Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Message from the Dawn of time...
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Michael" data-source="post: 65344815" data-attributes="member: 627"><p>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. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> </p><p></p><p>And therein lies the problem. They made *no* effort to remove those large scale synchrotron sources in every galaxy.</p><p></p><p>Again, that was a *fatal* oversight, not exactly something they should be proud of.</p><p></p><p>That's only *one* point source in *one* galaxy RC. You missed about 1 billion more.</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>Apparently you haven't paid attention then to *anything* I've said in the past 9 years. What's new? <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>Yes. Specifically they failed to account for every synchrotron radiation source from every black hole and neutron star in the entire universe.</p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Michael, post: 65344815, member: 627"] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Message from the Dawn of time...
Top
Bottom