hence "anomalies", not "problems". The one who looks scrabbling around in self perpetuated noise is you.

" 'Dark energy' isn't an explanation, it's a place-holding label for something".

Erroneous. Only mathematic equations can have unconstrained "place holders", models have physical units and so constrained parameters (whether tested or not).

Dark energy is at the very least an expression for energy conservation through gravitational potential energy in LCDM. And since vacuum energy is the simplest physics it is the main hypothesis. Already Weinberg 1987 tested the DE cosmological constant, and precisely as for inflation no other hypotheses (say, 'paramater uniqueness') have managed to get that far.

Inflation and dark energy are right now the only games in town.

[tbctd]
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.7 / 5 (13) Aug 06, 2014
[ctd]

You can dislike that all you want, but it is mere unsubstantiated, unlikely to become fact opinion, you need science to move the situation.
billpress11
1 / 5 (11) Aug 06, 2014
Captain Stumpy

Oh brother, so the inflation theory is "Powerfully predictive", NO it is exactly the other way around. It was created out of the necessity to explain why the universe appears flat. They had to either abandon the BB theory or create magical inflationary period. That is the box the flat universe put the BB theorist into. They resorted to magic to escape from it.

billpress11
1.4 / 5 (11) Aug 06, 2014
Quote TL: "Erroneous. The analysis we are looking at here would not be possible without inflation and more crucially its quantum fluctuations that couple structure formation to cosmic microwave background data. The simplest physics model predicting inflation and its fluctuations is a particle field similar to, but much simpler, than the Higgs."

There certainly are other possibilities, one can explain it without resorting to a magical inflationary theory. One, the universe may be infinite and the cosmic background radiation is created by even more distant galaxies whose light has been shifted into the lower frequencies of the CBR. This would also explain the lumpiness of the observed CBR without introducing a magical inflationary period.

Just find another explanation the observed red-shift and we also would not need an "acceleration expansion of the universe" either. There is another explanation for the observed red-shift.

billpress11
1.4 / 5 (11) Aug 06, 2014
Resorting to an inflationary period is NO better than using tired light to explain the observed red-shift. They are BOTH in the same FLAWED ball-park. One breaks the ultimate known speed in the universe, the other doesn't conserve energy and momentum.

I am still waiting for proof that anything can happen or travel faster than the speed of light.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (11) Aug 06, 2014
It was created out of the necessity to explain why
@billp
so you didn't read the links? that quote was from one of them. The study by Steinhardt, Paul J.... it is HIS quote, billy... don't like it? REFUTE HIM with a well reasoned study that can be peer reviewed
They resorted to magic to escape from it
no, they created a theory based upon logic and physics and tried to explain it. It goes thru stages, from idea to hypothesis to theory... not the layman terms, but the scientific terms

Perhaps you should brush up on science a little? http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm
Try it... you might like it! really! take the courses... take physics and astrophysics and more... LEARN WHY the theory is still the main theory

THEN come back and argue more. it helps to understand where they are coming from... maybe you will even find a better place to head towards. who knows?

one more reason to ignore PSEUDOSCIENCE like EU and move towards PROVEN science. Real science is FUN
billpress11
1.3 / 5 (12) Aug 06, 2014
CS, I know you quoted from the Wiki link, so what?

Pseudoscience?? Well the inflationary period is PSEUDOSCIENCE!

Plain and simple the inflationary period was created in the 1980's to explain away the "large scale structures" observed in the early universe. Ya, like it looks the SAME in every direction, it appears FLAT.

The question really boils down which came first, the observations or the theory? I say the observation which needed and explanation in order to save the BB theory from itself. It save it for a while, but future observations required still another FIX. The apparent brightness of distant supernova did not coincide the distances the BB theory required. So the accelerating expansion was then added.

None of that is needed if one looks at the universe as infinite with another explanation the observed red-shift. There is one out there that needs no magic, it fits observation. Is it correct? I don't know. But it certainly looks better than MAGIC.
Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (4) Aug 06, 2014
Of course they do, we can put quantum mechanics on a relativistic background (semiclassical quantum field theory) and we can quantize gravity (gravitons). What happens is that general relativity breaks down at high energies/curvatures, because it is an effective and not the complete theory of gravity.

The very reason it's called GENERAL relativity...:-)
indio007
1.8 / 5 (10) Aug 06, 2014
This statement "They accurately explain the distributions and motions of galaxies as the result of dark matter, dark energy and gravity."

,is pie in the sky BS.
indio007
2 / 5 (8) Aug 06, 2014
Weren't they just calling this guy a crank?

Robitaille holds the world record for highest resolution MRI imaging.

Robitaille P.-M.
WMAP: A Radiological Analysis
http://www.ptep-o...8-01.PDF

Robitaille P.-M.
COBE: A Radiological Analysis
http://www.ptep-o...9-03.PDF

Robitaille P.-M.
The Planck Satellite LFI and the Microwave Background: Importance of the 4K Reference Targets
http://www.ptep-o...2-02.PDF
IMP-9
5 / 5 (9) Aug 06, 2014
Weren't they just calling this guy a crank?


He is a crank, may may be perfectly competent in his own field but that doesn't change the fact he is wrong. How do I know he is wrong? The data shows that clearly. He claims the background is not cosmic, the data says it is. The Sunyaev–Zel'dovich effect and the Sachs Wolfe effect were both predictions for the CMB where it passes though galaxy clusters and the light is effected. In the SZ effect photons are boosted to higher energies via the inverse Compton effect, as a result the flux increases at higher frequencies and decreases at some lower ones. The decrease cannot be explained by Robitailles model of a local or instrumental background. He's wrong.

Other errors in his work is comparing water suppression to removing the foreground signal, ignoring the fact that the former uses just frequency information while the later has this and angular information...
IMP-9
5 / 5 (9) Aug 06, 2014
And he claims the WMAP multipoles were generated in subtracting the quadrapolar moment, he doesn't however demonstrate this with simulated data or the data available from the mission. He claims WMAP or COBE never got a null because he signal wasn't zero, ignoring detector offsets.

He also claims the fact that Planck's calibration loads are bolted to a 4K structure invalidate them, absolute crap. It's still a 4K load. He doesn't discuss the other instrument or the fact that both underwent photometric calibration.

This man is looking for reasons to throw out instruments rather than making an honest go of things.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (10) Aug 06, 2014
CS, I know you quoted from the Wiki link, so what?
@billyp
actually, I was quoting Steinhardt, Paul J. and his STUDY, which is also referenced at Wiki
Pseudoscience?? Well the inflationary period is PSEUDOSCIENCE
personal conjecture: tell you what, pick one of the studies and SHOW ME the pseudoscience... that is why they're there. Don't just make the CLAIM, show me WHY it is so
I am GIVING YOU PROOF, now give some back
But it certainly looks better than MAGIC.
ok, you wanted to know what proof there was for BB and expansion, etc, I sent you some studies.
now you tell me this is pseudoscience, but you don't point out to WHAT is pseudoscience... just that it is. Why not finger the point in the study?
show me where the study (either one) is flawed
just SHOW ME where the flaws are so we have SPECIFIC POINTS to argue... don't just whine about your lack of comprehension and say "well they adjusted it so it must not be true"

ALL SCIENCE does that! not just astrophysics
TechnoCreed
4.6 / 5 (10) Aug 06, 2014
@billpress11
None of that is needed if one looks at the universe as infinite with another explanation the observed red-shift. There is one out there that needs no magic, it fits observation. Is it correct? I don't know. But it certainly looks better than MAGIC.
But an infinite universe would still need to be dynamic, is it not?
jibblesmgee
4.2 / 5 (10) Aug 07, 2014

Just find another explanation the observed red-shift and we also would not need an "acceleration expansion of the universe" either. There is another explanation for the observed red-shift.


Okay, here's another theory: Boddah is stretching out the energy from distant objects, and he stretches all of the light beams from closer objects out more quickly, so it just APPEARS that everything is accelerating away from us faster and faster, when ACTUALLY everything is 300 miles away from the earth and Boddah just painted it there 6000 years ago.

That's pretty much what you sound like for suggesting the universe isn't expanding at an accelerating rate.

You might be right about inflation being wrong, but redshift is something we can observe happening constantly, and there is no other explanation grounded in science other than accelerating spacial expansion.
indio007
2.1 / 5 (11) Aug 07, 2014
@IMP9

First of all , you didn't do anything more than skim read, cherry pick and then mischaracterize due to ignorance.

Regardless,
There is AMPLE evidence when it comes down to WMAP and COBE. Changing chart scales, arbitrary coefficients, and my favoritem lowering the resolution of a difference image comparing Year 1 and Year 3 when Year 3 image is a composite of year 1 ,2 and 3.
The only reason for image (re)combination is to suppress the ACTUAL image differences.

Ever hear of scientific fraud?
Like the rest of US, society it has become the prevalent modus operandi. Once by choice but now by necessity.

Research science isn't self-funded therefore funding is a competition.

Do you think 3 honest scientist cans compete with 7 dishonest ones for a funding?

"Although much of the attention in the wake
of the WMAP release has focused on "sexy" issues like
the power spectrum and its cosmological implications,
the primary stated science goal of WMAP is to produce maps."
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (10) Aug 07, 2014
Ever hear of scientific fraud?
Like the rest of US, society it has become the prevalent modus operandi. Once by choice but now by necessity.
@indio007
hold on now...
so you are saying that a man who specialises in these Fields: Biophysics, Physiology
is trumping trained astrophysicists and therefore you are willing to write off an entire team as fraudulent because an MRI specialist says so?
REALLY?

C'mon man! That would be like saying that information from your local firefighter with a cursory look at your house is more accurate than your plumber who has worked on your specific house because firefighters are used to water!

I haven't finished reading all the links yet but so far, IMP seems to be correct in his posts above
This man is looking for reasons to throw out instruments rather than making an honest go of things


What, SPECIFICALLY, are you saying is NOT true about IMP's posts above?
billpress11
1 / 5 (9) Aug 07, 2014
@billpress11
None of that is needed if one looks at the universe as infinite with another explanation the observed red-shift. There is one out there that needs no magic, it fits observation. Is it correct? I don't know. But it certainly looks better than MAGIC.
But an infinite universe would still need to be dynamic, is it not?

Yes, it would have to be a recycling universe. This could happen over such a long period of time that it may take quadrillions years to complete one cycle. It could be very difficult to find scientific proof in support of this idea.
billpress11
1.1 / 5 (10) Aug 07, 2014
Captain Stumpy, I have show you in EVERY one of my posting where the error is, it core basis has NEVER been proven scientifically. It does NOT accept that the speed of light is the ultimate speed in the universe. An error based on an error is an error. When you make one error in math everything you base on that error is also an error.

What is it that cannot comprehend? That the speed of light is fixed and ultimate? You avoid the very core of the issue. Of course, maybe you and the names you dropped are correct, maybe the there is a way around the speed of light. I have asked you for proof of that and all I have received is SILENCE on that issue. I want SCIENCE on that issue, thank you.
billpress11
1.4 / 5 (9) Aug 07, 2014
Quote Jibble: "You might be right about inflation being wrong, but redshift is something we can observe happening constantly, and there is no other explanation grounded in science other than accelerating spacial expansion."

Oh, but there are other explanations for the observed red-shift, the one I like best is at this link.
http://www.scribd...-Physics

Is it correct, I don't know but it does offer a rather simple test that could shed some light on it, pun intended. If it is correct it would explain why distant supernova are dimmer than the BB theory predicts, because they are further than the distances the BB theory allows for.
IMP-9
5 / 5 (11) Aug 07, 2014
First of all , you didn't do anything more than skim read, cherry pick and then mischaracterize due to ignorance.


Then you haven't read what I said. The SZ effect completely debunks Robitaille's claims. He claims the background is instrumental or local, it cannot be otherwise we would not see it interact with clusters. It cannot be explained by his model because in some channels the CMB gets dimer because of it, inexplicable for a local model. The SZ effect wouldn't be produced without a cosmic CMB.

I love it that you accuse me of cherry picking when you ignore the fact that this completely contradicts the thesis of Robitaille's papers, while you stick to shallow things like charts and coefficients. Arbitrary coefficients are how you combat changing background, if you don't like the plots given make your own. The regular observations of the SZ effect prove the CMB is cosmic and the the instruments designed to detect it are doing their job.

Try actually countering my argument.
Pexeso
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 07, 2014
if you are hunting for clues to new physics, the Cosmic Microwave Background is proving very uncooperative
In AWT model it's logical, because for wavelengths of CMBR the effects of relativity and quantum mechanics are most exactly balanced, our Universe appears as large as possible and most random as possible. Even the Michelson-Morley experiment exhibits the least aether drag just for microwaves (the microwave photons cannot be scattered with microwave photons of CMBR). Even many red shift effects disappear in CMBR wavelengths. In analogy with wave spreading at the water surface the CMBR corresponds the waves, where the effects of surface tension and underwater density fluctuations are compensated mutually (note that this wavelength corresponds the CMBR wavelength rather closely).
Pexeso
1.5 / 5 (8) Aug 07, 2014
Note that similar situation exists for Higgs boson, which is holographic analogy of the CMBR peak at the microscopic scale and just at these scales the Higgs boson behavior follows Standard Model behavior too closely for to manifest itself some "new physics".

The memo is, you shouldn't seek for new physics with using of artifacts, predicted with old physics.
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (9) Aug 07, 2014
@billpress11
None of that is needed if one looks at the universe as infinite with another explanation the observed red-shift. There is one out there that needs no magic, it fits observation. Is it correct? I don't know. But it certainly looks better than MAGIC.
But an infinite universe would still need to be dynamic, is it not?
Yes, it would have to be a recycling universe. This could happen over such a long period of time that it may take quadrillions years to complete one cycle. It could be very difficult to find scientific proof in support of this idea.
So in an infinite universe we should see some galaxy superclusters coming at us as much as there would be some going away right? Why don't we see that?
billpress11
1 / 5 (7) Aug 07, 2014
@billpress11
None of that is needed if one looks at the universe as infinite with another explanation the observed red-shift. There is one out there that needs no magic, it fits observation. Is it correct? I don't know. But it certainly looks better than MAGIC.
But an infinite universe would still need to be dynamic, is it not?
Yes, it would have to be a recycling universe. This could happen over such a long period of time that it may take quadrillions years to complete one cycle. It could be very difficult to find scientific proof in support of this idea.
So in an infinite universe we should see some galaxy superclusters coming at us as much as there would be some going away right? Why don't we see that?

Agreed, but remember you would first have to subtract the observed red-shift from them. The reason, the observed red-shift would not be a recessional velocity but an illusion caused by another source.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (11) Aug 07, 2014
It does NOT accept that the speed of light is the ultimate speed in the universe
@Billp
actually, it DOES take this into account... but we DON'T know about the limitations of expansion of SPACE ITSELF, only the objects WITHIN space
You avoid the very core of the issue
IF the speed of light is the CORE you are arguing about, then it is YOU who misunderstands the issue, not I.
You are arguing about apples while pointing to a fly: the speed of light in a vacuum IN SPACE is finite and set (the ultimate speed limit) but when manipulating space itself (re: expansion/inflation) how can you justify the speed limit when you are talking about the fundamental fabric itself? HOW do you clock a speed limit for something like that? Everything WE DO is within the fabric of space/time, so when space/time itself is expanding/inflating, you cannot prescribe the same known laws of physics
all I have received is SILENCE
so you READ those studies?
Arties
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 07, 2014
Despite popular belief to the contrary, COBE has not proven that the microwave background originates from the universe and represents the remnants of creation.
Of course, it's like to believe, the Brownian noise at the water surface is the remnant of water surface explosion in the distant past. I.e. the silly creationist model, which is completely ignoring the scattering of light with density fluctuations of vacuum. I'm glad to see, at least some mainstream physicists are using their own head.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (10) Aug 07, 2014
AWT model
OR
aether drag
aether is a DEBUNKED model

http://arxiv.org/...1284.pdf

http://exphy.uni-...2009.pdf

Arties
1 / 5 (8) Aug 07, 2014
As explained above, with using of microwaves we cannot detect the aether drag, because the microwave field doesn't disperse the photons of the same frequency. From the same reason the physicists cannot find a deviation from general relativity models with CMBR, as the above articles whines. However, with increasing distance from CMBR wavelength toward longer or shorter wavelengths the blue shift or red shift arises. Finally, the photons of very short wavelength are scattered fast, so that they cannot propagate through vacuum at large distances.
Arties
1 / 5 (7) Aug 07, 2014
Alternatively we can consider the vacuum fluctuations as a sparse fast undulating system of tiny density fluctuations of both positive, both negative curvature, similar to dynamic foam or sponge. The light of shorter wavelength that the average size of density fluctuations will exhibit normal dispersion, the light of longer wavelength will exhibit anomalous dispersion. At the wavelengths where both effect are balanced the vacuum behaves like the metamaterial with negative differential refraction index - which is why the vacuum can be modeled well just with metamaterial foam.
Arties
1 / 5 (7) Aug 07, 2014
The above effects can be even seen in nature quite often during heavy rain, where the droplets do behave like the environment with both positive, both negative curvatures, i.e. like the foam. Under such a situation a double rainbow is formed with dark Alexander band between bows. The microwaves do behave in similar way: they're not refracted with vacuum fluctuations, so that they pass freely like the light in the area between primary and secondary bows. This explains, why the light isn't dragged / scattered with vacuum very much - we are observing the Universe just at the wavelengths, for which the speed of light is minimal and transparency of Universe maximal. From the same reason the most complex living forms (the neural network inside of human brain) utilizes the waves of the same wavelength and the capillary waves of the same wavelength are least scattered with Brownian noise at the water surface.
billpress11
1 / 5 (7) Aug 07, 2014
Quote Captain Stumpy: "Everything WE DO is within the fabric of space/time, so when space/time itself is expanding/inflating, you cannot prescribe the same known laws of physics"

It has never been proven that space can expand or inflate either.

You are trying to replace something that has never been proven with another unproven.
Zero still equals zero, your are right back to where you started from, nowhere. Your not even close to proving the inflationary period is not an ad-hoc piece of magic created to save the BB theory from itself.

TechnoCreed
4.8 / 5 (8) Aug 07, 2014
Agreed, but remember you would first have to subtract the observed red-shift from them. The reason, the observed red-shift would not be a recessional velocity but an illusion caused by another source.
No need to look at red-shifts colliding galaxy clusters are superstructures, their distances have no purpose in what I have to say about it. The problem that it presents to a static universe is that there are too few of these events. In the universe that you are promoting, entropy would make these omnipresent.

Here are two examples of colliding superclusters: http://en.wikiped..._Cluster http://en.wikiped...5.4-1222

Let me present a variation to what you have been proposing. It is called the quasi-steady state model. It is a model that the great cosmologist Fred Hoyle developed and defended until the end of his life. It might, if you find some affinity with it, reconcile you with much of main stream science. http://articles.a...ype=.pdf
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (9) Aug 08, 2014
Very late to this discussion.

For starters, I'm a bit concerned about using masking and making assumptions about foreground in the absence of better data about the foreground. I note that the cold spot still exists in the masked full-sky image above, and other anomalies as well, including the circled one. Yet the authors claim that there are no anomalies. This is disturbing.

In addition, the quadrupole anomaly is clear, and this can only be created by sound waves propagating in the initial high energy plasma cloud of the Big Bang. In turn, these sound waves result from inflation. They cannot result from the motion of the galaxy; that can only create a dipole anomaly, and in fact one is visible in the image between North and South.

I'm rather skeptical of this paper.
Da Schneib
3.8 / 5 (10) Aug 08, 2014
@billpress11, cosmic inflation is very well supported, not only by the CMB observations of COBE, WMAP, and Planck, but also by theoretical considerations such as the horizon problem, the domain walls problem, the missing monopoles, and the observed distribution of galaxies in the universe, to name but a few. There are many more. This is not a fringe theory of any kind; it is the mainstream theory at this time. You will need extremely good evidence to disprove it, and I have reviewed your posts and I don't see that.

I have also seen you claim that the universe is not expanding, and that's risible. There's no point whatsoever in claiming this; the evidence is multi-disciplinary, and includes observations of Type Ia supernovae over more than half a century, as well as red shifts of galaxies, observed since Hubble discovered it in the 1930s.

Adding your disbelief in dark matter and dark energy, both of which are very well supported also, only makes it worse.

Are you religious?
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Aug 08, 2014
Torbjorn, according to Linde and Vilenkin, as quoted by Leonard Susskind (the inventor of the original bosonic string theory from which current string physics was derived) in his recent book, The Cosmic Landscape, the cause of inflation is the same as the cause of the acceleration of the expansion of the universe at about half its current age: lambda, AKA "dark energy," AKA negative gravity, AKA the Casimir Effect. It's the lambda in lambda-CDM. This is a very parsimonious hypothesis, which makes it the simplest explanation that fits the facts.

Do you agree?
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Aug 08, 2014
Hey Scroof. I happened to notice that you're thinking of the Big Bang happening in a small place. It's not like that at all. Current inflationary ΛCDM has the universe start as a vacuum fluctuation with a large negative Λ but not much else; as a result of the high negative Λ inflation (exponential expansion) happens. However, a high negative Λ is unstable, and quite quickly (10⁻³⁵ s or so) undergoes vacuum decay. By the time this has happened the universe is at least 40 billion light years wide; remember, the inflation is exponential. When vacuum decay occurs, the vacuum energy (Casimir effect) is dumped into the nascent universe and becomes real energy. This is the Big Bang, and it happens everywhere in the universe at once. The new value of Λ is still negative, but it's very low-- almost zero. That's the value we see today, and it's responsible for the accelerating expansion of the universe since it was half its current age.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (9) Aug 08, 2014
One last thing for everyone to keep in mind: the CMB comes from the surface of last scattering, which was the end of the recombination era. This was preceded by the nucleosynthesis era in which the universe became a giant hydrogen bomb and most of the hydrogen was turned into helium (and a little bit into lithium) as the protons fused into helium atoms. Recombination is when the background energy was freed into the universe by becoming low enough for electrons to combine with the nuclei to form the first atoms. Before this, the photons of the background couldn't go very far because they'd hit an electron or a nucleus/proton, so the universe was opaque; afterward, it became transparent and the cosmic background was freed. Since then the universe has expanded so much that that original high-energy radiation has become low-energy microwaves.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Aug 08, 2014
The Da,
Wow... I've never seen it described so clearly and succinctly before...
gonna have to read your comments over a couple times...

this is the day....
billpress11
1 / 5 (7) Aug 08, 2014
Da Schneib, I am a little late answering your post. Below are quotes from your posting and my responses.

" cosmic inflation is very well supported, not only by the CMB observations" That is just not the case, cosmic inflation became necessary because the CMB and distant observation contradicted the BB theory. The universe appeared the same in all directions, it is flat.

"you claim that the universe is not expanding, and that's risible" I assume you mean visible. Well I sure you have heard of mirages and illusions, one or both of these may make the "that's visible" very misleading and down right wrong.

"This is not a fringe theory of any kind; it is the mainstream theory at this time." Here I agree with you but that does NOT make it the correct theory. I also agree with you that is "at this time". It is highly doubtful that it is the final theory.

"Type Ia supernovae over more than half a century, " Distant type 1a supernova do NOT support the BB theory.
Con't
billpress11
1 / 5 (7) Aug 08, 2014
Con't
Type 1a supernova are dimmer than the BB theory allows for at the distances observed. That is why the second ad-hoc patch, the accelerating expansion of the universe was created to rescue the BB theory for the second time.

I never mentioned dark energy and matter in any of my posting, I tend to believe they do exist.

"Are you religious?" I am not the religious one in these discussions here. It is you believers in the BB that fit that description. You are taking it on FAITH that something can happen faster than the speed of light and that space can expand.

I also agree with you about the size of the universe after the so call inflationary period. I have stated in many posts before that the minimum size of the universe after the inflationary period was at least the visible size we observe. Of course I don't believe the BB and the inflationary ever happen.
billpress11
1 / 5 (6) Aug 08, 2014
Da Schmeib, one more thing I notice you are quite up to date in the latest wrinkle in the BB theory. To avoid the faster that light problem, it is now believed that during the inflationary period every thing came into being every where at the same time. If that is true one doesn't even need a BB any more do they? Well geez, that sure sound like a religious creation tale to me.
indio007
1 / 5 (8) Aug 08, 2014
@IMP9 Why would i argue data that is straight doctored? I only gave you one example. I won't even get into the Black body curve "calibration file" where all the extrema data signals got relegated. As if random noise ( the vast majority of Microwave signal 1000-1 or greater) only has values in the extrema of a data set and that those values can be used a calibration. That isn't calibration that is scrubbing.

There are more instances of spurious data and mathematical manipulation of the input and output.

I'll tell you what ain't sexy to the public that funded this 4 decade longdebacle... maps of random noise.

BTW the SZ effect was not the predicted value so try again. 1 BTC gets you the link.

i don't work for free.

Well Your wrong about the SZ effect being confirmed by WMAP or COBE.

In fact, it's the exact opposite. I can't post the chart here but the SZ effect was NOT the predicted value.
IMP-9
5 / 5 (7) Aug 08, 2014
Type 1a supernova are dimmer than the BB theory allows for at the distances observed. That is why the second ad-hoc patch


A non-zero cosmological constant was predicted by several people. There was nothing in the big bang model which dictated it should be zero.

Da Schneib
3.2 / 5 (9) Aug 08, 2014
billpress11, your beliefs are contrary to the evidence. If you have links to support them, you'll need to provide those. I have no intention of dealing with a bunch of "that's not true" statements without any supporting data. For my data, you can check Wikipedia and follow the references to scientific papers published in the scholarly literature, and read a few books that deal with cosmology, such as The Cosmic Landscape, Perfect Symmetry (old but still excellent, and just out in reprint- the death of Heinz Pagels in a skiing accident was a horrible tragedy), and Black Holes and Time Warps: Einstein's Outrageous Legacy. You might also try some of Stephen Hawking's popular science books, particularly The Universe In a Nutshell and A Brief History of Time.

As far as inflationary ΛCDM and "the speed of light problem," the universe is not an object and therefore is not subject to the speed of light limit.

Please don't waste my time with fringe theories.
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 08, 2014
Indio, the doctored data is the data the above article is talking about. Masking is doctoring.
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Aug 08, 2014
IMP-9, to be absolutely accurate, the prediction is for a value *close to* zero. And that's what we see. You're completely correct that the Big Bang theory says nothing about that; it also says nothing about lambda, dark matter, inflation, or anomalies in the CMB.

As far as the objection you're responding to, the correct answer is to note that the Type 1a supernova data agree with the redshift data, and disagree with a steady state universe, or a universe expanding only from the impetus of the Big Bang. But I can see why you gave the answer you did so I gave you five stars anyway. :D
IMP-9
5 / 5 (8) Aug 08, 2014
@indio007 I never said anything about doctoring data. I don't know why you would say that.

the Black body curve "calibration file" where all the extrema data signals got relegated


Please give a citation. Misconduct is a serious accusation, I will not take your word over theirs.

the SZ effect was not the predicted value


It's not a "value" type experiment and on this nonsense statement I'm quite sure you have no idea what you're talking about. COBE had nothing to do with it, further proof you're talking complete rubbish. Even WMAP is limited in detecting the SZ effect. I can assure you the SZ effect works as predicted, it has been detected many times.

http://arxiv.org/...65v2.pdf
http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.4219
http://www.aanda....de7.html
http://sci.esa.in...-effect/

No I'm not paying you money. If you have nothing to say then the SZ effect still stands.
billpress11
1 / 5 (7) Aug 08, 2014
The CMB was not predicted by the BB theory and its finding did not support the BB theory. In fact it undermined the foundation of the BB theory. That is why the inflationary period was created to explain away the observed flatness.

Here is some links for you Da Schneid:
why the cosmic microwave background radiation is distributed evenly, why the universe is flat,
http://en.wikiped...smology)

so that the velocity at which a distant galaxy is receding from us should be continuously increasing with time.[2] In 1998, observations of type Ia supernovae also suggested that the expansion of the universehas been accelerating[3][4] since around redshiftof z~0.5.[5] - - - - - - discovered the accelerating expansion of the Universe through observations of distant ("High-Z") supernovae.[6][7]
http://en.wikiped...universe

More con't
billpress11
1 / 5 (7) Aug 08, 2014
Da Schneib, you see These distant supernova are dimmer than red-shifts would indicate. So the added another ad-hoc fix to the BB theory. Funny it never dawn on them that these supernova maybe further then the BB allows for them!

"Never the less, after about a decade of searching and refining, the Supernova Cosmology Project from Berkeley and the High Redshift Supernova Search Team from Harvard have demonstrated, beyond a reasonable doubt that:
*** The luminosities of these High-z Sne appear too faint for their redshifts, for the "Standard Cosmological Model" of the 20th Century. This provides independent evidence for the cosmological consant!
*** The best fitting model indicates that there was an increase in the expansion rate of the universe at a redshift close to z=0.5, corresponding to approximately 5 billion years ago, in the history of the Universe."
http://web.physic...sne.html

Please don't waste my time with magical theories, like the BB.
Da Schneib
3.8 / 5 (10) Aug 09, 2014
The CMB was not predicted by the BB theory
This is incorrect. Dicke, Peebles, and Wilkinson predicted the CMB from the original BB theory, serendipitously at the same time that Penzias and Wilson detected it. This is a well-known fact; you can review it on Wikipedia, where it is sourced to the original scientific papers. http://en.wikiped...adiation
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 09, 2014
The Big Bang is the overwhelming consensus of cosmologists today.

You're arguing for phlogiston.
yep
1.5 / 5 (8) Aug 09, 2014
"I was there when Abbe Georges Lemaître first proposed this [Big Bang] theory. ... There is no rational reason to doubt that the universe has existed indefinitely, for an infinite time. .... It is only myth that attempts to say how the universe came to be, either four thousand or twenty billion years ago." Alfven
Big Bang is a myth devised to explain creation. He said he heard Lemaître (who was, at the time both a member of the Catholic hierarchy and an accomplished scientist) say in private that this theory was a way to reconcile science with St. Thomas Aquinas' theological dictum of creatio ex nihilo creation out of nothing.
billpress11
1 / 5 (7) Aug 09, 2014
The Big Bang is the overwhelming consensus of cosmologists today.

You're arguing for phlogiston.

There was "overwhelming consensus" that sun, moon and stars rotated around the earth before Copernicus also. Did that make it a fact then, does the same today for the BB theory make it right today. It was not proof then and it is NOT proof today of the BB theory.
billpress11
1 / 5 (7) Aug 09, 2014
The CMB was not predicted by the BB theory
This is incorrect. Dicke, Peebles, and Wilkinson predicted the CMB from the original BB theory, serendipitously at the same time that Penzias and Wilson detected it. This is a well-known fact; you can review it on Wikipedia, where it is sourced to the original scientific papers. http://en.wikiped...adiation

Let's say the above is a fact. The strange thing is that the CBR created a problem for the BB theory while at the same time was a natural for the SS infinite universe. It is a natural ending for light to red-shift to from all directions in an infinite universe.

The SS made misstates, they did not realize the gift horse the cbr was to them. They assume the ONLY explanation for the observed red-shift was the expansion, this created another misstate, they needed to create matter out of nothing, MAGIC.

The BB-ers made their misstate by introducing the MAGIC of inflation.
billpress11
1.5 / 5 (8) Aug 09, 2014
So what was this problem created for the BB-ers, darn it placed us in the center of the universe again. Well some smart astronomers were not about to let this happen again. They thought one way around that problem would be if at the moment of the BB the universe had already expanded beyond the observable universe. Va la, the magic of inflation is born.

MAGIC is MAGIC whether it is in support of SS or BB theories. I am confident the real answer will be found in the future that does not need MAGIC.
Egleton
2 / 5 (4) Aug 09, 2014
Wow. That certainly got them going.
This poor layman thinks that the Fact of Quantum Erasure is the big puppy do-do in the middle of the carpet. Puppy does not want to look. Puppy knows nothing about it at all.

It is all a simulation. Digital QM.
If you want to change Reality, Erase the data and take the measurement again.

There is nothing "Out There." It is all data.

But hey! It is Your Illusion, your game. Enjoy.

See you on the other side- don't bring your Ego.
Shootist
2.3 / 5 (4) Aug 09, 2014


If inflation is true, and the BB is true, then to me there is only one logical explanation for inflation.


Geometrically there is another explanation for an apparent superluminal expansion of space-time. An intruding hyperspace can be shown to intrude into a lower space faster than c propagates in the lower space.

You can visualize this in flatland as a gedanken. Push a 3D cone through a 2D surface. The point of the cone is the singularity. The edge of the cone is the 3D space-time front expanding into the 2D space-time of flatland.
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 10, 2014
There was "overwhelming consensus" that sun, moon and stars rotated around the earth before Copernicus also. Did that make it a fact then, does the same today for the BB theory make it right today. It was not proof then and it is NOT proof today of the BB theory.
Umm, it's not the 16th century anymore.
Da Schneib
3.8 / 5 (10) Aug 10, 2014
Big Bang is a myth devised to explain creation.
The Big Bang theory is a theory, which is not a hypothesis. It's made a large number of predictions that have turned out correct. It's the current consensus of the overwhelming majority of astronomers, astrophysicists, and cosmologists.

What you're doing is a logical fallacy called "Poisoning the well." See here: http://www.nizkor...ell.html
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (9) Aug 10, 2014
The CMB was not predicted by the BB theory
This is incorrect. Dicke, Peebles, and Wilkinson predicted the CMB from the original BB theory, serendipitously at the same time that Penzias and Wilson detected it.
Let's say the above is a fact. The strange thing is that the CBR created a problem for the BB theory.
If it's a fact, then in fact it didn't create a problem because DIcke, Peebles, and Wilkinson predicted it from the Big Bang theory.

Make up your mind.

They assume the ONLY explanation for the observed red-shift was the expansion, this created another misstate, they needed to create matter out of nothing, MAGIC.
No, the impetus for the expansion indicated by the red shift (and confirmed by supernova data) was the Big Bang. There is no problem.

The BB-ers made their misstate by introducing the MAGIC of inflation.
At the time (1964) the CMB was discovered there wasn't even a conjecture of inflation. It didn't come until the 1980s.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (9) Aug 10, 2014
So what was this problem created for the BB-ers, darn it placed us in the center of the universe again.
This is incorrect. The Big Bang was never thought to have occurred at some point in the universe. What cosmologists *always* said was it happened everywhere in the universe at once; and that the *visible* universe started at the size of a pea or smaller. This has been repeatedly misstated by people like you ever since.

Well some smart astronomers were not about to let this happen again. They thought one way around that problem would be if at the moment of the BB the universe had already expanded beyond the observable universe. Va la, the magic of inflation is born.
That is not the justification for cosmic inflation and never was. The main motivations for suggesting it were the flatness problem, the horizon problem, and the magnetic monopole problem.

Now you're just making stuff up.
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 10, 2014
Wow. That certainly got them going.
This poor layman thinks that the Fact of Quantum Erasure is the big puppy do-do in the middle of the carpet. Puppy does not want to look. Puppy knows nothing about it at all.

It is all a simulation. Digital QM.
If you want to change Reality, Erase the data and take the measurement again.
That's not how the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser works. The DCQE erases the welcher weg ("which way" in German) data carried by a copy of a photon that has already been detected, restoring the interference fringes its partner photon would not have made if "which slit" data had not been erased. You can change reality until you look at it, or make it impossible to do so; if you looked then there is no interference, if you didn't then there is.

It proves that either state information can be transmitted instantaneously (violating locality) or that particles that have not been measured have parameters that *do not have a value* (violation of local realism).
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Aug 10, 2014
Geometrically there is another explanation for an apparent superluminal expansion of space-time. An intruding hyperspace can be shown to intrude into a lower space faster than c propagates in the lower space.

You can visualize this in flatland as a gedanken. Push a 3D cone through a 2D surface. The point of the cone is the singularity. The edge of the cone is the 3D space-time front expanding into the 2D space-time of flatland.
Actually, this is correct. However, when you look out at the horizon, you can't see anything past it because things past the horizon are receding faster than light. Consider carefully what happens if you consider what aliens on a planet on the other side of the galaxy see, at the same time you're looking at your horizon. For them, the horizon is moved by the distance between them and us. So things that are receding faster than light for us, aren't for them. So are they moving faster than light, or not?

Good luck with that.
Arties
1 / 5 (2) Aug 10, 2014
The Big Bang theory is a theory, which is not a hypothesis. It's made a large number of predictions that have turned out correct
Because it was iteratively fitted to observational data in similar way, like the epicycle theory of previous era. The original model of primordial atom based on ad-hoced Hubble constant has been supplemented with inflation, because it predicted homogeneity of universe lower than this one observed. The inflation has been supplemented with dark matter, because the predicted homogeneity of Universe was higher than this one observed instead. This dark matter was complemented with dark energy, because the resulting homogeneity was lower than this one observed. And so on. Not surprisingly this model fits the existing observations as well, as the epicycle model at the end of its era, because its fitted to all existing observations arbitrarily.
Arties
1 / 5 (2) Aug 10, 2014
So things that are receding faster than light for us, aren't for them. So are they moving faster than light, or not
Well, this is just another problem of Big Bang model. The Big Bang essentially allows as large Universe as we can imagine, i.e. effectively infinite one. Only the expansion of Universe is sufficient factor of its visibility here. But if we admit that the observability of Universe is limited just with speed of light and universe expansion, then there is no actual reason to assume, that the formation of matter started just at the boundary of visibility scope. The galaxies could be formed well before it, so that their light will be red-shifted, but they're already well developed enough. The inflationary model actually doesn't imply the observability of some matter formation and reionization and dark era epochs just at the distance 40 GLyrs. If the Universe would be just a bit larger, these events could happen in larger distance and we couldn't see it anyway.
Arties
1 / 5 (2) Aug 10, 2014
The Big Bang was never thought to have occurred at some point in the universe.
Unfortunately its models handle it so. For example the Friedman models handle the Universe as if all its matter would be collected at single place. The resulting curvature of space-time determines the openness/closeness of Universe, after then. I'm perfectly aware, that the cosmologists don't like the concept of explosion of all matter from single place - but their formal models are exactly built so. The FRLW metrics, which is used for description of space-time in L-CDM model corresponds exactly the time reversed Schwarzchild black hole solution, as if the Universe would be represented only with matter residing inside of it.

Once again, if the Universe would be much larger than the observable portion of it, why the curvature of space-time inside of our Universe should be driven just with visible portion of it? What the Friedman models are all about after then?
Egleton
5 / 5 (1) Aug 10, 2014
Wow. That certainly got them going.

It is all a simulation. Digital QM.
If you want to change Reality, Erase the data and take the measurement again.

That's not how the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser works. , , ,detected, restoring the interference fringes its partner photon would not have made if "which slit" data had not been erased. You can change reality until you look at it, or make it impossible to do so; if you looked then there is no interference, if you didn't then there is.


If the information gathered at the slit is not recorded, or the record is destroyed later, the results are always interference patterns.
If the information is examined years later, the result is always point scattering.
The key is whether or not the data is available in this reality. It is all about data (and uncertainty). Lose the data and a new reality is possible. It is all data. Nothing else.
billpress11
1 / 5 (7) Aug 10, 2014
Big Bang is a myth devised to explain creation.
The Big Bang theory is a theory, which is not a hypothesis. It's made a large number of predictions that have turned out correct. It's the current consensus of the overwhelming majority of astronomers, astrophysicists, and cosmologists.

What you're doing is a logical fallacy called "Poisoning the well." See here: http://www.nizkor...ell.html

It is not me that is poisoning the well, it is the observation made over the last 50 years or so that have done a very good job at that. They have created the need to add the inflationary period and more recently the accelerating expansion. So the need for them was predicted by the BB theory, tell me when? No it is not 1600 but we are ALL still fallible human beings.
billpress11
1 / 5 (6) Aug 10, 2014
Quote Da Schneib: "For them, the horizon is moved by the distance between them and us. So things that are receding faster than light for us, aren't for them. So are they moving faster than light, or not?

Good luck with that."

That is your problem, not mine. You should know by now I believe the observed red-shift is cause by something other than the expansion of the universe. So in my view they are NOT receding faster than the speed of light. In fact, adjusting for the observed red-shift no faster toward or away from us than local galaxies.

I have in many previous posting pointed out the flatness of the observable universe as creating the need for adding the (predicted?) inflationary period. But I'll admit it is a beautiful (but incorrect) solution because it solved center of the universe problem for them at the same time.
Whydening Gyre
3.8 / 5 (4) Aug 10, 2014
Actually, this is correct. However, when you look out at the horizon, you can't see anything past it because things past the horizon are receding faster than light. Consider carefully what happens if you consider what aliens on a planet on the other side of the galaxy see, at the same time you're looking at your horizon. For them, the horizon is moved by the distance between them and us. So things that are receding faster than light for us, aren't for them. So are they moving faster than light, or not? Good luck with that.

Maybe it's time for a simpler analogy -
I, on the Earth in Chicago, rotating at (approx.) 1000 miles an hour. Ava, on the same Earth in Germany, is rotating at the same rate.
at 10pm the sun has just set for me. For her it's about to rise.
Or something like that...

Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (4) Aug 10, 2014
Actually, this is correct. However, when you look out at the horizon, you can't see anything past it because things past the horizon are receding faster than light. Consider carefully what happens if you consider what aliens on a planet on the other side of the galaxy see, at the same time you're looking at your horizon. For them, the horizon is moved by the distance between them and us. So things that are receding faster than light for us, aren't for them. So are they moving faster than light, or not? Good luck with that.

Maybe a simpler analogy -
I, on the Earth in Chicago, rotating at (approx.) 1000 miles an hour. Ava, on the same Earth in Germany, is rotating at the same rate.
at 10pm the sun has just set for her. For me it's about to rise.
It's still 93m miles away and light takes 8 min's to reach Earth - regardless of where we are on that earth
Or something like that...:-)

Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (4) Aug 10, 2014
Oops... sorry bout the double..
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (8) Aug 10, 2014
If the information gathered at the slit is not recorded, or the record is destroyed later, the results are always interference patterns.
If the information is examined years later, the result is always point scattering.
The key is whether or not the data is available in this reality. It is all about data (and uncertainty). Lose the data and a new reality is possible. It is all data. Nothing else.
You have a point here.
Da Schneib
3.1 / 5 (9) Aug 10, 2014
The Big Bang was never thought to have occurred at some point in the universe.
Unfortunately its models handle it so.
This is incorrect. Inflationary cosmology proposes that the universe began as a quantum fluctuation, then grew to enormous size, then underwent spontaneous vacuum decay which injected the energy from the inflaton AKA cosmological constant AKA Casimir force into everywhere in the enormous, empty universe. Since the cosmological constant is a property of space, and since space can be freely created and destroyed, there is no violation of the Law of the Conservation of Mass/Energy.
Da Schneib
3.2 / 5 (9) Aug 10, 2014
For them, the horizon is moved by the distance between them and us. So things that are receding faster than light for us, aren't for them. So are they moving faster than light, or not?
That is your problem, not mine.
No it isn't. It's proof there is no center of the universe. Ever heard of relativity? Know why it's called "relativity?" It's because there is no absolute motion, nor is there absolute location or absolute time. There is only absolute acceleration.

You should know by now I believe the observed red-shift is cause by something other than the expansion of the universe. So in my view they are NOT receding faster than the speed of light. In fact, adjusting for the observed red-shift no faster toward or away from us than local galaxies.
The problem with that is that the supernova data say the same thing as the redshift data say the same thing as the cosmological constant term in relativity. So now you have to make up explanations for all three of these.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (8) Aug 10, 2014
Maybe a simpler analogy -
I, on the Earth in Chicago, rotating at (approx.) 1000 miles an hour. Ava, on the same Earth in Germany, is rotating at the same rate.
at 10pm the sun has just set for her. For me it's about to rise.
It's still 93m miles away and light takes 8 min's to reach Earth - regardless of where we are on that earth
Or something like that...:-)
Pretty good, Whyde, but you gotta take the analogy up a level to make it tell you more. You're getting the feel for it, though.
Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (4) Aug 10, 2014
... since space can be freely created and destroyed...

THAT is one I'm gonna have to say "yeah, but..." on...
Da Schneib
2.5 / 5 (8) Aug 10, 2014
What you're doing is a logical fallacy called "Poisoning the well." See here: http://www.nizkor...ell.html
It is not me that is poisoning the well,
Yes it is. You brought up Lemaitre. This is clear guilt by association. That's not evidence of anything at all.
Da Schneib
2.7 / 5 (7) Aug 10, 2014
... since space can be freely created and destroyed...

THAT is one I'm gonna have to say "yeah, but..." on...
Why? Be more specific and I'll see if I can clear it up for you. Note also that cosmological constant is also called "dark energy."

Space has nothing in it but cosmological constant AKA dark energy; but we know for a fact it has cosmological constant because of the Casimir effect. You can freely create and destroy space (nothingness) without violating any conservation laws.
Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (4) Aug 10, 2014
... since space can be freely created and destroyed...

THAT is one I'm gonna have to say "yeah, but..." on...
Why? Be more specific and I'll see if I can clear it up for you. Note also that cosmological constant is also called "dark energy."

Space has nothing in it but cosmological constant AKA dark energy; but we know for a fact it has cosmological constant because of the Casimir effect. You can freely create and destroy space (nothingness) without violating any conservation laws.

Magic word - energy (dark or otherwise). You seem to be saying space has energy in it. All of it or just random (I hate that word) parts of it? If there is no space, there is no energy. Ergo, space = energy or energy = space.
Create or destroy space and you've created or destroyed energy(the violation).
You can move it around all you want, but you can't create or destroy it.
Unless, of course, you just imagine it in your head...:-)
Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (4) Aug 10, 2014
The evil Artist sat hunkered in his secret lab/workshop/lair, rubbing his gnarled hands together and issuing a mirthful -
"MWAHAHAHAHA !!!"

Meanwhile, an unsuspecting planet, went about it's business, blissfully ignorant of his intentions...
Da Schneib
2.7 / 5 (7) Aug 10, 2014
The CMB was not predicted by the BB theory
This is simply incorrect. Dicke, Peebles, and Wilkinson predicted it in 1964. I've already posted the Wikipedia link, and the article is well-sourced. In addition, this has been mentioned in every book about cosmology I've ever read.

Sorry, you're just wrong and that's all there is to it.
Da Schneib
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 10, 2014
... since space can be freely created and destroyed...

THAT is one I'm gonna have to say "yeah, but..." on...
Why? ... Note also that cosmological constant is also called "dark energy."
...
You can freely create and destroy space (nothingness) without violating any conservation laws.

Magic word - energy (dark or otherwise).
But you see, there's nothing in relativity that conserves cosmological constant. "Dark energy" is just a handle astrophysicists stuck on it to have something to call it before they realized it was just cosmological constant AKA vacuum fluctuations AKA zero point energy. Note the "zero." By the *real* Law of the Conservation of Energy, vacuum fluctuations must always add up to zero over the long term; this can be violated over very short times and distances, but the violating particles must violate again and disappear back into nothing. This is real; the Casimir effect proves it. You should look it up on Wiki.
Da Schneib
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 10, 2014
Continued...
You seem to be saying space has energy in it.
No. It's cosmological constant AKA vacuum fluctuations.

All of it or just random (I hate that word) parts of it?
All of it. Cosmological constant is a property of empty flat spacetime.

If there is no space, there is no energy. Ergo, space = energy or energy = space.
No. Space (actually we should be saying "spacetime") is not equal to energy.

Create or destroy space and you've created or destroyed energy(the violation).
You can move it around all you want, but you can't create or destroy it.
No. Space is not energy. Cosmological constant is a property of space, just as gravity is a property of space. There is a gravity field everywhere in the universe. Saying "there's no gravity field here" is like saying "there will be no weather tomorrow." It might be zero, but there's a gravity field everywhere. It's the curvature of space.
Da Schneib
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 10, 2014
Cosmological constant is the lambda (written Λ) in ΛCDM. That's its symbol in the Einstein Field Equations. Look here: http://en.wikiped...quations on the right under the standard picture of the grid with a ball pushing it down in the middle. The equation actually expands to a family of equations in tensor calculus. These are, for gravity, the equivalent to Maxwell's Equations for electromagnetism. Instead of four equations, the EFE reduces to ten equations.
billpress11
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 10, 2014
The CMB was not predicted by the BB theory
This is simply incorrect. Dicke, Peebles, and Wilkinson predicted it in 1964. I've already posted the Wikipedia link, and the article is well-sourced. In addition, this has been mentioned in every book about cosmology I've ever read.

Sorry, you're just wrong and that's all there is to it.

I already stated I will accept the predictions of BB supporters but it did NOT predict the need for an inflationary model. It was not developed until about 20 years later to solve the flatness problem which the BB never predicted either.

The inflationary hypothesis was developed in the 1980s by physicists Alan Guth and Andrei Linde.[5]
http://en.wikiped...smology)

It is just to bad that the CBR was not a natural fit for the BB, it is for a SS universe.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (4) Aug 10, 2014
I was unclear: you should look up *the Casimir Effect* on Wikipedia. I'll save you some effort: http://en.wikiped...r_effect
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 10, 2014
The CMB was not predicted by the BB theory
This is simply incorrect. Dicke, Peebles, and Wilkinson predicted it in 1964. I've already posted the Wikipedia link, and the article is well-sourced. In addition, this has been mentioned in every book about cosmology I've ever read.
I already stated I will accept the predictions of BB supporters but it did NOT predict the need for an inflationary model.
I never said it did; quite the opposite.

You were claiming that the CMB was not predicted by the BB Theory and this is plain wrong.

It was not developed until about 20 years later to solve the flatness problem which the BB never predicted either.
Which I also told you above.

The inflationary hypothesis was developed in the 1980s by physicists Alan Guth and Andrei Linde.
Correct, and updated by Leonard Susskind and Alex Vilenkin.
billpress11
1 / 5 (4) Aug 10, 2014
Da Scheib, the BB theory also did not for see the need for the accelerating expansion of the universe. I believe that patch did not come about until the middle to late 90's.
You can read for yourself that the observed red-shift does NOT square with the brightness of distant supernova.

Never the less, after about a decade of searching and refining, the Supernova Cosmology Project from Berkeley and the High Redshift Supernova Search Team from Harvard have demonstrated, beyond a reasonable doubt that:
*** The luminosities of these High-z Sne appear too faint for their redshifts, for the "Standard Cosmological Model" of the 20th Century. This provides independent evidence for the cosmological consant!
*** The best fitting model indicates that there was an increase in the expansion rate of the universe at a redshift close to z=0.5, corresponding to approximately 5 billion years ago, in the history of the Universe.
http://web.physic...sne.html
dtxx
5 / 5 (5) Aug 10, 2014
There *must* be physics beyond what we know. Big stuff. Accolades await those who figure it out!


"There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened." Douglas Adams


Hey, based on the other insane shit you believe in, the idea that a thought exercise could destroy the entire universe is not something I would expect you to have anything other than 100% total faith in.
billpress11
1 / 5 (5) Aug 10, 2014
I was unclear: you should look up *the Casimir Effect* on Wikipedia. I'll save you some effort: http://en.wikiped...r_effect


Da Scheib, modern day science is to quick to accept something as fact when there may be other explanations. The casimir effect is another example.

The "attraction" of the two plates may be nothing more than the reflected radiation of all frequencies on the outside of the plates creating greater pressure inward than the amount pressure being created outward by the reflected radiation on the inside.
billpress11
1 / 5 (5) Aug 10, 2014
The CMB was not predicted by the BB theory
This is simply incorrect. Dicke, Peebles, and Wilkinson predicted it in 1964. I've already posted the Wikipedia link, and the article is well-sourced. In addition, this has been mentioned in every book about cosmology I've ever read.

Sorry, you're just wrong and that's all there is to it.


Da, how many times do I have to state this. This is the third time I stated I accept it. The thing is it does not have any effect on things because it a perfect natural fit for an infinite SS universe but has created problems for the BB theory.
Arties
1 / 5 (2) Aug 10, 2014
It is just to bad that the CMBR was not a natural fit for the BB, it is for a SS universe
It's true, but the mistakes were on both sides. The microwave background was originally considered with Steady State Universe theorists a result of scattered starlight from distant galaxies. Using this model, and based on the study of narrow absorption line features in the spectra of stars, the astronomer Andrew McKellar calculated that the 'rotational temperature' of interstellar space is 2 K. The prediction of BigBang model was 6 K, i.e. much more distant from the current value (2,73 K). However, during the 1970s the consensus was established that the cosmic microwave background is a remnant of the big bang. This was largely because new measurements at a range of frequencies showed that the spectrum was a thermal, black body spectrum, a result that the steady state model was seemingly unable.
Arties
1 / 5 (2) Aug 10, 2014
...to reproduce.

Main mistake of proponents of Steady State model was, they didn't consider the scattering of light with density fluctuations of vacuum (which are more large and temporal, than the wavelenght/period of light scattered), but rather classical scattering of light with hypothetical particles presented in the interstellar space (like the Compton recoil of photons at free electrons, etc). Such a scattering would lead into deviations from black body spectrum, which characterizes the CMBR. Actually the later findings of space-probes COBE/WMAP identified such an anomalous scattering from dark matter particles, but it was too late already for Steady State Universe model. Now the physicists converge back into it from the opposite side of arguments. After all, this is the main reason, why the BICEP2 findings were doubted so soon. Just before two decades nobody would doubt such an observation on behalf of inflationary model and maybe it would get a Nobel prize already.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Aug 10, 2014
Da Scheib, the BB theory also did not for see the need for the accelerating expansion of the universe.
I believe that patch did not come about until the middle to late 90's.
So what? Red shift data is too coarse to show it. It wasn't until they found out that there is a type of supernova, Type 1a, whose power is related to its decay time, that they realized they could use such supernovae as "standard candles," the same way Cepheid variables are used for relatively close by galaxies where individual stars can be resolved to determine their distances, as well as within our own galaxy.

You can read for yourself that the observed red-shift does NOT square with the brightness of distant supernova.
Where? No alternative sites please. Preferably a reputable scientist's scholarly paper, please. I don't expect anything here given your track record of making claims without any evidence and then changing the subject when someone asks for it but hope springs eternal.

Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Aug 10, 2014
Never the less, after about a decade of searching and refining, the Supernova Cosmology Project from Berkeley and the High Redshift Supernova Search Team from Harvard have demonstrated, beyond a reasonable doubt that:
*** The luminosities of these High-z Sne appear too faint for their redshifts, for the "Standard Cosmological Model" of the 20th Century. This provides independent evidence for the cosmological consant!
*** The best fitting model indicates that there was an increase in the expansion rate of the universe at a redshift close to z=0.5, corresponding to approximately 5 billion years ago, in the history of the Universe.
http://web.physic...sne.html
Actually it was about 7 billion years ago, but you just proved my point in your last quote. Do you understand how? That quote is the proof of so-called "dark energy," which is actually cosmological constant AKA vacuum fluctuations. Add this in and the red shifts and supernova data agree.
billpress11
1 / 5 (5) Aug 10, 2014
Da Scheib, it states in the link I gave you about distant supernova being dimmer than they should be at around .5 Z in distant. I'd hate to see how much bigger it might be at a red-shift of 2 or Z. The observed red-shift does not square with the observed dimmest.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Aug 10, 2014
Da, how many times do I have to state this. This is the third time I stated I accept it.
Well, you didn't above. You claimed that the CMB was not predicted by BB Theory, and have said the same thing on other threads.

The thing is it does not have any effect on things because it a perfect natural fit for an infinite SS universe but has created problems for the BB theory.
Oh really? If it's Steady State, why did the expansion rate change 7 billion (or if you prefer 5 billion, using old data) years ago? Doesn't sound very steady to me. Also, where are the new galaxies that should be popping into existence in between existing galaxy clusters? Everything's getting farther away, and we know how fast from the red shift data, the value of the cosmological constant, and the supernova data.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Aug 10, 2014
Actually Arties, the energy that makes up the CMB emerged after recombination, which is after the Big Bang.

And claiming that BB Theory is wrong because it got 6 degrees above absolute zero instead of 2.3 is silly.
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (6) Aug 10, 2014
@ Da Schneib
If you want to popularize science, do not assume that others understand what you are talking about.
The problem with that is that the supernova data say the same thing as the redshift data say the same thing as the cosmological constant term in relativity.
Totally agree! But you should explain what is observed, what it implies and how it refutes the alternative.

In your quoted statement e.g. there is a measurable increase of time dilation proportional to the distance of the supernova observed, this is concurring with the actual interpretation off the red shift; in other words the further the sn the more the light of the sn event takes time to crest. That demonstrates very well that space is expanding and refutes the hypothesis that light is losing momentum through massive object interaction 'tired light'. This kind of formulation shows a little humbleness and is more suitable if you want bilcrest11 to re-evaluate his position.
Arties
1 / 5 (3) Aug 10, 2014
BTW In contemporary physics we can observe apparent trend, when with improving sensitivity and technology state of observations many alleged deviations from standard models observed at the end of 90's disappeared in the recent decade. The first victims were string theory and LQG theory (gamma ray speed controversy). Even the various artifacts of Higgs field predicted on behalf of SUSY were left unconfirmed. The alleged CPT violations in mezon decays were left unconfirmed. The axion finding at PAVLAS experiment - unconfirmed. The predictions for quark gluon glass - unconfirmed. Now even the observations new physics in CMBR evaporated. What happens here?

Well, in AWT geometry the violations from established theories manifest itself only weakly and at the quite limited dimensional scale, as denoted with vertical bars at this graph.
Da Schneib
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 10, 2014
Da Scheib, it states in the link I gave you about distant supernova being dimmer than they should be at around .5 Z in distant. I'd hate to see how much bigger it might be at a red-shift of 2 or Z. The observed red-shift does not square with the observed dimmest.
Yes, because before 7 billion years ago the expansion was slowing due to gravity rather than accelerating like it has been since then. Not only did gravity grow weaker as the galaxy clusters moved farther apart, but the amount of space increased, and as I have already said (and referenced proof of), cosmological constant and space are not conserved, and therefore when you create space you create cosmological constant. At the point where the cosmological constant became stronger than the gravity, the expansion started to accelerate. And that point was 7 (or, as I said, if you prefer old data, 5) billion years ago.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Aug 10, 2014
Doing my best, TechnoCreed. Thanks for the advice. I'll try to keep it in mind.

Worth mentioning that it's kinda hard to do in 1000 characters.

Also, billcrest does in fact seem to be changing his position. I just want him to admit it.
billpress11
1 / 5 (4) Aug 10, 2014
Quote Da Scheib: "Actually it was about 7 billion years ago, but you just proved my point in your last quote. Do you understand how? That quote is the proof of so-called "dark energy," which is actually cosmological constant AKA vacuum fluctuations. Add this in and the red shifts and supernova data agree."

While I stated before that I tend to believe in dark energy and matter, I do not believe dark energy is expanding the universe. It is only a unusable energy that can create dark matter which only has an affect on gravity. The dark energy and dark matter are constantly changing back an forth between each other. So I cannot add it to the red-shift of the supernova data. To me the supernova are in fact further than the BB theory allows for, its just that simple.

Arties
1 / 5 (3) Aug 10, 2014
In the AWT Universe model the observable reality at the most distant scales is simply random and all fluctuations from it will compensate mutually. Analogously, if we would observe the water surface like the waterstriders with its own ripples into increasing distance, then the density fluctuations would blur and vanish all deviations observed at the most distant scale.

The future of new findings therefore isn't in increasing of colliders energy and power of telescopes, because it would lead to the same result, like the shining of light with more powerful reflectors into landscape under fog. Yes, the light will shine into larger distance - but it will get more scattered too and we will see nothing new anyway. The era of new findings is at the energy density and distance scale well accessible to human civilization already. Many of these findings were already collected, they're just ignored and covered with mainstream physics for not to threat the existing political status quo.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 10, 2014
Hi again, Da Schneib.
The Big Bang was never thought to have occurred at some point in the universe. What cosmologists *always* said was it happened everywhere in the universe at once; and that the *visible* universe started at the size of a pea or smaller.
Careful.

Theory has it there is no 'absolute' reference. So '"size of a pea" for visible universe 'beginning' is not founded on any reality reference, only false assumption of 'knowing' the whole universal size for 'comparing' scale of 'visible universe' of BBang 'initial state/size' claims.

So 'pea size' claim contradicts its own premise of "no absolutes".

That is not the justification for cosmic inflation and never was...
Mainstream BB/Inflation/expansion model(s) appeal to 'dark energy' to 'create more space' etc. Yet in the same breath they reject infinite/eternal Steady State Universal energy-space-matter cycling occurring at base local levels 'everywhere'?

Do you see any irony and double standards in that? :)
billpress11
1.5 / 5 (4) Aug 10, 2014
Da Scheib,
The Z factor in the BB theory has always been shown to rise in a parabolic curve. I do not understand your point. Of course it means little to me because I think there is a better than two to one odds that the observed red-shift is caused something other that the expansion of the universe. I think the Z factor and distance are most likely directly related.
Da Schneib
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 10, 2014
While I stated before that I tend to believe in dark energy and matter, I do not believe dark energy is expanding the universe.
It says so in the Einstein Field Equations. So-called "dark energy" is the cosmological constant term, lambda, or Λ. The link to the EFE article on Wikipedia is above. This is why the current cosmological theory is called ΛCDM.

It is only a unusable energy that can create dark matter
Can I have a source for that please?

which only has an affect on gravity.
That's correct; but the presence of Λ in the EFE indicates that it has an effect on gravity as well; those are the field equations for gravity, equivalent to the Maxwell Field Equations for electromagnetism.
Da Schneib
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 10, 2014
The dark energy and dark matter are constantly changing back an forth between each other.
Again, a reference please?

So I cannot add it to the red-shift of the supernova data.
Since this is based so far only on your personal beliefs, I challenge it based on the fact the premise for it is unsupported.

To me the supernova are in fact further than the BB theory allows for, its just that simple.
The problem with this being that the supernova redshifts are the same as the redshifts of their host galaxies.
Da Schneib
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 10, 2014
Da Scheib,
The Z factor in the BB theory has always been shown to rise in a parabolic curve. I do not understand your point. Of course it means little to me because I think there is a better than two to one odds that the observed red-shift is caused something other that the expansion of the universe. I think the Z factor and distance are most likely directly related.
billpress, are you aware that Z is simply a measure of the redshift? And of the Hubble Constant? Your last statement is therefore correct, but the preceding one is not, and cannot be, by your own data.

I am unclear on what part of my point you aren't understanding. Could you be a little more detailed, please? I'll do my best to explain.
Da Schneib
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 10, 2014
Hi again, Da Schneib.
What cosmologists *always* said was it happened everywhere in the universe at once; and that the *visible* universe started at the size of a pea or smaller.
Careful.

Theory has it there is no 'absolute' reference. So '"size of a pea" for visible universe 'beginning' is not founded on any reality reference, only false assumption of 'knowing' the whole universal size for 'comparing' scale of 'visible universe' of BBang 'initial state/size' claims.

So 'pea size' claim contradicts its own premise of "no absolutes".
I don't see why saying "the visible universe was the size of a pea" has anything to do with absolute location or absolute motion. Could you explain that for me please?

And actually, acceleration is absolute, according to Einstein; you can always perform a local experiment to determine if you are being accelerated, but you cannot tell if the acceleration is due to a local effect like a rocket engine, or to gravity. So there are absolutes.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 10, 2014
That is not the justification for cosmic inflation and never was...
Mainstream BB/Inflation/expansion model(s) appeal to 'dark energy' to 'create more space' etc.
No. We *observe* more space is being created. That's a *fact*. Badly named so-called "dark energy" is the current best explanation for that fact, as shown in billpress' link to Harvard (and the bullet point that precedes it, which is perfectly correct).

Yet in the same breath they reject infinite/eternal Steady State Universal energy-space-matter cycling occurring at base local levels 'everywhere'?
So where are the new galaxies being formed as the old galaxies move apart? All the galaxies at a given distance seem to be much the same age, except for the little ones. This does not support a steady state. Nor does the abrupt change in acceleration 7 billion years ago.

Do you see any irony and double standards in that? :)
No.
billpress11
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 10, 2014
Da Scheib, you keep making reference to the fact that everything is relative as far as velocity is concerned. I not so sure it is quite that clear cut.
Here is a link that can make one wonder:
How fast is the earth moving? - Scientific American
www.scientificamerican.com ' Space ' Ask the Experts Scientific American
Oct 26, 1998 - Each of the motions described above were given relative to some structure. ... The earth is moving with respect to the CBR at a speed of 390 ..."

I think it is quite strange that the earth is only moving about 390 kilometers per second in the CBR. After all that is about the same as the velocity as the Milky Way, our solar system and the earth's velocities combined. Yep strange indeed.

Other factors too are the velocity of light cannot be added to or subtracted from, the very basis of the Sagnac Effect and the global positioning satellite system.

So to me that is not a completely settled science.
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (6) Aug 10, 2014
@billpress11
Please put a little substance in your position in a way that we could understand your point of view: What is the basis of the cosmology you are defending? Do you have a known model we can refer to?

Also: Did you read the paper that I linked (Fred Hoyle QSS model)? Did you understand my refutation of the tired light (The last comment that I addressed to Da Schneib)?
I think there is a better than two to one odds that the observed red-shift is caused something other that the expansion of the universe.
I do not care if you believe in the BB or not but, from what we can observe, the universe expansion is pretty hard to refute!
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 10, 2014
BTW In contemporary physics we can observe apparent trend, when with improving sensitivity and technology state of observations many alleged deviations from standard models observed at the end of 90's disappeared in the recent decade. The first victims were string theory and LQG theory (gamma ray speed controversy).
Could you please explain this some more? I'm not clear on how string theory or loop quantum gravity were refuted, and I don't know what the "gamma ray speed controversy" is.

contd...
Arties
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 10, 2014
We *observe* more space is being created. That's a *fact*.
Nope, we just observe, how the light of distant galaxies becomes more redshifted. This is the actual FACT, everything else is just more or less dull interpretation of this fact in the name of particular ideology. Actually, even the (fringe but mainstream) Doppler shift based explanation doesn't imply any formation of space - it just considers the collective motion of massive objects from the Earth across the existing (i.e. already created) space. The "creation of space" is just a personal hypothesis of yours, presented here as a mainstream one.
billpress11
1 / 5 (4) Aug 10, 2014
Da Scheib quote: "No. We *observe* more space is being created. That's a *fact*. Badly named so-called "dark energy" is the current best explanation for that fact, as shown in billpress' link to Harvard (and the bullet point that precedes it, which is perfectly correct)."

More space being created, that could simply be an illusion.

Quote Da Scheib: "So where are the new galaxies being formed as the old galaxies move apart? All the galaxies at a given distance seem to be much the same age, except for the little ones. This does not support a steady state. Nor does the abrupt change in acceleration 7 billion years ago."

I never stated that the galaxies WERE moving apart, I don't even accept that the universe is expanding, so why would there even be a need for new galaxies.

Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 10, 2014
Even the various artifacts of Higgs field predicted on behalf of SUSY were left unconfirmed.
Ummm, they just discovered the Higgs at the LHC. What "various artifacts of [the] Higgs field" are you talking about? At this point supersymmetry is only a hypothesis, and barely that given how hard it is to test for in current accelerators (though the new laser/plasma accelerators detailed in another article on this site may change that). Also, what's this got to do with cosmology?

The alleged CPT violations in mezon decays were left unconfirmed.
This is incorrect. In fact, CPT violation has been extensively confirmed in the neutral kaon decades ago, I think they confirmed it in the D meson as well, and I heard they are looking for it in the B meson. I haven't been following it for a while.

The axion finding at PAVLAS experiment - unconfirmed.
I think this is correct but not conclusive.

contd
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (7) Aug 10, 2014
I think it is quite strange that the earth is only moving about 390 kilometers per second in the CBR. After all that is about the same as the velocity as the Milky Way, our solar system and the earth's velocities combined. Yep strange indeed.
Obvious misunderstanding; the CMB is not a 'backdrop' that comes from the edge of the universe... We are 'bathing' in it.
Arties
1 / 5 (3) Aug 10, 2014
What "various artifacts of [the] Higgs field" are you talking about
How is it possible, you're trying to argue here and don't know about it? Many deviant Higgs boson decays were predicted in connection to Higgs boson finding.

The problem with most of people here is they have memory of tropical fish and they don't remember even one tenth of articles, which I remember. Every opinion based on it and presented here is therefore considered as a unsubstantiated and as such dismissed.
billpress11
1 / 5 (3) Aug 10, 2014
Da Scheib,
The Z factor in the BB theory has always been shown to rise in a parabolic curve. I do not understand your point. Of course it means little to me because I think there is a better than two to one odds that the observed red-shift is caused something other that the expansion of the universe. I think the Z factor and distance are most likely directly related.
billpress, are you aware that Z is simply a measure of the redshift? And of the Hubble Constant? Your last statement is therefore correct, but the preceding one is not, and cannot be, by your own data.

I am unclear on what part of my point you aren't understanding. Could you be a little more detailed, please? I'll do my best to explain.

Here I am in agreement with you we are talking past each other. I think my statement above is correct. The Z factor rises in a parabolic curve compared to the age of the universe according to the BB theory.
Arties
1 / 5 (2) Aug 10, 2014
Obvious misunderstanding; the CMB is not a 'backdrop' that comes from the edge of the universe... We are 'bathing' in it.
This is straw man argument, as the billpress11 didn't say something like this. He just presented well known Doopler anisotropy of CMBR here. How does it imply, that the CMBR is some "backdrop from edges" or whatever else? Of course in no way - therefore your post is irrelevant.
billpress11
1 / 5 (4) Aug 10, 2014
I think it is quite strange that the earth is only moving about 390 kilometers per second in the CBR. After all that is about the same as the velocity as the Milky Way, our solar system and the earth's velocities combined. Yep strange indeed.
Obvious misunderstanding; the CMB is not a 'backdrop' that comes from the edge of the universe... We are 'bathing' in it.

Than where does it come from if not from the edge of the visible universe?

As for the model of the universe I think is most likely? A steady state recycling universe infinite in age and size.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 10, 2014
The predictions for quark gluon glass - unconfirmed.
OK; I'm unfamiliar with this, but I'll take your word for it. Again, it has nothing to do with cosmology.

Now even the observations new physics in CMBR evaporated. What happens here?
I think that's speculative at best.

Well, in AWT geometry the violations from established theories manifest itself only weakly and at the quite limited dimensional scale, as denoted with vertical bars at this graph.
Aether theories were refuted by the Michelson-Morley experiment in the nineteenth century. There is no aether nor is any required. Light is particles, as proven by Einstein's paper on the photoelectric effect at the beginning of the twentieth century (for which he won a Nobel Prize).
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Aug 10, 2014
Hi Da Scneib. :)
I don't see why saying "the visible universe was the size of a pea" has anything to do with absolute location or absolute motion.
If the universe 'is all there is", then unless you 'know' its 'global extent', you can't 'meaningfully compare' any 'local extent' to it. So 'backtracking' from current visible extent to some unmeasured 'a-priori' global extent makes for self-referencing 'BB explanations', yes? That was the point.

...acceleration is absolute...
Agreed. But be careful re 'acceleration' arguments. LOCAL accelerations are 'felt/occur' locally. But what is GLOBAL UNIVERSAL 'acceleration' with respect to, if you have no global extent to compare to except your 'assumed' backtracking from current LIMITED visible extent?

So beware. Einstein Relativists & Big Bangers want it BOTH ways; but neither actually consistent when boiled down to such 'explanations/assumptions' as those you have been depending on for your arguments against SS models. Take care.:)
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (8) Aug 10, 2014
Da Scheib, you keep making reference to the fact that everything is relative as far as velocity is concerned. I not so sure it is quite that clear cut.
So you deny Special Relativity Theory?

Here is a link that can make one wonder:
How fast is the earth moving? - Scientific American
http://www.scient...ican.com ' Space ' Ask the Experts Scientific American
Oct 26, 1998 - Each of the motions described above were given relative to some structure. ... The earth is moving with respect to the CBR at a speed of 390 ..."
The CMB is not space. It's *in* space, just like radio waves, microwaves, infrared, light, ultraviolet, X-rays, and gamma rays. Anisotropy in the CMB therefore does not mean that there is absolute motion, or absolute location.

contd...
Arties
1 / 5 (2) Aug 10, 2014
This is incorrect. In fact, CPT violation has been extensively confirmed in the neutral kaon decades ago
Which is exactly the reason, I don't talk just about it. I'm talking about CPT violations expected in mesons of higher generations, which are the matter of NA312, KTeV and NA48 experiments in the latest decades.
Anisotropy in the CMB therefore does not mean that there is absolute motion, or absolute location
It just means, you're moving with respect to all observable universe. Which more absolute motion do you have on mind?
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 10, 2014
I think it is quite strange that the earth is only moving about 390 kilometers per second in the CBR. After all that is about the same as the velocity as the Milky Way, our solar system and the earth's velocities combined. Yep strange indeed.
Again, this does not prove either absolute motion or absolute location as a property of spacetime.

Other factors too are the velocity of light cannot be added to or subtracted from, the very basis of the Sagnac Effect and the global positioning satellite system.

So to me that is not a completely settled science.
I don't see what that has to do with it. Could you explain this more thoroughly please? Remember that although light is always measured travelling at the speed of light, the Doppler effect causes it to change frequency if you're moving relative to its source.
Arties
1 / 5 (3) Aug 10, 2014
Aether theories were refuted by the Michelson-Morley experiment in the nineteenth century. There is no aether nor is any required.
AWT is based on dense aether model of Oliver Lodge, this model was never refused with any experiment.
There is no aether nor is any required.
How can you explain the existence of gravity, light waves, magnetic field or quantum noise after then? We only have ad-hoced formulas, but not casual explanation for these phenomena. They're just assumed with contemporary physics as such. The EM field simple likes doing the waves - that's why...
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 10, 2014
We *observe* more space is being created. That's a *fact*.
Nope, we just observe, how the light of distant galaxies becomes more redshifted.
Yes, and the redshift is due to them receding. It's a standard effect called the Doppler effect. What's your explanation for the redshift?

This is the actual FACT, everything else is just more or less dull interpretation of this fact in the name of particular ideology.
Science isn't about politics. Science is a method of finding the reasons for observed facts. The most parsimonious explanation that fits all the facts is the most likely to be correct, according to William of Ockham. This is often known (and misspelled) as "Occam's Razor."

If your explanation involves aether, it's not simple at all.

contd
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (6) Aug 10, 2014
Than where does it come from if not from the edge of the visible universe?
there is no object at the edge of the universe sending photons! It is everywhere, permeating the universe, like the settling dust after an explosion. A settling cloud of... photons, that the wavelength as been stretch for 13.8 billion years because of the expending universe. The wavelength distribution of the CMB is analog to the curve of a blackbody that has cooled down to 2.73 Kelvin; an afterglow.
Here I have just copied a comment that I have made under a different article.
Arties
1 / 5 (3) Aug 10, 2014
It's a standard effect called the Doppler effect. What's your explanation for the redshift?
Just another standard effect, called the scattering of waves.
Science isn't about politics. Science is a method of finding the reasons
You should never confuse the practical science done with contemporary scientists and it's hypothetical rules, which aren't followed at all. After all, just the Feynman has said, that the science doesn't ask for reasons, it doesn't ask WHY questions, so you even don't know, what the scientific method is in contemporary physics.
Arties
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 10, 2014
Than where does it come from if not from the edge of the visible universe? There is no object at the edge of the universe sending photons!
And how the event horizon of black hole can radiate the Howking radiation? There is no actual edge of black hole either. If the CMBR was formed during big bang, then all CMBR must come from particle horizon of Universe and it must be formed with gamma ray photons of GUT energy there. This is standard L-CDM model, which you apparently don't know too. Now the discussion did become confused, because you're arguing against mainstream stance - despite you're not realizing it - just because you don't understand the subject. So that most of your posts looks like straw man fallacies and we're fighting with ghosts.
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 10, 2014
HI again, Da Schneib.
We *observe* more space is being created. That's a *fact*.
No. You *infer* based on *assumptions* from observed radiation info received; and make *interpretations* from theory.

As the BICEP2 'work/paper' assumptions/methodology etc fiasco shows only too well, such flawed assumptions/interpretations/inferences may be wrongly trusted as 'reality' because they did not know the difference between 'results' *inferred*, and the actual *observed* data as such which did not support their 'treatment/claims' for it.
...where are the new galaxies being formed as the old galaxies move apart?
You assume/interpret 'expansion/inflation', not 'observe' it as such.

And recent observations show ever increasing population of previously undetected galaxies/matter. :)

But in any case, SS models do NOT require 'full blown' galaxies to 'just appear' as you imply.

Like your 'dark energy', SS 'new matter' from recycling energy-space is low level 'locally'.

No problem! :)
yep
1 / 5 (5) Aug 10, 2014
I brought up Lemaitre for historical perspective, which is important when discussing theory that morphs instead of falsifies like most of the " overwhelming consensus of cosmologists today." Sixty plus years ago Charles E.R. Bruce showed us that supernova were examples of electric discharge. He was ignored, fortunately his career was not destroyed like that of Halton Arp forcing him to leave the country to pursue his research. If you are not familiar with Arp his heresy was showing that sometimes high and low red shift objects are connected by bridges of matter so it cannot be a measure of distance. Redshift is a measure of the relative ages of nearby quasars and galaxies. "Arp found that the intrinsic red shift from a quasar or galaxy took discrete values, which decreased with distance from a central active galaxy."
Arties
2 / 5 (4) Aug 10, 2014
BICEP2 'work/paper' assumptions/methodology etc fiasco
This is somewhat strong description of situation. The inflationary interpretation of BICEP2 observations was just doubted with (equally biased) proponents of string theory and ekpyrotic cosmology, who are desperately looking for some confirmation of their theories too - and the inflation doesn't belong into them. With respect to steady state universe model the proponents of colliding branes are just standing at the opposite side of barricade, than the proponents of inflation - and the actual truth is somewhere inbetween, because the mainstream science converges to correct solution from both sides of it in oscillations. At the water surface nothing expands, neither collides - yet it exhibits the red shift of its ripples with distance. This is what the Occam razor is.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 10, 2014
Actually, even the (fringe but mainstream) Doppler shift based explanation doesn't imply any formation of space - it just considers the collective motion of massive objects from the Earth across the existing (i.e. already created) space.
This is incorrect. The mainstream view is that space is expanding and carrying the distant galaxies along with it. See below.

The "creation of space" is just a personal hypothesis of yours, presented here as a mainstream one.
Actually, it says so in every book on cosmology I've ever read-- and I've read a lot of them. This is the mainstream understanding of cosmology. Astrophysicists and cosmologists emphasize repeatedly that distant galaxies are not *moving through space*, but instead that *space is expanding and distant galaxies are carried along with it*. Expansion of space means creation of more space. Otherwise, how could it expand?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Aug 10, 2014
Hi Arties. :)
BICEP2 'work/paper' assumptions/methodology etc fiasco
This is somewhat strong description of situation. The inflationary interpretation of BICEP2 observations was just doubted with (equally biased) proponents of string theory and ekpyrotic cosmology, who are desperately looking for some confirmation of their theories too - and the inflation doesn't belong into them.


I was referring to MY immediate assessment of the BICEP2 'work/paper' as initially presented, and caution to uncritical mainstream 'cheerleaders'.

Only afterwards did dissenting 'mainstream physicists' get involved (and confirmed my immediate assessment of flawed confirmation-biased assumptions, treatment and interpretations/claims).

Such obvious 'publish or perish' crap/claims (to have 'confirmed BBang/Gravity-waves etc) are a serious problem, as it prevents proper REVIEW of evidence when the reality does not gel with mainstream orthodoxy/models/interpretations.

No 'excuses' for them. :)
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 10, 2014
Da Scheib:
No. We *observe* more space is being created. That's a *fact*. Badly named so-called "dark energy" is the current best explanation for that fact, as shown in billpress' link to Harvard (and the bullet point that precedes it, which is perfectly correct).
More space being created, that could simply be an illusion.
How? Please explain this in detail and provide reputable scholarly sources. This is the mainstream understanding of cosmology.

So where are the new galaxies being formed as the old galaxies move apart? All the galaxies at a given distance seem to be much the same age, except for the little ones. This does not support a steady state. Nor does the abrupt change in acceleration 7 billion years ago.
I never stated that the galaxies WERE moving apart, I don't even accept that the universe is expanding, so why would there even be a need for new galaxies.
Then where does the redshift come from? Again, please provide scholarly sources.
Arties
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 10, 2014
I brought up Lemaitre for historical perspective, which is important when discussing theory that morphs instead of falsifies like most of the
The Big Bang model has undoubtedly its roots in Christian creationist theology, as the former proffesion of Lamaitre indicates. It was meant as an antipole of infidel materialistic ideas based on plenum and eternal steady state universe model. The modern science has laboriously eliminated the creationism from evolution of living matter - but it adopted it for physical world.
billpress11
1 / 5 (4) Aug 10, 2014
I think it is quite strange that the earth is only moving about 390 kilometers per second in the CBR. After all that is about the same as the velocity as the Milky Way, our solar system and the earth's velocities combined. Yep strange indeed.
Again, this does not prove either absolute motion or absolute location as a property of spacetime.

Other factors too are the velocity of light cannot be added to or subtracted from, the very basis of the Sagnac Effect and the global positioning satellite system.

So to me that is not a completely settled science.
I don't see what that has to do with it. Could you explain this more thoroughly please? Remember that although light is always measured travelling at the speed of light, the Doppler effect causes it to change frequency if you're moving relative to its source.

Just what is the proof that there is no absolute motion? The proof that there is is the speed of light.
Arties
1 / 5 (2) Aug 10, 2014
The mainstream view is that space is expanding and carrying the distant galaxies along with it.
Well, this is not what the Doppler shift actually is. Anyway, this model doesn't imply any "formation of space" - only expansion of already existing one. BTW the distant galaxies are much more luminous, larger and separated each other, than the expanding space model predicts, so it's BS anyway. The expanding space would imply the expansion of everything, including molecules, atoms and solar systems into account of their mutual force interactions - whereas the red shift model is just based on assumption, the spectra of atoms and Kepler laws inside of galaxies remain unchanged, so that they can serve as a reference for measuring of Hubble constant and density of dark matter. The Big Bang model is therefore internally inconsistent, no matter how you take it. It's a proxy theory for general relativity supporters, nothing less, nothing more.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Aug 10, 2014
HI again, Da Schneib. :)
This is incorrect. The mainstream view is that space is expanding and carrying the distant galaxies along with it.
Mate, you really must be more careful and stop promulgating 'facile' and meaningless 'glib explanations' like that one.

How can galaxies be 'taken along with space expansion' if there is NO COUPLING mechanism provided by the theory that claims this?

And where are the 'geodesics' for such 'galaxies taken along with space'?

No-one has yet provided the BBang etc model/theory with either a coupling mechanism OR the descriptive motional 'geodesics' which such 'with space' recessional motions must have if 'true' in reality physics. So in mainstream models/theory it's all facile CONJECTURE pure and simple.

Really, please be more careful not to repeat such facile non-explanations which the current models/theory is riddled with; while pretending to be better than the SS infinite/eternal recycling energy-space-matter-processing models/theories. :)
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (6) Aug 10, 2014
@RealityCheck
Science does not pretend to know what reality is. Reality is a puzzle that the human conscience struggle to figure out. With our senses we perceive just a little bit of what reality is and with our tools, just a little bit more. You should stop believing that our brain is designed to understand reality. What science is constructing is only possible models of reality and it work just fine. It has permitted humanity to develop some very sophisticated technology. What is wrong with that?
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 10, 2014
What "various artifacts of [the] Higgs field" are you talking about
How is it possible, you're trying to argue here and don't know http://www.newsci...shy.html in connection to Higgs boson finding.
New Scientist is not a scholarly journal. It often prints speculative theories, and the editors are not always entirely careful about noting that.

However, in this case, they were very fact-based, simply reporting what the results were from the LHC. And you've misunderstood the article; the findings on the Higgs have nothing to do with the lack of supersymmetry evidence.

The problem with most of people here is they have memory of tropical fish and they don't remember even one tenth of articles, which I remember. Every opinion based on it and presented here is therefore considered as a unsubstantiated and as such dismissed.
Good luck with that. Thanks for the insults.
Arties
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 10, 2014
Science does not pretend to know what reality is.
Nope, the science SHOULD NOT pretend to know, what the reality is. This is a huge difference - now it's just the science, which pretends to know, what the reality is and how the Universe was formed. We even don't know, whether it was formed at all, i.e. if it has some global history. All interpretations of observations are biased toward pair of formal models, which are mutually inconsistent by many orders of magnitude (so that they cannot be generalized) and which still have no deeper explanation anyway. Under such a situation every dismissal of the alternative explanations is just this pretension of knowledge of actual truth, which you're trying to avoid.
billpress11
1 / 5 (2) Aug 10, 2014
@RealityCheck
Science does not pretend to know what reality is. Reality is a puzzle that the human conscience struggle to figure out. With our senses we perceive just a little bit of what reality is and with our tools, just a little bit more. You should stop believing that our brain is designed to understand reality. What science is constructing is only possible models of reality and it work just fine. It has permitted humanity to develop some very sophisticated technology. What is wrong with that?

I think there is plenty of reality we understand, like the conservation of energy and moment, the finite speed of light, plus all the science that have made our very sophisticated technology. Where we get into trouble is assuming things to be fact when they either haven't been proven yet or when there are OTHER possible explanation. And that applies to the science of astronomy doubly today.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 10, 2014
Of course it means little to me because I think there is a better than two to one odds that the observed red-shift is caused something other that the expansion of the universe. I think the Z factor and distance are most likely directly related.
Your last statement is therefore correct, but the preceding one is not, and cannot be, by your own data.

I am unclear on what part of my point you aren't understanding. Could you be a little more detailed, please? I'll do my best to explain.
I think my statement above is correct. The Z factor rises in a parabolic curve compared to the age of the universe according to the BB theory.
Not that statement. I agree that the Z factors are rising in an approximately parabolic curve; however I should point out that there is a bend in it at about 7 billion light years.

I deleted everything but the two statements I was talking about to make this clearer.
phprof
1 / 5 (2) Aug 10, 2014
Let us all sing songs of friendship and laughter. Life is too short to care about this.

Prepare for ScienceX to ban you.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 10, 2014
Obvious misunderstanding; the CMB is not a 'backdrop' that comes from the edge of the universe... We are 'bathing' in it.
This is straw man argument, as the billpress11 didn't say something like this. He just presented well known http://www.astro....-DT.html here. How does it imply, that the CMBR is some "backdrop from edges" or whatever else? Of course in no way - therefore your post is irrelevant.
Actually, Techno is saying the same thing I am, but a different way. Movement relative to the CMB (I said) is not necessarily (nonexistent, according to Special Relativity Theory) movement relative to spacetime. Whichever way of saying it you understand is the best-- for you.
Arties
1 / 5 (2) Aug 10, 2014
The whole problem with acceptation of more general ideas is, they cannot be formalized easily, so that they're ignored on behalf of existing models, which are logically inconsistent, but they still provide the job for crowds of theorists and teachers. Unfortunately the previous epoch of universe exploration favored the low dimensional formal models from trivial geometric reason, so that there exists an occupational problem and brake of progress for future. For contemporary physicists it has no meaning to explain, how the universe looks like, if it cannot rewrite such a knowledge into equations. What is not a problem for biologists it just represents a problem for contemporary physicists, who learned to ignore all subtleties, which don't fit their beloved, elaborated - but still simplistic theories.
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Aug 10, 2014
Hi TechnoCreed. :)
You should stop believing that our brain is designed to understand reality. What science is constructing is only possible models of reality and it work just fine. It has permitted humanity to develop some very sophisticated technology. What is wrong with that?
Nothing wrong with that. :) But unlike some, I'm not 'defeatist' when it comes to the human mind understanding the full reality when given its full potential/info to do so based on the reality and not on fantasies.

And it's always advisable to distinguish between 'technology' and 'science'.

The former may arise from observation/trial-and-error methodologies (cavemen used rubbing sticks and striking flint to make fire, but understood nothing of the underlying physical mechanisms/origins etc); while the latter must arise from strict understanding of the underlying causes/mechanisms/origins etc.

Only when 'myths and fantasies' are excluded will the reality stand out clearly. Cheers all real scientists! :)
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 10, 2014
As for the model of the universe I think is most likely? A steady state recycling universe infinite in age and size.
But you haven't answered either the question of why there aren't new galaxies forming in between the old, or where the redshift comes from if not the Doppler effect.
Arties
1 / 5 (2) Aug 10, 2014
Movement relative to the CMB (I said) is not necessarily (nonexistent, according to Special Relativity Theory) movement relative to spacetime.
It is under the situation, when the CMBR fills/pervades whole the observable space-time as we know and understand it. I'm of course aware, that in general relativity the motion with respect to flat empty space-time remains undefined - but has such a space-time a physical meaning. Can space-time exist without its quantum fluctuations? In AWT model not, therefore the existence of relative motion with respect to CMBR is a problem of general relativity - not my problem. The GR just applies to hypothetical situation, which can never (quite) happen in our Universe.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 10, 2014
Hi Da Scneib. :)
I don't see why saying "the visible universe was the size of a pea" has anything to do with absolute location or absolute motion.
If the universe 'is all there is", then unless you 'know' its 'global extent', you can't 'meaningfully compare' any 'local extent' to it. So 'backtracking' from current visible extent to some unmeasured 'a-priori' global extent makes for self-referencing 'BB explanations', yes? That was the point.
But we're not talking about the whole universe, only the visible universe. That's why I said "visible universe."

...acceleration is absolute...
Agreed. But be careful re 'acceleration' arguments. LOCAL accelerations are 'felt/occur' locally. But what is GLOBAL UNIVERSAL 'acceleration' with respect to, if you have no global extent to compare to except your 'assumed' backtracking from current LIMITED visible extent?
It's accelerating *expansion*. Not ordinary acceleration. There is no "global universal 'acceleration.'"
billpress11
1 / 5 (4) Aug 10, 2014
Let us all sing songs of friendship and laughter. Life is too short to care about this.

Prepare for ScienceX to ban you.

Thank you for a very good laugh!
Arties
1 / 5 (3) Aug 10, 2014
why there aren't new galaxies forming in between the old, or where the redshift comes from if not the Doppler effect
We observed a number of young galaxies together with old ones (which usually look like the dwarf satellite galaxies). Also the anthropic condition may be a source of bias here - the formation of intelligent life requires lotta time and quite old well developed and stable galaxies, which is why we are surrounded preferably with similar ones. After all, even the AWT model doesn't favor the steady state model completely - it's just more close to the description of the actual observations. In AWT the Universe is just random and the presence of some global inhomogeneity of it (like the CMBR anisotropy) is therefore welcomed.
where the redshift comes from if not the Doppler effect
We should rather ask, why the physicists never considered the option, whether/how the light will be scattered with quantum fluctuations of vacuum, which are known notoriously.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 10, 2014
This is incorrect. In fact, CPT violation has been extensively confirmed in the neutral kaon decades ago
Which is exactly the reason, I don't talk just about it. I'm talking about CPT violations expected in mesons of higher generations, which are the matter of NA312, KTeV and NA48 experiments in the latest decades.
I misspoke. In fact, CP violations have been observed, but they are always accompanied by T violations. This preserves the CPT symmetry. It was proven in 2002 that a CPT violation would be a Lorentz symmetry violation, i.e. a refutation of Special Relativity Theory. The D0 meson has been proven to violate CP, and there is preliminary evidence the B meson does too.

Anisotropy in the CMB therefore does not mean that there is absolute motion, or absolute location
It just means, you're moving with respect to all observable universe. Which more absolute motion do you have on mind?
Ummm, you'll need to prove this. Scholarly literature please.
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 10, 2014
Hi Da Schneib. :)
But we're not talking about the whole universe, only the visible universe. That's why I said "visible universe."
Yes, so was I. You made a claim about 'pea size' for visible universal extent, and I pointed out there was no meaningful 'reference' for making such 'backtracking assumptions' from current visible to BBang initial 'pea size' visible 'comparison' scaling etc.

It's accelerating *expansion*. Not ordinary acceleration. There is no "global universal 'acceleration'.
But you said "galaxies taken along with" expanding space at ever-increasing RATE of "expansion".

I pointed out no coupling mechanism (between space and galaxies/matter) provided by current models/theory to effect that.

Which is why talk of 'accelerating expansion' etc is fraught with misunderstanding, and is meaningless, glib, non-explanation for what you claim is so.

I further pointed out that no 'geodesics' are provided etc.

And SS 'new matter' is low level locally. So no probs! :)
Arties
1 / 5 (2) Aug 10, 2014
Our current models of the universe work amazingly well. They accurately explain the distributions and motions of galaxies as the result of dark matter, dark energy and gravity.
Only when we subtract quite apparent background signals, like the Doopler anisotropy of CMBR and its spherical modes or the signs of dodecahedron structure of it. This is another aspect of contemporary physics: it seeks for violation of existing theories, while removing just the signal, which is supposed to study. For example the physicists are looking for extradimensions with violation of gravitational law at short distances, which is quite OK - but why they're eliminating the quite apparent background of Cassimir force and various dipole forces after then? This is just the evidence, which they're looking for!
billpress11
1 / 5 (3) Aug 10, 2014
As for the model of the universe I think is most likely? A steady state recycling universe infinite in age and size.
But you haven't answered either the question of why there aren't new galaxies forming in between the old, or where the redshift comes from if not the Doppler effect.

There are other ideas out there, I posted the link below in a MUCH earlier posting. Admittedly it has not been proven but it at least offers a possible test that could indicate whether it might be an explanation or at least have some merit.
http://www.scribd...-Physics

It's in the waves of particles theory of light section.
Arties
1 / 5 (2) Aug 10, 2014
We for example don't understand the origin of Axis of evil, the anisotropy of small structure constant in spectra, the existence of WMAP cold spot, we don't know, why the galaxies are arranged in fibers, why they're preferentially rotating in one direction, what the dark flow is, why the cosmic voids are lensing at their centers and where the polarization of CMBR arises. Of course, if we consider all these subtle phenomena as a bare facts, which are involved and described with experimental parameters in existing models, then there is really nothing to explain - and we are in similar situation like with physics at the end of 19th century, which was considered complete - just a few "subtleties" remained to explain.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 10, 2014
Aether theories were refuted by the Michelson-Morley experiment in the nineteenth century.
AWT is based on dense aether model of Oliver Lodge, this model was never refused with any experiment.
There is no aether nor is any required.
How can you explain the existence of gravity, light waves, magnetic field or quantum noise after then?
DeBroglie showed that waves and particles are different aspects of the same phenomena, Planck proved that light is emitted as particles, and Einstein proved it's absorbed as particles, too. Individual photons can be detected with CCD detectors, and in fact these are what all the big particle accelerators use to detect *all* particles.

We only have ad-hoced formulas, but not casual explanation for these phenomena. They're just assumed with contemporary physics as such. The EM field simple likes doing the waves - http://www.youtub...lMb6A...
Particles are not "assumed." They can be detected individually.
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (6) Aug 10, 2014
I think there is plenty of reality we understand, like the conservation of energy and moment, the finite speed of light, plus all the science that have made our very sophisticated technology. Where we get into trouble is assuming things to be fact when they either haven't been proven yet or when there are OTHER possible explanation. And that applies to the science of astronomy doubly today.
At the human scale, I accept that we are connected to reality by our senses and much of it is confirmed by mathematics. But that does not mean that we know what reality is. There is still too many pieces of the puzzle that are not in place to have a definitive 'image' of it.
Just what is the proof that there is no absolute motion? The proof that there is is the speed of light.
Since you do not accept or do not understand relativity (not sure exactly). I cannot help you here yet.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 10, 2014
It's a standard effect called the Doppler effect. What's your explanation for the redshift?
Just another standard effect, called the scattering of waves.
Science isn't about politics. Science is a method of finding the reasons
You should never confuse the practical science done with contemporary scientists and it's hypothetical rules, which aren't followed at all. After all, just the Feynman has said, that the science doesn't ask for reasons, it doesn't ask http://www.youtub...A9lMb6A, so you even don't know, what the scientific method is in contemporary physics.
So why do refrigerators and jet aircraft and computers work if modern physics doesn't follow the scientific method? How about the discovery of the Higgs? I'm sorry, quoting Feynman and claiming he's denying the scientific method is-- to quote some Feynman myself-- cargo cult science.
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (7) Aug 10, 2014
Nothing wrong with that. :) But unlike some, I'm not 'defeatist' when it comes to the human mind understanding the full reality when given its full potential/info to do so based on the reality and not on fantasies.
Do you realize that the reality you are defending is a reconstruction of it inside your head? Although, like you, I have good feelings about human intellectual abilities and I have great hope that we are going to keep moving forward, unlike you I accept that the brain is limited because nature built it around our limited senses. So limited in fact that, less than a century ago, people were sick because of 'bad air'. We can laugh at this today but only because we could amplify our senses with tools and not because we have superior cognitive abilities than our ancestors. We even created tools to detect and study phenomenon that we do not have any natural sensible abilities to detect like e.g. neutrinos. They were first inferred than detected and confirmed. So, tell me, how much of reality is still hidden because we have no sense to detect it? And when will you have enough humility to accept it? You do not have to answer the last question; it is just food for thought.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 10, 2014
We *observe* more space is being created. That's a *fact*.
No. You *infer* based on *assumptions* from observed radiation info received; and make *interpretations* from theory.
Well, actually we do the same thing with our eyes. "You" exist behind your forehead; your eyes observe radiation info and convert it to electrochemical impulses that go to your hindbrain, and from there get processed and passed into the midbrain and eventually to the cortex for decisions. Do you doubt what you see, or do you think it's all just conjecture? If you don't, then why do you doubt what we see with telescopes?
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 10, 2014
As the BICEP2 'work/paper' assumptions/methodology etc fiasco shows only too well, such flawed assumptions/interpretations/inferences may be wrongly trusted as 'reality' because they did not know the difference between 'results' *inferred*, and the actual *observed* data as such which did not support their 'treatment/claims' for it.
What fiasco? You mean all the rumors? Actually they're checking the results with the Keck Array and South Pole Telescope right now, and they expect to be able to check them more thoroughly when the next Planck data comes out in October. So your assumption that these results are wrong is incorrect. Read here: http://www.pbs.or...hold-up/

Note the source is PBS, not a bunch or rumors. It was the rumormongers that created the fiasco, not the BICEP2 team.
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (5) Aug 11, 2014
Hey vieux Ira, I am glad you are still around. This is just a little word to tell you that I miss your colorful comments. À bientôt!
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 11, 2014
where are the new galaxies being formed as the old galaxies move apart?
You assume/interpret 'expansion/inflation', not 'observe' it as such.
Actually it has nothing to do with inflation, only with expansion. And expansion is proven by Einstein in the EFE, and by the redshift data, and by the supernova data. Where is your evidence to the contrary?

And recent observations show ever increasing population of previously undetected galaxies/matter. :)
Of course they do; we're making better and better telescopes all the time, and putting them in better and better locations. That doesn't show that galaxies are being created in empty space. We'd need at least hundreds of thousands of years to confirm that.

But in any case, SS models do NOT require 'full blown' galaxies to 'just appear' as you imply.
There's no evidence of forming galaxies either. And I did not imply that full-blown galaxies should be appearing instantaneously.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 11, 2014
Like your 'dark energy', SS 'new matter' from recycling energy-space is low level 'locally'.
But if there's "new matter" appearing out of nowhere, then there should be galaxies that were formed more recently than the surrounding ones, by billions of years. And we know a lot about the life cycles of galaxies, and there just aren't any. For example, where are all the nearby quasars? There aren't any. All the galaxies are too old to make quasars any more.

Steady state is deprecated. Time to move on to more modern theories.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 11, 2014
It's a standard effect called the Doppler effect. What's your explanation for the redshift?
Just another standard effect, called the scattering of waves.
Dang it, I forgot to respond to this.

What's scattering the waves, and why is it uniform? All the matter we see out there is clumpy. That's because of gravity. And don't tell me Compton shift; that was debunked long ago. I have the link right here: http://www.astro....ein.html
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Aug 11, 2014
I brought up Lemaitre for historical perspective,
No, you brought up LeMaitre to poison the well. LeMaitre's Big Bang shares almost nothing with the current Big Bang Theory, other than starting small and hot. What his motivations were is immaterial to the facts.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 11, 2014
Just what is the proof that there is no absolute motion? The proof that there is is the speed of light.
It's a postulate of Special Relativity. Special Relativity is pretty much as good as a theory gets. It's made numerous predictions that have all been proven correct. Therefore, there's nothing wrong with its postulates.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 11, 2014
The mainstream view is that space is expanding and carrying the distant galaxies along with it.
Well, this is not what the Doppler shift actually is.
If a car is on a train, and the train goes by you, and there's a person in the car honking the horn, will you hear a Doppler shift?

No difference between that and this. It doesn't matter if the universe is moving the galaxies, or if the galaxies are moving *in* the universe. You'll still get a Doppler shift. You can alternatively propose that the expansion of space is expanding the light waves and causing the redshift, too; either way is consistent with observation. Many cosmologists prefer to describe it that way, because of the mainstream view that space is expanding rather than the galaxies moving through space, but the fact of the matter is that the math gets the same results either way.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 11, 2014
Anyway, this model doesn't imply any "formation of space" - only expansion of already existing one.
Ummm, where does the extra space between the two things that are receding from one another come from then? Space is just distance, nothing more. To expand space, you have to add more space. Anybody who's put a new room on their house knows this intuitively.

BTW the distant galaxies are much more luminous, larger and separated each other, than the expanding space model predicts, so it's BS anyway.
First, you'll need a scholarly source for this because this is not the mainstream understanding. Unless you're talking about quasars, which only happen in galaxies much younger than any of the galaxies around us; but that's a matter of galactic evolution.

Second, assuming you're correct, how come galaxies that are distant are different from galaxies in our neighborhood? Are you claiming the laws of nature are different there than here?

Third, what happened to steady state?
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 11, 2014
The expanding space would imply the expansion of everything, including molecules, atoms and solar systems into account of their mutual force interactions
This is incorrect. Locally, gravity overcomes the cosmological constant. It's only over long distances that the cosmological constant overwhelms gravity.

whereas the red shift model is just based on assumption,
Now you're denying the redshift?

the spectra of atoms and Kepler laws inside of galaxies remain unchanged, so that they can serve as a reference for measuring of Hubble constant and density of dark matter.
I don't understand what this means. Could you explain it some more?

The Big Bang model is therefore internally inconsistent, no matter how you take it.
You haven't shown this, or linked anything that proves it so far. Could you explain exactly how you think it's internally inconsistent please? As always, with references to the scholarly literature.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 11, 2014
This is incorrect. The mainstream view is that space is expanding and carrying the distant galaxies along with it.
Mate, you really must be more careful and stop promulgating 'facile' and meaningless 'glib explanations' like that one.
You'd better tell that to about twenty thousand cosmologists and a like number of astrophysicists because it's what they all say.

How can galaxies be 'taken along with space expansion' if there is NO COUPLING mechanism provided by the theory that claims this?
The coupling mechanism is inertia, which is caused by conservation of momentum. If space expands, and there is no appreciable movement of the galaxy within that space, then later it will be farther away.

And where are the 'geodesics' for such 'galaxies taken along with space'?
I don't understand what you're objecting to. Could you please expand on this some more? As always, scholarly literature article links should accompany your explanation.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 11, 2014
No-one has yet provided the BBang etc model/theory with either a coupling mechanism
As I said above, it's conservation of momentum.

OR the descriptive motional 'geodesics' which such 'with space' recessional motions must have if 'true' in reality physics.
Are you claiming that they're ignoring General Relativity Theory? Are you aware that the Big Bang theory is *based upon* GRT? Can you clarify please?

So in mainstream models/theory it's all facile CONJECTURE pure and simple.
This is incorrect. GRT is not conjecture, it's a theory. Conjectures remain so until a method of testing them is determined; then they become hypotheses. Once a hypothesis has passed a test, or depending on how controversial it is some tests, then it becomes a theory. GRT has achieved this status long ago. We're still checking on little details like frame dragging, but so far they're all turning out to be correct.

Are you claiming to have found a refutation of GRT? Please clarify.
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (6) Aug 11, 2014
No, you brought up LeMaitre to poison the well. LeMaitre's Big Bang shares almost nothing with the current Big Bang Theory, other than starting small and hot. What his motivations were is immaterial to the facts.
Do not be so narrow minded many religious scientists made important contribution to the wealth of human knowledge.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 11, 2014
Movement relative to the CMB (I said) is not necessarily (nonexistent, according to Special Relativity Theory) movement relative to spacetime.
It is under the situation, when the CMBR fills/pervades whole the observable space-time as we know and understand it.
You'll find a very good answer, from a Professor of Cosmology and Astronomy at the University of British Columbia named Douglas Scott, here: http://www.astro....sic.html It's titled "How come we can tell what motion we have with respect to the CMB?" so search on that, or just scroll down a bit.

Professor Scott points out that while we can perform an *external* experiment that defines a frame motionless with respect to the CMB (i.e. measuring its redshift in various directions), we cannot perform a *local* physics experiment that differentiates this frame from any other inertial frame. And that's what the principle of relativity means. There are no special inertial frames.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 11, 2014
No, you brought up LeMaitre to poison the well. LeMaitre's Big Bang shares almost nothing with the current Big Bang Theory, other than starting small and hot. What his motivations were is immaterial to the facts.
Do not be so narrow minded many religious scientists made important contribution to the wealth of human knowledge.
Sorry, I didn't mean that to be a dig at LeMaitre. Thanks for pointing it out so I could clarify it. He is of course the "L" in FRLW and was a great cosmologist. Given that lots of digs about the BBT being religiously motivated have been thrown around on this thread and a couple other similar ones, I thought it was pretty clear what was intended there. For example, search billpress11's posts for the word "MAGIC" in all caps.

BTW, I don't mean to spam the board; I'm responding to three people at once, and limited to a thousand characters per post. If I'm posting too much, let me know and I'll spread it out more over time. I want to give good posts
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (7) Aug 11, 2014
BTW, I don't mean to spam the board; I'm responding to three people at once, and limited to a thousand characters per post. If I'm posting too much, let me know and I'll spread it out more over time. I want to give good posts.
Au contraire, I very much appreciated your patience and contribution to this hectic comment tread. It was intelligent and a good entertainment. On this, good night. TC
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Aug 11, 2014
... in general relativity the motion with respect to flat empty space-time remains undefined - but has such a space-time a physical meaning.
Actually, it's Special Relativity Theory (and in fact one of its postulates), and what it says is that no inertial frame is special, not even the one that's motionless with respect to the CMB, In other words, no local physics experiment can be performed that differentiates this inertial frame from any other.

I don't understand what you mean when you ask, "but has such a space-time a physical meaning[?]." That spacetime is our spacetime.

Can space-time exist without its quantum fluctuations? In AWT model not, therefore the existence of relative motion with respect to CMBR is a problem of general relativity - not my problem.
Actually, as Professor Scott points out, it's not a problem. Meanwhile, what does GRT have to do with quantum fluctuations? And how can any spacetime exist without quantum fluctuations?
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (9) Aug 11, 2014
The GR just applies to hypothetical situation, which can never (quite) happen in our Universe.
This is incorrect. GR describes our universe; it's been extensively tested and never failed. As a recent example, Gravity Probe B finally proved frame dragging.
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 11, 2014
BTW, I don't mean to spam the board; I'm responding to three people at once, and limited to a thousand characters per post. If I'm posting too much, let me know and I'll spread it out more over time. I want to give good posts.
Au contraire, I very much appreciated your patience and contribution to this hectic comment tread. It was intelligent and a good entertainment. On this, good night. TC
Excellent! Thanks for the compliments. I'm enjoying it too. :D
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 11, 2014
why there aren't new galaxies forming in between the old, or where the redshift comes from if not the Doppler effect
We observed a number of young galaxies together with old ones (which usually look like the dwarf satellite galaxies).
I am not aware of any such observations. Can you, as always, provide some evidence from the scholarly literature please?

Also the anthropic condition may be a source of bias here - the formation of intelligent life requires lotta time and quite old well developed and stable galaxies, which is why we are surrounded preferably with similar ones.
Again, now you're saying the universe is different over there than it is over here. And as always, "over there" means "back then," as well. So much for steady state.
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 11, 2014
After all, even the AWT model doesn't favor the steady state model completely - it's just more close to the description of the actual observations. In AWT the Universe is just random and the presence of some global inhomogeneity of it (like the CMBR anisotropy) is therefore welcomed.
There are two anisotropies, actually. One, the dipole (2-lobe) anisotropy, is the bias caused by the movement of Earth relative to the CMB. The other is a quadrupole (4-lobed) anisotropy that comes in three flavors, of which we have so far only seen two (and expect, if inflation is correct, not to see much of the third, but our instruments aren't sensitive to see it yet). Unfortunately for your AWT conjecture, the two we have seen so far strongly favor not only the Big Bang (the E mode) but also inflation (the T mode).
yep
3 / 5 (4) Aug 11, 2014
"LeMaitre's Big Bang shares almost nothing with current Big Bang Theory"
"...important when discussing theory that morphs instead of falsifies.."
Sounds like we are saying the same thing. Irony?
So again Charles E.R. Bruce is ignored and Halton Arp is discounted completely.

Da Schneib though we have different cosmological faiths I appreciate you as well.
Cheers all

Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Aug 11, 2014
where the redshift comes from if not the Doppler effect
We should rather ask, why the physicists never considered the option, whether/how the light will be scattered with quantum fluctuations of vacuum, which are known notoriously.
I am unaware of any experiment that has shown scattering from quantum fluctuations. And even if there were, it's not going to cause redshifts, since vacuum fluctuations make exactly the same particles we see all the time, which also do not cause redshift when they cause scattering.

My question remains unanswered: where do the redshifts come from if not from the Doppler effect?

As usual, please provide scholarly literature references that substantiate your claims.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (9) Aug 11, 2014
Since you're up you get an immediate response. :D
LeMaitre's Big Bang shares almost nothing with current Big Bang Theory
"...important when discussing theory that morphs instead of falsifies.."
Sounds like we are saying the same thing. Irony?
Early conjectures and hypotheses often undergo multiple reiterations of testing and rejection before the right hypothesis comes and the tests succeed. Often the final theory is called by the original name given to the original conjecture that led to the original incorrect hypothesis. This is the scientific method. Furthermore, later evidence often expands upon a successful theory, causing a new hypothesis to be created with the additional explanations for this new evidence, which then undergoes this same process; but the theory is still called the same name again. You could say they should change the name, but credit to the original creator of the original conjecture must be given, and it would also cause mass confusion. C'est la vie.
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 11, 2014
So again Charles E.R. Bruce is ignored and Halton Arp is discounted completely.
Arp's claim that redshifts are quantized has not withstood the enormous body of evidence collected by more modern equipment since he made it. His observations were apparently due to galaxy clustering; thus, the galaxies in one galactic cluster would form a data cluster surrounding an average value, and galaxies in another would form another data cluster around a different value, giving the impression of this quantization. Now that we have surveys like "One Million Galaxies" we can see that this impression was false. Since this was his main objection to BBT, it appears that his claims have been deprecated.

As for Bruce, he was an amateur, and he was wrong about solar prominences. They do in fact consist of matter, not just electrical discharges, as we can tell from the storm of protons we get from them (AKA solar storms).
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Aug 11, 2014
Da Schneib though we have different cosmological faiths I appreciate you as well.
Thanks for that. Disagreeing doesn't mean we have to be disagreeable. ;) And thanks for listening. I hope to modify your opinion. :D
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Aug 11, 2014
Hi Da Schneib. :)
But we're not talking about the whole universe, only the visible universe. That's why I said "visible universe."
Yes, so was I. You made a claim about 'pea size' for visible universal extent, and I pointed out there was no meaningful 'reference' for making such 'backtracking assumptions' from current visible to BBang initial 'pea size' visible 'comparison' scaling etc.
But the claim isn't that the Big Bang was pea-sized. The claim was that the part of the Big Bang that became our visible universe was. And actually, that's just what they were saying before inflation was theorized; today, they'd say that was during the inflation era, and at the time it was the size of a pea there was no energy in the universe, only cosmological constant. After inflation the part of the Big Bang that became our visible universe was at least 20 billion light years across, and the whole Big Bang was at least 40 billion light years across. Note that "at least," please.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Aug 11, 2014
It's accelerating *expansion*. Not ordinary acceleration. There is no "global universal 'acceleration'.
But you said "galaxies taken along with" expanding space at ever-increasing RATE of "expansion".
Yes. Unfortunately for your implicit claim here that a change in the rate of expansion is "acceleration," there is no local experiment you can do to show this "acceleration," as a result of which it is not an acceleration as defined in GRT (which defines accelerated frames and equates them to frames curved by gravity). Astrophysicists and cosmologists have used the term "acceleration" to make the concept accessible to the general public; that doesn't mean that's how it really is, it's just an analogy, and possibly not a very good one.

People talk about "accelerated development" when they're talking about either making a code project be completed in less time than usual for the given amount of work, or when they're talking about building houses faster than normal.

contd
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Aug 11, 2014
That doesn't mean they are going to put the developers in a car and push the gas pedal all the way down, nor that they are going to build the houses on top of a rocket. I'm kidding, heh.

I pointed out no coupling mechanism (between space and galaxies/matter) provided by current models/theory to effect that.
And I pointed out in response to your earlier post that there is such a coupling, and that it's the conservation of momentum. Real physical acceleration can be detected with a local experiment; this cannot, and it is therefore not real physical acceleration, but a colloquial usage, a point I made above with the joke about the developers and the houses. I agree that it's confusing and perhaps should be changed.

Which is why talk of 'accelerating expansion' etc is fraught with misunderstanding, and is meaningless, glib, non-explanation for what you claim is so.
Changing to "exponential expansion" might be better, but it would scare heck out of Joe Sixpack.
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Aug 11, 2014
I further pointed out that no 'geodesics' are provided etc.
Why would you need geodesics if the universe is flat, or nearly so? A geodesic is merely the generalization of a mathematical line or line segment on a plane, to the same "line" on a curved manifold, such as the surface of a sphere. That's the mathematical definition.

The relativity definition is the path of an object not undergoing any forces, i.e. in an inertial frame. The geodesic of a motionless (relative to the observer) object is a point. So from this point of view the geodesics of distant galaxies are in fact all more-or-less straight lines pointing away from us.

I'm sure you can see that in fact a geodesic is defined for each galaxy. They aren't being subjected to any fundamental force but gravity, and a geodesic curves in the presence of a gravity field, according to GRT.

And SS 'new matter' is low level locally.
And as I pointed out above, that "new matter" should create galaxies of all ages. cont
Da Schneib
3.2 / 5 (6) Aug 11, 2014
Instead we see older and older galaxies the farther we look. This is inconsistent with continuous creation of matter between the galaxies.

All the galaxies at a given distance (i.e. a given period of time ago) appear to be the same age, even the ones at the same distance but on opposite sides of the sky.
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 11, 2014
But you haven't answered either the question of why there aren't new galaxies forming in between the old, or where the redshift comes from if not the Doppler effect.
I posted the link below in a MUCH earlier posting.
...
It's in the waves of particles theory of light section.
In the second paragraph, the author makes two misstatements.

First, the author forgets that energy has momentum, defined as the momentum for its equivalent mass under E=mc². A stretched rubber band, for example, has more mass than a relaxed one, and if it's moving that means more momentum. The same is true for photons themselves, except that the speed doesn't change. More energy equals more momentum; mass is irrelevant. Photons are energy, not mass.

Second, frequency is defined not by man but by the physics of the universe. The length of a second is irrelevant; you can measure frequency using any unit of time you like and as long as you convert the units properly they'll indicate the same value.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Aug 11, 2014
contd
Frequency is detected by the human eye as color; in addition there are many frequencies both above and below the visual range, and these can be detected using other equipment than our eyes. Whether it's in vibrations per second, or per hour, or per fortnight, if you're converting the units correctly (for example multiplying or dividing as appropriate by 3600 to change between seconds and hours, then you'll get the same answer every time no matter what value you choose to use for your time unit. The number will be different, but it will indicate the same frequency. Frequency is defined by time, and time is defined by Special Relativity Theory's postulate that spacetime consists of a four dimensional continuum. (Note that I believe that the Nobel Prize site left that one, and the Special Relativity Principle, which says "The laws of physics are the same in any inertial frame, regardless of position or velocity," out. See here: http://casa.color...te.html)
cont
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Aug 11, 2014
Say for example you scrub all the numbers around the volume knob on your stereo amplifier, and instead of 1-10 you label it from 1-20. Does the amp get louder? Same with frequency. Frequency is a fundamental property and changing the measuring stick doesn't change the length of the dress. (Proper credit to Spinal Tap and the skit about the amps that go to 11.)

So I wouldn't bother reading that link if I were you. The author has no idea what he's talking about, and doesn't know much physics (not to mention electronics, since we're talking frequency here). Don't take it personally; it sounds plausible like many wrong ideas do. But finding two major gaffes in the second paragraph makes my BS detector go nuts.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (9) Aug 11, 2014
We for example don't understand the origin of Axis of evil, the anisotropy of small structure constant in spectra, the existence of WMAP cold spot,
All of these are due to instrumental limitations which will be overcome in time, not limitations in any theory.

we don't know, why the galaxies are arranged in fibers,
You mean filaments? Yes we do. We have replicated the large-scale structure of the universe in simulations.

why they're preferentially rotating in one direction,
This is silly. Anybody who's ever done any visual astronomy knows that galaxies are oriented in all directions. I won't even ask you to substantiate this because I own a backyard observatory and have seen with my own eyes you are wrong. What's "the same direction" mean when one is face on so you can see the disk, one is edge on from side to side, and one is edge on from top to bottom? I know of a place in the sky where you can see all of these within a degree or two of each other.

cont
Pexeso
1 / 5 (3) Aug 11, 2014
Instead we see older and older galaxies the farther we look. This is inconsistent with continuous creation of matter between the galaxies
We don't. We can observe the same mature galaxies at the distant areas of Universe as in our neighborhood. What you're writing about frequency is just a plain nonsense - of course its value depends on choice of units. And so on.
Anybody who's ever done any visual astronomy knows that galaxies are oriented in all directions. I won't even ask you to substantiate this because I own a backyard observatory
Yes, and I never observed an electron in my kitchen - it just means, it doesn't exist.... What a kind of troll you are?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Aug 11, 2014
He completed his read of the comment thread and sat back in his chair, surprise written in the wrinkles of his forehead.
"I can't believe my "evil" plan actually worked!"
( as he turned the knob on his speakers to ELEVEN)
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 11, 2014
It's called "Markarian's Chain." Here's a picture of it on APOD: http://apod.nasa....609.html I see one edge-on galaxy pointing from upper left to lower right, two pointing from upper right to lower left, one pointing from side to side, two face on, and a couple big ellipticals (between the two pointing from upper right to lower left; the face-on pair are on the left side).

For that matter look at the Hubble Deep Field and tell me what "the same direction" means.

what the dark flow is
What's "dark flow" mean?

why the cosmic voids are lensing at their centers
I'll need compelling evidence of this. As usual, scholarly works by reputable astronomers or astrophysicists only please.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Aug 11, 2014
Absolutely great discussion over the last 13 hours, guys.
First rate and thumbs up!
Pexeso
1 / 5 (3) Aug 11, 2014
I'll need compelling evidence of this
I don't, as this observation perfectly fits the AWT model. You shouldn't ask for link: if you're qualified for this discussion enough, you should already know about all details of this research in the same way, like me. I'm not here for teaching of ignorant trolls, who know contemporary astronomy from their backyards only.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 11, 2014
and where the polarization of CMBR arises
From the scattering by galaxies of the quadrupole anisotropy. It's a standard effect, well known, just like the Doppler Effect is well known. See http://arxiv.org/abs/1407.5135 where they say, "We analyse the feasibility of detecting the polarization of the CMB caused by scattering of the remote temperature quadrupole by galaxy clusters with forthcoming CMB polarization surveys."

Of course, if we consider all these subtle phenomena as a bare facts, which are involved and described with experimental parameters in existing models, then there is really nothing to explain - and we are in similar situation like with physics at the end of 19th century, which was just a few "subtleties" remained to explain.
Not really. In the nineteenth century we didn't have computers, for starters.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 11, 2014
I see you, Whyde and Pexeso. Hang loose a few, got a bit of cleanup to do.

Whyde, thanks for the compliment!
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 11, 2014
Instead we see older and older galaxies the farther we look. This is inconsistent with continuous creation of matter between the galaxies
We don't. We can observe the same mature galaxies at the distant areas of Universe as in our neighborhood. As usual, please provide links to and quotes from scholarly articles. This is totally inconsistent with the fact there are no quasars near us (which means recently).

What you're writing about frequency is just a plain nonsense - of course its value depends on choice of units. And so on.
So if I use a meter ruler to measure a dress, it gets longer than if I use a yard ruler?

You're misunderstanding something here. Please read my statement more carefully.
Pexeso
1 / 5 (3) Aug 11, 2014
where the polarization of CMBR arises ... From the scattering by galaxies of the quadrupole anisotropy
It's just a correlation and quite weak one in addition, as the polarization signal is apparently more complex than the quadruple anisotropy. And it doesn't explain, where the quadruple anisotropy comes from.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 11, 2014
Anybody who's ever done any visual astronomy knows that galaxies are oriented in all directions. I won't even ask you to substantiate this because I own a backyard observatory
Yes, and I never observed an electron in my kitchen - it just means, it doesn't exist....
You ignored the APOD picture. And you could observe an electron directly in your kitchen or anywhere else if you had a Penning magnetic trap to hold it in and a laser to excite it. It's possible to make an electron emit photons. You can actually see it. And an electron is much smaller than an atom.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 11, 2014
I'll need compelling evidence of this
I don't
So you accept it without evidence? OK. Sounds like religion to me.

this observation perfectly fits the AWT model
Which incorrect. Already proven above.

You shouldn't ask for link
Sorry, I prefer evidence. When none is forthcoming I assume there isn't any.

if you're qualified for this discussion enough, you should already know about all details of this research in the same way, like me.
AWT is a discredited fringe theory. I've already addressed this above.
Pexeso
2 / 5 (4) Aug 11, 2014
And you could observe an electron directly in your kitchen or anywhere else if you had a Penning magnetic trap
Stop with further piling of nonsense. The contemporary astronomy is not based on kitchen experiments, backyard observations and APOD pictures.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (8) Aug 11, 2014
where the polarization of CMBR arises ... From the scattering by galaxies of the quadrupole anisotropy
It's just a correlation and quite weak one in addition,
This is incorrect, according to the link I posted and you ignored.

as the polarization signal is apparently more complex than the quadruple anisotropy.
This is irrelevant; the source of the polarization is the scattering by the galaxies it has passed through, according to the link I posted and you ignored.

And it doesn't explain, where the quadruple anisotropy comes from.
This is incorrect; the link says it comes from scattering by the foreground galaxies.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 11, 2014
And you could observe an electron directly in your kitchen or anywhere else if you had a Penning magnetic trap
Stop with further piling of nonsense. The contemporary astronomy is not based on kitchen experiments, backyard observations and APOD pictures.
Ummm, that APOD picture contains evidence: a bunch of galaxies pointing in all different directions, thus proving they cannot all be spinning in "the same direction." To be spinning in "the same direction" they'd all have to be *oriented* in the same direction.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Aug 11, 2014
And you could observe an electron directly in your kitchen or anywhere else if you had a Penning magnetic trap

You can "observe" electrons by walking across carpet in stocking feet...
To be spinning in "the same direction" they'd all have to be *oriented* in the same direction.

Not quite sure I'd agree with this one. Are all star systems in our galaxy oriented the same direction?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Aug 11, 2014
I'll need compelling evidence of this
I don't
one more reason that you cannot comprehend modern physics
as this observation perfectly fits the AWT model
PSEUDOSCIENCE which dies here: http://arxiv.org/...1284.pdf
and here: http://exphy.uni-...2009.pdf
You shouldn't ask for link: if you're qualified for this discussion enough, you should already know about all details of this research in the same way, like me. I'm not here for teaching of ignorant trolls, who know contemporary astronomy from their backyards only
WHY would ANYONE want to study PSEUDOSCIENCE when it has been PROVEN WRONG TIME AND AGAIN ALREADY????

see links in my post

THAT is why you still post for awt pseudoscience, zeph
you can't comprehend how PHYSICS has completely DEBUNKED your religion, so you ignore it and keep posting
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 11, 2014
Yes, and I never observed an electron in my kitchen - it just means, it doesn't exist....

Weird. i used to own something called a cathode ray tube (ye olde TV to you young 'uns), Looked like electrons did just fine exciting photons in that.
And currently I'm contracting for a company that makes a lot of dough using the same principle - though suitably amped up - to create x-rays for hospitals. Ever had an x-ray taken? Know how that works? For something that "doesn't exist" it sure makes pretty pictures.
Toiea
1 / 5 (3) Aug 11, 2014
If you believe, that observable Universe is formed with black hole, which has some surrounding, then you're already believing that 1) vacuum is formed with dense matter forming the interior of this hole 2) Universe is much larger and older than the observable Universe.

Of course we can just wait together for further extrapolations of these developing concepts and compare them with AWT in its present state...;-)
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (7) Aug 11, 2014
@Da Schneib
Do not put too much attention on anybody talking about AWT (Aether Wave Theory) it is all the same person; a Czech guy known under the pseudonym of Zephir, who have been trolling his own pet theory in all the science blogs for years. In this tread e.g. Arties, Pexoso and toiea are all the same person; he regularly sees his pseudo banned and erased so he regularly change pseudo so that not all of his comments get erased. I exchange comments with him sometimes, but only when science is not involved. He is generally polite but you will get nowhere discussing science with him. To make the matter worst he has his own terminology for observed phenomenon, e.g. "why the cosmic voids are lensing at their centers" my guess is that he is talking about galactic cluster collision like 'the bullet cluster', so it gets very confusing.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 11, 2014
That's OK, my posts might inform lurkers and other folks like billpress or yet. I saw some of Zephir's posts elsewhere when looking for information to make my posts so I can see exactly what you're talking about; I think I also saw his blog in Google searches but I never went there, :D

I didn't realize Pexeso was him, but even so I figured I ought to inform you guys when he started slanging me. Kinda like leaning over to pick up a piece of trash from the sidewalk in front of my house and carrying it to a trash can. Heh.

In addition, I need to get my physics and cosmology chops back up to snuff, and last night went a long way toward that.

Thanks for your caring ways. I'm OK, no stress.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Aug 11, 2014
In addition, I need to get my physics and cosmology chops back up to snuff, and last night went a long way toward that.

Back UP?!?!
I'd say you're head n neck ahead o most on here...
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 11, 2014
And you could observe an electron directly in your kitchen or anywhere else if you had a Penning magnetic trap

You can "observe" electrons by walking across carpet in stocking feet...
Troo dat.

To be spinning in "the same direction" they'd all have to be *oriented* in the same direction.

Not quite sure I'd agree with this one. Are all star systems in our galaxy oriented the same direction?
No. Just like galaxies, they're oriented in all different directions. It depends on the dynamics of the local molecular cloud they were formed from. However, within a solar system everything rotates the same way. It was all from the same solar nebula. Of course, a star or other massive object can perturb it, and astrophysicists believe that this might have happened to Neptune, when our system passed close to another one, accounting for its extreme axial tilt and possibly also stripping Pluto away, which might originally have been one of its moons.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 11, 2014
Yes, and I never observed an electron in my kitchen - it just means, it doesn't exist....

Weird. i used to own something called a cathode ray tube (ye olde TV to you young 'uns), Looked like electrons did just fine exciting photons in that.
And currently I'm contracting for a company that makes a lot of dough using the same principle - though suitably amped up - to create x-rays for hospitals. Ever had an x-ray taken? Know how that works? For something that "doesn't exist" it sure makes pretty pictures.
LOL, never thought of those ones.

I still can't remember who did the experiment with the Penning trap and the laser that made a single particle visible to the naked eye. I read it somewhere, but it could have been one of Brian Greene's books, or Asimov's History of Physics, or who knows what. If any kind soul could remind me it would make my day. ;)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Aug 11, 2014
Are all star systems in our galaxy oriented the same direction?

No. Just like galaxies, they're oriented in all different directions. It depends on the dynamics of the local molecular cloud they were formed from. However, within a solar system everything rotates the same way. It was all from the same solar nebula. Of course, a star or other massive object can perturb it, and astrophysicists believe that this might have happened to Neptune, when our system passed close to another one, accounting for its extreme axial tilt and possibly also stripping Pluto away, which might originally have been one of its moons.


So, that was kinda the point of my "conjecture" - that the visible collection of galaxies out there could likely be a small part of a bigger "Galaxy" of galaxies. The Universe likes to repeat itself occasionally on the odd "scale"... Some people cringe at the term, but "fractal" seems to describe it fairly well.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Aug 11, 2014
Hi TechnoCreed. :)
You should stop believing that our brain is designed to understand reality. What science is constructing is only possible models of reality and it work just fine. It has permitted humanity to develop some very sophisticated technology. What is wrong with that?
Nothing wrong with that, except....you are speaking about a science process that is still in train and not yet 'complete' (although that state of affairs will change drastically after I publish my complete and consistent ToE :) ).

As for 'mind' ability to understand the reality 'as it is' at its most fundamental nature/processes, I see no limitations.

Chaos theory teaches us 'complexity' naturally 'emerges' from 're-iteration process' of even most minimal number of simple 'physical entities/dynamics'.

This tells us UNIVERSE may actually be very 'minimalistic and simple' FUNDAMENTALLY.

So once 'mind' comprehends that minimal/simple 'fundamental ensemble', the rest will follow on easily. So cheer up! :)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Aug 11, 2014
Do not put too much attention on anybody talking about AWT (Aether Wave Theory) it is all the same person; a Czech guy known under the pseudonym of Zephir, who have been trolling his own pet theory in all the science blogs for years
@Da Schneib
Here is the latest list of Zephir sock puppets... unless banned again, these are the latest:
osnova Zwentoo Pejico Spadia Antuka Teper Incosa ahsan67 Jantoo Sikla otero Doiea Technico DoieaS Pexeso Arties Toiea

he also uses a sock army for votes. that list is here:
rhsthjnty, tirahobis, pehawev, yefeb, bikuxem, retejap, xanuxul, debokolin, gipagajege, yejen, godivecu, befa, rovodeh, vudamezire, cuyajuyino, yolepugor, begalifowi, megayugo, juhodo, bibigak, fetem, sosamuca

at least he is better than sam I am with his green ToE and jam
Brian Greene's books
I have a few of Greene's books as well as Asimov, I will look through what I have and see if either talk about it

I KNOW I have read it recently too, so I think it is Greene...
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Aug 11, 2014
Hi Da Schneib. :)
So why do refrigerators and jet aircraft and computers work if modern physics doesn't follow the scientific method?...
My reply to such 'arguments' as these in the other thread...
http://phys.org/n...ars.html

...also applies to your above 'argument'. That reply quoted as follows...

...Whatever the level of sophistication of our tools and technology, there is a development trajectory involved which depends on serendipity and trial-and-error etc etc as well.

Successful development/implementation does not necessarily guarantee that current 'science' understands all the underlying universal nature/mechanisms/causes.

Eg, we USE gravity 'principles' observed to 'work' in particular way; design tools/technology (spaceships/rockets) that 'work' accordingly; BUT 'science' still has no mechanism-understanding of the underlying how-and-why 'gravity' is physically effected.

Do you?

That was the point.


Cheers. :)
Toiea
1 / 5 (2) Aug 11, 2014
he has his own terminology for observed phenomenon, e.g. "why the cosmic voids are lensing at their centers"
I'm using a terminology from physorg articles, which you don't apparently remember - despite you're spending here whole days. Do you remember my proclamations about readers with memory of tropical fish or did you forget it already? The contemporary physics is of increasingly emergent hyperdimensional character, you're forced to collect its final picture from large number of weak, seemingly unrelated indicia like the picture generated with underwater ripples at the water surface. If you have no memory and bit of physical intuition, then you're lost in informational explosion and predestined to eternal role of angry downvoter and denier of otherwise apparent progress.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 11, 2014
If you believe, that observable Universe is formed with black hole,
Wasn't that another article on here somewhere? Let's stick to the conversation about *this* article.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Aug 11, 2014
Hi Da Schneib. :)
..."You" exist behind your forehead; your eyes observe radiation info and convert it to electrochemical impulses that go to your hindbrain, and from there get processed and passed into the midbrain and eventually to the cortex for decisions. Do you doubt what you see, or do you think it's all just conjecture? If you don't, then why do you doubt what we see with telescopes?
Please be careful to distinguish between light INFO received/observed, and the INTERPRETATIONS we apply to it according to 'objective' scientific theory (ie, or in case of you 'personally', according to the 'subjective' so-far-developed, probably very incomplete, 'world construct' your own individual 'mind' has 'built' for itself).

In cosmology theorizing/interpreting, it is light INFO that is 'observed', not its 'meaning'.

What we MAKE of 'observed light info' depends on assumptions/theory/methods used to treat/interpret it. It may be wrong...as BICEP2 'exercise' demonstrated too well! :)
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 11, 2014
In addition, I need to get my physics and cosmology chops back up to snuff, and last night went a long way toward that.

Back UP?!?!
I'd say you're head n neck ahead o most on here...
Thanks for that!

I had this stuff at my fingertips a few years back, but due to the lack of anyone to talk to about it with I've got to reestablish my pathways to it in my mind. For example I should have known the answer about why the inertial frame that's motionless relative to the CMB is no different than any other inertial frame; the correct answer is that local physics experiments come out the same in all of them. But I'll be up to speed in pretty good time with the nice tolerant moderators and the lack of worries about the traffic level because they're decently funded and have good equipment.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 11, 2014
Hi Da Schneib. :)
..."You" exist behind your forehead; your eyes observe radiation info and convert it to electrochemical impulses that go to your hindbrain, and from there get processed and passed into the midbrain and eventually to the cortex for decisions. Do you doubt what you see, or do you think it's all just conjecture? If you don't, then why do you doubt what we see with telescopes?
Please be careful to distinguish between light INFO received/observed, and the INTERPRETATIONS we apply to it according to 'objective' scientific theory (ie, or in case of you 'personally', according to the 'subjective' so-far-developed, probably very incomplete, 'world construct' your own individual 'mind' has 'built' for itself).
I'm just repeating the consensus view of the astrophysics and cosmology communities, along with some of the current conjectures they're trying to make hypotheses out of, and the current hypotheses they're testing. These aren't *my* interpretations.
contd
Toiea
1 / 5 (4) Aug 11, 2014
Let's stick to the conversation about *this* article.
Says the guy, who has flooded this threads with OT posts about standard candles, black holes and BigBang model? The hypocrisy is a typical property of conservative proponents of mainstream science, who are forced to adhere on mutually contradicting low-dimensional models.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Aug 11, 2014
Hi Da Schneib. :)
What fiasco? You mean all the rumors? Actually they're checking the results with the Keck Array and South Pole Telescope right now, and they expect to be able to check them more thoroughly when the next Planck data comes out in October. So your assumption that these results are wrong is incorrect....It was the rumormongers that created the fiasco, not the BICEP2 team.
It's not 'rumors'; it's self-evident fact you can check for yourself if you actually read and understand what the BICEP2 'team' tried to pass off as 'science' at the time.

The problem was that their 'interpretations/conclusions/claims' were NOT TENABLE given the FLAWED 'work/treatment' etc they presented 'in support' then.

Mainstream since concurred with me on that.

Seems like you are not 'up to date or in the loop' here, either. Read everything. Without rationalizing selective confirmation/denial biases in mind to prejudice you, and you will see it too.

There was no excuse for such. Period. :)
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 11, 2014
*You* please be careful to differentiate between facts, i.e. data, conjectures, hypotheses, theories, and natural laws. You have a lot of trouble with this. You'd do much better at understanding this stuff if you paid attention to that.

Meanwhile, the entire point of the scientific method is to get as much objectivity as humans can get. It works pretty well judging from submarines, moon landings, and satellite TV.

In cosmology theorizing/interpreting, it is light INFO that is 'observed', not its 'meaning'.
I don't think you understand what "theory" means in science. It's pretty much as good as it gets. It seems to work really well, as I have repeatedly pointed out and you have repeatedly ignored.

In your brain, it is light INFO that is observed, not light. Your eyes observe light. Do you trust your eyes? Well, then, you should trust scientific theories just as much as you trust your "theory" about what you saw.

contd
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (8) Aug 11, 2014
Let's stick to the conversation about *this* article.
Says the guy, who has flooded this threads with OT posts about standard candles, black holes and BigBang model? The hypocrisy is a typical property of conservative proponents of mainstream science, who are forced to adhere on mutually contradicting low-dimensional models.
Ummm, the about Big Bang Theory, which depends upon supernovae as standard candles to determine the distance to galaxies.

*I* never mentioned black holes. You did. Speaking of hypocrisy. Accusing someone of doing what you did is a typical trick practiced by many who seek to avoid reality.

The models are the scientific consensus of all the professional astrophysicists and cosmologists. There are no contradictions.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Aug 11, 2014
Hi Da Schneib. :)
...expansion is proven by Einstein in the EFE, and by the redshift data, and by the supernova data. Where is your evidence to the contrary?
New data and new/old interpretations are becoming better 'fits' for 'Ocam's Razor' SS 'locally-recycling-energy-space' scenario than the increasingly 'iffy' hypothetical BBang scenario.

...we're making better and better telescopes all the time...
That's my point. Better observations are proving problematic for BBang and more supportive of SS-type-predicted universal process.

There's no evidence of forming galaxies either.
Here: http://phys.org/n...ars.html

See the 'pristine/recycled energy-space' hydrogen atom 'gas/plasma' content predicted by SS but only now being 'unexpectedly found' in deepest space by BBers?

Why posit 'Dark Energy' to BBang 'fix'; when Ocam's Razor-SS-predicted, ubiquitously distributed low levels of 'recycling energy-space-matter' will do? :)
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 11, 2014
continued, sorry for the post to Zeph in the middle.

What we MAKE of 'observed light info' depends on assumptions/theory/methods used to treat/interpret it. It may be wrong...
What you MAKE of the signals transmitted to your brain by your eyes depends on assumptions/methods used to treat/interpret it. It may be wrong... as stage magicians demonstrate every day. Do you trust your eyes?

as BICEP2 'exercise' demonstrated too we well! :)
We already established that in fact, there was nothing wrong with BICEP2. It was all rumor mongering, and now you're rumor mongering too.
Uncle Ira
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 11, 2014
now you're rumor mongering too.


@ Da-Schnieb-Skippy. Don't mind him no. He likes to come around and pretend he is the scientist-Skippy and knows about the science stuffs. He never really-Really-Skippy talks about the science just about the way YOU are supposed to read and talk about the science. He does that everywhere he goes. That's why the international-troll-moderator-mafia-bots pick on him all the time, this is the only place he can't get kicked out of for never back up what he says misbehavioring.

He is just the pointy-head-dexter trying to be Mr Wizard. And that pointy head isn't his real Really-Skippy head, that's the silly looking pointy cap I make him wear when he comes here.

Oh yeah, I almost forget. Welcome aboard. You stick with the IMP-Skippy, the Techno-Skippy and the Captain-Skippy and the Q-Skippy and some others I forget, oh and the xyz-Skippy and the Magnus-Skippy and the anti-Skippy. They are the smart ones.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 11, 2014
Hi Da Schneib. :)
Actually they're checking the results with the Keck Array and South Pole Telescope right now, and they expect to be able to check them more thoroughly when the next Planck data comes out in October. So your assumption that these results are wrong is incorrect....It was the rumormongers that created the fiasco, not the BICEP2 team.
It's not 'rumors'; it's self-evident fact you can check for yourself if you actually read and understand what the BICEP2 'team' tried to pass off as 'science' at the time.
They're checking the results now, as I said, and I posted a PBS article that says it was rumor mongering. You, on the other hand, have posted claims with no proof.

The problem was that their 'interpretations/conclusions/claims' were NOT TENABLE given the FLAWED 'work/treatment' etc they presented 'in support' then.
They were always going to check the results. Your defamation of real scientists doing good work is noted.

contd
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (6) Aug 11, 2014
he has his own terminology for observed phenomenon, e.g. "why the cosmic voids are lensing at their centers"
]I'm using a terminology from physorg articles, which you don't apparently remember - despite you're spending here whole days.
O.K. you are talking about the voids between the large filamentary structures. Now, tell me, how can you assume that a 'mainstreamer' would understand what you where talking about since there is no mass in those voids hence no lensing. I do not have a direct link to your imaginary world Zephir; you have to understand that your conception is uncommon and frankly, devoid of interest for me.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Aug 11, 2014
Hi Da Schneib. :) You seem very enthusiastic (if a bit too trusting of 'source' you 'approve of'). Nothing wrong with enthusiasm, but please take care not to get carried away and forget the bugbear of 'confirmation biases' in humans. Hence the Scientific Method. Which method was NOT followed by the BICEP2 'team/exercise', and by you now when 'reading' about the matter.

Here, mate, do some more wide reading about the BICEP2 fiasco as it 'unfolded' (and not just depend on your 'selected/approved' sources/articles)...

http://phys.org/n...ong.html

It's obvious that your 'impression' of what 'went down' is somewhat 'selectively arrived at' rather than being full and objective as to the facts, even as admitted by the 'team' later on after my and others' scrutiny pointed to the serious flaws inherent in that exercise as presented at the time.

Next time read everything without selection bias before 'excusing' such bad 'science' offerings from mainstream. :)
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 11, 2014
Mainstream since concurred with me on that.
Really? Where? Links and quotes from the scholarly literature, please. (Not that I expect you to do anything but ignore that request as you always do when you make a claim you have no evidence for.)

Seems like you are not 'up to date or in the loop' here, either. Read everything. Without rationalizing selective confirmation/denial biases in mind to prejudice you, and you will see it too.
Actually I think you are making all this up, but we'll see if you have any reputable sources.

There was no excuse for such. Period. :)
There's no excuse for making stuff up and ignoring it when you're asked for sources either, but you do it anyway. Don't. I'll just embarrass you.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 11, 2014
...expansion is proven by Einstein in the EFE, and by the redshift data, and by the supernova data. Where is your evidence to the contrary?
New data and new/old interpretations are becoming better 'fits' for 'Ocam's Razor' SS 'locally-recycling-energy-space' scenario than the increasingly 'iffy' hypothetical BBang scenario.
You're making stuff up again. If not, links and quotes from reputable and scholarly sources, please.

...we're making better and better telescopes all the time...
That's my point. Better observations are proving problematic for BBang and more supportive of SS-type-predicted universal process.
This is incorrect. As always, reputable links and quotes please.

contd
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 11, 2014
There's no evidence of forming galaxies either.
Here: http://phys.org/n...ars.html
That's not about galaxy formation. You're making stuff up again. And this time your own link proves it.

See the 'pristine/recycled energy-space' hydrogen atom 'gas/plasma' content predicted by SS but only now being 'unexpectedly found' in deepest space by BBers?
Reputable links and quotes please.

Why posit 'Dark Energy' to BBang 'fix'; when Ocam's Razor-SS-predicted, ubiquitously distributed low levels of 'recycling energy-space-matter' will do? :)
Because it doesn't explain the shift from slowing expansion to exponential expansion 7 billion years ago.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Aug 11, 2014
Oh, and Da Scneib, about that 'new galaxies/matter' arising in deepest space and making 'new' pristine gas type aggregations/processes etc, read these articles...
http://phys.org/n...ard.html
http://phys.org/n...mic.html
http://phys.org/n...ark.html
http://phys.org/n...ope.html

...for a taste of what's going on that your backyard observatory has been missing.

And consider space as a 'mixmaster of recycling energy-space-matter'; that SS scenario predicts such faint and evolving galaxies/aggregations/processes at low levels/rate across all space.

If can conceive 'dark Energy' ubiquitous low levels 'locally', then no great leap to conceive ubiquitous low-level local SS recycling energy-space-matter as more logical, physical, testable Occam's Razor scenario!

Good luck in future 'reading'. Don't lose your enthusiasm; do lose blind faith/biases. :)
Uncle Ira
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 11, 2014
[Where? Links and quotes from the scholarly literature, please. (Not that I expect you to do anything but ignore that request as you always do when you make a claim you have no evidence for.)


@ Da-Schneib-Skippy good luck with that podna. The Captain-Skippy has asked for the back up what he is claiming on just this very subject. Asked him a couple of 3 or 2 hundred times on eight or seven comment pages. The only answer he is going to give you is that he is withdrawing from talking about science to work on his book. He's got plenty of time to tell you ain't reading or talking right about the science, but he's too busy to talk about the science stuffs himself.

Oh yeah I almost forget again. He also will tell you he can't talk about the science stuffs because you are going to steal his secrets of how everything really works. That's why he has that silly looking pointy cap on while he sits there in the corner interrupting the smart peoples.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (8) Aug 11, 2014
Thanks, Uncle Ira. I will probably take your advice after my chops are back up, but meanwhile he's trying every old recycled trick and a few I haven't seen yet, which is valuable information. The more incorrectnesses I know how to answer right off the top of my head the more discouraged they get. :D

Thanks for the welcome! Nice ta meetcha. Don't forget the thermodynamics-Skippy. ;)
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 11, 2014
Hi Da Schneib. :) You seem very enthusiastic (if a bit too trusting of 'source' you 'approve of'). Nothing wrong with enthusiasm, but please take care not to get carried away and forget the bugbear of 'confirmation biases' in humans. Hence the Scientific Method. Which method was NOT followed by the BICEP2 'team/exercise', and by you now when 'reading' about the matter.
You're making stuff up again, and defaming reputable scientists again. Reputable links and quotes please.

Here, mate, do some more wide reading about the BICEP2 fiasco as it 'unfolded' (and not just depend on your 'selected/approved' sources/articles)...

http://phys.org/n...ong.html
Not to put this place down, it is what it is, and it is very good-- but it's not a scholarly journal of record. Which means, for this purpose, it's insufficient. Try again.

contd
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 11, 2014
It's obvious that your 'impression' of what 'went down' is somewhat 'selectively arrived at' rather than being full and objective as to the facts, even as admitted by the 'team' later on after my and others' scrutiny pointed to the serious flaws inherent in that exercise as presented at the time.
So PBS is lying? Reputable links and quotes please. You're going to get really tired of hearing that, I think.

Next time read everything without selection bias before 'excusing' such bad 'science' offerings from mainstream. :)
The mainstream is the scientific scholarly consensus. You, on the other hand, defame reputable scientists, and make claims that you can't back up.

I'm going with the mainstream. Sorry.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Aug 11, 2014
That's not about galaxy formation....
We agreed that galaxies don't just instantly appear fully developed, didn't we?

And just what do you think is 'observable' at each stage from initial local rarified gas/plasma to fully developed and visible galaxy? Think about it.

Reputable links and quotes please.
That's a 'cop-out' catch cry for a denier, not a supposed scientist who is supposed to be up to date with what is happening in the field. Please drop it, it's getting tiresome. :)

Because it doesn't explain the shift from slowing expansion to exponential expansion 7 billion years ago.
You assuming A-priori thatsuch BBang/Expo-Expansion etc actually 'happened'.

So you ignore the obvious that has been pointed out to you. Confirmation/selective bias is no substitute for considering all the evidence in full context and not just in your 'preferred interpretational model' context.

See? That is what happened to BICE2 'team'. They too worked from biased position. Careful!
Uncle Ira
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 11, 2014
Don't forget the thermodynamics-Skippy. ;)


Yeah, you are right with that. I did forget about him. Him too. I mostly read the space and astronomy articles and he doesn't make the many comments on those. He is most on the environment articles.

Some others I forget too and hope they don't get mad because I don't mean to no.

I was going to tell you about the Zephir-Skippy but I see Techno-Skippy explained him to you. Zephir-Skippy is harmless and most of the time he has pretty good manners so I don't usually hold his weirdness against him. It wouldn't do any good to hold it against him because there is no way to get away from him no.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (8) Aug 11, 2014
Hi Da Schneib. :)
Thanks, Uncle Ira. I will probably take your advice after my chops are back up, but meanwhile he's trying every old recycled trick and a few I haven't seen yet, which is valuable information. The more incorrectnesses I know how to answer right off the top of my head the more discouraged they get. :D

Thanks for the welcome! Nice ta meetcha. Don't forget the thermodynamics-Skippy. ;)


A friendly word of advice for you, mate. If you think that the Uncle Ira bot-operating douchebag is anyone to judge anything, then think again. His ratings-sabotaging tactics, using his bot-rating system to rate from a programmed list rather than having regard to the science content posted, is as ANTI-SCIENCE-ETHICS as it can get.

Don't be easy 'prey' to the 'blandishments' from such troll douchbags who have no interest in science or you, except as a stooge to gull into playing their anti-science-discourse games and trolls.

Whatever you do, don't trust personal info to them! Bye.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 11, 2014
Oh, and Da Scneib, about that 'new galaxies/matter' arising in deepest space and making 'new' pristine gas type aggregations/processes etc, read these articles...

...for a taste of what's going on that your backyard observatory has been missing.
As I have said repeatedly, it's the mainstream scientific scholarly consensus. I'll review the articles and rip you for making stuff up again in a little bit.

And consider space as a 'mixmaster of recycling energy-space-matter'; that SS scenario predicts such faint and evolving galaxies/aggregations/processes at low levels/rate across all space.
And we don't see them all across space. We see very definite steps of evolution of galaxies; for example, the quasars all "turned off" at z <2. That's a long time ago. There are almost no quasars closer than that.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 11, 2014
If can conceive 'dark Energy' ubiquitous low levels 'locally', then no great leap to conceive ubiquitous low-level local SS recycling energy-space-matter as more logical, physical, testable Occam's Razor scenario!
Except that the steady state model has been deprecated since 1964 when the CMB was discovered.

On Earth.

Good luck in future 'reading'. Don't lose your enthusiasm; do lose blind faith/biases. :)
I did, a long time ago. You on the other hand obviously still have blind faith because otherwise you wouldn't reject the scientific scholarly consensus, just like creationists, AGW deniers, relativity deniers, free energy scammers, etc.
Uncle Ira
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 11, 2014
If you think that the Uncle Ira bot-operating douchebag is anyone to judge anything, then think again.


@ Really-Skippy, now Cher, what did I tell you about dishonoring my honor and disrupting the science discussions? Don't make me come back again to defend science humanity and my honor again.

Don't be easy 'prey' to the 'blandishments' from such troll douchbags who have no interest in science or you, except as a stooge to gull into playing their anti-science-discourse games and trolls.


Tell him the one about the international-moderator-mafia-bots who are trying to silence you from taking science to the next level Cher. That's one of my favorites.

Whatever you do, don't trust personal info to them!


Really-Skippy after all these years have I ever asked for any personal informations? Ever once?

@ Da-Schneib-Skippy, that's part of his mental condition. I don't want to know anything about anybody.

Bye.


Not that GREAT BIG LIE again? Do better..
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Aug 11, 2014
Hi Da Schneib. :)
As I have said repeatedly, it's the mainstream scientific scholarly consensus. I'll review the articles and rip you for making stuff up again in a little bit.
And 'consensus' has NEVER been WRONG in your opinion? That's blind faith and selective bias territory, mate, not objective scrutiny of all the evidence in full context irrespective of 'source' or 'consensus'.

And we don't see them all across space. We see very definite steps of evolution of galaxies; for example, the quasars all "turned off" at z <2. That's a long time ago. There are almost no quasars closer than that.
Yes. It's what we CAN 'see', isn't it? Remember when all we could 'see' was our Milky Way and we thought it was 'the universe'?

Come on, mate, don't 'rip' anyone; just do full and unbiased 'due diligence' research before making such 'certainty' based statements of what is/is not to your 'liking' just because it does/doesn't fit your own presumptions/interpretations context. Cheers.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 11, 2014
That's not about galaxy formation....
We agreed that galaxies don't just instantly appear fully developed, didn't we?
What's that got to do with it? Now you're claiming that's evidence of galaxy formation? Reputable links and quotes please.

And just what do you think is 'observable' at each stage from initial local rarified gas/plasma to fully developed and visible galaxy? Think about it.
Reputable links and quotes please.

Reputable links and quotes please.
That's a 'cop-out' catch cry for a denier, not a supposed scientist who is supposed to be up to date with what is happening in the field. Please drop it, it's getting tiresome. :)
I'm not a scientist and never claimed to be one.

I'll drop it when you stop making claims you can't back up.

contd
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 11, 2014
Because it doesn't explain the shift from slowing expansion to exponential expansion 7 billion years ago.
You assuming A-priori thatsuch BBang/Expo-Expansion etc actually 'happened'.
It's the scientific consensus. If you claim it's wrong, reputable links and quotes please.

So you ignore the obvious that has been pointed out to you.
I have ignored nothing.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Aug 11, 2014
Hi Da Schneib. :)
If can conceive 'dark Energy' ubiquitous low levels 'locally', then no great leap to conceive ubiquitous low-level local SS recycling energy-space-matter as more logical, physical, testable Occam's Razor scenario!
Except that the steady state model has been deprecated since 1964 when the CMB was discovered.


Nothing so far in cosmology science is 'fixed in stone', mate. And, as we have been alluding to, if the CMB is not what you 'interpret' it to be, what then? :)

And you haven't addressed the bleeding obvious point I put re 'dark energy' versus 'recycled matter', so your mere denial is neither here nor there.

...otherwise you wouldn't reject the scientific scholarly consensus, just like creationists, AGW deniers, relativity deniers, free energy scammers...
I'm the most independent, skeptical scientist (atheist since age nine!) you'll ever come across.

My nom-de-plume is what I do. I am not 'beholden' to any 'side' except reality. ok? :)
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 11, 2014
Confirmation/selective bias is no substitute for considering all the evidence in full context and not just in your 'preferred interpretational model' context.
You don't even know what confirmation bias is. Now go look it up and make up a story about how I'm wrong, and I'll prove you didn't know it when you wrote that, and point out you're making stuff up again.

See? That is what happened to BICE2 'team'. They too worked from biased position. Careful!
What happened to the BICEP2 team is a bunch of cranks defamed them.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 11, 2014
See? That is what happened to BICE2 'team'. They too worked from biased position. Careful!
What happened to the BICEP2 team is a bunch of cranks defamed them.

Next post:
==================================================================
As I have said repeatedly, it's the mainstream scientific scholarly consensus. I'll review the articles and rip you for making stuff up again in a little bit.
And 'consensus' has NEVER been WRONG in your opinion? That's blind faith and selective bias territory, mate, not objective scrutiny of all the evidence in full context irrespective of 'source' or 'consensus'.
"Never" is a long time. Let's say very, very, very rarely. < 0.1%.

contd
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 11, 2014
And we don't see them all across space. We see very definite steps of evolution of galaxies; for example, the quasars all "turned off" at z <2. That's a long time ago. There are almost no quasars closer than that.
Yes. It's what we CAN 'see', isn't it? Remember when all we could 'see' was our Milky Way and we thought it was 'the universe'?
Remember when we didn't know the stars were other suns? Now, how is this relevant?

Meanwhile, our equipment improved, so now we can clearly see that galaxies are outside our own. But quasars are very bright, so there's no question about this and hasn't been for decades. You're making stuff up again.

Come on, mate, don't 'rip' anyone; just do full and unbiased 'due diligence' research before making such 'certainty' based statements of what is/is not to your 'liking' just because it does/doesn't fit your own presumptions/interpretations context. Cheers.
Then stop making stuff up and making claims you can't support.

Thanks.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 11, 2014
If can conceive 'dark Energy' ubiquitous low levels 'locally', then no great leap to conceive ubiquitous low-level local SS recycling energy-space-matter as more logical, physical, testable Occam's Razor scenario!
Except that the steady state model has been deprecated since 1964 when the CMB was discovered.
Nothing so far in cosmology science is 'fixed in stone', mate. And, as we have been alluding to, if the CMB is not what you 'interpret' it to be, what then? :)
It's pretty late for that I'd say. Like about 60 years.

contd
Uncle Ira
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 11, 2014
I'm the most independent


Except for the peoples there trying to help you with the mental condition. I'm glad I don't have that job.

skeptical


You pick the wrong word there Cher. It would be more honest for you to say you don't believe in the stuffs you can't understand. Pretending to understand and trying bamboozle peoples with double talk is unscientifical. Do better Cher.

scientist


Two choices here Skippy. 1) You telling a GREAT BIG LIE or 2) Thinking that is part of your mental condition.

(atheist since age nine!)


So what Cher? What does that have to do with the galaxies forming?

you'll ever come across.


Must be why the international moderator mafia bots are after you, there's only one of you.

My nom-de-plume is what I do.


Nom-de-plume is French Cher. It don't mean what you think. It don't mean "make up play time pretend to be a scientist" name.

For a nom-de-plume you should use Delusional-Fantasy-Pretending-Skippy.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 11, 2014
If can conceive 'dark Energy' ubiquitous low levels 'locally', then no great leap to conceive ubiquitous low-level local SS recycling energy-space-matter as more logical, physical, testable Occam's Razor scenario!
Except that the steady state model has been deprecated since 1964 when the CMB was discovered.
Nothing so far in cosmology science is 'fixed in stone', mate. And, as we have been alluding to, if the CMB is not what you 'interpret' it to be, what then? :)
It's pretty late for that I'd say. Like about 60 years.

And you haven't addressed the bleeding obvious point I put re 'dark energy' versus 'recycled matter', so your mere denial is neither here nor there.
You have not used the term "recycled matter" previously. Search for yourself.

Also, this sounds like standard denier invented terminology. You're making stuff up again.

contd
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 11, 2014
...otherwise you wouldn't reject the scientific scholarly consensus, just like creationists, AGW deniers, relativity deniers, free energy scammers...
I'm the most independent, skeptical scientist (atheist since age nine!) you'll ever come across. You aren't a scientist. You're making stuff up again. What's your specialty, petroleum geology? It's sure not astrophysics or cosmology.

My nom-de-plume is what I do. I am not 'beholden' to any 'side' except reality. ok? :)
Sorry, doesn't look that way to me. You deny the scientific consensus and make stuff up and refuse to support it and defame reputable scientists. You also regularly insult people who disagree with you. That sounds like you are't really very in touch with reality, unfortunately.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Aug 11, 2014
Hi Da Schneib. :)
You don't even know what confirmation bias is. Now go look it up and make up a story about how I'm wrong, and I'll prove you didn't know it when you wrote that,...
More semantics in lieu of comprehension of the point in context? Doesn't look too good for your 'objectivity' in all this, or in other matters, mate.

See? That is what happened to BICEP2 'team'. They too worked from biased position. Careful!
What happened to the BICEP2 team is a bunch of cranks defamed them. Are you calling the mainstream physicists who also found the flaws in BICEP2 exercise/claims 'cranks' too?

The 'team' also admitted they may have been too rash and in error! Did you read that article I linked for you on that aspect?

Anyhow, to what lengths of 'in denial' rationalizations and excuses will you not go in order to avoid the objective facts of what went down there/then? :)

Your blind faith/cheerleading is touching, but not objective.

Try harder. Drop the 'certainty'. :)
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 11, 2014
Oops, a misquote in the first two paragraphs, so your comment looks like I wrote your comment. Corrected:

...otherwise you wouldn't reject the scientific scholarly consensus, just like creationists, AGW deniers, relativity deniers, free energy scammers...
I'm the most independent, skeptical scientist (atheist since age nine!) you'll ever come across.
You aren't a scientist. You're making stuff up again. What's your specialty, petroleum geology? It's sure not astrophysics or cosmology.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 11, 2014
Oops, a misquote in the first two paragraphs, so your comment looks like I wrote your comment. Corrected:

...otherwise you wouldn't reject the scientific scholarly consensus, just like creationists, AGW deniers, relativity deniers, free energy scammers...
I'm the most independent, skeptical scientist (atheist since age nine!) you'll ever come across.
You aren't a scientist. You're making stuff up again. What's your specialty, petroleum geology? It's sure not astrophysics or cosmology.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 11, 2014
You don't even know what confirmation bias is. Now go look it up and make up a story about how I'm wrong, and I'll prove you didn't know it when you wrote that,...
More semantics in lieu of comprehension of the point in context? Doesn't look too good for your 'objectivity' in all this, or in other matters, mate.
Heh, yeah, kinda cut you off at the pass. It's not semantics. It's the meaning of confirmation bias, which you are clearly unaware of.

See? That is what happened to BICEP2 'team'. They too worked from biased position. Careful!
What happened to the BICEP2 team is a bunch of cranks defamed them.
Are you calling the mainstream physicists who also found the flaws in BICEP2 exercise/claims 'cranks' too?
You haven't posted reputable links and quotes. You're making stuff up again.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Aug 11, 2014
Hi Da Schneib. :)
Yes. It's what we CAN 'see', isn't it? Remember when all we could 'see' was our Milky Way and we thought it was 'the universe'?
Remember when we didn't know the stars were other suns? Now, how is this relevant?
The new observations are not supporting BBang hypotheses etc., that's how.

Did you read the links about 'unexpected' deep space Hydrogen clouds/features/streams, which SS predicts but BBang didn't?

Meanwhile,...so now we can clearly see that galaxies are outside our own. But quasars are very bright, so there's no question about this and hasn't been for decades.
I made no claims about that. Only what the SS scenario predicts and is now increasingly 'seen' but 'unexpected' for BBang scenarios.

Then stop making stuff up and making claims you can't support. Thanks.
I made no claims. You do, based on obsolescent BBang scenario assumptions/interpretational 'model' context which you seem 'married' to.

Time to Rethink It All, Da Schneib. :)
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 11, 2014
The 'team' also admitted they may have been too rash and in error! Did you read that article I linked for you on that aspect?
You posted three or four links I haven't had time to read, impolitely not including quotes for me to search for. When you stop posting for a while I'll go read them, as I said above.

I think most likely they forgot to use the correct wriggle words and you rumor mongers jumped all over it just like you do every time anything about global warming gets published.

Anyhow, to what lengths of 'in denial' rationalizations and excuses will you not go in order to avoid the objective facts of what went down there/then? :)
I read the PBS article. It was a bunch of cranks rumor mongering and making stuff up defaming them.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 11, 2014
Your blind faith/cheerleading is touching, but not objective.
You're insulting someone you don't agree with again, and you're making stuff up again.

Try harder. Drop the 'certainty'. :)
I'm as certain as they are. No more. And no less, which is what your problem is. You want them to be wrong so bad you make stuff up.

Next post:
====================================================================
Yes. It's what we CAN 'see', isn't it? Remember when all we could 'see' was our Milky Way and we thought it was 'the universe'?
Remember when we didn't know the stars were other suns? Now, how is this relevant?
The new observations are not supporting BBang hypotheses etc., that's how.
Reputable links and quotes please.

contd
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Aug 11, 2014
Did you read the links about 'unexpected' deep space Hydrogen clouds/features/streams, which SS predicts but BBang didn't?
Not yet. See above.

Meanwhile,...so now we can clearly see that galaxies are outside our own. But quasars are very bright, so there's no question about this and hasn't been for decades.
I made no claims about that. Only what the SS scenario predicts and is now increasingly 'seen' but 'unexpected' for BBang scenarios.
But the existence of quasars only in the deep past but not in the present contradicts the steady state theory. Did you forget?

Then stop making stuff up and making claims you can't support. Thanks.
I made no claims.
Other than the steady state theory which is contradicted by the lack of quasars in the present.

Oops.

contd
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Aug 11, 2014
You do, based on obsolescent BBang scenario assumptions/interpretational 'model' context which you seem 'married' to.
I'm not the one making stuff up and defaming reputable scientists and starting vicious rumors.

Time to Rethink It All, Da Schneib. :)
Does anyone ever believe you?

Anyone at all?
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 11, 2014
The first article at http://phys.org/n...ard.html doesn't show that galaxiesare forming, or galaxies that have formed in the last several billion years.

The other three have nothing whatsoever to do with galaxy formation; the word doesn't even occur in any of them but the third, and it's a side note, and certainly not proof of galaxy formation in the present or even the last many billion years.

You/re making stuff up again, RC. I told you I'd embarrass you.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Aug 11, 2014
Hi Da Schneib. :)
You posted three or four links I haven't had time to read, impolitely not including quotes for me to search for. When you stop posting for a while I'll go read them, as I said above.
Including quotes as well as links would take unnecessary space in limited text format.

Anyway, here is the one re the BICEP2 belated admission. As you will observe, the (full) title of the linked article says it clearly:

http://phys.org/n...ong.html

I think most likely they forgot to use the correct wriggle words and you rumor mongers...
More rationalizations for your own denial? (BTW, I'm in accord with Global Warming science, not a denier; so bad luck trying to use UNSCIENTIFIC and maliciously inspired 'personal' tactics to try and associate me with GW deniers. This shows you obviously have no clue/integrity. Shame).

...bunch of cranks rumor mongering...
You haven't 'read' all/objectively. So your opinion's moot. Not a good look. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Aug 11, 2014
Hi Da Schneib. :)

But the existence of quasars only in the deep past but not in the present contradicts the steady state theory. Did you forget?
Did you not read the other poster's mention that this is a consequence of the fact that if our 'neighborhood' was still in the locally active quasar stage of SS recycling processes, then we wouldn't have evolved/be alive to observe 'far' quasars, but be 'fried' like those in the vicinity of where the quasars were then. Don't make BBang assumptive stuff up. lol :)

Other than the steady state theory which is contradicted by the lack of quasars in the present.

Oops.

contd
See above. Yes, ooops, there goes another BBang assumptive myth element! :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Aug 11, 2014
Hi Da Schneib. :)
The first article at http://phys.org/n...ard.html doesn't show that galaxiesare forming, or galaxies that have formed in the last several billion years.

The other three have nothing whatsoever to do with galaxy formation...but the third, and it's a side note, and certainly not proof of galaxy formation in the present or even the last many billion years.
You again miss the point.

Taken together and correlated with much more besides, it shows the basic point that 'previously unseen' (and 'unexpected' by BBangers) MATERIAL at many stages of evolution/aggregation, from wispy rarefied gas/plasma to faint features and galaxies etc at all stages. Predicted by infinite/eternal SS recycling scenario, not BBang.

You're making stuff up.. I told you I'd embarrass you.
Mate, you're so 'personally motivated' to 'embarrass' someone, and blinded by your ego/certainty, that you miss the objective facts/points. Not good. Bye:)
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 11, 2014
You posted three or four links I haven't had time to read, impolitely not including quotes for me to search for. When you stop posting for a while I'll go read them, as I said above.
Including quotes as well as links would take unnecessary space in limited text format.
I say what it said, and if it's long I quote it so my readers can easily find what I'm talking about.

I also don't post irrelevant stuff to try to get around requests for reputable links and quotes, like you did. I guess you didn't read that post, which is right above yours. Bad form, sport.

Anyway, here is the one re the BICEP2 belated admission. As you will observe, the (full) title of the linked article says it clearly:
Actually, let me quote Torbjorn commenting on the article:

It's a piece trying to construct a "controversy" with the original data release, but the original data release allowed for the team to be wrong. Comparing the papers, very little have changed.


contd
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 11, 2014
Continuing Torbjorn's quote:

In an added note, the group responds to a discovered lapse (not filtering out lensing) which very slightly makes dust better to predict the whole signal. It remains the worst predictor though, as it needs to be lucky to predict the expected primordial gravity wave pattern. And Kovac still maintains that. See e.g. the World Science Fair discussion, where Kovac notes that the signal "quacks like a duck".

They also note the Planck data release, but that it isn't enough to enable predicting the signal from dust. And they note that the many dust experts, like Spergel, in their controversial papers makes erroneous claims on their data analysis.
Oh, my, look at that, they didn't announce they were sure, they just announced the data release and they indicated the results were preliminary. Oh, and look there, seems the dust guys blew it a lot worse than BICEP2.

Gee, looks like it was rumor mongers after all. What a surprise. You're making stuff up again.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Aug 11, 2014
Hi Da Schneib. :) Before I log out again, a loose end item...

I pointed out no coupling mechanism (between space and galaxies/matter) provided by current models/theory to effect that.
And I pointed out in response to your earlier post that there is such a coupling, and that it's the conservation of momentum.
And I am pointing out that 'momentum' is a concept related to motion of something 'across space', and not OF space itself. And just saying 'momentum is coupling mechanism' doesn't actually explain what it IS and HOW it effectively/physically establises 'coupling' between matter and space during alleged 'space expansion', does it? You just made a semantic statement is all.

Changing to "exponential expansion" might be better, but it would scare heck out of Joe Sixpack.
No wonder, if you can't actually explain it at all using physically REAL 'couplings', 'mechanisms' and 'energy-space' concepts/entities that actually represent reality not myths. :)

G'night! :)
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Aug 11, 2014
I think most likely they forgot to use the correct wriggle words and you rumor mongers...
More rationalizations for your own denial? Nope. Looks like they *did* use the weasel words in the original paper and you're pretending they didn't. Looks like you're making stuff up again.

(BTW, I'm in accord with Global Warming science, not a denier; so bad luck trying to use UNSCIENTIFIC and maliciously inspired 'personal' tactics to try and associate me with GW deniers. This shows you obviously have no clue/integrity. Shame).
That's not what I heard over at Sato's Joint. You're making stuff up again.

...bunch of cranks rumor mongering...
You haven't 'read' all/objectively. So your opinion's moot. Not a good look. :)
Actually I did. As the quote from Torbjorn shows. And it looks like it *was* a bunch of cranks rumor mongering. You/re making stuff up again.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Aug 11, 2014
But the existence of quasars only in the deep past but not in the present contradicts the steady state theory. Did you forget?
Did you not read the other poster's mention that this is a consequence of the fact that if our 'neighborhood' was still in the locally active quasar stage of SS recycling processes, then we wouldn't have evolved/be alive to observe 'far' quasars, but be 'fried' like those in the vicinity of where the quasars were then. Don't make BBang assumptive stuff up. lol :)
But then there should be places in the sky where there aren't any quasars at z >= 2. But there aren't. You're making stuff up again.

Other than the steady state theory which is contradicted by the lack of quasars in the present.

Oops.

contd
See above. Yes, ooops, there goes another BBang assumptive myth element! :)
Not.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Aug 12, 2014
Hi again Da Schneib. :)
I say what it said, and if it's long I quote it so my readers can easily find what I'm talking about.
But the article TITLE is what it's about. And the rest is easy to find therein. No excuses/rationalizations for more denial from you. :)

Actually, let me quote Torbjorn commenting on the article:...
Why quote someone else's rationalizations too? Why not just read it and understand its implications for yourself, instead of depending on other's to 'digest' and 'opinionate' FOR you?

Also go read the actual BICEP2 paper/work for yourself, and see the inbuilt flawed systemics/assumptions and treatment/methodologies etc (as also observed by mainstreamers since) which made any claims to have 'discovered' anything 'significant' quite ludicrous as presented then.

Think/observe objectively for yourself for a change. Try it, you might learn to like it!

Anyhow, just about out of 'work break' time for this. So, good luck, and 'read you round', Da Schneib! :)
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Aug 12, 2014
The first article at http://phys.org/n...ard.html doesn't show that galaxiesare forming, or galaxies that have formed in the last several billion years.

The other three have nothing whatsoever to do with galaxy formation...but the third, and it's a side note, and certainly not proof of galaxy formation in the present or even the last many billion years.
You again miss the point.
No I didn't. The discussion was about modern galaxy formation and there's little or none. Not one of your links challenged that statement. Furthermore, there should be a mixture of galaxies of different ages in other parts of the sky. There aren't. You're making stuff up again.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Aug 12, 2014
Taken together and correlated with much more besides, it shows the basic point that 'previously unseen' (and 'unexpected' by BBangers) MATERIAL at many stages of evolution/aggregation, from wispy rarefied gas/plasma to faint features and galaxies etc at all stages. Predicted by infinite/eternal SS recycling scenario, not BBang.
Reputable links and quotes please.

You're making stuff up.. I told you I'd embarrass you.
Mate, you're so 'personally motivated' to 'embarrass' someone, and blinded by your ego/certainty, that you miss the objective facts/points. Not good. Bye:)
I'm not interested in eqo, nor do I care whether I embarrass you or not. If you make stuff up and defame good scientists, it's gonna happen. Just letting you know. Whether you avoid being embarrassed is your lookout. It doesn't seem like you care much to me. You must have another agenda. What could it be? Hmmmmm...
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 12, 2014
I say what it said, and if it's long I quote it so my readers can easily find what I'm talking about.
But the article TITLE is what it's about. And the rest is easy to find therein. No excuses/rationalizations for more denial from you. :)
I looked at them, and they were all BS. 'Nuff said. I'm not gonna post it twice.

Actually, let me quote Torbjorn commenting on the article:...
Why quote someone else's rationalizations too? Why not just read it and understand its implications for yourself, instead of depending on other's to 'digest' and 'opinionate' FOR you?
He did the footwork. Why should I re-invent the wheel for your amusement?

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Aug 12, 2014
Hi Da Schneib. :)
Nope. Looks like they *did* use the weasel words in the original paper...
No amount of 'weasel words' could hide their CLAIMS that their 'results' were 'significant' confirmation of this or that BBang related hypotheses. Read properly/objectively.

That's not what I heard over at Sapo's Joint.
Are you for real? Search my post history HERE at phys.org against GW denialists before making more assinine and uninformed statements like that. If that's what 'they' (whoever you mean 'over there') gave you that patently wrong impression, then they lied to you. Obviously.

Actually I did.
If the above is an example of the 'calibre' of your 'reading' and 'due diligence', then do much better, quick!

And drop the 'sloganeering', mate; you are starting to come across as some 'stooge' mouthing mindless catch-cries and employing 'personality cult' tactics in lieu of actual objective original scientific thinking based arguments on the points in question. Careful! :)
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Aug 12, 2014
Also go read the actual BICEP2 paper/work for yourself, and see the inbuilt flawed systemics/assumptions and treatment/methodologies etc (as also observed by mainstreamers since) which made any claims to have 'discovered' anything 'significant' quite ludicrous as presented then.
You're making stuff up again. They gave fair warning it was preliminary and they could be wrong, as they're required to do ethically. If a bunch of idiot rumor mongers start making stuff up it's not their problem. You're making stuff up again.

Think/observe objectively for yourself for a change. Try it, you might learn to like it!
I am. That's why you hate me.

Anyhow, just about out of 'work break' time for this. So, good luck, and 'read you round', Da Schneib! :)
Have fun. Don't let the burgers burn.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Aug 12, 2014
Hi Da Schneib. :)
I say what it said, and if it's long I quote it so my readers can easily find what I'm talking about.
But the article TITLE is what it's about. And the rest is easy to find therein. No excuses/rationalizations for more denial from you. :)
I looked at them, and they were all BS. 'Nuff said. I'm not gonna post it twice.
So you belive in 'outsourcing' your 'thinking/opinions' instead of doing it the hard scientifically fair and objective way? What does that make you? A parrot, not a thinker. Yes?

Actually, let me quote Torbjorn commenting on the article...
Why quote someone else's rationalizations too? Why not just read it and understand its implications for yourself, instead of depending on other's to 'digest' and 'opinionate' FOR you?
He did the footwork. Sure. And that BICEP2 'team' also 'did the footwork'...but look what that 'footwork' amounted to when objectively scrutinized.

Were you part of that 'team'? Denial much? :)
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 12, 2014
Nope. Looks like they *did* use the weasel words in the original paper...
No amount of 'weasel words' could hide their CLAIMS that their 'results' were 'significant' confirmation of this or that BBang related hypotheses. Read properly/objectively.
They *are* significant even if they're preliminary. And they fulfilled scientific objectivity and ethics. You're making stuff up again.

That's not what I heard over at Sapo's Joint.
Are you for real? Search my post history HERE at phys.org against GW denialists before making more assinine and uninformed statements like that. If that's what 'they' (whoever you mean 'over there') gave you that patently wrong impression, then they lied to you. Obviously.
Looks to me like they have your number. You're making stuff up again.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Aug 12, 2014
Actually I did.
If the above is an example of the 'calibre' of your 'reading' and 'due diligence', then do much better, quick! Sorry, I don't have time to do extensive reading for people who make stuff up. I note you axed the quote so the evidence is missing. You're making stuff up again.

And drop the 'sloganeering', mate; you are starting to come across as some 'stooge' mouthing mindless catch-cries and employing 'personality cult' tactics in lieu of actual objective original scientific thinking based arguments on the points in question. Careful! :)
I'm not the one making up vicious rumors about reputable scientists. You're not being very careful.

Better go flip the burgers, sport.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Aug 12, 2014
Hi Da Schneib. :)
They gave fair warning it was preliminary and they could be wrong, as they're required to do ethically.
They claimed 'significant' things which they should have KNOWN were NOT so IF they had followed the scientific method properly and objectively. As was made obvious afterwards when mainstreamers also found the SERIOUS flaws which they apparently 'glossed over' selectively and then made claims which were obviously untenable, not just 'possibly', but self-evidently.

I am. That's why you hate me.
You're 'projecting' your own 'personality cult' motivations/attitudes onto me, mate. In my 65 years I've learned that life's too short, and science and humanity too important, for such petty personal crap.

I'm just disappointed at what passes for 'scientists' nowadays, given your performance to date, and that of that BICEP2 'team' at the time.

Have fun. Don't let the burgers burn.
And you take care to correct your wrong impression of my GW stance, ok? :)
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 12, 2014
I say what it said, and if it's long I quote it so my readers can easily find what I'm talking about.
But the article TITLE is what it's about. And the rest is easy to find therein. No excuses/rationalizations for more denial from you.
I looked at them, and they were all BS. 'Nuff said. I'm not gonna post it twice.
So you belive in 'outsourcing' your 'thinking/opinions' instead of doing it the hard scientifically fair and objective way? What does that make you? A parrot, not a thinker. Yes?
No, it makes me smart. I'm not jumping through your hoops.

Actually, let me quote Torbjorn commenting on the article...
Why quote someone else's rationalizations too? Why not just read it and understand its implications for yourself, instead of depending on other's to 'digest' and 'opinionate' FOR you? Because I'm not jumping through your hoops. I think he's right, and he's obviously been following it.

contd
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 12, 2014
He did the footwork. Sure. And that BICEP2 'team' also 'did the footwork'...but look what that 'footwork' amounted to when objectively scrutinized.
Yeah, they found a slight chance that it might be dust inside the Milky Way causing the polarization. The chances are slim, but they're being ethical and careful, and you're beating them up for it, spreading vicious rumors and defaming reputable scientists.

Were you part of that 'team'? Denial much?
No and no. You're making stuff up again. Hey, you better get back to the grill before those burgers turn to charcoal, sport.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Aug 12, 2014
Hi Da Schneib. :)
They *are* significant even if they're preliminary. And they fulfilled scientific objectivity and ethics.
How can they be 'significant' if the 'noise' (from both near and far complicating sources/processes they couldn't treat properly in that exercise) is more 'significant' than their alleged 'signal'?

You're dreaming, just as they were at the time. Don't keep making lame in-denial rationalizations and make it even more tragic than it was, mate.

That's not what I heard over at Sapo's Joint.
Search my post history HERE at phys.org against GW denialists before making assinine uninformed statements like that. If that's what 'they' (whoever you mean 'over there') gave you that patently wrong impression, then they lied to you. Obviously.
Looks to me like they have your number. You're making stuff up again.
Yet you didn't search and check for 'objective truth' content, did you? Some 'scientist' you lot are; believing gossip as 'fact'.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 12, 2014
So I found the original scholarly paper. http://journals.a...2.241101
The APS has put it on-line for free access, probably so they can counter the cranks and rumor mongers.

Here you go, sport:

Using all three seasons of data taken with BICEP2 (2010–2012) we detect B-mode power in the multipole range 30 < l < 150, finding this power to have a strong excess inconsistent with lensed ΛCDM at > 5σ significance.


6σ is considered "hard evidence" in physics. 5σ is good evidence, but not final results.

You made it all up.

See? Link and quote from a reputable scholarly source. The source is the Journal of the American Physical Society.

I bet you don't even know what the meaning of 6σ is.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) Aug 12, 2014
Oops, double post.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Aug 12, 2014
HI Da Schneib. :)
He did the footwork.
Sure. And that BICEP2 'team' also 'did the footwork'...but look what that 'footwork' amounted to when objectively scrutinized.
Yeah, they found a slight chance that it might be dust inside the Milky Way causing the polarization.
Are you for real?? It was more serious, wide ranging than just that. It ranged from local to deepest space sources/processes which swamped the 'signal' with 'complication/noise' effects which they had no hope of 'filtering out' in their 'observations/treatments', let alone have any significant 'signal' left at all on which to base their claims at the time (and still to this day).

Stop dreaming and making up rationalizations/excuses for the inexcusable, mate.

Were you part of that 'team'? Denial much?
No and no. You're making stuff up again. Hey, you better get back to the grill ...
Just as well! But you seem to have 'all the qualifications' for that kind of 'science'. Careful in future!
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Aug 12, 2014
Hin Da Schneib. :)
So I found the original scholarly paper. http://journals.a...2.241101
The APS has put it on-line for free access, probably so they can counter the cranks and rumor mongers.

Here you go, sport:...
What they 'found' is what they 'selectively treated' and 'made up' in order to 'find' that. Just because they claimed to have 'found' the signal and at the sigma level they claimed, does NOT mean that the actual data analysis/methodology and assumptions and selective interpretations etc etc actually could support that claim. The mainstreamer physicists pointed out that in the range they needed to 'see', the 'signal' was swamped by noise/complications from all sorts of ovewhelming unwanted 'sources/processes' signals.

You really are as gullible and trusting and unoriginal 'scientist' as you sound! Mate, it's no good trying to point out the facts to you when you are not only in denial but also blinded by trust in what is patently untrustworthy in this case.

Good luck!
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 12, 2014
They gave fair warning it was preliminary and they could be wrong, as they're required to do ethically.
They claimed 'significant' things which they should have KNOWN were NOT so IF they had followed the scientific method properly and objectively. As was made obvious afterwards when mainstreamers also found the SERIOUS flaws which they apparently 'glossed over' selectively and then made claims which were obviously untenable, not just 'possibly', but self-evidently.
The results were only 5σ. You're making stuff up again.

I am. That's why you hate me.
You're 'projecting' your own 'personality cult' motivations/attitudes onto me, mate. In my 65 years I've learned that life's too short, and science and humanity too important, for such petty personal crap.
I'm not the one who's defaming reputable scientists; you must hate them with a passion. And you're putting it on me too. Example: "personality cult."
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 12, 2014
I'm just disappointed at what passes for 'scientists' nowadays, given your performance to date, and that of that BICEP2 'team' at the time.
The results were only 5σ. You're making stuff up again.

Have fun. Don't let the burgers burn.
And you take care to correct your wrong impression of my GW stance, ok?
Not a chance. I've seen your kind before. You're making stuff up again.

Next post:
=======================================================================
They *are* significant even if they're preliminary. And they fulfilled scientific objectivity and ethics.
How can they be 'significant' if the 'noise' (from both near and far complicating sources/processes they couldn't treat properly in that exercise) is more 'significant' than their alleged 'signal'?
Their results are preliminary; they're only 5σ. Everybody but you knows that. You're pretending they announced it like it was for certain sure. They didn't. You're making stuff up again.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Aug 12, 2014
That's not what I heard over at Sapo's Joint.
Search my post history HERE at phys.org against GW denialists before making assinine uninformed statements like that.
Not interested enough to bother.

If that's what 'they' (whoever you mean 'over there') gave you that patently wrong impression, then they lied to you. Obviously.
Looks to me like they have your number. You're making stuff up again.
Yet you didn't search and check for 'objective truth' content, did you? Some 'scientist' you lot are; believing gossip as 'fact'.
I never claimed to be a scientist, for the second time. You're making stuff up again.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Aug 12, 2014
Hi Da Schneib. :)
The results were only 5�. You're making stuff up again.
What stuff? The sigma levels are what they claimed after 'treatment' of the data using the obviously flawed assumptions/selections etc. It's not the sigma, but the claims based on unreliable 'exercise' that are the let-down. Get it straight, mate.

I'm not the one who's defaming reputable scientists; you must hate them with a passion. And you're putting it on me too. Example: "personality cult."
Haven't you got it yet? It's NOT the people in the team that are important/relevant, it's their WORK/CLAIMS that are being properly scrutinized and the assessment made OBJECTIVELY and ON PRINCIPLES of OBJECTIVE science/reliability involved, not personalities.

No wonder you like 'gossip' and 'sources/links' more than objective facts/science.

You're just the latest in a 'new' breed of 'personality scientist' that leads to such fiascos as that BICEP2 and earlier ones inbuilt into the literature.

Careful!
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Aug 12, 2014
Hi Da Schneib. :)
That's not what I heard over at Sapo's Joint.
Search my post history HERE at phys.org against GW denialists before making assinine uninformed statements like that.
Not interested enough to bother.
The brave 'new scientist' is afraid to find out he is WRONG again, so he 'won't bother' to check the facts. Nice way to do 'objective' science discourse. lol

If that's what 'they' (whoever you mean 'over there') gave you that patently wrong impression, then they lied to you. Obviously.
Looks to me like they have your number. You're making stuff up again.
Yet you didn't search and check for 'objective truth' content, did you? Some 'scientist' you lot are; believing gossip as 'fact'.
I never claimed to be a scientist, for the second time.
Yet you are so 'certain' about stuff you don't actually check/understand properly? Yes, we already saw that you were no sort of 'scientist' at all, sport.

So, you are here why?
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 12, 2014
So I found the original scholarly paper. The APS has put it on-line for free access, probably so they can counter the cranks and rumor mongers.

Here you go, sport:...
What they 'found' is what they 'selectively treated' and 'made up' in order to 'find' that.
They're 5σ. That's right next door to final results. The data are on-line here: http://bicepkeck.org/ along with a Python analysis package. See for yourself. Oh, and you're defaming reputable scientists and making stuff up again.

Just because they claimed to have 'found' the signal and at the sigma level they claimed, does NOT mean that the actual data analysis/methodology and assumptions and selective interpretations etc etc actually could support that claim. The mainstreamer physicists pointed out that in the range they needed to 'see', the 'signal' was swamped by noise/complications from all sorts of ovewhelming unwanted 'sources/processes' signals.
Reputable link and quote please.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 12, 2014
You really are as gullible and trusting and unoriginal 'scientist' as you sound!
a) I'm still not a scientist, and b) not gullible enough to believe you. And you're making stuff up again.

Mate, it's no good trying to point out the facts to you when you are not only in denial but also blinded by trust in what is patently untrustworthy in this case.
You don't have any facts. You almost never post any evidence, and when you do it doesn't say what you claim. And you make stuff up. And defame reputable scientists. Speaking of being in denial.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Aug 12, 2014
Hi Da Schneib:)
What they 'found' is what they 'selectively treated' and 'made up' in order to 'find' that.
They're 5�. ... The data are on-line here: http://bicepkeck.org/ along with a Python analysis package.... Oh, and you're defaming reputable scientists.
It's their 'work' as presented/claimed that is subject to scientific method demands of objective scrutiny. Nothing 'personal' at all. Get a clue.

Just because they claimed to have 'found' the signal and at the sigma level they claimed, does NOT mean that the actual data analysis/methodology and assumptions and selective interpretations etc etc actually could support that claim. The mainstreamer physicists pointed out that in the range they needed to 'see', the 'signal' was swamped by noise/complications from all sorts of ovewhelming unwanted 'sources/processes' signals.
Reputable link and quote please.
Go read all/unbiased comments from mainstream physicists. Oh, but you don't.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 12, 2014
The results were only 5σ. You're making stuff up again.
What stuff? The sigma levels are what they claimed after 'treatment' of the data using the obviously flawed assumptions/selections etc. It's not the sigma, but the claims based on unreliable 'exercise' that are the let-down. Get it straight, mate.
The results were only 5σ. Those aren't final results. You're making stuff up again.

I'm not the one who's defaming reputable scientists; you must hate them with a passion. And you're putting it on me too. Example: "personality cult."
Haven't you got it yet? It's NOT the people in the team that are important/relevant, it's their WORK/CLAIMS that are being properly scrutinized and the assessment made OBJECTIVELY and ON PRINCIPLES of OBJECTIVE science/reliability involved, not personalities.
Yep. And when they announced the results, they said the significance level is 5σ, just short of final results. They were objective. You're making stuff up again.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 12, 2014
No wonder you like 'gossip' and 'sources/links' more than objective facts/science.
I'm not the one making stuff up all the time.

You're just the latest in a 'new' breed of 'personality scientist' that leads to such fiascos as that BICEP2 and earlier ones inbuilt into the literature.
For the fourth time, I'm not a scientist. You're making stuff up again.

Oh and by the way, it looks like you don't know any statistics. What kind of scientist are you supposed to be? Like I said go flip the burgers before they burn.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Aug 12, 2014
Hi Da Schneib. :)
The results were only 5�. You're making stuff up again.
What stuff? The sigma levels are what they claimed after 'treatment' of the data using the obviously flawed assumptions/selections etc. It's not the sigma, but the claims...
The results were only 5�. Those aren't final results.
They claimed 'significant' results when 'signal' was NOT 'significant' as they made out.

I'm not the one who's defaming reputable scientists; you must hate them with a passion. And you're putting it on me too. Example: "personality cult."
Haven't you got it yet? It's NOT the people in the team that's important/relevant, it's their WORK/CLAIMS being properly scrutinized and assessment made ON PRINCIPLES of OBJECTIVE science/reliability involved, not personalities.
Yep. And when they announced the results, they said the significance level is 5�...
And again, they claimed 'significant signal' where there WAS OBVIOUSLY none such.

Get it?
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 12, 2014
That's not what I heard over at Sapo's Joint.
Search my post history HERE at phys.org against GW denialists before making assinine uninformed statements like that.
Not interested enough to bother.
The brave 'new scientist' is afraid to find out he is WRONG again, so he 'won't bother' to check the facts. Nice way to do 'objective' science discourse. lol
For the fifth time I'm not a scientist. You're making stuff up again.

Yet you didn't search and check for 'objective truth' content, did you? Some 'scientist' you lot are; believing gossip as 'fact'.
I never claimed to be a scientist, for the second time.
Yet you are so 'certain' about stuff you don't actually check/understand properly? Yes, we already saw that you were no sort of 'scientist' at all, sport.
I understood it fine. 5σ. You're making stuff up again.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Aug 12, 2014
Hi DaSchneib. :)

No wonder you like 'gossip' and 'sources/links' more than objective facts/science.
I'm not the one making stuff up all the time.

You're just the latest in a 'new' breed of 'personality scientist' that leads to such fiascos as that BICEP2 and earlier ones inbuilt into the literature.
For the fourth time, I'm not a scientist. You're making stuff up again.

Oh and by the way, it looks like you don't know any statistics. What kind of scientist are you supposed to be? Like I said go flip the burgers before they burn.
So says the 'personality cult' opinionator who couldn't be bothered to check the facts to dispel his wrong impressions? Yep, you're no sort of 'scientist', alright...as already observed to you, so you can stop your 'protestations' that you are not a scientist. Yes, we know, we know! Obviously.

So, you're here to spread rumors and entertain us with 'personality cult' misapprehensions based on nothing but gossip? Ok. :)
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 12, 2014
They're 5σ. ... The data are on-line here: http://bicepkeck.org/ along with a Python analysis package.... Oh, and you're defaming reputable scientists.
It's their 'work' as presented/claimed that is subject to scientific method demands of objective scrutiny. Nothing 'personal' at all. Get a clue.
And they have undergone such scrutiny, and there's more data coming from Planck in October. Jump the gun much?

The mainstreamer physicists pointed out that in the range they needed to 'see', the 'signal' was swamped by noise/complications from all sorts of ovewhelming unwanted 'sources/processes' signals.
Reputable link and quote please.
Go read all/unbiased comments from mainstream physicists. Oh, but you don't.
So you made it up again. Got it.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Aug 12, 2014
Hi Da Schneib. :)
They're 5�. ... The data are on-line here: http://bicepkeck.org/ along with a Python analysis package.... Oh, and you're defaming reputable scientists.
It's their 'work' as presented/claimed that is subject to scientific method demands of objective scrutiny. Nothing 'personal' at all. Get a clue.
And they have undergone such scrutiny, and there's more data coming from Planck in October. Jump the gun much?


The mainstreamer physicists pointed out that in the range they needed to 'see', the 'signal' was swamped by noise/complications from all sorts of ovewhelming unwanted 'sources/processes' signals.
Reputable link and quote please.
Go read all/unbiased comments from mainstream physicists. Oh, but you don't.
So you made it up again. Got it.
You don't like to check all the facts, preferring to retain your own misapprehensions. You said as much before. So why should I waste time on you if you won't do your own search? :)
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (3) Aug 12, 2014
The results were only 5σ. Those aren't final results.
They claimed 'significant' results when 'signal' was NOT 'significant' as they made out.
5σ is significant. You really don't understand statistics, do you?

Haven't you got it yet? It's NOT the people in the team that's important/relevant, it's their WORK/CLAIMS being properly scrutinized and assessment made ON PRINCIPLES of OBJECTIVE science/reliability involved, not personalities.
Yep. And when they announced the results, they said the significance level is 5σ...
And again, they claimed 'significant signal' where there WAS OBVIOUSLY none such. There obviously was. 5σ is significant.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 12, 2014
Oh and by the way, it looks like you don't know any statistics. What kind of scientist are you supposed to be? Like I said go flip the burgers before they burn.
So says the 'personality cult' opinionator who couldn't be bothered to check the facts to dispel his wrong impressions? Yep, you're no sort of 'scientist', alright...as already observed to you, so you can stop your 'protestations' that you are not a scientist. Yes, we know, we know! Obviously.

So, you're here to spread rumors and entertain us with 'personality cult' misapprehensions based on nothing but gossip? Ok. :)
This is going nowhere. There is no technical discussion here.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Aug 12, 2014
Hi Da Schneib. :)
The results were only 5�. Those aren't final results.
They claimed 'significant' results when 'signal' was NOT 'significant' as they made out.
5� is significant.

Haven't you got it yet? It's NOT the people in the team that's important/relevant, it's their WORK/CLAIMS being properly scrutinized and assessment made ON PRINCIPLES of OBJECTIVE science/reliability involved, not personalities.
Yep. And when they announced the results, they said the significance level is 5�...
And again, they claimed 'significant signal' where there WAS OBVIOUSLY none such.
There obviously was. 5� is significant.

Have you no sense at all? What they claimed was 'significant' signal DIDN'T actually exist AT ALL IF they had done the proper science/treatment etc. So any claim of 'significance' on ANY level/measure was an OBVIOUS mistake due to 'confirmation biased' exercise.

Get that yet.....or is that too subtle for you? :)
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 12, 2014
You don't like to check all the facts, preferring to retain your own misapprehensions. You said as much before. So why should I waste time on you if you won't do your own search? :)
I ferreted out the original paper and it proves you're incorrect. What am I supposed to search on now?

You don't know any statistics. You can't read their original paper and understand what it says. You admit to having made up a vicious rumor about reputable scientists. You make stuff up and won't support it.

What are you doing here again?
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 12, 2014
Have you no sense at all? What they claimed was 'significant' signal DIDN'T actually exist AT ALL IF they had done the proper science/treatment etc. So any claim of 'significance' on ANY level/measure was an OBVIOUS mistake due to 'confirmation biased' exercise.
They have shown 5σ results. Those are significant, as you'd know if you were really a scientist, because you'd know statistics.

You're making stuff up again.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Aug 12, 2014
Hi Da Schneib. :)

You don't like to check all the facts, preferring to retain your own misapprehensions. You said as much before. So why should I waste time on you if you won't do your own search? :)
I ferreted out the original paper and it proves you're incorrect. What am I supposed to search on now?
But you still haven't read ALL the physicists commentary about what the flaws were, have you? Obviously, or you wouldn't still be wasting everyone's time based on your VERY NARROW reading/search.

You don't know any statistics. You can't read their original paper and understand what it says.
I did statistics at University level. So you're wrong again. And statistics can LIE if you don't do it right. You obviously don't realize that, and neither did that 'team'.

You admit to having made up a vicious rumor about reputable scientists. You make stuff up and won't support it.
I admit no such thing. You didn't check the facts. Making stuff up again, non-scientist? :)
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 12, 2014
I ferreted out the original paper and it proves you're incorrect. What am I supposed to search on now?
But you still haven't read ALL the physicists commentary about what the flaws were, have you? Obviously, or you wouldn't still be wasting everyone's time based on your VERY NARROW reading/search.
They updated their paper to include few minor and very unlikely possibilities because you made a rumor up about them. Nice job, that's just what I want my tax money being spent on. Thanks.

At least I understand what I read. You don't because you don't understand statistics.

You don't know any statistics. You can't read their original paper and understand what it says.
I did statistics at University level. So you're wrong again. And statistics can LIE if you don't do it right. You obviously don't realize that, and neither did that 'team'.
You don't know what 5σ means. You're making stuff up again.

contd
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 12, 2014
You admit to having made up a vicious rumor about reputable scientists. You make stuff up and won't support it.
I admit no such thing. You didn't check the facts. Making stuff up again, non-scientist?
So you're really gonna make me ferret that out too? OK.

Here we go:

I was referring to MY immediate assessment of the BICEP2 'work/paper' as initially presented, and caution to uncritical mainstream 'cheerleaders'.

Only afterwards did dissenting 'mainstream physicists' get involved (and confirmed my immediate assessment of flawed confirmation-biased assumptions, treatment and interpretations/claims).
You're making stuff up again, and this time about your own words. They're right up there above. You can search on them if you know how.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Aug 12, 2014
Hi Da Schneib. :)
]But you still haven't read ALL the physicists commentary about what the flaws were, have you? Obviously, or you wouldn't still be wasting everyone's time based on your VERY NARROW reading/search.
They updated their paper to include few minor and very unlikely possibilities because you made a rumor up about them.

They were taken to task by mainstream physicists after I pointed out that it was OBVIOUSLY flawed, and so were obliged to try to save face if they could. It is still NOT any 'significant' signal, however you slice it.

At least I understand what I read.
Bwaahaha! lol

I did statistics at University level. So you're wrong again. And statistics can LIE if you don't do it right. You obviously don't realize that, and neither did that 'team'.
You don't know what 5� means. So you try to make out. You won't check all facts before making your opinions? Lame-o.

Still at your own 'rumor mill' and making stuff up, non-scientist? :)
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 12, 2014
They updated their paper to include few minor and very unlikely possibilities because you made a rumor up about them.
They were taken to task by mainstream physicists after I pointed out that it was OBVIOUSLY flawed, and so were obliged to try to save face if they could. It is still NOT any 'significant' signal, however you slice it.
So you did start the rumor. You made stuff up again and claimed you didn't above. And 5σ is still significant, but not final.

At least I understand what I read.
Bwaahaha! lol
5σ.

I did statistics at University level.
You don't know what 5σ means.
So you try to make out. You won't check all facts before making your opinions? Lame-o.
5σ.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 12, 2014
Nobody who's taken statistics can fail to understand what 5σ means. You're making stuff up again, RC.

Did it make you feel powerful and important to start a vicious rumor about reputable scientists?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Aug 12, 2014
Hi Da Schneib. :)
I admit no such thing. You didn't check the facts. Making stuff up again, non-scientist?
So you're really gonna make me ferret that out too?
Here we go:
I was referring to MY immediate assessment of the BICEP2 'work/paper' as initially presented, and caution to uncritical mainstream 'cheerleaders'. Only afterwards did dissenting 'mainstream physicists' get involved (and confirmed my immediate assessment of flawed confirmation-biased assumptions, treatment and interpretations/claims).
You're making stuff up again, and this time about your own words. They're right up there above.
Did you note that in the full original context I merely CAUTIONED/SUGGESTED that everyone do their OWN 'due diligence' before accepting 'work/paper/claims' on face value just because mainstream source?

No 'rumor mongering', just recommending SCIENTIFIC SCRUTINY before getting all excited and uncritically accepting it as 'fact'. You, a non-scientist, wouldn't understand. :)
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (5) Aug 12, 2014
As the BICEP2 'work/paper' assumptions/methodology etc fiasco shows only too well, such flawed assumptions/interpretations/inferences may be wrongly trusted as 'reality' because they did not know the difference between 'results' *inferred*, and the actual *observed* data as such which did not support their 'treatment/claims' for it.
What we MAKE of 'observed light info' depends on assumptions/theory/methods used to treat/interpret it. It may be wrong...as BICEP2 'exercise' demonstrated too well!
It's not 'rumors'; it's self-evident fact you can check for yourself if you actually read and understand what the BICEP2 'team' tried to pass off as 'science' at the time.
the bugbear of 'confirmation biases' in humans. Hence the Scientific Method. Which method was NOT followed by the BICEP2 'team/exercise', and by you now when 'reading' about the matter.
See? That is what happened to BICE2 'team'. They too worked from biased position. Careful!
What happened to the BICEP2 team is a bunch of cranks defamed them. Are you calling the mainstream physicists who also found the flaws in BICEP2 exercise/claims 'cranks' too?
Anyway, here is the one re the BICEP2 belated admission. As you will observe, the (full) title of the linked article says it clearly:
He did the footwork. Sure. And that BICEP2 'team' also 'did the footwork'...but look what that 'footwork' amounted to when objectively scrutinized.
I'm just disappointed at what passes for 'scientists' nowadays, given your performance to date, and that of that BICEP2 'team' at the time.
You're just the latest in a 'new' breed of 'personality scientist' that leads to such fiascos as that BICEP2 and earlier ones inbuilt into the literature.
RC you are one heck of an obsessive compulsive parrot.What is your point in coming back over and over again on the same experimental observation experiment (BICEP2)? Cosmology has been constructed with thousands of corroborated observations and studies. A failure to corroborate BICEP2 would not change anything in today's cosmology and if you think otherwise you are completely delusional. So stop sounding like a broken record and move on.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Aug 12, 2014
You're making stuff up again, and this time about your own words. They're right up there above.
Did you note that in the full original context I merely CAUTIONED/SUGGESTED that everyone do their OWN 'due diligence' before accepting 'work/paper/claims' on face value just because mainstream source?
You made up a vicious rumor about reputable scientists and wasted my taxpayer dollars and their time.

No 'rumor mongering', just recommending SCIENTIFIC SCRUTINY before getting all excited and uncritically accepting it as 'fact'. You, a non-scientist, wouldn't understand.
I understand all right. You like making up vicious rumors about reputable scientists because it makes you feel powerful and important. 5σ, slick.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Aug 12, 2014
Hi TechnoCreed. :)
RC you are one heck of an obsessive compulsive parrot.What is your point in coming back over and over again on the same experimental observation experiment (BICEP2)? Cosmology has been constructed with thousands of corroborated observations and studies. A failure to corroborate BICEP2 would not change anything in today's cosmology and if you think otherwise you are completely delusional. So stop sounding like a broken record and move on.
The point was germain when a supposed commentator of others 'work' keeps making the SAME assumptive MISTAKES confusing 'observed data/info' as the theoretically dependent 'interpretation' itself.

And I would not have had to make as many posts had that 'parrot' (a 'non-scientist') not rationalized it was OK for mainstream to be 'excused' when doing 'bad science', while in the same breath he attacks others because he considers them 'cranks', especially when these alleged 'cranks' point to mainstream failures.

Ok mate? Cheers
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 12, 2014
What is your point in coming back over and over again on the same experimental observation experiment (BICEP2)? Cosmology has been constructed with thousands of corroborated observations and studies. A failure to corroborate BICEP2 would not change anything in today's cosmology and if you think otherwise you are completely delusional.
I think he started this rumor and people actually paid attention and it went to his head. Just a guess.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Aug 12, 2014
Hi Da Schneib. :)
I think he started this rumor and people actually paid attention and it went to his head. Just a guess.
It's patently obvious you are no objective scientist, nor any sort of objective observer/commenter. You eschew due diligence and accuse those who recommend it of 'rumor mongering'; you prefer gossip and ignore the facts even when cautioned about what you have missed; you keep making it about 'the personality cult' and ignoring that it's not personal but about the science method and proper science standards, regardless of 'source/reputations'.

Why are you still here? Entertaining us with your gossipy tactics and silliness is not 'doing objective science discourse', you know!

Maybe the 'social media' Facebook and Twitter would suit your 'personal gossip tactics' and 'misapprehending everything style' better?

Good luck with that, non-scientist! :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Aug 12, 2014
Any reputable physicist knows you don't announce 5σ results as final. I can't say I liked the announcement article on Harvard's site much; it looks like a publicist didn't understand 5σ and went a bit over the top with the news, probably as a PR move. Looks like that was a mistake.

However, that's not the fault of the scientists. And you *do* announce the results of your experiment if you get results as good as 5σ. It indicates an announcement of final discovery is imminent, and prepares the community by giving them a preliminary look.

Anybody who does science knows this, and knows what 5σ means. A bunch of people who were looking to get famous trashed BICEP2. We'll have to hope some petty officious functionary doesn't cut off their funding.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Aug 12, 2014
Hi Schneib. You're slowly getting there, but not quite yet. :)
Any reputable physicist knows you don't announce 5� results as final. I can't say I liked the announcement article on Harvard's site much; it looks like a publicist didn't understand 5� and went a bit over the top with the news, probably as a PR move. Looks like that was a mistake.

However, that's not the fault of the scientists. And you *do* announce the results of your experiment if you get results as good as 5�. It indicates an announcement of final discovery is imminent, and prepares the community by giving them a preliminary look.
But subsequent 'team' comments still insisted 'significant signal' where obviously was none, as later also confirmed by mainstreamers.

A bunch of people who were looking to get famous trashed BICEP2.
I'm lone, scrupulously independent, objective scientific researcher, uninterested in such 'motives'; which is why I DON'T DO 'publish-or-perish' like that. Thanks.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 12, 2014
5σ means there is only a 0.000030018676% chance of error. Like I said it's pretty good data. However, 6σ means 0.000000124806%, so it's two orders of magnitude better. This is the standard for confirmation of a new particle, or the discovery of a new effect. They'll need another two or three runs, I estimate, to get to that level; that will take a few years minimum. However, with Planck looking at it in more frequency bands, they expect that they will have enough data to get to 6σ most likely in October. I think that might be part of the motivation on the part of the publicist; s/he wants to scoop Planck. Like I said, looks like this was a mistake.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 12, 2014
RC, 5σ may properly be called "significant."

I'm not going to respond to your insults any more, so you might as well stop writing them.
RealityCheck
1.2 / 5 (6) Aug 12, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
5� means there is only a 0.000030018676% chance of error. Like I said it's pretty good data. However, 6� means 0.000000124806%, so it's two orders of magnitude better. This is the standard for confirmation of a new particle, or the discovery of a new effect. They'll need another two or three runs, I estimate, to get to that level; that will take a few years minimum. However, with Planck looking at it in more frequency bands, they expect that they will have enough data to get to 6� most likely in October. I think that might be part of the motivation on the part of the publicist; s/he wants to scoop Planck. Like I said, looks like this was a mistake.
Understood. Quite correct, as far as it goes. What's been a problem is that inbuilt flawed assumptions/methods for selecting/rejecting and analyzing/massaging 'observed light info' data-sets currently makes ANY such exercise fraught with systemic/interpretational biases, regardless of Planck. G'nite!:)
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 12, 2014
Their procedures looked pretty airtight to me. As usual, they provided all the data and the analysis package for it so that others could check their results. This is standard operating procedure. I'll need to see analysis from a reputable source that shows that there is something wrong with it before I'm going to budge on this. What's being alleged is a systematic error introduced by dust inside the Milky Way. However, in fact, they took considerable care to eliminate this signal from their analysis and they got 5σ results. Trashing their reputations because a publicist went a bit over the top is out of line.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Aug 12, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
Their procedures looked pretty airtight to me. As usual, they provided all the data and the analysis package for it so that others could check their results. This is standard operating procedure. I'll need to see analysis from a reputable source that shows that there is something wrong with it before I'm going to budge on this. What's being alleged is a systematic error introduced by dust inside the Milky Way. However, in fact, they took considerable care to eliminate this signal from their analysis and they got 5� results. Trashing their reputations because a publicist went a bit over the top is out of line.
Like I pointed out earlier, it's more wide-ranging problems than just the Milky Way dust. It's far, deep, numerous, 'mixmaster' space-energy cycling/processing aspects, that makes it even more 'iffy' and 'tenuous' to 'extract' sought signal from overwhelming unwanted noise/complications signal. Built-in assumptive/interpretational biases don't help! :)
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 12, 2014
The local dust was the only objection that held water, apparently.

Let's keep in mind that you insist on the deprecated steady state theory.

There is a reason they decided to name inflationary ΛCDM the "Standard Model of cosmology," you know.
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (5) Aug 12, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
The local dust was the only objection that held water, apparently.
Apparently? Haven't you cauhgt up with all the commentary about the further aspects impacting on that, and any other such like, 'exercise' in future?

Let's keep in mind that you insist on the deprecated steady state theory.
Why bring that into it at all? The mainstream/other comments re BICEP2 exercise stand on their own. Don't play such 'games', it's not proper/scientific.

There is a reason they decided to name inflationary ΛCDM the "Standard Model of cosmology," you know.
Yes, it has to do with an HYPOTHESIS which is being challenged by new discoveries and rethinking of past interpretations of data. Just because one labels something ΛCDM doesn't make it so, nor even 'explain' anything but the hypothesis, certainly not the physical reality unless you have since found the 'coupling mechanism' mentioned before? Warning: Just saying "conservation of momentum" won't cut it.

Good night:)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Aug 12, 2014
Y'know... this was the longest "work break that is over soon" that I have ever seen, RC.
And I saw NO evidentiary support from you, at all.
All you've done is niggle and infer errors were found. What a waste of TheSchneib's - and your own - time. Not to mention - my own.
Uncle Ira
4.9 / 5 (7) Aug 12, 2014
Y'know... this was the longest "work break that is over soon" that I have ever seen, RC.
And I saw NO evidentiary support from you, at all.
All you've done is niggle and infer errors were found. What a waste of TheSchneib's - and your own - time. Not to mention - my own.


If this "work" is anything like his book is going to be I hope he has good insurance for his mental condition so they don't let him out to try to sell it in person.

Didn't waste my time no. Whenever I see Really-Skippy I just give the bad karma point and move on. That's because whatever you see he wrote, he has wrote over and over and over and over and over and over, well you see what I mean. He has only the same five or four things to say and after you see them about 6 or 5 hundreds times you get to memorize them.

Shoot, even the Zephir-Skippy has more material than the Really-Skippy. And the cant-Nazi-drive-Skippy too if you add his stuffs up with Delicious-Skippy's stuffs.
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (5) Aug 12, 2014
If any kind soul could remind me

Was it "The Infamous Boundary: Seven Decades of Heresy in Quantum Physics" by David Wick? http://books.goog...;f=false

If not, still a very good read – chapter 15, "The Impossible Observed", gives a good account of the (erroneous) belief on the part of Bohr, Pauli, and proponents of the Copenhagen interpretation that it was impossible to observe the magnetic moment of a free electron, a belief widely accepted until Dehmolt's announcement in 1984 of Priscilla's ballet, his pet positron caught in a Penning trap. Quoting from p. 147, "The moral is clear: be modest about the implications of your theories—and never underestimate the cleverness of the experimentalists."
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Aug 12, 2014
Y'know... this was the longest "work break that is over soon" that I have ever seen, RC.
And I saw NO evidentiary support from you, at all.
All you've done is niggle and infer errors were found. What a waste of TheSchneib's - and your own - time. Not to mention - my own.
Actually not so much. Finding the paper online and it being free were definitely bonus (the opposite of bogus). The insult parts were perhaps irritating, but oh well. Looks like he's over it, but time will tell. (Note I haven't read his response to me yet.) I find more stuff out arguing with alternative theory supporters than I do showing people stuff that's new to them; the only thing missing is the vicarious "eureka" moment I get to share when they "get it," and even that happens sometimes with them.

The glass is half full. :D
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 12, 2014
Hey RC,
The local dust was the only objection that held water, apparently.
Apparently? Haven't you cauhgt up with all the commentary about the further aspects impacting on that, and any other such like, 'exercise' in future?
Not interested in the cat fight, just the data. Read the addendum to the paper at the end; it responds to the *reasonable* commentary. I'll CNP it in a later post; got bidness today. Look for it late in your morning (I'm guessing from your colloquial use of "mate" that you're from Down Under. If not please correct my misapprehension.)

Let's keep in mind that you insist on the deprecated steady state theory.
Why bring that into it at all? The mainstream/other comments re BICEP2 exercise stand on their own. Don't play such 'games', it's not proper/scientific.
It goes to why you keep slanging them. Like above, 'exercise" with scare quotes. Speaking of games.

I gave you four stars this time. You're talking science now.
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (6) Aug 12, 2014
@Da Schneib
The quality of arguments will always be better than the quantity of words. What happened here in the last 15 to 20 hours was just a war of words, sorry to be critical about that.

About the validity criterion; to explain why one should keep some reserves about a specific experiment, especially when it is charting new territories, I will make you read a blog by Tommaso Dorigo an experimental physicist working with the LHC's CMS collaboration. It is in four parts; a good one hour of reading, but well invested... Enjoy http://www.scienc...n-118228
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 12, 2014
Thanks, Techno. I think we have it worked out. He's sticking more to science. I'm going to start ignoring the personal insults and keeping it to one post to his one unless he makes valid science posts like his latest. He's asking good questions now.

I will definitely be reading that. Favorited. Thanks for your tolerance, and sorry for the mess. I'll be mindful of your request. This one will require more than that, because it has valid science material in it. But I'm editing it down as I type.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 12, 2014
Let me correct that, I will not respond to his posts at all unless he includes valid scientific data. My bad.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Aug 12, 2014
contd

There is a reason they decided to name inflationary ΛCDM the "Standard Model of cosmology," you know.
Yes, it has to do with an HYPOTHESIS
Excellent. Yes, this is correct. As I have been saying all along, 5σ is still a hypothesis; 6σ makes it a theory. It will remain a hypothesis until they have 6σ, which if it happens will add another *theory* to the *theory* of inflation's supporting evidence. I'm implying there is already σ evidence for inflation, and so there is. As above I'll hunt up links and quotes late this afternoon or this evening Pacific US West Coast time.

which is being challenged by new discoveries and rethinking of past interpretations of data.
What new discoveries? Do you mean the extra data from Planck? It doesn't cover the segment of sky BICEP2 was looking at. That's not until the October data dump.

contd
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 12, 2014
Just because one labels something ΛCDM doesn't make it so, nor even 'explain' anything but the hypothesis,
Inflationary ΛCDM is two theories, not a hypothesis. This detection of direct proof of the gravity waves caused by inflation is a hypothesis.

Also, I think maybe you meant "just because one labels something a 'standard model'..." and the answer to that is that actually, it does, because that means it's a theory with substantial 6σ supporting data. Just like the Standard Model of Physics has.

certainly not the physical reality
Nobody knows what "physical reality" is. We know laws of nature, and we know theories. "Proof" doesn't exist in physics, but you can get pretty good evidence, far beyond 6σ, if you do enough experiments. For example the Aspect "Bell's Theorem" test has been substantially repeated and the latest repetition gives a σ greater than 30.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 12, 2014
If any kind soul could remind me

Was it "The Infamous Boundary: Seven Decades of Heresy in Quantum Physics" by David Wick?
Yes! You *rock*! I'd give you six stars if I could!
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Aug 12, 2014
Arghh, a typo:
I'm implying there is already σ evidence for inflation, and so there is.
Should say 6σ.
Q-Star
5 / 5 (7) Aug 12, 2014
As I have been saying all along, 5� is still a hypothesis; 6� makes it a theory. It will remain a hypothesis until they have 6�, which if it happens will add another *theory* to the *theory* of inflation's supporting evidence. I'm implying there is already � evidence for inflation


@ Da Schneib I commend ya for your patience. Trust me, it will not be rewarded. RC has never lost an argument, never once in the last dozen years. It's the same 12 year old argument. Literally. Ask Captain Stumpy for the links.

In cosmology we do not use a certain sigma number to graduate a hypothesis to a theory. I think ya are conflating the 5-sigma that particle physicists use to reliably report an experiment with the 6-sigma materials/manufacturing thing.

Also Lamda CDM is not "two theories", it is a Model of the History/Evolution of the Universe (modern cosmology) founded on many theories. GR, EM, QFT, Thermodynamics, etc. All of those go into making the MODEL
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Aug 12, 2014
Hi Whyde.

*Sigh*. Whyde, Whyde, Whyde! Why'd you do it, Whyde?

Just when the exchange between me and Schneib was approaching some mutual understanding on the relevant matters, you up and inject anew irrelevant 'personality cult' remarks. Which are not only incorrect, but also again trigger further 'personality cult' irrelevancies and distractions from those who prefer such to actually checking and comprehending the FULL facts rather than keeping 'misapprehended' impressions alive and opinionating further from said misapprehended impressions of both me and my work (and about why I am constrained as to what I am at liberty to discuss 'in depth' because of imminent ToE publication, due to heightened risk of plagiarism by unscrupulous types-----you know who you are!-----of my original ToE insights/work over 5 decades of painstakingly thorough and objective, wide ranging independent applied/theoretical research and experimentation across many science/technology disciplines.

Bad Whyde! :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Aug 12, 2014
Hi Schneib.:)
Not interested in the cat fight...
Wasn't me who brought the 'cat fight'. :)
I'm guessing from your colloquial use of "mate" that you're from Down Under.
Correct. I'm Aussie. And you?

It goes to why you keep slanging them.
It's 'work/claims' subject to scientific scrutiny, proper due diligence, at all stages...else it's not 'science', is it?

And you were unaware of background (I merely cautioned/suggested due diligence, as overly-excited types started to 'bash cranks', using BICEP2 flawed work/claims as 'accepted fact'; and I/others suggesting caution unfairly labeled 'rumor monger', 'crank').

I used 'exercise' advisedly; to stress BICEP2 ended up yet another mere/flawed data analysis/interpretation 'exercise'. As it proved to be then (and still).

I trust you now distinguish between 'observed data' and 'interpretations/claims'?

Don't humor Uncle Ira bot-operating site/ratings saboteur. Else your own objectivity/credibility will plummet.

Cheers! :)
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (6) Aug 12, 2014
Don't humor Uncle Ira bot-operating site/ratings saboteur. Else your own objectivity/credibility will plummet.


That advice don't be seem to be saving your objects and credit from causing peoples making the fun with you Cher.

Really-Skippy let me ask you the one serious question. When was the last time anybody here ever asked you for advisement about anything having to do with science stuffs? Somebody with all the objects and credits you think you got should be the go-to man for science stuffs. I haven't seen anybody call you anything but a couyon (that means fool). I haven't seen anybody ever say "boy I sure wish that Really-Skippy would show up because I got a question he is sure to know the answer to."

Yeah that is my question: Who has ever looked you up for some objects and credits?

Oh yeah I almost forget. Are you going to be doing the international moderator mafia troll bot routine again soon? I really like that one Really-Skippy.

Do better matey-Skippy.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Aug 12, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
Thanks, Techno. I think we have it worked out. He's sticking more to science.
Did you catch up with the reason why I am constrained as to what science issues I can discuss in depth? Because of imminent publication of my original ToE; and avoiding unnecessary risks of plagiarism by unscrupulous types?

I will definitely be reading...
Have you ever heard the expression: "Don't presume to teach your grandmother how to suck eggs"? :) In case you missed it, since age nine (now 65) I've been atheist, objective, lone, independent and scrupulous observer of science/humanity across all areas of human endeavor. So, since you obviously are still 'catching up' with 'reading list' and latest discoveries/developments in advanced cosmology field/literature, I suggest you drop your condescending tone and misapprehensions about me. I've probably forgotten more than you'll ever 'know' about science/humanity in reality terms/understanding.

Rethink your own 'motives', mate! :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Aug 12, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
Excellent. Yes, this is correct. As I have been saying all along, 5� is still a hypothesis; 6� makes it a theory. It will remain a hypothesis until they have 6�, which if it happens will add another *theory* to the *theory* of inflation's supporting evidence.
Still confusing the treatment/interpretation from theory OF the data set, with the raw observed light/radiation data/info itself? And you still miss the point that 'statistical' methods produce 'artifacts' which may differ substantially depending on prior/inbuilt assumptions/methodology and biases/limitations in data selection/analysis etc. And you've jumbled up which hypothesis belong where and in what order etc. :)

Take some time to study what Protoplasmix and TachnoCreed have taken trouble to find for you to 'read up' on re such aspects/pitfalls. :)

Do you mean the extra data from Planck?
No. Planck just latest observations project. It's more wide-ranging, old and new to digest. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Aug 12, 2014
Hi Q-S,

How are your bot-operating site/ratings saboteuring mates going? Business brisk on the anti-science-ethics trolling front line? :)
@ Da Schneib I commend ya for your patience. Trust me, it will not be rewarded. RC has never lost an argument, never once in the last dozen years. It's the same 12 year old argument. Literally. Ask Captain Stumpy for the links
You mean that you haven't been good enough or objective enough to counter my counters to your trolls and unscientific 'personality cult' crap?

And the CapS comic caricature conniving with anti-science Uncle Ira rate-bot-operator is now the 'golden standard' for truth, trustworthiness and objectivity on this? Pull the other one, mate! With his biased selective approach in his farcical 'due diligence', it's like going to Al-Quaeda for an 'honest appraisal' opinion on the USA! Silly.

Seems the only "12 year old" thing is you promulgating false 'urban myths' about me, even after you've been corrected.

Do better. :)

Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (4) Aug 12, 2014
And the CapS comic caricature conniving with anti-science Uncle Ira rate-bot-operator is now the 'golden standard' for truth, trustworthiness and objectivity on this?


I'm the independent operator Cher, I come and I go alone.

it's like going to Al-Quaeda for an 'honest appraisal' opinion on the USA!


@ Really-Skippy there you go Cher, you're working up to the international moderator mafia troll bots out to get you. Keep going podna. That's the one I want to hear me.

Seems the only "12 year old" thing is you promulgating false 'urban myths' about me, even after you've been corrected.


What he say that was false Cher? I thought he went kinda easy on you.

Do better. :)


No you do better Cher :::)))) Is that a secret code for Really-Skippy is the grand couyon? Now don't make me come back to take of you for dishonoring the science and the humanity and defend my honor.

Now put your silly looking pointy cap back on your head so I can slap it off again.

Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (6) Aug 12, 2014
I'd give you six stars if I could

Happy to help, credit Google, I merely used the nouns and adjectives from your request as search terms. But if there's a Turing test for kind souls, that's one I'm studying for, so thanks for the stars—mostly thanks for the comments, contributions and exemplary demeanor.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Aug 13, 2014
So I found the original scholarly paper. http://journals.a...2.241101
Da Schneib
here is a link with a lot more data surrounding the BICEP2 publication

[url]http://bicepkeck.org/[/url]
Axemaster shared it for us to see the good info
I think it has EVERYTHING regarding the BICEP2 publication as well.

except, of course, for those "fatal flaws" :-D

It's the same 12 year old argument. Literally. Ask Captain Stumpy for the links

@Q-Star
Been missing your posts!
You should join Sapo's joint : http://saposjoint.net/
I've been trying to give Schneib some inside info on the lone Loony here and his
"Sam-I-Am ToE Jam" ... using Sapo's PM function

PM me!
[url]http://bicepkeck.org/[/url]
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Aug 13, 2014
@Da Schneib
@Q-Star

those links didn't show up correctly... either copy and paste and remove the URL garbage... or try these:

http://bicepkeck.org

http://saposjoint.net

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Aug 13, 2014
I will make you read a blog by Tommaso Dorigo an experimental physicist working with the LHC's CMS collaboration. It is in four parts; a good one hour of reading, but well invested... Enjoy http://www.scienc...n-118228
@Techno
THANKS for that post and link! Have you posted this before?
RC you are one heck of an obsessive compulsive parrot.What is your point in coming back over and over again on the same experimental observation experiment (BICEP2)
its called baiting, and it is used to start a flame war and TROLL, which was why he got banned at Sciforums (He did this to Q-Star and I reported the post, along with some others)

You read up on this link yet?

http://bicepkeck.org/

TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (4) Aug 13, 2014
THANKS for that post and link! Have you posted this before?
No, not this one, but I have linked to reputable blogs many times since I have started commenting on physorg. I read a few of them; generally on particle physics or cosmology; it is one good way to keep up to date with the hot topics in the physics community. When the occasion comes, I link them to support my comments. Thank you for the appreciation. TC
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 14, 2014
Hi TechnoCreed (and Forum at large). :)

Don't be sucked in by CapS and gang of site saboteuring trolls.They profess to 'defend mainstream', but everything they do (using the ratings-bot-sock "Uncle Ira" to rate from a LIST irrespective of post content; spread half-truths and outright lies in their 'personality cult' method of 'doing science discourse' while ignoring the new science ramifications of new perspectives, etc) brings shame and disrepute to all those REAL and proper scientists out there who are embarrassed by these gangs of parrots and loonies pretending to be 'speaking for' the mainstream science/scientists.

These gangs come and go over the years, insinuating themselves into forums and proceeding to make a mockery of free and open science discourse of new ideas. They parrot the orthodoxy, even when plainly wrong/unknown/misunderstood etc, and continue to delude themselves that just by parrotting they 'understand' anything at all in depth!

They pathetically ego-boost and 'goose each other' with '5s' in the ratings pages in their daisy-ring-of-stupid-parrots' club COLLUSION voting/trolling games (see above where CapS STILL trying to 'recruit' via PMs more trolls/suckers to his 'daisy club' of trolls pretending to be interested in science when its only ego/troll power and sabotage they are doing by making 'person' and 'source' their 'tactics' instead of making objective thinking/facts and science/ideas the point of dicussion.

Don't fall for his lies and half-truths, mate. It's like asking Al-Quaeda to give opinions on USA. Naturally CapS will LIE to you about me and my 'bans'. I was banned by MOD-TROLL 'abuse of position/power' gangs affiliated with such 'daisy-chain-of-stupid' trolls such as he is still trying to muster again now above via PMs 'back room collusions/conspiracy' encouraging the Uncle Ira et al ANTI-SCIENCE-ETHICS tactics/lies etc. agenda embarrassing all decent and objective scientists everywhere.

I have more than once conducted Internet Experiments which have proved and exposed such troll-mod 'gangs of malice and stupidity' masquerading as 'science defenders'. They are what's WRONG with the forums because they stifle free and open science discourse, and use 'personality cult' crap to distract and sabotage and gull unsuspecting youngsters and newbies into their 'gang' via PM collusion and lies 'in the back room'.

So beware all attempts to suck you into 'personality cult' and 'saboteuring troll and 'self-goosing' daisy-chain gangs of idiots like CapS, Uncle Ira and any mod-troll types who use them as 'stalking horses' to bait and ban their victims.

Don't say you weren't made aware of their CONFIRMED BY EXERIMENT and so often already EXPOSED anti-science-ethics antics/agenda, mate!

Anyhow, I am mostly withdrawn from detailed science discourse on the Internet for the time being (for the earlier stated reasons), so carry on with the interesting/new science discourses of your own till we speak again, everyone.

Good luck and good thinking, TechnoCreed, and every genuine scientist (and non-bot-sock poster)....from your genuine collective friend in science and humanity, RealityCheck. Bye again for now. :)

Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (4) Aug 14, 2014
Bye again for now. :)


@ Really-Skippy. Hooweei, that was a good one. You stay up all night working on that one? Or just write him on the fly? There was something for everybody in that one.

It was good a one but I still have to give you the bad karma points for showing up with that new silly looking pointy cap all crumpled and dirty. I can't buy you a new one everyday no. What is it? You sleep in that thing boy?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Aug 14, 2014
Hey folks. :)

And there is the full extent of their lame inability to defend against the proven facts about the gang behind its bot-sock idiocy. Obviously insensible to everything except its own anti-science-ethics 'programming' and mindless 'closed looped' routines, it makes its 'trigger words/phrases' automatic response (with occasional hands-on intervention by its even dumber and insensible 'operator' troll), unaware that it took mere minutes for me to summarize and relate the history of experiment and exposure of the pathetic idiocy behind such bot-sock-mod-troll types, and their ridiculously embarrassing (to genuine objective science/scientist mainstreamers everywhere) criminally stupid actions against all science and humanity standards of objectivity and decency. Way to go proving my point, dumbass! :)

Let's trust newbies won't be sucked into 'joining gangs' like these; and that they will retain objectivity, resist troll-gang 'personality cult' & 'herd mentality' crap. Bye. :)
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (4) Aug 14, 2014
@ Really-Skippy I thought you said the Bye again for now:::))) Now don't make me come back to deal with the dishonorable way you are treating science and humanity and my honor again.

Do better matey-Skippy::::)))))
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Aug 14, 2014
@ Really-Skippy. Hooweei, that was a good one. You stay up all night working on that one? Or just write him on the fly? There was something for everybody in that one.
@Ira
just report the posts he does and let the TROLL rant... it will not stop until he is banned
again

but I have linked to reputable blogs many times since I have started commenting on physorg
@Techno
I normally don't like blog's, but when one comes along that offers links to studies and publications that helps with the comprehension, then I am all for it.
regarding that link... I could have sworn I saw it here before (and likely I have) so I assumed that you posted it

check out those links I left for you up above...
I think you will like them
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Aug 14, 2014
Poor poor "Uncle Ira" bot-sock "operator", stuck in his 'loopy loop' of insensibility and troll mentality.

Poor poor "Uncle Ira" and 'friend CapS'; proof of what can happen to some 'minds' when alcohol, drugs, ego, and plain insensibility levels beyond criminal, gets a hold on a (loosely called) 'human mind'.

Oh well, as long as the newbies and youngsters have been warned about such malignant idiots, then science and humanity can advance along its best trajectory towards fuller objective-reality-informed understanding of Life, the Universe and Everything.

Oh, and just for bot-sock 'trigger' purposes...."Bye for now!" hehe. :)

PS: Hey folks, let's see how long it takes the insensible idiot to react to that 'trigger'. Wait for 'it'....wait for 'it'.......... :)
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (4) Aug 14, 2014
@Ira
just report the posts he does and let the TROLL rant... it will not stop until he is banned
again


@ Captain-Skippy. Maybe we could take up a collection and see if we can bribe those moderator-troll-mafia-bots over at the other place he likes but they don't like him.

How much you think they would want to put him on the no-ban list? It's got to be cheaper for ol Ira than buying all those silly looking pointy caps he keeps abusing. I'm having to issue to him a new one every couple of days

I wonder how much longer until this one ban is over, do you know?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Aug 14, 2014
Awww, ain't that cute! :)....a bot-sock 'conversing' with its operator!

Poor poor bot-operator hasn't heard that my temp ban by 'bait and ban' tactics of mod-trolls at sciforums has expired already. lol

More uninformed mindless 'personality cult' crap from the CapS and 'friend' bot-sock Uncle Ira 'duet of idiocy'.

And of course, the CapS and the Uncle Ira 'personnas' BOTH worked on barges/tugs on the Ohio and Mississipi, but pretend they are not the same/associated in any way in this farce, complete with 'friending' and 'conversing' and 'goosing each other' in ratings pages etc.

How pathetically deluded are they, to believe anyone is still falling for their proven transparently fraudulent activities on the net!

For example, 'Uncle Ira' won't tell you that IT has been perma-banned from other sites for being a sock-puppet and for attempted hacking/sabotaging activities against forum sites.

Nor will CapS 'friend' of Uncle Ira bot-sock mention it when concocting half-truths/lies. :)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Aug 14, 2014
I wonder how much longer until this one ban is over, do you know?
@Ira
Nope. don't know. he is off ban on sciforums, but he is not doing well elsewhere.

Treat his ramblings like his BICEP2 bs... when he gets off topic and rants, just report the post and move on. let him rant.
especially since he still has NO proof supporting his delusions.

Then check this out, Ira... http://bicepkeck.org/
That post has all the BICEP2 data on it that was released. pretty good stuff
the rc old guy thinks he saw some flaws, but he lied, which is obvious to everyone who can read, since he still has not offered any proof of his comments.

so ignore the pettiness of the old guy... this is how he gets his jollies, Ira.
by Trolling
Oh, IRA... also... check out this blog: http://www.prepos...om/blog/

Sean Carroll is a pretty smart guy! he talks about the BICEP2 stuff in his blog a few times... when I get back from travel, I will link you a few of his blog entries

PEACE
Toiea
1 / 5 (4) Aug 14, 2014
Sean Carroll is a pretty smart guy! he talks about the BICEP2 stuff in his blog a few times
He for example dismissed the EMDrive a the notion of "propulsive momentum transfer via the quantum vacuum virtual plasma" to "nonsensical sub-Star-Trek level technobabble". What he says at his blog is just a most conformist physics, which you can find at the web. I'm not doubting, he's successful in his business, but it's tragedy, it's just because of conformity. It's not surprising for me, you like it.
Toiea
1 / 5 (4) Aug 14, 2014
For example when Einstein became familiar with anomalous deuterons reaction, he immediately recognized a cold fusion effect behind it and he proposed the probable mechanism for it. This is a way, in which brilliant physicist differs from this average one: the ability to understand new phenomena, not just these well understood ones. Unfortunately the contemporary community of physicists is driven with twaddlers - after all, like this discussion.
saposjoint
5 / 5 (3) Aug 14, 2014
Forum Mafia. Gotta love 'em.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Aug 14, 2014
Hey Forum, how predictably bot-brained is this CapS anyway? :)

He still pretends to 'converse' with 'friend' (the permabanned-elsewhere) bot-sock 'Uncle Ira', even after being already proven (out of 'their' own mouths) that they are one and the same or associated via common 'occupation' on tugs/barges on the Ohio and Mississippi!

Hilarious troll-bot-sock-moronicity-on-the-net, what!

The poor sod still makes 'in denial' half-truth and outright-lying innuendoes and rationalizations regarding what went down re BICEP2.

Early-observed flaws prompted me to urge everyone to proceed with caution and do their OWN proper due diligence before continuing to 'bash cranks' by citing flawed 'work/claims' as 'accepted fact', which objective mainstream commentators also quickly saw was BS 'work/claims' at the time.

As poor hysterical hypocrite 'Capitano Stupido' carries on his 'conversation' with bot-sock 'Uncle Irritable Bowl', we laugh and cry at such pathetic, malignant insensibility online. :)
Toiea
1 / 5 (6) Aug 14, 2014
Most of voting trolls here are common white trash: a mediocre people frustrated by their life - you would probably avoid them in real life. And their attitude is corresponding.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Aug 14, 2014
Forum Mafia. Gotta love 'em.
What would you call someone who was desperate to get in good with the mod-troll gangs, and in that way be allowed back onto sites you were previously 'persona non grata', and so try on a 'trolling/sabotaging campaign' to 'attract/poach' new members for one's site?

What would you call someone like that, who, in that desperation of self-interest, betrays decent and objective sense of loyalty to friends/truth, and is prepared to betray and stab in the back a true friend who helped him when he was in need, asking for nothing in return, and who had always been scrupulously honest and supportive of your site?

Rethink it and reverse your direction, mate. The scum you are now 'courting' to come onto your site (like the malignantly stupid hypocrite and liar CapS, for example) will turn out to be just as untrustworthy and fickle as you have turned out to be.

Stop the rot now, even at the cost of your site failing. Better that than failed integrity. :)
Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 14, 2014
Most of voting trolls here are common http://i.imgur.com/JW2D8nI.gif: a mediocre people frustrated by their life - you would probably avoid them in real life. And their attitude is corresponding.


@ Zephir-Skippy, you calling me the white trash?

Mediocre? Maybe I am mediocre makes me no difference.

Frustrated? Non, not me Cher. You don't notice I'm always in the good mood? You the one who sounds frustrated all the time. My motto is Laissez les bons temps rouler Skippy

Probably avoid me in real life? That would probably be your best option podna, I'm nicer than most, but I'm still the Cajun in blood and you can never tell what will happen if you make one of us the misere. But even then it will be laissez les bons temps rouler Skippy, for me it will be anyway.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Aug 15, 2014
What would you call someone who was desperate to get in good with the mod-troll gangs, and in that way be allowed back onto sites you were previously 'persona non grata',
thats easy... i would call him "Undefined"
http://www.scifor...ndefined

Most of voting trolls here are common http://i.imgur.com/JW2D8nI.gif: a mediocre people frustrated by their life - you would probably avoid them in real life. And their attitude is corresponding.
Toiea-zephir
LMFAO
at least I have enough common sense not to back a dead horse with my life savings, like the aether BS you back
http://arxiv.org/...1284.pdf

gotta love the TROLL twins!

So, ZEPHIR... WHERE IS THAT EMPIRICAL DATA REFUTING THOSE STUDIES?
And YOU, RC, STILL NO PROOF OF FATAL FLAWS FROM YOUR BICEP2 DENIGRATION?

Proof positive that TROLLS lurk here, and we call them zephir and rc
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Aug 15, 2014
@ Zephir-Skippy, you calling me the white trash?

Mediocre? Maybe I am mediocre makes me no difference.

Frustrated?
@IRA
ignore them
it is called transference. https://en.wikipe...sference

Because zephir and rc are so woefully inadequate and horribly stupid, as well as far less than mediocre and definitely the kind of people you would never associate with in public unless you wanted to share some disease, they transfer this onto you and I in the hopes that others will not notice their inadequacies... that is why rc whined and cried till a mod gave him a second chance as "undefined" at sciforums
right now he is not posting there so he doesn't get banned again for trolling, like here
See my link: http://www.scifor...ndefined

proof rc was already banned once from there- look up his name here: http://www.scifor...list.php

going to be gone a while Ira. got business.
see ya
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Aug 15, 2014
Hi Forum. :)

So, CapS-half-truth-and-liar strikes again! I (RC) posted to "saposjoint"...
What would you call someone who was desperate to get in good with the mod-troll gangs, and in that way be allowed back onto sites you were previously 'persona non grata', and so try on a 'trolling/sabotaging campaign' to 'attract/poach' new members for one's site? .....someone who, in that desperation of self-interest, betrays decent and objective sense of loyalty to friends/truth, and is prepared to betray and stab in the back a true friend who helped him when he was in need, asking for nothing in return, and who had always been scrupulously honest and supportive of your [saposjoint] site?


CapS responds...
thats easy... i would call him "Undefined"
Poor CapS-desperate-to-confuse-the-issue didn't check with 'saposjoint' before jumping in blind.

And CapS is 'gone' if he believes confronting/exposing mod-troll gangs are attempts "to get in good" with same!

Poor CapS-Ira mess. :)
rockwolf1000
5 / 5 (6) Aug 15, 2014
Hi Forum. :)

So, CapS-half-truth-and-liar strikes again! I (RC) posted to "saposjoint"...

thats easy... i would call him "Undefined"
Poor CapS-desperate-to-confuse-the-issue didn't check with 'saposjoint' before jumping in blind.

And CapS is 'gone' if he believes confronting/exposing mod-troll gangs are attempts "to get in good" with same!

Poor CapS-Ira


Suggest pedal your ass as quickly as possible to the nearest psychiatric hospital before it's too late. Your mental breakdown has already begun.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Aug 15, 2014
Hi Forum. :)

And the next 'link' in the daisy-chain-of bot-sock-downvoting-trolls makes its appearance, right on cue...
Suggest pedal your ass as quickly as possible to the nearest psychiatric hospital before it's too late. Your mental breakdown has already begun.
The Forum will note well that these mod-troll gangmembers can't deny the facts about them already exposed above and previously. So they just do the bot-sock-troll 'automatic response' nonsense, half-truths, lies and just plain stupid insults to try and deny and divert from their own culpability and insanity carrying on like they have been proven to do, as anti-science-ethics tactics and personality-cult idiots and site/discussion saboteurs, scammers and criminal hacker-ring gangs infiltrating sites/systems for their nefarious purposes.

Don't get 'sucked' into their 'gangs', under any pretence/inducement. They'll turn on you and criminally exploit your personal info.

They are PROVEN-BY-EXPERIMENTS scumbags. Beware! :)
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Aug 16, 2014
Are all star systems in our galaxy oriented the same direction?

No. Just like galaxies, they're oriented in all different directions. ...within a solar system everything rotates the same way.


So, that was kinda the point of my "conjecture" - that the visible collection of galaxies out there could likely be a small part of a bigger "Galaxy" of galaxies. The Universe likes to repeat itself occasionally on the odd "scale"... Some people cringe at the term, but "fractal" seems to describe it fairly well.
It wasn't a bad guess, Whyde. And your point about fractal repetition has some truth; for example, math works amazingly well everywhere in science. Also, in Quantum Mechanics, nature seems to "hide" things from detection by the "reality police," as Stephen Hawking half-jokingly put it.

Also I forgot to mention that a star can capture a planet at any angle.

Study the Hubble Deep Field. You can find a link to it at unbelievably high resolution off Wiki.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 16, 2014
For lurkers, here is a nice link direct to the image. Bandwidth warning, it's huge-- don't try to see it on a modem or your cell phone unless you have a long time to wait or a really expensive cell phone account.

http://en.wikiped...00px.jpg

A couple shots into the slide show they show the placement of the Deep Field in the surrounding sky. Every object you see is a galaxy in the Deep Field; as you can see (if your screen resolution is sufficient), the galaxies are oriented in all directions. There are face-on spirals, edge-on spirals, and the edge-on spirals are at different orientations for approximately equal sized and colored galaxies, indicating they're most likely in the same galaxy cluster.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 16, 2014
They are PROVEN-BY-EXPERIMENTS scumbags. Beware!
Yeah, don't let those nasty experiments interfere with your... ummm, imagination.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Aug 16, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
Yeah, don't let those nasty experiments interfere with your... ummm, imagination.
*Sigh*...just when it seemed you were wising up to the 'mod-troll gangs' problem on the forums over the years and, to some extent, still, you go and make that silly remark while ignoring facts.

How many does it take to disabuse you of the lying/half-truth 'wrong impressions' your troll 'friends' are plying you with? Don't trust a word they say!

Again...

1) Uncle Ira was PERMA-banned almost immediately from sciforums when they tried to infiltrate that bot-sock 'personna' there.

2) I was permabanned as RealityCheck by Mod-Troll gang 'bait and ban tactics' and abuse of position/power there.....but was ALLOWED BACK by ADMIN when I PROVED to them with INTERNET EXPERIMENTS that this was the case.

3) Other sites proven to have SAME/NEW mod-trolls gangmembers.

So, don't be 'sucked' into 'joining' one of these scumbag mod-troll gangs.

Be objective independent MIND, always. G'luck! :)
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 16, 2014
Science only, RC.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Aug 16, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
Science only, RC.
You're on the slippery slide, mate. First you made that silly remark. Now you come back with that further silly remark which again ignores facts. :)

How can YOU do "science only" if you deny facts, maintain wrong impressions given you by trolls whose 'personality cult' and 'lying-and-half-truth tactics, and sabotaging of otherwise free and fair and open science & humanity discourse, is ANTI-science-and humanity-ETHICS as it can get?

Do you 'get' the point made about why you should NOT be sucked into 'gang-based games' of ANY sort, including NOT the 'downrating-by-bot-sock' games on the ratings pages on ANY site? :)

By all means, everyone, do continue with the science and humanity discourse, but don't lose sight of the proper ETHICS, on either 'side' of the discussion.

No hard feelings, Schneib. Be careful; guard your lone independent objective mind at all costs; even if you don't 'make friends'. That's not what science is about. ok? Bye.:)
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (3) Aug 16, 2014
How many does it take to disabuse you of the lying/half-truth 'wrong impressions' your troll 'friends' are plying you with? Don't trust a word they say!


Well Skippy. Since you are the only trying tell peoples who to talk to and who not to talk to I guess it takes more than just you.

1) Uncle Ira was PERMA-banned almost immediately from sciforums when they tried to infiltrate that bot-sock 'personna' there.


You tell the GREAT BIG LIE again there Skippy-Doo. You know that wasn't me. It was some couyon that was making the trouble for me, probably you. That stuff mostly was anything like I would write and I PROVED by EXPERIMENT that someone was snip/gluing my material from here, probably you to make you looked picked on.

Only place I got banned from is the Bully Pulpit forum for making fun of the Tea-Party-Skippys and down voting the Tea-Party-Skippys and saying nice stuff about Obama back at the election time.

Don't lie so much. Do Better matey-Skippy.

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Aug 16, 2014
Hey Forum! It's like a 'bot-sock-gang-dying' tragi-comic drama, isn't it? :)
1) Uncle Ira was PERMA-banned almost immediately from sciforums when they tried to infiltrate that bot-sock 'personna' there.


You tell the GREAT BIG LIE again there Skippy-Doo. You know that wasn't me. It was some couyon that was making the trouble for me, probably you. That stuff mostly was anything like I would write and I PROVED by EXPERIMENT that someone was snip/gluing my material from here, probably you to make you looked picked on.


Poor 'Uncle Ira' BOT-operator, caught in web of lies.

Captain Stumpy and 'friend' BOTH went to sciforums STALKING "undefined" (me, RealityCheck) and spreading the SAME lies/half-truths there.

They first tried the "Uncle Ira" personna (with which Captain Stumpy 'conversed with' all the while over here, and never denied it WAS Uncle Ira registering/posting there, until Uncle Ira permabanned quick smart!).

Now they lie some more! Insensibly insane, what! :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Aug 18, 2014
No science again RC. Why are you here? It's obviously not to talk about science because you almost never do.
Watebba
1 / 5 (3) Aug 18, 2014
No science again RC. Why are you here?
I know it sounds ugly, but you're substituting family & GF for many guys here. So don't be nasty to your BFs, they just need you..
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Aug 18, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
No science again RC. Why are you here? It's obviously not to talk about science because you almost never do.

What 'science' was in your post? None. You're just perpetuating half-truths, lies and innuendo 'personality cult' tactics started by your 'friend' CapS-BOT-Ira dunce duo. Proud of yourself 'begging 5s' from BOT-idiots? What does that say about you?

And what didn't you 'get', about "Withdrawn from detailed science discourse due to risks of plagiarism by unscrupulous types before I publish complete ToE", the first few times you were told?

And what do you still not 'get' about my "coming in as necessary to defend against such idiotic personality cult tactic innuendo posts (like your above)"?

If you/bots leave out continuing personality cult lies/tactics/half-truths posts, and practice what you 'preach', then all will be ok, won't it?

Oh, and just 'parroting' incomplete orthodoxy 'science' theory/fantasy doesn't advance that 'science' one whit. Rethink. :)