- Oct 23, 2013
- 676
- 13
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
Still going eh Michael, that news must have really shaken your faith huh.
Sorry brah, you keep preachin' the EU
Sorry brah, you keep preachin' the EU
Upvote
0
Message from the Dawn of time...
- Thread starter Old Ned
- Start date
Me? Sure I'm still going. David? Apparently not so much.
Pffft. Hardly. Even an amateur like myself could pick out the *serious* flaws in that sad paper. I'd say that paper was sloppier than most of the affirming the consequent fallacy papers of astronomy actually.
Sorry brah, you keep preachin' the EU
Will do, and Christianity too.
Upvote
0
Oh dear - I see a message about Michael Mozina on the JREF forum and see that Michael Mozina is still active with his hero worship of Alfven and denial of science as "dead sky deities", etc 
!
If you are going to make the claim that Alfven predicted the CMB B-mode polarization signal, Michael, then you have to back it up with a citation to where Alfven predicted the CMB B-mode polarization signal. This is really obvious.
If your claim is not that Alfven predicted the CMB B-mode polarization signal then just state that.
!If you are going to make the claim that Alfven predicted the CMB B-mode polarization signal, Michael, then you have to back it up with a citation to where Alfven predicted the CMB B-mode polarization signal. This is really obvious.
If your claim is not that Alfven predicted the CMB B-mode polarization signal then just state that.
Upvote
0
Sorry Michael, but writing "serious flaws" does not magically create flaws in a paper. I looked at that post and all I saw was a tirade about a paper - no actual analysis of it showing that it is wrong.
The fact remains that experts have looked at the BICEP2 paper and found no serious flaws in it.
ETA: I do agree with you though on one point. It has been hyped a bit as a discovery. 3 sigma IMO is not quite enough for a discovery even in the area of astronomy. I would like the 5 sigma that is the standard for the discovery of new particles in particle physics.
ETA2: Section 9 in the paper is clear. There are 3 sources of Galactic or extragalactic foreground.
Polarized Dust Projections.
Synchrotron.
Point Sources.
Account for as many as possible sources and you make the foreground into noise. They did.
ETA3: I will also point out that many experts also wrote the paper!
So you are basically saying that you have more knowledge about astronomy than these people and every other astronomer that read the paper :o.
ETA4:
Wow: The paper has already been cited by 111 other preprints - so you are also saying that all the authors of those papers are ignorant of astronomy
!ETA5!
I will also point out that the BICEP experiments have not been a deep dark secret
.BICEP: a large angular scale CMB polarimeter (2003)
CMB polarimetry with BICEP: instrument characterization, calibration, and performance (2008)
Last edited:
Upvote
0
.....but you came back anyway?
Likewise, burying your head in the sand isn't going to make any of those flaws go away. Care to answer some of those remaining objections related to CDM or that last lambda-paper for david?
Sure I did. I isolated the exact section of the paper where they *failed* to acknowledge the large scale polarized structures in *other galaxies* that had been identified as far back as the 1950's!
Which experts might those be? You mean the folks that wrote it? Bah. Some of the work was first rate (sections 1-8 looked great), other parts (like section nine) were simply terrible.
Ya, the whole sigma 5+ claim was indeed *way* over the top, particularly since one could have inserted Mickey Mouse Modes + Minnie Mouse Mode/Mickey Mouse Modes after section 9 for the B and E terms of the photons, and they could just as easily have demonstrated the whole universe was created by Walt Disney with 5+ sigma no less!
They did a relatively thorough and professional job up until section 9, and then they handwaved at potentially an infinite number of *known* large scale point sources *predicted by Alfven in 1950, using PC/EU theory, which were confirmed to exist in 1956.
Synchrotron radiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Every single galaxy emits them, and it's been known about since 1956. They *ignored* those sources entirely!
Ya, ya, ya, and how many of those "experts" claimed to find "proof" (not even evidence, but "proof" no less) of "dark matter"? Name one of them can that name a source of "dark energy" for us?
Apparently I am a *lot* more knowledgeable of Alfven's work in large scale synchrotron radiation sources, that's for sure. They never even *mentioned* that prediction or it's *verification* anywhere in their paper.
I haven't read them all yet, nor can I be sure they are all in *agreement* with the claim in the first place.ETA4:
Wow: The paper has already been cited by 111 other preprints - so you are also saying that all the authors of those papers are ignorant of astronomy
Ya, I already noted that I've since found earlier work they'd published. That's actually one I haven't read (yet), but it looks well worth the read. Thanks for the link.ETA5!
I will also point out that the BICEP experiments have not been a deep dark secret
BICEP: a large angular scale CMB polarimeter (2003)
CMB polarimetry with BICEP: instrument characterization, calibration, and performance (2008)
Upvote
0
Well obviously yes.....but you came back anyway?
...plenty of Alfven ranting snipped...
!Ask me specific, relevant questions and I hope you will accept the scientific evidence about the CDM and that "last lambda-paper" rather then blindly deny it.
The BICEP2 paper is clear: All known sources of polarized light from galaxies were accounted for.
The demand that the authors know about or cite some undefined stuff from Alfven is inane. Galaxies that emit polarized light are point sources. The paper accounted for point sources.
Wow - you have no idea what experts are, Michael
?The people who wrote the paper are experts in their field of observation astronomy
!The people who cited the paper are experts in their field (but not necessarily observation astronomy)
.Many of the people who read the paper would be experts in their fields and maybe experts in observation astronomy.
Thinking that some random IT guy who displays little knowledge of physics(like you) knows better than experts in the field is inane.
Thinking that some random IT guy who has an extensive background in physics (me) knows better than experts in the field is equally inane.
No, Michael: Ranting about Mickey Mouse is not good
.The 3 sigma scientific claim against BICEP1 is not really good enough in my opinion for a discovery announcement.
The 5+ sigma scientific claim is good enough for a discovery announcement and even a Nobel prize - I will have to look into what the null hypothesis is.
You must have burst a blood vessel when they disallowed r=0 at 7 sigma, Michael
!Wow you know about synchrotron radiation, Michael.
I wonder who else knows about synchrotron radiation - could it be astronomers Michael
?That would be none of them, Michael - there is no mention of the strong evidence for dark matter in the BICEP2 paper
!BICEP2 I: Detection Of B-mode Polarization at Degree Angular Scales
[1403.3985] BICEP2 I: Detection Of B-mode Polarization at Degree Angular Scales
I do hope that you are silly enough to think that a press release is science:
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter should actually read NASA Finds Direct Evidence of Dark Matter. Some editor got it wrong.
Given the strong evidence for dark matter it takes someone really ignorant (or in blind denial) to think that dark matter does not exist in some form. That is not the authors of the BICEP2 paper.
How ignorant do you think astronomers are, Michael
?They can all read and should all be able to name at least 2 (the cosmological constant and quintessence).
Upvote
0
Michael: You seem to be unable to understand chapter 9 and the explicit mention of point sources:
They do not say all point sources except those synchrotron radiation sources Hannes Alven predicted.
They do not say all point sources except those synchrotron radiation sources that were detected since 1956.
They say point sources from the Planck catalog + polarization information from ATCA.
ETA: The Planck Catalogue of Compact Sources contains Messier 82 (also listed in the WMAP catalog)!
Radio to infrared spectra of late-type galaxies with Planck and WMAP data.
ETA2: I have just had a nasty thought that I hope is not right.
Michael, you are not under the impression that analysis of WMAP, Planck, BICEP1, BICEP2 and other sky surveys needs the subtraction of every galaxy that exists (all 100 billion!)?
What actually happens is that WMAP and Planck (and maybe other surveys) scan the sky first for detectable point sources. These are then available to be removed from survey data. It would be insane to try to remove point sources that cannot be detected!
ETA3:
Lets clear this up once and for all, Michael.
You claim that the BICEP2 Collaboration did not remove some scientifically relevant point sources from the data.
So please give us a list of those scientifically relevant point sources that you did not find in list of the point sources that the BICEP2 Collaboration did remove from the data.
They do not say all point sources except those Michael Mozina says we have not included.
They do not say all point sources except those synchrotron radiation sources Hannes Alven predicted.
They do not say all point sources except those synchrotron radiation sources that were detected since 1956.
They say point sources from the Planck catalog + polarization information from ATCA.
ETA: The Planck Catalogue of Compact Sources contains Messier 82 (also listed in the WMAP catalog)!
Radio to infrared spectra of late-type galaxies with Planck and WMAP data.
ETA2: I have just had a nasty thought that I hope is not right.
Michael, you are not under the impression that analysis of WMAP, Planck, BICEP1, BICEP2 and other sky surveys needs the subtraction of every galaxy that exists (all 100 billion!)?
What actually happens is that WMAP and Planck (and maybe other surveys) scan the sky first for detectable point sources. These are then available to be removed from survey data. It would be insane to try to remove point sources that cannot be detected!
ETA3:
Lets clear this up once and for all, Michael.
You claim that the BICEP2 Collaboration did not remove some scientifically relevant point sources from the data.
So please give us a list of those scientifically relevant point sources that you did not find in list of the point sources that the BICEP2 Collaboration did remove from the data.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Well obviously yes
The question is whether you're going to stick to debating the topic, or you intend to go all "personal" again.
How about explaining those 7 CDM failures in 8 years then?
They did a good job filtering out synchrotron radiation from our *own* galaxy perhaps, but not from *other* ones.
The fact it did *not* account from *known* large scale polarized light sources in *other* galaxies was an epic fail. It never mentioned his A) prediction of their existence, B) the verification of their existence in 1956, or C) any way of filtering them out!
Wow - you have no idea what experts are, Michael
Some experts. The whole lot of them can't name or demonstrate a single "source' of dark energy.
The people who wrote the paper are experts in their field of observation astronomy
And none of them bothered to do their homework on large scale synchrotron radiation sources that have been known about since before I was born. Not real impressive considering the string of failures as it relates to CMD, and their inability to demonstrate any of their claims in a lab, and their inability to name a source of dark energy.
I absolutely, positively, without any doubt whatsoever know more about Alfven's life's work that all of them put together.
Sad, but entirely true I'm afraid.No, Michael: Ranting about Mickey Mouse is not good
The 3 sigma scientific claim against BICEP1 is not really good enough in my opinion for a discovery announcement.
Had they dealt with large scale polarized sources, it wouldn't even have gotten to that level.
What null hypothesis? Anything R>0 was a "win". They stacked the deck so they could not lose. They apparently never even *looked at* the B/E relationship to *known* synchrotron sources from *actual lab tests*. They simply ignored ordinary sources and *assumed* that all polarized light in space comes from some mythical surface of last scattering from some snow globe universe claim.
The "null hypothesis' was apparently related to *thermal* sources *only*, and they already had some idea that R>.1 based on previous WMAP tests.
You must have burst a blood vessel when they disallowed r=0 at 7 sigma, Michael
Why? I would have been *shocked* had it been zero. Zero could *only* have occurred in a zero synchrotron emission universe. We've known that it is *not* a zero synchrotron radiation universe since 1956.
Wow you know about synchrotron radiation, Michael.
I wonder who else knows about synchrotron radiation - could it be astronomers Michael
As it relates to this specific gear and what it sees from ordinary synchrotron sources, it can't be them because apparently they never even looked at such radiation from an ordinary source in the tests to start with.
That would be none of them, Michael - there is no mention of the strong evidence for dark matter in the BICEP2 paper
The problem is that without it, your claims won't work, and still preserve your claims about predicting the amount of hydrogen and helium in the universe. In other words, it's utterly and totally dependent on your mythical magical forms of matter.
Apparently you never read the actual paper. The authors used the term 'proof' and your pathetic editors let it be published that way too.
It takes someone really ignorant to have missed all those failures at LHC, LUX, AMS-02 and the electron roundness experiments. It takes someone really ignorant to not notice that they botched their stellar counts by a whopping factor of between 3-20 depending on the galaxy type and the size of the star in question.
Your lame CDM claims were falsified 7 times since 2008.
No, they made lame claims about all the sources of synchrotron radiation in every galaxy having a completely *negligible* effect on their work *without* ever even looking at an ordinary polarized synchrotron source and looking at it's B/E relationship in a lab experiment in that same gear. They just "guessed".
How ignorant do you think astronomers are, Michael
Depending on the topic, pretty darn ignorant actually, particularly as it relates to plasma physics.
Those aren't answers based on real experiments RC. Those are answers that come directly from your dogma package and have no other meaning in any other branch of physics. EM fields accelerate plasma and show up in a lab, and have a known and identified source. What's your excuse as it relates to dark energy? Where do I get some to play with in a lab to be sure it's not a figment of your overactive imagination?
Upvote
0
Hardly an issue since I personally never predicted large scale synchrotron radiation sources in space, and their confirmation had nothing to do with me either.
And therein lies the problem. They made *no* effort to remove those large scale synchrotron sources in every galaxy.
Again, that was a *fatal* oversight, not exactly something they should be proud of.
That's only *one* point source in *one* galaxy RC. You missed about 1 billion more.
Again, so what? None of that allows you to eliminate every black hole in every galaxy as the "cumulative point sources' for every single polarized photon seen in every Bicep observation.
Apparently you haven't paid attention then to *anything* I've said in the past 9 years. What's new?
It was insane to simply ignore every synchrotron source in every galaxy with a handwave and trivial filtering process that is *not* intended to remove "background" patterns, just *foreground* patterns related galaxy emissions from our own galaxy.
Yes. Specifically they failed to account for every synchrotron radiation source from every black hole and neutron star in the entire universe.
Section 9 is the place to begin. Nowhere in that entire section did they deal with Alfven's 1950's prediction of black hole polarized photon emissions. Furthermore, *nowhere* in that paper is any study presented in terms of what the *ordinary* B/E relationship looks like in a Bicep image. It is fundamentally different or exactly the same as the ratios they observed? They don't even know because they *never tested it in the lab*! That alone speaks volumes. They made an *extraordinary* claim without even providing *ordinary* evidence that the B/E relationship isn't directly related to ordinary synchrotron sources. They never even conducted a test or note the B/E relation for *normal* photons, for *normal* sources. They didn't even do the *ordinary* lab work before making *extraordinary* claims that they simply cannot support.
Upvote
0
What off topic (CDM is not inflation!) 7 CDM failures in 8 years then?
There have been several failures of CDM predictions, e.g. the cusp problem.
There have been many successes of CDM, e.g. the LHC eliminating some candidates.
It would be totally ignorant to ignore the evidence that dark matter exits. The only question really remaining is what is it?
That is really bad reading, Michael:
My emphasis added. They considered *other* galaxies. That is what extragalactic means!
Oh look Michael: the paper does not cite:
* Newton
* Einstein
* Hubble
* Schrodinger
* Marie Curie
* or millions of other scientists that have also existed!
In fact Alfven should not be cited at all. It was Hubble who established that galaxies existed as entities outside our galaxy so he takes precedence
! Or maybe the first person to observe nebula (galaxies). Or maybe the cavemen who noted there were fuzzy spots in the sky. Or maybe the first person to detect polarization of light. Or maybe the first creature to have eyes.Dark energy
Dark energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Thinking that astronomers do not know about the cosmological constant is close to delusional.
That was my question!
What is "R", Michael?
There is the tensor/scalar ratio r.
There is the matrix R (equation 3) where they start to treat the E to B mixing.
You do now that accusing scientists of faking their results is one of the worst insults that you can write, Michael?
Especially since it is based on you being unable to understand that extragalactic means outside the galaxy
!That is almost a lie, Michael.
They did not measure "ordinary synchrotron sources" at BICEP2.
They did account for "ordinary synchrotron sources". As well as the point sources above:
The results in Section 9.2 and 9.3 are quite clear:
* Synchrotron gives a contribution to the BB spectrum of r < 0.003.
* Point Sources gives a to the BB spectrum of r < 0.001.
This gives an error in any measurement r of less than +/- 0.004.
What they got was r = 0.20 +0.07 -0.05. Anyone who has done even high school science will see that the foreground contamination is much less than the measured error.
You are right, Michael:
Weak lensing mass reconstruction of the interacting cluster 1E0657-558: Direct evidence for the existence of dark matter
[astro-ph/0312273] Weak lensing mass reconstruction of the interacting cluster 1E0657-558: Direct evidence for the existence of dark matter
Which is the only use of the word proof.
Some scientists do use the word proof - wow what an earth-shattering revelation that overturns all of science
!More seriously:
The abstract of a scientific paper is supposed to be a concise summary of the contents. But scientists are human. They want their papers to be read. So abstracts tend to be hyped a little, e.g. they "prove" stuff. That is why reading the actual paper is a good thing to do.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
That is wrong, Michael: They made every effort to see if removing those large scale synchrotron sources from every detectable galaxy was needed. Their result was that the contribution to r was about 10 times less than the measured error so it will be absorbed in the reported error.
But if you want to waste your time, Michael, you can duplicate their analysis . You will get something like r = 0.20x +/- 0.024 (another significant digit in the average and the additional uncertainty of <= 0.004 as in section 9).
It is really bad to think that astronomers should stop making observations because they have not observed all 100 billion galaxies
.BICEP2 did the thing that any sensible person would agree with - they accounted for all of the point sources that they can detect in BICEP2. It would be insane to demand that they account for point sources that they cannot detect. These detectable point sources come from WMAP, Planck and other sources.
Then try reading and understanding Section 9:
Upvote
0
http://www.christianforums.com/t7810720-6/#post65210798
Apparently you didn't read the thread before butting in. CDM has been a topic of discussion from the start of my debate with david. If you would like to deal with those 7 falsifications one by one, honestly, and with integrity, be my guest. If you intent to trivially handwave away at them, foregetatoubit!
Yes, 7 in fact. Your galaxy mass estimation techniques were falsified three times since that 2006 lensing study, and it's failed four key mathematical predictions in four key and unique areas of physics. It's been zero for 7 over the past 7 years or so.
Ya, so far all the ones that have any effect on the roundness of electrons have been eliminated. Every energy spectrum seen by AMS-02 has been eliminated in terms of SUSY theory having anything to do with gamma rays from the sky. Every model that has any kind of 'sparticle' in the energy ranges studied at LHC thus far have been eliminated, and LUX pretty much eliminated every previous study on Earth that *claimed* to have found evidence of exotic forms of matter. Exacty which mathematical model will you personally commit to that fits all those requirements? Is there actually any mathematical model left standing that fits all those requirements? If so, I'm all ears.
It's completely ignorant to claim any evidence still exists! Your galaxy stellar mass 'guestimates' blew up on your face three times since 2006, by a whopping factor of between 3-20 depending on the type of galaxy and the size of the stars you *forgot to count*!
It's figment of your overactive imagination is what it is.
I'll deal with the lambda-fiasco paper in a separate post so that I can hold your feet to the CDM fire until you're squealing like a dark matter pig in pure denial and everyone can see it.
Upvote
0
Where? I got a relatively low resolution WMAP (compared to Planck) resolution cleanup of the *local* galaxy from sections 1-8. We got to section 9 however and they failed *epically* to account for synchrotron radiation sources around *more distant* galaxies around black holes and neutron stars that could number in the *billions*. Epic fail!
That's because they put in ten times less effort in section 9 than any other section of the paper. They *never* fired up any controlled source of polarized synchrotron radiation at Bicep system to even bother to measure the B/E relationship in *normal* sources. They made *no* attempt to figure out what a *typical* source would look like in terms of the B/E relationship, let alone try to *filter out* anything based upon controlled experimentation in the lab.
They got to section 9 and simply *quit* when it came to trying to filter any large scale polarized sources not *obviously* related to our own galaxy.
Without so much a single *test in the lab* they got to section 9.1 and said:
Oooopsy daisy, we don't really know how much polarized dust might play any role in these measurements even though the original *prediction* used to *predict* those large scale sources would be creating entire *magnetic ropes/polar jets* emitting large scale polarized photons for light years, *and* electromagnetically orienting all the dusty plasmas of spacetime. In other words, they really don't *know* if these patterns are *local* patterns yet, or not. They still have the *gall* to claim a "sigma five" discovery anyway!
Oh, but that's not the worst part of the paper. The worst part came next:
Not once (not even in the cited paper) did anyone attempt to deal with, let alone deal with Alfven's *prediction and discovery* of large scale polarized photon sources in *every galaxy in the universe*. Instead they *blithely assumed* that anything that doesn't come from out universe *necessarily* originated on some mythical, magical "surface of last scattering" from some ridiculous snow globe universe theory. What a bunch of junk science form 9.1 on.
Nowhere did anyone attempt to *study* ordinary sources and ordinary B/E relationships with *real experiments* with that same equipment. The simply *assumed* that every photon they didn't "scrub" came from a mythical magical surface of last scattering, *without so much as dealing with* Alfven's 1950's discovery of polarized photons in around all massive objects in space.
I did, and I do, and it doesn't pass with whiff test, in fact it *wreaks* of bad science from 9.1 on.
Upvote
0
BICEP2 accounts for foreground contributions (Section 9 of the paper)!Where?
...continued ignorance snipped...
...bit of a rant snipped...
...the inane demand that BICEP2 do a "test in a lab" snipped...
...the insane demand that they cite Alfven snipped (no paper cites every preceding scientist involved in the field
http://www.christianforums.com/t7810720-16/#post65347194
Sorry, Michael, but your post "whiffs" of ignorance, the arrogance that you can demand things of scientists and that somehow invalidates the science and a really big obsession with Alfven.
As I pointed out before Alfven's work was totally built on Hubble's work (galaxies are outside of the Milky way) which was totally built on Yog the caveman's observation of patches in the sky. It would be insane for me to demand that a paper concerned with galaxies cites Hubble or Yog or every scientist who ever did work on galaxies
Do not issue the same demand for Alfven.
Upvote
0
Your denial routine won't cut it. That's only *half* (the easy half too) of the job:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7810720-16/#post65347897
No, I'm not ignorant of that smoke screen in section 9. It's darn obvious in fact.
They are the ones claiming to have made the *single most extraordinary* physics claim in the entire history of human civilization. Not only did they claim to add three new forces of matter and energy to the four know forces, they claimed to have found gravitational waves, and even found the basic energy range of some mythical "theory of everything". Even GR wasn't *that* grandiose of a claim. If they're going to make the most extraordinary claim in the entire history of physics, they should *at least* be conducting ordinary tests with ordinary sources and looking at ordinary B/E relationships in the lab. They never bothered to do the *ordinary* work!
The serious flaws do invalidate their specific claims.
He just so happened to be the *first one* to predict the existence of large scale polarized photons from large scale structures in *every* galaxy. It's no my fault they tried to *steal his work* and discovery right out from under him after he was dead!
In which paper might that have been the case? Maybe in his BB paper, but it has nothing to do with any mythical magical surfaces of last scattering.
You sort of missed the whole point. It's not my fault that they simply *ignored* the one obvious explanation for large scale polarized photons. They did it to themselves. I had nothing to do with it, other than to point it out. Don't blame the messenger for pointing out the the most *grandiose* claim of all time in the *history* of physics is based on nothing but a handwave, and they never did their necessary *ordinary* lab work to look at *ordinary* B/E relationships.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
I do not have to deal with them - none of them is a falsification of CDM.
A couple of them are repeats from JREF which were explained to you there.
1. The mass estimates on the largest stars is nothing to do with CDM.
The shining: astronomers find our universe is twice as bright> Swinburne Magazine
2. The mass function for stars is nothing to do with CDM.
Galaxies Demand a Stellar Recount - NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory
3. The number of dwarf stars is nothing to do with CDM.
Scientists Find 200 Sextillion More Stars in the Sky | Fox News
4. The failure of detection at LHC is good news - it eliminates some candidates for dark matter (not just CDM!)
BBC News - Popular physics theory running out of hiding places
5. The failure of detection at LUX is good news - it eliminates some candidates for dark matter (not just CDM!)
First results from LUX experiment in South Dakota | Sanford Underground Research Facility
6. The failure of detection at electron roundness experiments is good news - it eliminates some candidates for dark matter (not just CDM!).
'Perfect' Electron Roundness Bruises Supersymmetry : Discovery News
I must have missed number 7 but I expect it is be another valid bit of science that you fantasize to falsify CDM.
I will point out the delusion of thinking that not knowing what dark matter is means that dark matter does not exist. We have strong evidence that dark matter exists. Ruling out candidates for dark matter will never falsify its existence. There is also the fact that things can exist and not be detected directly immediately (see the history of the neutrino). So demanding that dark matter be detected now is inane.
To falsify the existence of dark matter you have to falsify the evidence for its existence
!
Upvote
0
Denial at it's absolute finest. If that is true, then it is physically impossible to falsify your whack-a-mole supernatural hiding invisible deity. It's become your (very bad) 'religion' apparently, and nothing can erode your faith in your supernatural constructs. You'd pretty much be the stereotype of everything that is wrong with astronomers today, if in fact you actually *were* a real astronomer.
Upvote
0
It was that fiasco at AMS-02 where they predicted an energy cutoff to be found, but no cutoff was actually observed. Epic prediction fail. It doesn't stop them for a second however in terms of pointing at the sky and claiming WIMPS did it anyway.
Upvote
0
Obviously your are still ignorant of the (close to high school!) science in section 9 so here it is again:
BICEP2 accounts for foreground contributions (Section 9 of the paper)!
http://www.christianforums.com/t7810720-16/#post65347194
High school students know that if you have an error of < 0.004 and an error of 0.05 then you add them to get an error of 0.054 and the error you report is rounded up to the most significant digit, e.g. r = 0.20 +/- 0.05.
Oh dear, the ignorance actually hurts!
Edwin Hubble was the scientist who discovered that galaxies were separate objects from the Milky Way located outside of the Milky Way.
According to your demand that the paper cite Alfven, they should also cite Hubble
. And why pick on Alfven. Why not cite Frank Elder, Anatole Gurewitsch, Robert Langmuir, and Herb Pollock who discovered synchrotron radiation!Also this is not a theoretical paper. It is an observational paper. So they should also cite every scientist who ever observed a galaxy
!Did you ever wonder why all papers do not cite thousands of other papers. After all according to your demand, a scientific paper has to cite every paper that pertains to their work, Michael
.The reality is that papers cite papers that are immediately relevant to their work. BICEP2 did not cite Newton even though Newton did a lot of work on telescopes and the theory of light. BICEP2 did cite Guth because he was a pioneer in inflation theory. BICEP2 did cite the Plank Collaboration because they used their data and techniques.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
What fiasco at AMS-02 and who says that is was a fiasco (or is this just another one of your insults?), Michael?
Upvote
0
Similar threads
