Astronomers should be sued for false advertizing. (2)

[Michael]

I believe this particular discussion is pretty much exhausted, as we interpret the available information differently and or we have not been exposed or sought the same information.

Lets just agree to disagree.

That sounds fine by me. I have my hands full with other discussions anyway.

Let me conclude with one last thing that I hope you think about since you've read Honest To Jesus and we can at least agree that a real man that we now call Jesus walked the earth and he said things to people.

It really doesn't matter to me personally if the real man that we call Jesus, uttered every single red letter word in that book, exactly as it's written today in English. It does not matter to me personally if every other word that is written in the Bible is taken completely out of the equation and discussion. I am not emotionally attached to so called "miracles". They all have a "scientific" explanation IMO. Even the dead are brought back to life in modern times.

The only thing that matters to me personally is the *effect* that Christ's words have had on my life over the past 53 years. They have transformed me from the inside out, and they have led to experiences I could never fully explain to you. His words have changed me forever. That's really the only thing that matters to me at this point in my life.

Thank you for a wonderful conversation.

 

[davidbilby]

You've got exactly one high energy photon, at a *significantly lower* energy state than the photons studied in the MAGIC data.

38 times lower, to be precise....but that's not a problem, I'll come to that in a moment...

Firstly, note that in the MAGIC data, they observed annihilation of the highest energy gamma rays, which would be impossible if the photons were moving at anything other than C_rel, so Lorentz violations or photon travel time fluctuations are constrained down to about one part in a thousand trillion...

http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0308214.pdf

So your MAGIC interpretation is no-go even before we start looking at other data sets. But let's carry on and look at them:

Even *if* this this paper is correct in every single detail

How would you know if it was or wasn't?

it doesn't even support your claim because the photon in question is in fact delayed with respect to the start of the event

All we can say is it arrived at 0.849 seconds in, which leaves a 0.849 second window of emission (unless you're claiming it was accelerated superluminally), yet lower energy photons also arrive during that window - a million times less energy photons - do you not get the point?

and it's 31*Gev* photon, not a 1.2*Tev* photon

but yet still perfectly sufficient to constrain photon travel time fluctuations when compared to photons with a million times less energy, as the paper points out....

Now I'd be the first to admit that it's certainly possible that I missed something, or misread something, or that I overlooked something important in a 20 page paper.

Yup. You'd better do that then. Because you're harping on about MAGIC and a 1.2 TeV energy level - yes, that's 38 times larger than 31 GeV. BUT...once again, the point of the FERMI paper is that photons at energy levels a million times less than also arrived from the GRB in the first 0.829 seconds. The arrival time of the 31 GeV photon isn't what is important on its own......the window in which it could have been emitted is small enough that it is a resounding test of SR and a resounding failure for your theory and for most quantum gravity theories...

(Note, incidentally, that the VP paper theory actually isn't necessarily ruled out by it, because the kind of delay they are talking about is small enough to still be possible...which is why the authors of that paper cite this particular GRB as the strongest constraint on photon travel time fluctuations, another reason why that paper and Holushko's unpublished pre-print are not "exactly the same" or even vaguely "the same".....)

What is important is its arrival time in comparison to other photons from the same GRB that had a million times less energy, which is exactly as SR predicts. I guess you missed that. None of this is new....

 

[Michael]

What you should know, Elendur, is that Michael doesn't actually know what SUSY theory is, and is going purely off blind faith that some other people have said SUSY theory is dead....which...it's not.

More "smear the messenger" claptrap from a guy that doesn't even know the difference between a 31Gev photon and a 1.2Tev photon.

You wouldn't know a thing about fair or honest or *scientific* debate.

 

[Michael]

38 times lower, to be precise....but that's not a problem, I'll come to that in a moment...

It's the *whole* point which proves conclusively that you didn't read the MAGIC paper or you didn't comprehend it. The WIKI reference I handed to you on a silver platter explained it very clearly. Here it is again:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markarian_501

During flares and outbursts the peaks increase in power and frequency.[5] Flares lasting 20 minutes long with rise times of 1 minute have been measured by MAGIC. In these flares the higher energy gamma rays (of 1.2 Tev) were delayed 4 minutes over the 0.25 TeV gamma rays.[8]

The MAGIC study is comparing a .25 Tev photon data set to a 1.2Tev photon data set. They are comparing photons with 1/5 of the energy of the high energy photons to the higher energy photons. They notice travel time differences between them. The Fermi paper doesn't even get to the .25Tev range. It's not even in an energy range that MAGIC sees.

You're missing the *entire* point of the MAGIC paper. According to their paper, the "time delay" observed at higher energy states would not even have an effect on (or have only a very small effect on) a 31Gev photon! Their study *predicts* that your Fermi photon would *NOT* see a large delay like the 1.2 Tev photon experience. It's *ONLY* the highest energy photons that are delayed by the medium, not the puny little 31Gev photons that Fermi can observe!

You've got everything upside down, all messed up, and you keep complaining about me not understanding or comprehending various papers? Oy Vey!

Wake up and smell the coffee already. You blew it *big time*!

 

[davidbilby]

What I found most "enlightening" about your attitude was your response to the original observation. Even *before* you had a rebuttal paper to offer me, you *insisted* that the structure could/would be taken apart, and never once did you ever suggest that such a large structure could even be used to falsify your beliefs. You had already made up your mind even without a shred of paper support.

Er...no. I just don't abandon a theory based on a single paper, as I think you so wisely came around to a few posts back...

....or do you seriously suggest the cosmological principle from Philosophiae - by Newton, no less - should have been abandoned immediately despite:

a) the Sloan Great Wall (the last and only other "too big" structure proposed) having been shown to be 3 structures, not one...

b) the fact that the fractal algorithm that originally showed the SGW to be a potential structure violating homogeneity suffered from the same problems as Clowes' algorithm...

c) all of the other evidence that points to large scale homogeneity, such as the fact the isotropic black body CMB only fluctuates in temperature by 1 part in 100,000 - or the study from the WiggleZ data here:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1205.6812v2.pdf

???

I mean really, you think that Clowes' paper was enough to abandon four centuries of physics? Not even he did that (he merely suggested that if the structure was confirmed, it would be a challenge to the cosmological principle that would need addressing...hardly a "run for your lives" kind of paper!).

So actually, far from being what you suggest, some kind of biased unscientific approach (thanks for another insult by the way), it was an entirely empirical process based on the preponderance of evidence.

One can however see why you'd be the one having a problem with the cosmological principle, given that when it is applied to GR a static universe is impossible......

Un Univers homogène de masse constante et de rayon croissant rendant comp

Do you object to the Copernican principle also, by the way?

 

[davidbilby]

The MAGIC study is comparing a .25 Tev photon data set to a 1.2Tev photon data set. They are comparing photons with 1/5 of the energy of the high energy photons to the higher energy photons. They notice travel time differences between them. The Fermi paper doesn't even get to the .25Tev range. It's not even in an energy range that MAGIC sees.

1/5th? Did you not get that the FERMI paper is comparing photons of an energy 1 millionth of the higher energy photon???? You're seriously saying "look at this comparison between things, one is a fifth apart from the other", and arbitrarily ignoring a comparison between two readings a million times apart?

As to your other point I dealt with that already, and you just ignored it again. The annihilations observed in the Markarian 501 spectra (and Markarian 421) could not happen if the photons were travelling at anything less than C_rel, constraining photon travel time fluctuations out of the picture, without even having to refer to these photon measurements from FERMI...

http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0308214.pdf

and related:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0102226v2.pdf

 

[bhsmte]

That sounds fine by me. I have my hands full with other discussions anyway.

Let me conclude with one last thing that I hope you think about since you've read Honest To Jesus and we can at least agree that a real man that we now call Jesus walked the earth and he said things to people.

It really doesn't matter to me personally if the real man that we call Jesus, uttered every single red letter word in that book, exactly as it's written today in English. It does not matter to me personally if every other word that is written in the Bible is taken completely out of the equation and discussion. I am not emotionally attached to so called "miracles". They all have a "scientific" explanation IMO. Even the dead are brought back to life in modern times.

The only thing that matters to me personally is the *effect* that Christ's words have had on my life over the past 53 years. They have transformed me from the inside out, and they have led to experiences I could never fully explain to you. His words have changed me forever. That's really the only thing that matters to me at this point in my life.

Thank you for a wonderful conversation.

You may have misunderstood me as I did not read honest to Jesus, but have researched many other means to learn about Jesus the person. In fact Bart Ehrman has a few books about Jesus he has written which I have read excerpts from which are quite good and appear to be deep researched.

Yes, Jesus was likely a real person (most scholars/historians agree on this) and he certainly appeared to be a morally good person who had good lessons for people. Much of what is attributed to him in the new testament is up for grabs and some of it has been proven to be made up, which is unfortunate, because it becomes more difficult to accurately gauge the entire picture. This isn't his fault, as the people that put him on the pedestal had an agenda to fill (IMO) and they went about doing just that.

When the Jesus story goes overboard, is when you talk about; virgin births, miracles and rising from the dead. All of which, have zero evidence to support and the resurrection has multiple other explanations. In fact, IMO, the entire christian story is really packed with quite a mixed blend; morality, immorality, super natural occurrences, ignorance and arrogance. It is really a living breathing philosophy, that is a gross contradiction upon itself.

 

[Michael]

1/5th? Did you not get that the FERMI paper is comparing photons of an energy 1 millionth of the higher energy photon???? You're seriously saying "look at this comparison between things, one is a fifth apart from the other", and arbitrarily ignoring a comparison between two readings a million times apart?

There's nothing arbitrary about it, nor did anyone (but you) suggest there is some sort of "smooth curve" that applies to the photon delay mechanism! You're just making up the rules and claims as you go!

The Fermi paper isn't even in an energy range that applies to the MAGIC data set, and yet you have already concluded that it is somehow "conclusive" evidence that the time delay seen by MAGIC at higher energy states is "impossible"? And to think you have the nerve to try to claim that *I* misrepresent the data. You're in a class by yourself in that category.

By the way, the interesting part of that 4 billion light year long structure(s) was the fact the you never once even entertained any honest scientific doubt about it, even *before* you had a shred of a paper to rebutt that data. You cling to your theory with the emotional attachment of a religious zealot. You apparently don't give a hoot about the fact that PLANCK shows a hemispheric difference between the various data sets that should not be there. You pretty much ignore the data you don't like, and you simply misrepresent the rest!

As to your other point I dealt with that already, and you just ignored it again. The annihilations observed in the Markarian 501 spectra (and Markarian 421) could not happen if the photons were travelling at anything less than C_rel,

More proclamations from a guy that has a known track record of misrepresenting the data. Yawn. More papers to read? How much time did you put into that MAGIC paper anyway? You obviously didn't understand it.

 

[Michael]

You may have misunderstood me as I did not read honest to Jesus, but have researched many other means to learn about Jesus the person. In fact Bart Ehrman has a few books about Jesus he has written which I have read excerpts from which are quite good and appear to be deep researched.

Sorry if I misunderstood you about which books you'd read. I was just pointing out that we agree he existed:

Yes, Jesus was likely a real person (most scholars/historians agree on this) and he certainly appeared to be a morally good person who had good lessons for people.

Those morally good lessons that he taught me have worked "miracles" in my life, all of which have a scientific explanation of course.

 

[davidbilby]

More "smear the messenger" claptrap from a guy that doesn't even know the difference between a 31Gev photon and a 1.2Tev photon.

What is the difference, other than a numerical difference in their energy value, just out of interest to see what you might know about the subject? They're both in the gamma ray portion of the spectrum....

And an intelligent comment, please, on the point that the energy levels don't actually matter as regards constraints to photon travel time with the MAGIC observation, simply because if the photons were travelling less than C at this energy level the annihilation seen in the MAGIC spectra couldn't happen, which constrains the results considerably tighter as regards travel time fluctuations. I give you the paper, again:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0308214.pdf


So to SUSY...I quickly googled back through your posts on SUSY both here and elsewhere and haven't found anything remotely related to a technical discussion beyond "SUSY died at LHC". In fact, I can't find anything you've ever cited even going more specific than just "SUSY".

I invite you to prove me wrong at any time by entering into a discussion about...well, anything to do with a SUSY theory of your choice. Anything. Anything at all to demonstrate you've got any knowledge in this subject whatsoever beyond the high school basics. If I'm "killing the messenger", all you'd have to do to comprehensively show me up is...show you have any knowledge of this subject whatsoever beyond what's in press releases.

I can't see that you've ever said anything intelligent about SUSY in this thread that goes into the subject in any depth whatsoever. Nothing about the differences between MSSM (linear or non-linear), CMSSM, pMSSM, MSSM-mh, non-decoupling SUSY theories, natural SUSY, $\mu\nu$SSM. Nothing about gauge interpretations of the SM as regards SUSY. Nothing as regarding anything whatsoever that shows you've done anything other than read a few press releases and the wikipedia page (if that). You say things like "the most popular forms went up in smoke" yet...what are they? Why? Which data sets? You don't know!!

Can you say anything here that shows you have any knowledge of the vast field of supersymmetric theories (there are so many....)...can you say anything at allbeyond "it's called SUSY theory" or "it's about symmetry and stuff"?

Because if not, why on earth do you think you are messenger to anyone? You are pretending to know that which you do not.....and all you have to do to prove that wrong is say something intelligent. If you can supposedly understand MAGIC, it'd take...all of a few minutes. At most.

 

[davidbilby]

By the way, the interesting part of that 4 billion light year long structure(s) was the fact the you never once even entertained any honest scientific doubt about it, even *before* you had a shred of a paper to rebutt that data.

I didn't need somebody else's paper to know that the SGW had already been shown to not be a single structure, so abandoning the cosmological principle on the simple basis of a uncorroborated fractal analysis would be hasty, especially given the CMB data from WMAP.

You on the other hand accepted the HLQG as a structure...without any question whatsoever, just like you accept Ashmore without any question (without noticing his errors) because...well...you can't notice them). You did that because tossing the cosmological principle is something you must do for your static universe...

Who is the skeptic? I think that would be me. The blind faith...that would be you.

You cling to your theory with the emotional attachment of a religious zealot.

Clearly you've never been in a viva....

You apparently don't give a hoot about the fact that PLANCK shows a hemispheric difference between the various data sets that should not be there.

Well, this'd be the first time we've discussed it. Finally something interesting.

Yes, the PLANCK data is fascinating. The first conclusion we can draw is that simpler inflationary theories are in better shape than more complex ones (such as Penrose's cyclical ideas), that much is obvious.

There are already four or five potential explanations for the hemispherical asymmetry consistent with inflation, but that's going to take a vast amount more work.

You pretty much ignore the data you don't like, and you simply misrepresent the rest!

I don't think you could back that up with evidence, sorry.

More proclamations from a guy that has a known track record of misrepresenting the data. Yawn. More papers to read? How much time did you put into that MAGIC paper anyway? You obviously didn't understand it.

It's only 9 pages of actual work (excluding authors/credits/thanks etc.) and I read it thoroughly - both when it was published and quite a number of times since. Since I've actually got a physics degree it wasn't a tough read either (it's pretty much a summary, actually).

I guess you just ignore this on p.10:

"These numbers could turn into a real measurement of MQG1,2, if the emission mechanism at the source were understood and the observed delays were mainly due to propagation. We cannot exclude, however, the possibility that the delay we find, which is significant beyond the 95% C.L., is due to some energy-dependent effect at the source."

Incidentally, how are you ruling out a QG quantum foam interpretation of the data...if one assumes the delay is real, that would be equally valid (actually, equally invalid now, but I'm talking about your opinion, since you're convinced the delay is real)? That's what most people leapt to (evidence of Lorentz invariance violations).

And since you clearly didn't read the simple rebuttal published later that the observed spectra from both Markarian 501 and 421 would not be possible if the photons indeed were not travelling at C, and all you can say is "yawn", I guess you know when you've been thoroughly trounced or you're out of your depth and you're now feigning disinterest to try and deflect from that fact.

A little point - did you notice that one of the co-authors is John Ellis? Probably one of the most ardent SUSY advocates on the planet. But you didn't know that because you know nothing about this field, once again....

 

[davidbilby]

More proclamations from a guy that has a known track record of misrepresenting the data.

Can you please point to how this paper - or I - misrepresent the data?

According to SR, high energy gamma rays of sufficient energy would normally interact with the infrared photons in intergalactic space resulting in pair production - a well known phenomenon that should lead to a drop in gamma rays in the upper spectrum.

But if they were travelling slower as MAGIC interpretation suggests, they would not interact at all and pass straight through.

The spectra of both Markarian 501 and 421 show the absorption due to annihilations clearly, and if you remove the calculation of the effect, both actually should peak in the multi-TeV range. Essentially, the absorption effect is large - but it would not exist at all according to SR, if indeed the photons had been slowed. This constrains possible photon travel time fluctuations even before we start talking about the FERMI data which clearly shows a gamma ray (even though it's a lesser energy one) arriving at the same time as other photons. Smooth curve - not smooth curve - doesn't matter. This paper demonstrates the idea is wrong before you even get to discussing the magnitude of the effect at different energy levels.

I give it to you for the third time, hoping but not expectant that you might actually try and engage in a real debate about physics:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0308214.pdf

Do you have anything intelligent to say about it? Or are you just ignoring it? If you have nothing, the subject of MAGIC is done.

 

[Michael]

Really? In what year was electromagnetism formally discovered?

Who cares? Humans associated Zues with lightning thousands of years ago, and I'd bet other even older religions have similar associations.

Regardless, it is not the EM field of the lightning strike that kills. If you stood in place for a moment, you might get that point.

It's irrelevant to the fact that an external shock will result in physical death, and does have a physical effect on humans. That's all that's required for an "electric God" to interact with you should he choose to do so.

I cannot take you seriously if you continue to ask "Where does "dark energy" come from?"

Why? If you asked me where gravity comes from, I can answer you in one word: mass. If you asked me what causes magnetic fields I can answer in one word: current.

If you can't answer the question, I have no reason to take you (or anyone else) seriously.

For you to provide specific evidence for your claim that I have quoted in my post.

I've done that for you several times in several different ways. Denial seems to be the only way you can deal with any of them.

You mean "Zeus"? As in Zeus=God=Jesus etc? Are you serious?

I'm seriously pointing out to you that humans have attributed "God" with the ability to strike people dead with lightning bolt since the dawn of recorded human civilization. Apparently you don't want to deal with that fact.

But you have yet to address the issues with scattering. But that is not the claim I am asking about, and is irrelevant to the point at hand, but feel free to rant if you like. I will snip it from my response.

I have dealt with inelastic scattering and in fact I can show that it has a tangible effect on photons in real experiments. That's a lot more than the mainstream can do with their claims about dark energy and inflation having any effect on a photon. I thought you weren't supporting mainstream theory?

Yes, I wish to see experiments that replicate 'the universe in action' as is generates EM fields and directs them inside the human brain, in a controlled and repeatable manner.

Fine, but it's out of my budget. At least you *can* conduct such experiments on Earth if you want. Compared to "dark energy did it" claims, that in itself is a breath of fresh air. You can't even tell me where to get any dark energy, you've got no way to control it, and no way to show it has any effect at all on a photon.

If you cannot do so, you should not say "An electric universe would definitely be able to have an EM influence on humans".

Um no. *The* electric universe that we live in *does* have an EM influence on humans. There is no doubt about it even if you're in pure denial of cold hard facts. Lightening has been striking people dead since people have existed on this planet.

Only when you conflated electrical current with electromagnetic fields. They are not the same thing.

It's the *current* that creates the "magnetic field" that you keep trying to separate from the current. It's all part of the *ELECTROmagnetic* field. As long as you refuse to acknowledge the *source* of magnetism, it's going to be difficult to have a real scientific discussion with you about EM fields.

Try charging a battery directly by exposing it to an EM field.

Do you actually know what the E in EM stands for?

"Struck dead by lightning" is not "an EM influence on humans".

Yes, it is. Denial is a really pitiful way to deal with data. It's not making you look particularly knowledgeable about electromagnetism, and it's just plain goofy frankly. You seem to have no understanding about the E in EM. I think you're trying to 'dumb it down" to pure magnetism, but even those kinds of fields are capable of influencing human thought as the God Helmet experiments demonstrate. More importantly nature creates *far more powerful* magnetic fields than those used in the God Helmet experiments.

Are you now saying that you do not have an experiment the replicates the EM fields found in nature, so cannot demonstrate - the influence - they have on the human brain?

No, I'm saying that you're in stanch denial of scientific fact, including the fact that the sun creates far stronger magnetic fields in a typical flare event than anything used in those God Helmet experiments. You're in denial of that fact as well.

 

[davidbilby]

Some of the less technical things are pretty much what I've been over a few times.

Yup.

It's not as if I have any profound knowledge of the matter but when I start seeing people mentioning possible models being falsified and some nearly, but not quite, it's kind of easy to draw the conclusion of a rather unsteady field with many branching tries.

Nature of the beast, it's a tree with many branches for sure. What is known is that the root is solid - the Standard Model isn't the final answer.

Also, that last statement is what I've been stating quite a few times (not necessarily in this thread though).

Yup. Michael doesn't really advocate his own ideas, just bash the mainstream. It's entertaining to seem him cite things like dark flow, or Roger Penrose's ideas, not realizing that irrespective of what they have to do with inflation, or dark energy/matter ideas, they don't even vaguely jive with his own viewpoint...nor (in the case of dark flow) are they considered "fact". He's empirical only when it suits and generally thinks the enemy of his enemy must be his friend....

Though I would like you to use the term hypotheses instead of theories in this case, as I've reminded Michael several times

Mmm. Probably true. That said, it's only ever a problem when somebody (usually a creationist) starts trying to use the word "theory" in the context of "its just a theory" or some other derogatory fashion (or so they think).

Generally in the physics community we're aware of the distinctions and not too worried about being too picky about which of the two words one uses - eg. SUSY theory or SUSY hypothesis, kind of equally fine and you'll find both used in papers - not really an issue. But you're technically correct.

 

[Michael]

Nature of the beast, it's a tree with many branches for sure. What is known is that the root is solid - the Standard Model isn't the final answer.

The nature of the beast is that it supposedly includes a *host* of various "sparticles" at various energy states, not a single one of which has been seen to date. What "solid" tree? You've got a make-believe tree, and make believe roots that keep shrinking by the day in terms of where you can stuff in your "make-believe" gap filler! You've got a strong imagination perhaps, but that is all you have.

Yup. Michael doesn't.....

You spend an inordinate amount of time talking about individuals rather than the topic. That's typical of your cheap, sleazy, below the belt style of debate. You wouldn't know anything about honest debate.

 

[davidbilby]

Why? If you asked me where gravity comes from, I can answer you in one word: mass.

That would get a fifth grader a tick from their teacher, and yet fails so completely to actually answer the question.

If you asked me what causes magnetic fields I can answer in one word: current.

That would get a fifth grader a tick from their teacher, and yet fails so completely to actually answer the question. What causes the magnetic dipole around a single electron? Clue - it's not current.

I have dealt with inelastic scattering and in fact I can show that it has a tangible effect on photons in real experiments.

Just an effect nothing like the actual cosmological redshift at all.

 

[davidbilby]

What "solid" tree?

Oh...

So you're saying the Standard Model is complete and describes the universe completely? Including gravitation?

 

[davidbilby]

You spend an inordinate amount of time talking about individuals rather than the topic. That's typical of your cheap, sleazy, below the belt style of debate. You wouldn't know anything about honest debate.

Quite ironic that you post this sentence - in a thread entitled "Astronomers should be sued". Because...hey, clearly, if they should be sued, it must have been something done intentionally - false advertising.

You complain about personal attacks in a thread titled with a personal attack on all astronomers, implying they're all guilty of, in essence, fraud?

 

[Michael]

Quite ironic that you post this sentence - in a thread entitled "Astronomers should be sued". Because...hey, clearly, if they should be sued, it must have been something done intentionally - false advertising.

You complain about personal attacks in a thread titled with a personal attack on all astronomers, implying they're all guilty of, in essence, fraud?

There's a significant difference in terms of my focus of attention. IMO it's the *idea* that is the fraud david, Lambda-CDM not people. In many ways you're it's greatest victim, along with anyone else that you happen to infect with your metaphysical kludge of a religion over the next few years.

Your attitude however tend to be almost a stereotypical cartoon characterature of the basic problem in a nutshell. You show absolutely no sign of "honest scientific doubt" in your beliefs, and your debate tactics are about as unethical and personal as it gets. What you can't do and demonstrate via science, you attempt to make up for with brute arrogant force while pummeling anyone that disagrees with you with an unending stream of personal insults. Yep, that attitude pretty much typifies everything that is wrong with astronomy today. You show no indication whatsoever of any amount of honest scientific doubt, nor any ethics in debate.

You're perfectly willing to overlook all those Planck anomalies. You've completely and utterly ignored them for months even though I've mentioned them in this thread and commented on them a long time ago. I think even Dad or AV started a thread on that topic at one point. If your reaction to that hemispheric anomaly is any indication, apparently you just "have faith" that someone will eventually figure out another outrageously complicated way to work around your last remaining "successful prediction" of the inflation hypothesis. The whole time you're having blind faith in metaphysical solutions to all those anomalies, you keep spewing nonsense about acoustic signatures in that same data set and jumping up and down proclaiming it somehow supports your junk. Talk about selective data selection and seeing what you *wish* to see! If you could actually show that inflation, dark energy or exotic matter had some tangible effect on acoustics, you might not actually be misrepresenting the facts. As it stands, all your claims are "pure acts of faith" and they are completely and totally devoid of any tangible empirical support. Never has a photon change been linked to "dark energy' in any lab on Earth. Never has a photon momentum change been linked to inflation on Earth. Your whole BB spiel is a sky religion on arrogant steroids.

In terms of SUSY theory, you ignored the fact that not one single sparticle of the menagerie of imaginary sparticles in SUSY theory bothered to show up at LHC, not one. You don't care. No honest scientific doubt there. You're talking all about "strong roots" when not a single root showed up!

In terms of "dark energy", you can't tell me where it comes from. You've got no clue in the universe how to "control" it. You've got no experiment with any control mechanism to demonstrate it has any effect on any photon at any energy state. You've got nothing at all to demonstrate it's not a figment of your imagination in fact.

The last paper you handed me to read started talking about "superluminal jets". Superliminal jets made of what? The whole need for "superluminal" claims is directly related to your unwillingness to accept that inelastic scattering happens in space like it happens on Earth.

You haven't done any real exhaustive studies on inelastic scattering, you just handwave a couple lines of math at me and you act like that somehow settles the debate without lifting a finger to *test* any of your claims.

It's the overall lack of any sort of scientific doubt, and your strong emotional need to "kill the messenger" anytime someone points out the weaknesses in your theory that make you a victim, but also a victimizer.

 

[davidbilby]

There's a significant difference in terms of my focus of attention. IMO it's the *idea* that is the fraud david, Lambda-CDM not people.

Oh, so we're all just stupid, blindly accepting a blatant fraud. What sheep we all are! Ho ho ho! But we deserved to be sued anyhow. Yeah.

I snipped the rest of your complaining. Pathetic. On to the physics:

In terms of SUSY theory, you ignored the fact that not one single sparticle of the menagerie of imaginary sparticles in SUSY theory bothered to show up at LHC, not one. You don't care. No honest scientific doubt there. You're talking all about "strong roots" when not a single root showed up!

The Standard model is indubitably incomplete. That is the root of all supersymmetry (and other beyond SM) hypotheses. If you'd like to dispute that be my guest. I'd love to see that.

Which sparticles should have shown up and didn't in the prior runs of LHC? Specifics, please, with proposed masses, spins etc. and theoretical derivations.

In terms of "dark energy", you can't tell me where it comes from.

Nope. We don't know what it is, for starters, although there are some ideas. It's the concept that "something" is causing the apparent acceleration of the universe. It's not visible, and it's not massive, and if indeed the universe is expanding, and that expansion is accelerating, it's the name for whatever it is causing it, be it a cosmological constant (an energy density in empty space) or another variant.

You've got no clue in the universe how to "control" it.

Nope. Not a problem. Not even sure what it is exactly, yet, so asking for us to, I don't know, make it spell your name in intergalactic space, is...premature, no? You're getting stale with the same old same old same old, none of these objections are new or clever....

You've got no experiment with any control mechanism

What is your control mechanism for any astronomical observation in the history of mankind ever? Do tell.

to demonstrate it has any effect on any photon at any energy state. You've got nothing at all to demonstrate it's not a figment of your imagination in fact.

If the universe is expanding, that expansion is accelerating, and something is causing it. That concept we call "dark energy". We don't know what it is. If the universe is not expanding, it doesn't exist, if it is, it does, and it's not visible, and it's not massive. It's a "dark...energy". See where the name comes from? There's no qualification issue because nobody has even begun to say precisely what it is. We just have a category, in essence. It falls in that category. No idea what it is yet in the sense of "a bottle of dark energy".

The last paper you handed me to read started talking about "superluminal jets". Superliminal jets made of what? The whole need for "superluminal" claims is directly related to your unwillingness to accept that inelastic scattering happens in space like it happens on Earth.

Maybe you should go read about superluminal jets....mmmkay? Because now you look crazy. They're not new, they're nothing to do with "inelastic scattering", and everything to do with special relativity.

They're common in BL Lac objects...such as...blazars. Like Markarian 501. And they're very much observed, and they're very much compatible with SR.

And...that wavelength independent form of inelastic scattering is.....what? Oh that's it, you don't know. You have no idea. You've only suggested ones that don't have anything like the characteristics of the observed cosmological redshift, or that are induced by implausible time-variant circumstances.

You haven't done any real exhaustive studies on inelastic scattering, you just handwave a couple lines of math at me and you act like that somehow settles the debate without lifting a finger to *test* any of your claims.

The extraordinary claim (that there is a hitherto unknown form of inelastic scattering taking place constantly and evenly in all spatial and temporal dimensions in the universe mimicking a doppler-like wavelength and specially independent redshift; or that multiple forms of wavelength dependent redshifts that are dispersive can add up to a wavelength independent process that is non-dispersive) is yours to prove, not mine to disprove. Get to it. You've failed completely so far. Nobel and Lucasian Chair waiting for you.