Message from the Dawn of time...

[davidbilby]

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".

????
In terms of prediction really anything other than r = 0 was fine (and disastrous for you), and we know it's 0.2 within a few hundredths with only a 1 in 3 million chance that's a fluke. Most people don't call that "kinda". Only serious denial allows you to do that. 5.2 sigma.

 

[Michael]

Let's recap

More like "Let's take a stroll down rationalizations and lame excuses lane".

This is not a "negative" result for starters.

It is definitely a negative result for your claim about knowing how much mass was there to start with. Your galaxy mass estimates were not right. All you actually had "proof" of in 2006 is that your galaxy mass estimation techniques were flawed, and this was just the *first* demonstration.

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.

They put it around 20 percent if I recall correctly.

Which also isn't a negative result of anything, and doesn't change the overall mass of galaxies or their rotational dynamics.

In what universe might that be? It most certainly *does* change the overall mass, and it certainly *does* have an effect on both rotational dynamics *and* more importantly the *lensing data*.

More stars does not equal more mass overall.

Right, because everyone knows that entire stars as large as ours are entirely "massless".

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.

It's still another demonstration that your stellar mass estimation techniques were not worth the paper they were printed on in 2006.

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

What a bunch of nonsense. You underestimated the number of stars in a galaxy by factors of between 3 and 20 depending on the galaxy type, and you're trying to pass it off as a "minor" problem. Get real. It is done by *estimating* the smaller stars compared to the largest ones. You blew those estimates *hugely*!

Somehow in your mind however, your models were still "perfect in every way" and therefor there must be exotic matter to save you.

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.

All your "popular" brands of exotic matter got blown out of the water. Not one single "sparticle" showed up, despite your best predictions even after investing nearly 10 billion dollars into the search. What's the point of "testing" your dime a dozen mathematical 'predictions' when you absolutely refuse to falsify your claims based on them? You refuse to accept any "fail", and you have a never ending number of "next tries". It's the ultimate exotic matter of the gaps argument. You get to take a million shots at it apparently and falsification is *impossible*.

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.

Gee, another 33 million that was utterly wasted again since you refuse to actually abide by any of the results of your 'predictions'. Again, your dime a dozen mathematical predictions bit the dust. Here again we see have evidence that no claim you ever make can actually be used to falsify your claim because you simply move the goalposts up or down the energy scale as necessary to find another gap for your invisible friend to hide in.

Ya know david...

Its funny, but it does cover that 35 Gev range but I sure don't see any break anywhere near that 35 Gev figure you handwaved at me earlier. What's your excuse for that missing evidence in the specific energy range that you were talking about earlier? Why isn't it there david?

What energy range *are* you willing to commit to or is the a pure exotic matter of the gaps claim where anything goes?

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.

How high david? Where is any evidence of it?

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.

Translation: Nothing can *ever* falsify any aspect of your claim because it's nothing more than an exotic matter of the gaps claim and you refuse to let it die a natural empirical death.

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...

It's my turn to gag apparently. You took 7 falsification hits to your CDM claims and didn't bat an eye. AMS-02 shows *nothing* at the energy ranges that you were handwaving about earlier in the week either. Nothing fits. Nothing works. It's just one pathetic excuse after another after another.

On the other hand if you'd have had 7 straight *verifications*, I'd never hear the end of it. Talk about selective choice of data sets. You're absolutely amazing. The damage control over your seriously flawed galaxy mass estimates was bad enough, but the rationalizations over the failed predictions was just over the top. What a breathtaking example of pure denial, and confirmation bias at it's absolute worst.

5+ sigma

Let's talk about your "sigma" and how it relates to confirmation bias for a moment. Guth *knew* that the universe was homogeneous. He therefore *postdicted* a fit to known information using *pure magic*. To then turn around and claim "Oh look, it really is homogenous down to five sigma!" is utterly meaningless. So what? He *knew* what he was shooting at all along! So what if he "got it right"?

1 in 3 million chance the signal is a fluke,

I never once suggested that the b-mode patterns were anything like a "fluke". I'm sure those patterns exist in the microwave signal.

Your cosmology is in the morgue.

How so? You mean like it was in the morgue in 2006? Holy cow. You just released the raw data this week *with* your own *man years* worth of efforts trying to explain the raw data as being related to your impotent dead sky deity. Give it a few weeks would ya? It took 8 years to falsify your CDM claims 7 times. It might take a year or two to falsify your lamba nonsense too.

Any ideas at all to salvage it? Any physics at all?

Yes. Unlike your impotent inflation deity, synchrotron radiation shows up in the lab too.

Or just some blather about falsification,

Blather about falsification? What exactly is the point of having tests if you refuse to accept them or let your theory rise and fall on it's mathematical predictions? You *confirm* your own claims, yet you refuse to falsify them in any rational way. Your confirmation bias is the blather around here.

plasma,

You mean like synchrotron radiation from plasma? How ever did you guess that I'd choose an *empirical* solution to a physics problem before just "making one up"?

 

[Michael]

????
In terms of prediction really anything other than r = 0 was fine

Sure because you never actually have to get the *right* number. All your "tests" are always setup so that a 0 is fail, and absolutely any other result under the sun that you might get gives you a "win". You *always* stack the deck in your favor in your "tests". No surprises there.

(and disastrous for you),

Not for me. I'm not trying to make any claims about those b-mode patterns. You're apparently projecting again.

and we know it's 0.2 within a few hundredths with only a 1 in 3 million chance that's a fluke. Most people don't call that "kinda". Only serious denial allows you to do that. 5.2 sigma.

Were I denying the existence of the b-mode patterns, you might have a point. Since I'm more than happy to admit they exist and they probably come from synchrotron radiation like they've been observing since the 1950's, there's definitely no denial process involved.

Are you ever going to answer my questions about why you think that I even need "space expansion" to explain either photon redshift, or the existence of polarized photons.?

 

[Michael]

double post

 

[davidbilby]

Ok, so you admit the pattern is there. How do you deal with the colossal fine-tuning issue then? That's where the sigma value comes in. Synchrotron radiation from what causes a b mode polarization signal where r = 0.2 in all directions????

 

[Michael]

History of detection

It was first detected in a jet emitted by Messier 87 in 1956 by Geoffrey R. Burbidge,[5] who saw it as confirmation of a prediction by Iosif S. Shklovsky in 1953, but it had been predicted earlier by Hannes Alfvén and Nicolai Herlofson [6] in 1950.

FYI, you'll note that the *first* cosmology theory to "predict" the existence of polarized photons and synchrotron radiation was *EU/PC* theory, not Lambda-magic-matter theory! So take that!

 

[davidbilby]

FYI, you'll note that the *first* cosmology theory to "predict" the existence of polarized photons and synchrotron radiation was *EU/PC* theory, not Lambda-magic-matter theory! So take that!

Except that's from a relativistic jet, not everywhere, not producing a b mode polarization pattern from everywhere......

 

[Michael]

Ok, so you admit the pattern is there. How do you deal with the colossal fine-tuning issue then? That's where the sigma value comes in. Synchrotron radiation from what causes a b mode polarization signal where r = 0.2 in all directions????

I realize that you're sure we still live in a 2-D "snow globe" universe and you're sure you're looking at shadows on the wall of your surface of last scattering. In EU/PC theory however there is no globe universe, no surface of last scattering, just galaxies as far as the eye can see, with "point sources" for those wavelengths that number in the *trillions*, and scattering galore. Every galaxy emits these wavelenghts as evidenced by all your *filters* that you use to try to filter our our own galaxy noise from the raw images.

It's relatively smooth in all directions because the universe is relatively homogenous and scatters light everywhere. FYI, your claim about it applying everywhere is probably true IMO, but it's absolutely not supported by *this particular* study which looks at only a small sliver of the sky. Granted, even by my *3-D* (no snow globe) view of the universe, those polarization patterns are likely to be related to the electromagnetic fields of spacetime, and I'd expect them to be interwoven and showing similar patterns like that all over the entire sky.

Your basic problem in a nutshell is the very same problem you have with Planck data. Your snow globe universe is a cool story bro, but is a throwback to ancient concepts of the universe. AFAIK we live in a universe that is infinite and eternal, there are no 'artificial 2D walls' in the universe as you seem to "imagine". All you're looking at in those images are the EM field orientations of spacetime in *3D*, not 2D. You're *mapping* it to 2D, and trying to claim it's your mythical surface of last scattering. You could never hope to demonstrate that claim. It's a silly concept IMO.

When we look at *raw* images at these wavelengths, the *brightest* emitters of such wavelengths are in our own galaxy. Every galaxy emits them. The patterns you see are related to the *3D plasma formations*, and specifically the EM field arrangements that are related to the Birkeland current circuits in space which Alfven also wrote about.

 

[Michael]

Ok, so you admit the pattern is there. How do you deal with the colossal fine-tuning issue then? That's where the sigma value comes in. Synchrotron radiation from what causes a b mode polarization signal where r = 0.2 in all directions????

You have the audacity to talk to me about 'fine tuning' after all those failures of CDM, no 'cutoff' in high energy protons at 35Gev or anywhere else, not a single hit at LHC at that energy range, but you're still claiming WIMPS at 35Gev did it? Give me a break! How much 'fine tuning' must you be doing to actually find a WIMP theory that actually fits all those criteria of predicting "round' electrons, *no* proton cutoff in the energy ranges you're handwaving at, and yet they somehow manage to emit high energy photons anyway. Your hypocrisy is absolutely amazing.

 

[davidbilby]

You have the audacity to talk to me about 'fine tuning'

Whether you think we have a fine tuning problem or not isn't actually relevant to whether YOU have one or not (which you do, a colossal one).

If your argument is "I don't think I have to account for that problem because I think some other theory has a problem so it must be ok to have a fine tuning problem", then I think even a layman could see you've got a problem.

no 'cutoff' in high energy protons at 35Gev or anywhere else

Or anywhere else? Really? I'd love to see your multi TeV data sets. Please share. Your armchair omniscience is really something when it extends to experiments not even yet performed...

not a single hit at LHC at that energy range, but you're still claiming WIMPS at 35Gev did it?

Because it's entirely possible. In your ignorance you're calling the play when we have a tiny fraction of the data required to support your conclusion, which even if if it were somehow true and the data were complete...doesn't invalidate dark matter theories. (WIMPs aren't the only theory out there...and one of the things I'm actually looking at at the moment is what the constraints on axions are as dark matter candidates from the BICEP data)

Give me a break! How much 'fine tuning' must you be doing to actually find a WIMP theory that actually fits all those criteria of predicting "round' electrons, *no* proton cutoff in the energy ranges you're handwaving at, and yet they somehow manage to emit high energy photons anyway. Your hypocrisy is absolutely amazing.

You literally have no idea of what the word "incomplete" means. And whilst we're talking hypocrisy, you're the person who took a paper about the AC Stark Effect in carbon nanotubes and claimed that it demonstrated the cosmological redshift "in the lab" with a "yeah yeah, the math is generic"...whatever that means...hand wave. No credentials, no qualifications and yet you think you're best placed to judge whether say, the LUX data represents a statistical sample big enough to draw conclusions about entire fields of physics.

You don't even seem to understand in what way the LUX data, for example, is incomplete in that respect - can you even explain why the relative velocity of a hypothesized dark matter particle would render a test performed at a single latitude and longitude and only using less than quarter of a year an incomplete piece of the puzzle? Can you not address the substance of this?

And you don't seem to understand the fine tuning problem you have, which is catastrophic irrespective of what the mainstream position is. To add to the ridiculous notion that some form of magical inelastic scattering process could produce the observed cosmological redshift whilst being specially and wavelength independent you're now requiring that same scattering process (whatever it is, you've still not enlightened anybody to anything other than what's already well described by Compton Scattering) to produce a tensor B mode polarization pattern right when arriving for our viewing on Earth - a (currently) 1 in 3 million chance to be a fluke, which is what you're proposing.

Do you have anything other than what is essentially "look at someone else's theory, I think their theory is rubbish and therefore mine is allowed to be rubbish"? Because that's all you've said so far. You keep trying to deflect away from your undiscussed issues to points that have been discussed ad infinitum here. We all know what you think of our theory and all the points you've made have been rebutted with solid physics. Let's talk about your theory. I'm not sure why you don't want to...or maybe I am.

 

[Michael]

Whether you think we have a fine tuning problem or not isn't actually relevant to whether YOU have one or not (which you do, a colossal one).

I seriously doubt it. Based on the patterns I'm looking at, they look *remarkably* like EM field alignments in spacetime to me. Of course I haven't had *man years* to fine tune the math formulas to fit the data set like you have.

FYI, it's more than a little disingenuous to take *man years* to fine tune your theory to fit that particular data set, and then spring it on me on Monday, and then expect me personally to whip something up for you in a day or two of "give up". Your attitude is utterly ridiculous. You'd think after crying supernatural wolf the first time in 2006, and then getting busted 7 straight times in 8 years, you'd have learned something about that attitude of yours, but apparently not.

If your argument is "I don't think I have to account for that problem because I think some other theory has a problem so it must be ok to have a fine tuning problem", then I think even a layman could see you've got a problem.

Er, no. My "excuse" (since you seem to require one) is related to the fact that while you've secretly shared all this information with yourselves while you worked on mathematical models and an entire paper related to *your* beliefs about their cause, I personally have had only a few hours to really review the data so far. Your CDM claims took years to "debunk". Give it some time.

Or anywhere else? Really? I'd love to see your multi TeV data sets. Please share. Your armchair omniscience is really something when it extends to experiments not even yet performed...

You've *consistently* made predictions, and built equipment to *test* your predictions, including that AMS-2 piece of gear and *nothing* was found! You consistently *move around the goalposts* when you feel like, it, yet wave a *falsified* figure at me (35Gev)? What?!?!? There's no cutoff there! Make up your mind! What energy state are you going to commit to for us David? CDM is the *ultimate* whack-a-mole exotic matter of the gaps claim. You folks keep whacking your own mathematical models on the head in one energy range, and another mathematical model pops up in another energy range, or from some other *tiny gap* somewhere, in fact anywhere you can stuff it! Your dark gods of the gaps claims are just impotent beyond belief IMO.

Because it's entirely possible. In your ignorance you're calling the play when we have a tiny fraction of the data required to support your conclusion, which even if if it were somehow true and the data were complete...doesn't invalidate dark matter theories. (WIMPs aren't the only theory out there...and one of the things I'm actually looking at at the moment is what the constraints on axions are as dark matter candidates from the BICEP data)

Translation: Never mind the fact your galaxy mass estimates were ripped to shreds since 2006. Never mind the fact your experiments and "tests" all came up *negative*. Never mind anything that conflicts with your *feeling* and your *dogma* that exotic matter has to be out there somewhere, not that you will commit to *anything*!

You literally have no idea of what the word "incomplete" means. And whilst we're talking hypocrisy, you're the person who took a paper about the AC Stark Effect in carbon nanotubes and claimed that it demonstrated the cosmological redshift "in the lab" with a "yeah yeah, the math is generic"...whatever that means...hand wave.

I've shown you *two different* ways to explain *photon redshift*, one via GR (which you won't deal with or discuss), and one via inelastic scattering, which you simply handwave at. Meanwhile your precious "space expansion" claim remains a *pure act of faith* on your part. Don't even think about lecturing me about "incomplete" when you can't even name a single source of "dark energy" and it makes up a full 68 percent of your entire theory! That's not even a passing grade IMO.

No credentials, no qualifications

Going right back to appealing to your credentials are you? Funny how all those "credentials' managed to botch the galaxy mass estimates up and down the stellar size spectrum. Funny how all those credentialed experts spent *billions* of dollars looking for SUSY theory, and found *zip*. What *tangible value* did all those credentials and qualifications have when it came to predicting the outcome of AMS-02, or the electron roundness experiments, or any other 'test' of your claims?

and yet you think you're best placed to judge whether say, the LUX data represents a statistical sample big enough to draw conclusions about entire fields of physics.

Nope. That's your strawman. I'm saying when we look at *all* of the evidence, from LHC, from LUX, from AMS-02, from the electron roundness experiments *and* all your botched stellar mass estimates, there is no evidence to support your claims about the existence of exotic matter. Period. Got any *real* evidence for CDM?

You don't even seem to understand

Oh, I understand *spin* when I see it. If the tables were turned, and those experiments at LHC, LUX, AMS-2, and the electron roundness experiments all came up positive, does anyone believe you won't be handing out Nobel prizes by now? The only reason you're still clinging to your dead CDM is because without it, the rest of your claims go up in smoke.

Can you not address the substance of this?

What "substance"? You're making "excuses" again. You guys have been claiming this stuff is 5 times more plentiful than the dirt in my backyard! You keep claiming it's spread pretty evenly around the galaxy too. Somehow, miraculously, not one single WIMP showed up at LUX. Now we have to be in a "special place", at just the very right time, but only on Tuesday, and only during a full moon in Summer, in the *southern* hemisphere, where we conveniently don't have any equipment yet. Give me a break. Excuses, excuses, pathetic unending excuses.

And you don't seem to understand the fine tuning problem you have,

How could I yet? I've only have a few evenings to even *look* at the data so far. Unlike you I haven't have *years* to look at "partial' data, and play with models, and make up mathematical models. Hardly surprising considering I just got access to raw data on Monday wouldn't you say? Even that 'raw data' is so heavily buggered up with your own *assumptions* it's hard to separate data from *theory* in your paper. What exactly did you expect me to do in a couple of evenings while I work my day job during the day?

which is catastrophic irrespective of what the mainstream position is.

Only *if* there is *actually* any real problem. You don't really expect me to simply *take your word for it* do you?

To add to the ridiculous notion that some form of magical inelastic scattering process could produce the observed cosmological redshift

How about that GR paper David? Are you ever going to explain why I even *need* inelastic scattering or space expansion to explain redshift?

...You've still not enlightened anybody to anything

That's false. I told you that at first glance, I'm inclined to A) agree that there is actually a b-mode pattern in the data set, and B) it's likely due to *point source* emissions from plasma in a state of Synchrotron radiation as *Alfven personally first predicted* that they would exist in spacetime based on his *EU/PC theory* and *circuit theory*, not your supernatural nonsense.

Do you have anything other than

You want *more*? You won't even touch that GR paper and explain to me why I need "space expansion" to explain redshift, and you still want *more* from me? What for? So you can run from that paper too?

When can I expect you to *address the paper on GR* and explain to me why I even need space expansion to explain photon redshift? Never?

 

[Michael]

In your mind only



In your mind only

The ironic part of course is that only in *your* mind is there any tangible physical (on Earth) evidence for magic-CDM *or* Lambda-magic theory.

And the amount of observed matter in the universe barely made even the slightest dent with any increase from those, because we don't measure the amount of matter in the universe the way you think we do.

Please explain how you 'guestimated' the mass of the stars in the region of the lensing area in that 2006 study for us. I'd *love* to hear all about it.

In your mind only. To the sensible there is the vast swathes of evidence from....

anything *but* the lab.....

peaks in the CMB power spectrum,

Of course you can't demonstrate you're actually looking at a 'surface of last scattering' to start with.....

baryonic acoustic oscillation data from Sloan,

Explain that to us.

correlation with Lyman-Alpha,

Care to address the GR paper and explain why I need space expansion to explain that particular observation?

gravitational lensing data

Start off by explaining how you calculated the stellar mass in that same lensed area.

and the simple fact that dark matter is most certainly necessary if the interpretation of the BICEP data is correct

In other words, you are driven by *need*. Without it, your Lambda won't stand on it's own. Do you really personally expect me to care? I don't think you BICEP data is in any way related to Lambda or CDM in the first place. None of them have any effect on anything in a lab.

(we know this from Friedmann solutions to GR,

Speaking of which..... Anytime you'd like to explain why I need expanding space and address that GR paper, I'm all ears.

where the large scale structure of the universe is inexplicable otherwise).

IMO an honest "I don't know" how the universe came to be homogenous is better than creation mythology based on supernatural constructs galore.

There's a 1 in 3 million chance you're right,

What a bunch of baloney. There's maybe a 1 in 3 million chance that signal isn't real, but there isn't 1 in 3 million chance that it's not related to synchrotron radiation.

granted...but then an extraordinary fine tuning problem as to why we're in such a privileged position in the universe to observe precisely this data when it would not be observable elsewhere.

You evidently live in both a privileged time *and* place in your little glass bubble.

And that "goose chase" has so far discovered a field (that is entirely invisible to our eyes) pervading the universe and lending mass to the gauge boson of the weak force, amongst many other achievements constraining the laws of physics.

Ya, ya, and in 2006 you boastfully proclaimed to have *proof* of DM too, and we all know how that didn't work out at LHC, LUX or anywhere else, including all the extra *stars* you missed.

The Higgs Boson, by the way, can only be inferred by its effects, which is really no different to the inference of other kinds of particles that we can't see but that fit nicely to the data (ill explained by other theories).

In other words, you shoehorned in the math just "beautifully", just like all those elegant SUSY maths that turned out to be a falsified dime a dozen.

It has not found a single shred of evidence supporting tired light.

Please explain why you think I even need it to explain photon redshift. Inquiring minds want to know.

Your 5.3 sigma data strongly supporting the existence of the soul, please, in raw form.

Apparently you missed the *in the lab* disclaimer. I'm also rather appalled at section 9, I'll be honest. It's *way* beneath the level of work of the rest of paper. It's a pity they couldn't just release the raw data without all the buggered up theory all in the very same paper. I'd have preferred raw data separately, and I have a lot of respect for the folks that collected it. I hate to blame them for the failures of the guys in the suits.

 

[davidbilby]

I seriously doubt it. Based on the patterns I'm looking at, they look *remarkably* like EM field alignments in spacetime to me. Of course I haven't had *man years* to fine tune the math formulas to fit the data set like you have.

Nobody fine-tuned any formulas to fit the data set, Michael. The data set fit already. That's...the point.

"EM field alignments in space-time"????

Except you completely have no idea what you're talking about. That would produce scalar polarization, not tensor polarization - it would obviously be density-induced polarization, and would thus produce only E mode polarization. Gravitational waves produce both kinds of polarization, hence the presence of both B and E modes pointing conclusively to gravitational waves. Once you rule out gravitational lensing in the particular portion of the signal (which is partly why jackknives were done, and why your idea that "just one portion of the sky" was test is wrong),

FYI, it's more than a little disingenuous to take *man years* to fine tune your theory to fit that particular data set

Nobody fine-tuned the theory to the data set (in any case, who would have had time to do that, yet? And where are you getting "years" from?)

and then spring it on me on Monday, and then expect me personally to whip something up for you in a day or two of "give up".

I'm so sorry that we have degrees in physics and you don't, but anybody with one would be able to comment immediately on this. It's not difficult.

Er, no. My "excuse" (since you seem to require one) is related to the fact that while you've secretly shared all this information with yourselves while you worked on mathematical models and an entire paper related to *your* beliefs about their cause, I personally have had only a few hours to really review the data so far.

Yeah...the BICEP team didn't share the data early. So no. Nice idea of a conspiracy but everybody's had the same amount of time with this one.

You've *consistently* made predictions, and built equipment to *test* your predictions

Yes, we have.

including that AMS-2 piece of gear and *nothing* was found!

In some experiments nothing was found in certain areas, and in some of those the caveat "yet" applies, but you're ignorant to that and assume quarter or less of a data set is "job done", just like when you see a paper (irrelevant to the topic). Science does not work to deadlines and you cannot call the game in the first quarter unless the score is 3 million to 1, like it is with BICEP.

You consistently *move around the goalposts* when you feel like, it, yet wave a *falsified* figure at me (35Gev)? What?!?!?

First you've pulled 35GeV out of thin air like I stated it as the only possible option (I don't remember even stating it)....after complaining the very opposite, that I haven't stated an energy level for WIMPS for you to go "SEE!!! Nothing there! Only chance you had!". Second, I never said WIMPs were the only option, because they aren't. Lastly, the goalposts are ENORMOUS - that's the problem. We're trying to move them. We're trying to constrain them, make them narrower. That's the entire point!

There's no cutoff there! Make up your mind! What energy state are you going to commit to for us David?

None, because nobody knows. It's in the undecided category. It's like asking for precisely the number of missing links we would expect to find in the history of evolution on this planet. There are too many possibilities. It's possible WIMPs don't exist, but that wouldn't falsify CDM.

CDM is the *ultimate* whack-a-mole exotic matter of the gaps claim.

No, it's simply too complex to take down in one fell swoop because it's actually many, many theories with an overarching title, like SUSY. I know that frustrates you, but your characterization is simply wrong and that's obvious to the non-physicists reading...

You folks keep whacking your own mathematical models on the head in one energy range, and another mathematical model pops up in another energy range, or from some other *tiny gap* somewhere, in fact anywhere you can stuff it!

Because that tiny gap might be right. Science does not exclude tiny gaps. The standard of evidence rises, but we don't go "oh, let's not look there, why bother" to ANYTHING. So when you say "such and such was falsified"...you're simply wrong. If something is falsified, we move on - like tired light, but people are welcome to modify their theories to fit the new data and resubmit. That's how it works. We hone down to the truth. When that process is barely complete, there's too many options to just throw, say SUSY, or CDM in the trash because one part of it fails. We didn't throw Newtonian gravity - or the entire body of work ever done on gravity - in the trash when it failed to describe the orbital characteristics of Mercury....

Translation: Never mind the fact your galaxy mass estimates were ripped to shreds since 2006.

And you can't prove that observable matter in the universe has changed in any significant degree to it, because, for the umpteenth time, THAT IS NOT HOW IT IS MEASURED. That's why the ~4% of baryonic matter that we believe exists is described as "observable" and not "observed". We haven't even begun to observe all the baryonic matter we think is out there, so shouting about galaxies being twice as bright - which maybe adds 20% to the "observed" matter impresses nobody, because it's NOT new baryonic matter in the mass-energy budget of the universe. We KNOW it's there. We KNOW we've not seen it all yet...not even close.

I've shown you *two different* ways to explain *photon redshift*, one via GR
(which you won't deal with or discuss)

I asked whether you really wanted to discuss Friedmann or Milne empty models, which is what that paper is relying on for an esoteric mathematical description of expansion.

and one via inelastic scattering, which you simply handwave at.

Until you come up with a form of inelastic scattering that can conserve photon linear propagation and energy and yet induce a redshift, there's nothing to discuss. And now you need that scattering mechanism to line everything up and somehow produce tensor modes from what looks like the CMB but apparently isn't...

Have you come up with such a thing?

Meanwhile your precious "space expansion" claim remains a *pure act of faith* on your part.

5.2 sigma is a pretty good thing to base "faith" on...but of course it's not faith at all, since the theory already had good validation from empirical evidence from the cosmos.

Don't even think about lecturing me about "incomplete" when you can't even name a single source of "dark energy" and it makes up a full 68 percent of your entire theory!

Worse, we don't even know what it IS! Hard to name a source of something when you don't know what it is. At least, a source in the sense you're talking about, which might actually be an irrelevant concept. We can't name a source of the Higgs field either, not in the sense you want, and there might not be one.

That's not even a passing grade IMO.

How would you know?

Going right back to appealing to your credentials are you?

No - I'm appealing to your lack of them. Cry ad hominem if you like, it works so well because it's true.

Funny how all those "credentials' managed to botch the galaxy mass estimates up and down the stellar size spectrum.

But funny how that doesn't affect the overall amount of baryonic matter, because observing more of it doesn't even begin to come close to observing all of it, and there's no need to increase the total amount of baryonic matter because of that finding. If there was, you can be assured we'd be worrying about it...

Funny how all those credentialed experts spent *billions* of dollars looking for SUSY theory, and found *zip*. What *tangible value* did all those credentials and qualifications have when it came to predicting the outcome of AMS-02, or the electron roundness experiments, or any other 'test' of your claims?

And they found the Higgs boson, underpinning one of the most important bodies of work in the history of physics. Hardly "zip".

And now I'm bored for now. laters.

 

[davidbilby]

What a bunch of baloney. There's maybe a 1 in 3 million chance that signal isn't real, but there isn't 1 in 3 million chance that it's not related to synchrotron radiation.

Correct! There's a zero chance that it's related to that in the way you think, because that wouldn't produce tensor modes, it would produce scalar modes.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Correct! There's a zero chance that it's related to that in the way you think, because that wouldn't produce tensor modes, it would produce scalar modes.

Need a scientific dictionary to read these posts... Ok, back to biology related stuff where I belong.

 

[Michael]

Need a scientific dictionary to read these posts... Ok, back to biology related stuff where I belong.

Oh honey, it's even worse than you think (and I realized until just now).

David apparently believes that just because he personally chooses to live his life inside of a cute tiny little snow globe universe, with a cute little mythical "surface of last scattering", that I too am personally obligated to think that way. Apparently he believes that he can "judge" the worthiness of all cosmology theories ever conceived of, and every possible explanation for B-mode signatures, based on *his* personal belief system.

In EU/PC theory, the universe could be infinite and eternal AFAIK. There is no "surface of last scattering" in EU/PC theory. Most of their 'lingo' has *no* relationship to any other branch of empirical physics.

On the other hand, Hannes Alfven, the Nobel winning "father" of EU/PC theory, was in fact the first author to "predict" the existence of polarized photons from the largest structures of the universe. He predicted these polarized emissions using circuit theory applied to plasmas which ultimately generate them as a result of synchrotron radiation emissions from magnetic ropes, large and small. "Magnetic ropes" are scaled up current carrying filaments like you see inside of an ordinary plasma ball from the store. They are simply scaled to *massive* size in terms of voltage and current. When such structures form in plasma, they can (and do) generate polarized photons in very specific patterns. Apparently however david is blissfully unaware that they too generate "B-modes" that can be measured just like any polarized photon.

It's kinda cute that he chooses to live his theoretical life inside that tiny little snow globe universe, but I'm sure he won't be happy when I refuse to put any make believe borders around my universe.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Oh honey, it's even worse than you think (and I realized until just now).

David apparently believes that just because he personally chooses to live his life inside of a cute tiny little snow globe, with a cute little mythical "surface of last scattering", that I too am personally obligated to think that way. Apparently he believes that he can "judge" the worthiness of all cosmology theories ever conceived of, and every possible explanation for B-mode signatures, based on *his* personal belief system.

In EU/PC theory, the universe could be infinite and eternal AFAIK. There is no "surface of last scattering" in EU/PC theory, and most of their 'lingo' has *no* relationship to any other branch of empirical physics.

On the other hand, Hannes Alfven, the Nobel winning "father" of EU/PC theory, was in fact the first author to "predict" the existence of polarized photons from the largest structures of the universe. He predicted these polarized emissions using circuit theory applied to plasmas which ultimately generate them as a result of synchrotron radiation emissions from magnetic ropes, large and small. "Magnetic ropes" are scaled up current carrying filaments like you see inside of an ordinary plasma ball from the store. They are simply scaled to *massive* size in terms of voltage and current. When such structures form in plasma, they can (and do) generate polarized photons in very specific patterns. Apparently however david is blissfully unaware that they too generate "B-modes" that can be measured just like any polarized photon.

It's kinda cute that he chooses to lives inside that tiny little snow globe universe, but I'm sure he won't be happy when I refuse to put any make believe borders around my universe.

Yeah, not entirely sure what you're talking about. As I have said before, physics isn't my area of knowledge and I am not even going to pretend I got all of that, it might as well be ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics. Oh well :/, if I have the time I'll try to learn a bit more about this.

 

[Michael]

And they found the Higgs boson, underpinning one of the most important bodies of work in the history of physics. Hardly "zip".

Oh for goodness sake! Would you *quit* trying to ride the coattails of GR theory and *standard* particle physics theory already? It's getting really annoying at this point. The "God particle"/Higg Boson was the crowning achievement in standard particle physic theory. I'm happy for their success just like everyone else. Your SUSY nonsense however got blown out of the water. Quit trying to ride their success. I don't buy it for a second. I'm happy they built LHC and finally put your mythical matter theory to a test. It failed. It failed *epically* in fact. It failed it's own "golden test", and every other test since then too.

I'm going home to eat now. I'll comment on the rest later, but suffice to say, you're going to be *highly* disappointed if you expect me to put artificial (non existent) borders around the universe. Sorry, no can do.

 

[Michael]

Yeah, not entirely sure what you're talking about. As I have said before, physics isn't my area of knowledge and I am not even going to pretend I got all of that, it might as well be ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics. Oh well :/, if I have the time I'll try to learn a bit more about this.

The best thing about EU/PC theory is that it's easy to understand if you can invest in an ordinary plasma ball. Pretty much everything you need to know about high energy light (and polarized light) can be explained by processes that you can personally observe inside of a working plasma ball.

It took me *years* (probably decades) to unravel all the onion skin layers of their ridiculous theory. Good luck with that. I sure wouldn't want to try to explain it to you, but I'll be happy to try to explain anything you want to know about b-modes and those new images based EU/PC theory and plasma physics. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. EU/PC theory is pretty straight forward because it's based on everyday physics, starting with electricity.

 

[PsychoSarah]

The best thing about EU/PC theory is that it's easy to understand if you can invest in an ordinary plasma ball. Pretty much everything you need to know about high energy light (and polarized light) can be explained by processes that you can personally observe inside of a working plasma ball.

It took me *years* (probably decades) to unravel all the onion skin layers of their ridiculous theory. Good luck with that. I sure wouldn't want to try to explain it to you, but I'll be happy to try to explain anything you want to know about b-modes and those new images based EU/PC theory and plasma physics. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. EU/PC theory is pretty straight forward because it's based on everyday physics, starting with electricity.

Alright, and I will reciprocate that generosity for whenever you have something biology based you want clarification on