Message from the Dawn of time...

[RealityCheck01]

Denial at it's absolute finest.

What an inability to understand English, Michael.
It is really simple:
Dark matter has a set of evidence that shows that it exists.
To show that it does not exist you have to falsify that set of evidence
Your evidence are either
* nothing to do with dark matter.
* elimination od some candidates for dark matter - leaving other candidates
I do not have to deal with them - none of them is a falsification of the existence of CDM!
http://www.christianforums.com/t7810720-16/#post65348100

 

[RealityCheck01]

The actual scientific experiment of Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS-02)
Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In March 2013, at a seminar at CERN, Professor Samuel Ting reported that AMS had observed over 400,000 positrons, with the positron to electron fraction increasing from 10 GeV to 250 GeV but showing a slower rate of increase at higher energies. There was "no significant variation over time, or any preferred incoming direction. These results are consistent with the positrons originating from the annihilation of dark matter particles in space, but not yet sufficiently conclusive to rule out other explanations." The results are published in Physical Review Letters.[7] Additional data are still being collected.[8][9][10][11][12][13][14]

(my emphasis added)
Apparently a valid scientific conclusion is a fiasco according to Michael !

 

[RealityCheck01]

There is also Payload for Antimatter Matter Exploration and Light-nuclei Astrophysics (PAMELA)
Payload for Antimatter Matter Exploration and Light-nuclei Astrophysics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
with similar goals. The preliminary result in August 2008 indicated an excess of positrons which could have been a possible sign of dark matter annihilation but the full results found no excess of antiprotons and "This is inconsistent with predictions from most models of dark matter sources, in which the positron and antiproton excesses are correlated."

Now wait for a "fiasco" from Michael and PAMELA is evidence for the existence of dark matter ...

 

[Michael]

Obviously your are still ignorant of the (close to high school!) science in section 9

Actually, I'm well aware of the fact that section 9 *was an example* of "high school science". I see that you're already right back to attacking *people* rather than sticking to the *science* of the debate. You're about as predictable of a typical "hater" as they get RC.

so here it is again:
BICEP2 accounts for foreground contributions (Section 9 of the paper)!

Yes, but it didn't account for the *billions* of "background" emissions from potentially *billions* of sources!

High school students know that if you

They know that if you make *extraordinary* claims you at least have to take *ordinary* steps to exclude *ordinary* (already verified) large scale sources of polarized photons. They never touched those billions of potential point/large scale sources in spacetime. Instead they simply *assumed* that every single polarized photon came from some mythical, magical surface of last scattering in their irrational snow globe universe.

You actually haven't dealt with *any* of the real issues raised RC, so why are you here? Trolling again? You got bored at JREF? They finally let you back on this forum? Why on Earth would you bother to come back here? Did you find a published reference that claims that electrical discharges are impossible in plasma yet? Did you find a reference that shows that plasma and plasma movement is a "plasma optional" process in magnetic reconnection theory yet? Yes or no?

 

[RealityCheck01]

Actually, I'm well aware of the fact that section 9 *was an example* of "high school science".
...usual rant and insults snipped...

No - it is you, Michael, who seems unaware of high school science - the actual science in the section is definitely not high school!:

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.

You still do not understand that:
1. The conclusion that the error in r from all foreground contamination is less than 0.004 is explained in section 9.
2. The measured r was 0.20 +0.07 -0.05.
3. Thus the error in r from foreground contamination does not change the measured r.
If they had determined that the error in r from foreground contamination was less than 0.005 then there would be an argument to change the measured r to 0.20 +0.08 -0.06.

Continuing to demand that the BICP2 paper account for *billions* of "background" emissions that they could not detect is remains so ridiculous that is it is becoming delusional.
COBE did not account for them because COBE could not detect them !
WMAP did not account for them because WMAP could not detect them !
Planck does not account for them because Planck does not detect them !
BICEP1 did not account for them because BICEP1 did not detect them !
BICEP2 did not account for them because BICEP2 does not detect them !
BICEP3 will not account for them because BICEP3 will not detect them !
Wow that ridiculous demand means that every experiment that looks at the sky and does not account for every galaxy in the universe is wrong !

The ridiculous demand to account for all of the 100 billion galaxies was noted here:

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.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Continuing to demand that the BICP2 paper account for *billions* of "background" emissions that they could not detect is remains so ridiculous that is it is becoming delusional.

Let us try it another way, Michael.
Please give us a source of the measurements of for all of these *billions* of "background" emissions that BICEP2 needed to account for.
This should be easy to answer - just a link to a database of 100 billion galaxies with a note about each galaxy stating whether the BICEP2 instrument can detect it.

 

[Michael]

Let us try it another way, Michael.
Please give us a source of the measurements of for all of these *billions* of "background" emissions that BICEP2 needed to account for.
This should be easy to answer - just a link to a database of 100 billion galaxies with a note about each galaxy stating whether the BICEP2 instrument can detect it.

Your denial routine seems to know no bounds as it relates to either your miserable failures related to CDM or the *sloppy* nature of that Lambda-fiasco paper as it relates to filtering out point sources and massive polarized structures in space:

Synchrotron radiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

History of detection

It was first detected in a jet emitted by Messier 87 in 1956 by Geoffrey R. Burbidge,[5] who saw it as confirmation of a prediction by Iosif S. Shklovsky in 1953, but it had been predicted earlier by Hannes Alfvén and Nicolai Herlofson [6] in 1950.
T. K. Breus noted that questions of priority on the history of astrophysical synchrotron radiation is complicated, writing:
"In particular, the Russian physicist V.L. Ginzburg broke his relationships with I.S. Shklovsky and did not speak with him for 18 years. In the West, Thomas Gold and Sir Fred Hoyle were in dispute with H. Alfven and N. Herlofson, while K.O. Kiepenheuer and G. Hutchinson were ignored by them."[7] Supermassive black holes have been suggested for producing synchrotron radiation, by ejection of jets produced by gravitationally accelerating ions through the super contorted 'tubular' polar areas of magnetic fields. Such jets, the nearest being in Messier 87, have been confirmed by the Hubble telescope as apparently superluminal, travelling at 6×c (six times the speed of light) from our planetary frame. This phenomenon is caused because the jets are travelling very near the speed of light and at a very small angle towards the observer. Because at every point of their path the high-velocity jets are emitting light, the light they emit does not approach the observer much more quickly than the jet itself. Light emitted over hundreds of years of travel thus arrives at the observer over a much smaller time period (ten or twenty years) giving the illusion of faster than light travel. There is no violation of special relativity.[8]

As far back as 1956, it was *confirmed* (not speculated, but confirmed) that black holes and large neutron stars are capable of generating polar jets and generating synchrotron radiation from *massively long* structures.

Up to section 9 the paper was fine. In section 9, it went to pagan hades in a hand basket. They simply *handwaved* at every black hole and neutron star in the *entire universe* to claim that every photon they see came from some mythical surface of magical last scattering. Never once did they bother to *test* the B/E relationship in *ordinary* polarized synchrotron sources. They simply *assumed* that anything and everything that didn't come from *our own galaxy* must have magically arrived here from some mythical surface of last scattering in some ridiculous snow globe universe theory.

With that lopsided way that they setup the paper from section 9 on, they could have done a bait and switch routine with B = Mickey Mouse Modes + Minnie Mouse Modes, done a bait and switch with E and call it Mickey Mouse Modes and demonstrated that Walt Disney was the creator of the silly snow globe universe.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Remind me to add a few more unsupported claims to the list of unsupported claims from the Lambda-CDM doctrine of supernatural dogma:

Oh dear, I should really not look back in a thread with posts by Michael because I find dogmatic, delusional ("doctrine of supernatural dogma" ) and a bit ignorant statements as in that post!
1) An expansion of spacetime does cause light to redshift according to the laws of physics. The observation of redshift is thus evidence for an expansion of spacetime.
2) Inflation is defined as the rapid expansion of spacetime!
3) Inflation does give rise to B-mode polarization of photons (as do other processes).
4) Dark energy is defined as that thing that causes the observed acceleration of the expansion of spacetime.
5) Dark matter has strong evidence that it exists. Some exotic matter exists ( Bose&#8211;Einstein condensates and quark&#8211;gluon plasma) and some are just hypothetical.
6) Some dark matter candidates emit gamma rays.
7) Some dark matter candidates emit X-rays.
All of these claims have been made for decades in the scientific literature.
All of these claims have been reviewed by the (thousands?) of scientists who have read the scientific literature.
All of these claims have a basis in theory and some are confirmed by experimental results, e.g. the existence of dark matter and B-mode polarization of photons matching what inflation predicts by the BICEP2 experimental results.

And please, Michael, no demands for dark matter to be detected in a lab here on Earth !
That is as ridiculous as stating that stars do not exist just because we have never had one in a lab here on Earth. We use the known laws of physics as tested by "labs here on Earth" to detect dark matter just as we use them to detect stars.

 

[RealityCheck01]

..snipped usual insults and delusions about the BICEP2 paper...

One last time, Michael:
Section 9 of the BICEP2 paper is simply accounting for all sources of foreground contamination and finding that the errors in r are small enough to be ignored because they fall within the measured error in r.

One last time, Michael:
This is high school level science. If you have an error in a measurement of +/-0.05 from one source and another error of +/-0.004 in that measurement from another source then it is correct to report a measurement of 0.20 as :

0.20 +/- 0.05​

And if you are going to demand that BICEP2 include every galaxy in the universe then you must be able to answer:
Please give us a source of the measurements of for all of these *billions* of "background" emissions that BICEP2 needed to account for.

 

[Michael]

1) An expansion of spacetime does cause light to redshift according to the laws of physics.

That's absolutely false. There is no "law" that requires "space" to do magical expansion tricks.

[astro-ph/0601171] Is space really expanding? A counterexample

The observation of redshift is thus evidence for an expansion of spacetime.

Maybe so, but it has nothing to do with space expansion, inflation or dark energy. It's just objects in motion staying in motion.

2) Inflation is defined as the rapid expansion of spacetime!

God is defined by some as a "supernatural" being too. So what? What *empirical* cause/effect demonstration do you have to demonstrate that you inflation deity isn't a figment of you overactive imagination?

3) Inflation does give rise to B-mode polarization of photons (as do other processes).

Translation: "Our beloved inflation deity does anything that we claim it does because it's got *supernatural powers* and we say so.

4) Dark energy is defined as that thing that causes the observed acceleration of the expansion of spacetime.

The most likely cause of plasma acceleration would be EM fields. Since it makes up almost 70 percent of your supernatural belief system, maybe you're really a closet EU/PC promoter and don't even know it yet.

5) Dark matter has strong evidence that it exists.

False. It's an ad hoc creation to rescue your falsified redshift model from falsification.

Some exotic matter exists ( Bose&#8211;Einstein condensates and quark&#8211;gluon plasma) and some are just hypothetical.

None of your junk works out in the lab however.

6) Some dark matter candidates emit gamma rays.

I hear some "God" candidates emit gamma rays too. "Let there be light"! I'm sure you can't demonstrate it in a lab.

7) Some dark matter candidates emit X-rays.

Some ordinary processes in plasma do that too, specifically electrical discharges.

All of these claims have been made for decades in the scientific literature.

Yet not one of those authors can name a source of dark energy, let alone explain a way to control it in a real lab experiment. FYI, I'm not the only one taking potshots at that Lambda-fiasco paper now:

[1404.1899] Fingerprints of Galactic Loop I on the Cosmic Microwave Background

And please, Michael, no demands for dark matter to be detected in a lab here on Earth !

Sure, right after you drop your need to have God detected empirically.

That is as ridiculous as stating that stars do not exist just because we have never had one in a lab here on Earth. We use the known laws of physics as tested by "labs here on Earth" to detect dark matter just as we use them to detect stars.

Another problem you have apparently is the inability to differentiate between a *scaling problem* and a lack of cause/effect justification of claims *before* scaling ever happens.

 

[Michael]

One last time, Michael:
Section 9 of the BICEP2 paper is simply accounting for all sources of foreground contamination and finding that the errors in r are small enough to be ignored because they fall within the measured error in r.

Let's hear your rebuttal to this paper then:

[1404.1899] Fingerprints of Galactic Loop I on the Cosmic Microwave Background

One last time, Michael:
This is high school level science.

You're right, section 9 is high school level science alright. Actually, it's not even that good.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Let's hear your rebuttal to this paper then:

Show your physical and mathematical analysis of Section 9 of the BICEP2 paper that shows that you can find physical and mathematical flaws that these experts missed, Michael.

No rebuttal needed - the preprint looks good. Maybe it will even be published (no sign of a journal submission though).
It just points out in the conclusion that further investigation is needed. Well Duh! The BICEP2 data will be investigated for years because that what scientists do - refine and try to debunk results.
Note that this is not synchrotron radiation (your little obsession) but "more likely magnetic dipole emission from ferro or ferrimagnetic dust grains, as suggested by theoretical arguments (Draine & Lazarian 1999; Draine & Hensley 2013). This radiation is expected to be highly polarized."
No one (not even you, Michael) knows if it is high polarized.
No one (not even you, Michael) knows this high polarized emission will have any measurable effects on the BICEP2 results.

Section 9 of the BICEP2 paper finds that foreground contamination can be neglected

One last time, Michael:
This is high school level science. If you have an error in a measurement of +/-0.05 from one source and another error of +/-0.004 in that measurement from another source then it is correct to report a measurement of 0.20 as :
0.20 +/- 0.05

That comment is addressed to you, Michael.
I know that the BICEP2 Collaboration have at least attended high school !

 

[RealityCheck01]

That's absolutely false.
...snipped rants....
...snipped a delusion about scientists being unable to name a source of dark energy...

That is absolutely ignorant, Michael - you have never hear of Einstein, General Relativity or application of GR in cosmology that apply to an expanding, shrinking or even static universe!

The observation of redshift is evidence for an expansion of space-time. The strong body of evidence for the Big Bang is what makes the expansion of space-time a standard part of physics.

The most likely cause of plasma acceleration ...

would be your ignorance, Michael .
4) Dark energy is defined as that thing that causes the observed acceleration of the expansion of space-time.
This is the detection of the acceleration of galaxies.

...snipped gibberish about scaling...

As I wrote:
And please, Michael, no demands for dark matter to be detected in a lab here on Earth !
That is as ridiculous as stating that stars do not exist just because we have never had one in a lab here on Earth. We use the known laws of physics as tested by "labs here on Earth" to detect dark matter just as we use them to detect stars.

P.S. You need to learn some basic research skills, Michael.
You cite a paper from 2006 that you think invalidates decades of how scientists think about cosmological models using GR. So this ground breaking paper will be highly cited (if only to debunk it!): 9 refereed citations in 8 years
Refereed Citation Query Results for 2007ONCP....4...15C
You also need to think about why this ground breaking paper seems to have been published in a short-lived, web based journal: Concepts Phys. 4 (2007) 17-34
Concepts of Physics
http://merlin.phys.uni.lodz.pl/concepts/www/

 

[Michael]

Show your physical and mathematical analysis of Section 9 of the BICEP2 paper that shows that you can find physical and mathematical flaws that these experts missed, Michael.

I'm headed off to bed soon, but I'll respond to this post first. I just provided you with a paper that does exactly what you asked for, not by lil' ol' me, but by "experts" as you call them. You can't even seem to understand that your "experts" don't all think in lock step, and don't think in black and white terms like you do. Apparently you can't deal with their criticisms, so you went right into pure denial, and pretended that I didn't just hand you what you asked me for on a *silver platter*! Sheesh. You're a two trick (denial/personal attack) pony.

Those 'experts' in that paper I cited for you will explain the problems in section 9.1 for you if you're actually interested (not that I'm holding my breath of course).

No rebuttal needed - the preprint looks good. Maybe it will even be published (no sign of a journal submission though).
It just points out in the conclusion that further investigation is needed.

It suggests that the local sources could *still be overwhelming* the signal, even *before* we get to sections 9.2 and 9.3. Get real. You can't handle a skeptical review and you don't even read the materials, just like you've never bothered to read Comic Plasma for yourself, nor any other book on plasma physics. That willful ignorance is exactly why you're under the delusion that "magnetic reconnection" is a plasma optional process.

When are you going to sit down and read a real textbook on plasma physics, preferably Cosmic Plasma?

When am I going to see a reference from you that is *outside of yourself* that claims that "actual" (RC codespeak for all his personal irrelevant personality quirks related to a personal need for a breakdown of a dielectric) discharges impossible in plasma? Where's your *published* reference RC?

Well Duh! The BICEP2 data will be investigated for years because that what scientists do - refine and try to debunk results.

It looks like it's already been "debunked" just in foreground influences alone! Pitiful paper, particularly section 9.

Note that this is not synchrotron radiation (your little obsession) but "more likely magnetic dipole emission from ferro or ferrimagnetic dust grains, as suggested by theoretical arguments (Draine & Lazarian 1999; Draine & Hensley 2013). This radiation is expected to be highly polarized."

Well, you did at least get that much right. This criticism would all be section 9.1 related, and that doesn't even count the billion other sources of polarized photons from every other galaxy and Birkeland current in space.

What I know is this: You're unlikely to ever sit down and read a textbook on MHD theory, or read Cosmic Plasma by Hannes Alfven. I might as well be having a discussion with a verbally abusive doorknob.

I know that the BICEP2 Collaboration have at least attended high school !

Ya, and so did those authors I cited for you RC. You're so predicable. Since you won't educate yourself in plasma physics, you have no way to debate me at the level of physics. All you can do is play "kill the messenger" in every single post, so that's exactly what you do. Ignorance isn't bliss RC. Sit down and read a textbook already. How many years now have you been playing the role of EU/PC "skeptic" without bothering to read Cosmic plasma or *any* textbook on MHD theory?

 

[Michael]

That is absolutely ignorant, Michael - you have never hear of Einstein, General Relativity or application of GR in cosmology that apply to an expanding, shrinking or even static universe!

The observation of redshift is evidence for an expansion of space-time. The strong body of evidence for the Big Bang is what makes the expansion of space-time a standard part of physics.

Right back you went into pure denial, never dealing with the reference I cited, and pretending it didn't happen. As that paper demonstrates, I don't need your stinkin' supernatural invisible sky deities to explain photon redshift or spacetime expansion.

[astro-ph/0601171] Is space really expanding? A counterexample

Your impotent on Earth sky deities are useless and unnecessary and GR can't save you from them remaining useless and unnecessary.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Right back you went into pure denial,
...snipped insane "stinkin' supernatural invisible sky deities" stuff...

Whoops you missed this, Michael:

P.S. You need to learn some basic research skills, Michael.
You cite a paper from 2006 that you think invalidates decades of how scientists think about cosmological models using GR. So this ground breaking paper will be highly cited (if only to debunk it!): 9 refereed citations in 8 years
Refereed Citation Query Results for 2007ONCP....4...15C
You also need to think about why this ground breaking paper seems to have been published in a short-lived, web based journal: Concepts Phys. 4 (2007) 17-34
Concepts of Physics
Concepts of Physics - Main Page

 

[RealityCheck01]

..snipped ranting and insane demands...

That is a lie (perhaps excusable given the lateness), Michael.
I asked for you to back up your assertions about the BICEP2 paper with your physical and mathematical analysis of the BICEP2 paper
You gave no reference to a paper that analyzed (physical or mathematically ) any results of the BICEP2 paper.

You obviously never read the paper because those experts never even mention Section 9 of the BICEP2 paper or any problems with it. They do cite the BICEP 2 paper in the conclusion of the preprint - no analysis of sections 9.1, 9.2 and 9.3 or any other part of the BICEP2 paper.

You are lying about the experts who wrote
[1404.1899] Fingerprints of Galactic Loop I on the Cosmic Microwave Background
because they do not explain any problems with Section 9.1.
One more time, Michael: One discussion of BICEP 2 in the conclusion of the preprint - no analysis of sections 9.1, 9.2 and 9.3 or any other part of the BICEP2 paper.

It suggests that the local sources could *still be overwhelming* the signal,

And again, Michael: One discussion of BICEP 2 in the conclusion of the preprint - no analysis of sections 9.1, 9.2 and 9.3 or any other part of the BICEP2 paper. Get real, Michael.

This criticism would all be section 9.1 related,
...snipped idiocy of "Birkeland current in space"...

9.1. Polarized Dust Projections - well Duh !

For interested parties (not you Michael ), this is the entire "analysis" of the BICEP 2 paper from the conclusion of the preprint:

It has not escaped our attention that the lower part of Loop I, in particular the additional loop structure identified by Wolleben (2007), crosses the very region of the sky from which the BICEP 2 experiment has recently detected a B-mode polarisation signal (Ade et al. 2014). This has been ascribed to primordial gravitational waves from inflation because "available foreground models" do not correlate with the BICEP maps. The new foreground we have identified is however not included in these models. Hence the cosmological significance if any of the detected B-mode signal needs further investigation. Forthcoming polarisation data from the Planck satellite will be crucial in this regard.

 

[mzungu]

That is a lie (perhaps excusable given the lateness), Michael.
I asked for you to back up your assertions about the BICEP2 paper with your physical and mathematical analysis of the BICEP2 paper
You gave no reference to a paper that analyzed (physical or mathematically ) any results of the BICEP2 paper.

You obviously never read the paper because those experts never even mention Section 9 of the BICEP2 paper or any problems with it. They do cite the BICEP 2 paper in the conclusion of the preprint - no analysis of sections 9.1, 9.2 and 9.3 or any other part of the BICEP2 paper.

You are lying about the experts who wrote
[1404.1899] Fingerprints of Galactic Loop I on the Cosmic Microwave Background
because they do not explain any problems with Section 9.1.
One more time, Michael: One discussion of BICEP 2 in the conclusion of the preprint - no analysis of sections 9.1, 9.2 and 9.3 or any other part of the BICEP2 paper.


And again, Michael: One discussion of BICEP 2 in the conclusion of the preprint - no analysis of sections 9.1, 9.2 and 9.3 or any other part of the BICEP2 paper. Get real, Michael.


9.1. Polarized Dust Projections - well Duh !

For interested parties (not you Michael ), this is the entire "analysis" of the BICEP 2 paper from the conclusion of the preprint:

I don't think Michael is qualified to answer the questions. EU has no math! It is nothing more than a crackpot hypothesis.

 

[bhsmte]

I don't think Michael is qualified to answer the questions. EU has no math! It is nothing more than a crackpot hypothesis.

Michael has a theory about God that requires the EU to be correct. He is not going to let go of his personal theory about God easily - my observations anyway.

 

[Michael]

I don't think Michael is qualified to answer the questions. EU has no math! It is nothing more than a crackpot hypothesis.

While I've come to expect that sort of blatant denial oriented behavior from RC over the years, it surprises me that you would repeat such easily falsified nonsense. Alfven himself wrote over 100 papers, complete with lots of math. Peratt wrote an entire physics book, complete with lots of math. EU has tons and tons of math, most of which neither you or RC begin to understand, only because you bury your heads in the sand and refuse to read them.

Denial is an ugly thing.