Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
????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".
Let's recap
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.This is not a "negative" result for starters.
They put it around 20 percent if I recall correctly.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 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*.Which also isn't a negative result of anything, and doesn't change the overall mass of galaxies or their rotational dynamics.
Right, because everyone knows that entire stars as large as ours are entirely "massless".More stars does not equal more mass overall.
It's still another demonstration that your stellar mass estimation techniques were not worth the paper they were printed on in 2006.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.
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*!Also not a negative result and also didn't effect mass calculations which aren't done by counting stars.
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.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.
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.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.
How high david? Where is any evidence of it?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.
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.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.
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.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...
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"?5+ sigma
I never once suggested that the b-mode patterns were anything like a "fluke". I'm sure those patterns exist in the microwave signal.1 in 3 million chance the signal is a fluke,
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.Your cosmology is in the morgue.
Yes. Unlike your impotent inflation deity, synchrotron radiation shows up in the lab too.Any ideas at all to salvage it? Any physics at all?
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.Or just some blather about falsification,
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"?plasma,
????
In terms of prediction really anything other than r = 0 was fine
Not for me. I'm not trying to make any claims about those b-mode patterns. You're apparently projecting again.(and disastrous for you),
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.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.
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!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!
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????
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'
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.
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).
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.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.
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.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...
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*!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)
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.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.
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?No credentials, no qualifications
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?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.
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.You don't even seem to understand
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.Can you not address the substance of this?
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?And you don't seem to understand the fine tuning problem you have,
Only *if* there is *actually* any real problem. You don't really expect me to simply *take your word for it* do you?which is catastrophic irrespective of what the mainstream position is.
How about that GR paper David? Are you ever going to explain why I even *need* inelastic scattering or space expansion to explain redshift?To add to the ridiculous notion that some form of magical inelastic scattering process could produce the observed cosmological redshift
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....You've still not enlightened anybody to anything
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?Do you have anything other than
In your mind only
In your mind only
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.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.
anything *but* the lab.....In your mind only. To the sensible there is the vast swathes of evidence from....
Of course you can't demonstrate you're actually looking at a 'surface of last scattering' to start with.....peaks in the CMB power spectrum,
Explain that to us.baryonic acoustic oscillation data from Sloan,
Care to address the GR paper and explain why I need space expansion to explain that particular observation?correlation with Lyman-Alpha,
Start off by explaining how you calculated the stellar mass in that same lensed area.gravitational lensing data
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.and the simple fact that dark matter is most certainly necessary if the interpretation of the BICEP data is correct
Speaking of which..... Anytime you'd like to explain why I need expanding space and address that GR paper, I'm all ears.(we know this from Friedmann solutions to GR,
IMO an honest "I don't know" how the universe came to be homogenous is better than creation mythology based on supernatural constructs galore.where the large scale structure of the universe is inexplicable otherwise).
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.There's a 1 in 3 million chance you're right,
You evidently live in both a privileged time *and* place in your little glass bubble.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.
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.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.
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.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).
Please explain why you think I even need it to explain photon redshift. Inquiring minds want to know.It has not found a single shred of evidence supporting tired light.
Apparently you missed the *in the lab* disclaimer.Your 5.3 sigma data strongly supporting the existence of the soul, please, in raw form.
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".
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.
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!
Translation: Never mind the fact your galaxy mass estimates were ripped to shreds since 2006.
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.
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?
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.
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, 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.
And they found the Higgs boson, underpinning one of the most important bodies of work in the history of physics. Hardly "zip".
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?