Message from the Dawn of time...

[Michael]

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

Deal!

 

[PsychoSarah]

Deal!

It's nice when people of very different world views can be civil and work together. Although, you don't clash as much with me as a few other people who I found to agree with me in certain matters (though not necessarily the same reasonings).

 

[Michael]

It's nice when people of very different world views can be civil and work together. Although, you don't clash as much with me as a few other people who I found to agree with me in certain matters (though not necessarily the same reasonings).

I kind like it that people have different views from me in some areas. It gives us something to talk about. I also much prefer 'low key' and 'friendly' conversations when possible and I get along pretty well with most folks on this forum.

It's usually the new 'gunslingers' that come to town that cause a ruckus for awhile. They typically get themselves all shot up in a hurry by one or more of the locals, and then they hightail it out of town. The only folks that tend to stick around here are the ones that can handle a direct conversation and a direct scrutiny of their beliefs, and the ones that can keep their cool in the process.

 

[Michael]

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

Actually the way you set up the test, any kind of patterned structure in the b-modes equates with "success". You couldn't go wrong unless there were no polarized photons in space. Since we know about them since the 50's, and were first predicted by PC/EU theory, you couldn't go wrong actually. It's kinda like when you guys claim that Guth "predicted" a homogenous universe. He *knew* it was there, and you already knew the polarized photons were there. You just weren't sure of the exact pattern yet, so you setup a "test" to see what the patterns looked like.

FYI, you and I both know that the real "fine tuning" hasn't even begun:

Neil Turok urges caution on BICEP2 results - physicsworld.com

Ugly tweaks

"If...and it's a big if...this is true, it would be spectacular evidence for what happened at the Big Bang," Turok told physicsworld.com. While he agreed that at first glance, the BICEP2 observations are in keeping with inflation "as suggested over 30 years ago, wherein space–time would resonate with the aftershocks of inflation and would ring like a bell", a closer look at the discrepancy between the new results and previous data from the Planck and WMAP telescopes is what worries Turok. Indeed, the tensor-to-scalar ratio of 0.20 that BICEP2 measured is considered to be significantly larger than that expected from previous analyses of data. But the BICEP2 researchers said in their press conference yesterday that they believe certain tweaks could be made to an extension of the ΛCDM cosmological model that could make the two results agree.
"But these tweaks would be tremendously ugly....and in fact, I believe that if both Planck and the new results agree, then together they would give substantial evidence against inflation!" exclaims Turok, further explaining that "[we] must be careful before we treat them as true".

Emphasis mine. By the way, despite your five sigma confidence, nobody else was much impressed in his straw pole. Only about 9 percent of folks actually agreed that it was strong evidence of inflation.

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.

No, and here is where we're going to have *serious* problems communicating if you're going to insist on trying to stuff me inside of your snow globe universe with you. I *lack belief* in any sort of 'surface of last scattering'. I'm sure you've removed most if not all foreground effects quite effectively, but I believe every photon in every microwave image comes from a point source in plasma in an *infinite* universe that has no borders and no surface of last scattering. I'm not trying to pretend that I can see shadows on the wall and make some judgement about a creation event david. That's your gig, not mine.

Gravitational waves produce both kinds of polarization,

So do synchrotron sources david. You can't *rule out* the one *known* cause of polarized photons in plasma with a handwave.

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?)

Well, I did eventually find the 2012 paper with "raw" data, so technically I really have nothing to complain about. I simply had no idea you intended to take one of *Alfven's* successful predictions from the 1950's and try to build a federal case for inflation genies in the sky with that data. My bad for not expecting a hail Mary play after all those problems you've experienced at LHC, LUX, AMS-2 and the electron roundness experiments. I realize it's been a tough 18 months for CDM. I guess I should have expected a red herring on the Lambda side next. You folks are getting desperate IMO.

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.

I've had no problem commenting on it.

Yes, we have.

The problem is that you don't abide by the results *unless* they support your claim. All *negatives* are ignored. There's quite literally no point in handing you any data from them unless it's the data you want! You have a bad case of confirmation bias apparently.

In some experiments nothing was found in certain areas,

In *all* of them, *nothing* was found in *any* area!

and in some of those the caveat "yet" applies,

Hope springs eternal in Gutheology.

but you're ignorant to that and assume quarter or less of a data set is "job done",

No, I'm just tired of hearing you point at the sky and making wild claims about high energy light that lack any empirical support whatsoever. When will you be done looking anyway? Will I still be alive, or long since dead? Why are you even still looking in the first place when it's been demonstrated repeatedly that your galaxy mass estimation techniques were pure trash in the first place?

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.

I love how you personally "call the game" but only about 9 percent even think it's strong evidence for inflation. Apparently you don't need any more 'tests' at all.

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!".

We talked about the UCLA meeting, and I mentioned LUX peaked in the energy ranges of that paper yet saw nothing. You said something to the effect that it didn't peak in that range it peaked 25GEV higher. I then asked you for clarification. Will you commit to a *specific* energy range even?

Second, I never said WIMPs were the only option, because they aren't.

Of course not. In Gutheology, the name of the supernatural game is to make sure that all the supernatural entities (plural) are as 'mysterious' as possible. Never allow any "tests" to be final tests, lest Gutheology actually die a natural empirical death. When cornered, use any excuse to move the supernatural goalposts again!

Lastly, the goalposts are ENORMOUS - that's the problem.

It's only "enormous' because your claim is fake in the first place. There never was any "dark matter" in that 2006 study. You simply *botched* the stellar mass estimates by something like a factor of 4! There never was any form of exotic matter in that lensing data. It's all *ordinary plasma*.

We're trying to move them. We're trying to constrain them, make them narrower. That's the entire point!

The point is to ignore the failures, that's the point. You can't handle the fact you *botched* the mass estimates to begin with, so you're covering it up and pretending your mass estimates were correct *in spite of* the evidence to the contrary!

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.

Translation: There is absolutely no way to falsify your theory in any of your tests. They are one way tests. You will only accept a *positive* result, and you will continue to ignore the fact that your *predictions* were worthless. There is no logical way to falsify your religion. It's one huge circular feedback loop that is devoid of any logical falsification mechanism.

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...

Translation: CDM cannot ever be falsified. It's the never ending snipe hunt.

Because that tiny gap might be right.

I love how your tiny gaps work for your supernatural friends, but not for God. I'd love to hear *that* rationalization. Who cares about your tiny gaps when you have no evidence your invisible friends exist in the first place? Your 2006 lensing study was based on *critically flawed galaxy models*!

Science does not exclude tiny gaps.

You'll look for any gap for your supernatural friends to hide in apparently, even the tiniest of cracks.

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.

I was wrong to believe that Guthology could ever actually be falsified. The only part of your *entire* theory that *can* show up in the lab, *refuses* to cooperate with your claims.

If something is falsified, we move on

When? When will you allow CDM to be falsified?

- like tired light,

Pfft. You apparently "gave up" on physics because inelastic scattering occurs in the lab and in space.

but people are welcome to modify their theories to fit the new data and resubmit.

Yep. You give yourselves an unlimited number of tries, and handwave away an entire life's work of a Nobel prize winning physicist, apparently based one *one handwave of an argument from one paper from 1929*.

That's how it works.

Yep, it's a *huge* hypocritical double standard alright.

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....

Listen to yourself. First you have to rationalize away all those *failures* in your galaxy mass estimation techniques. You have no evidence that your galaxy mass estimation techniques were even *accurate* in 2006 to start with. You therefore *do not* have any evidence that any "missing mass" was exotic in nature, and you have evidence it was actually located in *whole stars* david!

There's no evidence it exists. Period.

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.

I know exactly how you *guestimate* the number, but it clearly doesn't work and like every other claim you make it's completely unfalsifiable by the data. Your galaxy mass estimates were *flawed*. Get over it.

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.

You seem to forget that in 2012 all you "missing baryonic matter" was found in ordinary plasma surrounding our galaxy, and that is *in addition to* all of your stellar mass estimation problems. You're stuck in pure denial david. *Nothing* can falsify your claims, absolutely nothing.

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.

I asked you to explain to me why you personally believe that I need 'expanding space" to explain photon redshift. As that paper demonstrates, I do not need it. You can't hand that fact either.

Until you come up with a form of inelastic scattering that can conserve photon linear propagation and energy and yet induce a redshift,

I don't even need to as that GR paper demonstrates david!

I have to stop here for now, but I'll see if I missed anything important as I get time.

 

[davidbilby]

Actually the way you set up the test, any kind of patterned structure in the b-modes equates with "success".

Well, duh. If you see a b-mode polarization pattern that means by definition there's a tensor mode, ruling out density (scalar mode) based effects such as everything you've suggested. Are you not sure about what b-mode polarization actually is?

You couldn't go wrong unless there were no polarized photons in space.

Sure we could, if they were only E mode. That they are polarized is not the point. You should perhaps read a little more about what the difference is...

Since we know about them since the 50's, and were first predicted by PC/EU theory, you couldn't go wrong actually.

Paper where PC/EU theory (whatever that is) predicts B-mode polarization, please.

It's kinda like when you guys claim that Guth "predicted" a homogenous universe. He *knew* it was there, and you already knew the polarized photons were there.

Nobody knew there was B-mode polarization...that was the entire point of the experiment. Did you actually....read it??? This is like...on the first page.

You just weren't sure of the exact pattern yet, so you setup a "test" to see what the patterns looked like.

Um...yeah. B or E. In a simplified way that was the question. Because if gravitational waves didn't exist there would be no B mode polarization, only E. (there would still be polarization of the CMB, we've known it was polarized for a while).

FYI, you and I both know that the real "fine tuning" hasn't even begun:

Neil Turok urges caution on BICEP2 results - physicsworld.com

Except that's exactly what happens after any 5.2 sigma result. You try and get 6 sigma. What did you think we were doing? 1 in 3 million isn't good enough for us, but the point is that it IS pretty good, which is essentially what Turok is saying. He's a fantastic guy by the way.

Emphasis mine. By the way, despite your five sigma confidence, nobody else was much impressed in his straw pole. Only about 9 percent of folks actually agreed that it was strong evidence of inflation.

No, and here is where we're going to have *serious* problems communicating if you're going to insist on trying to stuff me inside of your snow globe universe with you. I *lack belief* in any sort of 'surface of last scattering'.

Then propose a valid alternative, you haven't yet. I'm not asking you to believe anything, I'm asking you to see if you can actually discuss the physics involved. IF you want to suggest that the b-mode polarization is caused by plasma you need to explain why you think plasma would create tensor modes, because you're the only person on planet earth who thinks that...

If you want to propose the B-mode polarization as coming from another source, coming up with a plausible one would be an idea.

I'm sure you've removed most if not all foreground effects quite effectively

They did.

but I believe every photon in every microwave image comes from a point source in plasma in an *infinite* universe that has no borders and no surface of last scattering.

Except then only E mode polarization should be seen. Tensor modes would not be possible.

I'm not trying to pretend that I can see shadows on the wall and make some judgement about a creation event david. That's your gig, not mine.

No, it's nobody's gig. We're talking physics. Whatever existed before inflation existed before inflation. Nobody is claiming a "creation event" simply because we not talking T = 0, and you know that. We're talking something like the Planck time after that.

So do synchrotron sources david. You can't *rule out* the one *known* cause of polarized photons in plasma with a handwave.

Synchrotron sources would produce scalar modes, not tensor modes, and none of them are ubiquitous across the night sky such that a constant even value that is exceptionally homogenous would be seen in all directions. If you claim that they're from distant point sources...whatever those would be - and that they're scattered somehow (also causing the redshift, which is also even somehow and wavelength independent), any resulting pattern would be impossible for the same reason destruction of the image from any significant distance would occur because linear propagation is simply not possible if energy is conserved. And - I think you've said a few times - you think that distant images are "blurred", despite that being simply not true because any blurring from distant galaxies is due to resolution. But let's suppose they were - then B-mode polarization patterns would be destroyed long before they reached us.

Well, I did eventually find the 2012 paper with "raw" data, so technically I really have nothing to complain about. I simply had no idea you intended to take one of *Alfven's* successful predictions from the 1950's and try to build a federal case for inflation genies in the sky with that data.

Alfven predicted handed polarization from vector perturbations? Paper please. Because polarization is nothing new. We've known about it for literally centuries. This is not because polarization itself was observed, it's because we found a grad-free component to the polarization of the signal we (and by we, I mean almost every scientist alive) know is from the CMB, and via spherical harmonic decomposition it can be shown that it's not due to gravitational lensing, the other possible source of B-mode like patterns (caused by lensing of E mode patterns).

I snipped the rest for the moment, let's focus here first, and then talk about LUX etc.

 

[Michael]

Well, duh. If you see a b-mode polarization pattern that means by definition there's a tensor mode, ruling out density (scalar mode) based effects such as everything you've suggested. Are you not sure about what b-mode polarization actually is?

FYI, I am *highly* disappointed that you did not address my CDM questions. From my perspective you are trying hide your dying supernatural friend *behind* your new "superhero", the supernatural lambda deity. I find that to be very evasive, and not particularly "scientific" from my perspective. Your attitude seems to be that I don't just have to falsify *one* of your supernatural friends/claims, I'm apparently obligated to falsify them *all*, individually, one a time. It's like playing supernatural whack-a-mole.

Ok, if you *insist* on putting your extraordinary Lambda claims front and center, then you have some *serious* explaining to do.

1) Why do I even need your supernatural claims about space expansion and inflation to explain a pattern of redshift or a structured pattern of polarized photon emissions?

Why do I need any of the supernatural entities that are associated with your space expansion claim in the first place? Please refer to that GR paper and explain why I even *need* space expansion in the first place.

2) Please demonstrate that synchrotron radiation produces *no* (I mean zero) b-mode patterns in your camera before you filter it. You keep insisting that only gravitational waves could produce such patterns, but they all seem to be directly associated with "clumps" of matter which surely must produce synchrotron radiation like our own galaxy.

3) Specifically explain how you are turning the B aspects of a vector field of polarized photons into two categories which you're now calling "tensor mode" and "scalar mode". I'll admit, I'm personally struggling with this specific issue. I get the whole Maxwell aspects of E and B of a photon, and the 90 relationship between them as it relates to the photon, but I have no idea how your turning that E/B data related to a vector field into scalars and tensors. You could save me a boat load of time by explaining it to me, and others would probably benefit from your explanation.

4) Explain how you eliminated galaxies themselves as the source of these patterns. I would expect that the source of all your polarized photons are related to synchrotron radiation in various structures of various galaxies from a potentially eternal and infinite number of galaxies in every direction. Furthermore, I would expect the patterns to be directly related to the galaxy cluster structures, and the flow of current into and around those structures, which would leave a pattern of synchrotron radiation around those current carrying filaments, including those black hole jets that Alfven himself wrote about. How did you eliminate these potentially infinite number of synchrotron radiations sources as a possible source of contamination?

FYI, I'll do this back and forth over the Lambda side of the debate, but at some point in the not too distant future, I will insist that you come back to those questions related to CDM which you did not answer in the previous post.

 

[davidbilby]

I wrote a longer answer but lets go point by point and keep it brief...

1) Why do I even need your supernatural claims about space expansion and inflation to explain a pattern of redshift or a structured pattern of polarized photon emissions?

The BICEP team ruled out synchrotron sources from the WMAP foreground, which you pose repeatedly as if it's a clever idea. If you read the BICEP paper, because apparently you haven't, look at part 9.2.

 

[davidbilby]

Actually the way you set up the test, any kind of patterned structure in the b-modes equates with "success".

YES! Sort of. A null value for B-modes in the CMB would have been fairly problematic for LCDM and great for other theories...we know it's not a null value to greater than 5 sigma (that's the point of the sigma value here).

Actually, to your point...not quite. There are two kinds of B modes, and the first kind (the one that's actually E modes gravitationally lensed) was detected a while ago.

[1307.5830] Detection of B-mode Polarization in the Cosmic Microwave Background with Data from the South Pole Telescope

[1403.2369] A Measurement of the Cosmic Microwave Background B-Mode Polarization Power Spectrum at Sub-Degree Scales with POLARBEAR

The point of BICEP was it found the other (not gravitationally lensed) kind.

 

[davidbilby]

2) Please demonstrate that synchrotron radiation produces *no* (I mean zero) b-mode patterns in your camera before you filter it.

Um...they filtered synchrotron sources. The most extravagantly generous interpretation of those at most lends an error of r = 0.003, insignificant in the overall picture.

 

[davidbilby]

3) Specifically explain how you are turning the B aspects of a vector field of polarized photons into two categories which you're now calling "tensor mode" and "scalar mode".

We don't. Briefly...

E modes - scalar and tensor
B modes - tensor only

 

[davidbilby]

4) Explain how you eliminated galaxies themselves as the source of these patterns. I would expect that the source of all your polarized photons are related to synchrotron radiation in various structures of various galaxies

My my, you're so specific. "Various", huh?
Section 9.2 of the BICEP2 paper - synchrotron contamination of greater than r = 0.003 when correlated with WMAP not possible, which is vastly less than the equipment induced margin of error of the actual data set.

 

[Michael]

We don't. Briefly...

E modes - scalar and tensor
B modes - tensor only

It's getting late, so I'll skip the rest of the debate for the time being and focus on this issue first.

In synchrotron radiation, both the E and B orientations of the polarized photons would be directly related to the flow of current through the plasma filament. One could (and you surely should have before calling a "sigma five") try a series of experiments to demonstrate the current flow relationship in your equipment. The curl is simply the dictated by the direction of the particle flow. The cause/effect relationship should be able to be *directly measured* and *directly demonstrated* in controlled experimentation in a lab with that very same camera.

As a matter of fact we know that such emissions can and do produce *some* effect on your experiment since there is a "miniscule" adjustment for it in section 9, as well as all the other filtering mechanisms they used to remove foreground effects which I was frankly very impressed with.

If I understand your answer correctly, you're simply *assuming* some exotic relationship between the E-B orientations of those vector field photons, and scalar and tensor "modes" as you call them. The relationship to this point is almost *arbitrary*. I don't even see any obvious explanation yet for the "handedness" aspect in inflation. In EM/PC theory it would be related to the *direction* of the flow of the current, and the spin direction of the emitted photon. What's the *direction* of the curl in those images even related to in your theory?

I must say that if it's true that you simply *assumed* this scalar/tensor relationship, then it's clear this is key issue where your claim rises and falls.

Like all astronomy papers, this paper doesn't seem to include any exhaustive testing to adequately rule out synchrotron radiation. I was *highly impressed* with that paper until section 9, and then it looks nobody spent any real time to see if the *natural* explanation could be adequately ruled out. It's certainly possible that they actually performed a series of lab tests with this camera and a controlled synchrotron radiation source and looked to find out what types of patterns emerged from their same process. Can you point me to such experiments, or were they even done?

IMO if you just *assumed* some relationship between the E component of the photon, and *assumed* another relationship between B, then your answer is *already* more complicated than the obvious explanation, and you *still* haven't explained the orientation of the curl. Care to elaborate on why the curl B of the photon is oriented in one direction in some areas and the it's oriented in the other direction in other areas in your theory?

 

[Michael]

My my, you're so specific. "Various", huh?
Section 9.2 of the BICEP2 paper - synchrotron contamination of greater than r = 0.003 when correlated with WMAP not possible, which is vastly less than the equipment induced margin of error of the actual data set.

Without seeing the actual *experimental data* from controlled experiments with synchrotron radiation sources aimed at *that specific camera and equipment*, how could anyone pick any figure out of thin air?

Here is your problem in a nutshell as I see it. As far back as the 50's Alfven *predicted* the existence of large scale structures that are the emission sources (plural to infinity) of large massive structures of polarized photons.

If we assume for now that they did a *perfect* job filtering out all foreground effects, then the remaining pattern is necessarily a pattern related to *large scale structures* that emit polarized photons. In Alfven's cosmos, that looks like current flow patterns around jets near the center of black holes and neutron stars galore.

Your theory apparently didn't actually *predict* anything. By the time you folks started to write about polarized photons in space, it was almost 20 years *after* their existence had already been *confirmed* from *Alfven's actual prediction*.

A completely ad-hoc *fit* was then *postdicted" to those polarized photons in some effort to build some kind of 'federal case' for inflation theory. Just like the homogenous aspect however, the *existence of* large scale polarized photon sources had already been *known*! You didn't actually 'predict' anything with your theory, you *postdicted* a claim with a handwave and a little math related to your otherwise impotent on Earth sky thingies.

I need to see some evidence that you actually took your camera and equipment into a lab and played with various synchrotron radiation sources. I see *no* attempt to even *try* to differentiate between the photon patterns Alfven *predicted* in the 50's and your claims about it can *only* be related to your tensor and scalar "mode" interpretation.

While it's clear that the filament flow pattern determines the handedness of the curl in EU/PC theory, I'm really not clear what you believe determines that handedness factor in your theory?

IMO this whole paper turned into a supernatural pig-in-a-poke theory in section 9. I see *no* (as in zero) attempt to rule out the *already known* large scale sources of polarized photons based on any sort of pattern recognition. What I see instead looks to be *nothing* done in the lab to even *try* to differentiate between them. That's just ridiculous IMO.

 

[davidbilby]

Care to elaborate on why the curl B of the photon is oriented in one direction in some areas and the it's oriented in the other direction in other areas in your theory?

This is pointless at the moment because for the entirety of your post, you're literally making stuff up. Here's a good example.

"The curl B of the photon" means nothing, it's just word salad. There's curl, there's B mode components (which are curl only, grad free)...the two are interlinked but "curl B of a photon" is not a term, not even wrong, and it certainly does not have an "orientation", whatever that means? (The curl itself is describing the "orientation" in a sense, but again, that means nothing in vector calculus.)

From GR we know that density fluctuations are scalar and fluctuations from gravity waves are tensor perturbations. They're not arbitrary terms we slap on to look good, they're simple derivations of general relativity....

As to your point on synchrotron radiation - firstly, if this was possible in the way you describe, then some of these sources would be considerably more distant than others, which makes no sense given the redshift of the CMB is consistent.

Further, you're demanding that those photons are scattered...linear propagation not possible, so we pointed out your tired light idea would require deleterious blurring. You looked at distant galaxies and said "they're blurred". Ok...so if we accept that (ludicrous) proposition for a moment, despite your total absence of a plausible mechanism, then the polarization of these signals would not produce either pattern but would be obviously cancelled in the aggregate. Certainly extremely faint B mode curl polarization patterns would not be visible...

Synchrotron radiation contamination is a possibility (as are gravitational lensing and atmospheric anomalies), but as you see they went to great lengths to cover all of those. Synchrotron radiation effects from known sources can be mapped with great precision especially from WMAP, which is where the 0.003 fluctuation in r in section 9 comes from (it's not an arbitrarily chosen number). There has been a great deal of work on that subject, here's a slice (I can happily find you a dozen more example)

B-mode contamination by synchrotron emission from 3-yr Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe data

Impact of Galactic polarized emission on B-mode detection at low multipoles - ResearchGate

 

[Michael]

This is pointless at the moment because for the entirety of your post, you're literally making stuff up. Here's a good example.

Pardon me for using terms that weren't precise, but you know *exactly* what I mean.

From GR we know that density fluctuations are scalar and fluctuations from gravity waves are tensor perturbations. They're not arbitrary terms we slap on to look good, they're simple derivations of general relativity....

You cannot look at the magnetic field orientation of the photon and know for a fact it has anything at all to even do with GR in the first place, let alone tensor fields. You're *assuming* a relationship from a *postdicted* observation!

As to your point on synchrotron radiation - firstly, if this was possible in the way you describe, then some of these sources would be considerably more distant than others, which makes no sense given the redshift of the CMB is consistent.

They made a *Herculean* effort to remove the foreground effects david. Even I was impressed. There is very little doubt in my mind that those polarization patterns are large scale and "distant" patterns since they were *predicted* and discovered back in the 1950's. I'm certainly not surprised to see them show up E/B polarization patterns on Earth. I also see no evidence that you eliminated those possible massive structure sources as a *cause* of those patterns. I couldn't even find any overlay image of the magnetic field signatures with any other galaxy images in that same region of space.

Further, you're demanding that those photons are scattered..

No I'm not so the rest of your point is moot. I showed you the GR paper david.

Synchrotron radiation contamination is a possibility

I'm not suggesting it's a 'contamination', I'm suggesting it's a *source* as predicted by Hannes Alfven himself in 1950 using *EU/PC* theory, not Gutheology.

B-mode contamination by synchrotron emission from 3-yr Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe data

Impact of Galactic polarized emission on B-mode detection at low multipoles - ResearchGate

None of that looks to be based on actual lab tests with the actual camera in question. Was that work ever done, yes or no?

You also never answered my question about the large scale left vs. right handedness aspects of the observation. What is it's *cause* in your theory?

 

[davidbilby]

Without seeing the actual *experimental data* from controlled experiments with synchrotron radiation sources aimed at *that specific camera and equipment*, how could anyone pick any figure out of thin air?

Because they did take the actual synchrotron radiation sources - the actual ones from WMAP - and accounted for them, calculating that figure from the resulting data. A huge amount of work has been done on synchrotron radiation contamination...

Here is your problem in a nutshell as I see it. As far back as the 50's Alfven *predicted* the existence of large scale structures that are the emission sources (plural to infinity) of large massive structures of polarized photons.

Which are entirely based on differences in density, which from GR we know produce scalar modes (E mode patterns), not tensor modes (B mode patterns). There is a possibility that some B mode patterns are lensed E modes, and there is a possibility of synchrotron contamination, which is why those have both been studied in great depth.

If we assume for now that they did a *perfect* job filtering out all foreground effects

Not even they do that, but ok

then the remaining pattern is necessarily a pattern related to *large scale structures* that emit polarized photons.

Well, in the sense that we're talking about the superhorizon of the CMB yes...structure isn't the word we'd used but yes, in a sense, you're seeing the imprint of the pre-inflationary structure enlarged vastly.

In Alfven's cosmos, that looks like current flow patterns around jets near the center of black holes and neutron stars galore.

Except this isn't current flow, this is polarization, and "gee that looks like" doesn't cut it, vector calculus is how you analyze such signals...

Your theory apparently didn't actually *predict* anything.

Um. Yeah. It did, since Starobinsky's work in 1979. It's a key prediction of all inflationary theories.

By the time you folks started to write about polarized photons in space, it was almost 20 years *after* their existence had already been *confirmed* from *Alfven's actual prediction*.

Again...paper please where Alfven predicts the B mode polarization in the CMB caused by tensor modes as derived from GR, since that would be truly extraordinary - literally nobody noticed him predicting that!

Polarization in light from space was discovered by Hiltner and it's been discussed a great deal ever since. Certainly in terms of the CMB it's been an absolutely crucial topic of discussion since 1979.

A completely ad-hoc *fit* was then *postdicted" to those polarized photons in some effort to build some kind of 'federal case' for inflation theory.

Just like the homogenous aspect however, the *existence of* large scale polarized photon sources had already been *known*!

Yeah...but that's not the point, again. You keep claiming that the polarization itself is some kind of surprise to us. Quite the opposite. The point isn't the polarization but the patterns contained therewithin, something that Alfven didn't predict, but Starobinsky (et al.).

You didn't actually 'predict' anything with your theory, you *postdicted* a claim with a handwave and a little math related to your otherwise impotent on Earth sky thingies.

Oh. Ok. So the paper "Spectrum of relic gravitational radiation and the early state of the universe", JETP Lett. 30(11) pp 682-685 doesn't exist? Because I must be hallucinating it being in front of me right now...

I need to see some evidence that you actually took your camera and equipment into a lab and played with various synchrotron radiation sources.

Firstly, it's a telescope. Secondly, your bizarre reassertion of laboratory synchrotron radiation being vital to knowing what synchrotron radiation is out there in the universe is weird, since what matters is what is actually in the foreground out there, which we can measure pretty well. WMAP isn't good enough for you for ascertaining foreground sources? Why do you need some artificial source of synchrotron radiation for us to point a sodding radio telescope at "in the lab" to create some arbitrary and irrelevant signal that tells us nothing about the foreground to the CMB? I love your usage of the words "played with" and "various", they crack me up. I'm going to suggest some more for you to whimsically drop in to your obfuscational rhetoric for our entertainment:

"jiggle"
"thingymajig"
"doohickey"
"play the slap bass on that telescope and see what hums"

I see *no* attempt to even *try* to differentiate between the photon patterns Alfven *predicted* in the 50's and your claims about it can *only* be related to your tensor and scalar "mode" interpretation.

Well, again, the tensor and scalar side of it is simple GR, so given you're a proponent of that (apparently) I'm curious as to why you even bring that up...unless...you know nothing about the mathematic of GR! Surely not....

And again, I'm assuming you can post Alfven's seminal paper on B mode polarization. I didn't know he was such an expert in applied vector calculus. Apparently, neither did he.

While it's clear that the filament flow pattern determines the handedness of the curl in EU/PC theory

Yeah, um...you should look up what handedness is, mathematically. "Curl" does not have a "handedness" that can be determined and the rest of that is just word salad. The curl component is handed by definition. It's the fact that the modes caused by density fluctuations are unhanded that differentiates them.

I'm really not clear what you believe determines that handedness factor in your theory?

Gravitational waves themselves would be handed (obvious from GR), and thus so are the perturbations in the photon polarization pattern expected to be handed. Density fluctuations are not handed.

IMO this whole paper turned into a supernatural pig-in-a-poke theory in section 9. I see *no* (as in zero) attempt to rule out the *already known* large scale sources of polarized photons based on any sort of pattern recognition.

That's because you're ignoring (or more likely ignorant of) all the other work done on this subject (of which there are vast quantities) which they refer to. They've actually gone to great lengths to rule out synchrotron radiation, and do so very generously just to be sure...see the papers I posted earlier, Jo Dunkley's work...etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

This is pointless at the moment because for the entirety of your post, you're literally making stuff up. Here's a good example.

"The curl B of the photon" means nothing, it's just word salad. There's curl, there's B mode components (which are curl only, grad free)...the two are interlinked but "curl B of a photon" is not a term, not even wrong, and it certainly does not have an "orientation", whatever that means? (The curl itself is describing the "orientation" in a sense, but again, that means nothing in vector calculus.)

From GR we know that density fluctuations are scalar and fluctuations from gravity waves are tensor perturbations. They're not arbitrary terms we slap on to look good, they're simple derivations of general relativity....

As to your point on synchrotron radiation - firstly, if this was possible in the way you describe, then some of these sources would be considerably more distant than others, which makes no sense given the redshift of the CMB is consistent.

Further, you're demanding that those photons are scattered...linear propagation not possible, so we pointed out your tired light idea would require deleterious blurring. You looked at distant galaxies and said "they're blurred". Ok...so if we accept that (ludicrous) proposition for a moment, despite your total absence of a plausible mechanism, then the polarization of these signals would not produce either pattern but would be obviously cancelled in the aggregate. Certainly extremely faint B mode curl polarization patterns would not be visible...

Synchrotron radiation contamination is a possibility (as are gravitational lensing and atmospheric anomalies), but as you see they went to great lengths to cover all of those. Synchrotron radiation effects from known sources can be mapped with great precision especially from WMAP, which is where the 0.003 fluctuation in r in section 9 comes from (it's not an arbitrarily chosen number). There has been a great deal of work on that subject, here's a slice (I can happily find you a dozen more example)

B-mode contamination by synchrotron emission from 3-yr Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe data

Impact of Galactic polarized emission on B-mode detection at low multipoles - ResearchGate

Again with that false pseudoscience of scattered light. How often are you people going to ignore what occurs around you every single day, and then claim plasma would scatter light when it is 20 orders of magnitude less dense than the air itself?????


A New Non-Doppler Redshift

Big Bang Cosmology Meets an Astronomical Death

"At a distance of 100 meters, for example, it is everyday experience that light is transmitted through calm air without any noticeable angular dispersion and does not produce any visible fuzziness - even when images are observed through a telescope. The index of refraction of air (n=1.0003) shows that interactions or collisions of photons on air molecules are such that the photons are delayed by 3 centimeter in a trajectory of 100 meters, with respect to transmission in a vacuum (see Figure 1). Only that small delay of 3 cm can be explained by a large number of photon-molecule collisions.

Figure 1
MOST PHOTONS DO NOT UNDERGO ANGULAR DISPERSION WHEN THEY INTERACT WITH MOLECULES. Light transmitted through air is slowed by its interaction with air molecules. In the same time, that light traverses 100 meters in a vacuum (a), it traverses only 99.97 meters in air (b). This is expressed in the index of refraction for air, 1.0003. Many photon-molecule interactions are required to explain such a long delay. Since an object seen at 100 meters is not fuzzy, one must conclude that these photon-molecule interactions do not lead to angular dispersion of most of the light, although this is still the common assumption. In fact, the photons must be reemitted from such interactions in the forward direction.
A delay of 3 cm corresponds to about one billion the size of the atom. Therefore we can be sure that not only all photons had more than one interaction with air molecules, but that it must take on the order of one billion collisions to produce such a delay. The photons have undergone about one billion collisions with air molecules without any significant angular dispersion, because the image is not fuzzy. Photon-molecule collision without angular dispersion is an everyday experience that has been completely overlooked.
In space, where the gas density is lower by more than 20 orders of magnitude, the same phenomenon takes place. A photon undergoes about one interaction (due to the index of refraction, with no angular dispersion) per week.; Rayleigh scattering producing diffusion in all directions, is enormously less frequent just as in the atmosphere. Hence, almost all interactions of photons with gas molecules take place without any measurable angular dispersion."


You have not one scientific basis in which to make such a claim, this is not what is observed even in air where photons would have to collide at least one billion times with air molecules to produce the delay we measure, and all without any noticeable scattering or blurring in a 100 meter test.


So from space to earth light travels about 96,560 meters so would undergo about 965,000,000,000 (billion) collisions. And even then the fuzziness and scattering affects telescopes relatively little. Quite good quality photos can be obtained. So it takes hundreds of billions of collisions to produce any noticeable scattering and blurring affects, and plasma in space is about 20 orders of magnitude less dense.


And it is quite evident that blurring does occur with extreme distance.

https://physicsforme.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/quasars.jpg?w=594&h=632

 

[Michael]

Because they did take the actual synchrotron radiation sources - the actual ones from WMAP -

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?

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 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 current is the *cause*, it's also the reason we see the handedness over large distances, and both types of handedness.

Whereas Alfven actually predicted large structures which emit polarized photons using EU/PC theory, as well as explained their handedness, *before* they were actually observed, you're apparently *postdicting* a fit to known polarization patterns and claiming that *only* inflation can predict them! 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 with 5 sigma certainty no less!

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. You have *no idea* if only GR theory or synchrotron radiation can produce such patterns because you never bothered to ever *test* that claim in a lab, even though it's not that tough to do. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary support. You don't have *ordinary* support from a single controlled lab experiment, yet you're claiming that you have 'sigma five' confidence? How on Earth do you *know for a fact* that synchrotron radiation cannot produce these very same patterns if you never bothered to *look at them through your equipment*?

 

[Michael]

Because they did take the actual synchrotron radiation sources - the actual ones from WMAP...

Translation: You didn't actually bother to test your equipment or your claims about *only* GR being able to produce such patterns in any controlled lab experiments. Instead you *assumed* that synchrotron radiation was a minor factor based on *your own* claims, and you completely and utterly ignored your responsibility to check it out in the lab.

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. You didn't however bother to check out what a dozen or so oddly oriented synchrotron sources might look like through your own camera, so you *actually* have no idea if it's true or not true. Isn't there a curious bone in your body? How could you *not* setup some various *experiments* to look at synchrotron sources? Talk about a complete *lack* of extraordinary effort. That's not even *ordinary* effort. That's not even a *passing grade* for crying out loud!

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!

 

[Michael]

That's because you're ignoring (or more likely ignorant of) all the other work done on this subject (of which there are vast quantities) which they refer to. They've actually gone to great lengths to rule out synchrotron radiation, and do so very generously just to be sure...see the papers I posted earlier, Jo Dunkley's work...etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

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, so your claims are *worthless*. You did not even *look* at synchrotron radiation through your lens, so you have no idea what it looks like in your lens. You have no idea if those orientations of the magnetic fields of those polarized photons has anthying to do with any surface of last scattering because you did not, and could not eliminate every black hole and pulsar as a source for such emissions.

This whole claim is one gigantic circular feedback loop. You did *not* test your claims in the lab. You did *not* eliminate those large polarized structures that Alfven predicted as a *source* of those patterns either. You didn't eliminate *ordinary* possibilities in any *non circular* way. I honestly cannot believe you weren't even curious enough to *look* at synchrotron radiation in your own camera. Talk about a complete lack of scientific effort IMO. You absolutely, positively have no right to be handwaving that claim about it's impossible to come from any other source. You simply wouldn't know because you were too lazy to put your claim to the test *in a lab*!