Gravitational wave detection likely within five years, according to researcher

Gravitational wave detection likely within five years, according to researcher
The vacuum tanks arrive at Hanford in August 1997. Credit: LIGO

Built to look for gravitational waves, the ripples in the fabric of space itself that were predicted by Einstein in 1916, the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) is the most ambitious project ever funded by the National Science Foundation. LIGO consists of two L-shaped interferometers with four-kilometer-long arms; at their ends hang mirrors whose motions are measured to within one-thousandth the diameter of a proton. Managed jointly by Caltech and MIT, Initial LIGO became operational in 2001; the second-generation Advanced LIGO was dedicated on May 19.

Barry Barish is the Roland and Maxine Linde Professor of Physics, Emeritus. He was LIGO's principal investigator from 1994 to 1997, and director from 1997 to 2006. Stan Whitcomb (BS '73) was an assistant professor of physics at Caltech from 1980 to 1985. He returned to campus as a member of the professional staff in 1991 and has served the LIGO project in various capacities ever since. We talked with each of them about how LIGO came to be.

Q: How did LIGO get started?

BARISH: Einstein didn't think that could ever be detected, because gravity is such a weak force. But in the 1960s, Joseph Weber at the University of Maryland turned a metric ton of aluminum into a bar 153 centimeters long. The bar naturally rang at a frequency of about 1,000 Hertz. A collapsing supernova should produce gravitational waves in that frequency range, so if such a wave passed through the bar, the bar's resonance might amplify it enough to be measurable. It was a neat idea, and basically initiated the field experimentally. But you can only make a bar so big, and the signal you see depends on the size of the detector.

[Professor of Physics, Emeritus] Ron Drever, whom we recruited from the University of Glasgow, had started out working on bar detectors. But when we hired him, he and Rainer [Rai] Weiss at MIT were independently developing interferometer-type detectors—a concept previously suggested by others. Usually you fasten an interferometer's mirrors down tightly so they keep their alignment, but LIGO's mirrors have to be free to swing so that the gravitational waves can move them. It's very difficult to do incredibly precise things with big, heavy masses that want to move around.

WHITCOMB: Although bar detectors were by far the most sensitive technology at the time, it appeared that they would have a much harder path reaching the sensitivity they would ultimately need. Kip Thorne [BS '62, Richard P. Feynman Professor of Theoretical Physics, Emeritus] was really instrumental in getting Caltech to jump into interferometer technology and to try to bring that along.

Ron's group at Glasgow had built a 10-meter interferometer, which was all the space they had. We built a 40-meter version largely based on their designs, but trying to improve them where possible. In those days we were working with argon-ion lasers, which were the best available, but very cantankerous. Their cooling water introduced a lot of vibrational noise into the system, making it difficult to reach the sensitivity we needed. We were also developing the control systems, which in those days had to be done with analog electronics. And we had some of the first "supermirrors," which were actually military technology that we were able to get released for scientific use. The longer the interferometer's arms, the smaller the displacements it can measure, and the effective length is the cumulative distance the light travels. We bounce the light back and forth hundreds of times, essentially making the interferometer several thousand kilometers long.

Gravitational wave detection likely within five years, according to researcher
By February 1998 the vacuum equipment is installed at the point of the L. The center vertical tank houses the beam splitter. At right one of the beam tubes takes off into the desert. Credit: LIGO

Q: When did the formal collaboration with MIT begin?

BARISH: Rai [Weiss] and Ron [Drever] were running their own projects at MIT and Caltech, respectively, until [R. Stanton Avery Distinguished Service Professor and Professor of Physics, Emeritus] Robbie Vogt, Caltech's provost, brought them together. They had very different ways of approaching the world, but Robbie somehow pulled what was needed out of both of them.

Robbie spearheaded the proposal that was submitted to the National Science Foundation in 1989. That two-volume, nearly 300-page document contained the underpinnings—the key ideas, technologies, and concepts that we use in LIGO today. A lot of details are different, a lot of things have been invented, but basically even the dimensions are much the same.

WHITCOMB: When I returned in 1991, LIGO had become a joint Caltech/MIT project with a single director, Robbie Vogt. Robbie had brought in a set of engineers, many borrowed or recruited from JPL, to do the designs. The late Boude Moore [BS '48 EE, MS '49 EE], our vacuum engineer, was figuring out how to make LIGO's high-vacuum systems out of low-hydrogen-outgassing stainless steel. This had never been done before. Hydrogen atoms absorbed in the metal slowly leak out over the life of the system, but our measurements are so precise that stray atoms hitting the mirrors would ruin the data. Boude was doing some relatively large-scale tests, mostly in the synchrotron building, but we also built a test cylinder 80 meters long near Caltech's football field, behind the gym.

So all of these tests were going on piecemeal at different places, and at the 40-meter interferometer we brought it all together. We were still mostly using analog electronics, but we had a new vacuum system, we redid all the suspension systems, we added several new features to the detector, and we had attained the sensitivity we were going to need for the full-sized, four-kilometer LIGO detectors.

And at the same time, in 1991, we got word that the full-scale project had been approved.

Q: How were the sites in Hanford, Washington, and Livingston, Louisiana, selected?

WHITCOMB: I cochaired the site-evaluation committee with LIGO's chief engineer, [Member of the Professional Staff] Bill Althouse. We visited most of the potential sites, evaluated them, and recommended a set of best site pairs to NSF. We had several sets of criteria. The engineering criteria included how level the site was, how stable it was against things like frost heaves, how much road would need to be built, and the overall cost of construction. We had criteria about proximity to people, and to noise sources like airports and railroads. We also had scientific criteria. For example, we wanted the two sites to be as far apart in the U.S. as you could reasonably get. We also wanted LIGO to work well with either of the two proposed European detectors—GEO [in Hanover, Germany] and Virgo [in Tuscany, Italy]. We needed to be able to triangulate a source's position on the sky, so we did not want LIGO's sites to form a line with either of them.

Gravitational wave detection likely within five years, according to researcher
The 4-inch thick, 10-inch diameter mirrors at the ends of the beam tubes recycle the laser light. The polished mirrors are coated with up to 35 layers of a purple dielectric coating designed to achieve the reflectance and transmission of light for the wavelengths used by LIGO. Credit: LIGO

Q: What makes Advanced LIGO more sensitive?

BARISH: Well, it's complicated. Most very sensitive physics experiments get limited by some source of background noise, so you concentrate on that thing and figure out how to beat it down. But LIGO has three limits. We are looking for gravitational waves over a range of frequencies from 10 Hertz to 10 kilohertz. Our planet is incredibly noisy seismically, so from 10 Hertz to about 100 Hertz we have to isolate ourselves from that shaking. And at very high frequencies, we have to sample fast enough to see the signal, so we're limited by the laser's power, which determines the number of photons we can sample in a short amount of time. And in the middle frequencies, we're limited by what we call "thermal noise"—the atoms in the mirrors moving around, and so forth.

Advanced LIGO has a very much more powerful laser to take care of the high frequencies. It has much fancier isolation systems, including active feedback systems. And we have bigger test masses with better mirror coatings to minimize the thermal background. All of these improvements were in the 1989 proposal, which called for Initial LIGO to be built with proven techniques that had mostly been tested here on campus in the 40-meter prototype; followed by Advanced LIGO, to be built using techniques we would test in the 40-meter after Initial LIGO went operational. And now we're using the 40-meter lab to develop and test the next round of upgrades.

Gravitational wave detection likely within five years, according to researcher
One of the dual instruments of the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory sprawls across the desert near Hanford, Washington, each arm extending four kilometers and meeting at the corner of an L. The support buildings at the corner house laboratories as well as electronic and optical equipment, which will send a laser beam, split in two, back and forth down the two arms to intercept the infinitesimally small signal of a gravitational wave. Credit: LIGO

Q: How close do you think we are to a detection?

BARISH: I've always had the fond wish that we'd do it by 2016, which is the hundredth anniversary of Einstein's theory. Advanced LIGO may take three to five years to reach the designed sensitivity, but we'll be taking data along the way, so the probability of a detection will be continually increasing. Our sensitivity is designed to improve by a factor of 10 to 20, and a factor of 10 increases the detection probability by a factor of 1,000. The sensitivity tells you how far out you can see, and volume increases with the cube of the distance.

When we started this back in 1989, some people were a bit skeptical, saying maybe it's a little bit like fusion. They always say fusion is "50 years away." With LIGO the common lore is we are 10 years away from detecting gravitational waves. I would say that it's not 10 years any longer. It's probably within five.


Explore further

Dedication of Advanced LIGO

Citation: Gravitational wave detection likely within five years, according to researcher (2015, May 27) retrieved 17 October 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2015-05-gravitational-years.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
160 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

May 27, 2015
I'm still very much missing the point apparently and not sure how gravitational waves can be detected, if gravitation itself distorts space-time and the measurement is made INSIDE the area where the gravitational wave takes place. As far as I know, you should measure exactly nothing even if the waves occur.

Grateful if anyone (preferably without dense aether theories) that can help me point this out.

May 27, 2015
So what happens if gravitational waves are not detected? Would GR be falsified? Or would scientists just claim to not be able to detect what they know is there? If that were the case... there's no point in doing the experiment since the results cannot change the common understanding of the subject.

May 27, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

May 27, 2015
I wonder if there is a danger in misinterpreting a single wave event detection scenario. How can they tell the difference between the bow wave front of the shock wave resulting from a nova from what they might call a distortion in the gravity field?

vlaaing peerd is correct. If gravity waves do exist (according to my theory of gravity they don't), we should not be able to detect them because we do not exist outside of the spacetime that they affect.

May 27, 2015
sub: SENSEX- Space time curvature -IYL2015
COSMOSQUEST : SEARCH BEYOND EVOLUTION THEORIES
I..CONNECTIONS
1. A HUMAN BEING ON THE EARTH PLANET GROWS AGAINST GRAVITY .
Is it True or False ?
2.THE SPINAL COLUMN OF HUMAN BEINGS DIFFERS FROM THOSE OF
THE ANIMALS.
Is it True or False?
3. THE SUBTLE FEELINGS OF THE HUMAN BEING ARE LINKED
TO THE SPINAL COLUMN.
Is it True or False?
4. THE CONSCIOUSNESS OF THE HUMAN BEING DIFFERS
CONSIDERABLY FROM THOSE OF OTHER SPECIES. Is it true or false ?
Reproduced from my books-Workshops-Space cosmology vedas interlinks.-
Notes: Visible-invisible matrix in nature involves higher dimensional frames of the human mind.
Hope this may be useful to enlighten

May 27, 2015
Sub: SENSEX-Space Time curvature-IYL2015 -contd
II.EVOLUTION
1 IS THE EVOLUTION OF HUMAN SPECIES LINKED TO
1. SOLAR PLANET OR 2. BEYOND ?
2. SENSITIVITIES OF HUMAN BEING LINKED TO
1. SOLAR-SPHERE 2. MILKY-WAY GALAXY OR 3. BEYOND ?
3 IS THE EVOLUTION OF CONSCIOUSNESS LINKED TO
SOLAR-SPHERE 2. MILKY-WAY GALAXY
3. INTER-GALACTIC REGION OR BEYOND ?
Reproduced from my books-Workshops-Space cosmology vedas interlinks.-
Notes: Visible-invisible matrix in nature involves higher dimensional frames of the human mind.
Hope this may be useful to enlighten
Super-imposition is covered by me along with flow-fields in another paper both in in COSPAR2013



May 27, 2015
These things do not happen with errands. Up to five years must find aliens also. There are many quite funny similar directives. More sounds like a strategy to support the mythology in society by fabrication of evidence for meaningless theories that exist in the new dark age. The vacuum of space can be the most rigid structutre in th universe. Gravitational waves and time-space nonsence are the top of the icecreem of modern abstractionism.

May 27, 2015
I'm still very much missing the point apparently and not sure how gravitational waves can be detected, if gravitation itself distorts space-time and the measurement is made INSIDE the area where the gravitational wave takes place. As far as I know, you should measure exactly nothing even if the waves occur.

Grateful if anyone (preferably without dense aether theories) that can help me point this out.


The goal with the interferometer detections is that the gravitational wave will compress in both directions of the interferometer unequally given a large enough distance measured, and that will cause a change in the interference pattern of the meter.

May 27, 2015
My question: why does it still take an additinal 5 years to make any detection? What is going to improve in 5 years time?
An event that generates GWs has to occur within range of the detectors. For example, the inspiral (merger) of two neutron stars is a likely candidate. Other possibilities include binary systems with a black hole and neutron star, or a system with two black holes. Also, a neutron starquake is a possibility.

So how often these kinds of events occur (within a volume of spacetime the size of LIGO's range) is a factor in the prediction of "within 5 years" for the detection probability.

May 27, 2015
From article:
A lot of details are different, a lot of things have been invented, but basically even the dimensions are much the same...our measurements are so precise that stray atoms hitting the mirrors would ruin the data.
These confirm the inherent intractable physical/feasibility problems, irrespective of new inventions in structure/measurement. If measurements must become so sensitive that they are ruined by stray atom impacts, then the fact that no 'vacuum' can be emptied of all Quantum Vacuum Fluctuations which may be even more ruinous to measurement/detection sensitivity,these problems are still inherent/intractable. Let's face it, not one LIGO 'gravity wave' detection in all this time; and all such 'instruments/measurements' were vulnerable to spurious effects from stray atoms...and NOW, to even stray Quantum Vacuum Fluctuations. The continuing valid questions/points in posts by vlaaing peerd, docile, baudrunner, LagomorphZero makes this 'search' futile. Why persist?

May 28, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

May 28, 2015
Let's face it, not one LIGO 'gravity wave' detection in all this time;
Better is to face the music...

.. The continuing valid questions/points in posts ... makes this 'search' futile.
Actually, naysaying has had no effect whatsoever on the many different experimental results thus far confirming general relativity.

Why persist?
It's called making progress. The international scientific collaboration has made advancements in many areas; QM, GR, data acquisition and processing (including a public distributed computing platform) -- can you imagine trying to pick out the signal of a single specific binary system from a sloshing, ringing stochastic background, in not one but in all interferometers, while the earth rotates/moves?

May 28, 2015
Cont'd

But the reward for the persistence should be obvious: either a new window to observe the universe (and to even "see" inside black holes), or else new physics to discover with respect to QM and GR.

May 28, 2015
Hi Protoplasmix. I know what you are saying. I am not against pure/applied research as such. I encourage it, in fact; example being I was/am NOT against LHC research/explorations of fundamental science of energy-space physics. :)

Your comment re THIS research project however misses what I and others have pointed out which strongly militates against there being the 'gravity waves' which are being sought for. See? Your support and rationale for continuing THIS 'gravity waves' is based on the obviously wrong assumption that they 'exist to be found' at all. Read again my and others posts above, and see what I mean.

See? Even Relativity 'spacetime' analytical construct disallows 'gravity waves', ie, time-varying grav motion IN spacetime construct which already incorporates 'ALL dimension' in its 4-D logics/metrics.

If you think about it, the only 'waves' of sorts will be at sub-lightspeed as a traveling gravity field 'attached' to its gravitating body as that body moves in space.

May 29, 2015
See? Even Relativity 'spacetime' analytical construct disallows 'gravity waves', ie, time-varying grav motion IN spacetime construct which already incorporates 'ALL dimension' in its 4-D logics/metrics.
I see more gobbledygook. Gravitational waves have _already_been_detected_ indirectly. If you were true to yourself and your namesake, here is the reality to check: Gravitational wave

May 29, 2015
Hi Proto. :)
See? Even Relativity 'spacetime' analytical construct disallows 'gravity waves', ie, time-varying grav motion IN spacetime construct which already incorporates 'ALL dimension' in its 4-D logics/metrics.
I see more gobbledygook.
The limited text rule is a problem. Read my (and others') post a few times. Note: if you haven't a fundamental grasp of the necessary theory/physics, you'll still have a problem understanding any of the subtleties involved.

Gravitational waves have _already_been_detected_ indirectly. If you were true to yourself and your namesake, here is the reality to check: http://en.wikiped...nal_wave
Whoa there, matey! The BICEP2 'discovery' claim of March 2014 was almost immediately discredited (I was the first one here to urge caution). Planck confirmed that local/remote dust/processes makes ALL CMB data/interpretations unreliable as 'evidence' for Big Bang/Gravity Waves claims to date. Ok?

Take care. :)


May 30, 2015
Verkle. Your answer is in the article.
"Advanced LIGO may take three to five years to reach the designed sensitivity, but we'll be taking data along the way, so the probability of a detection will be continually increasing. Our sensitivity is designed to improve by a factor of 10 to 20, and a factor of 10 increases the detection probability by a factor of 1,000."

Sorry bout the other messed up post everyone. Computer issues.

May 30, 2015
Hi jsdarkdestruction.

JUst saw your response to Verkle's comment, so you may be interested in further relevant comments on the topic overall...

- Re 'sensitivity' aspect, please read my comment above on 27 May.

- Re 'gravity waves' existence aspect, please read my response above to Protoplasmix.

Cheers.


May 30, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

May 30, 2015
We have enought scientific information to propose that vacuum of space define the behavior and interaction between material particles dissolved in it and control energy interactions between them. We also can say that the hypothetical vacuum fluctuations are actually a manifestation of propertais and activities of this structure. More interesting is that the Creator has control over it. It is something like divine matrix that performs His will.
Gravitational waves which are suggested to distort the structute of vacuum of space is fictional.
Gravity can be not forse but programmed behavior. For example cars moving on the streets not because gravity determines their course but because of the infrastructure that realize the ideas for connectivity and mobility of people. Progremmed behavior. Such infrastructure can be embedded in vacuum of space. Such structure can afect the light coming from the distant galaxies.

May 30, 2015
Gravitational waves have _already_been_detected_ indirectly. If you were true to yourself and your namesake, here is the reality to check: Gravitational wave

Whoa there, matey! The BICEP2 'discovery' claim of March 2014 was almost immediately discredited (I was the first one here to urge caution). Planck confirmed that local/remote dust/processes makes ALL CMB data/interpretations unreliable as 'evidence' for Big Bang/Gravity Waves claims to date. Ok?
No, it's not okay. Because I was referring to the Hulse-Taylor Pulsar.

So take as many posts as you need, RC, be as subtle as you wish, because if you can invalidate or offer a realistic alternative interpretation for that, it would be quite newsworthy.

May 30, 2015
Up to five years must find aliens also

Maybe we'll see them surfing on those gravitational waves.

May 30, 2015
Hi Proto. :)

Yes, that too. Do you realize that the measured slowing was 40 SECONDS...over 30 YEARS? Any local interstellar (inter-pulsar binary system) medium in the local space environment wherein they are so close/inspiraling at such speed/rate could account for such gradual slowing IN COMBINATION with any probable magnetic interaction counterforces, and gravitational 'tidal' energy sink within each body (not as grvitational waves leaving the system as the study ASSUMES for its 'interpretation' of data/observations).

I mentioned BICEP2 so you would have some idea of the INBUILT BIASES and dangers of ASSUMPTIONS being inadvertently relied upon for one's ANALYTICAL CONSTRUCT and INTERPRETATIONS as a 'given'. That initial BICEP2 fiasco was perfect example/demonstration of what can go horribly wrong if ALL Scientific Method is NOT applied objectively, without presuming that their 'GW' hypothesis/theory is 'correct' right from the start.

Beware such pitfalls. Cheers. :)

May 31, 2015
Do you realize that the measured slowing was 40 SECONDS...over 30 YEARS?
More than that, I realize it's a nonlinear decrease that is within 0.5% of what general relativity predicts, every step of the way over the 30 year interval of observations. Do you really think Hulse and Taylor, and everyone since then, didn't consider other theories?

Any local interstellar (inter-pulsar binary system) medium in the local space environment wherein they are so close/inspiraling at such speed/rate could account for such gradual slowing
You're talking about a system where two objects, each with the mass of the sun packed in sphere 10 km across, orbit each other not much further apart than the earth and moon -- exactly what kind of material, from gas clouds to planets, could account for the observed decrease over time as precisely as general relativity?

May 31, 2015
IN COMBINATION with any probable magnetic interaction counterforces,
That would be a trick, which should be obvious from the difference between Maxwell's equations and Einstein's field equations -- one set of equations predicts the observed decrease quite precisely, while the other set could never produce stable orbits in the first place, much less a stable perturbation (because Bertrand's theorem).

and gravitational 'tidal' energy sink within each body
Not even close. For example, Jupiter's moon Io is practically molten from the tidal forces but its orbit has no measurable inspiral -- because the gravitational field for that system is weak compared to two neutron stars as close as the earth and moon.

May 31, 2015
@ RC, re BICEP2: I dunno, I stand on the shoulders of giants constantly in awe of the view, and of the ingenuity in comprehending and presenting it. You stand on their shoulders and think yourself tall enough to tell them, "You're horribly wrong, what a fiasco". The pitfalls in this case are ignorance and arrogance, in stupefyingly good measure.

May 31, 2015
I don't think they are going to find any except maybe caused my local bodies in the solar system. The reason I say this is because I don't believe gravity waves would extend any further than the normal gravitational field of what ever is causing them to begin with. Gravity isn't radio or light waves.

May 31, 2015
Hi Proto. :)

Re 'standing on shoulders of giants', it is paramount in scientific method objectivity requirement that we treat everyone and their theories/hypotheses impartially. Respect is one thing, but 'denial' based on said respect coloring your objectivity is another. For example, whenever a mainstream Big Bang believer wants to slap down anyone bringing alternative evidence/perspectives, they defer to that giant Einstein and 'spacetime' abstraction in SR/GR observational/interpretational/analytical construct. But when I or anyone else quotes directly from Einstein's Leyden Address which puts their current interpretations/assumptions of SR/GR etc in CONTRADICTION of what this 'giant' actually said about space and time etc etc, these same believers say that "Einstein is wrong" or "misunderstood" etc etc.

See? Wanting it both ways like that, it's seductively and unwittingly easy to become 'believers/deniers' in awe of 'giants', instead of being 'scientist' irrespective. :)

May 31, 2015
@Proto,

Re local interstellar medium environment, no-one knows what is there, including possible planets, debris etc as well as dust and dense gas clouds/blobs from previous two-star system/contents before becoming N Stars.

Re Magnetic Phenomena, again, we don't know the exact interactive-orientation of the electro-magnetic fields/currents which give rise to the 'jets' of energy-matter we observe in radiations/jets, so we can't tell what slowing effects such interaction may produce.

Re 'tidal' forces and grav-energy sinks, we cannot tell what the mutual gravitational interplay is between gravitational orbital kinetic energy and gravitational heating/distortion (eg,mutual 'tidal lock' effects).

If I were being extra thorough/objective, I would also bring up:

- mutual frame dragging effects in their high-speed spin/orbital 'in-spiraling dance';

- Dark Matter/Energy concentration/effects locally;

- Quantum Vacuum nature/effects in such concentrated-mass dynamics. :)


May 31, 2015
@Proto,

Last but not least, the problem of confirmation bias and being mesmerized by 'giants' to the extent that you become captive to in-built presumptions in whatever you are observing/analyzing/interpreting/concluding. If you know what happened in that initial BICEP2 fiasco, ask yourself: "Where were 'the giants' then?

They were 'in thrall' to mainstream herd mentality built upon 'the shoulders of giants' whom they let down by that very 'subjective beliefs' thrall causing them to make such a mess of things. It was ME who first pointed out the categories of obvious flaws in that initial exercise; and it was ME who strongly recommended 'suspending awe and belief' just because it came from 'mainstream'.

Where were the 'giants' HERE at physorg when that immediately obvious fiasco hit/unfolded? They were 'certain' in 'beliefs' of Big Bang/Inflation/Expansion hypotheses; and SR/GR 'spacetime' Primordial 'G Waves' was 'true', they attacked ME instead of checking objectively.

May 31, 2015
If I were being extra thorough/objective, I would also bring up:

- mutual frame dragging effects in their high-speed spin/orbital 'in-spiraling dance';
Frame dragging, like gravitational waves, is also a prediction of Einstein's general relativity. If you were truly thorough, you would learn general relativity.

- Dark Matter/Energy concentration/effects locally
It appears DM doesn't even interact with itself except gravitationally -- so what's your choice of theory for gravity? Classical Newtonian gravity doesn't cut the mustard, Hulse and Taylor checked that theory and others.

Dark energy? Not to mention Einstein's 'biggest blunder', which again, if you were truly thorough...

- Quantum Vacuum nature/effects in such concentrated-mass dynamics.
Grasping for straws isn't thorough, it's desperate. Recent measurements of light from distant quasars shows no signs of such effects over immense distances (and time).

May 31, 2015
Cont'd
The search for imprints on the cosmos from relic gravitational waves isn't over. The BICEP2 results and subsequent peer review is the scientific method in action, and you have the audacity to characterize that as a fiasco. Reality isn't nearly as superficial as your checks of it.

May 31, 2015
BICEP2 was a was a bunch of greedy pigs with an empty trough wanting more. You must have a very twisted mind to suggest the results are an example of anything worthwhile. No matter how you try by attacking others valid view, you can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear!

Jun 01, 2015
BICEP2 was a was a bunch of greedy pigs with an empty trough wanting more. You must have a very twisted mind to suggest the results are an example of anything worthwhile. No matter how you try by attacking others valid view, you can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear!
Well, since you can't tell the difference between scientists and politicians, or between attacking and defending, or between valid points and gobbledygook, when you say I have a 'twisted mind,' I guess I should say, "Why thank you, thank you very much."

you can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear!
Sure you can, except then it's called a "leather wallet".

Jun 01, 2015
Hi Proto. :)

It was example of what can go wrong if confirmation bias from 'preferred' theory/assumptions/analysis-construct is allowed to cloud your judgement, and scientific method goes out the window.

As for the peer review afterwards, that was prompted in most part by me and others identifying immediately the various categories of flaws in that very UNscientific-method 'exercise' motivated by publish-or perish and personal-glory-seeking human nature failings of the 'team' involved.

Consider: If no challenge by ME/other 'outsiders' was immediately put, how LONG would it have taken the Big-Bang-model-captured 'community of peers' to actually go all out to disprove their 'findings'?

Think what's been happening for decades now. Claims to have 'evidence' supporting big bang/gravit-waves etc, all 'accepted by peer review', built-into the literature as 'passed' scientific method test!

BICEP2 'evidence' based on CMB 'analysis'; similarly, prior claims also 'iffy'. See? :)

Jun 02, 2015
Hi Proto.
[Frame dragging, like gravitational waves, is also a prediction of Einstein's general relativity. If you were truly thorough, you would learn general relativity.
I did. But Properly, and Objectively comprehended. Long before you, I bet. :) Which is why I know that the 'space-time' construct it is represented/modeled in/by is a 'block time' representing ALL World Lines. All 'motion' already 'included'. So no 'gravity waving' away from attached grav-field pattern moving with body.

your choice of theory for gravity?
It's real, not arbitrary/abstract math/geometry 'choice'. You'll have to wait for my ToE publication. :)

Dark energy?...
I didn't clutch at straws, I merely ALSO pointed out speculations mainstream is considering which would affect local dynamics. Just being fair. I myself have already discounted some of them. And all long-distance radiation data/observations/interpretations 'iffy' if all local/intervening factors not treated. Ok? :)

Jun 02, 2015
Your clarification Proto, that you are a politician and not a scientist is welcome. You clearly have a talent for propagating misinformation and deceptive lies. I'll remind you, going forward, of you're lack of any scientific credibility. Do try to stay within you're limited capabilities.

Jun 02, 2015
@Rc - sounds like you're off to a good start with the ToE, using general relativity to discount general relativity, out of fairness. Wow.

@bluehigh - you're not fooling anyone, except possibly yourself.

Jun 02, 2015
Hi Proto. :)
@Rc - sounds like you're off to a good start with the ToE, using general relativity to discount general relativity, out of fairness. Wow
You miss the critical point, mate. My ToE will explain some aspects of some partial theories, and extend other aspects. It doesn't matter to me what parts are confirmed/extended in others' theories, mainstream or other. The point is that it is consistent throughout from go to whoa, and NOT like all other mainstream/other 'partial' theories valid only in their 'domain of applicability' and no further.

Just as Einstein's theory improved on insight/aspects from Newtonian model, mine will do likewise for Einstein's. No biggie.

As I said, I understood Einstein's objectively long ago. While others/mainstream have own weird 'math versions' which make a mockery of his insights. The worst mistake Einstein made was to go along with 'space-time' math-abstraction that derailed all subsequent reality-based approaches.

Bye. :)

Jun 03, 2015
The point is that it is consistent throughout from go to whoa, and NOT like all other mainstream/other 'partial' theories valid only in their 'domain of applicability' and no further
but you also said there was no maths in your ToE!

no math means no validation
no math means it is entirely subjective to the interpretations of the user/reader
no maths means that there can be no experiments to establish reality
no maths means NO ToE
As I said, I understood Einstein's objectively long ago
WTF does this mean?
were you related to Einstein's objectively?
is that a pseudonym for a body part?

Jun 03, 2015
Stumpy, do keep up; stop your driveling semantical distractions. That's a good chap.

It is sans the current UNreal maths used in the mainstream abstract space-time analytical construct./theories. I avoided that maths because it is ultimately axiomatically based, derived and developed from an UNreal purely PHILOSOPHICAL NOTION of 'dimensionless point' (look it up).

My ToE is a reality-based theorizing process, and will be further modeled/explained via Reality-based maths built on REAL PHYSICAL NOTION as its axiomatic staring point.

That you still haven't got all that despite your claim to 'follow the evidence' is only more proof that you will ignore the facts and troll your own 'versions' and 'distractions' to avoid facing the fact that I have been correct all along and you parroting bot-thinkers/voters mod-troll gangs of old wrong. Give it up and stop digging, silly stump. Learn.

English usage drops understood component. As in "understood Einstein's [theory] objectively".

Jun 05, 2015
English usage drops understood component
not in proper correspondence where clear concise language is necessary for communication, like say: SCIENCE
Plus, there are methods of annotation that are utilized for common speed and clarity, such as the bracket

but that is not important, as i was being satirical and utilizing parody for demonstrative purposes

the point still stands:
you said there was no maths in your ToE

no math means no validation
it also means no experimentation with results that can be measured and validated
no math means it is entirely subjective to the interpretations of the user/reader/observer
no maths means that there can be no experiments to establish reality
no maths means NO ToE

perhaps you should fall back upon your publications to the next climate change conference? http://phys.org/n...fic.html
wait: where

Jun 05, 2015
Can't you get anything straight, Stumpy? Do things ever get through?

The maths is a different maths...Reality-based, not Philosophy-based like current maths axiom based on 'dimensionless point' philosophical notion (did you wiki the 'Point' concept at least? Do you understand the axiomatic implications therefrom). Do keep up.

Give it up, Stumpy. You are making a fool of yourself.

Jun 06, 2015
Can't you get anything straight, Stumpy? Do things ever get through?

The maths is a different maths...Reality-based, not Philosophy-based like current maths axiom based on 'dimensionless point' philosophical notion (did you wiki the 'Point' concept at least? Do you understand the axiomatic implications therefrom). Do keep up.

Give it up, Stumpy. You are making a fool of yourself.
Maybe you should give a very basic DEMONSTRATION that YOU understand what you are talking about...

maybe something here that is not about your ToE that will demonstrate how a non-factual based non-science or mathematical description can be proven to be correct and validated while not using mathematics or proofs

that would help, you know

Jun 06, 2015
Hi Captain Stumpy. Thanks for your polite post, at last. :)

I already did, more than once, in many fields/disciplines, in the old Phys.Org (before the split); and in Sciforums. In both forums, mod-trolls sabotaged my discussions re CONVENTIONAL maths/number-theory being founded on PHILOSOPHICAL NOTION axiom, not a reality-based axiom. If you wiki'd the 'point' concept as I suggested, you would by now have already got that 'proof' of what I have been pointing out for years now in many threads elsewhere, re my novel "reality maths" Axiom (infinitesimal physical quantum of effectiveness) versus the conventional "UNreality maths" Axiom (dimensionless point). I initially intended to publish sans any maths, as the conventional UNreal maths failed, just as does in conventional partial/domain-limited mainstream/other theories. So I invented my own Reality-Axiom based maths. That is what has delayed publication for a few years. You'll have to wait for my ToE c/w Reality-maths. :)

Jun 06, 2015
Wow! The Uncle Ira bot-voting program took less than one minute to 'vote 1' automatically. A record for mindlessness twerp claiming to be 'serving science and scientists' by pre-programming his bot with his personal 'likes/dislikes' list and skewing the voting system on a science site according to his own troll 'values'. Way to go, Ira-machine-twerp-Skippy! Your buddy Captain Stumpy just got through warning JeanTate in another thread that there are bot-voters here who downvote as a block, irrespective. You and your idiot-Skippy gang have just proven him right on that, but not the way the Cap intended it, hey folks! He just described you and himself and gang perfectly. What perfect non-self-aware irony! Made me laugh out loud. Thanks, insensible troll-bots. :)

Jun 06, 2015
Uncle Ira bot-voting program took less than one minute to 'vote 1' automatically.


@ Really-Skippy. How you are today? Same as yesterday I see. Now that you attracted my attention can I ask you for a answer to a question? Okayeei here I go with my question. It's about this.

CONVENTIONAL maths/number-theory being founded on PHILOSOPHICAL NOTION axiom, not a reality-based axiom. If you wiki'd the 'point' concept as I suggested, you would by now have already got that 'proof' of what I have been pointing out for years now in many threads elsewhere, re my novel "reality maths" Axiom (infinitesimal physical quantum of effectiveness) versus the conventional "UNreality maths" Axiom (dimensionless point). I initially intended to publish sans any maths, as the conventional UNreal maths failed, just as does in conventional partial/domain-limited mainstream/other theories. So I invented my own Reality-Axiom based maths


I'll P.S. for you with the question.

Jun 06, 2015
P.S. for you Really-Skippy.

Now I never pretended to be the scientist-Skippy like you pretend to be, but it seems to me that Zephir-Skippy and maybe the rufus-Skippy are the only two peoples on here that would have any idea what that stuff you wrote means. None of the really smart Skippys might not admit it because maybe they are ashamed that they don't understand him either but not me.

So here is the question. Does any of that gobbledygook mean anything or is he just a bunch of foolishment that you think sounds smart and scientifical?

Jun 06, 2015
And another P.S. for you Really-Skippy. Since I have not wrote anything for five or four days, aren't you glad I noticed you write something to me to get me going?

Jun 06, 2015
If you wiki'd the 'point' concept as I suggested, you would by now have already got that 'proof' of what I have been pointing out for years now in many threads elsewhere
well i wiki'd the point concept
and i ducked it
and i gogled it
and i scholared it

i found absolutely NO mention of you as RC or undefined explaining it or giving a valid point or description

i even included your name(s) for more clarity and precision
nada

you will have to share it here again or find a working link to share it
I also contacted the MODS at SciForums asking for your historical "proof" and have yet to get any working or valid data

if it was easily done then it should be easily repeated

after all, it is already published thus cannot be plagiarized

Jun 06, 2015
now about this
So I invented my own Reality-Axiom based maths. That is what has delayed publication for a few years. You'll have to wait for my ToE c/w Reality-maths
and
re my novel
&
... as the conventional UNreal maths failed, just as does in conventional partial/domain-limited mainstream/other theories
this is why i downrated you

you made claims that are unsubstantiated by proof or links
also:
arbitrarily making up a new set of math is not science
nor does it mean you have found anything other than a means to justify your own personal perspective
ANYONE can arbitrarily make up "new maths" and then claim it is more valid than modern knowledge

the proof isn't in the making up of a new math, but the scientific method, experimentation, repeatability, and validation of claims

See also JeanTate above

Jun 06, 2015
And there you have it again, folks, the self-admissions that his bot-voting is irrespective. Unargued/unupported downvotes from his hate list while he claims to "serve science and scientist-Skippys" by downvoting no matter what! Pity his "really smart Skippys" here made fools of themselves last year over that BICEP2 fiasco which I immediately spotted FOR them, not themselves. And Ira's same "real smart Skippy" scientists/experts are now discovering and admitting that the 'standard candles' in astronomy are NOT 'standard candles' after all; and that Planck-Bicep2 analysis/results of CMB data has confirmed MY point about CMB 'interpretations' are NOT valid because the CMB signals are NOT as they had assumed 'supporting evidence' for BB etc,

Will this twerp drop his preprogrammed bot-voting now that his "real smart Skippys" have been proven not so smart after all, and that I was correct all along on these matters? Some "real smart Skippys" this Ira twerp 'serves'. Dolt.

Jun 06, 2015
If you haven't yet published this, how can anyone independently check it? If what you write in comments here is based on your personal (unpublished) ideas, how can anyone determine if it has any validity (or not)?
@Jean
are you really ready to head down that rabbit hole?

take a real hard look at the contents of the bulk of his posts
you can start by going to his profile page
https://sciencex....k/?v=act

then read the last post he gave above... (you will see a lot of the exact same argument repeated over and over and over etc ad nauseum)

some people simply gave up logical argument and went to poking fun (like Ira)

By the way: really enjoying your logical and meticulous posting
I hope the trolls don't scare you away

one thing that this site really needs more of is the posters like you willing to share and link actual evidence/studies instead of pseudoscience

THANKS JeanTate

Jun 06, 2015
Will this twerp drop his preprogrammed bot-voting now that his "real smart Skippys" have been proven not so smart after all, and that I was correct all along on these matters?.


He won't as long you call him all those names and act so ugly all the time. For someone who is smart like a genus you sure are slow at analyzing the reasons give you the bad karma votes. Do better diligence matey.

Jun 06, 2015
Captain Stumpy.
you made claims that are unsubstantiated by proof or links
also:
arbitrarily making up a new set of math is not science...
You ignore all my discussion points over YEARS now, proving what I claimed re maths being incapable and cosmology claims re BB etc being not as assumed by mainstream. The former I supported and was sabotaged/deleted because I proved my points. The latter I supported and was sabotaged also because I proved my points.

And now mainstream astronomy has confirmed me correct in my observations re BB etc: CMB data was incorrectly 'interpreted' as 'support'.

Conventional maths has been re-invented as the need arose for new maths. Don't you know anything? I merely recognized another need: NEW Reality-maths altogether different from conventional UNreality-maths because latter FAILS even in mainstream modeling of cosmology because it produces infinities upon infinities 'singularities'. You'll have to await my full publication now. :)

Jun 06, 2015
Will this twerp drop his preprogrammed bot-voting now that his "real smart Skippys" have been proven not so smart after all, and that I was correct all along on these matters?.


He won't as long you call him all those names and act so ugly all the time. For someone who is smart like a genus you sure are slow at analyzing the reasons give you the bad karma votes. Do better diligence matey.

And there it is, folks...Ira-idiot-Skippy's admission that his BOT-list voting is based on his subjective "KARMA system" replacing SCIENCE system as the basis for discourse/voting on a SCIENCE site. What an insensible maroon-Skippy, hey folks!

Jun 06, 2015
Hi JeanTate. :)

The latest round of troll-driven smearing/lying about me (and my discussions/posts over the years here and elsewhere) began last year in the thread:

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

I recommended everyone check for the flaws which were obvious in that BICEP2 exercise. Since then the same "smart Skippys" here (as the Uncle Ira buffoon calls the 'preferred' names on his '5' vote list, irrespective) have waged a campaign of linked-half-truths and lies ignoring the full truth about my bans elsewhere and my posts/supporting arguments which got me banned by the same sort of gang mod-troll idiots pretending to support science mainstream while block voting and abusing the rules and science methods themselves.

I discussed a few items from my ToE over the years; and have now essentially withdrawn from more detailed discussion until full publication. Latest mainstream news proves me correct on CMB 'interpretations' problems etc. Cheers. :)

Jun 06, 2015
PS: JeanTate, please be careful not to be sucked into blockvoting based on the lies and misrepresentations from the gang who missed it all because they were too busy pursuing their Internet idiocies based on ego-tripping and ignoring new evidence which they claim to follow but conveniently ignore when it suits their personal trolling agendas (example Uncle Ira and Stumpy et al who block vote me '1' even when I have been correct all along...for years now, and they knew it...or they had no clue what was being discussed).

PPS: I read your comment in other thread re "EU' supporters etc. Please note I am not associated with that/any group or theory but my own Reality-based one. I am atheist since age nine, and scrupulously independent objective researcher and scientist since then. I don't belong to, nor am I beholden to, any person or group. That is the only way I have been able to maintain my scrupulous objectivity/impartiality in comprehension/commentary.

Welcome! Good luck. :)

Jun 06, 2015
Hi JeanTate. :)
...it seems to be based on your own ideas, none of which have yet been published in a form that permits independent and objective scrutiny. Is that correct?
Not quite. I pointed out the problems/issues using known science all along. The BB-captured community has been working so long under the false assumptions/interpretations 'built-into' the literature and into decades of CMB etc 'exercises' and 'interpretations' by bad science 'passed' by 'peer review' and promulgating the false assumptions and claims of 'big bang supporting evidence' from CMB observations/analysis etc. The only stage my own ToE insights have come into the discussion is when I point out alternative interpretations/observations according to reality. To no avail. Until lately. Regarding this particular topic of GW/LIGO etc, I pointed out 'improved sensitivity' not immune from 'noise', and actually the worse for it re GW. Also note that 4-d 'spacetime' construct precludes GW as defined. :)

Jun 06, 2015
PS: JeanTate, also be careful not to set your 'filter' to exclude posts voted '1' by the gang of trolls skewing this site's ratings page so you don't see those posts. A truly objective and impartial researcher/reader/scientist cannot be in any position to make comment/comprehend the full picture if some of the 'raw data' is hidden by unscrupulous tactics designed to keep you in the dark about alternative views/points made by someone who is 'targeted' for sabotage/censoring because of anti-science ego-tripping by the troll gang concerned. Consider and rethink everything; else you will fall prey to the same psychosis of superiority based on partial evidence/comprehension which they accuse others of being subject to but fail to see themselves fall into the same seductive trap (as you can easily see proven by that Uncle Ira doenvoting regardless, and the gang that condones it because they have personal agendas. Take care, good luck and good thinking, JeanTate. See you round. :)

Jun 06, 2015
(as you can easily see proven by that Uncle Ira doenvoting regardless, and the gang that condones it because they have personal agendas.


@ Jean-Skippette. How you are Chere? I am good me. I down vote the Really-Skippy because he calls me names in just about every postum. He's been that way since I first ran across him. I mean, I could just down vote his karma because he is the couyon, but since he is the grumpy illmannered couyon that is what he gets. I tried to up vote his karma score when he said something pretty good, but he still called me names so now just down vote everything he says.

@ Really-Skippy. How you are too Cher? I am good too me, thanks for asking. I don't have time to fool around with you all night tonight okayeei? The Museum Ship Weekend is now and I am trying to get enough ships to win a certificate. Actually I already got more than enough now but there is some famous ones I want QSL cards from and I got to pay attention to that.

Jun 06, 2015
Hi JeanTate. :)
So what did Hulse and Taylor get their Nobel Prize for then?

You may well ask! It was an 'interpretation' of the observed slowing rate as being due to the 'assumption' of 'gravity waves existing' and leaving the system. Note that "interpretation" and "assumption", not actual gravitational waves observations. I made some observations regarding possible causes of slowing which do not require such assumptions/interpretations base.

Similarly, you may well ask why the Nobel for the claim of accelerating expansion! It too is an 'interpretation'; in this case of supernovae which have at last (about time) been confirmed by mainstream NOT to be 'standard candles' fit for drawing such conclusions which got Perlmutter his Nobel.

Test and rethink it all, since the BB etc biases built into the literature/interpretations/exercises/Nobel groupthink etc has done great damage to real science/understanding in the cosmology field. Better late than never! Cheers. :)


Jun 06, 2015
Poor poor Uncle-Ira-BOT-idiot-Skippy. He dishes it out but can't take it. Sad. His whining excuses omit where anything I have had to comment about/to this twerp is directly in response to HIS lies, insults and bot-voting idiocy here on a science site. He calls people couyon just because they post science which is not 'approved by the moron gang Ira bot-votes and barracks for', and then he expects respect in return? What an utter maroon, hey folks? Typical troll can't take it when his bullying stupidities are exposed and called out for all to see for themselves. Driveling whining Twerp-Ira-Skippy indeed. And this is what the 'gang' here 'applauds' and gives his idiotic posts and bot-voting a '5' for? Look in the mirror, silly.

PS: JeanTate, beware getting sucked into their 'gang', else it'll be the end of your objectivity and proper comprehension of ALL the evolving science in reality, as distinct from troll-bot-gang parroting delusions being falsified even now by mainstream.

Jun 06, 2015
Driveling whining Twerp-Ira-Skippy indeed.


@ Really-Skippy. You are the only who drivils and whines about the gang/mafia/bot/mod/trolls all time. I never whine. Ol Ira-Skippy is the one who is always in the good mood and enjoyed laughing with everybody.

Anyhoo, I still want to try to get the USS Hornet, the CSS Hunley, and the USS Missouri and the Elettra. That last one would be really cool, that was Marconi's seagoing laboratory. Wish me luck, eh?

Jun 06, 2015
Hi JeanTate. :)

Only if one assumes this "consistent with GR" is based actual mechanisms/causes, not mere abstract 'interpretations' of data. Did you read my posts above? You will get an idea of all sorts of known science factors which may effect the observed slowing, either individually or in combination, such that observed slowing needs no GR 'gravity waves' assumptions for energy leaving the system. Since alternatives are more likely than gravity waves in a theoretical 4-d 'spacetime' construct in theory, no more need be done than to point this out in order to make the 'discovery/connection' of "consistency" as anything more than conjecture. Just as the now proven NON-standard candles have made 'Accelerated expansion' interpretations merely conjecture. And as Planck-bicep2 results have made CMB based 'interpretations' as 'supporting BB etc' mere conjecture of BB/GR/GWR etc assumptions-laden 'exercises/conclusions' dependent on that theory. See the evolving pattern lately?

Jun 06, 2015
Driveling whining Twerp-Ira-Skippy indeed.
@ Really-Skippy. You are the only who drivils and whines about the gang/mafia/bot/mod/trolls all time. I never whine. Ol Ira-Skippy is the one who is always in the good mood and enjoyed laughing with everybody.
Proving by experiment your and other mod-troll gang abuses and ignorance against evolving new evidence wasn't whining, merely proving your idiocy. It is you whining now that you've been proven a bot-voting moron admitting his karma votes based on his own stupidity is more important than objective comprehension and voting accordingly on a science site. Your laughing is feigned, because the laugh has been on you and your gang of twits all along. I have been proven correct and you and they twits for trolling and personal lies and tactics/insults instead of listening to the evolving science as it was posted for your edification. To no avail..."pearls before swine" and all that. Get smart or stay dumb, Ira.

Jun 06, 2015
Get smart or stay dumb, Ira.


I am real happy with my life, so if it's all the same to you, I just stay like I am. I mean I would hate a lot if I had to go through life with bots and trolls and mods and gangs and mafias and such like chasing after me everywhere I go on the interweb.

Why am I a happy person and you are a grumpy angry person? Non, Cher, I will just stay the way I am, I would hate a lot to be as discontent and disliked as you are.

Jun 06, 2015
I am real happy with my life, so if it's all the same to you, I just stay like I am. I mean I would hate a lot if I had to go through life with bots and trolls and mods and gangs and mafias and such like chasing after me everywhere I go on the interweb.
You being the bot-troll idiot doing the stalking and being dumb as a brick while doing it ON A SCIENCE site is the problem. Haven't you figured that out for yourself yet? Your 'happy' pretending you 'serve the real smart Skippys' with anti-science ethics moronic sabotage of sites/ratings because you think 'karma' is a better way than science and objective comprehension/discourse?

How sad is that for your 'epitaph', Ira?

Why am I a happy person and you are a grumpy angry person? Non, Cher, I will just stay the way I am, I would hate a lot to be as discontent and disliked as you are.
Science is not about me/you, like/dislike. Pig in stinking muck is 'happy' like bot-voting Ira in stinking ignorance is 'happy'.

Jun 06, 2015
Pig in stinking muck is 'happy' like bot-voting Ira in stinking ignorance is 'happy'.


@ Really-Skippy. How you are again, never mind I can see how you are Cher. But I was able to work both the Hornet AND the Missouri just now. Those are two I really wanted.

So nothing you call me or say is going to put me in the bad mood non. You been trying to do that forever and you have not been able to yet. I hope you have better luck with your book with the theory about toes and everything. How you you been working on him now? I've been hearing about him for four or three years almost ready and some peoples say they have been hearing about him the same almost ready for 13 or 12 years.

Anyhoo 10 meters is closing up and 20 and 40 is opening so maybe I can get one of the VK (Australia) and ZL (New Zealand) ships that are taking part in the event, eh? If I can work one of them I'll ask about you, I'm sure they will know who I am talking about.

Jun 06, 2015
In which journal did you publish your results, may I ask? (repeat of the question in my last comment)


@ Jean-Skippette. How you are again Chere? We been repeating that question for years and more years. And I mean a whole of we's on a bunch a different interweb places. (Ask Captain-Skippy he got a ton of links to some of his more silly stuffs) You will never get a answer but a lot of gobbledygook that Really-Skippy thinks sounds scientifical. (That''s why we make him wear the silly looking pointy cap when he is playing Big-Chief-Of-Science-Skippy.)

Jun 06, 2015
Hi JeanTate. :)
Anyone can take the GR equations, plug in some values, turn the handle, and get results. As long as this is done consistently, "actual mechanisms/causes" are irrelevant.
Beware of GIGO. That is what happened with initial Biceps2'exercise/analysis', remember (I know some here don't like to be reminded, but it was a salutary lesson for all would-be scientists who think abstract numbers/maths the same as reality/physical entities).

Not in my book. GWR is an objective 'prediction' of GR, one that anyone can verify (provided they can 'do the math').
Not 'prediction', only assumptions from wave concept applied to GR, forgetting the GR/SR 4-d 'spacetime' construct precludes such. The GR gravitational effect is a field 'attached' to and 'effected' by real central body/energy-mass in surrounding real energy-space (not abstract 'space-time'). That field pattern travels WITH and distorted LOCALLY by motion of/in that system, but no gravity waves 'leave' it.

Jun 06, 2015
PS: JeanTate: :)
any alternatives need to be shown to be consistent (in many ways), independently. If such alternatives are not published, they cannot be evaluated. Period.
The older theories/models already known, so no need to repeat their proofs/logics/claims/evidence etc. It is up to the newer BB etc hypotheses to substantiate their claims with evidence. So far this 'evidence' has subsisted in assumptive interpretations of observations from the theory and nothing other than those theory dependent assumptions/interpretations built into all 'exercises/analyses' of supernovae, CMB etc observational data. Now the recent suoernovae discoveries re NOT 'standard candles; plus the Planck-Bicep2 confirmation that CMB etc data 'interpretations/analyses' are NOT relaible as 'evidence' for BB etc. So alternatives must be re-considered. No?

Not 'publish or perish' driven. Will publish full ToE. Points made in forum discussions now being proven correct, though. Enough for now. :)

Jun 06, 2015
So nothing you call me or say is going to put me in the bad mood non. You been trying to do that forever and you have not been able to yet. I hope you have better luck with your book with the theory about toes and everything. How you you been working on him now? I've been hearing about him for four or three years almost ready and some peoples say they have been hearing about him the same almost ready for 13 or 12 years.
No, I've been telling you where you are going wrong with your BOT-voting based on your likes/dislikes/ignorance of subject matter. Has it got through yet? :)

Correctness, complexity, completeness and consistency can't be rushed. Newton, Einstein worked at theirs for decades and still didn't come to complete/consistent theory. I have been working by myself for decades; have resisted temptation to 'publish or perish' piecemeal 'offerings' in journals (unlike 'publish or perish' driven crowd does irrespective of worth). No problem. I'm patient. :)

Jun 06, 2015
Hi JeanTate.
[Maybe so ... but if you don't cite them, no reader (especially me) will know what you're referring to. What "alternatives" are you referring to?
No time to spare in going through all of it again and again in detail. I now assume anyone here reading the latest news items on these matters has seen that they confirm what I have been saying all along about specific problem of CMB and supernovae analyses/interpretations/claims for BB, expansion etc. I don't play the 'linking games' that trolls have been playing when lying, making claims they can't support, just to waste my time. I am finalizing some urgent work on feasible/cheap solutions for global warming prevention/remediating. I hope to finish that in time for submitting to International Conference before year's end. The urgency arose because our Prime Minister (more like Prime Moron) sabotaged our/others efforts re global warming policies/solutions. So you'll have to wait till early next year for my ToE. :)

Jun 06, 2015
Hi JeanTate. :)
Your first one ("Beware of GIGO") seems to have nothing to do with what I wrote.
You wrote:
take the GR equations, plug in some values, turn the handle, and get results.
If theory/assumptions are consistently invalid garbage in, then the 'equations' will just as consistently output garbage. Hence the problems with much of what has been 'consistently' happening in cosmology/Relativity 'analysis'/'interpretations' for decades.

Your second ("Not 'prediction', only assumptions...) ... I can't be sure it's not just a misunderstanding, the two of us using the same words, but understanding them in a different way.
Pls see above for context/meaning.

In which journal did you publish your analyses and results
I repeat: I will publish only complete ToE, not 'publish or perish' pieces in journals beholden to/captured by the BB etc 'peers' who have been 'passing' bad science which mainstream is only now slowly correcting.

No more time. Cheers. :)

Jun 06, 2015
@Vieux Ira
Jean probably is the most interesting and experienced poster in the field of cosmology that the Physorg commenting community has seen lately. She seems well decided to wrangle with pseudo scientists. Let's hope she does not get tired of it, because her commenting style is an added value to the articles that deserved her attention. We should give her our kind support.

If you want to know more about her: http://www.univer...ic-mass/ , http://www.univer...nce-you/ , http://www.univer...st-pick/

Jun 06, 2015
Conventional maths has been re-invented as the need arose for new maths. Don't you know anything?
@rc
so you are telling me i gotta get a new calculator?
1+1 doesn't equal 2 anymore?
( i do know where 1+1 can equal 3, but that is another post entirely and not family friendly)
NEW Reality-maths altogether different from conventional UNreality-maths because latter FAILS even in mainstream modeling of cosmology because it produces infinities upon infinities 'singularities'
not only is that not an example (no where in your post, BTW)
so what if mainstream gets infinities
that only means we have something to discover... not that modern math is broken
your argument is specific to SR/GR and black holes or other extreme events which are under study

so basically you don't have ANY examples to share
just more backtalk and double speak with no content?
lots of words above and no real content

where is the example requested?
link?
anything?

Jun 06, 2015
Jean probably is the most interesting and experienced poster in the field of cosmology that the Physorg commenting community has seen lately.


@ Techno-Skippy how you are too? Yeah you are right about the Jean-Skippette, I looked her up on the google when she first showed up and like the things she writes about. She has some good articles on the Universe place.

Jun 07, 2015
Jean probably is the most interesting and experienced
@Techno
thanks for the links
i don't hang around universe today NEAR as much as i should... even with my support of Fraser
(if you watch the video's, i am listed in the end "James Truck Captain Stumpy")
She is a whole lot of intelligent, that is for sure
GREAT ADDITION to the site!

you need to provide evidence, not simply make bald statements
@JeanTate
good luck with that

While you got him talking... maybe you can get him to specify what 4 fatal flaws he saw in the BICEP2 publications?
he actually calls out 8 total flaws, 4 being fatal... but he never has actually specified what those flaws were

we still can't get him to answer... maybe you can drag something out of him?
(by the way, that is hyperbole - there isn't a force in the universe that can make him admit he lied)
he saw them march 17th - just use CTRL+F search for "fatal"
or his name

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

Jun 07, 2015
Stumpy. :)
so you are telling me i gotta get a new calculator?
If you want a calculator that deals with reality-maths, not unreal maths, then appropriate reprogramming will ensue.
1+1 doesn't equal 2 anymore?
And that inanity betrays your motive is facetious/personal, not objective science discourse.
so what if mainstream gets infinities...that only means we have something to discover...
Yes, and I have discovered it. :)
your argument is specific to SR/GR and black holes or other extreme events which are under study
Yep, "under study" for how many decades now? See? Conventional Unreal maths abstractions/modeling leads to dead end infinities/singularities because it 'blows up' when the limitations of conventional un-real maths based on un-real philosophical axiom 'point' is inescapably reached.

PS: Who cares what you trolls "wants", when you've missed all the evidence under your nose all these years, and even of late here in physorg news items! :)

Jun 07, 2015
Jean probably is the most interesting and experienced poster in the field of cosmology that the Physorg commenting community has seen lately.


@ Techno-Skippy how you are too? Yeah you are right about the Jean-Skippette, I looked her up on the google when she first showed up and like the things she writes about. She has some good articles on the Universe place.
@Ira
@Techno
@JeanTate

forgive me that i don't remember names too well... but i remember that i have seen some of the articles Techno linked (Thanks Techno)
Ira is right... there is some good stuff out there you are putting out, Jean
THANKS for sharing and being here


Jun 07, 2015
If you want a calculator that deals with reality-maths, not unreal maths, then appropriate reprogramming will ensue
not unless you can get published
and unless that is in a peer reviewed journal, it will be nothing more than conjecture
And that inanity betrays your motive is facetious/personal, not objective science discourse
actually, i am being serious
it is YOU who mistake my motivations
i want specifics and at least an answer to my request for an EXAMPLE
you already posted it historically... so link it here
it aint plagiarism if YOU wrote it
Yes, and I have discovered it
not unless you can prove it
and thus far you've only proven your ability to be verbose without actually saying a word
Who cares what you trolls "wants"
so now we see what is really going on
you are hiding the truth again... you can't produce so you deflect

imagine that

PS
how are the earthlings doing, sam-i-am?

Jun 07, 2015
Stumpy. :)
ot unless you can get published
and unless that is in a peer reviewed journal, it will be nothing more than conjecture
The man/venue is nothing; the work itself everything. Haven't you learned that yet? How many articles here at physorg have pointed out the flaws in 'peer review' system and 'journal capture' of ethics/profit/status etc skewing the science culture/product? Too many! You haven't listened, have you? So you carry on as if nothing had happened which led to BICEP2 fiasco and recent mainstream corrections of prior longstanding bad science and speculations 'passed' by peer review' as 'science'.and published in 'science journals'. What value those 'approved' 'journals/peer review' now, hey? Nada. Which is why only full publishing without any group/authority involved in the publishing.

As for you claiming to be "serious"; yes, a serious liar and trolling twerp who has lied about me/ignored all the evidence under your nose. Pull the other one, mate. :)

Jun 07, 2015
the work itself everything. Haven't you learned that yet?
not unless it can be validated
and it will have a hard time if it is not consistent with reality or math
(and making up new math means it MUST be valid under certain rules which would conform to old math standards and rules)

it doesn't matter how many times you point out a "flaw" because you say everything is flawed, but you seldom can provide actual references or data supporting your assertions
yes, a serious liar and trolling twerp who has lied about me/ignored all the evidence under your nose
really
oh, the pain of being maligned by a troll who posts unsubstantiated conjecture
Oooo- ahhh
Ooo-ahh

https://www.googl...af4331c2


Jun 07, 2015
Hi TechnoCreed. :)
@Vieux Ira
Jean probably is the most interesting and experienced poster in the field of cosmology that the Physorg commenting community has seen lately. She seems well decided to wrangle with pseudo scientists. Let's hope she does not get tired of it, because her commenting style is an added value to the articles that deserved her attention. We should give her our kind support.

If you want to know more about her: http://www.univer...ic-mass/
I too welcome anyone interested in the science not the person/source etc. With Biceps2 fiasco we all learned the hard lesson of what can happen when people subjectively follow/trust a person/team/source instead of concentrating objectively on the science and nothing else. So let's not start JeanTate off as being on one side' or other in personal gang warfare brought/encouraged by troll gangs, hey? Let's stick with the actual science and eschew supporting 'personal favorites' one 'likes'. :)

Jun 07, 2015
Stumpy. :)
the work itself everything. Haven't you learned that yet?
not unless it can be validated
and it will have a hard time if it is not consistent with reality or math
(and making up new math means it MUST be valid under certain rules which would conform to old math standards and rules)
You say that with a straight face? Pull the other one, mate. The complete published work will stand or fall on its own objectively testable merits. Your opinion now is less than useless to anyone. Especially since some of my longstanding observations/points re CMb,etc claims HAVE been validated of late...by mainstream no less! So you're 'in denial', Stumpy.

it doesn't matter how many times you point out a "flaw" because you say everything is flawed,
Only that which IS flawed I call out; and I have been proven correct to do so by mainstream also of late re certain critical claims for BB etc. Denial, Stumpy. See to that most unscientific troll disease you bring.

Jun 07, 2015
Especially since some of my longstanding observations/points re CMb,etc claims HAVE been validated of late...by mainstream no less!
@rc
this is fantastic
so that means you can actually link a historical prediction and then show where modern mainstream science has validated your claims?

PERFECT

please DO THAT!

we will go from there...

and before you even mention BICEP2, remember:
unless you can specify the 8 flaws and 4 "fatal" flaws, then you are only preaching your insanity and proving MY point

so don't bring up BICEP2 at all

SHOW ME SOME OTHER historical post that is validated

THANKS

Jun 07, 2015
PS: Stumpy, I see from the rating page that all you got left is downvoting me '1' because you and your troll gang has lost to science which I have been presenting over the years while you ignored it all because of your personal ego-tripping trolling lying agendas here and elsewhere. I proved many times that you and your mod-troll gang types have been the shame of science sites. All other anti-science trolls/deniers etc didn't know any better; but YOU lot pretend to follow evidence and support mainstream science....yet you lot did everything AGAINST it being discussed openly without fear or favor or personal tactics. So you are left bereft of any justification for more lying/personal crap. Which leaves you outraged, with your only 'solace' being your continuing your gang-bot-voting me '1'. Wow, such a 'contribution' to original science from "serious" trolls, hey folks! That will be their legacy, folks; hate, rage, bot-gang-voting and straight unadulterated imbecilities. Sad.

Jun 07, 2015
I see from the rating page that all you got left is downvoting me
@rc
when you can substantiate your conjectures, you will get a better vote
this is proven true as i have upvoted you numerous times, including in climate science threads where you actually use physics and science which can be validated

that is how i roll

you post BS, i downvote
you troll, i report your post

i don't care how much you hate me... in fact, i use it as a means of making sure i am doing the correct thing WRT science, the scientific method and validated evidence

as long as you condemn me for my practices, i know i am right because you are the most verbose troll on this site
AND
you cannot substantiate most of your own claims, let alone the scientific ones

case in point:
where is that historical post which is validated by modern mainstream?

still waiting

is this going to take ANOTHER 3700 posts?
because you are above 3700 for bicep2


Jun 07, 2015
because you and your troll gang
TL;DR
trolling
baiting

reported

where is that historical post which is validated by modern mainstream?

this should be EASY for you to dig up!
you even said that above!
Especially since some of my longstanding observations/points re CMb,etc claims HAVE been validated of late...by mainstream no less!
so it should be EASY for you to confirm!

i'll wait

(gotta run in a bit though... it is 2am here)

and lets not drag this one out past 3700 posts like above... eh?
i would ask please, but i know that only makes you worse

SO

where is that historical post which is validated by modern mainstream?

Jun 07, 2015
Poor Stumpy. In denial still, and playing the linking game to the end. Who cares what a troll 'wants' now at this late stage? It was all there in the posting record across 4 forums. The troll gang 'regulars' were perfectly aware of it all, because they trolled and sabotaged and got me banned for it! Now this troll comes whining and wanting links to my discussion points/observations which he already knows about, and which have been validated by recent proper mainstream observations/analyses. What posts have not been distorted/deleted have been already discussed more than once before...but this troll keeps claiming it doesn't exist! Much like he claimed a particular thread did not exist and called ME a liar...until I linked to it to prove HE was lying. A more incompetent troll and liar has not hit the internet since this particular weirdo! He's the 'champ', with the able assistance in idiocy of his 'pet idiot' Uncle Ira bot-voting program. What a farce, hey folks. :)

Jun 07, 2015
Poor Stumpy. In denial still, and playing the linking game to the end.
@rc
you mean asking to validate a claim is a bad thing?
REALLY?
wow... then i should just worship the ground you walk on?
do i have to move here?
https://www.googl...af4331c2

or can i just worship from afar?
(sarcastic satirical hyperbole)

PS
TL;DR
trolling
baiting
reported

where is that historical post which is validated by modern mainstream?

Jun 07, 2015
More specious 'asking for links' by this troll; when it's already on record all over which he keeps ignoring in order to make his troll posts in denial. Amazing insensibility, even for a troll. And he actually thinks I want 'better vote' from him! He can't possibly understand that it's not the votes per se, it's the anti-science intent of trolls doing it, by bot-voting irrespective from their list of likes/dislikes which have nothing to do with the science posted! This idiot applauds and joins Uncle Ira bot-voting gang, in their PROTECTION RACKET skewing the ratings on a science site in order to make people cowtow to their idiocy, and they call it 'serving science and scientists'. What a mockery of intellect and integrity this poor Stump and pals are. They don't even realize it's THE PRINCIPLE of the thing, not the votes per se. No wonder the mainstream has been in trouble, if the 'ethics' of this mob of parroting trolls is reflective of what has been creeping into 'science'.

Jun 07, 2015
when it's already on record all over which he keeps ignoring
@rc
how can i be ignoring it if you cant tell anyone what it is?
that is my point, really

you are making a CLAIM
thus, the burden of proof is upon you to validate the claim
basic logic here... whether it is "already on record" or it is glued to my forehead... you made the claim, now validate it with proof!

where is that historical post which is validated by modern mainstream?

Also, i didn't read any further
TL;DR
trolling
baiting
reported

where is that historical post which is validated by modern mainstream?

by all means.... prove SOMETHING!
(or are you going for another record... most unvalidated claims on the interwebz?
i think you already have the world record on that one... i KNOW you have the 4chan /b/ record!)
saw this and had to add it
reflective of what has been creeping into 'science'.
yeah... it sucks when science makes people prove their conjectures
we should be flogged

Jun 07, 2015
Poor Stump, stuck in denial mode. It has all been provided him before, many times, but what does he do? He proceeds to deny it and just starts again with his preprogrammed trolling idiocy hoping no-one noticed I proved him more than once to be an incompetent 'researcher' who ignores evidence/facts; a lying scumbag who keeps repeating half-truths and claiming it is 'truth'; a gang-mentality nincompoop full of himself as 'defender of mainstream' who keeps missing that his defense is counterproductive because he comprehends neither the mainstream nor the alternative being discussed; an insensible nitwit who cannot see what he is doing is anti-science ethics all along, and especially now that mainstream agrees with me on the issues I pointed out all over the 4 forums for years.

Stumpy, mate, your 'internet play' as ''great researcher', 'defender of mainstream', complete with 'blizzard' of uncomprehended/lying half-truth 'posts/links', is over. Apologize and we'll start afresh. :)

Jun 07, 2015
wait....what?
Apologize and we'll start afresh
@rc
apologize for what?
apologize for asking you to actually substantiate your claims?
for asking you to prove your comments?

you still haven't proven ANYTHING... you can't even link your own comments, make a point, or show your historical posts which is demonstrated to be now supported by mainstream... so....

WHY?

why should i apologize?

Also.. that is all i saw because i was trying to read JeanTate
TL;DR
baiting
trolling
reported

Jun 07, 2015
@JeanTate
It is a pleasure to correspond with a genuine 'citizen scientist', your participation to the Galaxy Zoo project most certainly qualify you as such. I noticed your interesting comments just a few days ago and was intrigued so I googled your name (with astronomy and cosmology as key words); it appeared on many forums but what caught my eyes was your articles on Universe Today. I read just a few of them but sensed that your scientific knowledge was deep and wide! I look forward to read more of them. Although citizen scientist is a title that you very well deserve, it shows your humbleness because scientific journalist is also a title that would suit you very well.

Jun 07, 2015

So here's something that puzzles me: unless and until you publish your work, so that everyone can read it and independently verify it, what is the point of writing comments here?
@JeanTate
to get the last word in!
that is about it, really...

in all actuality, i think it is his only social life, especially since SciForums and Sapo's Joint banned him for trolling and baiting
this is his last refuge... and likely his only means of feeling important

you should read his grandiose claims about saving us all from climate change

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

use CTRL + F and search for "cavalry"

meh

he is great fodder for psych studies, though
scientific journalist is also a title that would suit you very well.
Agreed!

and it is a real pleasure reading your discourse here with the various posters too

THANKS for joining

Jun 07, 2015
Hi JeanTate. :)

Our exchange not in a contextual vacuum. Your 'puzzlement' would clear up if you read the relevant context I linked for your info. Here again: http://phys.org/n...nal.html

You'll note that I was first here to spot/categorize obvious (since confirmed by Planck) flaws in initial BICEP2 exercise/claims.

I also explained clearly then that I'd no longer be discussing details of my ToE before publication. As for why I discussed on forums at all, it was to 'soundboard' various ideas of mine/compare to others'....since 2005! Many of my observations over the years have been vindicated by mainstream recently (the mod-troll gangs who distorted/deleted/banned same must be feeling sick now).

I repeat: Not at liberty to discuss ToE details now; but still make occasional general observations on interesting news items here.

PS:The lying troll knows all this. He is still dissembling with his own 'version' of reality. Don't fall for it. :)

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more