What are gravitational waves?

What are Gravitational Waves?
Artist’s impression of gravitational waves. Credit: NASA

Who wants to bet against Einstein? You? You? What about you?

Sure, there were a few bumps, but the guy's track record on relativity is spotless. He explained the strange way that Mercury orbits the sun. He guessed astronomers would see stars deflected by the sun's gravity during a solar eclipse. He predicted that gravity would redshift light, and it took physicists 50 years to finally come up with an experiment to verify it.

Based on his predictions, scientists confirmed galaxies warp light with their gravity, photons get time dilated when they pass near the sun, and clocks that travel at high speeds experience less time than clocks on Earth.

They've even tested , frame-dragging and the . Which is a word salad we'll cover in the future, or for those of you who can't wait, google.

Every time Bertie made a prediction about relativity, physicists have been able to verify via experimentation. And so, according to this fuzzy man with the giant brain, when massive objects crash into each other, or when black holes form, there should be a release of .

So what are these things and how can we detect them?

First, a quick review. Mass causes a warp in space and time. The sun's "gravity" isn't a pulling force, it's really an indentation that the sun causes in the space around itself.

When massive objects crash into each other, there should be a release of gravitational waves. So what are these things and how can we detect them?

Planets think they're moving in a straight line, but they're actually pulled into a circle while traveling through this warped spacetime. Go home planets, you're drunk.

The idea is when mass moves or changes, Einstein said that there should be gravitational ripples produced in spacetime.

Our problem is that the size and effect of gravitational waves is incredibly small. We need to find the most catastrophic events in the universe if we hope even detect them.

A supernova detonating asymmetrically, or two supermassive orbiting each other, or a Galactus family reunion; are the magnitude of events we're looking for.

The most serious attempt to detect gravitational waves is the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory, or LIGO detector, in the United States. It has two facilities separated by 3000 km. Each detector carefully watches for any gravitational waves passing through by the length of time it takes for laser pulses to bounce within a 4km long sealed vacuum.

If a gravitational wave is detected, the two observatories use triangulation to determine its magnitude and direction. At least, that was the plan from 2002 to 2010. The problem was, it didn't detect any gravitational waves for its entire run.

What are Gravitational Waves?
Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory Hanford installation – each arm extends for four kilometres. Credit: Caltech.

But hey, this is a job for science. Unbowed, the steely-eyed researchers rebuilt the equipment, improving its sensitivity by a factor of 10. This next round starts in 2015.

Scientists have proposed space-based instruments that could provide more sensitivity and increase the chances of detecting a gravitational wave.

Physicists assume this is a question of "when", not "if" that gravitational waves will be detected, as only a fool bets against Einstein. Well, that and gravitational waves have already been detected… indirectly.

By watching the extremely regular energy blasts coming from pulsars, astronomers track exactly how quickly they're radiating their energy away due to gravitational waves. So far, all the observations perfectly match the predictions of relativity. We just haven't detected those gravitational waves directly… yet.

So, good news! Assuming the physicists and Einstein are right, we should see the detection of a gravitational wave in the next few decades, wrapping up a series of predictions about how insanely strange our universe behaves.


Explore further

Eliminating terrestrial noise sources to improve the LIGO gravity wave detectors

Source: Universe Today
Citation: What are gravitational waves? (2015, June 9) retrieved 19 June 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2015-06-gravitational.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.
323 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Jun 09, 2015
Planets think they're moving in a straight line, but they're actually pulled into a circle while traveling through this warped spacetime. Go home planets, you're drunk.

Actually the planets have got it right and WE (humans) have a problem perceiving it - since we have no sensory organs that are sensitive to warped space. So we should go home because we're drunk.

can gravity effect the trajectory of light but not it's speed...well....think about it.

It doesn't. Light moves in a straight line. Always. It's space that is bent. There is no sideways force on light from such a warping.
It's like claiming that a straw is bent at the interface between water and air because we perceive it as such. But the straw is straight - no matter that we see it differently.

Jun 09, 2015
Physicists assume this is a question of "when", not "if" that gravitational waves will be detected, as only a fool bets against Einstein. Well, that and gravitational waves have already been detected… indirectly.


And no aspiring scientist wants to be called a fool by his peers. Hence, they go on spending great sums of money on a math model that offers no explanation of the physical mechanism underlying the modeled effect called 'spacetime'. Such fools are so prevalent that they have become mainstream, and swarm this forum in defense of nonsense.

Sure GR makes fits observations to a certain degree, but is not precise, as evidenced by MOND, the Pioneer Anomaly, and other supporting cosmological observations. Still, it is amazing that so much money is spent to physically detect nothing but math. And since it is simply illogical to assume that light (and gravity) propagate independent of an underlying medium (some call it quantum vacuum), LIGO will never work.

Jun 09, 2015
Kepler and Newton did NOT calculate the planetary orbits correctly. Most notably, Newtonian physics cannot account for the precession of Mercury's orbit. Newtonian gravitation is a good *approximation* but it is not, in fact, the best approximation of reality we know of.

Magnetic fields don't bend light in vacuum. You may be confusing this with magnetic effects on materials?

Third, in the actual account of GR, you'll see quite clearly that gravitation isn't a force _at all_. It's a fictitious force, much like the "centrifugal force" one feels when being pushed by a car going around a turn. In a non-inertial reference frame (standing still on the ground), you can act *as if* a force exists, gravity, that pulls things to the surface.

So the thing you're claiming doesn't exist, I'll agree, doesn't exist. Because the thing you're talking about is not General Relativity. You're constructing a strawman GR, and claiming it's false, which... no duh. Learn GR, then get back to us.

Jun 09, 2015
Gravity waves may well appear in the maths from an external timeframe perspective, as does the asymmetric relativistic space dilation which turns protons into pancakes when viewed externally.
But from the internal timeframe of any measurement apparatus, the equivalence principle will deny any measurement of variations of space or time caused by gravity waves. Unless you believe time or light-speed can be measurably different between axes within one experiment?

(Time may be different at my head and my feet, but you would have to run two independent clock experiments then move both clocks to a common 'external' timeframe to see the difference)

Jun 09, 2015
GR isn't any more a "math based theory" than Newton's theories, nor Lagrangian, nor Hamiltonian mechanics. They are, each of them, mathematical ways to express observed behaviours, and predict the outcomes of future experiments (or retrodict outcomes previously observed).

GR, as a theory, is a few simple postulates. c is constant for all local observers. Inertial reference frames are indistuingishable, be it free-falling or "deep-space" (away from mass). and so on.

What you may be confused about is how we can translate those simple postulates into predicted observations: When you look at a solar eclipse, this star will be deflected by this many degrees from its "true" location in the sky. Mercury's orbit will precess by this many degrees per century. Light waves will be 'blue shifted' at the bottom of a tall tower by this many Hz. All of these measurements have been made and were accurate. Along with many others.

How is that any less "physical" a theory then?

Jun 09, 2015
The double slit experiment? That's your response? Double slit? What the actual f, man?

Double slit phenomena arise from the wave-nature of light (or position-momentum uncertainty in quantum mechanics, if you wish to be perfectly precise). Magnetic fields have nothing at all to do with bending light through a double slit.

Except of course the case in which you are tautologically reasoning that "the only way a galaxy can bend light is magnetic fields... and the only way you can see those magnetic fields in action is to see them bend light around a galaxy."

GR predicts that the path of light will be bent nearby massive bodies due to ways one changes their measure of length and time in that area. There's no "force" of gravity pulling on the light or anything, just a simple 'path of least action' calculation.

Jun 09, 2015
@JeanTate
'Time' will tell, as they say. Experiment always triumphs over theory.
Gravity radiation, as you called it, still represents distortion of the fabric of space-time and the apparatus existing within it. Distortions, which I contend, are not measurable while within that space-time.
The distortions only exist within the abstraction of some external (And therefore irrelevant to the experienced, measured, reality of any enclosed experiment) timeframe. Just as neither the man in the theoretical falling lift, nor the Michelson–Morley experiment could measure changes in 'c' nor time nor space dilations.

Jun 09, 2015
If experiment always triumphs over theory.... why then is GR in such remarkable agreement with the many many experiments performed testing its predictions? https://en.wikipe...lativity

Space-time is not a fabric, despite common presentations as such. It is not a thing to warp or wave or dent. Those are just pictures we use to illustrate the complex underlying physics.

The 'reality' is that the way my rulers and clocks measure time and space may be different from how your rulers and clocks measure time and space. And they may even be different from the way my own rulers and clocks measured time and space some time ago or some time from now. A gravitational wave is just a mathematical description of how one would expect my rulers to expand and contract as time goes on. It is not a wave in a fabric, just a description of an effect that is similar to such a wave.


Jun 09, 2015
@ Jean-Skippette. How you are again Chere? I am good again, thanks for asking.

reset-Skippy used to be called no-fate-Skippy and rubberman-Skippy and AG2-Skippy. When he was rubberman-Skippy and AG2-Skippy he even used to pretend to talk to each other. The reset-Skippy and the no-fate-Skippy did not do that because he got caught with the rubberman and the AG2.

He made up some your tube movies that he thought was going to even greater than Really-Skippy thinks his toes book about everything is going to be. His real name is David LaPoint. You can put him in the Google thing and see what kind of crankpot he is. That is if you don't remember him from when he was being the crankpot on the universe place.

Jun 09, 2015
@shavera
GR is such a good theory because it agrees with experiments:Such as the shifting orbit of mercury, apparent shift of stars behind the sun, and the time corrections of Sat-Nav satellites.

I contend however, that GR principles need to be correctly applied in this case to remain consistent with SR's view of any isolated space-time rest-frame: Could the man in the free-falling lift measure a gravity wave passing through his experimental apparatus?
Quite possibly??; as my examples are in static gravitational fields, not within gradients changing at light-speed.

Time and experimental evidence will, as always, tell natures true story.

Jun 09, 2015
"He predicted that gravity would redshift light, and it took physicists 50 years to finally come up with an experiment to verify it."

Any idea what experiment the author is referring to here? Why would gravity predict redshifted light... wouldn't it also predict blueshifted light? So therefore any direction of acceleration would of any object would be considered a 'confirmation.' Didn't Einstein still believe in a static universe until Hubble discovered most objects are redshifted and postulated that this redshift can only be caused by recessional velocity due to an expanding universe?

Just trying to clear some things up for myself.

Jun 10, 2015
@JeanTate
Since from the basic principles of Special Relativity: There is no instrument you can take with you which will tell you that your clock is running slow, nor that your space has been contracted: How do you internally measure any gravity effect passing through the space containing any instrument?
Any experiment conceived of can be considered as an integral of elements of space-time, each of which appear un-contracted/dilated within that element. Joining them all together you get an un-contracted whole experimental null measurement. Even though the GR maths says a quantifiable contraction/dilation event occurred when viewed from some external frame.

Jun 10, 2015
EyeNStein: what you would see from a Gravitational wave is objects moving closer and then further apart with no forces acting on them. In reality, their rulers (as observed by you) are shrinking momentarily, and then expanding. The wikipedia article is actually quite good on the subject: https://en.wikipe...nal_wave

Jun 10, 2015
So for a simple thought experiment, imagine you put a bunch of very light accelerometers in a spherical arrangement in orbit around something (so that they're in free-fall, and thus an inertial reference frame)

Then, you, as an observer, see them move closer or further apart over time.. and you compare to their accelerometer data. If they moved closer together, but the accelerometers do not detect acceleration in that direction, then by necessity the "rulers" they use locally to measure space between them must have contracted. (and similarly for moving apart)

Jun 10, 2015
How's it doin with gravity waves?
@reset
you do realize that this argument is no different than the "god of the gaps" argument?

It also suggest Conspiracist Ideation- are you suggesting (like cd) that plasma physics is not considered in mainstream astrophysics?
that the only thing considered is gravitation, period?

http://www.ploson...tion=PDF

Jun 10, 2015
Hi JeanTate. :)

Again, on the understanding that I've no connection with any other group/theory (be it EU or other, amateur or mainstream), I comment on the SR/GR/GWs 'takes'...

Re SR/GR, you would do well to read thoroughly an English translation of Einstein's Leyden Address, as it is very instructive on what Einstein's insights were based on, and why he eventually settled for a purely abstract geometric 'model' based on a 'space-time' construct which removed all real mechanical physical entities/aspects considerations from the analysis/explanation/model.

Re GWs, it would do your learning trajectory much good if you asked yourself what Einstein meant to convey in jest, when he said:
Since the mathematicians invaded my theory, I don't understand it myself anymore!....Einstein.


The point? Abstraction can only get one so far. Eventually it hits up against the physical/mechanical reality from which the geo/math model was 'abstracted'.

Happy researching/re-thinking! :)

Jun 10, 2015
Ren82 has claimed
I pointed out the number 10 ^ 40 000 and you still talk to me about permutations. You really do not understand the magnitude of this problem. Number of such size as 10 ^ 40 000 have no physical meaning in our universe
How "Pointed out" Ren82, show the Provenance of claim, how this number is arrived at & the precise basis on which it is founded but, NOTHING !

Why cannot Ren82 respond intelligently, he has a habit of asking leading questions of scientists who accept evolution and its principles yet refuses to answer simple questions about the nature of the deity he claims is the 'creator' and especially so how his claimed 'creator' who he believes to be human oriented communicates with us ?

Why is Ren82 unable to answer question which challenge his emotionally led belief in a deity ?

The deity that punished all of creation due to a setup of entrapment of a young woman which clearly shows the deity he claims acts just like an evil Devil !

Jun 10, 2015
shavera suggests
So for a simple thought experiment, imagine you put a bunch of very light accelerometers in a spherical arrangement in orbit around something (so that they're in free-fall, and thus an inertial reference frame (IRF))
Hmm, in orbit ie Subject to acceleration towards gravitational source AND in an IRF, contradiction yes/no ?

Eg. Raises question; If an object is subject to change of direction due to effect of curved space as its subject to a gravitational field then can it be claimed it IS in an IRF ?
https://en.wikipe...ki/Orbit

shavera added
Then, you, as an observer, see them move closer or further apart over time.. and you compare to their accelerometer data. If they moved closer together, but the accelerometers do not detect acceleration in that direction, then by necessity the "rulers" they use locally to measure space between them must have contracted. (and similarly for moving apart)
Eg Orbit of Saturn's ring particles ?

Jun 11, 2015
Hi JeanTate. :)

Remember when you said that speculation etc is where science thinking/process begins?

That first step in your observational/experimental construct must be soundly based in logic and reality, not just confirmation biased inbuilt assumptions that make the exercise merely one of begging the question? There is GIGO potential in both logical exercises and in maths exercises (BICEP2 was eg of both logics/maths GIGO).

As for your "Einstein no longer with us" approach to research/understanding, it seems you missed the import of the observation: "The man is nothing; the work Everything". Do you still not get what it means for objective research, irrespective of who is doing it?

Did you read what Einstein himself observed after his theory was mangled to absurdity by abstractions overlain by mathematicians? I quoted his words for you. Do they not even register in your considerations to make you stop and think?

Did you even read and comprehend his Lleyden Address?

Jun 11, 2015
PS: JeanTate.
How is your list of links/references coming on?
I will make time later today for listing the links to articles regarding:

- increasingly recognized (by mainstream) real flaws that have been allowed to creep into the mainstream professional science culture, research funding process, peer review and publishing; and

- examples of flawed science which results when 'peer review' has 'passed' confirmation biased 'results/conclusions' into the literature, which flawed work is then 'cited' by subsequent 'work' which has these flawed 'referenced work' built in and so is inescapably equally flawed.

Meanwhile, have you done any research into these mainstream-recognized problems with the professional science 'system', especially in Cosmology observation/interpretation exercises/claims? Give examples of what you have already read about these problems, and we'll compare notes when I post my list later. That will show whether you are serious or ignorant/denying of it.

Jun 11, 2015
Hi JeanTate. :)

Reality is the opposite of Fantasy. If you don't even recognize that as a starting necessary condition for cogitating upon the extant world about you, then its GIGO all the way from there on in. Have you sense at all? You sound all certain about what is or is not 'science', but you fail to even recognize where science actually begins...The Scientific Enquiry Method requires observational/experimental constructs to be sound in logic and having regard to reality not fantasy. Please stop your arrogant attitude to people who have long acquired more knoeledge and experience in these matters over decades, than you have with your 'neophite' trusting certainty of a few years of being indoctrinated without critical understanding of what all your 'links' are telling you that may be WRONG. It has happened you know. Often. But you keep blithely, disregardingly on as if nothing like that has ever happened which should make any reasonably objective researcher stop and think.

Jun 11, 2015
PS: JeanTate. :)

Your link is broken. Can't access it.

Is that the only reading you've done so far on BICEP2 fiasco? There're many PO articles since March last year which give a sense of how the fiasco unfolded through PR releases; then others pointing to obvious egregious flaws; then BICEP2 'team' statements/papers standing by their 'exercise/claims'; and later Planck confirmation that others and my observations on the flaws were well founded and correct. If you also read that first thread I linked for you before, you will have also noted how the same 'friends' now fawning over you (their newest newbie for potential recruitment in their 'gang' tactics) were the ones to fall for the BICEP2 claims as 'fact' and 'true' without making any effort at objectivity or due diligence. I was the one who recommended they follow the scientific method. They failed to even consider it, and proceeded immediately to bashing perceived trolls with the flawed BICEP2 'results/claims'. Rethink.

Jun 11, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jun 11, 2015
Hi JeanTate. :)
...Added: the PR link is http://www.cfa.ha.../2014-05
I keep getting an error message when trying to open your link.
can't open the page "http://www.cfa.ha.../2014-05" because it couldn't establish a secure connection to the server "www.cfa.harvard.edu".


PS: Objective researchers get down and dirty going to all info relevant; not just after-the-fact 'professionally sanitized' versions glossing over the initial failures and their causes at the time.

PPS: Do your homework if you are going to presume to dismiss others who have already done so, thoroughly. And just for your youthful insight gleaning benefit, you might want to look up the import and meaning of the old saying:
"Don't presume to teach your Grandmother how to suck eggs". :) :)

Jun 11, 2015
Don't presume to teach your Grandmother how to suck eggs
And it's indeed quite apparent who the expert egg suckers are around here. Yup, 'down and dirty' is an excellent choice of words.

@JeanTate - don't let the trolls disparage you, your efforts are sincerely appreciated by those of us still learning about general relativity and gravitational waves.

Jun 11, 2015
Hi Protoplasmix. :)

Mate, why bring inane interpretations in this just so you can make such cheap shots which ignore the context and import? The 'down and dirty' was in the context of 'facing unpleasant truths'; and the old saying about 'not presuming to teach your Grandmother how to suck eggs' speaks for itself.

Please don't let your personal prejudices rout your common sense, fairness/objectivity.

As for JeanTate's best interests, and the best interests of science/discourse/learning, it will no doubt have already come to your attention in your life that one who speaks to you without malice and with respect for your intelligence, and doesn't come 'schmoozing" and telling you what you want to hear, is the one who is most useful to anyone wanting to get to the actual truth of any matter.

Comprende? 'Yes men', 'toadies', 'gangs', 'self-serving flattery' is anathema to science and objective thinking. Seems the evidence of my being the straight shooter still eludes you. :)

Jun 11, 2015
RC, I'll put this as objectively and delicately as I can: JeanTate's comments are like Bach or Mozart. Comments of the trolls are like an out-of-tune, out-of-time, and out-of-step high school marching band.

Jun 11, 2015
@RC

In one week Jean Tate has demonstrated greater knowledge, logic and understanding than you have in almost eight years. She may be new at this forum but she is not new at cosmology.

Jun 11, 2015
Hi Proto. :)

Your mission, Proto, if you wish to accept it, is to first properly, objectively find out, based on all the evidence, who the REAL "trolls" are....

Those who fell for that BICEP2 crap and failed to apply even the smallest hint of scientific method before attacking me?

Or me, the one who had to remind them of their obligations to science/truth instead of their trolling based on OBVIOUSLY, and since WELL PROVEN, flawed 'science/claims'?

Seriously, Proto, just stop. Realize that many of my longstanding ORIGINAL ideas and reservations regarding the professional physics/cosmology claims to CMB /Standard-candle 'evidence/interpretations' for BB etc are being proven correct by recent mainstream work.

How many ORIGINAL ideas/reservations in/about the science of yours been proven correct? Have you HAD any such to offer? If not, and you call ME 'troll', then what does that say about YOU, and the 'gang' here?

I follow reality/science in Cosmology, as in Climate. :)

Jun 11, 2015
PS: Proto. :)

Sometimes hearing the truth from people you don't 'like' may be unpleasant, even 'discordant', but it's the truth that matters, not the person telling it. So your personal comfort/discomfort about what you hear is neither here nor there if what you hear is better than what you presumed from your own personal likes and prejudices. Keep your mind sufficiently open to let in what you may not 'like', especially if it is better than what you think you 'know'. Good luck. :)

Jun 11, 2015
Hi Vietvet. :)
@RC

In one week Jean Tate has demonstrated greater knowledge, logic and understanding than you have in almost eight years. She may be new at this forum but she is not new at cosmology.
Mate, do you never learn? What good is your denial of the evidence under your nose? When you have been proven correct on your original ideas/observations as I have been by recent mainstream work, then you will be in a position to judge. Until then, you are just playing the 'bot-voting duo' with your idiot Uncle Ira. Trolls is as trolls does. And if JeanTate is taking her 'cues' from such as you and your 'friends', then she is well on the way to failing as you have done. Don't wish that on her, for pity's sake, for her sake and for science's sake. Do better, mate. :)

Jun 11, 2015
JeanTate offered in response to my question
Hmm, in orbit ie Subject to acceleration towards gravitational source AND in an IRF, contradiction yes/no ?
No. From Wikipedia on IRF
In general relativity, in any region small enough for the curvature of spacetime to be negligible, one can find a set of inertial frames that approximately describe that region
Eh ? JeanTate how can you claim a Definitive "No." its clear wikipedia quote IS substantively qualitative - "small enough" ?

Eg Wouldn't it be more appropriate to state "Maybe not, it depends on the quantitative force experienced in orbit"

IOW: Wikipedia article has NIL metric for a *qualitative* comment re "small enough" so what delineation/quantification can YOU possibly apply to "small enough" to definitively show a claimed IRF is actually completely Inertial "enough" so its not considered as a Non-IRF please ?

ie. Abject certainty claiming "No." Suggests dogmatic position when nothing supports it ?

Jun 11, 2015
@RC

/q]Mate, do you never learn? What good is your denial of the evidence under your nose? When you have been proven correct on your original ideas/observations as I have been by recent mainstream work,---"

There lies the problem. You haven't been proven correct.

Jun 11, 2015
Hi Vietvet. :)
There lies the problem. You haven't been proven correct.
You're in denial. An occupational hazard for 'gangs' who follow herd prejudices instead of new evidence. Give it up. It's all in the record as to what I have posted re CMB/Standard-candle 'interpretations'; and re claims of 'supporting' BB etc. Planck just proved my longstanding points re CMB. Recent supernovae discoveries support my longstanding observations as to the many possible local/intervening factors/processes affecting what light gets out from the source location.

In short, I long observed, even based on known science, that deep space reaches/processes are replete with phenomena which produce/affect CMB and Supernovae light from FAR DISTANT events/galaxies. I was right all along. You just won't admit it because your 'gang mentality' prejudices won't let you face the truth about your unfounded attacks on me. See? Not all alternative/original observers are 'trolls'. Be more discerning. :)

Jun 12, 2015
I keep getting an error message
@rc
No one else is having a problem

the site references the following

http://bicepkeck.org/

try here:

http://bicepkeck.org/bicep2_2014_release.html

the link in your post you quoted from JeanTate worked fine - the SPECIFIC info requested by JeanTate is found here:

http://arxiv.org/...85v3.pdf

section IX part A - page 15

now quit stalling and show us all the specifics!
Show is all those fatal flaws and join the earthlingclub, sam-i-am!

Oh, and before you say the link doesn't work:
i checked it from your end

if you are not able to read my links above, then it is either:
you got permabanned from arXive and BICEP2
or
you are lying (because i know someone who lives near you using the same internet who accessed it fine, rc)
Do your homework if you are going to presume to dismiss others who have already done so, thoroughly blah blah whine cry blah suck eggs
WTF??

just provide the data Jean asked for!

Jun 12, 2015
Stumpy, I know you think you are being helpful, but you misunderstand the situation. It is JeanTate's link to HARVARD site...

http://www.cfa.ha.../2014-05

...that keeps giving an error message, not those other links you posted. And I have not ever registered at BICEP site or Arxiv site, so your unwarranted scurrilous inuendoes about being 'banned' from them is all your own delusion, not reality.

And my discussion with JeanTate, and the provision of links between us is not how you 'construe' it. It's about what research SHE has done to inform herself on the matter that is more pressing and important to continued exchanges on this between JeanTate and me (not you, ok?).

Your personally motivated 'contribution' is more of your incompetent trolling type than helpful to the discussion with JeanTate.

Thanks but no thanks, Stumpy.

Jun 12, 2015
but you misunderstand the situation
no, i didn't
It is JeanTate's link to HARVARD site...that keeps giving an error message
yep
i checked it as well as my own links with people who live close to you and use the same ISP as well as have similar IP addresses
And I have not ever registered at
i didn't say you did
It's about what research SHE has done
she read the BICEP2 papers and now is specifically asking you
As we all now know, that polarized dust map was key. So what - in detail - is the GIGO in "both logical exercises and in maths exercises", in this BICEP2 paper? No PO articles, no blog posts, no PRs from other sources, ... just the v1 preprint, please.
that is why i made sure you had a working V1 print

so that you can answer
...between JeanTate and me (not you, ok?)
basically this is the same thing i pointed out to you - prove your comments by pointing to SPECIFIC data from the paper

if you don't post, you simply PROVE my points

Jun 12, 2015
RealityCheck states
Stumpy, I know you think you are being helpful, but you misunderstand the situation. It is JeanTate's link to HARVARD site...
http://www.cfa.ha.../2014-05
That link works fine for me BUT, it does redirect to this
https://www.cfa.h.../2014-05

ie From non-secure to SSL ie secure, so RealityCheck you may have an SSL setting error in your browser or a lower setting that the re-direction script won't tolerate, not uncommon & easy to fix.

I had this issue a couple of years ago when transitioning between several laptops after I "made it big" ;-)

IIRC you need ADD a higher SSL grade than old TLS etc Ah just checked, you need to have ALL these ticked:- TLS 1.0, SSL 2.0, SSL3.0 - go to control panel then "Internet Options" then Advanced, close to bottom of list...

One or more of yours may be un-ticked, happens sometimes with some browsers re corollary to pop-up controls or active X script switch for server/VNC access g/l


Jun 12, 2015
Mr Stumpy, good to see you have given up the shouting.

I agree that you didn't misunderstand the situation.

You simply do not understand.

It's not a fire that needs to be extinguished.

More like an investigation.

I got some peanuts for you, If that helps.


Jun 12, 2015
@Mike: Rather than the complex system like Saturn, the easier case is to take 3 detectors in an L shape, use interferometry to measure the distance along each leg, and then subtract out any accelerations due to forces (with your very precise accelerometers). This is probably easiest done in orbit in space... but that's expensive too. So we're trying it on ground, but it's hard to keep the acceleration "noise" down (hence all the talk about like being able to detect a truck rolling down a highway miles away on the equipment and the vibrations it creates)

Jun 12, 2015
A very limited understanding, if any understanding at all. Simply repeating false statements tends toward the old adage 'if you repeat a lie often enough .,'

I guess you like to 'hear your own voice' or in this case 'read your own nonsense'.

Are you just another narrow minded zealot, Jean?

BICEP2 is discredited non-science.

I got some peanuts for you. If that helps.

Jun 12, 2015
@MM
Hmm, in orbit ie Subject to acceleration towards gravitational source AND in an IRF, contradiction yes/no ?
No. From Wikipedia on IRF

In general relativity, in any region small enough for the curvature of spacetime to be negligible, one can find a set of inertial frames that approximately describe that region
Eh ? JeanTate how can you claim a Definitive "No." its clear wikipedia quote IS substantively qualitative - "small enough" ?

Eg Wouldn't it be more appropriate to state "Maybe not, it depends on the quantitative force experienced in orbit"
Alright then, when an object is under the influence of GR, meaning when it is in a curved space-time, it cannot exist within an IRF (if you define it as having no time differential) unless it is a singular entity (E.G. an electron).

But if you consider that at 100yrs old your head will be younger than your feet by around a 100nanosec. does it really make a difference?

Jun 12, 2015
For those having difficulty getting to the Harvard CfA PR on the BICEP2 results ...
I kept getting a "can't establish a secure connection" error too. In my case it wasn't the link, or the browser cache, or the cookies. It's apparently a bug (Same Origin Policy) in the Android default browser. I downloaded & installed the Firefox browser, problem solved.

Jun 12, 2015
BICEP2 is discredited non-science.
That's a double negative, so you're actually saying it's credited science, and you're correct. As a matter of fact:
"BICEP3, with a total of 2,560 detectors, will begin observing in 2015." ref: https://www.cfa.h...nce.html

Jun 12, 2015
That link works fine for me BUT, it does redirect to this
@Mike
yup - it is an article which was mirrored here on PO about the same time...
if you will look at the bottom of the article, you will see the link to BICEP (which i also copied and pasted here)

http://bicepkeck.org

You simply do not understand
@blue
then by all means, expound and dazzle us with your omniscient knowledge
It's not a fire that needs to be extinguished
never said it was
More like an investigation
WOW
that is pretty much how i tend to explain science and how to look at evidence people present here

so what is your point?
or was that your version of a build up for your last line?

the pejorative ad hominem (which is not even original)

surely you can do better than that!
... try again


Jun 12, 2015
DuckDuckGo
@JeanTate
Good move... another Duck-er here! LOL
it doesn't track you and try to tailor your results
Hope this helps
For anyone else & Jean

sometimes, when the links don't copy correctly in PO, it is a combination of the computer used and the site

the best results for posting multiple links in a comment:
use [enter] before pasting the link, then hit [enter] again, twice, leaving a space between links (see below)

ALso, if you have a link that shows up like this one did above in my post:
http://bicepkeck....ase.html

Try copying the entire link, then right click with your mouse and select [open in new tab]
If that doesn't work, simply copy/paste to a new tab and it usually works (as long as it doesn't "repeat" the HTTP link inside the black-text part after the original HTTP link

as a last resort, I use JeanTate's idea and simply Duck-it.. normally, the above works 99.9% of the time

except for pseudoscience & trolls

Jun 12, 2015
BICEP2 is discredited non-science
@blueTROLL
1- BICEP was a perfect example of the scientific method in action, including the problems it had and how it was addressed by scientists

2- do you have anything to add other than ad hominem?

i noticed you are whining and crying about
A very limited understanding, if any understanding at all. Simply repeating false statements tends toward the old adage 'if you repeat a lie often enough .,'
I guess you like to 'hear your own voice' or in this case 'read your own nonsense'
problem is: you are the one demonstrating the need to "read and hear" their own stupidity

so you call people presenting a scientific argument zealots... what would you call yourself (other than a troll?)

keep your peanuts, we wouldn't want to steal your dinner


Jun 12, 2015
but you misunderstand the situation
no, i didn't[
But you do, or you misrepresent it. As you have been proven to do in the recent past for your personal trolling ego-tripping nonsense. From the first post about BICEP2 initial claims, I made clear my observations were only for the record and for you to do your own due diligence according to scientific method before accepting anything from that exercise/source at the time. I made clear I was not at liberty to go into deeper details before I publish my complete ToE.

But have you included that in your continuing 'version' of what went down then? No. You lie and half-truth still, with complete disregard for the post record on this. What keeps you getting up in the morning, looking in your mirror, and deciding every time to LIE and dissemble like that, Stumpy? It takes some industrial strength ego-in-denial to avoid facing the truth about yourself, Stumpy. You and Uncle Ira are perfect exemplars of 'nasty goods'.

Jun 12, 2015
You and Uncle Ira are perfect exemplars of 'nasty goods'.


@ Really-Skippy. That is the nicest thing you have ever said about me. Thanks, I really am not perfect, but thanks anyway. See there, that doing of the diligence to do better is working with me, eh?

Jun 12, 2015
Hi JeanTate, Mike_Massen, Protoplasmix et al.

Thanks for your trouble and advice on the link-opening problem. Longtime interlocutors across the four forums I have posted in over the years are aware that my computer for doing science/tech/maths work/discussion on the internet is a CUSTOMIZED system to minimize vulnerability to viruses and other nasties being picked up through 'unauthorized connections' by 'redirection' sites. To that end, my system was customized to (among other items of prudent 'internet hygiene') reject all 'redirections' from the site originally intentionally accessed by me....such as PO. The Harvard link must contain a 'redirection' command that my system will reject, hence the error message from my end.

Thanks again for your willingness and trouble just the same! :)

Jun 12, 2015
Stumpy, stop STALKING people. Haven't you learned from your last potentially dangerous mistake in 'identifying/targeting' the WRONG PERSON at the WRONG ADDRESS?

Your latest effort is also misleading, since the server you think I post through is NOT the same one that appears on your 'hacking' results. That is to protect against STALKING crazies on the net, like you seem determined to be and boast about STILL.

And it was the INITIAL Bicep2 team's 'exercise/claims' that was at issue. They have since learned THEIR lessons and moved on with their life/work. You on the other hand are stuck in denial of that initial fiasco and demonstration of what longstanding built-in confirmation bias due to invalid 'peer reviewed' prior flawed work/claims insidiously entrenched in the literature which that and other 'teams' have been 'citing' as 'true' and using as assumptive/interpretative basis for THEIR 'exercises/interpretations'.

Stop digging your stalker-troll-in-denial holes, willya!

Jun 12, 2015
Hi Vietvet, TechnoCreed.

You keep voting '5' for that Uncle Idiot's ignorant and personal anti-science drivel, and you think you are fit to call yourselves 'objective'? Laughable.

See, @JeanTate, that is what happens when 'friendship' is allowed to trump objectivity; when 'gang mentality' is allowed to trump 'independent mind'. Mainstream science can well do without such mediocre/weak characters/minds bringing it into disrepute like that while professing to be defending it. It makes a mockery of everything you profess to stand/speak for. Look at yourselves and your motives, Vietvet, TechnoCreed. Before it's too late for you, as it is obviously too late for your self-confessed-and-proud-of-it bot-voting ignorant 'nasty goods' friend and 'mindless' Uncle-bot.

Jun 12, 2015
My, what a grumpy bunch you all seem to be, today...-)

Jun 12, 2015
My, what a grumpy bunch you all seem to be, today...-)

You plan on joinin' in? :-)

Jun 12, 2015
My, what a grumpy bunch you all seem to be, today...-)


@ Whydening-Skippy. How you are? I am not grumpy but that makes somebody Really special grumpy. I am in the good mood, how about you? I haven't seen you around much lately and like your postums because they make me laugh sometimes. Even when other peoples don't get the joke they are still good.

Jun 12, 2015
Hey Ira, you ignorant mindless bot-voting insensible trolling twerp, you *are* the joke...on many more levels than you realize.

PS: Poor sod makes a pest of himself when the adults/scientists want to discuss without his constant bot-voting and trolling drivel spamming the threads/pages, and he wonders why others are not amused with this Uncle moron of a joke "Couyon'. Duh, hey folks? :)

Jun 12, 2015
@RC
@Benni
@gham

I'm offering the following link as a bit of advice. It explains in part why you are so heavily down voted. I would have included JVK if he was commenting on this thread.

http://medicalxpr...nwletter


Jun 12, 2015
Vietvet.
@RC...

I'm offering the following link as a bit of advice. It explains in part why you are so heavily down voted. I would have included JVK if he was commenting on this thread.
http://medicalxpr...nwletter
That is a perfect example of what that initial BICEP2 'team' did. It backfired. Badly.:)

What do YOU do? You keep denying it ever happened. That makes you a selective hypocrite for posting that and claiming it was what I do. You missed that it was ME who suggested you checked it out before believing their flawed exercise/claims they were BOASTING about without real basis for that boasting.

Meanwhile, you also ignore and deny that what I have observed over the years is ALSO being increasingly confirmed correct by mainstream itself.

What value 'downvotes' from willfully ignorant, hypocritical bot-voting 'gangs' then, Vietvet? Duh. :)

Jun 13, 2015
My, what a grumpy bunch you all seem to be, today...-)
@Whyde
not really
actually in a great mood

@Vietvet
GREAT LINK!
thanks

But you do...
@rc
tl;dr
trolling
baiting

where is the specific evidence JeanTate is asking for?
the server you think I post through is NOT blah blah blah cry whine
you are neither using a proxy nor an anonymizer, earthling-boy

and you sent ME your IP- you just can't figure out how yet
maybe you need to check your "CUSTOMIZED system to minimize vulnerability to viruses and other nasties "

if i were you, i would also invest in...
never mind
you won't listen anyway

the rest of your crap-o-la?
tl;dr
etc etc etc

So, JeanTate asked you, RC
So what - in detail - is the GIGO in "both logical exercises and in maths exercises", in this BICEP2 paper? No PO articles, no blog posts, no PRs from other sources, ...
where's the GIGO, RC?

can't point to specifics because you DON'T KNOW

lmfao

Jun 13, 2015
My, what a grumpy bunch you all seem to be, today...-)


@ Whydening-Skippy. How you are? I am not grumpy but that makes somebody Really special grumpy. I am in the good mood, how about you? I haven't seen you around much lately and like your postums because they make me laugh sometimes. Even when other peoples don't get the joke they are still good.

Hi, Ira. Doin' good. Lots o' art shows this past month or so, so pretty busy. Didn't really think you all are grumpy... was just my way of tryin' to get back on topic..;-)
Anyway - still haven't won the lottery, so another show this weekend..:-)
See y'all later this week maybe.
RC - never really read a comment from you stating that BICEP authors were actually wrong. Just that you were unsure of their results. Of course, I could have missed it - you've posted a lot...
Also, you give Ira more credit than he deserves as to your persistent down-vote dilemma There's more to him than he let's on...

Jun 13, 2015
WG, thanks for keeping us grounded. Your tendency to less confrontational interactions and generally open minded conversations, is a credit to you. Much respect. Hope the show goes well for you this weekend.

Jun 13, 2015
I could have missed it
@Whyde
yeah, you missed it... but it was his typical diatribe
he said
Even on a first read through the pdf, at least 4 fatal flaws jump out. At least 1 systemic flaw, at least 2 assumptive flaws and at least 1 procedural flaw
MAR 17 here: http://phys.org/n...nal.html

the point is this:
he likes to pontificate- trying to "teach us all"
then he says he sees "fatal flaws"
but lo-and-behold... he can't actually point anything out!

it's not like we are asking for classified info... he said he read the BICEP pdf and saw these flaws...

so most everyone else says: "point those flaws out"

to date- 3700 plus posts - NO actual flaws

IOW- he doesn't know squat and he continues to prove this every time the BICEP issue gets brought up

just one (or 3700+?) more reason to report his BS diatribes when he goes off on this OT tangent

Hope your show goes well!

Jun 13, 2015
RC - never really read a comment from you stating that BICEP authors were actually wrong. Just that you were unsure of their results. Of course, I could have missed it - you've posted a lot...
Same here, WG. He's consistently critical of 'mainstream' science, as though science works like the media. And like a meteorologist constantly predicting rain for California, he's bound to be right about 1% of the time.

@RC, am also still (happily) awaiting clarification on your 'GIGO' remark.

It's a good article, and seeing comments/rebukes from folks actually familiar with the work -- it's like music to the ears.

Jun 13, 2015
Hi Whyde. :)
never really read a comment from you stating that BICEP authors were actually wrong. Just that you were unsure of their results. Of course, I could have missed it - you've posted a lot...
In my 'for the record' post re Bicep2, I made clear that it was a comment which I could not go into further detail about because of pending publication of my complete ToE. I therefore suggested to everyone that they do NOT just believe it just because it came form a 'mainstream' source/team, and to make their own due diligence on exercise/claims as per objective scientific scrutiny. I was immediately attacked by the same people who FELL for those obviously flawed claims and were bashing those they called 'trolls' with it, so certain they were right. They were wrong, as anyone objective saw right away.

As for you saying "There's more to Ira than he let's on...", then that makes him triply anti-science twat for trolling, spamming his drivel and bot-voting on a science site.

Jun 13, 2015
Hi Protoplasmix. :)
Same here, WG. He's consistently critical of 'mainstream' science, as though science works like the media. And like a meteorologist constantly predicting rain for California, he's bound to be right about 1% of the time.
Please see my reply to Whyde above, thanks. Your cheap shot of "right 1% of the time" is wasted. You ignore that many of my observations over years were and recently have been proven correct all along. You and others here suffer from 'selective source' bis and miss the new/evolving evidence/explanations which were unfolding under your noses all along. Which is why you continue to deny and dissemble from personal ego and uninformed, willfully non-objective agendas still.

-- it's like music to the ears.
See? You 'prefer' certain 'sources' which are 'music to your ears' because of your CONFIRMATION BIAS, which makes CORRECT dissenting objective voices 'discordant' to you. That's how initial Bicep2 fiasco HERE 'enabled'.

Jun 13, 2015
Stumpy.

What drives your criminal stalking and ignorant malicious 'half-truth' way of spamming your 'versions' of reality which has been oft proven to be the exact opposite of what you STILL manically spew all over discussion threads. You post gang mentality, recruiting lies for newbies, personal ignorance and malice even after being proven wrong and a dangerous twit with an internet connection and 'stalking/hacking' tools. How criminally dumb and dumber do they make them out your way? What drives your 'certainty' that you are doing anythiung but bringing mainstream into disrepute by your anti-science, anti-humanity and outright CRIMINAL forays into stalking/hacking people you don't 'like' because they are proven CORRECT and you criminally WRONG on science and behavior.

Quit digging your holes, mate! You lost long ago, as the record testifies. Get help, and get out of that 'gang' you've built up for your nefarious activities masquerading as 'mainstream defender'. Quit it, twat.

Jun 13, 2015
@ Really-Skippy. I am with you on that one Cher. I wish the Captain-Skippy would quit hacking up peoples too after he stalks them. But if he going to be hacking them up, at least he is digging holes to put them in so they won't start stinking up the place. But it does look bad to be hacking up peoples on a science interweb place.

Oh yeah, I almost forget. You had 15 or 14 postums of your whining for today. That should be enough for some one as brilliant and scientifical like you are. Could you move him along now and take a break? I sure would hate for the troll/gang/mafia/bot/mod/gangs to shut up the door in your face, then you would have to try one of your experiments again to see if they really mean it.

Jun 13, 2015
Hi JeanTate, Whyde et al.

Note that most of my posts were in rebuttal of posts by trolls lying and sabotaging proper discourse. So naturally my posts would number at least as many as the total number of lying troll posts I was rebutting. If that straightforward inescapable consequence of others posting lying trolling crap which needs replying to is missed, then criticizing the number of posts by me is not quite valid, is it?

Also note again the noise and drivel troll-shite from bot-voting Uncle idiot in order to bury proper discussion/comprehension because it is proving him/gang wrong in both the science and the behavior.


Jun 13, 2015
HI JeanTate. :)

First please note I couldn't open that Harvard link because it 'redirects' and my system declines redirection to avoid unauthorized sites/viruses etc. See my post above dated 12, June, addressed: "Hi JeanTate, Mike_Massen, Protoplasmix et al." Thanks.

Now...
Here's how the "Joint Analysis" paper's Conclusion section begins:
The last para in the Conclusion section begins:
In order to further constrain or detect IGW, additional data are required.
That joint analysis occurred MUCH later. It was OBVIIUS that that would be the funding, since it was OBVIIUS the initial Bicep2 exercise/claims were baseless and GIGO from go to whoa.

Time to discuss GIGO?
Did you know that the initial Bicep2 'exercise' methodology also involved unauthorized and unexplained 'scraping' from a 'slide' at someone else's conference, and was not actually a proper valid input in any way shape or form for any serious exercise/analysis? One GIGO point. Ok?

Jun 13, 2015
PS: Jean, Errata of above: "funding" should read "finding"; and the format of quotes is incomplete. Please read in previous context of your posted remarks. Thanks.

Jun 13, 2015
Hi JeanTate. :)
@RealityCheck:
Did you know that the initial Bicep2 'exercise' methodology also involved unauthorized and unexplained 'scraping' from a 'slide' ...
And where, exactly, in the v1 paper did this data appear?
and was not actually a proper valid input in any way shape or form for any serious exercise/analysis?
Was it the ONLY such input, of direct relevance to (what, exactly)?
One GIGO point. Ok?
No. Not OK. Not even remotely close to OK!

... I'm particularly interested to see for myself just how direct your point was...
Jean, for your own sake, if you are going to argue against recorded facts on that and other things re initial Bicep2 furphy, at least wait till you read up the early Bicep2 articles/papers. Don't just go straight to the LATER sanitized versions of what was obvious/admitted eventually months before the 'joint analysis' report with Planck came out.

If you didn't know all that, look! I'm not here to do your work. :)

Jun 13, 2015
PS: JeanTate. I am still trying to find time to collate all the relevant links we discussed before. Meanwhile I still haven't seen your list of relevant reading which would give some indication you actually have any sort of viable view based on at least the most relevant EARLY facts of the matter going to the points under discussion. Thanks. :)

Jun 14, 2015
Ren82 again with mere claim, same as the 2000+ yr old middle eastern book that ALSO only made claims
Gravitational waves is pure mathematical speculation like black holes
Prove it, this is a Science site not for religious zealots to proselytize, offer some mathematical basis on just WHY the gravitational formula should have an upper bound - anywhere even a little asymptote of some sort ?

Can you be genuine - why are you here, we are NOT interested in your claimed deity, if you think we are then PLEASE show us its best method of communication better than a badly distributed idea in an old book ?

Ren82 claims
Universe works fine without these fictional phenomena
Really how ?

Articulate differential please ?

Ren82 IGNOREs astronomical evidence of several star motions in close proximity to a central mass of stupendous proportions which is ONLY consistent with a black hole, not only can we NOT see it but, its effect on them is HUGE & exactly what's expected !

Jun 14, 2015
I made clear that it was a comment which I could not go into further detail about because of pending publication of my complete ToE
@Whyde
funny how pointing to someone else's mistake is considered threatening to his personal ToE, especially since he stated there is no maths involved... so he can't state that the quantitative research in BICEP is within his own ToE, right?

what really happened: he got caught lying, just like his trolling/baiting comments on SciForums where he was perma-banned (several times)

that is why everyone else is wrong and only he knows what is going on: he thinks he is posting "rebuttals" but notice that there is absolutely NO evidence?
imagine that, right?

Stumpy.
@rc
tl;dr
trolling
baiting
reported

Jun 14, 2015
I'm now even more curious to find the first comment...
@JeanTate
partially quoted to Whyde above, but here it is again
Settle down, guys. Even on a first read through the pdf, at least 4 fatal flaws jump out. At least 1 systemic flaw, at least 2 assumptive flaws and at least 1 procedural flaw. I won't bother to read through it again until I have more time to spare for reading such patently obvious 'wishful thinking' and 'publish-or-perish' and 'Nobel coveting' so-called 'scientific work'. Since there is nothing in this that merits wasting valuable time that I can better apply elsewhere, I will leave it to you all to see if you can spot the 4 (at least!) fatal flaws for yourselves (leave ego and bias aside or you'll fail)
MAR 17
There is more to that, and i will leave it to you to go read it at the link below

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

don't bother searching PO for details
he never provided any (3700+ posts since this)

Jun 14, 2015
I would not call the allegations that there are fictional physical phenomena that are not proven experimentally, science. Science does not work this way. Thus works shamanism.
@ren
thus works ALL religions
period

science requires empirical evidence, something which you have yet to provide, especially WRT your claims of biblical accuracy or your religious comments about evolution .... you also forget, your bible doesn't say all men are created as your sky faerie's image, but only the jewish etc

that makes you monkey fodder, and all living jewish chosen people are half monkey as your bible says adam and eve's boys got their wives from the world GEN 4:17
they went into the world GEN 4:14
WHere did the "world" come from, since there is NO mention of it previous to that point???

quit pushing your religion here
mine is more powerful - at least you can SEE the Wakinyan Tanka
LOL

[sarc]

Jun 14, 2015
Hi JeanTate. :) REgarding your query re my comment...
"Did you know that the initial Bicep2 'exercise' methodology also involved unauthorized and unexplained 'scraping' from a 'slide' ..."


It was plainly admitted by the team after someone twigged where the relevant graph came from and how it was obtained surreptitiously. Everyone read about it, but you haven't come across the general wider discussion on the net about it?

As for the overall claims early on, the team later held a news conference where they repeated the claims and 'stood by them'. So you can't heap the blame for the fiasco on PR people exclusively. They may have let the cat out of the bag; but the team didn't correct the release afterwards, they actually confirmed it.

Jean if you are only now coming to all this, you have a lot of catching up to do to get the full picture of what went down, warts and all, from the first announcement they 'found evidence' of primordial gravity waves in the CMB data. :)

Jun 14, 2015
PS: the story was MORE than just what appeared in the official papers. The internet was awash with the controversy and discussion of what actually happened and what went wrong and why etc etc. The official papers later were an anticlimax, as it was already long obvious the flaws were fatal to that initial exercise/claims. Planck later confirmed just how flawed. And the other flaws I saw were also touched upon in passing. These other flaws were just as problematic given that no CMB exercise/analysis to date has ever actually fully taken proper care to understand what ELSE was affecting/creating CMB and other light signal attenuations which compromised claims of 'evidence of BB/GWs etc etc' hypotheses 'found'.

Anyhow, been there, done that. Now its up to you to get up to speed with the earlier/other aspects widely discussed here and across the net on science sites/blogs. My first comment I think was in... http://phys.org/n...nal.html

Be well, ok?

Jun 14, 2015
PPS: JeanTate. Please ignore the 'noise' and 'spam' from long proven personal trolls with a grudge against one who has been proven correct all along, and they wrong all along. They can't face it. Oh, and I will try to finalize that list and post it in the next couple days as soon as I find the time for it.

Jun 14, 2015
So why does RealityCheck beat on this so hard?

I can answer that. Whenever something is reported RealityCheck says "ain't so" without (and this is important) ever giving any reason why he thinks so - even when pressed for an answer multiple times.

His strategy is to wait until one of the reported results actually gets shown to have a systemic error. Then he comes over all smug and says "told you so" (thinking - for some bizarre reason only he can fathom - that this somehow increases his "science cred")

It's a game he's been playing for years on here.

Jun 14, 2015
@mytwocts
Mainstream science[\q]I think you mean "Any science".

I believe they began with Jonas Kepler and were further expanded upon by Newton
I don't know Jonas Kepler. You may mean Johannes. You display near complete ignorance here. Your self assurance stems purely from the Dunning Kruger effect.


I approved your comment, because I had the same thought when I saw it. But, I must add that, this kind of brain fart can even happen to anybody. Many people post before proof reading; I have this bad habit too.

Jun 14, 2015
You bet on the quantity rather than quality
@renTROLL
so tell us all, Ren... how is betting on the QUALITY data gleaned from the scientific method and validated by additional non-original source experimentation and studies considered "non-quality" over personal conjecture and your personal delusions?

and i say PERSONAL delusions because your religion is NOT the only one out there, nor does it have any kind of valid evidence supporting it as being "the one"
Lie needs endlessly repeating aloud from high tribune because it lose rapidly it effect due to its incompatibility with reality
YEP!
and that is why you keep spreading them on this science site!

at least you have moved past denial into the admission stage - now you can work on change!

Jun 14, 2015
Back to BICEP2.
[RealityCheck]It was plainly admitted by the team after someone twigged where the relevant graph came from and how it was obtained surreptitiously.
The use of 'data scraped' info is openly stated in the v1 preprint (see footnotes 31 and 32). What you have omitted - so far - is that the team (in their v1, and v3, preprints) used six (SIX!) independent dust models, only two of which were derived from data scraping from Planck conference presentations.
but the team didn't correct the release afterwards, they actually confirmed it.
Not true. Read the v3 preprint.
[RealityCheck, different thread]The point was that the 'mainstream' Bicep2 team/exercise was doubly egregious because they tried to dress it up as coming from proper scientific method/exercise/claims as being from trustworthy mainstream team/source.
Also not true. Again, read the actual preprints.

Wow! That is incredible detective work!

Jun 14, 2015
So why does RealityCheck beat on this so hard?
@Jean
Antialias really hit the nail on the head with his post... that the basic reason

but also: considering rc's age and certain observed mental issues, this chest beating is also part of his internal delusional construct and ego. rc wants recognition. period.

just like addicts, etc, the game being played here is that he seeks recognition, whether positive or negative. positive recognition feeds his ego and Dunning-Kruger, whereas negative feedback gives him his own personal proof of conspiracy against him as well as (in his head) substantiates his claims that he is a victim to be pitied

he can't even see that your prodding is making him look worse since he refuses (still) to provide any kind of specifics at all or point out "flaws" in other work
(this is because it would immediately indicate his level of comprehension- why argue data and math when you can blame mods and distract or obfuscate?)

Jun 14, 2015
@Jean cont'd
b) distrust of/dislike for astronomy (and astrophysics and cosmology) as science
feeding this particular mindset is conspiracy theory, religion, certain pseudoscience acolytes who are more like fundamentalist religious proselytizers pushing for their "reward", and also Politics/political

some people fall into multiple categories, like Ren (religious/conspiracy), or cantdrive (pseudoscience acolyte and conspiracy), Deng (political/Pseudoscience)

some of the more recent Psych studies touch on this, like the following link:
http://www.ploson...tion=PDF

there are others, but not all touch upon the WHY that people accept the delusion over the facts of reality

there seems to be a specific mental block which doesn't allow them to accept reality and causes the circular reasoning of the typical "conspiracist" argument which protects their delusion from attack

Jun 14, 2015
@Ren
Do you have any scientific arguments? Emotional arguments do not contribute to science and human knowledge.
At the core of the Milky Way there are observed stars in orbit around apparently nothing. Give me your interpretation of this phenomenon.
https://www.youtu...uPcRV5hE

Jun 14, 2015
@Ren
Why did you skip my question?

Jun 14, 2015
Do you have any scientific arguments? Emotional arguments do not contribute to science and human knowledge.

By the way we do not know the nature of pulsars. We have only hypotheses which can not check using scientific methods. We have limited opportunities to study the physical reality and the modern mythology rely strongly on this fact. Тhis is the reason that allow mindless pseudo scientific speculations.
Scientific theories are not mere hypothesis; they are based on empirical evidence. This is repeated here ad nauseam, but you refuse to acknowledge that. Tell us now who cannot let their emotions aside when talking about scientific facts?

Jun 14, 2015
Which empirical evidence?
We have empirical evidence that thing are getting worst with time and material objects lose gradually its functionality and integrity. All ages and bursts. Not getting better and more functional. Тherefore there is need for intelligent maintenance.
What is your example?

The same technique that we consistently and successfully use to plot the path of comets by measuring their displacement has been used to create the model of orbital motion of stars around Sagittarius A; the model that I linked earlier. Although veiled by dust in the visible spectrum, those stars are revealed in infrared. Why do you question the validity of the model? Just in case you would argue; IR radiation is not 'hypothetical' we use it in our everyday technology. http://arxiv.org/...51v1.pdf

Jun 14, 2015
@JeanT
However, I think it's very important to allow Ren82 herself to define what's 'hypothetical' and what's not. If she can do that in a clear, consistent way, I think we could then begin to have a discussion, about what she regards as science, in astronomy and astrophyics, and what not.
The thing with Ren82 is that, although not interested in the science articles posted in Physorg, he claim to be here to perform some public service; to quote one of his earlier post, " there is need for intelligent maintenance". So I do not think that you will find some sound basis for discussion. The problem is not Ren or any other esoteric posters but Physorg. By not enforcing their own 'comment guidelines' https://sciencex....omments/ Physorg show a total lack of respect for its reader base. Then they have the guts to ask for donations! https://sciencex..../donate/ This have to be a joke!

Jun 14, 2015
Hi JeanTate. :)
While the BICEP2 team were certainly rather too gung ho, is this a 'fiasco'? Were their actions 'eggregious'? 'doubly eggregious' even?

... The scientific method is right there, for all to read.

So why does RealityCheck beat on this so hard?
The only times I ever mention Bicep2 fiasco is in response to absurdly 'certain' claims/stance by people who should know better when they criticize others for not being scientific while they themselves clearly are NOT.

In case you missed it in the troll clutter all over the thread(s), I am ATHEIST since age 9, independent, objective scientist ever since. I ABHORE ALL Religious, Superstitious, pseudo-science brought into scientific exploration/discourse, and that includes pseudo-science from mainstream as well. Nothing is 'scared' and 'incrutable' to me and my scrupulously independent mind and researches/comprehension. Nothing; including 'mainstream authority'.

...cont

Jun 14, 2015
...cont

PS: JeantTate. The issue is not just that initial Bicep2 exercise/claims flawed work, it is the CULTURE that has developed over decades now in theoretical/cosmological 'science' exercises/peer-review/literature which has allowed the insidious building-in of CONFIRMATION BIASED 'papers/results/claims' which are in effect 'pseudoscience from mainstream' when properly examined without the built-in confirmation bias which resulted in this sorry state of affairs which set the scene and culture that LED directly to such examples of failed duty of care of objective scientific method/discourse/scrutiny. When mainstreamers also fall for the seductive lure of personal ego, prestige, profit, status etc etc which others are accused of, they they ALSO fail in their duty to be scrupulously independent/objective at all times.

The Bicep2 example/story is replete with 'what not to do in science', by ANYONE, but especiallt anyone professing to be/represent 'mainstream science'.

cont...

Jun 14, 2015
...cont

PPS: JeanTate. Anyhow, the Bicep2 story is one of the failings of the culture and peer review which has allowed the literature to entranch PAST pseuadoscience 'reluts/interpretations/claims' etc which SUBSEQUENT 'exercises' cite and depend on for THEIR 'authority' base and 'credibility' through 'citation metrics' all the way through from earlier to latest failed 'work'.

See? If you wish to actually understand what this is all about, you need to realize that this 'team' thought it 'proper scientific method' to surreptitiously rip off a still image from a conference presentation by other team, and INPUT it to their methodology/interpretational and assumptive basis FOR doing the exercise AT ALL.

You will see from all the internet discussions all over, the team was found to be motivated by competition, publish or perish and personal glory factors having NOTHING to do with justifying the actual exercise as PROPER SCIENCE.

cont...


Jun 14, 2015
...cont

PPPS: JeanTate. As you already found, the team KNEW their whole exercise as designed/performed was PREMATURE and based on IFFY assumptions etc about dust (not to mention all the rest they did not take into account to ensure they were at least close to some valid 'exercise' at all)....and using 'short cuts' and 'massive self-deceptive' analysis inputs/treatments on obviously DODGY and/or incomplete data.

The sad thing was, after I and many others pointed out how UNSOUND the whole exercise WAS, even in the most 'rose tinted glasses' view, the team still came out in a press conference 'standing by' their 'exercise/results/claims....irrespective of 'weasel words' in disclaimers clauses.

They should 've ADMITTED to doing BAD science. But they didn't. They let it hang until the joint Planck-Bicep review put it beyond doubt that it was FLAWED exercise from go to whoa.

The Peer Review CORRECTION came TOO LATE....the damage was done to science method/integrity

cont....

Jun 14, 2015
...cont

PPPPS: JeanTate. That is what this is all about. The PAST peer reviews 'passing' PAST BAD science into the literature. Entrenching and reinforcing the cukture and basis for future bad science....which would probably have passed peer review had not OBJECTIVE OBSERVERS outside of the currently flawed culture/system not made a REAL IMMEDIATE NOISE about the bicep2 'work'.

The science CORRECTION has to be IMMEDIATE, not allowed to depend on the motives and competition considerations of 'peer' groups invested in the same 'BAD science culture/rewards which they have enjoyed thereby to date....at the expense of REAL scientific progress not slowed unnecessarily by these counterproductive 'gaming' of the system of past and present peer review/metrics which led directly to the Bicep2 latest example of what can go wrong when confirmation bias is BUILT INTO cosmology/theoretical physics as it has been for decades.

I'm still collating some links for you on these issues. :)


Jun 14, 2015
PPPPPPS for you Really-Skippy. You can write all that stuff about you but you can not write one postum to answer Captain-Skippy's question?

@ Jean-Skippy. Do you believe me yet? It won't get any better Chere, that's what we have all been trying to tell you. Some really smart Skippys like Captain-Skippy, xyz-Skippy, Techno-Skippy, Anti-Skippy and Barakan-Skippy and a whole lot others have been trying for years and years and more years, what you have got so far is all they got.

Jun 14, 2015
Hi JeanTate. There goes the idiot Uncle troll again. See how adept and quick his cluttering up the discussion between us is becoming? He tries to tell you the above posts were about me, when anyone cogent, fair, objective and sane (not idiot Uncles) can see it was about the culture that led to BAD science being built into the science literature/assumptions over decades, leading to inevitable bad science in the case of initial Bicep2 exercise/claims. The idiot trolls gang prove my point correct at every turn. More proof of their agendas having nothing to do with proper science. Sad, isn't it, Jean? Beware these pretenders ego-tripping and sabotaging everything that threatens their raison d'etre....trolling because they know no better...and are worse than the religious/superstitious anti-science ignoramuses because at least the latter do not claim any 'mainstream authority' for their stance. Egregious is mild characterization of Uncle idiots claiming to 'serve science'! :)

Jun 15, 2015
"Ren82 IGNOREs astronomical evidence of several star motions in close proximity to a central mass of stupendous proportions which is ONLY consistent with a black hole, not only can we NOT see it but, its effect on them is HUGE & exactly what's expected !"

Of course I do not ignore this. Central mass can mean many things. It is not necessarily to exist black holes in the centers of galaxies and that I have mentioned many times in my previous posts. But because you do not want to be honest person and you do not like the the truth by some unknown personal reasons, you interpret my posts like the devil the gospel.


Ren, do you agree mass exists? You agree their are compact ultradense central masses? Do you agree light can be be influenced by mass?
No matter what its made of if you get enough mass in one area its escape velocity becomes greater than the speed of light and light cannot escape.
Leave that persecuted self martyr and devil stuff for a religious site

Jun 15, 2015
All I did was:
* find the original BICEP2 PR (at the Harvard CfA website)
* from that site, find a reference to the paper (preprint) associated with it
* go to astro-ph, see that there are three preprint versions
* read them, paying particular attention to what they say about 'dust foregrounds'
* using ADS, find the joint BICEP2/Keck/Planck paper (preprint)
* read it


Nice.

(Cue "The Avengers":
"When did you become an expert in thermonuclear astrophysics?"
"Last night")

The thing with Ren82 is that, although not interested in the science articles posted in Physorg, he claim to be here to perform some public service; to quote one of his earlier post, " there is need for intelligent maintenance"

There's a couple of those here who think they need to 'balance' things (religious nuts, cranks, whatnot). Science, unfortunately for them, is not a democratic process. You don't get to vote on what is right and what isn't.

Jun 15, 2015
All our theories related to the foundation of being are vain.

Quite the opposite. They are supremely dispassionate. They are theories of "what if the universe were like THIS...what could we deduce and how does it mesh with observation"
It's the process of testing these deductions to destruction (i.e. until they fail) so that better theories can take the place of the failed ones.

Science is the method by which you try to take vanity OUT of the process (unlike religion, where vanity - making humans 'special' - is the whole point)

Jun 15, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jun 15, 2015
One thing I'm trying to understand ...
- same silly chatterbox

Well that would be an improvement. Currently you come across as understanding nothing and asking childish questions.

If you believe you know the answers then why ask the questions? Just to be annoying? Or is your ego in desperate need of support?

Here .. Have a bourbon. Maybe help you chill a bit.


Jun 15, 2015
If you believe you know the answers then why ask the questions?

I think you're missing the point what he/she is trying to do.

Get to a common basis and build from that. And then see where the two views diverge. That is the point at which discussion can begin. Currently Ren is making statements so far off what can actually be tested that they mean everything and nothing (i.e. pseudo-philosophical masturbation).

So the aim is to nail him down to what he actually agrees on WRT logic and/or validity of experiment.

Not that that is going to happen, though. It'd be a first for Ren.

Jun 15, 2015
AA, what gobsmacking arrogance. You, lecturing others on vanity!

Crikey, you and the Jeanie freak could displace Stumpy as the worst verbal diahorrea in these comments history. That's quite an achievement.

Gravitational waves don't exist. Falsify that!

Jun 15, 2015
No AA, what you are doing is attacking the bloke to reinforce your insecurity. I don't know Ren. I don't much recall what he has to say. What I do know is your pattern of behaviour in attacking dissent. It's all black and white as you get older. I know but I resist.

What happened to you?

Jun 15, 2015
No AA, what you are doing is attacking the bloke

I've tried to debate with Ren (and you, Otto, verkle, Zeph, RealityCheck, and... ) in the past. It's pointless.

There's no willingness to go into a honest discussion on a solid, logical basis. So I put the lot of them (and you) on ignore. Occasionally I take a look to see if anything has changed. Currently I see no changes happening. It's either crankery or foulmouthing or self aggrandizement without any supporting evidence.
It's fun for a while to rip into the Dunning-Kruger crowd, but not eternally so.

The only thing that IS intriguing is why these people are even here. They don't understand the science (or even what science IS or how it works) - so it can't be for the articles. They aren't interested in factual interchange when pressed to it - so it can't be for any educational purpose. So what is it? Why waste your time somewhere where you'll only be a either laughed at or despised as a troll?

Jun 15, 2015
Same goes for the chatterbox. Nothing to contribute except attacking alternative views.

Seriously, we are given this forum to discuss, learn and investigate. Too often it becomes a contest of egos. All this wonderful empowering technology and all we can do is fight and argue.

Maybe Koestler was right. Time to drug the water supply.

Jun 15, 2015
Nothing to contribute except attacking alternative views.

Attacking? No. He/she has shown that these alternative views don't work. That's not attacking - that's how science works. You put up your ideas and they get taken apart. If they withstand that without damage then they're good. Otherwise they're not. Anyone who is trying to follow a scientific mindset will not cling to an idea just because it's his if it gets (validly) demolished. Happens to scientists most all of the time. You think a scientist only has valid ideas? No way. Why would you think that a non-scientist is any better at finding valid ideas in an area where he's not an expert?

all we can do is fight and argue

Argument is GOOD. It's what drives science. IF it is from a common basis of logic and observation...otherwise it's pointless.
Look at JeanTate's posts and you will find nothing BUT the willingness to argue that way.

Jun 15, 2015
@bluehigh
Contribution to the spread of knowledge

bluehigh: 0
JeanTate: 100

http://www.google...c.page=1

Jun 15, 2015
@Ren82:
The warped is only the way of thinking of abstractionist that stand behind such ideas.
Um, I have no idea what this means; would you mind clarifying please?
I think hes referring to this;

"And beware lest you raise your eyes to heaven, and when you see the sun and the moon and the stars, all the host of heaven, you be drawn away and bow down to them and serve them, things that the Lord your God has allotted to all the peoples under the whole heaven." -deut4:19

-IOW godders dont want us to look. Research is the devils work.

"Our problem is that the size and effect of gravitational waves is incredibly small. We need to find the most catastrophic events in the universe if we hope even detect them"

-This is what they used to say about neutrinos. Now we have neutrino astronomy and are making beams of them.

Soon we will have gravitational astronomy.

Jun 15, 2015
I've tried to debate with Ren (and you, Otto, verkle, Zeph, RealityCheck, and... ) in the past. It's pointless
-This from the guy who insisted that offshore power stations would have to use overhead lines to get power to shore.

And many other foibles. First thing you need in a true debate is the ability to admit youre wrong.

Jun 15, 2015
When you can give arguments or examples to support your point of view, the best option is humility before the facts
And so when presented with these facts

"archaeologist Ze'ev Herzog wrote in the Haaretz newspaper:
This is what archaeologists have learned from their excavations in the Land of Israel: the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is that the united monarchy of David and Solomon, which is described by the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom. And it will come as an unpleasant shock to many that the God of Israel, YHWH, had a female consort and that the early Israelite religion adopted monotheism only in the waning period of the monarchy and not at Mount Sinai."

(and there is no mt sinai)

-where is your humility in at least addressing them? Are you too arrogant for that?

Jun 15, 2015
@TheGhostofOtto1923: You wrote some stuff about Egypt and Israel and so on. I'm not sure I quite grasp what the connection/relevance is to gravitational wave radiation (GWR). Would you mind clarifying please?
Rens whole schtick revolves around the one true god. It is obvious in his post, and every post of his, whether he explicitly states it or not, that his god is the reason for everything.

And so he gets the proper response.

Jun 15, 2015
@antialias_physorg.

Why keep digging your old discredited hole, mate? All you ever did as part of that mod-troll gang is abuse your associations with the mods to CENSOR and STIFLE true discourse of alternative takes on issues. Even when you were WRONG. And you just waffled on with irrelevant maths and links etc until you either buried the discussion or banned it and others. Even NOW you deny that you FELL HOOK LINE AND SINKER for that initial BICEP2 crap which WAS flawed as any NON-confirmation biased scientist could see right away, and was happily bashing others with it! I suggested you CHECK IT OUT PROPERLY but all that ensued was MORE trolling and attacks on ME who WAS objective all along and correct. Your EGO has not left you much of character left. Admit it, you are NO fit person to preach to others. You want to poison newbies' minds with appeals to EGO, just as you poisoned your own long since. Learn and STOP lying to yourself, willya? It's not seemly for scientists. ok?

Jun 15, 2015
Hi Ren82. :)

Please, whatever your religion/personal takes, please keep them out of the scientific discourse/justification/arguments, as it only diminished the science content/understandings which should not be colored by religious/personal 'overlays' at any stage. I am atheist, as you know; and it pains me when science and objective exploration of the universe is tainted with all sorts of confirmation biased assumptions/interpretations/conclusions, be they religious or personal or just sloppy thinking/methodology. You have some abilities for scientific objective research/discovery, use them without the unnecessary burden of religious/personal agendas. That way you will have a better chance at comprehending life, the universe and everything before "shuffling off this mortal coil". You have seen what happened to antialias-physorg and the old mod-troll gang because THEY brought PERSONAL ego to what should have been objective, unadulterated science discourse. Yes? Thanks. :)

Jun 15, 2015
Hi JeanTate. :)
The issue is not just that initial Bicep2 exercise/claims flawed work, it is the CULTURE that has developed over decades now in theoretical/cosmological 'science' exercises/peer-review/literature which has allowed the insidious building-in of CONFIRMATION BIASED 'papers/results/claims' which are in effect 'pseudoscience from mainstream' when properly examined without the built-in confirmation bias which resulted in this sorry state of affairs which set the scene and culture that LED directly to such examples of failed duty of care
I do not question the fervor with which you believe this.
Nothing to do with 'belief', that is for confirmation biased 'researchers'.

...your characterization of 'BICEP2' was deeply flawed...
...according to YOUR 'belief' based on incomplete picture of what went down from day one. Understanding works both ways; if facts are missed/denied due to reading confirmation bias on one party's part, then what hope...?

Jun 15, 2015
Gravitational waves is pure mathematical speculation like black holes. Universe works fine without these fictional phenomena.

Don't talk like an idiot, Ren. The Universe works fine BECAUSE of these "fictional" things...

Jun 15, 2015
@JeanTate

Tell me what evidence we have from cosmic observations in favor of gravitational waves and black holes - the fictional objects that are doing lawlessness in the physical reality?

How bout your evidence stating it is some other way?
And - lawlessness?!? It's part of the balance, not imbalance...
GR is wrong in every aspect of physical reality. This theory is a philosophical, not scientific and is based on erroneous mathematical models in which there are many logical contradictions. Pure speculation, not sciencе based on fact of experiments and observations.

And I guess you have the empirical math proofs to DISprove GR?

Jun 15, 2015
What you expect to see when between us and this center there are impenetrable for visible light clouds of cosmic gas and dust?

Not to mention a gravitational effect so strong that the light you want to see cannot escape it...

Jun 15, 2015
All our theories related to the foundation of being are vain. They have a revolt, but there is no humility. Therefore doomed to failure.

Sorry, Ren, but not as profound as you would like to make it sound.
And - are you arguing with jean tate because she argues like a woman? (an attempted insult to me a few weeks back...)


Jun 16, 2015
I don't know Ren. I don't much recall ...say
@blueTROLL
another "help! my Google is broke and i can't get up- call 911" argument? Ren regularly pontificates with xtian TROLL comments
we are given this forum to discuss, learn and investigate
1- this is not a "forum", this is the comment section of a Pop-Sci site article
2- you have usually contributed no scinece- see above
This comment has been removed by a moderator
JeanTate is trying to find the common denominator so that meaningful scientific discourse can be obtained - what evidence is to ren/rc/the rest of the trolls, etc

She is patient, logical and methodical - and likely spots trolls every bit as fast as anyone else, but is trying to get even YOU trolls to actually talk science with evidence from reputable sources (sound familiar?) so that everyone can be on the same page

speaking two different languages doesn't work... there must be some common ground


Jun 16, 2015
...according to YOUR 'belief' based on incomplete picture of what went down from day one.
Yet another postum with nothing scientific to back it up, you may hit 3800 of 'em before this thread is done. It's pretty clear to most that the 'picture' is based on observations and careful measurements. And many pairs of eyes, i.e., peer review. Believe what you want, but that doesn't change the facts or the theory.

How's that compiled list of links coming along? I'm guessing there're quite of few of us chomping at the bit to give it the scrutiny it deserves.

Your music doesn't resolve, RC, and that's why your song and dance is so lame.

Jun 16, 2015
And of course remind to them the banal cliche that faith and science are incompatible
@renTROLL
i never said that "faith" and science were incompatible, i said RELIGION and science are incompatible - there is a difference:
a faith is the belief in something without evidence
a religion is the codified rules designed to create prejudice and inflict disharmony between people and utilize pressures for control of groups/cultures/societies
But the history of science refutes them
no, it doesn't. also note that the history shows that people who did not readily comply with religious (not faith) rules or laws tended to be put to death in grisly ways
you forgot to add that part
return of science blah blah atheistic approach...
WTF does this even mean? there is NO religion in science

as for the "fundamental mechanisms" which make the universe work - no one claims they know everything
but the Sci-Method is a far better choice for finding answers than religion

Jun 16, 2015
To expand a bit: the Comments Guidelines includes "Keep science: Include references to the published scientific literature to support your statements. Pseudoscience comments (including non-mainstream theories) will be deleted". While this is not a particularly well-enforced guideline

Ah. Well. PO currently isn't moderated (apart from deleting posts of the occasional "make money quick" spammer). There are a lot of things in the guidelines that would otherwise lead to a round of instant bannings.

Not that enforcing the guidelines has helped in the past. Most of the "low quality" posters are re-re-re-registered people after multiple bans (the most prominent of which is probably Zeph(yr), who now goes by denglish, and has had so many aliases in the past it should cause a buffer overflow somewhere, but there are a lot of others like Otto (who now goes by GhostOfOtto after several other starts)...and RealityCheck, and ...)

Jun 16, 2015
All you ever did as part of that mod-troll gang is abuse your associations with the mods

What association with the mods? I know no mods on here. I am a poster like anyone else. No more, no less. The only 'association' I have is that I hit the 'report' button when someone spams their "my friend's cousin's uncle is getting rich"-links.

As for the BICEP stuff. JeanTate has been doing a good job explaining that to you (much better than I could).
I just explained what your - rather transparent - strategy for getting any cred is. And that it isn't working. (At the very least I can't see anyone that is a taker for it)

You want to poison newbies' minds with appeals to EGO

Nope. I just give a bit of history overview of these comment sections. I'm fully confident JeanTate can form his/her own opinion. And if that opinion should be "antialias is full of it" after careful consideration of the facts then that is fine by me.

Jun 16, 2015
The whole host of talented researchers as Isaac Newton, Galileo, Kepler and many others thanks to which science received powerful momentum in its development, were believing christians.

I guess he missed the part where most stars have arabic names.

Astrophysics PhD in hand, most can't find even pitifully paid post-doc jobs, much less a decent salary

Not just in astrophysics. This is a problem in all scientific fields.
I'd love to go back into science. But earning barely above the poverty threshold with no job security and the prospect of having to find a new post every three years (in a new city likely) - with no guarantee as to eventually getting to be a tenured professor - is not an enticing prospect.
(Long hours/weekends aside...but I'm not sure that counts as a down-side for a job one enjoys)

Jun 16, 2015
Тhese people who allow themselves to have other than their opinion seems that do not understand science and go automaticaly into the category troll. And of course remind to them the banal cliche that faith and science are incompatible, accepted as an axiom. But the history of science refutes them categorically
They are absolutely incompatible and diametrically opposed. Faith is belief DESPITE evidence. Science is wholly evidence-based.

Faith allows believers to pick and choose evidence, and interpret it as they see fit. This is not only unscientific but anti-science.
Isaac Newton, Galileo, Kepler and many others thanks to which science... were believing christians
-Simply because they HAD NO CHOICE. Unbelievers couldn't be educated. They were censored, ostracized, condemned, and executed.

This is another tired lie and a very good example of their disregard for evidence.

Jun 16, 2015
REN

I gave you evidence that your favorite fables never happened. Please tell me how you can continue to believe biblical promises of immortality, wishes granted, favoritism, retribution, etc when the stories they are based on are FALSE.

Please answer this.

Jun 16, 2015
@Ren82 The whole host of talented researchers as Isaac Newton, Galileo, Kepler and many others thanks to which science received powerful momentum in its development, were believing christians. Unfortunately in recent decades can be seen the opposite trend of return of science in the dark ages of heavy dogmas thanks to atheistic approach and ...
You seem to be saying that only "believing christians" can come up with big astronomy-as-science developments, are you? You also seem to be saying that an "atheistic approach" cannot; are you?

For me, one logical problem: how do you know that Newton et al. did not use an atheistic approach? Also, how do you know that great 20th century astronomers such as Hubble, Zwicky, and Spitzer were not "believing christians"?

Finally, what "heavy dogmas"? Please be specific.

Actually, wasn't Newton known for his keen interest and dabbling in the more "arcane" arts?

Jun 16, 2015
HI Ren82. :)
...Isaac Newton, Galileo, Kepler and many others thanks to which science received powerful momentum in its development, were believing christians.
It doesn't matter whence the bias comes, it slows/derails proper exploration/understanding of reality. Re the ancient/dark-age explorations, the whole society was obliged by threat of death/ostracizing to follow the 'accepted' religion/superstition beliefs etc. The wonder was that enough brave and intelligent individuals did the best they could under the circumstances! Today, the threat of death is not as common (except in some Islamic States/Religions/Societies). However, the EGO and PROFIT motive are as powerful as scientific curiosity still. Hence the need for every scientist worth that name should avoid any and all personal/cultural/mercenary/political biases/motives which can compromise the objective scientific endeavor both individually and collectively. Ditch your own personal Religious/Ego motives. Yes?

Jun 16, 2015
HI Ren82. :)
...Isaac Newton, Galileo, Kepler and many others thanks to which science received powerful momentum in its development, were believing christians.
It doesn't matter whence the bias comes, it slows/derails proper exploration/understanding of reality. Re the ancient/dark-age explorations, the whole society was obliged by threat of death/ostracizing to follow the 'accepted' religion/superstition beliefs etc. The wonder was that enough brave and intelligent individuals did the best they could under the circumstances! ... Hence the need for every scientist worth that name should avoid any and all personal/cultural/mercenary/political biases/motives which can compromise the objective scientific endeavor both individually and collectively. Ditch your own personal Religious/Ego motives. Yes?

So, what do you suggest, RC? All scientists work for the government? There are inherent problems with that, as well...

Jun 16, 2015
Hi Protoplasmix. :)

]What's driving you, mate? It's not objectivity and fairness, that's for sure. Here, one of the links I am compiling AS I FIND TIME for JeanTate...

http://phys.org/n...tml#nRlv

Note it was only a month or two after my comments in the first thread. I didn't comment or gloat in the la thread , but left it to you all to consider in the light of my March 17 comment. Nore further...

One of those sources, the map created by the Planck team included several possible sources of light, but the researchers at BICEP2 thought it only charted dust or ashes from exploding stars....

...meantime, members of the BICEP2 team have been responding to the rumors and claim they are still confident in their results...


Sea, I wasn't lying to JeanTate. "The team stood by their results" even after they were made aware of the flaws in methodology/assumptions etc. of the 'exercise' as done and interpreted/claimed etc.

Jun 16, 2015
Hi Whyde. :)
So, what do you suggest, RC? All scientists work for the government? There are inherent problems with that, as well...
I suggest what I have always suggested: Apply the scientific method and observe scrupulously its objectivity/impartiality principles at all costs to personal motives/imperatives, no matter whether independent, group or govt funded/enabled etc....else you are NOT a true scientist but a 'prostitute with a business model' for hire to the highest bidder or lowest personal/professional imperatives like profit, politics, religion, fear/favor etc etc. That's how the Tobacco, Asbestos and Climate change lobbies do their damage...they hire 'prostituted scientists'.

Anyhow, how on Earth you could read what you did (obvious strawman) into what I said is beyond me. Perhaps you should look into your own motives/biases, Whyde? Good luck with what you find. :)

Jun 16, 2015
PS: A typo by omission; should read: "... Tobacco, Asbstos and Climate change DENIERS Lobbies etc...". Thanks.

Jun 16, 2015
Hi antialias_physorg. :)
There are a lot of things.....lead to a round of instant bannings.
You're a real piece of work. You claim the high ground, thirst for bans of others, but you fail to mention YOU have broken the rules by lying, half-truth personal attacks having no regard to the actual facts but only your mod-troll 'versions' in denial of the record. Why weren't you and the rest of the 'gang' here "instant banned" when you attacked the person and refused to even LOOK at bicep2 'exercise' to see if what I suggested was correct or not. Others elsewhere DID LOOK and found me CORRECT on the science, irrespective of source/persons.

YOU fell for bicep2 'pseudoscience' and attacked ME for not doing likewise? You and 'the gang' should all have been banned on the spot. No return.

Because you profess mainstream ideals while damaging mainstream integrity with your personal vendettas against all reason. You tried on 'associations/innuendo' tactics even NOW! Shame on you.

Jun 16, 2015
I suggest what I have always suggested: Apply the scientific method and observe scrupulously its objectivity/impartiality principles at all costs to personal motives/imperatives, no matter whether independent, group or govt funded/enabled etc....else you are NOT a true scientist but a 'prostitute with a business model' for hire to the highest bidder or lowest personal/professional imperatives like profit, politics, religion, fear/favor etc etc. That's how the Tobacco, Asbestos and Climate change lobbies do their damage...they hire 'prostituted scientists'.

This answer begs the next question.
Then why are you so worried about protecting your own ToE? It would appear you are sublimating "science" to your own potential reknown and rewards...
Ergo, ego...

Jun 16, 2015
When it comes to ego, RC's cup overflowth.

Jun 16, 2015
Hi Whyde. :)
Then why are you so worried about protecting your own ToE? ....you are sublimating "science" to your own potential reknown and rewards...
Again, how can you read that into what I've said/been doing for years now?

I have eschewed 'reknown' or 'reward' or 'publish or perish' imperatives; not publish in piecemeal 'papers', nor pushed my ToE in detail. So not 'protecting" it; merely publishing complete to avoid misunderstandings.

I've soundboarded/compared/discussed some ideas from my ToE, according to scientific method of checking and not just assuming oneself correct.

I defended objective scientific method; exposed anti-science attempts by mod-troll gangs who broke rules/abused powers in order to censor/skew discourse/record.

I urge everyone to follow objective thinking, scrutiny of all past/present beliefs/theories subject to past/present confirmation bias in exercise/peer review process.

I point out what not to do, with examples of mainstream failures.

Jun 16, 2015
HI Vietvet. :)
When it comes to ego, RC's cup overflowth.
"Pot calling Kettle black". I scrupulously apply objective scientific method and impartiality as to person/source at all time, while you have not. And I have been proven correct on the science and the behavior and you and your gang have NOT. So I'm not even in the frame for your baseless assertion, but YOU and your gang ARE.

Even over the last few days you proved me correct again, You have just again proved (with your biased/lying/fawning/brainwashing attempts on JeanTate) that you were more interested in her person/source status than the facts in the discussion. And thereby UNFIT to be asserting anything about ME who treated her with respect for her objective intelligence/contribution and NOT her person/source status.

How many lessons does it take, mate? Learn. Stop digging your holes. So that you don't end up with egg as well as ego all over your face again. Start afresh. Objectively. Good luck. :)

Jun 19, 2015
What's driving you, mate?
The desire to comprehend the universe and the nature of reality. To the extent which that reality includes you, I appreciate your help in identifying things that might be wrong or false, and if you ever get around to posting some scientific fact to back up your 'pseudoscience' remark, I'll have to stop thinking of you as an example of one of those things.

Folks here have gone to great lengths to help you focus and the science, even quoting the preprint explicitly stating (and showing the team's awareness of) the importance of foreground issues.

Reality is comprehensible because nature is physics is maths/postulates is true. And you can check that, repeatedly, everywhere in the universe.

Jun 19, 2015
Hi Proto. :)
The desire to comprehend the universe and the nature of reality.
As my name implies, that is also what drives me. Which is why I always check and recheck what is 'published' and 'peer reviewed' and 'passed into the literature' which is NOT tenable given the reality. Hence my suggestion to all to check out for themselves that initial bicep2 'publish or perish' exercise which was pseudoscience from go to whoa due to inbuilt biases/flaws stemming from past biases in the literature re CMB, BB etc hypotheses.

Folks here have gone to great lengths to help you focus and the science, even quoting the preprint explicitly stating (and showing the team's awareness of) the importance of foreground issues.
They missed where the 'team' STILL did NOT correct themselves even after they were made fully aware of where everything went wrong in their 'exercise'. I focus on objective scrutiny as science demands. Not the 'person' as others here have while denying facts.

Jun 19, 2015
Hi JeanTate. :)
...he did not once quote anything from any BICEP2-related paper (or preprint),...
I already made clear more than once that the issue was 'when mainstream fails' due to confirmation biases built into the whole 'exercise' when doing analysis of CMB. The problem was their NOT correcting themselves immediately, even after they were made aware of the fatal flaws in their whole failed 'exercise'; which was NOT 'science' but an attempt to grab glory while hiding behind previous biased literature/assumptions/interpretations which they hoped would 'convince' everyone that they 'were first to find the evidence' for GWs etc.

I and many other 'outsiders' saw the flaws right away. They were told. They STILL 'stood by' their 'work/claims'; trying to weasel out by mentioning 'issues', 'future work' etc.

http://phys.org/n...tml#nRlv

It was all there before any 'papers', so why cite 'papers' based on their pseudoscience?

Jun 19, 2015
Hi JeanTate. :)

Bicep2 team admitted to using unauthorized/invalid graphing data in their input to GIGO analysis.

They used confirmation biased assumptions/interpretations re CMB nature/source etc based on past interpretations as 'evidence for BB/Inflation/Expansion HYPOTHESES.

It was all circuitous 'arguments/assumptions/interpretations' methodology because no independent hypotheses got a 'look in' OR prejudicially 'dismissed'.

They were confronted by many, privately and publicly, about their flawed 'exercise', methods and conclusions/interpretations.

Instead of admitting their errors and failed 'exercise' basis right then and there, they came out and 'stood by' their 'work/conclusions'....mouthing stuff like 'issues' and 'future work necessary' etc in attempt to make it all sound like 'legitimate science exercise...which it wasn't.

Now you come in not having any real understanding of what went down, and stick to 'official line'.

In denial, JeanTate. Not good.

Jun 19, 2015
Jean, don't make rationalizations which deny the history of it. It diminishes your credibility and claims to objectivity/impartiality and 'wanting to get things straight' etc. If you have no personal motives then leave it alone and move on with your other discussions.

I am still trying to find time for that links list we discussed. :)

PS: By the way, did your motives for joining/commenting here at PO in any way involve trying to get PO members/readers to join another forum you are currently a member of? Nothing wrong with that, but if that is part of your agenda here it would be nice if you made that clear asap so that the discussions do not have any hidden undercurrents/motives from that agenda. Everything out in the open is best, hey! Cheers. :)

Jun 19, 2015
Jean, they KNEW it was fraught with their OWN assumptions as to what their INTERPRETATION of the misappropriated graphing data would 'output'. They went with THAT knowing full well it was NOT proper input to analysis if data/interpretation was dependent on TOO MANY UNKNOWNS which they GLOSSED OVER using their confirmation biased methodology, dismissing other obvious alternatives which they willfully disregarded in their 'data analysis' and 'interpretation' and 'conclusions.....irrespective of what they listed as 'sources' and 'issues' etc.

Jean, the 'exercise' was found, by even generous mainstreamers, to be patently 'publish or perish' rushed/botched attempt at 'beating rivals' and getting a Nobel Prize for 'finding evidence of GWs etc'. They were self-deluded by being 'mainstream' team using past 'mainstream' CMB assumptions/analyses/interpretations etc which they believed were 'true' beyond question and built same into their own 'exercise'.

Ignore/Deny. M'eh. :)


Jun 19, 2015
@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? I'm fine and dandy, thanks for asking.

It seems you finally found a person who would try to talk the science with you. But since you don't like to talk about science, it looks like Jean-Skippette finally got the message on what we tried to tell her. You are right back to being a lonely sad little man with everybody thinking you are the couyon. Have you ever made one friend in your whole life that lasted more than a day or so?

@ Jean-Skippette. How you are too? I am good here.

Now, where's the Ignore button?


You got two options on that. Down at the bottom of the comment it's got some little things that light up when the mice gets over them. One of them is the "Don't Show Me This Silly Couyon's Stuff Any More" thing. The other one of them is the service I perform for humans and scientists with the bad karma votes. If you set the slider to 3 the foolishment won't show up.

Jun 19, 2015
Poor Uncle bot-voter, still talking about friends' on a science site. He still doesn't get it that science is about objectivity and independence, not 'gangs' of 'friends' who put their 'gang loyalties' before objectivity and reality. The same dynamics is what drives the Religious and Political and Mercenary 'gangs' who deny Climate Change science....they too put 'gang loyalty' above objectivity and reality. NO wonder science has been damaged....not so much by those religious/political/mercenary denialist trolls who know no better, but by those professing to be 'defending' science while doing all they can to bring it into disrepute by their 'gang' and 'friend' approach to what should be AT ALL TIMES objective science discourse/understanding process....not a popularity contest gamed by Idiot Uncle bot-voters and equally culpable 'friends'. They learned nothing from the bicep2 fiasco. They are worse than the trolls they deride, because they should know and behave better. Sad.

Jun 20, 2015
Hi JeanTate. :)

While you chat with and tolerate a bot-voting metric/discussion saboteur on a science site, your credibility is ZERO when you claim to prefer properly moderated discourse on the science. Do you not even see that?

And why keep up your denials/gang tactics instead of actually LISTENING to what I have said to you many times now; ie, that the troll problem and the nearness of my COMPLETE ToE publication does NOT allow me to go into further detailed discourse.

I have over the years provided many discussion points and evidence, even from known science as well as novel insights from my ToE. But these were TROLLED and SABOTAGED by COLLUDING (proven by experiments) mod-troll gangs who abused their power/position ON SCIENCE SITES to DELETE, censor/deface etc when I DID provide supporting arguments. So you have no idea what you are talking about when you assert that I have "never provided...etc".

You are a 'Jeany come lately' who is UNINFORMED on crucial aspects.

Jun 20, 2015
PS: JeanTate. As for experiments and research being 'discontinued', I have NEVER ever suggested such a thing. Please retract that innuendo. Thanks. What I have ALWAYS suggested is DOING PROPER SCIENCE at all times, objectively and not with inbuilt biases allowed to get into it via personal imperatives like 'publish or perish' haste and glory-seeking; or political/mercenary gain-seeking; or personal ego/power-seeking via gang/herd mentality which attacks people instead of the work. I am glad to see that you now agree bicep2 exercise was BAD science, actually NOT science at all, but as I categorized it earlier based on the record of what ACTUALLY went down. I've no objection to individuals doing/discussing science; I DO have objection to people like YOU who tolerate/encourage Uncle Ira's bot-voting/personal drivel ON A SCIENCE SITE...while you use tactics/ploys/denials instead of LISTENING to what is being told you by someone who knows what has been happening that YOU 'missed'.

Jun 21, 2015
I find it puzzling in the extreme that in all of RC's great many comments, it seems he did not once quote anything from any BICEP2-related paper (or preprint), at least not since I joined PO. Yet papers are THE primary sources!
@JeanTate
Yep... i suggest using the ignore button, or at least simply not addressing the general repetitious unsubstantiated claims as he continuously regurgitates them...

i counted over 3700 posts since the claim and still there is not one specific point copied from any source, paper or publication from the BICEP team that shows any specific flaw, fatal or otherwise from him

Thanks for those links you've given us, here and in other threads (by Brian Koberlein )
GREAT stuff!

you can't convince a rock that it is a ballerina, so don't try to teach it to dance, right? they can't see reality and are lousy communicators (great listeners though!)
same thing above with rc, the eu and creationists

Jun 21, 2015
Poor Stumpy, still pretending he is in any way relevant or contributing to the scientific discourse of the science rather than his personal trolling agenda and sucking up to people while missing and lying and misrepresenting what has been actually going on. Poor Stumpy. Never learns. Still a spamming troll cluttering up the threads with his useless posts in denial of what has been told him many times already. Poor Stumpy. Never listens. No wonder 'mainstream science' is being damaged....these ego-maniacal, personality cult spammers are pretending to 'defend science' while bringing it into disrepute by failing to observe and admit objectivity and the facts which have proved them wrong and me correct all along. Poor Stumpy.

Jun 21, 2015
If the vacuum of space have some form of rigid cristal structure and the matter is disolved in this structure and moves and interact similar to electrons moving in cristal latice, can we expect gravitational waves at all? Ths cristal structure will defin the physical laws and posible energetic interaction between mather constituent particals. Like 3D matrix where every point have physical adress and can be reprogrammed localy.

Jun 22, 2015
@ Really-Skippy. How you are today Cher? I am very good today, thanks for asking.

Skippy, you act like this is some billion dollar scientifical research station or the international conference of super-duper scientists. This is the comment place on the physorg. If it was a high class serious science place it would not be the only one left that lets you in to show off your mental conditions. It's the only who lets you in, that means it's the last one, that ought to tell you something.

No wonder 'mainstream science' is being damaged....these ego-maniacal, personality cult spammers are pretending to 'defend science'


If it bugs you so much why do you do it Cher?

while bringing it into disrepute by failing to observe and admit objectivity and the facts which have proved them wrong and me correct all along.


Why it is you are the only one it got proved to? Everybody else is still convinced you are a couyon so your proof ain't working Cher.

Jun 22, 2015
You poor sod. No wonder humanity is in trouble. Haven't you realized yet that EVERY forum and coffee shop and meeting place is important to the discourse in democracy and science? You're belittling this place is the very sort of thing the 'elitist' twats in religion and 'science' who censor and dismiss without fair hearing do whenever they ignore the evolving reality under their noses while sounding so certain that only 'they' have the ability to answer the questions. You are so devoid of self awareness and objective intellect that you wallow in your ignorance and try to bring everyone down to your level in your bot-voting troll pigpen. Do you not understand that I was proven correct all along? If you 'serve' science and scientists then you must also 'serve' the proven truth. If you deny the proven truth then you are just another drag on mankind and science. That is what you have been all along. You haven't learned. You won't learn. You can't learn. You only drivel.

Jun 22, 2015
You poor sod. Blah, blah blah. And a lot more blah that Really-Skippy postumed on the other article


Cher, you should not postum the exact same thing with the snip and glue on more than one article. What were you worried we would not see him over there? You don't have to worry about that Skippy. We wouldn't miss any of your foolishment. See? I saw both of them and judged them with the objecting mind and did some better diligence and gave them both the bad karma votes.

Jun 22, 2015
You poor Ira. The same drivel from you here and there. The answer to that drivel is the same here as there. You poor Ira.

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