Method for accepting science

[[serious]]

Exactly what they wanted it to find because they SUBTRACTED OUT everything related to emissions from OUR GALAXY and any other close "point sources". What's left other than "scattering over a long distance"?

What, exactly, do you think "background" means?

"the background is red as predicted by this theory"
"oh sure, when you subtract out the blue foreground!"

 

[Michael]

What, exactly, do you think "background" means?

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/431060main_dragons-map-full.jpg

Why even pick ONE particular wavelength in the first place, particularly if you intend to subtract out all the sources in our galaxy and all the point sources?

Of course you'll get a relatively "homogenous" distribution because "scattering happens" on many wavelengths. What's up with selecting ONE and ONLY one and claiming that's such a special "background"?

 

[NGC 6712]

How about that gamma ray background? Why aren't you using THAT wavelength to calculate the TEMPERATURE of a whole universe too? Even picking a SINGLE wavelength was dubious IMO. The fact that early predictions of the temperature of space based upon the effect of starlight on matter were MUCH closer than early BB models still doesn't matter to the mainstream. They still insist that only a BANG could be responsible for that wavelength, even thought is damn clear that every star in our own galaxy emits them, and "scattering happens" in space.

Gee - I wonder why we don't use the gamma ray (or X-ray, or visible or IR) background for such a determination. Gosh darn, you caught us out in our conspiracy. We ignore everything else and only concentrate on the CMB for nefarious godless motives.

Why don't you get a calculator out and with a few minutes Googling and some button pushing you'll see why.

ps

Why do you keep saying single wavelength? Check out the CMB spectrum - that's not line emission is it?

 

[Davian]

 

[Michael]

Gee - I wonder why we don't use the gamma ray (or X-ray, or visible or IR) background for such a determination. Gosh darn, you caught us out in our conspiracy. We ignore everything else and only concentrate on the CMB for nefarious godless motives.

I figured as much.

Why don't you get a calculator out and with a few minutes Googling and some button pushing you'll see why.

You didn't actually answer my question.

Why do you keep saying single wavelength? Check out the CMB spectrum - that's not line emission is it?

It's a very SMALL part of the WHOLE energy spectrum, and not the only one that produces a relatively homogenous background. Furthermore, estimates of the effect of starlight on the molecules in space were actually MUCH closer to predicting that number than early BB estimates. Not only that, the theory itself has "problems":

[astro-ph/0412276] On the absence of gravitational lensing of the cosmic microwave background

 

[NGC 6712]

You didn't actually answer my question.

Go find a extragalactic background complete spectrum and from that calculate how much the CMB contributes versus the rest of the spectrum. Whether you use energy, photon number or entropy you get differing numbers but the results all imply the same thing.

It's a very SMALL part of the WHOLE energy spectrum, and not the only one that produces a relatively homogenous background.

See above.

Furthermore, estimates of the effect of starlight on the molecules in space were actually MUCH closer to predicting that number than early BB estimates.

It wasn't starlight affecting the molecules for the most part it was the CMB. The temperature inferred from CN molecules by McKellar in the 1940's was not a guess at a primordial background temperature - even though that leap could have been made.

ps

Nice use of a way out of date (in this field) reference. Lensing of the CMB was not really expected to be picked out by WMAP (it is a very difficult signature to pick out) - wait for the Planck mission result analysis.

 

[mkatzwork]

Boy are you behind, Michael. The effect is very weak, as would be expected, but still observed, and the Planck data is what should really be interesting.

[1205.0474] Non-Gaussian structure of the lensed CMB power spectra covariance matrix

[1204.3789] Cosmic Microwave Background Bispectrum from the Lensing--Rees-Sciama Correlation Reexamined: Effects of Non-linear Matter Clustering

[1202.0546] A measurement of gravitational lensing of the microwave background using South Pole Telescope data

[1111.3357] WMAP anomaly : Weak lensing in disguise

[astro-ph/0601594] Weak Gravitational Lensing of the CMB

and so on and so forth.

 

[[serious]]

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/431060main_dragons-map-full.jpg

Why even pick ONE particular wavelength in the first place, particularly if you intend to subtract out all the sources in our galaxy and all the point sources?

Of course you'll get a relatively "homogenous" distribution because "scattering happens" on many wavelengths. What's up with selecting ONE and ONLY one and claiming that's such a special "background"?

one wavelength? I'm pretty sure you just made that up.

WMAP has sensors for 5 different wavelengths.

 

[Michael]

one wavelength? I'm pretty sure you just made that up.

WMAP has sensors for 5 different wavelengths.

Wow, 5 whole wavelengths out of an INFINITE spectrum AFAIK.

Like I said, it's virtually ARBITRARY that they picked those few wavelengths in the first place. It's clear from the RAW images that stars and galaxies release these wavelengths, hence the need to "filter out' all the foreground aspects of the image to get a "processed image". That processed image simply shows the AVERAGE emissions due to SCATTERING in the ISM and the IGM. We see nearly the EXACTLY SAME EFFECT in gamma rays. Stars release various wavelengths of light and scattering happens in plasma over distance. So what?

 

[Michael]

Boy are you behind, Michael. The effect is very weak, as would be expected, but still observed, and the Planck data is what should really be interesting.

[1205.0474] Non-Gaussian structure of the lensed CMB power spectra covariance matrix

[1204.3789] Cosmic Microwave Background Bispectrum from the Lensing--Rees-Sciama Correlation Reexamined: Effects of Non-linear Matter Clustering

[1202.0546] A measurement of gravitational lensing of the microwave background using South Pole Telescope data

[1111.3357] WMAP anomaly : Weak lensing in disguise

[astro-ph/0601594] Weak Gravitational Lensing of the CMB

and so on and so forth.

Hey, thanks for those links.

I would expect that light from distant stars in distant galaxies would necessarily experience lensing like any wavelength of light. Its virtually a requirement that it be there, so I was in fact surprised it wasn't observed.

I'm so far behind on my reading material, I think I'll simply take your word for it.

 

[NGC 6712]

Wow, 5 whole wavelengths out of an INFINITE spectrum AFAIK.

Like I said, it's virtually ARBITRARY that they picked those few wavelengths in the first place. It's clear from the RAW images that stars and galaxies release these wavelengths, hence the need to "filter out' all the foreground aspects of the image to get a "processed image". That processed image simply shows the AVERAGE emissions due to SCATTERING in the ISM and the IGM. We see nearly the EXACTLY SAME EFFECT in gamma rays. Stars release various wavelengths of light and scattering happens in plasma over distance. So what?

Stop it Michael - just stop it. The ignorance quota has been far exceeded. Just what it is you actually do for a living? Because if it is technical related I'd be shocked.

Go read up on instrumentation because you are just embarrassing yourself with the ignorance exhibited on here.

Also you might want to take a class in EM and Radiation Theory because your knowledge of scattering seems infantile as well.

edit:

You sell software/hardware - figures.

 

[[serious]]

Wow, 5 whole wavelengths out of an INFINITE spectrum AFAIK.

Like I said, it's virtually ARBITRARY that they picked those few wavelengths in the first place. It's clear from the RAW images that stars and galaxies release these wavelengths, hence the need to "filter out' all the foreground aspects of the image to get a "processed image". That processed image simply shows the AVERAGE emissions due to SCATTERING in the ISM and the IGM. We see nearly the EXACTLY SAME EFFECT in gamma rays. Stars release various wavelengths of light and scattering happens in plasma over distance. So what?

It would cost too much to send infinite sensors you know.

And again, the word "background" has a meaning. The foreground is by definition not the background.

How does that scattering explain the findings of WMAP?

 

[NGC 6712]

How does that scattering explain the findings of WMAP?

It doesn't. Michael does not understand scattering to begin with. He bandies the word about and that sums it up to be honest. He has no idea seemingly when scattering is and is not important depending upon the wavelength being discussed.

 

[[serious]]

It doesn't. Michael does not understand scattering to begin with. He bandies the word about and that sums it up to be honest. He has no idea seemingly when scattering is and is not important depending upon the wavelength being discussed.

I think you might be right.

 

[Michael]

It doesn't. Michael does not understand scattering to begin with. He bandies the word about and that sums it up to be honest. He has no idea seemingly when scattering is and is not important depending upon the wavelength being discussed.

Typical BS. When you can't handle the debate at the level of science, attack the messenger.

 

[NGC 6712]

Typical BS. When you can't handle the debate at the level of science, attack the messenger.

Rubbish Michael - you never put any science in your comments - never a calculation or numbers to show why something is wrong. It's all waffle and half or poorly understood buzzwords from you. Since there is no science in your posts what else is there to do than attack the message for being what it is - hot air and harmless bluster.

You aren't a scientist - you haven't the training or the knowledge and that is painfully evident in your posts. You think science is some artsy fartsy list of buzzwords and argument by picture. There is no depth to your understanding - no expertise in making actual calculations.

 

[Tiberius]

Why do you accept or reject this or that scientific theory?

For me I am lucky enough to enjoy science and was good at it when I did it at school. Still I can't possibly accept or reject various theories based on my own full assessment of the theories. Nevertheless, based on my understanding of the scientific method and how science works I find it reasonable to accept scientific consensus as approximate truth. Of course this takes more than accepting what any one scientist says at any one time. This would also be my roughly my method for other subjects as well.

So what I want to ask to those who have high doubts about things like evolution and climate change, is why is this? Why do you consider it reasonable to accept the word of non-scientists or a tiny minority of scientists over the majority? Is this based on the assumption that you are able weed out the incorrect theories without the appropriate training?

Simply put, the reason I accept science is because scientific theories produce testable predictions and are able to withstand rigorous testing.

If it can't do these two things, I see no reason to accept it as true.

 

[Michael]

Rubbish Michael - you never put any science in your comments - never a calculation or numbers to show why something is wrong.

The last time I handed you a quantified presentation, you called the guy an 'idiot' as I recall based on ONE sentence in the abstract that was technically "ok". You didn't even bother to read it, let alone pick out any mathematical flaws! Talk about pure denial of the facts.

The one thing I've noticed over the past 7 years of online debates with astronomers is that they know absolutely nothing about fair, honest scientific debate. Their denial based behaviors are followed up with a healthy dose of personal attack, personal attack and more PERSONAL ATTACK. That's sort your cults way of keeping the masses in line evidently. What you can't achieve via honest scientific debate, you simply achieve with verbal abuse! Not a very nice cult.

I think I've probably listed 20 or so QUANTIFIED presentations related to electric sun theory in that thread too, and and many quantified presentations related to PC/EU theory that have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with "bashing the mainstream dogma".

What you will notice eventually, is that I level my "attacks" at ideas like inflation by pointing out that Penrose DID THAT MATH you hold so dear. He BLEW AWAY inflation theory.

Haters however tend to attack PEOPLE, not IDEAS. What kind of "Christian" are you anyway?

 

[Michael]

It would cost too much to send infinite sensors you know.

Sure, but you must see my point. You're virtually arbitrarily picking one small subset of the entire energy spectrum to come with an "average temperature" of "spacetime". Even if we IGNORE those gamma ray background signatures for a moment, it's clear that stars and galaxies emit these wavelengths of light. Many theoretical models about the effects of starlight on material in space came MUCH closer to the actual background temperature of spacetime than early BB theories did! Today however, all we hear is a fixation on ONE small subset of wavelengths, and NO acknowledgement whatsoever of the ELECTRICAL DISCHARGES that release most of the HIGHER energy wavelengths.

The bottom line is that Thomson scattering happens in plasma and most of the known matter in the universe (98+ percent) is found in the plasma state. It's therefore only natural to expect scattering effects. It's also natural expect that energy exchanges in between photons and atoms and neutrino and atoms will in fact create a "average temperature' of space that really has nothing whatsoever to do with "inflation". It's just an interaction process between traveling kinetic energy in the form of photons and neutrinos and the elements and molecules in the IGM and ISM. Compton (QM) scattering also has a known effect over distance.

And again, the word "background" has a meaning. The foreground is by definition not the background.

My point is that the "point sources" for these particular wavelengths (and MOST other wavelengths) are ordinary suns like our own sun. We can see that our galaxy shines quite brightly in the raw images. Like raw of images at the gamma ray spectrum, they show the effects of those point sources and the effects of Thompson (and QM) scattering over distance.

How does that scattering explain the findings of WMAP?

Part of the photons we see are simply scattering effects from photons interacting with things in the IGM and ISM. Part of those photons come from molecules and elements that have been heated by other photons that have been absorbed into that material from starlight. NONE of those photons has EVER been empirically (cause/effect) linked to "inflation", or 'dark energy' or "dark matter" in any controlled physical experiment. We CAN however empirically link those wavelengths and many other wavelengths to scattering effects in plasma and to the heating effects of photons on particles in the ISM and IGM.

The bottom line is that every "link" to that "spectrum" in mainstream belief is an 'act of faith' on the part of the believer, not just in ONE unseen entity (in the lab), but no less than THREE of them. Sorry, I just don't buy it. There are already "simpler" ways to explain it IMO.

[astro-ph/0401420] Redshift of photons penetrating a hot plasma

 

[Michael]

Simply put, the reason I accept science is because scientific theories produce testable predictions and are able to withstand rigorous testing.

Some do, some don't. It depends on what kind of 'science' we're talking about. String theory for instance produces no "testable" predictions that I am aware of that would distinguish it uniquely from any other theory. It's still considered to be 'science' even though it proposes MULTIPLE additional dimensions, none of which can be empirically shown to exist.

If it can't do these two things, I see no reason to accept it as true.

Is string theory "true"? Is it a part of 'science'?