Astronomers should be sued for false advertizing. (2)

[Michael]

Oh, so we're all just stupid, blindly accepting a blatant fraud. What sheep we all are! Ho ho ho!

Considering the fact you're an atheist, you seem to have no trouble thinking the very same thing about every theist on the planet, and probably every EU/PC proponent on the planet.

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

Ya, and in the process you "skipped over" every single Planck anomaly, while you cherry pick the acoustic data you think supports your nonsense! Typical.

The Standard model is indubitably incomplete.

Even if that is true, so what?

SUSY theory failed it's own "golden test". Not a single sparticle showed up at LHC and every "popular" SUSY theory went up in smoke! You're now scraping the bottom of the barrel *praying* for a miracle!

Even if some other particles do show up in future experiments, there's no guarantee that any of them will be related to SUSY theory, or that any of them will have any of the necessary properties that you need to save your half baked theory. You have no idea if anything is going to even show up, let alone that it's going to have the properties you expect, like longevity and "darkness". Your "pure act of faith" flies in the face of standard particle physics theory, and particle physics theory is complete without it!

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.

You'd love to see what? You'd love to see that nothing showed up at LHC at *any* energy state? Back to attacking the messenger I see.

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.

Why bother? Not a single particle related to SUSY theory showed up!

Nope. We don't know what it is, for starters, although there are some ideas.

You have no idea if "dark energy" even exists! You can't even cite a *source*!

It's the concept that "something" is causing the apparent acceleration of the universe.

Even that "concept" is dubious because it requires that every single photon that reaches Earth from a distant galaxy weave and dodge it's way around every single temperature gradient, every single EM field variation, every single particle over a distance of *light years*! You're whole "the universe is expanding" claim is dubious at best, pure nonsense at worst case. Even if you could demonstrate expansion and acceleration are the cause of photon redshift, you have no evidence in the universe that movement of anything is related to inflation or dark energy. These claims are pure affirming the consequent fallacies! You just point at the sky and claim that your invisible friends did it.

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.

In other words, you don't even know *if* the universe is actually expanding, you don't know what actually causes it to expand, so you slap some metaphysical label onto a math formula and claim that 68 percent of the universe is made of invisible magic with a trumped up name.

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?

So unlike my previous example, despite *thousands* of many years of effort, the entire lot of astronomers cannot do for "dark energy" what a clever fifth grader could do for any other field of science. You call that scientific progress?

You're getting stale with the same old same old same old, none of these objections are new or clever....

Even when I hand you "new" problems to deal with/comment on, like your hemisphere variation problem, you ignore it! You cherry pick the data you like from the WMAP/Planck data sets, and simply ignore the parts that falsify your claims! Bah! The part that gets old is watching the pure denial take place for years on end.

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

Despite what the mainstream claims, astronomical observations are not *experiments* that have "control mechanisms". They are *observations* that have no control mechanism of any sort. That's why it's so important to *experiment* here on Earth to figure out what's going on in space.

If the universe is expanding, that expansion is accelerating, and something is causing it.

The *if* word at the start of your sentence is the key. To even "interpret" redshift as being related to expansion/acceleration, you have to throw out the whole speed of light limitations related to objects with mass. You *cheat* around the problem by making another *metaphysical* claim about "space" doing magic expansion tricks. The fact you even have to toss out all *known* physics to interpret redshift as being related to movement should be your first clue that your interpretation is faulty. The fact that every photon in spacetime would have to weave and dodge it's way around every particle in space to reach earth "unscathed" by inelastic scattering events should be your *second* clue that your interpretation of redshift is nonsense.

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 fact your even using the term "if" seems like progress from where I sit. At least you now seem to be aware of the "leaps of faith" you're making in relationship to redshift.

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.

So exactly what kind of "jet" (made of what physical substance) is capable of traveling at superluminal speeds?

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.

The jets are compatible with almost any cosmology theory. Your personal claim that they travel at "superluminal" speeds is a dubious claim related to your own "interpretation" of the redshift phenomenon. You however cannot even name a physical substance that can travel faster than light, let one create a "jet" of the stuff and get it to travel faster than light. That whole line of logic is bogus.

And...that wavelength independent form of inelastic scattering is.....what?

I don't know yet because you folks keep squandering my hard earned tax dollars on pure metaphysical garbage!

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 don't even know that much. You've never bothered to actually conduct an exhaustive study of inelastic scattering events. You simply *assume* whatever you wish to assume, and you go right back to looking for invisible sky entities and making claims about superliminal "jets".

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;

No, that's isn't an extraordinary claim because A) nobody said anything about "evenly" except you, B) that's not a requirement in scattering, and C) scattering shows up in labs on Earth. There's nothing "extra-ordinary" about inelastic scattering.

You however have *three* extra-ordinary claims you cannot support in any lab on Earth. You can't support your claims that "space" does magic expansion tricks. You can't support your claim that inflation does anything to anything. You can't demonstrate that dark energy has any effect on photon redshift. You made *three* extraordinary claims related to redshift that I do not have to make!

Get to it. You've failed completely so far. Nobel and Lucasian Chair waiting for you.

The humorous part from my perspective is that *you too* have that same potential if you would simply get off your lazy butt and get into a lab and actually run some actual tests on inelastic scattering in AC/DC environments. Since you refuse to do so, we're stuck in the literal "dark ages" of astronomy.

 

[Michael]

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



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.

So what message are you sending exactly? After thousands of man years of studying this mythical enigma called "dark energy", the entire community of astronomy cannot do for "dark energy" what a clever fifth grader can do for any other area of "science"?

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

Of course your industry has *not* ever actually done any type of exhaustive study on the various types of inelastic scattering processes in various conditions, so you really have no idea if that statement is actually true or not true.

You personally make all sorts of irrational personal proclamations of "truth", just like you made with *one* 31Mev photon, even though you have no clue if that that energy state of a photon even should experience or would experience the same effects as a 1.2 Tev photon.

You can't even tell me what your superluminal *jet* could be made of to achieve superluminal velocities and be all 'connected together in a jet' in that last paper you handed me.

Even the very fact you need to resort to superluminal velocity claims to begin with should be your first clue that your interpretation of the redshift phenomenon is trash! The fact that inelastic scattering has been observed from *many* types of scattering events should be your second clue that redshift is *not necessarily* related to expansion. The fact we *can* allow objects to expand *and* incorporate inelastic scattering to achieve the same effects as well, should be your *third clue* that something should change. You won't take any hints apparently. You'd rather sit there and watch a clever fifth grader do something for any other branch of science that you'll probably never manage to do in your entire lifetime as it relates to "dark energy" claims!

 

[Davian]

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

Lightning is not electromagnetism. Are you just jerking me around now?

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.

So you concede that it is not the EM field of the lightning strike that kills.

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.

I have answered this previously, and DavidB answered again in post #880, to which I see you have gone at with some straw. That's for a different 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.

No, you have not provided specific evidence for your claim that I have quoted in my post.

In fact, in that same post, you say, "Fine, but it's out of my budget."

Do you deny that?

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.

That "fact" is irrelevant. The topic at hand is "EM influence on humans".

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?

I am not.

Fine, but it's out of my budget. <snip rant>

Is this not an admittal that you do not have the evidence to support your claims?

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.

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.

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

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

You can't have them be the same thing and have one causing the other, can you?

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.

Try charging a battery directly by exposing it to an EM field, and see if the current and the EM field are the same thing.

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.

You will have to come up with more than "power magnetic fields exist" to make your point.

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.

That is not what I said, but I would ask, in what proximity would a human have to be of a solar flare where the field strength might have a measurable effect?

You said "An electric universe would definitely be able to have an EM influence on humans".

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

You said, "Fine, but it's out of my budget.", and the god helmet does not demonstrate your claim. Let me know when you have figured out a way to actually test your claim.

 

[Michael]

Lightning is not electromagnetism. Are you just jerking me around now?

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

The electromagnetic force is one of the four fundamental interactions in nature, the other three being the strong interaction, the weak interaction, and gravitation. This force is described by electromagnetic fields, and has innumerable physical instances including the interaction of electrically charged particles and the interaction of uncharged magnetic force fields with electrical conductors. The word electromagnetism is a compound form of two Greek terms, &#7970;&#955;&#949;&#954;&#964;&#961;&#959;&#957;, &#275;lektron, "amber", and &#956;&#945;&#947;&#957;&#942;&#964;&#951;&#962;, magn&#275;t&#275;s, "magnet". The science of electromagnetic phenomena is defined in terms of the electromagnetic force, sometimes called the Lorentz force, which includes both electricity and magnetism as elements of one phenomenon.

Emphasis mine. Yes, it is. Apparently you're just jerking me around now. Until you get off the denial-go-round, there's not much for us to discuss I'm afraid.

 

[Michael]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetism#Quantities_and_units

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

 

[davidbilby]

So what message are you sending exactly?

That your simplistic view of science gleaned from press releases is inadequate.

I ask you again - what causes the magnetic dipole of an electron? It's not current - you claimed magnetic fields are caused by a "one word answer" - current. Is that the answer to the question, end of story? No. There is no concept of current in a single electron. So what causes the magnetic dipole of a single electron?

Can you answer the question?

After thousands of man years

Fair few woman years too...

of studying this mythical enigma called "dark energy", the entire community of astronomy cannot do for "dark energy" what a clever fifth grader can do for any other area of "science"?

Oh. So you're just happy with fifth grade science terminology. Thanks for clarifying. That explains a lot.

Of course your industry has *not* ever actually done any type of exhaustive study on the various types of inelastic scattering processes in various conditions, so you really have no idea if that statement is actually true or not true.

It is demonstrably impossible in quantum mechanics for any inelastic scattering process to change &#955; without inducing &#952;, and thus be dispersive. We've been over this and over this and over this.

But even if we ignored that (for purely ridiculous reasons, I guess), and pretended that it was mathematically possible...what form of inelastic scattering are you proposing? What interaction? How do we test a mythical form of scattering of which you cannot tell us any properties?

We can at least constrain equations of state for dark energy theories, and relate the model mathematically to scalar field interpretations of the Higgs boson. We can also look for the secondary signatures that should be there if it existed - if the BAO signals did not imply expansion of the gravity wells in the universe, or cosmological redshift was shown to fluctuate wildly and be wavelength DEPENDENT, then that would directly falsify dark energy. They don't.

They do however show wavelength independence of the cosmological redshift, which rules out any wavelength dependent process being part of the makeup of the cosmological redshift. You're happy to claim "inelastic scattering" did it despite having no clue whether that's true or not and all the evidence for every well understood type of inelastic scattering showing that they couldn't be part of it.

You're happy to tout "it's been shown in the lab"...lovely! But is the redshift you observe there relevant? Is it all redshift, or partly blueshift...which wouldn't help you...or is it even broadening of spectral lines, and not an actual redshift at all?

Does it have the right characteristics? No, you say? Oh dear. But no - still you bang on with your claim that you somehow have produced the cosmological redshift in a lab. Which is a lie, because you know you haven't. Have you?

We've got an unseen process that's currently consistent with observation. You've got an unseen process that's inconsistent with observation, and entirely inconsistent with the laws of quantum mechanics. Yeah, I'll take our position over yours, as should any rational person.

You personally make all sorts of irrational personal proclamations of "truth", just like you made with *one* 31Mev photon, even though you have no clue if that that energy state of a photon even should experience or would experience the same effects as a 1.2 Tev photon.

You're treating them like they're different particles altogether. Can you name for me an empirically demonstrated process that would happen to a 1.2 TeV photon that wouldn't happen to a 31GeV (GeV by the way, not MeV, your usual sloppy attention to detail shows you up again...) photon? They are both well above the limit to induce pair production in interactions, provided they are travelling at C.

You still haven't answered the rebuttal to MAGIC (which, ironically enough, was good enough for most quantum gravity theorists to go back to the drawing board as regards photon travel time fluctuations, but only zealots of tired light still cling to it).

Annihilation is clearly evident in the spectra from Markarian 501 and 421 in the multi-TeV range, but if these photons had been slowed, SR quite clearly says that these photons would not interact with infra-red photons in intergalactic space, which would mean that the spectra observed from Markarian 501 and 421 should peak in the gamma ray range instead of dipping. Read the paper again. Can you actually answer the question? I think not.

You can't even tell me what your superluminal *jet* could be made of to achieve superluminal velocities and be all 'connected together in a jet' in that last paper you handed me.

This is just embarrassing. Firstly, they're not "my" superluminal jets. Secondly, they're made of plasma, which is ironic, since you'd think you'd know that, although the exact makeup of that plasma is debatable. They're actually crucial in models of gamma ray burst formation, which is why they're mentioned in that paper. Funny that! FERMI was observing GRBs, if you remember...

Here's a picture of one.

File:M87 jet.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The notion that they are "superluminal" refers to an optical illusion, whereby the transverse velocity of the jet ejected from a black hole appears to travel superluminally, as much as five or six times C (M87 is a good example) and even up to 9 times C. Is the mass ejected from the jets travelling at that speed? Most people think no (although that mass is travelling VERY fast indeed, possibly faster than any other mass in the universe). "Relativistic jet" is more common. They have apparent superluminal motion when observed by a distant observer and from certain angles. I can see why a layman would get confused. There is no violation of SR. Hundreds of them have been observed.

(There are a few people who think that the motion is indeed superluminal, but for other reasons, that's not a mainstream view, and that's not worth going into now because it's not relevant.)

Even the very fact you need to resort to superluminal velocity claims to begin with

We don't. That wasn't the central tenet of that paper which is that MAGIC does not imply photon travel time fluctuation because if it did the spectra wouldn't dip at the multi-TeV level (drops off around 5 TeV). This has nothing to do with apparent superluminal motion in relativistic jets (which most people think is an optical illusion, well understood and well studied), or apparent faster than C expansion (which is easily explained in terms of comoving coordinates, as has been known for decades).

should be your first clue that your interpretation of the redshift phenomenon is trash!

Oh, so redshift is nonsense now? I think you're frothing at the mouth and confusing things. I think you're meaning to trash inflation, not redshift, which is well observed as I think you would know. I guess you're too emotional to even type your thoughts down rationally.

The fact that inelastic scattering has been observed from *many* types of scattering events should be your second clue that redshift is *not necessarily* related to expansion.

Inelastic scattering processes can alter &#955; and sometimes alter it in the red direction...nobody disputes this! Are you crazy? LISTEN. The cosmological redshift is observed to be

WAVELENGTH INDEPENDENT.

The whole spectum is shifted. It is a doppler-like shift.

IF you want to propose a candidate for causing this, it has to have that characteristic. A child could understand that.

If you want to say X did it, X has to have the characteristics of the observed result. If you want to say X, Y, Z, A, B and C all did it, the cumulative effect has to have the characteristics of the observed result. If all of X, Y, Z, A, B and C are wavelength dependent, the cumulative effect will be strongly wavelength dependent. Don't you see? This is like...basic.

The fact we *can* allow objects to expand

Space-time is not an object. Objects do not expand in inflationary theories, space-time does. Quit this ridiculous assertion of yours that "objects expand". No inflation theory has EVER said that. EVER.

*and* incorporate inelastic scattering to achieve the same effects as well

Sigh. Which inelastic scattering process is that? Did you find it yet? How does it overcome the laws of quantum mechanics?

You don't know! You've suggested all sorts of ideas and they've all been proven wrong. Some of them haven't even demonstrated redshift, but either both redshift AND blueshift, or they've demonstrated spectral line broadening.

Then further, we've shown that any process that would alter &#955; would be dispersive. How can we incorporate something that is not known, not suggested, and violates everything else we know about quantum mechanics, without any evidence other than the fact that an IT guy with no physics degree would quite like it to be the case despite not understanding the above???

You suggested VPs, and when I pointed out that the VP pair in that model would then annihilate, you cited "another particle" and some "EM field" which would somehow get the momentum in the interaction between a photon and a VP pair. I asked you ....what other particle? What other EM field, and you never answered, because you were just flailing around. I ask again - in a photon - VP pair interaction, when the VP pair annihilates releasing the photon, as the model suggests, where does the momentum lost from the photon go, in quantum mechanics terms please? If it is "another particle", WHICH, and why does it play a part in this interaction in terms of conservation?

Now I'm sure at this point you'll say "you have no idea what dark energy is". That is true, because we've not actually ever said that we do. That's because it's a category, a category that whatever is causing the acceleration of the expansion of the universe falls into, if that is taking place. Yes - I say "if". That's always the question. Something presently unseen is causing the time dilation of supernovae light curves. Independently, measurements of baryon acoustic oscillations imply that the gravitational wells which occur at intervals of every 500 million light years or so are expanding.

If these independent measurements are caused by something causing photon travel time fluctuations, then those photons will be slowing and the results will be seen in the gamma ray spectra - absorption due to pair production annihilation will not be seen, because SR clearly shows that a photon travelling at less than C will not cause pair production, which will lead to a rise in the spectra around 5 TeV and above. Yet...the spectra we see from space do not rise...they dip off! This is well understood by photon annihilations at these energy levels due to pair production.

That constrains the possibility of photon travel time fluctuations down to 1 part in a thousand trillion.

So, we're left with the more likely solution is that the universe is expanding and that expansion is accelerating. We have a perfectly rational explanation for that in general relativity, which, without lambda, actually predicts expansion.

Lambda is only needed to be added back in if a) you want a static universe as Einstein originally did or b) you want an accelerated expansion. You need lambda as much as we do, but when we include it, it's "mythical". Sure. Right.

There is no observation that yet rules out dark energy.

That's not to say that there won't be ever! There might be! But there hasn't been yet.

Have you exhaustively tested every SUSY theory before declaring an entire field "dead" and declaring all people who work in it fools? Including the ones which predict superpartners that are well above LHC range, particularly since the Higgs mass leads most SUSY theories to predict superpartners above 10TeV? Is running the 14TeV cycle of LHC pointless, according to you? We're done already?

You won't take any hints apparently. You'd rather sit there and watch a clever fifth grader do something for any other branch of science that you'll probably never manage to do in your entire lifetime as it relates to "dark energy" claims!

Fifth grade is about right for you - you think quantum mechanics is billiard balls knocking around, you think that the answer to the question "what causes magnetic fields" is "current" and are happy to leave it there (despite the fact that it's not just "current" and that doesn't really answer the question) and you're happy to answer "what causes gravity" with the one word answer "mass".

Scalar field interpretations of the spinless, colorless Higgs that couples to W and Z bosons, endowing them with a property that causes the curvature of space-time? Hardly. What a joke! Why use all those difficult words when one four letter word sums it all up and we can go home happy. Mass. Yeah, that's nice and cuddly.

Why is your answer not "the spinless + parity perturbation of the Higgs field is the cause of the curvature of space-time through the stress-energy momentum tensor, caused by the four-momentum components of k_u and k_v?".

Nope..."mass". Fifth grade is about right. That's where you're at. Well done.

 

[davidbilby]

Ya, and in the process you "skipped over" every single Planck anomaly

Hardly. This is a funny statement. I can't tell you why.

while you cherry pick the acoustic data you think supports your nonsense!

Point me, please to the BAO measurement that does not imply expansion of the gravitational wells in the universe. Any one will do. Or, alternatively, point me to your explanation of the late time integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect. Please. Otherwise you fail.

SUSY theory failed it's own "golden test". Not a single sparticle showed up at LHC and every "popular" SUSY theory went up in smoke!

List three, and an example for each of a sparticle that should have been and was not found at the energy level of the last LHC run. I dare you to even try. Are you chicken?

 

[davidbilby]

and every "popular" SUSY theory went up in smoke!

By the way "every"?

What constraints have been placed on MSSM_AKM?

Show your working, please. Or retract the statement.

 

[Davian]

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

Emphasis mine. Yes, it is. Apparently you're just jerking me around now. Until you get off the denial-go-round, there's not much for us to discuss I'm afraid.

This, so you don't have to address the balance of my post? lol.

In the context that I was using the word, I meant "magnetism developed by a current of electricity" link

Do you really need to resort to equivocation?

You said "An electric universe would definitely be able to have an EM influence on humans".

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

You conceded with, "Fine, but it's out of my budget." The god helmet does not demonstrate your claim. Let me know when you have figured out a way to *actually* test your claim.

 

[Michael]

That your simplistic view of science gleaned from press releases is inadequate.

Meanwhile you're simplistic view of inelastic scattering is inadequate and you refuse to do anything at all about it.

I ask you again - what causes the magnetic dipole of an electron? It's not current - you claimed magnetic fields are caused by a "one word answer" - current. Is that the answer to the question, end of story? No. There is no concept of current in a single electron. So what causes the magnetic dipole of a single electron?

Can you answer the question?

Electron magnetic dipole moment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anyone with the least bit of search engine skills could answer just about any question david. You're incapable of answering *my* questions about the origin of dark energy, inflation or exotic matter, so you deflect your pitiful lack of knowledge by attacking the messenger rather than just accepting you've got no answer and you'll likely have no answer till the day you die! Meanwhile you're cherry pick data from sources, all the while ignoring the data from the exact same source that actually falsifies all your claims! Nothing like turning a blind eye to all that Planck data, and cherry picking one or two data pieces that you *think* supports your theory! Holy Cow. Talk about *gross negligence*.

Fair few woman years too...

Approximately how many more man/woman years will it take before you have an answer to my relatively simple (fifth grade apparently) question?

Oh. So you're just happy with fifth grade science terminology. Thanks for clarifying. That explains a lot.

No, I am more than a little unhappy that after squandering my tax dollars for 15 years and thousands of human *years* of research, you can't even answer the *simplest* of 5th grade science questions!

You can't even tell me a source of dark energy, nor a way to control, nor any way to setup a single logical experiment, with actual control mechanisms, to verify or falsify anything that you've said. I have to take it all "on faith" apparently while you literally take financial resources out of my personal pocket that prevent me or limit me personally from even exploring other possibilities! All the while, you apparently intend to berate me and every other individual that doubt your metaphysical frankstein of a theory, for not having the *personal resources* and *personal time* to do *your professional job for you*! You won't do the dirty and exhaustive lab work that is necessary to verify or falsify anything related to inelastic scattering in real life *experiments* with real life control mechanisms. Oh no.

Meanwhile you'll actually complain and [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] about the "primitive" nature of an individual's attempt at small scale experiments, Scantilli for instance, while you squander all public funds on nonsense! How about instead of complaining about his primitive equipment, you "do it right' and see what happens?

It is demonstrably impossible in quantum mechanics for any inelastic scattering process to change &#955; without inducing &#952;, and thus be dispersive.

Prove that knowledge claim with a real, comprehensive experiment, not just a handwave of a few lines of math. I want to see this exhaustive and comprehensive study that you conducted, including various control mechanisms and various conditions that allow you to make sure *outrageous* statements! You keep making all these sweeping knowledge claims like that 31*Gev* photon claim you made. When I asked you how you *know* that there should be some smooth curve that dictates how this delay process works, you can't! Instead you hurl yet *another* 8-10 page paper at me, while making statements that don't (at least thus far) even seem to jive with the paper. The last time you pulled that number, it turned out that you *started with an assumption* about a smooth curve you made up in you mind that should apply to any delay mechanisms in space, and handed me a paper that didn't even involve the same *energy states* for crying out loud!

But even if we ignored that (for purely ridiculous reasons, I guess), and pretended that it was mathematically possible...what form of inelastic scattering are you proposing? What interaction? How do we test a mythical form of scattering of which you cannot tell us any properties?

So far the closest thing I've seen to a useful experiment comes from a single individual that I've seen you personally ridicule. I'm actually forced to agree with you that it's a primitive attempt, and it would take money and effort to actually verify or falsify his claims, but alas such experiments would require *public* support. Since you're squandering my resources on thousand of man years of fruitless searches for even the *origin* of this so called "dark energy", and you keep making claims you cannot support about inelastic scattering and ignoring it altogether, nothing useful is getting done! Apparently you're just fine spending my money on *your* ideas, but God forbid you should spend my money on actual laboratory experiments that I'd like to see done.

We can at least constrain equations of state for dark energy theories, and relate the model mathematically to scalar field interpretations of the Higgs boson.

Constrain them how? You can't even be sure it exists, that redshift is related to dark energy in the first place, or that dark energy is responsible for *all* of that excess redshift, rather than just part of it. The whole thing is one giant metaphysical assumption after another after another.

We can also look for the secondary signatures that should be there if it existed - if the BAO signals did not imply expansion of the gravity wells in the universe, or cosmological redshift was shown to fluctuate wildly and be wavelength DEPENDENT, then that would directly falsify dark energy. They don't.

So what? You can't even name a source of it yet, even after thousands of man years wasted and millions if not billions of dollars wasted on this claim. You're not even offering me a legitimate way to falsify your claim because you won't even *test* anything in a lab related to scattering, and you offer me not experiment to support your own claims!

They do however show wavelength independence of the cosmological redshift, which rules out any wavelength dependent process being part of the makeup of the cosmological redshift.

So what? The movement of real objects produces the same thing. Your metaphysical "space expansion" claim doesn't work and dark energy and inflation don't do anything like that in a lab. I'm personally willing to entertain *both* the movement of objects *and* inelastic scattering to explain photon redshift, whereas you are not. Strike two.

I have to stop here for now, but I'll pickup where I left off when I get time. FYI, cool your jets on your papers. You just handed them to me this week, and I have already waited 15 years for you to even name a single source of 'dark energy' without success. I'll get to your papers and I'll comment on them. So far at least, the authors don't even make the same claims you're making, but then again, what's new?

 

[Michael]

This, so you don't have to address the balance of my post? lol.

No, I simply know from experience that when someone is in pure denial of basic science as you are, and they make factually untrue statements as it relates to science, that pretty much all hope of resolving anything goes flying out the window. Denial isn't something I can fix for you, you can only fix it yourself. Electrical discharges are *absolutely and positively* an example of electromagnetism. If you can't accept that *fact* there is nothing more to discuss.

In the context that I was using the word, I meant "magnetism developed by a current of electricity" link

I have even demonstrated to you via God Helmet experiments that *magnetic fields* alone are enough to have an influence on human thought, and an average lightening strike produces a larger field that those used in that device. Again, I've handed you an example of cause/effect connections between electromagnetism and humans, and again you won't accept reality.

Do you really need to resort to equivocation?

No, but apparently you need to nitpick and play lawyer games and ignore every mathematical formula that relates to electromagnetism to support your position.

You said "An electric universe would definitely be able to have an EM influence on humans".

I've already demonstrated that claim is true.

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

You conceded with, "Fine, but it's out of my budget." The god helmet does not demonstrate your claim. Let me know when you have figured out a way to *actually* test your claim.

I already did that for you in the appropriate thread had you bothered to actually read it.

Apparently you expect me to personally conduct a series of million dollar experiments *before* you'll even accept the fact that EM fields have an effect on human beings!

 

[davidbilby]

I asked you what causes an electron's magnetic field, since you said that "current" was the one word answer to "what causes magnetic fields" and your answer was laughably simplistic....and you answered:

Electron magnetic dipole moment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

THAT...is hilarious. Really. Thanks for completely and utterly finishing yourself off.

I asked you for the cause of an electron's magnetic dipole. You googled "electron magnetic field" and copy-pasted the result, thus proving you...didn't actually know the answer. To a catastrophically basic question in particle physics. I'm not even sure you understand the answer now!

Because it's not something anybody who's studied any particle physics would need to look up. I didn't ask you for a website.

And then you say this:

Anyone with the least bit of search engine skills could answer just about any question david.

Answer, yes. Understand - no.

I could ask you whether or not the length of a four-vector is variant or not in every inertial frame. Do you know the answer to that question? You might be able to google it, but understanding the implication of it?

Generally, people with knowledge don't need Google to answer questions for them. Thanks for proving you know nothing about physics unless google tells you it. I see now why you have no mechanism to know whether what you're being told is true - like dark flow, Holushko, Ashmore...you have no idea!

You couldn't even answer in your own words. You couldn't even trot out the four word answer "spin" without resorting to Mr. Google. You don't even try to pretend you know the answer.

Pitiful.

 

[Michael]

I asked you what causes an electron's magnetic field, since you said that "current" was the one word answer to "what causes magnetic fields" and your answer was laughably simplistic....and you answered:

Apparently you would have preferred the single word "spin"?

Give me a break! Your *entire* debate tactic depends exclusively upon you continuing to attack the *individual* rather than deal with the topic. You can't even post a single post without engaging yourself in that behavior and you don't have the first clue about honest scientific debate. Apparently you'd rather spend all your time attacking individuals and cherry picking data that suits you. Talk about *pitiful* behaviors!

FYI, there's a concert in the park tonight and I have friends coming over for a BBQ later. Your pointless personal attack nonsense can wait....

 

[davidbilby]

You're incapable of answering *my* questions about the origin of dark energy, inflation or exotic matter

What is the origin of the electromagnetic field, please? Note that I am not asking you for

a) where I can find an electromagnetic field

b) the origin of a perturbation of the field

c) the origin of either the electric field or the magnetic field considered separately

so you deflect your pitiful lack of knowledge by attacking the messenger

The messenger apparently can neither read nor write the language of physics, yet demands not just an audience, but claims superiority of all others. Yeah, let's kill the pretend messenger. I'm in.

Meanwhile you're cherry pick data from sources, all the while ignoring the data from the exact same source that actually falsifies all your claims!

Oh goodie. So you can easily cite the data that falsifies inflationary theory, comprehensively and without any possible recourse or explanation. Off you go. Mathematics please. I'm sure (given your confidence) that it'll be a mere formality for a mind of such behemoth proportions as yours.

Nothing like turning a blind eye to all that Planck data

God, I wish I could let you in on that one. That's just hilarity in a bottle.

and cherry picking one or two data pieces that you *think* supports your theory! Holy Cow. Talk about *gross negligence*.

Once again, please point to the BAO measurement that does not support the conclusions of the late time ISW effect in gravity wells. Any example will do.

Approximately how many more man/woman years will it take before you have an answer to my relatively simple (fifth grade apparently) question?

Your question is malformed, deliberately so, because you think you are clever. Asking "what is the origin of dark energy" and poisoning the well (because you know that the answer is going to be in the form of math, and not in the form of "it's a reaction between hydrogen and plutonium creating a special new substance" or something of that form would allow you some kind of gloating that would impress the ill-informed)....doesn't actually work with me.

No, I am more than a little unhappy that after squandering my tax dollars for 15 years and thousands of human *years* of research, you can't even answer the *simplest* of 5th grade science questions!

How would you explain general relativity to a fifth grader? Do tell.

You can't even tell me a source of dark energy, nor a way to control, nor any way to setup a single logical experiment, with actual control mechanisms, to verify or falsify anything that you've said.

What is the source of the time dimension of the universe, or can you concede that the concept of "source" is ill-formed and deliberately vague.

Name for me a way to control the Andromeda Galaxy.

I have to take it all "on faith" apparently while you literally take financial resources out of my personal pocket that prevent me or limit me personally from even exploring other possibilities!

Let's assume you earn $100,000 a year. Let's assume you pay $30,000 in tax a year.

What experiment, exactly, what you propose with a budget of $450,000 that could test your inelastic scattering ideas. Do tell. I'm sure you'd have an idea of where to start. I'd love to hear it. It's YOUR idea.

Nobody else believes in this nonsense you peddle, but hey, that never stopped you. Where would you start, hypothetically? (Does everybody who suggests a ridiculous idea get equal time? Do we have to investigate, rigorously, all claims of Bigfoot? Elvis being alive?)

No, sir. It's YOUR job. Not mine. You have the crazy idea. You prove it, and in doing so rewrite the entirety of quantum mechanics. Off you go.

You won't do the dirty and exhaustive lab work that is necessary to verify or falsify anything related to inelastic scattering in real life *experiments* with real life control mechanisms.

You know, it's impossible to square a circle, to construct a square with only a compass and ruler with the same area as a particular circle.

Math proves that, just as it proves your inelastic scattering idea wrong.

But...no - here's Michael with empirical physics to the rescue! Have we exhaustively tested EVERY size of circle? Every brand of ruler and straightedge? I think not. Clearly we need to have more people working on squaring circles, according to your logic!

Meanwhile you'll actually complain and [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]

Guess you're getting emotional now.

about the "primitive" nature of an individual's attempt at small scale experiments, Scantilli for instance, while you squander all public funds on nonsense!

Please, please, please throw in your support more with Santilli. Scantilli is an excellent name for him by the way. This is the guy who renamed the entirety of space-time after himself. Generally in physics we have enough humility to let others do that for us (Peter Higgs did not, for example, name the Higgs boson after himself).

It'll make this discussion even more entertaining when you realise that he thinks GR (and, actually, your views too) imply we are at the center of the universe. I guess you'll see this diagram he drew and it'll just blow your mind. Awesome.

http://i.imgur.com/jFXH1.png

See if they can give you some magnegas to run your car on whilst you're at it.

How about instead of complaining about his primitive equipment, you "do it right' and see what happens?

Are you talking about that joke of an experiment in his back yard proving "isoredshift", disproving special relativity (and tired light to boot!)? How about you look up the many thousands of hugely precise tests of SR that have been performed in the last century and realize he's a crank. The enemy of your enemy is NOT necessarily your friend. If you think he disproved SR in his backyard with a cheap spectrometer, you're nuts.

Prove that knowledge claim with a real, comprehensive experiment, not just a handwave of a few lines of math. I want to see this exhaustive and comprehensive study that you conducted, including various control mechanisms

Keep trying to square the circle. I love how it's now "my problem" to prove you wrong as opposed to "your problem" to prove yourself right.

Let's indulge in some reductio ad absurdum. I, for the sake of argument postulate that Elvis is alive. Unless you can prove me wrong - and I, like you, now declare the burden of that proof is on you.

The only exhaustive way you can do it is to examine the DNA of every human being presently alive and compare it to his family's DNA. If you cannot do this, then Elvis is alive.

See how your logic eats itself?

You keep making all these sweeping knowledge claims like that 31*Gev* photon claim you made. When I asked you how you *know* that there should be some smooth curve that dictates how this delay process works, you can't!

If there WAS a delay process, the spectra of Markarian 501 would be strongly accentuated in the multi-TeV region, because high energy photons would not interact in pair production annihilation events otherwise. The spectra does not rise - instead it falls in the 5 TeV range as do all GRB spectra, because gamma rays have a tendency to cause pair production when they pass through intergalactic space. If they were traveling at less than C, SR says that no such interaction will take place. Forget the smooth curve. There IS no curve. There IS no evidence of any delay, Lorentz violation or otherwise.

Instead you hurl yet *another* 8-10 page paper at me,

Oooh. 8 pages. So hard. Practically Tolkien-esque mountains.

while making statements that don't (at least thus far) even seem to jive with the paper.

Why don't you prove why "thus far" any of my statements don't align with the paper. Citations please. You're implying that I'm either lying about the paper, or misunderstanding. I challenge you to prove it.

The last time you pulled that number, it turned out that you *started with an assumption* about a smooth curve you made up in you mind that should apply to any delay mechanisms in space

It doesn't matter, if there was any curve, any delay mechanism at all, the spectra for Markarian 501 and 421 would look different - in fact, the spectra for every gamma ray burst wouldn't dip as they all do in the multi-TeV range.

and handed me a paper that didn't even involve the same *energy states* for crying out loud!

It's not the relative energy "states" - I think you mean energy levels - that falsify the position. If the photons were slowed, the gamma rays would not annihilate in pair production and the spectra of GRBs would not dip in the higher ranges.

So far the closest thing I've seen to a useful experiment comes from a single individual that I've seen you personally ridicule.

Santilli? You think Santilli was experimenting with tired light? Santilli thinks he has disproved tired light. I quote:

"It should be noted that the known hypothesis of "tired light" formulated as an alternative to the "big bang" conjecture, but dismissed by organized interest on Einsteinian doctrines, assumes the full validity of special relativity in intergalactic spaces, thus being disproved by the experimental evidence identified by Prof. Santilli for light propagating in water, air, quasar chromospheres, and other physical media."

Sunset-Sunrise | The R.M. Santilli Foundation

You're throwing down with a guy who thinks he disproved SR. Congratulations on making your position even more contradictory. Do you still think SR is correct or not, Michael? Just to clarify and all.

I'm actually forced to agree with you that it's a primitive attempt, and it would take money and effort to actually verify or falsify his claims

Nope, just a physics degree, reading ability (of any of the vastly more precise tests of special relativity) and a few minutes to realise the guy seems to be nuts.

but alas such experiments would require *public* support.

I don't remember having to convince the public of anything to get funding. It's more a community of one's peers. Oh yes, this is where you bring out the conspiracy theory.

and you keep making claims you cannot support about inelastic scattering and ignoring it altogether, nothing useful is getting done! Apparently you're just fine spending my money on *your* ideas, but God forbid you should spend my money on actual laboratory experiments that I'd like to see done.

I don't like my tax dollars paying Republican salaries, but hey, that's the way it works. Imagine we drop all mainstream ideas, burn every QM textbook as heresy, and you are the head scientist of the world and only research into inelastic scattering may be performed.

What experiments would you like to see done into your mythical but wonderful inelastic scattering? Please detail them a bit, with your proposed controls, methodology, etc.

Constrain them how? You can't even be sure it exists, that redshift is related to dark energy in the first place, or that dark energy is responsible for *all* of that excess redshift, rather than just part of it. The whole thing is one giant metaphysical assumption after another after another.

This is a truly wondrous amount of fail.

So what? You can't even name a source of it yet

Name a source of the W2 field.

even after thousands of man years wasted and millions if not billions of dollars wasted on this claim. You're not even offering me a legitimate way to falsify your claim because you won't even *test* anything in a lab related to scattering, and you offer me not experiment to support your own claims!

What would you suggest we test? Go for it. It's YOUR idea. It's mathematically impossible, like squaring the circle, but go for it, what should we test? If I want to test something, I have to write a proposal which says what I expect to find and how I expect to find it to secure funding. So go for it. Pretend you're actually a real scientist and tell me what you would propose.

So what? The movement of real objects produces the same thing. Your metaphysical "space expansion" claim doesn't work and dark energy and inflation don't do anything like that in a lab. I'm personally willing to entertain *both* the movement of objects *and* inelastic scattering to explain photon redshift, whereas you are not. Strike two.

Dark energy and inflation don't do anything in a bricks and mortar laboratory. I'd like you to point to where anybody has ever said they should. One citation, please. Any citation. Otherwise quit humping your strawman.

I have to stop here for now, but I'll pickup where I left off when I get time. FYI, cool your jets on your papers.

"Stop showing me actual physics! I can't handle it! ARGH! It burns!".

So far at least, the authors don't even make the same claims you're making

"I haven't read the papers, but I know they say something different to what you say because I say so". How could you possibly know? I mean, I could make stuff up and you'd have no way of knowing. But you're claiming that I've misrepresented a paper. Prove it. PROVE IT.

Cite me please, one example of where I have said something regarding a paper and the paper says something different. Please. Any one example will do, quoting both the paper and my comments regarding it. Otherwise I want you to retract that statement, please.

 

[davidbilby]

Apparently you would have preferred the single word "spin"?

Well, that would have been correct. An electron's magnetic field is a consequence of its spin. There is a little more complexity to it than that (if you consider it as not a free electron but in orbit, where the motion of that orbit will also bring about a magnetic field)

....but it might have showed you knew something about the very basics of the topic without having to rely on a Google crutch.

My point is that you make claims that are wrong, or at best incomplete. Current is not the only answer to "what causes magnetic fields". Mass is not the final answer to "what causes gravity". Saying "mass is the origin of gravity" is not correct to any meaningful degree other than what might be taught to children (who I've noticed sometimes then ask the obvious question - what is mass, which quite a lot of high school science teachers can't actually answer).

Asking for the "origin" of dark energy (which is essentially theorized to be an intrinsic property of the vacuum) is equally incorrect. One could in a similar way say "the vacuum" to answer your question as saying "mass" for gravity and be equally right, which is to say, barely.

You might as well ask "what is the origin of a vacuum"? Or, what is the origin of the universe?

"Origin" is a malformed question to be asking.

FYI, there's a concert in the park tonight and I have friends coming over for a BBQ later. Your pointless personal attack nonsense can wait....

You have friends? You clearly aren't a scientist then.

I kid, I kid. Have fun.

 

[Michael]

Well, that would have been correct. An electron's magnetic field is a consequence of its spin. There is a little more complexity to it than that (if you consider it as not a free electron but in orbit, where the motion of that orbit will also bring about a magnetic field)

....but it might have showed you knew something about the very basics of the topic without having to rely on a Google crutch.

There you go again......

Apparently you think that if you continue to assault and attack and belittle anyone you disagree with, you will somehow "win" a *scientific* debate. I hate to burst your bubble, but all that you are demonstrating is that you have no ethics in debate, you have absolutely no scientific sense of neutrality, and you aren't serving the *public* interest in any way, shape or form. Evidently you've decided to make yourself the poster child for everything that is wrong with the field of astronomy today.

It's no wonder why we're living in the dark ages of astronomy. You cherry pick the data the suits you, ignore the data that destroys your claims, and belittle anyone that disagrees with your beliefs. There's no 'research' going on into anything related to empirical physics in any lab on Earth, with real experiments and real control mechanisms.

Instead we get pure nonsense about "dark energy cameras", claims about mythical forms of inflation and dark energy having some tangible effect on photons, without a *shred* of laboratory support.

The only reason you can even attempt to "pick on" inelastic scattering processes in the first place is because they *do* have a tangible and physical effect on photons in a lab. It's not like you've done any sort of extensive study of various scattering processes in a wide variety of conditions. Apparently you're content to do absolutely no laboratory research at all related to inelastic scattering in plasma.

Nothing showed up at LHC that even *remotely* supports a *non standard* brand of particle physics. SUSY theory in particular has taken a *beating*. Not a single "sparticle" at *any* energy state showed up. All the popular brands of SUSY theory got utterly blown away in those few "experiments" that we can even attempt to make on *any* of your invisible entity claims. SUSY theory even failed it's own "golden test", pretty much destroying any real credibility at all in terms of "predicting" anything useful related to particle physics. Furthermore the Higgs was found at an energy state that suggests that the standard model is "stable" without SUSY theory. Sure, there still remain some "enigmas" in standard particle physics theory, the *standard* theory which has stood the test of time and stood up to real world experimentation. That's completely different from your *non-standard* brands of particle physics theory, which have in fact been a complete dud in the lab to date. Standard particle physics theory is now complete and it's fine without anything else found in later experimentation.

You however completely ignored all those results. You don't care what the 'experiments' actually said. You won't even conduct real world experiments related to inelastic scattering in plasma even after finding more mass in plasma in 2012 than in we had *ever* found. You won't even abide by the results when SUSY theories *are tested* in the lab. Apparently *nothing* in terms of lab results, or lack thereof is even of the slightest interest to you. Nothing can sway you from continuously extolling the virtues of mythical forms of matter, absolutely nothing.

Meanwhile we discovered more mass in the form of plasma and dust in 2012 than had been discovered in the whole of human history. In the past five years we've discovered that we grossly underestimated the number of small stars in any given galaxy, and we learned that galaxies are at least twice as bright as we first imagined.

The only *logical* thing to do would be to go back to the drawing board in terms of galaxy mass layouts and mass estimation, and try again to *minimize* the need for exotic matter. Will you do that? Oh no. You'll continue to sit there and *pretend* that your galaxy mass estimates were miraculously right anyway, in spite of all those star miscounts, in spite of your failure to include all that million degree plasma in your calculations in the location where that plasma is actually found. You can somehow sit there with a straight face and *pretend* that everything is fine with your model, fiddling away why the universe *burns* around you.

Now of course you can sit there and pretend that the discovery of all that plasma in 2012 didn't give a huge boost to PC/EU theory. You can also sit there and pretend that our sun is not electrical in nature if you like too. The problem is that technology and other areas of science (weather prediction for instance) are starting to catch up to you. Other "scientists" have started to notice that astronomy isn't working. It's not actually 'explaining' anything, not solar atmospheric physics, and nothing else for that matter.

Wake up and smell the coffee already. The reason our galaxy is surrounded by million degree plasma is because we live inside of an "electric universe". The reason those positron emitting electrical discharges take place in our own atmosphere, and in the solar atmosphere is because we live inside of an 'electric universe'. Physics, time and technology are on *my* side, not yours.

Take all the cheap personal shots at all the individuals you like, but you cannot change the tide of empirical plasma physics. Empirical physics is about roll all over you, and killing the messengers only makes you look bad, not just now, but for as long as your words remain in cyberspace, which could in fact be "forever" for all I know. I hope you're proud of your personal attack behaviors 20 years from now, but I seriously doubt it. I'll even probably live long enough to see the tide turn, and I'm probably young enough to watch empirical physics destroy your beliefs. You won't have much fun as your metaphysical house of cards comes crashing down. Instead of really *engaging yourself in experimental physics*, you've been busy mudslinging at *individuals* in cyberspace.

 

[Michael]

What is the origin of the electromagnetic field, please?

That would be the *charged particle*, aka "plasma". Moving or not, a charged particle is the origin of the electromagnetic field.

Who made you the "grand inquisitor" over topics that aren't even related to 'dark energy"' or "inflation', or exotic matter?

Your entire method of debate is sleazy. It has nothing to do with discussing the actual topic. You debate in a completely unethical manner, from the very first sentence of every single post! You're not discussing the topics of Lambda-CMD, nor explaining why you cherry pick just the data you like for the WMAP/PLANCK data, while ignoring anything you don't like. You'd rather discuss *individuals* in some desperate attempt to kill the messenger for *daring* to speak to you about, or support empirical laboratory physics.

FYI, no math alone does *not* falsify inelastic scattering, nor could it ever do so. Only an extensive actual *study in the lab* could ever hope to do such a thing and you simply refuse to do so. Instead you wave six line of math at me and claim that gives you some right to stuff three invisible friends into the sky. Foregetaboutit.

I have a lot going on this weekend. I'll pick at what I get time to pick at, probably starting with the issues that *I* want to discuss, not the ones you want to discuss. I want to discuss that hemispheric blowout you're having with the PLANCK data sets, and all the other things about that data set that *should* (but don't) preclude you from cherry picking out the data you just happen to like.

 

[Michael]

The messenger apparently can neither read nor write the language of physics.....

You made that statement up in your head to suit yourself. You apparently need to lie to yourself (and everyone else) to *pretend* that your world is not about to crumble. FYI, it's not about to crumble because of one individual, but because of pure empirical laboratory physics. Sooner or later it is absolutely inevitable that empirical physics will catch up to you.

The other lie that you that tell yourself (and everyone else) is that the problem and issue is in any way related to *math*. It's not even related to mathematics. It's directly related to your lack of *qualification* of your claim. You *claim* that "dark energy" has a tangible effect on a photon. You cannot however even name a source of dark energy, nor can you explain a way to control it, nor can you show that it has any effect on a single photon at *any* energy state in any lab! It's all one big 'statement of faith' apparently.

You *claim* that inflation has some tangible effect on photons, but again, no source, no control mechanism, no demonstration that inflation is anything other than "religion" that Guth dreamed up in his head and a "meme' that simply caught on from there.

SUSY theory took the *hugest* of beatings at LHC the last few years, and you apparently don't even care.

More *plasma* was found last year than all the mass we ever knew about prior to 2012, giving a huge boost to PC theory, and it was found right where your supposed 'dark matter' is supposed to be located. You never updated your models accordingly.

We discovered that more small stars exist than we first *imagined*. Again, no galaxy mass estimation model changes whatsoever.

We discovered that twice as much light comes from galaxies than we first imagined. Again, no galaxy mass estimation model updates whatsoever.

I've seen denial play out before, but not to such an extreme, and not in a branch of *physics* before.

I guess when I get time I will *count* the personal attacks that you're trying to hide behind in that last post. It looks to be quite a large number actually. You've got a one trick pony show going. It's all about killing the messenger, and deflecting the topic from your *qualification*, not *quantification* problems.

 

[davidbilby]

I want to discuss that hemispheric blowout you're having with the PLANCK data sets, and all the other things about that data set that *should* (but don't) preclude you from cherry picking out the data you just happen to like.

Oh goodie. Let's get started. This is kind of my thing.

Here are some of the theoretical models reconciling the PLANCK data and the dipole power asymmetry described in the March version of the paper with concordance CDM inflationary models. I'm guessing you already know, of course, that the dipole asymmetry measurement derives from a simple Fourier transformation (usually Gabor, in most methodologies, but there are similar Bayesian approaches), which shows that the mean temperature anisotropies on one hemisphere of the sky are considerably greater than the other. If you want to describe it numerically, the amplitude of the modulation of the CMB from isotropy is about A = 0.072 (on average), which is fascinatingly large and rules out gravitational wave amplitude modulation models (since it would require gravitational waves to be about ten times stronger on one side of the universe than the other...). But I'm sure this is all obvious to you.

A comprehensive rebuttal to any of these hypotheses will do, a demonstration where each (or frankly, any) paper has apparently "cherry picked" the data and the specific data points that have been omitted fraudulently or out of stupidity, or a comprehensive demonstration that no inflationary theory will be able to reconcile itself with the PLANCK data in any way whatsoever (which would invalidate all of these models and any future models). Your call.

If you could include your statistical methodology, including correlations for any methodologically induced margins of error, that'd be splendid. I'm guessing you already have the PLANCK data set from the Caltech server, and I'm sure you can very easily back up your statement and point to the data that's being omitted in our "cherry picking"???

We can start with my favorites....curvaton decay models.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0907.0705v1.pdf
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0806.0377v3.pdf
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1302.6080v1.pdf
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1304.1270v3.pdf
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1305.0525v2.pdf

Note that a curvaton, like dark energy, is not a "specific" particle, but a class of particle of which there are various theorized options and probably others not yet theorized. A good example would be a sneutrino (right handed), or complex SUSY flat directions.

It's not like you can say "where do I get a curvaton" because again, rather like a virtual particle, it's part of a mathematical model and not something that would be directly observable. We can only build the mathematical model and see how well it matches with observation, as we did with the Higgs (nobody has ever "seen" a Higgs boson and nobody ever will, only its decay signatures)

Then some other completely different approaches for amusement:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1305.0813v2.pdf
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/9609132v1.pdf
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1304.6527v1.pdf
[1304.3506] CMB Aberration and Doppler Effects as a Source of Hemispherical Asymmetries
[1304.0599] Position Space CMB Anomalies from Multi-Stream Inflation
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1304.6399v1.pdf (pages 3 and 4)

And then here's one of my other favorites...

[0810.5128] Watching Worlds Collide: Effects on the CMB from Cosmological Bubble Collisions

Incidentally, one of the other experiments being worked on regarding the PLANCK data is a direct test of present inflationary theories (particularly slow roll) via expected gravitational wave signatures (B-polarization). A good summary is here, see page 18 section F.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0410281v2.pdf

But of course all of these papers don't exist, because we're "ignoring" PLANCK. Mmmmmmmmmmm. Yes. How astute you are.

 

[davidbilby]

\
We discovered that more small stars exist than we first *imagined*. Again, no galaxy mass estimation model changes whatsoever.

We discovered that twice as much light comes from galaxies than we first imagined. Again, no galaxy mass estimation model updates whatsoever.

Quiz.

Were the galaxies shown to be twice as bright over

a) the entire spectrum
b) a tiny portion of the spectrum


Assume galaxy A has mass x. Galaxy A is shown to be twice as bright as previously thought. Does this mean

a) there is twice as much mass in the galaxy than previously thought
b) there is 0.2 times more mass in the galaxy than previously thought.


Then answer this, if you double the amount of mass in the galaxies, would that even come close to solving the rotation problems and satisfying standard Newtonian physics (let alone GR)?

a) yes
b) no


And finally, the big question: does our most accurate estimate of the baryonic matter in the universe come from

a) counting the number of stars, small or big or otherwise in galaxies then estimating the number of galaxies and multiplying and adding a bit in for dark matter and planets and plasma and stuff

b) the baryonic matter density constraints from the CMB from PLANCK, funnily enough!

One of things that PLANCK allows us to do beautifully is be considerably more accurate about how much of the mass/energy in the universe is baryonic matter, since the resolution is so much higher and PLANCK measures almost the entire power spectrum (WMAP did not and required additional data from other sources).

The baryonic matter density in the universe is now constrained to being 4.82% of the matter in the universe. The margin of error is 0.05%. We've seen about 70% of this, so even if you find that galaxies shine twice as bright...AGAIN....you're still not even close to seeing all the baryonic matter in the universe, let alone denting what must be non-baryonic!

This is without even talking about galaxy rotation curves.

Your theory that dark matter and dark energy (whatever they are) don't exist is seriously dead, and PLANCK put the nails in the coffin. Who's cherry picking now? You wanted to talk about the PLANCK data. Let's do just that. What's your interpretation of the PLANCK temperature angular power spectrum that doesn't require dark matter and dark energy at all? Do tell.

Relevant graph on page 33, fig. 37.

http://planck.caltech.edu/pub/2013results/Planck_2013_results_15.pdf