Message from the Dawn of time...

Michael · Mar 24, 2014

So would you like to debate your Lambda related claims about dark energy and a "standard candle" next, or would you rather *finally* explain to me *why* I even need space expansion to explain photon redshift first?

[1402.2717] Specific predictions for SN 2014J in the context of the Quark Nova Ia model

davidbilby · Mar 24, 2014

Michael said:
All of your so called "work" is related to a *non electric* model of your *own* design, based on your *own* beliefs, and your *own* ideas. Not once did you bother to *test* your claims in a lab

snip the circular feedback loop that is your writing style

Your laboratory obsession borders on lunacy. To wit: your laboratory proof of the existence of the Andromeda Galaxy, please. If you cannot answer that your point is moot (which it is of course), because the control of an astronomical experiment is the mathematical model without the expected effect or entity, and science is not solely validated within four walls arbitrarily named "laboratory". At all.

As to the rest of it, since you know no vector calculus and don't know why the simple distinction between scalars and tensors emerges as a direct result from the basic framework of GR (it's like the entire foundation of GR)...I cannot fathom how you think you know what you're talking about, when with each post you demonstrate further that you do not.

Michael said:
You did not even *look* at synchrotron radiation through your lens, so you have no idea what it looks like in your lens

Um. Dearie me Michael, you've completely and utterly lost what little of the plot you had.

Is your claim (seriously) that we do not know what synchrotron radiation "looks like" in the WMAP data? BICEP2 was not looking for synchrotron radiation, was not measuring it, was not trying to measure it, was not set up to measure it, was not the right kind of instrumentation to measure it.

It was measuring the polarization of the signal that the entire scientific community knows to be the CMB and has known to be the CMB for decades.

That was correlated with WMAP's measurements of synchrotron sources to rule out foreground synchrotron effects as capable of anything more than r = 0.003 contamination in terms of B-mode-like polarization fluctuations.

I don't know what "camera" you're jabbering on about because this is two data sets, but the argument that you cannot take one data set drawn from one telescope and correlate it with data drawn from another is truly one of the crassest, most idiotic, most ridiculous claims ever made. We don't need to know what synchrotron radiation "looks like" (whatever you mean by that, another unscientific phrase) through BICEP2 because BICEP2 wasn't where the data set was drawn from. WMAP was where it came from.

Do you have problems with the methodology for WMAP? Please list them, or drop that particular argument, because it's beyond crass.

davidbilby · Mar 24, 2014

Michael said:
Translation: You didn't actually bother to test your equipment

Here we go again with your untested equipment idea. You can't claim that the BICEP work is fabulous and then turn around and say they didn't test their equipment properly by spewing a signal that it doesn't even measure at it.

Secondly, BICEP2 is not where the synchrotron data was taken from, that was WMAP, so your entire argument is irrelevant.

Michael said:
or your claims about *only* GR being able to produce such patterns in any controlled lab experiments

Do you mean gravitational waves? Not GR? GR is an exceptionally well-tested mathematical framework that even you don't dispute, so again, why are you disputing it? Our claim is that b-modes of this kind are almost certainly caused by gravitational waves in the early pre-inflatory epoch.

Michael said:
Instead you *assumed* that synchrotron radiation was a minor factor based on *your own* claims

Um, no, based on the extraordinary amount of data that is WMAP.

Michael said:
and you completely and utterly ignored your responsibility to check it out in the lab.

Why would we measure cosmological synchrotron radiation as seen by WMAP......in a lab? It's like looking for the Andromeda Galaxy in a brick building in downtown Des Moines. It's simply not relevant, because it's not there. And if your complaint is somehow about the methodology and instrumentation used to detect synchrotron radiation in the past, then I really cannot fathom why you refer to any data sets at all, because clearly PLANCK and WMAP are entirely deficient in your eyes.

Michael said:
I see that bit now that bit I missed earlier about the handedness being related to handedness in GR, but again, you're basing all of those claims on your own circular feedback loop based on 3 supernatural forms of matter/energy.

No, the data would be the same irrespective of the theory. There is a handed b-mode polarization signal pervasive in the CMB. You can choose to explain it however you like, but the plausibility of every one of your explanations hinges on either GR being wrong (despite you saying it isn't), the CMB not being the CMB but something else (despite having no sensible idea of what it might be that doesn't also demand GR is wrong, and that we can't differentiate scalar and tensor modes)....or linear propagation of a scattered photon being possible (it's not).

Michael said:
You didn't however bother to check out what a dozen or so oddly oriented synchrotron sources

You think the WMAP data only looked at a dozen or so sources of synchrotron radiation? Yeesh. Ouch.

Michael said:
Isn't there a curious bone in your body?

Depends on if there's a cute girl walking by or not.

Michael said:
How could you *not* setup some various *experiments* to look at synchrotron sources?

What the hell do you think WMAP is, other than an experiment to measure exactly these kinds of sources amongst other things? Simply pointing some synchrotron sources (whatever you think these should be and why on earth do you think that would bear any relevance to the same radiation traveling billions of light years) down the BICEP2 telescope or the WMAP telescope would tell us nothing, since they are a) telescopes designed to measure the CMB and b) nobody disputes their accuracy in measuring this data? Because that's what you're doing.

You're not even making the SENSIBLE objection to this data, which is that we need to reperform the same experiment outside of the Earth's atmosphere (which is what is going to be done next).

Michael said:
I can certainly continue to pick up some of those other points and continue to rip on your lambda claims if you like, but I doubt I will find another hole in your claim as big as that barn door of an opening. I cannot *believe* that you didn't even check it out in the lab!

You cannot believe it because you cannot for the life of you understand that physics and astronomy don't have to be done "in a lab". It's rather like complaining that the findings weren't done whilst wearing a white coat. It's nonsensical.

davidbilby · Mar 24, 2014

Michael said:
I didn't ask you that. I asked you if you looked at *controlled* synchrotron radiation through the same equipment to investigate the observations it produces, yes or no?

No, because again, the synchrotron data was a correlation from an experiment that actually measures such radiation, WMAP...

Michael said:
What part of inflation theory, and your surface of last scattering, snow glow universe theory explains why we see both left and right hand "b-mode patterns" as you call it?

I and everybody else, and when we say left and right handed that's also part of vector calculus. If it were merely an E mode pattern the pattern would be symmetrical, if the pattern is not symmetrical it's quite obvious why parts of the pattern will be left handed and parts will be right handed...it couldn't actually be any other way. Please, God, say I don't have to explain why that is to an adult human being, that would be really sad.

Irrespective, that distinction isn't the point, it's that there is handedness at all.

Michael said:
I already explained to you why they occur in EU/PC theory. The shape, size and orientation of the current carrying filaments will determine the shape, size and orientation of the b mode patterns.

Since the handedness itself is the point, and you're still demanding that GR is wrong (since the shape and size and orientation of plasma filaments wherever the hell they are supposed to be will cause density perturbations, which according to GR can produce scalar modes only), you have your theory explaining something that's not necessary to be explained as if you think it's something great....

Michael said:
Since current is the *cause*

You said it was shape size and orientation of plasma filaments, not current...which is it? They're both equally absurd, but you seem confused as to which you're claiming it is.

Michael said:
it's also the reason we see the handedness over large distances, and both types of handedness.

If there's handedness you'll obviously see both left and right in any situation where handedness arises in such a signal! It's like saying if you fold a piece of paper in half it will have two halves, a left and a right half. Of course it will...you don't need to prove that, it's in the very definition. You've basically said "EU PC theory has an explanation for when you fold a piece of paper and hold it up horizontally, there is a left side of the fold and a right side of the fold". Excuse us for not being impressed!

Also your last sentence there means nothing. "current is the reason we the handedness over large distances" -

a) Why does distance have any effect on the polarization signal (and if distance somehow changes the signal (???) why do you demand lab tests of synchrotron radiation fired into the same telescopes at close range which would thus be irrelevant?). Would we not see handedness in this signal at a short distance?

b) How - exactly - does current produce handedness in a polarization signal?

Michael said:
Whereas Alfven actually predicted large structures which emit polarized photons using EU/PC theory, as well as explained their handedness

PAPER PLEASE! 10 bucks says it has nothing about the handedness of modes in polarization patterns and you just lied.

Michael said:
*before* they were actually observed

Starobinsky, 1979, actual prediction of B mode polarization patterns. Alfven - not so much.

Michael said:
you're apparently *postdicting* a fit to known polarization patterns and claiming that *only* inflation can predict them!

No, anything can predict them, but they have to show how. Saying "current did it" and leaving it there isn't good enough (and absurd).

Starobinsky et al. Do I have to keep banging on about that? Oh right, that's right, you've never read it.

Michael said:
You furthermore apparently never even bothered to conduct a *physical test* of that claim in a real lab experiment before running around like chicken little claiming that the inflation sky is falling

Yeah, if inflation is right, the sky is far from falling, quite the opposite.

Michael said:
Come back to me when you can demonstrate your claim that *only* GR could produce such patterns, and Alfven's *predicted* large scale synchrotron sources could not possibly be the actual cause.

Except that GR doesn't "produce" such patterns, although it is the mathematical framework for understanding them along with vector calculus. Gravitational waves should produce such patterns. Man, are you confused about this.

Michael · Mar 24, 2014

davidbilby said:
As to the rest of it, since you know no vector calculus ....

False. You're apparently making up rationalizations for your own failures and inventing claims in your head by the *dozen*, some of which I personally *know* to be untrue. Why should I trust *anything* you have to say when I know for a fact that at least some of the words coming out of your mouth are A) made up and B) false?

It's absolutely *unbelievable* to me that you're trying to claim that there is absolutely no other possible source of these signals, *without* testing anything in a lab, and without actually *ruling out* large scale (galactic scale) synchrotron radiation in any logical way. Holy Cow david! The prediction of those galactic sized patterns of polarized emissions from the largest structures in the universe come from synchrotron radiation models related to EU/PC theory. However, you apparently spent *no* time whatsoever studying the patterns they make in your equipment. Instead you simply *assume* they cannot create those patterns *without even putting your claims to any real *empirical test* with your own equipment in controlled *tests* of your claim! Section 9 is an *absolute disaster*.

Michael · Mar 24, 2014

I think I'll start some coffee and take a while to relax before I get to the rest of your nonsense. Suffice to say you're doing *exactly* what I assumed you would do. You're blaming the messenger for your own failures.

Extraordinary claims, like your claim that *only* gravitational waves can produce these b-mode patterns, requires *extraordinary* support. You didn't even do the *ordinary* tests!

davidbilby · Mar 24, 2014

Michael said:
Extraordinary claims, like your claim that *only* gravitational waves can produce these b-mode patterns, requires *extraordinary* support. You didn't even do the *ordinary* tests!

Um...no. I said that some B mode patterns can be produced other ways, just that they are ruled out here. There are two types. Gravitational lensing can make e modes look like b modes for starters. Can you explain why that is?

davidbilby · Mar 24, 2014

Incidentally please list the "ordinary tests" and why you think each of them should have been done, with your preferred methodology. Please also list why WMAP is an inadequate data set to analyze foreground cosmological synchrotron effects, and why a test in a laboratory that in no way resembles the conditions in the intergalactic medium would be a) preferable or b) meaningful in any way.

Michael · Mar 25, 2014

davidbilby said:
snip the circular feedback loop that is your writing style

Your laboratory obsession borders on lunacy.

Your lack of any attempt to take even *ordinary* steps to ensure your *extraordinary* claims borders on ridiculousness IMO.

I've traveled around the sun over 54 times now, and I've *never* seen such an *extraordinary* physics claim in my lifetime. Even Einstein wasn't attempting to *add three new forces of nature* with GR. He simply created better mathematical models to describe gravity.

Never in the *history* of physics has anyone claimed to find evidence of *three* brand new forces of nature simultaneously. There were only 4 to start with, and now you'll apparently require 3 more to achieve 5 sigma certainty. That's not just an extraordinary claim, it may be the *most* extraordinary claim in the whole of physics.

If you expect me to believe your claims, you're going to need *extra extra* ordinary support, not some *lame excuses* that you made up for not even bothering to *test* your claim about synchrotron radiation not creating such patterns in your instruments.

You continue to insist on one hand that synchrotron radiation cannot produce these patterns, yet on the other you subtract out an extra amount, *in addition to* the dust and other methods you've already filtered out.

Here's the deal from where I sit:

I was really impressed with the efforts used to get rid of foreground effects to ensure the polarized photons you're looking at are in fact "long distance"/non foreground effects.

On the other hand, I was expecting some mention in section 9.3 of Alfven's predictions related to polarized radiation sources in all galaxies. I expected it to include some mention of the fact that *every* galaxy necessarily contains *many* sources of these emissions, just like the ones you're filtering out with your various filter mechanisms.

Instead I got no mention of this *confirmed observation whatsoever, and about 1/2 a paragraph of handwave, and a couple of link citations that don't make any mention of Alfven's original polarized synchrotron emission structures either. It's like his original *prediction*, along with the *cause* of that prediction got swept under the rug with a r = .0001 handwave.

Um. Dearie me Michael, you've completely and utterly lost what little of the plot you had.

Plot? It's not a plot david, it's a *confirmed* prediction of EU/PC theory. Those large polarized emitting structures have been known about since the 50's.

Is your claim (seriously) that we do not know what synchrotron radiation "looks like" in the WMAP data?

Nope, I mean in *raw BICEP2 images*.

BICEP2 was not looking for synchrotron radiation, was not measuring it, was not trying to measure it, was not set up to measure it, was not the right kind of instrumentation to measure it.

So you say, but one test is worth a thousand expert opinions. If your claim is true then you have nothing to fear by *testing* your claim in a lab. It is capable of measuring the E/B orientations of polarized photons, and it should see such emissions from a controlled source (or not). You don't know however, because you never actually checked it out!

Michael · Mar 25, 2014

davidbilby said:
No, the data would be the same irrespective of the theory.

The *data* would be the same, but the *interpretation* will not be the same. Alfven's *original prediction* of this large scale pattern around *every* galaxy is based upon the notions of current filaments connecting whole galaxies. It's necessarily going to generate these same patterns around *every* black hole and/or neutron star in the universe, particularly any that happen to be "feeding" at the time.

Your theory however requires belief in some sort of 'surface of last scattering' to produce polarized photons. You're *looking* for a 'surface of last scattering' even though no such device even exists in the original theory that predicted these large scale polarized structures in space.

You're *arbitrarily* assigning the E and B orientation of these polarized photons some 'lingo' related to your specific theory involving some mythical surface of last scattering and you are *assuming* that they all come from that surface of last scattering. You have no *evidence* to support that claim however.

While I will grant you that this team made a *herculean effort* to remove the *localized* polarized photon point sources from this data set, that is also *proof positive* that every galaxy emits these photons from *many* point sources. Even solar flares and solar *processes* produce such emissions. There could be a couple hundred billion "point sources" for such photons in every single galaxy.

I was impressed with the paper until section 9. At that point you did a *magic handwave* routine that suggests you can claim to have removed every potential point source for those polarized photons for the next 13.8 billion light years, and everything you see is from that 'surface of last scattering'.

Not only would your localized photon pattern "scrubbing" routine have to be 'almost perfect' to say something like that, your filter would actually have to be 99.99999999999999999999999999999999% perfect to make such a claim. That's not just an *exceptional* claim, that's an *unbelievable*/unacceptable claim.

I'm confident that their techniques removed *foreground* effects from *our own* galaxy, and maybe the strongest point sources in our local galaxy cluster, but I see no evidence you could remove every synchrotron radiation source in the *entire universe* with your filtering technique. Sorry but that's not not a 'believable' claim.

I'm sure we're looking at large scale polarized emission *structures* in space, all of which were *predicted* by Alfven and Peratt as well. The current carrying Birkeland currents wire the galaxies together in fact in EU/PC theory, the theory that *predicted* large scale polarized photon 'structures' around all black holes and neutron stars.

It's still hard for me to get a full handle on the sizes of scales of these images because there are no galaxy overlay images to go with the study, so I cannot really be sure if those structures relate to the synchrotron radiation from black holes and galaxies, or whether they might presents something like the Birkeland currents that wire entire *galaxy clusters* together in PC/EU theory. Either way, there *at least* two more 'large scale emissions sources in EU/PC theory to consider, one of which has *already been verified* (black hole jets/currents).

What you're calling E-mode and B-mode are simply the E and B components of various polarized photons. Since you cannot actually demonstrate that you're even seeing photons from a mythical "surface of last scattering", the math's you're assigning to them are *arbitrary*, and related to *only your mythical claims*.

You can't just *handwave* at yet another paper based on *your own* theory, and claim you can eliminate every potential point source in every single galaxy in the entire universe with a .001 adjustment. That's just pure nonsense.

You folks never even *looked* at the *original* theory that predicted the existence of the polarized photons that you're A) spending huge amounts of effort to remove from *foreground* contamination, and B) trying to handwave away from every other galaxy in the universe with a .001 adjust to your claims. That's just pure nonsense.

By *definition* the theory that Alfven used to *predict* the patterns of emission you're filtering from the foreground and seeing in the background are all related to synchrotron radiation from trillions upon trillions upon trillions of "point sources" (galaxies) as far as the eye can see, and there is no 'surface of last scattering'. Furthermore, you failed to even *test* to see if those E-B "modes" can be observed in ordinary synchrotron radiation, and you're trying to claim your filtering mechanism was *perfect* for 50+ billion light years!

That is an *extraordinary* claim that is so unbelievable, it's simply not acceptable. I'll give you high praise for 'good' localized filtering, but *no points* for simply skipping section 9.3 with a handwave. I'm also *stunned* you didn't even test your claims in the lab. We both know that your claim that B modes won't be observed in ordinary synchrotron radiation sources won't hold up under scrutiny in the lab.

Michael · Mar 25, 2014

davidbilby said:
Starobinsky, 1979, actual prediction of B mode polarization patterns. Alfven - not so much.

Well duh. The term directly relates to *your* theory and *only* your theory. You arbitrary assigned the term "E-mode" to the E component of the polarized photons, and the term 'B-mode' to the B component of the polarized photon of the universe. Those terms don't even have any meaning in EU/PC theory because there is no surface of last scattering in EU/PC theory. It's a 'make believe' entity related to a mythical creation event requiring faster than C expansion claims. How could he *predict* something that doesn't even actually exist? There is no such thing as a "B-mode". It is simply the B component of the polarized photon *period*. Likewise there is no such thing as an *E mode*. Again, it's just the E component of the polarized photons. We can demonstrate that claim by subjecting your claims about *exclusivity* to real tests in real labs with real synchrotron radiation sources too. You probably already know that too which is probably why you didn't *do the lab work* that is required to verify your *extraordinary* claim.

davidbilby · Mar 25, 2014

Michael said:
Well duh. The term directly relates to *your* theory and *only* your theory.

Uh....what? You're now trying to complain about exceptionally well-established definitions?

Michael said:
You arbitrary assigned the term "E-mode" to the E component of the polarized photons

Call it "donkey mode", "Lagavulin Single Malt Mode" or whatever, the term describes a gradient only pattern in the polarization signal. That's what it is.

Michael said:
and the term 'B-mode' to the B component of the polarized photon of the universe.

Call it "Iowa mode" or "Blancmange mode" or whatever, that term describes the curl only pattern in the polarization signal.

P.S what exactly is the "photon of the universe"? I wasn't aware there was only the one, and I'm not sure exactly why it's "of the universe", since I wasn't aware there was a distinction between universal and non-universal photon(s)....

Michael said:
Those terms don't even have any meaning in EU/PC theory

But a moment ago you claimed "EU/PC theory" predicted them. Thanks for clarifying that it doesnt;t, but now you've just said that in EU/PC theory you cannot decompose polarization signal into grad and curl components? Because that's like saying in "EU/PC theory", circles don't have radii or circumferences.

Michael said:
because there is no surface of last scattering in EU/PC theory.

Well, there's obviously a set of coordinates from which photons have been traveling that are just now reaching us unless you're claiming a variable C, so that's debatable.

Michael said:
It's a 'make believe' entity related to a mythical creation event requiring faster than C expansion claims.

Again, not a creation event. If there was a creation event it happened approximately the Planck time BEFORE what we are discussing. Faster than C expansion is not a problem in GR, only in SR with a single reference frame, but again, if you knew anything about GR you would know that.

Michael said:
How could he *predict* something that doesn't even actually exist?

All predictions, I think you will find, are about things that we don't know whether they exist or not. It's kind of a crucial part of the definition of something being a "prediction".

Michael said:
There is no such thing as a "B-mode".

A polarization signal quite obviously can be split into two parts, one a grad free, and one a curl free component, through vector calculus. We call the grad free component a "B mode". It by simple definition from GR is a tensor mode. We call the curl free component an "E mode", and it by simple definition from GR is a scalar mode. I'm not sure how more simply I can put this.

Michael said:
It is simply the B component of the polarized photon *period*.

Where "period" is directly analogous to the 1980's use of the word "....NOT!", right?

Michael said:
Likewise there is no such thing as an *E mode*.

Likewise, see above.

Michael said:
Again, it's just the E component of the polarized photons.

So according to you a single photon has a "B component" but only multiple photons can have an "E component". Mmmmkay. No.

Michael said:
We can demonstrate that claim by subjecting your claims about *exclusivity* to real tests in real labs with real synchrotron radiation sources too.

Again, you're now asking us something akin to that we prove that circles have circumferences...but I'm sure this is because you don't have a clue what you're talking about, which is why you're making stuff up. Kudos for the riffing on science-y terms though, you've obviously practiced that.

Michael said:
You probably already know that too which is probably why you didn't *do the lab work* that is required to verify your *extraordinary* claim.

Yeah, we're all going to each other "wink wink nudge nudge, hope nobody notices!". Heh. Cool story.

Michael · Mar 25, 2014

davidbilby said:
Uh....what? You're now trying to complain about exceptionally well-established definitions?

No, ultimately I'm complaining about your basic methods in the final analysis:

Call it "donkey mode", "Lagavulin Single Malt Mode" or whatever, the term describes a gradient only pattern in the polarization signal. That's what it is.

Your argument amounts to something like:

You supposedly whipped up some 'test' of inflation that involves those very same polarized photons that Alfven first predicted to exist in spacetime based on synchrotron radiation. We already *know* they are there because we already know that his EU/PC prediction was confirmed in the 1950's.

Furthermore you created a whole bunch of your own new creation lingo that is unrelated to anything outside of your own theory, involving a 'surface of last scattering' (created in the creation event), an inflation genie, a kludged brand of GR theory, and something you're calling "B-mode" and "E-modes".

You then setup a test where you "bait and switch" the ordinary E/B components of every ordinary polarized photon in spacetime that have already been confirmed to exist. You then insert your new "creation lingo" into the E and B components of every polarized photon in the universe and you call it "B-mode" and "E-mode" . You supposedly then setup some kind of 'test' for your theory that goes something to the effect of taking E/B and claiming anything > 0 equals a five sigma *certainty* that you've discovered the following:

GR waves from a kludged brand of GR theory
Inflation genies
Dark energy
Exotic matter
expanding space

You also basically handwaved away *every other possible explanation* for those patterns that were *predicted and confirmed to exist in *every single galaxy in the universe* based on synchrotron radiation with a .001 *miniscule adjustment* in one line in section 9.3.

You furthermore claimed to have *ruled out* synchrotron radiation with five sigma certainty without ever even lifting a finger to point your equipment at an ordinary synchrotron radiation source!

With that kind of 'test', with those types of methods, you could have provided five sigma certainly to anything you claimed simply by putting your own lingo in place of the E and B orientation of all polarized photons, handwaving at synchrotron radiation like you did, and proven the whole thing was caused by duck modes/bozo the clown did it modes!

Give me a break. That was no 'test' of inflation. That was a "guaranteed to win" claim no matter *what* you claimed!

davidbilby · Mar 25, 2014

Michael said:
No, ultimately I'm complaining about your basic methods in the final analysis:

OK, so first you called the BICEP2 paper excellent and now you've got problems with

a) the definitions of scalar and tensor modes
b) the definitions of e and b modes
c) the methodology used in both BICEP and WMAP.

Um...ok.

Michael said:
Your argument amounts to something like:

You supposedly whipped up some 'test' of inflation that involves those very same polarized photons that Alfven first predicted to exist in spacetime based on synchrotron radiation.

No...again...BICEP2 was a test of the polarization patterns in the CMB. If simple inflationary models were correct (any inflationary models for that matter), there should be a handed grad free pattern, that cannot be explained solely by lensing of E modes and synchrotron contamination. If inflationary theories are incorrect there should be nothing in the grad free part of the signal that exceeds what would be expected from lensing and contamination.

How do we check for synchrotron contamination? There's no such thing as a "synchrotron meter"...I'm guessing you don't realize that...so what we do is correlate with the best set of data (fully 7 years of full sky data) that describes how much radiation we could be getting from synchrotron point sources. WMAP.

Even in the most conservative model of synchrotron radiation from the WMAP data, it is only possible that r would be altered by + or - 0.003, and as they point out, the real number is likely much, much lower than that. The paper, being a summary, does not go through all the data on that, partly because it's a summary, and partly because synchrotron contamination has been studied in great depth since we KNEW this was a problem. There's even a dedicated experiment running at Caltech, it's name escapes me right now.

Michael said:
We already *know* they are there because we already know that his EU/PC prediction was confirmed in the 1950's.

And he predicted a non-zero grad free perturbation from synchrotron contamination and predicted its size such that we can determine that the observed grad free perturbation r = 0.2 is solely from synchrotron sources? Um, no, he didn't, and the longer you pretend that Alfven predicted ANYTHING to do with ANYTHING to do with this work the more you look like a desperate fool.

Michael said:
Furthermore you created a whole bunch of your own new creation lingo that is unrelated to anything outside of your own theory, involving a 'surface of last scattering' (created in the creation event), an inflation genie, a kludged brand of GR theory, and something you're calling "B-mode" and "E-modes".

Michael said:
You then setup a test where you "bait and switch" the ordinary E/B components of every ordinary polarized photon in spacetime that have already been confirmed to exist.

Actually, grad free B mode components in polarization patterns are exceptionally rare and even these ones are exceptionally faint. That's the point.

Michael said:
You then insert your new "creation lingo" into the E and B components of every polarized photon in the universe and you call it "B-mode" and "E-mode" .

You're literally arguing against names placed on derivations of GR that Einstein worked out himself. The name ultimately doesn't matter (although it's a perfect name since it describes exactly what is being separated from the polarization signal).

Michael said:
You supposedly then setup some kind of 'test' for your theory that goes something to the effect of taking E/B

We call it the the tensor to scalar ratio, and you mean B/E not E/B (actually you didn't because you have no clue about this and that's a dumb way of writing it), but essentially, yes

Michael said:
and claiming anything > 0 equals a

No, anything above the margin of error and the effects of atmospheric contamination, synchrotron contamination, and lensing...read the paper...

Michael said:
five sigma *certainty* that you've discovered the following:

GR waves

Acting in the early universe pre-inflation, yes, most likely.

Michael said:
from a kludged brand of GR theory

Actually from any brand of GR theory, including GR theory, since this was Einstein's prediction originally

Michael said:
Inflation genies

I'm not aware of any magic lamps in DeSitter cosmologies

Michael said:
Dark energy

Actually the discovery says very little about dark energy

Michael said:
Exotic matter

If the finding is correct, it's a very strong case for dark matter since the superstructure of the universe would be otherwise unexplainable

Michael said:
expanding space

Definitely!

Michael said:
You also basically handwaved away *every other possible explanation* for those patterns that were *predicted and confirmed to exist in *every single galaxy in the universe*

Um...no, they were covered in great detail

Michael said:
based on synchrotron radiation with a .001 *miniscule adjustment* in one line in section 9.3.

0.003, since you didn't read the paper, is the maximum that the most conservative model of synchrotron contamination taken from 7 years of the best data we have (WMAP) can bring to the party...

Michael said:
You furthermore claimed to have *ruled out* synchrotron radiation with five sigma certainty without ever even lifting a finger to point your equipment at an ordinary synchrotron radiation source!

Again, why do you have a problem with WMAP's data and the models used to estimate synchrotron contamination and what flaws in the WMAP methodology can you cite? What do you think we have, a "synchrotonometer" we should have used? I think you don't even know how synchrotron radiation from extragalactic sources is even inferred. The whole premise of your objection is literally beyond absurd. Utterly, utterly, utterly, clownishly absurd. Like suggesting we should confirm the observation of Pluto by setting up a miniature Hubble in a lab and pointing it a miniature Pluto, just to see if a telescope works the way we think it does...

Michael said:
With that kind of 'test', with those types of methods, you could have provided five sigma certainly to anything you claimed simply by putting your own lingo in place of the E and B orientation of all polarized photons, handwaving at synchrotron radiation like you did, and proven the whole thing was caused by duck modes/bozo the clown did it modes!

Yeah, um, as I said, you've gone completely off the rails. Actually you had much more chance when you were talking about synchrotron contamination and the methodology of WMAP (not MUCH more, but at least that's a valid idea), but now you're attacking the very premise and some of the definitions, which is pretty stupid. You're either ok with these definitions and suggesting alternative sources (but not questioning the entire premise, based in GR) or you're not ok with the whole shebang whereupon claiming synchrotron radiation produces B modes but you don't think B modes exist is quite literally...[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse].

Michael said:
Give me a break. That was no 'test' of inflation. That was a "guaranteed to win" claim no matter *what* you claimed!

Um...if it had found a grad free component to the signal that did not exceed a tensor to scalar ratio of about r = 0.003, then inflationary theories would have had an absolutely enormous problem. Quite a number of MOND theorists were hoping for that result....

Michael · Mar 25, 2014

I'll come back when I have some time, but suffice to say your methods were second or third rate, particularly for such a grandiose claim and such a high confidence level.

Those polarized photon patterns from spacetime have been known about since the 1950's david. Their existence isn't 'new news'. It's not even news from *this century*!

They aren't a *discovery*. They have a known logical source which you frivolously handwaved at, with a *ridiculously miniscule* number in section 9.3. You didn't demonstrate that those patterns were exclusively related to inflation. In fact just by changing a few "mode" terms in your paper, the exact same study could have demonstrated with five sigma certainty that *literally anything at all* was the cause of those patterns. Since you didn't test anything in the lab, it literally could have been used to support *any possible claim anyone came up with*.

davidbilby · Mar 26, 2014

Michael said:
I'll come back when I have some time, but suffice to say your methods were second or third rate

Even your insults are imprecise!

Michael said:
Those polarized photon patterns from spacetime have been known about since the 1950's david. Their existence isn't 'new news'. It's not even news from *this century*!

You're yet to show me this paper predicting handed grad free polarization patterns in the CMB (or anywhere else) from "the 1950's". Until that epoch making moment it's clear you don't understand the distinction between "polarization" itself and "vector calculus decomposition of polarization signals into grad and curl free components"...

Michael said:
They aren't a *discovery*. They have a known logical source which you frivolously handwaved at, with a *ridiculously miniscule* number in section 9.3. You didn't demonstrate that those patterns were exclusively related to inflation. In fact just by changing a few "mode" terms in your paper, the exact same study could have demonstrated with five sigma certainty that *literally anything at all* was the cause of those patterns. Since you didn't test anything in the lab, it literally could have been used to support *any possible claim anyone came up with*.

Again, the BICEP2 paper uses the best available data, WMAP, as it's source for synchrotron contamination measurement. Please provide your objections to the 7 year WMAP data and the methodology used to infer synchrotron components from that data. Until then your point is ridiculous, unfounded, and crass.

Michael · Mar 26, 2014

davidbilby said:
Even your insults are imprecise!

My criticisms however have been quite precise. You're simply ignoring them. The lack of an empirical test is your biggest flaw. Sections 9.2 and 9.3 are pure handwaves. Your 'bait and switch' routine with the E and B components of all polarized photons in the universe with your own made up 'mode lingo' is also unacceptable since you're provided no physical demonstration of concept that these features of polarized photons have *anything* at all to do with your snow glow globe universe and any "surface of last scattering" that you keep babbling on about.

The *worst* part of your experiment however the fact you stacked the odds in the test so heavily that it literally could be used to demonstrate *any* belief system under the sun simply by switching out the mode lingo, and do so to a five sigma certainty no less. The only concept it *won't* support in fact is the one concept you never bothered to try in a real experiment, and the one *known source* of large structure polarized photons, namely those 'jets' around every black hole and neutron star in the universe when you handwaved them away in sections 9.2 and 9.3 with a combined number of .004. Give me a break! That was the *lamest* "methodology" I've ever seen in any paper. Any concept at *all* could be "proven" with a five sigma certainty by switching out your mode terms *except* the one known source in the universe. Your methodology stinks to high heaven!

You're yet to show me this paper predicting handed grad free polarization patterns in the CMB (or anywhere else) from "the 1950's".

You've utterly failed to show me any lab results that would allow you to rule out the *most likely* source. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary support. You didn't even provide *ordinary* support based on *ordinary* experimentation!

Until that epoch making moment it's clear you don't understand the distinction between "polarization" itself and "vector calculus decomposition of polarization signals into grad and curl free components"...

Your "magic" takes place when you tried to claim in section 9 that you could rule out the only known source of these patterns in the universe with trivial handwaves related to your *own* beliefs and concepts. You never even *looked at* the methodology used to predict polarized photons on large scales in the 1950's. You never even considered the black hole jets steaming out of various galaxies. You simply handwaved them all away with a *miniscule* adjustment in section 9, never once putting your claims to a real *test* in a real *experiment*.

Again, the BICEP2 paper uses the best available data, WMAP, as it's source for synchrotron contamination measurement. Please provide your objections to the 7 year WMAP data and the methodology used to infer synchrotron components from that data. Until then your point is ridiculous, unfounded, and crass.

I don't have any problem with their methodology in terms of removing all the foreground effects based on WMAP and known sources of *local* contamination from *our own* galaxy and bright points in WMAP sources.

I have a *serious* problem with your handwaves at the only known *large scale sources* of polarized photons that have been known about since the 1950's. You didn't do your job in sections 9.2 and 9.3. You failed to make any consideration for those large scale *structures* that are known to emit polarized photons.

The worst part of the paper is the methodology from section 9 on david. The B/E relationship could 'technically' be related to anything, but in the *known* and *verified* source, it has a *known* cause. You should have tested the known cause, and subtracted out any large scale patterns that might be related to black hole jets in all galaxies. You failed to do your job in section 9.

The rest of the paper is where the entire methodology goes to hell in a handbasket. You handwaved at the only known source, and then did a whole "bait and switch" routine that would support *any* concept at all, and that could not *fail* in any condition that is likely to exist in a synchrotron radiation universe.

Honestly david, that was the *worst* methodology I've seen in any paper. You couldn't lose after section 9. Your claims could not fail under any circumstance after section 9 because the B/E relationship was already somewhat understood from the previous studies from WMAP! Hoy Vey. That paper is an *absolutely* wonderful paper up until section 9. From section 9 on, it's the *worst* methodology I've personally ever seen in any paper. IMO you folks should be *ashamed* of everything from section 9 on, and *ashamed* that you never put your claims to the test in the lab.

Michael · Mar 26, 2014

davidbilby said:
Um...if it had found a grad free component to the signal that did not exceed a tensor to scalar ratio of about r = 0.003, then inflationary theories would have had an absolutely enormous problem. Quite a number of MOND theorists were hoping for that result....

Ya, and from previous studies, you already knew it was probably closer to .1. It was a no-brainer "win" for any theory under the sun from sections 9.3 on. That bait and switch routine with B and E in every polarized photon in the universe was just goofy and over the top IMO. The fact you never bothered to even deal with Alfven's *verified* sources of such large scale structures also speaks volumes. All you did is remove the foreground effects from our *own* galaxy and a few bright points from the local cluster at best. What you never did is account for Alfven's 1950's prediction of those gigantically large scale synchrotron radiation sources in plasma in every galaxy, which were also *verified* in the 1950's.

Michael · Mar 26, 2014

davidbilby said:
Um...if it had found a grad free component to the signal that did not exceed a tensor to scalar ratio of about r = 0.003, then inflationary theories would have had an absolutely enormous problem. Quite a number of MOND theorists were hoping for that result....

Actually, now that I think about it, your test actually allows for only two possible outcomes, both of which *require* a "big bang' and a surface of last scattering. The only possible two choices in your test were 'snow globe universe number one' or 'snow globe universe number two'.

Michael · Mar 27, 2014

Well david, since you're obviously bailing out of the conversation, about all I can say for your impotent on Earth sky gods is this:
Hulk Vs Loki - Puny God - YouTube

Message from the Dawn of time...

Contributor

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Contributor

Contributor

Newbie

Newbie

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Newbie

Contributor

Newbie

Contributor

Newbie

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency