Message from the Dawn of time...

[Archaeopteryx]

Lambda-CDM has *consistently* tried to ride the coattails of GR by stuffing magic into the formula. That's not "inference", that's just dogma on a stick. Even gravitational waves would simply support *GR theory*, not inflation, not dark energy, and not support for any exotic forms of matter.

Does the weight of evidence available to date swing toward other explanations? If it does not, then the inference made can still be legitimate.

 

[Michael]

Does the weight of evidence available to date swing toward other explanations? If it does not, then the inference made can still be legitimate.

Here's the problem with your assumption from a historical perspective. I "switched allegiance" from BB theory to EU/PC theory about 9 years ago, in 2005 related to insights from solar satellite imagery. My "allegiance" at that point became related to empirical lab tested physics, just like Birkeland did. I could see the handwriting on the wall already based on solar data.

Once you 'lose your faith' in supernatural constructs, it's *really* almost impossible to go back. The problem with Lambda-CDM is that it requires about a 1/2 dozen supernatural processes to occur in space that *never* occur in the lab on Earth. It's more of a 'supernatural religion' than a real scientific theory IMO.

In 2006, a year after my 'conversion', they came out with a paper that proclaimed that it found "proof" (yes, they actually used the word proof) of dark matter based on lensing studies of distant galaxies. It was hailed as a huge achievement, and became the "crown jewel" of their CDM argument.

They started creating all sorts of experiments designed to test for exotic matter too. They were going to build an array of equipment to find those exotic particles, even if it cost them *billions* of dollars to do so. Boy was it hard to be a "skeptic" in 2006.

In 2008 however, we found out they blew the mass estimates of the largest stars we can actually observe by not properly accounting for inelastic scattering, blowing a huge hole in their mass estimation techniques. The following year, they found out that they botched the mass estimates of stars the size of our own sun by a whopping factor of four! The very next year they admitted yet a third huge flaw in estimation techniques that showed they underestimated the most common stars (dwarf stars) by a factor of between 5-20.

Within four years or so they'd found more mass in stellar mass then they ever actually 'found/accounted for' in 2006. They clearly had not found 'proof of dark matter'. They'd actually found 'proof' that their stellar mass estimation techniques of galaxies were not worth the paper they were printed on in 2006.

Of course they still had all their high hopes from all those empirical experiments.

In 2012, they dropped another empirical bombshell. It turned out LHC didn't find a single sparticle, and SUSY theory failed it's own 'golden test'. It was a huge empirical hit for every popular exotic matter theory.

The following 18 months have seen two more empirical blows to exotic matter theory. It failed the electron roundness experiments. It also got blown out of the water at LUX too, even after they claimed to have 'hints' of exotic matter from prior tests up to 3.something sigma.

Since 2006 when they waved their Lambda-CDM flags proudly, I've seen them get fried 6 straight times on the CDM claims. They have nothing to offer and no defense to offer related to exotic CDM. Without it their theory is toast too.

Now after all these string of failures, they don't want to talk about exotic matter theory anymore. Instead they whip up another affirming the consequent fallacy and claim it's the best thing since sliced bread. Ya, ya, I've heard it all before and seen it all blow up right in their face in following years.

After reading the paper I'd be inclined to believe that yes indeed, there are indeed polarized photons in spacetime, just as the 1959 paper described and every cosmology theory under the sun "predicts". Where the "bogus claims of knowledge" seem to come in are where they tried to eliminate every other possible source of polarized photons to come up with some trumped up "sigma" number.

They need a *miracle* after those CDM disasters, so of course that sigma number has to be a "really high" number. Section nine seems to be where all the questionable claims start to come in. I will address these points later once I've spent some time reading through their cited links and thinking about their methodology in that particular section just a bit. Don't however expect me personally to be impressed with their *outrageously high* sigma number. That's just irrational nonsense IMO.

IMO this whole thing sounds like deja-vu all over again, and 2006 all over again. The problem with their made up sigma nonsense, is that inflation never shows up in a the lab, so they are always needing to "create gaps" in which to sneak through their dogma and make it *exclusively* related to *their* dogma in a big sigma number too (like a hail mary to save it from the CDM falsifications). In this case those 'gaps' necessarily occur in section 9. I'll talk more about it when I'm ready, but I'm definitely not impressed with section 9.

I am however very impressed with their actual work prior to section 9. I would be inclined to believe that part of their scientific methodology was fine, and yes indeed polarized photons come from space, as known as far back as 1959. Big deal. None of those photons necessarily relate to inflation, dark energy, or exotic forms of matter. They need all three to get a 'fit' with their math, and I therefor expect david to *not* deal with the CDM evidence in this thread.

 

[Michael]

Which SUSY theory in particular?

Which one are you personally willing to commit to and go down with the ship over? Are any popular ones still left standing? If so, *be specific about which one you personally will commit to*.

Electron roundness work is fabulous. I've not read DeMille's team's papers yet, in truth, just a quick scan of the summaries. Loop quantum guys are pretty pleased though. None of it helps tired light or any of that nonsense in any way. Also, it should be pointed out that there are kind of a number of SUSY theories that don't have an issue with this (although QUITE a few do). It's entirely possible that the electron dipole moment is tiny and below detection of this experiment. More to be done on that.

How about explaining to me *which* SUSY theory that you will personally commit to that actually predicts round electrons?

Talk about *lame* rationalizations. I'm supposed to just ignore the fact that you *need* exotic matter to get your big sigma number. I'm also supposed to simply *ignore* the fact that your mass estimation techniques were *laid to waste* from 2006 to 2010, and shown to be *worthless* at accurately predicting the stellar mass infrastructure. I'm also supposed to simply *ignore* the fact that ever popular SUSY theory got blow out of the water at LHC, electrons are *round* in spite of most exotic matter theory "predictions", and all of them are apparently bashful at LUX!

Now you still expect me to *assume* your CDM claim is *true* so you can get some high sigma number on the Lambda side of life? Give me a break! Show me any sign of CMD and maybe I'd consider it. Without it, you're claims about polarized photons from a BB go completely up in smoke. Where is your empirical evidence for CDM? What are the *odds* of CDM even existing after those string of failures at LHC, LUX and the electron roundness experiments? What are the odds that your galaxy mass estimation techniques are just garbage in 2006?

I'll admit that I'm impressed with your new paper right up to section 9, and then the whole thing goes to hell in a hand basket IMO.

 

[Michael]

Michael, can you summarize briefly your objections to the excess in the BB spectrum, right where inflationary theories predicted, 5.2 sigma significance with numerous bootstraps done?

FYI, I'm still trying to figure out how you arrived at that magic number by the way. Anytime you'd like to enlighten me, please be my guest.

 

[keith99]

Nikky the Pollock!! I love it. I wonder how many people will miss that reference?

I'll cop to it taking me a bit to figure it out.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Here's the problem with your assumption from a historical perspective. I "switched allegiance" from BB theory to EU/PC theory about 9 years ago, in 2005 related to insights from solar satellite imagery. My "allegiance" at that point became related to empirical lab tested physics, just like Birkeland did. I could see the handwriting on the wall already based on solar data.

Once you 'lose your faith' in supernatural constructs, it's *really* almost impossible to go back. The problem with Lambda-CDM is that it requires about a 1/2 dozen supernatural processes to occur in space that *never* occur in the lab on Earth. It's more of a 'supernatural religion' than a real scientific theory IMO.

In 2006, a year after my 'conversion', they came out with a paper that proclaimed that it found "proof" (yes, they actually used the word proof) of dark matter based on lensing studies of distant galaxies. It was hailed as a huge achievement, and became the "crown jewel" of their CDM argument.

They started creating all sorts of experiments designed to test for exotic matter too. They were going to build an array of equipment to find those exotic particles, even if it cost them *billions* of dollars to do so. Boy was it hard to be a "skeptic" in 2006.

In 2008 however, we found out they blew the mass estimates of the largest stars we can actually observe by not properly accounting for inelastic scattering, blowing a huge hole in their mass estimation techniques. The following year, they found out that they botched the mass estimates of stars the size of our own sun by a whopping factor of four! The very next year they admitted yet a third huge flaw in estimation techniques that showed they underestimated the most common stars (dwarf stars) by a factor of between 5-20.

Within four years or so they'd found more mass in stellar mass then they ever actually 'found/accounted for' in 2006. They clearly had not found 'proof of dark matter'. They'd actually found 'proof' that their stellar mass estimation techniques of galaxies were not worth the paper they were printed on in 2006.

Of course they still had all their high hopes from all those empirical experiments.

In 2012, they dropped another empirical bombshell. It turned out LHC didn't find a single sparticle, and SUSY theory failed it's own 'golden test'. It was a huge empirical hit for every popular exotic matter theory.

The following 18 months have seen two more empirical blows to exotic matter theory. It failed the electron roundness experiments. It also got blown out of the water at LUX too, even after they claimed to have 'hints' of exotic matter from prior tests up to 3.something sigma.

Since 2006 when they waved their Lambda-CDM flags proudly, I've seen them get fried 6 straight times on the CDM claims. They have nothing to offer and no defense to offer related to exotic CDM. Without it their theory is toast too.

Now after all these string of failures, they don't want to talk about exotic matter theory anymore. Instead they whip up another affirming the consequent fallacy and claim it's the best thing since sliced bread. Ya, ya, I've heard it all before and seen it all blow up right in their face in following years.

After reading the paper I'd be inclined to believe that yes indeed, there are indeed polarized photons in spacetime, just as the 1959 paper described and every cosmology theory under the sun "predicts". Where the "bogus claims of knowledge" seem to come in are where they tried to eliminate every other possible source of polarized photons to come up with some trumped up "sigma" number.

They need a *miracle* after those CDM disasters, so of course that sigma number has to be a "really high" number. Section nine seems to be where all the questionable claims start to come in. I will address these points later once I've spent some time reading through their cited links and thinking about their methodology in that particular section just a bit. Don't however expect me personally to be impressed with their *outrageously high* sigma number. That's just irrational nonsense IMO.

IMO this whole thing sounds like deja-vu all over again, and 2006 all over again. The problem with their made up sigma nonsense, is that inflation never shows up in a the lab, so they are always needing to "create gaps" in which to sneak through their dogma and make it *exclusively* related to *their* dogma in a big sigma number too (like a hail mary to save it from the CDM falsifications). In this case those 'gaps' necessarily occur in section 9. I'll talk more about it when I'm ready, but I'm definitely not impressed with section 9.

I am however very impressed with their actual work prior to section 9. I would be inclined to believe that part of their scientific methodology was fine, and yes indeed polarized photons come from space, as known as far back as 1959. Big deal. None of those photons necessarily relate to inflation, dark energy, or exotic forms of matter. They need all three to get a 'fit' with their math, and I therefor expect david to *not* deal with the CDM evidence in this thread.

That's a very overblown response to what is essentially a simple point: it's abductive inference, so deductive validity isn't something that we should primarily be concerned about. What we should be concerned about is the quality and specificity of the evidence and whether there are converging lines of evidence that favour a particular explanation. Thus far, amid all the technical details, your major concern seems to be about deduction.

 

[davidbilby]

Can you even make up your mind if exotic matter emits gamma rays or x-rays? If you throw up enough "predictions" at the wall, one of them is bound to stick in the public consciousness, is that it?

Gamma rays are highly likely (I already said this). I'm not yet of the mind that they emit X-rays.

Incidentally, I did misread one thing in haste in the LUX paper, I confused the cross-section numbers for the upper limit of the GeV boundary of sensitivity. My bad.

Irrespective...the LUX data is only from one hemisphere for starters, which renders it incomplete, certainly not complete enough to draw conclusions such as "wimps don't exist" as you would, which you'll note that the LUX team don't either. If you don't understand why hemispherical differentials could be a part of the experiment, then you don't understand the experiment.

 

[davidbilby]

I'm supposed to just ignore the fact that you *need* exotic matter to get your big sigma number.

Um...no. The sigma number is related to the discovery of polarization in the CMB with tensor fluctuations of r = 0.2, which given that and the consistency relations likely involved make denial of inflation almost into the league of crackpottery. You're confusing the two issues (unsurprising).

I'm also supposed to simply *ignore* the fact that your mass estimation techniques were *laid to waste* from 2006 to 2010, and shown to be *worthless* at accurately predicting the stellar mass infrastructure

Except that no, they weren't, and that's not true, and even it was, it wouldn't even dent the mass-energy budget of the universe. Are you still going on about counting stars?

I'm also supposed to simply *ignore* the fact that ever popular SUSY theory got blow out of the water at LHC, electrons are *round* in spite of most exotic matter theory "predictions", and all of them are apparently bashful at LUX!

They're round to a certain dipole limit, which doesn't mean that they aren't asymmetric at some point that a considerable number of complex SUSY theories are fine with.

Now you still expect me to *assume* your CDM claim is *true* so you can get some high sigma number on the Lambda side of life?

Now you need to take your medication.

 

[davidbilby]

FYI, I'm still trying to figure out how you arrived at that magic number by the way. Anytime you'd like to enlighten me, please be my guest.

The BICEP data (simply read the work, for crying out loud) shows 5.2 sigma (standard deviations) of inconsistency with zero B mode polarization, if r = 0.2. What did you miss?

 

[Archie the Preacher]

...Nikky the Pollock...

[qoute-Subduction Zone]Nikky the Pollock!! I love it. I wonder how many people will miss that reference?[/quote]

I'll cop to it taking me a bit to figure it out.

Actually, Nick was born in Prussia, but that was part of the Kingdom of Poland. Among other talents, he had a self-deprecating sense of humor.

 

[Michael]

It's just as interesting to notice which questions you dodge, as well as which ones you selectively choose to answer. I notice you didn't touch the 'which energy range will you commit to' question, and the one about what it would take to falsify your claims. Typical.

Gamma rays are highly likely (I already said this). I'm not yet of the mind that they emit X-rays.

Incidentally, I did misread one thing in haste in the LUX paper, I confused the cross-section numbers for the upper limit of the GeV boundary of sensitivity. My bad.

Wow! All I can say is that you have the very worst case of pure denial that I've ever seen. As I said, all your falsifications in every "test" go in one ear and out the other.

Back in 2006 you folks were jumping up and down claiming to have found *proof* (you folks used and approved of the term 'proof' too no less) of dark matter based on the bullet cluster lensing study. Your claim of 'proof' of exotic matter from that study was based on two *assumptions*, 1) your galaxy stellar mass estimates were correct in 2006, and 2) the existence of exotic matter particles to make up the difference. Neither *assumption* was demonstrated in the paper of course, it was simply *assumed* as you boastfully claimed to have *proof* of your claims.

Since then your *assumptions* have been falsified a total of at *least* 7 different times, in 7 unique ways.

In 2008, your *assumption* about the mass of large stars was *falsified*
In 2009, your *assumption* about the ratio of normal stars to large stars was *falsified*
In 2010, your assumption about the ratio of dwarf stars compared to large stars was falsified
In 2012 your assumption about a "golden test' that SUSY theory would pass, as well as about the existence of various predictions of "sparticles" galore was *falsified* at LHC
In 2013 AMS-2 found no drop off in high energy protons, falsifying *that* prediction of WIMP theory.
In 2013 LUX found exactly *zero* hits related to high energy WIMPS as *predicted* in your theory.
In 2013, electron roundness experiments falsified another key prediction of SUSY theory.

Seven times since 2006 your claims about exotic matter have been falsified. Not once. Not twice. *Seven times*!

In spite of the fact that LUX peaks in sensitivity in the *very same range* as that UCLA paper, and found *no hits whatsoever*, you're still claiming gamma rays are caused by WIMPS in the very same energy range that LUX found *nothing*!

Wow! Seven different times your so called *proof* of exotic matter was falsified and turned into dust, and yet here you are in pure denial of reality. Wow! In one ear and out the other. Talk about selective use of data! What the heck are you basing your exotic matter claims on at this point? That lensing study was *destroyed* by the findings of 3-20 times more *entire stars* than you had "estimated" in 2006. Here you are just trying to sweep those falsifications right under the rug!

Instead of dealing with those 7 unique and different types of falsifications of your claims, you're still handwaving at the sky and claiming WIMPS did it.

Now you're claiming to have "absolute evidence" of inflation theory based on some polarized photons from space, without ever *empirically* demonstrating that inflation has *any tangible effect on any photon on any wavelength* in a lab. The entire argument is one gigantic affirming the consequent fallacy run amok, just like that 2006 lensing study, and just like that last UCLA paper about high energy WIMPS.

FYI, your "invisible sky gods" are the most *impotent sky deities* I've ever seen. Even an average concept of God describes an *empirical effect* on humans on Earth in the present moment. Your supernatural gods are impotent and *dead* and propped up with affirming the consequent fallacies and *pure denial* of the falsification process!

Irrespective...the LUX data is only from one hemisphere for starters, which renders it incomplete,

Talk about lame rationalizations and pure denial! Sure, like exotic matter with supernatural powers that enable it to supposedly pass through walls is somehow shy around one hemisphere? Give me a break! That argument isn't even consistent with your claims about where dark matter is located! Why would it care about a *hemisphere of a tiny planet*?

certainly not complete enough to draw conclusions such as "wimps don't exist" as you would,

You won't even explain what *would* falsify WIMPS! It failed at LHC. It *failed* at LUX. It *failed* at AMS-02. It *failed* again in the electron roundness "tests". You simply *ignore* the failures entirely! They go in one ear and out the other, just like I said. Your support of WIMP in the energy range that LUX is most sensitive to is a perfect example of that behavior.

which you'll note that the LUX team don't either.

Gee, I wonder why?

If you don't understand why hemispherical differentials could be a part of the experiment, then you don't understand the experiment.

I understand that your hemisphere claim is a huge gigantic ruse. Neutrinos don't hide in one hemisphere do they? What in the world makes you think WIMPS are shy *only* in the Northern half of the planet?

Man, I've seen *lame* arguments before, but you take the cake. Your attitude demonstrates exactly what's wrong with astronomy today. You're in *pure denial* of seven straight and all *unique* falsifications of your so called *proof* of exotic matter from 2006. Seven unique *tests* all falsified your claims, 7. Seven straight falsifications in seven unique ways didn't put a single dent in your supernatural dogma. You're still spewing the same falsified "WIMPS did it " dogma that you were spewing in 2006. That's is 'proof positive' that you're in pure denial, and your so called *tests* are utterly meaningless. Your dogma obviously doesn't depend on the outcome of those 'tests'. In fact your supernatural dogma lives on *in spite of* those tests. Gutheology is the dumbest religion on the planet, and certainly the most unfalsifiable religion on the planet. The whole religion is based on pure denial and affirming the consequent fallacies galore.

 

[Michael]

....which given that and the consistency relations likely involved make denial of inflation almost into the league of crackpottery.

Ya, ya, ya. You folks claimed the same thing when I doubted your WIMPS did it claims in 2006 too. You can't get inflation to polarize a single photon in a real lab, but you expect me to believe it polarized nearly every photon in spacetime. Give me break. Section nine is *lame*.

Except that no, they weren't, and that's not true,

Pure denial. Your stellar mass estimates were off by a factor of between 3 and 20, depending on the size of the star and the type of galaxy. The fact you're still trying to claim that those 2006 stellar mass estimates were *correct* is simply staggering! How can you even say that with a straight face?

and even it was, it wouldn't even dent the mass-energy budget of the universe. Are you still going on about counting stars?

I'm going on about it because it turned out that you couldn't count them anywhere near correctly in 2006. You *botched* that mass estimates entirely, by a factor of between 3 and 20 in fact!

They're round to a certain dipole limit, which doesn't mean that they aren't asymmetric at some point that a considerable number of complex SUSY theories are fine with.

Your rationalizations are just pitiful IMO. Why even bother 'testing' any of your so called 'predictions'? You never abide by the results of those tests when they are *negative*. You only even mention the *positive claims* you make, and you willfully will not acknowledge when those very same positive claims are *falsified* 7 different times in seven unique ways. You just offer up some lame rationalization about the failure and handwave at the sky again like nothing ever happened!

Now you need to take your medication.

And of course there is the obligatory personal attack. Since your dogma won't hold up to any serious scrutiny, and it failed all it's tests, it's somehow all my personal fault.

 

[46AND2]

It's just as interesting to notice which questions you dodge, as well as which ones you selectively choose to answer. I notice you didn't touch the 'which energy range will you commit to' question, and the one about what it would take to falsify your claims. Typical.



Wow! All I can say is that you have the very worst case of pure denial that I've ever seen. As I said, all your falsifications in every "test" go in one ear and out the other.

Back in 2006 you folks were jumping up and down claiming to have found *proof* (you folks used and approved of the term 'proof' too no less) of dark matter based on the bullet cluster lensing study. Your claim of 'proof' of exotic matter from that study was based on two *assumptions*, 1) your galaxy stellar mass estimates were correct in 2006, and 2) the existence of exotic matter particles to make up the difference. Neither *assumption* was demonstrated in the paper of course, it was simply *assumed* as you boastfully claimed to have *proof* of your claims.

Since then your *assumptions* have been falsified a total of at *least* 7 different times, in 7 unique ways.

In 2008, your *assumption* about the mass of large stars was *falsified*
In 2009, your *assumption* about the ratio of normal stars to large stars was *falsified*
In 2010, your assumption about the ratio of dwarf stars compared to large stars was falsified
In 2012 your assumption about a "golden test' that SUSY theory would pass, as well as about the existence of various predictions of "sparticles" galore was *falsified* at LHC
In 2013 AMS-2 found no drop off in high energy protons, falsifying *that* prediction of WIMP theory.
In 2013 LUX found exactly *zero* hits related to high energy WIMPS as *predicted* in your theory.
In 2013, electron roundness experiments falsified another key prediction of SUSY theory.

Seven times since 2006 your claims about exotic matter have been falsified. Not once. Not twice. *Seven times*!

In spite of the fact that LUX peaks in sensitivity in the *very same range* as that UCLA paper, and found *no hits whatsoever*, you're still claiming gamma rays are caused by WIMPS in the very same energy range that LUX found *nothing*!

Wow! Seven different times your so called *proof* of exotic matter was falsified and turned into dust, and yet here you are in pure denial of reality. Wow! In one ear and out the other. Talk about selective use of data! What the heck are you basing your exotic matter claims on at this point? That lensing study was *destroyed* by the findings of 3-20 times more *entire stars* than you had "estimated" in 2006. Here you are just trying to sweep those falsifications right under the rug!

Instead of dealing with those 7 unique and different types of falsifications of your claims, you're still handwaving at the sky and claiming WIMPS did it.

Now you're claiming to have "absolute evidence" of inflation theory based on some polarized photons from space, without ever *empirically* demonstrating that inflation has *any tangible effect on any photon on any wavelength* in a lab. The entire argument is one gigantic affirming the consequent fallacy run amok, just like that 2006 lensing study, and just like that last UCLA paper about high energy WIMPS.

FYI, your "invisible sky gods" are the most *impotent sky deities* I've ever seen. Even an average concept of God describes an *empirical effect* on humans on Earth in the present moment. Your supernatural gods are impotent and *dead* and propped up with affirming the consequent fallacies and *pure denial* of the falsification process!

Talk about lame rationalizations and pure denial! Sure, like exotic matter with supernatural powers that enable it to supposedly pass through walls is somehow shy around one hemisphere? Give me a break! That argument isn't even consistent with your claims about where dark matter is located! Why would it care about a *hemisphere of a tiny planet*?

You won't even explain what *would* falsify WIMPS! It failed at LHC. It *failed* at LUX. It *failed* at AMS-02. It *failed* again in the electron roundness "tests". You simply *ignore* the failures entirely! They go in one ear and out the other, just like I said. Your support of WIMP in the energy range that LUX is most sensitive to is a perfect example of that behavior.

Gee, I wonder why?

I understand that your hemisphere claim is a huge gigantic ruse. Neutrinos don't hide in one hemisphere do they? What in the world makes you think WIMPS are shy *only* in the Northern half of the planet?

Man, I've seen *lame* arguments before, but you take the cake. Your attitude demonstrates exactly what's wrong with astronomy today. You're in *pure denial* of seven straight and all *unique* falsifications of your so called *proof* of exotic matter from 2006. Seven unique *tests* all falsified your claims, 7. Seven straight falsifications in seven unique ways didn't put a single dent in your supernatural dogma. You're still spewing the same falsified "WIMPS did it " dogma that you were spewing in 2006. That's is 'proof positive' that you're in pure denial, and your so called *tests* are utterly meaningless. Your dogma obviously doesn't depend on the outcome of those 'tests'. In fact your supernatural dogma lives on *in spite of* those tests. Gutheology is the dumbest religion on the planet, and certainly the most unfalsifiable religion on the planet. The whole religion is based on pure denial and affirming the consequent fallacies galore.

Is it just me, or are the number of your claimed falsifications going up nearly every time you post? I could have sworn you have said 3, 5, and 6 previously, now it's up to 7?

 

[Michael]

Is it just me, or are the number of your claimed falsifications going up nearly every time you post? I could have sworn you have said 3, 5, and 6 previously, now it's up to 7?

Ya, I just remembered the AMS-02 results which also came up negative, bringing the total to 7 rather than 6.

 

[Michael]

Is it just me, or are the number of your claimed falsifications going up nearly every time you post? I could have sworn you have said 3, 5, and 6 previously, now it's up to 7?

FYI, I went back and added links to all seven of the negative results.

 

[davidbilby]

Ok, one thing at once...

I understand that your hemisphere claim is a huge gigantic ruse. Neutrinos don't hide in one hemisphere do they? What in the world makes you think WIMPS are shy *only* in the Northern half of the planet?

Not just different hemisphere "shyness", it's known that time of year, latitude and longitude all could yield vastly different signals due to the motion (v = 220km/sec) that these particles would have in the terrestrial reference frame. If you read the LUX work you'd already know this. This is why nobody is drawing premature conclusions other than you. We have a small fraction of the data we need, which is why the headline isn't "light wimps disproved"...and you can be sure the LUX team would have run with that (Nobel-winning) headline if they could have. Even if they had, there's no real reason why wps wouldn't be heavier.


The BICEP data however, is a done deal (1 in 3 million chance it's a fluke), and I'm still wondering how you explain the data pointing to r = 0.2 in your cosmology which would require r = 0...

 

[46AND2]

FYI, I went back and added links to all seven of the negative results.

I know far too little on the subject to make heads or tails of any of it.

 

[Michael]

BICEP2 2014 Results Release

FYI, the link above will take you to more information related to this topic, along with a link to the news conference if you missed it. FYI, the news conference is enlightening by the way, I highly recommend watching it.

After reading the paper and slogging through some of the materials, as usual, I'm *incredibly* impressed with the equipment, the (in this case heroic) effort made to collect the data they collected, and the data set itself.

My hat is definitely off to the scientists that designed, created and maintain that equipment, particular Stephen Richter (hope I spelled that correctly) who apparently spent three long winters collecting the data. In terms of data collection efforts, their work reminds of Birkeland's work. It isn't exactly the most hospitable of environments. In terms of data collection, and even in terms of filtering techniques, I'm *highly* impressed with that aspect of their work! I'm definitely convinced the B-mode signal is present "on the sky" at they put it.

The *cause* of that B-mode pattern however is definitely a different issue. I should be ready to comment on that soon. I'm still wrapping up some reading at the moment, but I will comment on the *cause* aspect very soon.

 

[davidbilby]

FYI, I went back and added links to all seven of the negative results.

Let's recap

In 2008, your *assumption* about the mass of large stars was *falsified*

This is not a "negative" result for starters.Twice as bright does not equal twice as much mass. At most about 10-20% more mass I would guess, without doing the math myself. Brightness is not principle way of measuring galaxy mass.

In 2009, your *assumption* about the ratio of normal stars to large stars was *falsified*

Which also isn't a negative result of anything, and doesn't change the overall mass of galaxies or their rotational dynamics. More stars does not equal more mass overall. Using the analogy of fruit in the article, 200 grapes takes up the space of 10 oranges but that doesn't make them heavier than 10 oranges.

In 2010, your assumption about the ratio of dwarf stars compared to large stars was falsified

Also not a negative result and also didn't effect mass calculations which aren't done by counting stars.

In 2012 your assumption about a "golden test' that SUSY theory would pass, as well as about the existence of various predictions of "sparticles" galore was *falsified* at LHC

Some simple SUSY theories were constrained, which was the point of the experiment. In any respect LCDM does not require SUSY, but SUSY was not falsified "in its entirety" or even "in the majority". Some constraints on particle energy were tightened.

In 2013 AMS-2 found no drop off in high energy protons, falsifying *that* prediction of WIMP theory.

No drop off *up to a certain point* beyond which we need more data, most WIMP theories are fine (especially high mass) and results so far still consistent with dark matter being the cause of the positron excess - and this data set is still inconclusive even according to the most conservative of observers.

In 2013 LUX found exactly *zero* hits related to high energy WIMPS as *predicted* in your theory.

In one hemisphere, one latitude and longitude and only a partial data set in terms of time, all of which are extremely important caveats - data set still hugely incomplete. Nobody can draw conclusions such as yours (nobody sensible). High mass WIMPs still entirely possible.

In 2013, electron roundness experiments falsified another key prediction of SUSY theory.

Not quite, and not all SUSY theories - which are too numerous to count. SUSY theory simply isn't a single idea to falsify, as much as you pretend it is. Electron is round to a very great degree but still entirely possible that the charge in an electron is unevenly distributed, leading to a dipole moment, it just has to be tiny. Inconclusive at best but even if we assumed correct, many complex SUSY variants just fine with roundness (simple variants less so). Irrespective falsification of SUSY were it to happen (hasn't yet) does not falsify LCDM in the slightest, just constrains dark matter candidates.

So, seven damp squibs from which no overall conclusion could be drawn by a rational scientific thinker. Unimpressive and nothing that hasn't previously been addressed ad infinitum. Your turn...

5+ sigma discovery of tensor modes where r = 0.2 (give or take 0.07 or so) right at the expected peak of the B mode polarization signal from the simpler inflation theories since 1979 (Starobinsky paper, relative amplitude best discussed in Lewis and Leach papers from 2001). 1 in 3 million chance the signal is a fluke, and if non-inflation based, thus posing an enormous fine-tuning problem. Your cosmology is in the morgue. Any ideas at all to salvage it? Any physics at all? Or just some blather about falsification, plasma, some half baked premature conclusions and religious metaphor? Let's see what you have. I'm betting the latter.

 

[Michael]

Ok, one thing at once...



Not just different hemisphere "shyness", it's known that time of year, latitude and longitude all could yield vastly different signals due to the motion (v = 220km/sec) that these particles would have in the terrestrial reference frame. If you read the LUX work you'd already know this. This is why nobody is drawing premature conclusions other than you. We have a small fraction of the data we need, which is why the headline isn't "light wimps disproved"...and you can be sure the LUX team would have run with that (Nobel-winning) headline if they could have. Even if they had, there's no real reason why wps wouldn't be heavier.

Translation: Forget those 7 falsifications of our claim from 2006, we're right anyway! Wow david. All I can say is that's denial of the worst sort. What is the point of "testing" your claims if you *absolutely refuse* to abide by their results? One or two falsifications of your exotic matter claims should have sufficed, but seven? Come on!

Talk about crying dark matter wolf and getting busted! You've been busted 7 times already over you CDM claims, and you're doing it all over again with the *lambda* half of your claim now too!

The BICEP data however, is a done deal (1 in 3 million chance it's a fluke), and I'm still wondering how you explain the data pointing to r = 0.2 in your cosmology which would require r = 0...

Only you guys would actually "predict" a r of around .1 from Planck data sets, only to find something that "looks kinda like it" around a r=.2, and call it a "huge victory".

Fine. If you want to talk about lambda now to avoid that CDM disaster you have going, start by explaining to me why I even need "space expansion" to explain either photon redshift, or the existence of polarized photons.