Method for accepting science

[NGC 6712]

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.

I read all of his papers on arxiv - which I bet is more than you have.

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.

The one thing I have noticed in the last 20 years of online debate on these topics is that lay people arguing science almost never have a clue about it. They have cherry picked little snippets here and there but fail to see the large amount of background knowledge that goes with these snippets. They invariably (as you almost always do) take a popular article and a picture or two - misunderstand the implications (because of the lack of background knowledge and ability to put into context) - and then argue and argue based upon this poor foundation.

As I said in a prior post - if a plumber was told to replace using copper pipe with tubes of pasta he'd think the person saying that was an ill informed idiot whose opinion on plumbing is worthless. All you amateur dabblers are the equivalent of pasta pushers for the plumbing industry.

You don't have the nuts and bolts expertise in the physics and mathematics - you haven't the background in the literature that allows you to sort the wheat from the chaff and put things in proper context.

One thing I have mentioned several times is for you to LOOK AT THE NUMBERS. Get a calculator out and check some facts. There are solid reasons why some things are ignored in the grand scheme of things and are considered negligible for the question at hand. You fail to see this because of two reasons - one is that you probably cannot do the calculations and the second is that your lack of knowledge in the field does not allow you to see what is and what is not important.

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.

No he didn't.

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

You have no real ideas - see my plumber/pasta analogy earlier. When your "ideas" are obviously complete and utter bullcrap they are going to get short shrift. People pushing such "ideas" but never backing anything up with calculations are going to be told to get lost and get back to selling insurance or software and leave the science to those who can actually do it. There isn't a democracy of ideas here - two opinions do not have equal weight when one is complete idiocy.

 

[Michael]

I read all of his papers on arxiv - which I bet is more than you have.

Actually I can't claim to have read EVERY paper that he's posted to Arxiv. Why EXACTLY did you call him an idiot anyway if you'd read ALL of his papers?

The one thing I have noticed in the last 20 years of online debate on these topics is that lay people arguing science almost never have a clue about it.

There you go, right back to the personal attack method of debate. Pitiful, cult like, VERBAL ABUSE. Proud of your behaviors are you?

You don't have the nuts and bolts expertise in the physics and mathematics

When and HOW did you decide that about me anyway?

- you haven't the background in the literature that allows you to sort the wheat from the chaff and put things in proper context.

Your metaphysical chaff doesn't show up in the lab. It's not empirical wheat, it's mathematical chaff without empirical substance.

One thing I have mentioned several times is for you to LOOK AT THE NUMBERS. Get a calculator out and check some facts.

Been there, done that and I've cited 85 pages of 'better math' IMO.

There are solid reasons why some things are ignored in the grand scheme of things and are considered negligible for the question at hand. You fail to see this because of two reasons - one is that you probably cannot do the calculations....

HOW DID YOU DECIDE THAT? How is that even RELEVANT in terms of you finding any mathematical fault in that redshift in plasma paper I cited?

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401420

 

[NGC 6712]

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".

Stop mischaracterising. This is not what goes on and either you know that or are lying or you do not know this and thus are so uninformed you should refrain from comment.

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!

They are ignored for an overwhelming reason. Go and learn why - check a few numbers out !!!!

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.

There is not a fixation but certainly a realisation - Go check some actual numbers - do a calculation a college freshman could do !!!

Are you scared of getting pinned down trying to push a few buttons? Can you actually do any calculations? I'm not asking for the capability to do research here but just the ability to take a couple of these papers you link to and multiply a few numbers together to verify certain things?

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.

Oh dear oh dear oh dear. Go take the known matter distribution and calculate the effects of Thomson scattering and see what you get !!!!!! And then publish it and see how far it goes through peer review.

Do you even know the energy spectrum of CMB photons? Will you tell me what you expect them to scatter off and the effects of this scattering?

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.

STRAWMAN alert. What's this about CMB photons being "linked" to inflation, dark energy or dark matter. For crying out loud Michael, at least read up on the subject before typing!!!!!!

 

[NGC 6712]

When and HOW did you decide that about me anyway?

Because it is obvious you cannot - one is you never do and secondly, some things are so obvious numbers wise yet you completely miss them. You obviously read what you want into things but you never sit there and do a sanity check on the numbers.

Do you really think several thousand researchers in cosmology/extragalactic physics really are fixated with a "few small wavelengths" as you put it and ignore everything else without good reason? Get a full sky spectrum - plug some numbers in your calculator - see what they tell you.

You chaff doesn't show up in the lab. It's not empirical wheat, it's mathematical chaff without empirical substance.

Been there, done that and I've cited 85 pages of 'better math' IMO.

HOW DID YOU DECIDE THAT? How is that even RELEVANT in terms of you finding any mathematical fault in that redshift in plasma paper I cited?

Because I have never ever seen you calculate things. I have seen you challenged to this in the past on other websites and never have I seen you do this.

Please answer this: Should a plumber listen to someone suggesting replacing copper piping with tubes of pasta? Or should he dismiss him as a crank?

 

[Michael]

Because it is obvious you cannot -

No, it's not. That's your verbal abuse running AMUCK!

one is you never do

BS. I've handed you TONS of mathematical presentations. Last time I did that you called the guy an IDIOT *WITHOUT* citing a single REAL flaw in his work, certainly no MATHEMATICAL flaw! That's just pure denial of fact on your part.

and secondly, some things are so obvious numbers wise yet you completely miss them.

There's nothing OBVIOUSLY superior to your beliefs. That's just OBVIOUS trash talk.

You obviously read what you want into things but you never sit there and do a sanity check on the numbers.

When did I ever do that?

Do you really think several thousand researchers in cosmology/extragalactic physics really are fixated with a "few small wavelengths" as you put it and ignore everything else without good reason?

Yep.

Get a full sky spectrum - plug some numbers in your calculator - see what they tell you.

Here's what they tell me:

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

Because I have never ever seen you calculate things.

You mean LIVE on a website on demand? So what?

I have seen you challenged to this in the past on other websites and never have I seen you do this.

You mean I refused to present a mathematical alternative, or you've never seen me dance mathematical hat dances on a website on command?

Please answer this: Should a plumber listen to someone suggesting replacing copper piping with tubes of pasta? Or should he dismiss him as a crank?

Unless and until you can show me some actual mathematical error in Ari's work on redshift processes in plasma, or better yet, Michal's work on SR and time dilation theory, I think I'll just start dismissing YOU as a verbal abuse crank. Just out of curiosity, what other handle have you posted under that I might recognize?

 

[NGC 6712]

Yep.

Show me (with some numbers) what we are missing? Why is this important in your eyes.

You honestly think thousands of researchers are missing something important by concentrating on something insignificant? really???? LOL LOL LOL

Unless and until you can show me some actual mathematical error in Ari's work on redshift processes in plasma, or better yet, Michal's work on SR and time dilation theory, I think I'll just start dismissing YOU as a verbal abuse crank. Just out of curiosity, what other handle have you posted under that I might recognize?

You just pulled a bait and switch - I do not have the time to chase down every crank physics paper.

We are talking here about the CMB and you arguing other wavelengths are as important and me telling you there are reasons the CMB gets a lot of attention. I mentioned getting a complete sky spectrum and throwing a couple of numbers into a calculator. You come back with some paper on plasma cosmology ideas.

 

[Michael]

Are you scared of getting pinned down trying to push a few buttons?

No, but obviously you're scared of that SR paper I handed you. You've NEVER cited a flaw in it.

Can you actually do any calculations?

Yep. So did Michal, so did Ari. Never have I seen you find any flaw in their maths. When can I expect to see you demonstrate these superior math skills and DEMONSTRATE mathematically that Michal is in fact an "idiot' as it relates to SR and GR theory? If you can't do that, I'm going to have to assume that YOU'RE the one trying to sell me on your superior plumbing skills as you try to sell me pasta tubing.

Time to put up or be quiet. If you can't find an actual mathematical flaw in Michal's work on SR theory or Ari's work on redshift, you're no "expert" at math and physics as you claim to be, you're just an expert at verbal abuse like any other sleaze artist on the internet.

 

[NGC 6712]

Let's sum it up this way.

The astrophysical community plus allied disciplines and the bean counters in Washington and elsewhere have decided to trust the professionals with the research funds. A few cranks and layman crackpots whine and moan and complain about this but it goes nowhere because anyone with even a small ability in these areas realises who is right and who is a crank. I predict 10 years from now plasma cosmology, electric sun idiocy and the like will still just have a few nuts on message boards crying foul and I predict we will have the hundreds of millions in funding and consensus of the professionals on our side. We will be the ones providing results and data that can be openly tested and you guys will be churning out ever more cranky unpublished papers and message board polemics.

Right?

 

[Michael]

Let's sum it up this way.

Let's sum it up this way: Verbally abusive haters are a dime a dozen on the internet. If you can't find a real mathematical flaw in that SR paper by Michal, I'm going to assume YOU'RE the verbally abusive idiot, not him. It's just that simple.

 

[NGC 6712]

No, but obviously you're scared of that SR paper I handed you. You've NEVER cited a flaw in it.

He contradicts himself in one of his later papers. The mathematics itself was not in any obvious error. In fact I retracted the idiot comment if you recall. What he does is not follow logically from the mathematics.

Yep. So did Michal, so did Ari. Never have I seen you find any flaw in their maths. When can I expect to see you demonstrate these superior math skills and DEMONSTRATE mathematically that Michal is in fact an "idiot' as it relates to GR theory? If you can't do that, I'm going to have to assume that YOUR the one trying to sell me on your superior plumbing skills as you try to sell me pasta tubing.

The plasma stuff I have not really gone through - there are only so many hours to spend on what is obviously considered not worth of publication by plasma physicists in the astrophysical community. Next you'll be trotting out the misunderstandings about reconnection that all the cranks have.
You performed the bait and switch here. You are the one trying the old Creationist trick of throwing up a million references and if every single one s not addressed you claim "Aha - see I told you they couldn't answer all my questions". Cheap trick Michael and one way overplayed.

What we were discussing is you claiming the community ignores the majority of "wavelengths" and concentrates on a few favoured ones because of for want of a better term conspiracy

I tell you a simple few button pushes will show you why this is not a conspiracy but you seem so unfamiliar with the quantitative side you cannot see this. And to have read so much supposedly and be unfamiliar quantitatively tells me you are either lazy or incapable.

Of course your entire modud operandi is to argue by picture and pop science articles anyway.

 

[NGC 6712]

Let's sum it up this way: Verbally abusive haters are a dime a dozen on the internet. If you can't find a real mathematical flaw in that SR paper by Michal, I'm going to assume YOU'RE the verbally abusive idiot, not him. It's just that simple.

That was not the topic here and you know it. You are performing a classic deflect attention trick here.

I don't think you read his papers (or certainly understood them) did you? I didn't claim he made a mathematical error - he contradicts himself in a later paper which shows he didn't understand his own mathematics clearly.

Show me where I said he made a mathematical error?

But why not get back on topic - show me numerically why we are wrong to concentrate on the CMB?

 

[Michael]

He contradicts himself in one of his later papers.

Which paper, which page, which paragraph, which formulas? Talk about handwaves and BS.

You performed the bait and switch here.

Huh? You're the one that called him an idiot, not me. Nobody MADE you do that. Nobody. If you can't backup your claims with real FACTS, your HATRED is just IRRATIONAL BS. What's it going to be?

You are the one trying the old Creationist trick of throwing up a million references and if every single one s not addressed you claim "Aha - see I told you they couldn't answer all my questions". Cheap trick Michael and one way overplayed.

Boloney! You keep claiming I haven't provided you with mathematical alternatives. I did! You're stuck now with either citing a REAL flaw in that work, or dealing with it, or staying in denial of the fact that I have provided you with an alternative. What's it going to be?

What we were discussing is you claiming the community ignores the majority of "wavelengths" and concentrates on a few favoured ones because of for want of a better term conspiracy

Strawman alert! I absolutely never used any such term.

I tell you a simple few button pushes will show you why this is not a conspiracy but you seem so unfamiliar with the quantitative side you cannot see this.

I didn't ask you to do any such thing. I asked you to find a real flaw in the paper I cited on redshift and/or that SR paper I handed you. If you can't do these things, then you have no right to accuse me of anything.

And to have read so much supposedly and be unfamiliar quantitatively tells me you are either lazy or incapable.

You're either too lazy or simply incapable of citing an actual flaw in that SR paper or that redshift paper. Therefore you go right back to the personal attacks. Pitiful. What exactly makes you a "Christian" anyway? It certainly isn't based upon on you MATH skills.

Of course your entire modud operandi is to argue by picture and pop science articles anyway.

I handed you two papers full of math to review, neither one of which you've found any ACTUAL flaw with. What should that tell me about your actual mathematical talents anyway? I know what it tells me about your concept of "Christianity" and "Christian tolerance" for competing ideas.

 

[NGC 6712]

Let's sum it up this way:

Plasma cosmology and electric sun cranks - no funding
Astrophysics community - a few billion

Plasma cosmology and electric sun cranks - unpublished amateurs or ppl out of their field of expertise
Astrophysics community - thousands of active researchers almost all directly qualified in their field of study

Hmmm - I wonder why we get the funding?

 

[Michael]

Plasma cosmology and electric sun cranks - no funding

Lerner seems to be well funded. Peratt is/was gainfully employed at Los Alamos for most of his career. They gave Alfven the Nobel Prize during his lifetime. What the hell are you talking about?

Eric Lerner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://www.ieee.org/organizations/pubs/newsletters/npss/0306/peratt.html

A real "scientist" would show the actual mathematical flaw in that SR paper and/or that redshift paper before dismissing them out of hand or calling anyone an "idiot". A sleaze artist/hater will keep running from that question.

What's it going to be?

 

[NGC 6712]

Huh? You're the one that called him an idiot, not me. Nobody MADE you do that. Nobody. If you can't backup your claims with real FACTS, you're HATRED is just IRRATIONAL BS. What's it going to be?

Strawman alert! I absolutely never used any such term.

I said for want of a better term - BUT that was your implication - in fact I can regurgitate a post of yours where you admit this.

I handed you two papers full of math to review, neither one of which you've found any ACTUAL flaw with. What should that tell me about your actual mathematical talents anyway? I know what it tells me about your concept of "Christianity" and "Christian tolerance" for competing ideas.

You have room to talk Michael - there is a reason you get banned off almost every forum and it isn't by playing nice.

And the thing that irritates you is that you know I actually work in this area of science.

And you are in classic "scientology like" deflect attention mode right now. I will show you later (when I have the time) where the relativity guy contradicts himself - something I know you wouldn't have had a chance of spotting. The plasma stuff I doubt I'll look at to be honest because I know this stuff is pretty much unpublished for a reason - the "pasta" reason.

 

[jpcedotal]

I think he would rather just make fun.

 

[NGC 6712]

Lerner seems to be well funded. Peratt is/was gainfully employed at Los Alamos for most of his career. They gave Alfven the Nobel Prize during his lifetime. What the hell are you talking about?

Lerner gets no funding for plasma cosmology (unless private and I doubt even that) - since it is crank nonsense. Alfven did not get any prizes for cosmology and bloody hell, how far back are you willing to go? Aristarchus? Ptolemy? And Perratt wasn't getting funded for cosmology/galaxy simulations either or if he did it was very briefly when it was realised his simulations looked nothing like galaxies or would not exhibit the properties of galaxies.

A real "scientist" would show the actual mathematical flaw in that SR paper or that redshift paper. A sleaze artist/hater will keep running from that question.

Already answered.

Why don't you show you can even talk in a sensible manner on these topics - put up some actual numbers as to why we are wrong - why we are ignoring "wavelengths" etc.

Michael - you sell software/hardware for crying out loud - you get all in a tizzy about some stuff you read and invest in emotionally and then when challenged about your knowledge you take offence. You always have on these forums. You know you haven't the background to argue the science quantitatively so you retreat to linking paper after paper and deflecting attention when cornered.

 

[Michael]

And the thing that irritates you is that you know I actually work in this area of science.

If you had the expertize you claim to have, you'd cite the flaw in that SR paper or that redshift paper and you would drop the personal attack nonsense. Since you can't do that, what does that tell me about your 'Scientific' usefulness?

The plasma stuff I doubt I'll look at to be honest because I know this stuff is pretty much unpublished for a reason - the "pasta" reason.

I hate to break it to you but PC/EU theories have been "published" since the time of Birkeland, then Bruce, then Alfven. It's continued through Peratt and Lerner and even I've gotten some stuff published. You're clearly clueless about PC theory BY CHOICE. Nobody but you can cure that kind of self imposed ignorance.

 

[NGC 6712]

If you had the expertize you claim to have, you'd cite the flaw in that SR paper or that redshift paper and you would drop the personal attack nonsense. Since you can't do that, what does that tell me about your 'Scientific' usefulness?

I said I will show you the contradiction. I do not have the time at the minute to post this - I said I would.

I hate to break it to you but PC/EU theories have been "published" since the time of Birkeland, then Bruce, then Alfven. It's continued through Peratt and Lerner and even I've gotten some stuff published. You're clearly clueless about PC theory BY CHOICE. Nobody but you can cure that kind of self imposed ignorance.

Not by choice - by the fact is it crap. And no I am not going to hunt down or peruse paper after paper that has been rejected by the astrophysical community. They have been rejected for a reason in the past. I do not have the professional time to do this.

Can you link me the MNRAS, ApJ, A&A or Physics Letters references for your papers?

Why do you deflect all the time? Why do you argue about a point and then all of a sudden throw up some links to unrelated papers and say "What about this then?" - you do it all the time. It's the classic throw a load of crap at the wall and hope some sticks method. You know no one has the time to hunt down everything. That is a classic idiot creationist trick.

And by the way - you did all but say it is a conspiracy to ignore "other wavelengths". Again - why do you think the CMB gets so much interest?. Show me a number a calculation as to why this shouldn't be the case.

By the way - notice I do NOT argue by link or throw up 500 of them to deflect.

 

[Michael]

Lerner gets no funding for plasma cosmology (unless private and I doubt even that) - since it is crank nonsense.

Let's review the pattern: Everyone that disagrees with you is an "idiot", or a "crank" or a "crackpot", is that it?

Alfven did not get any prizes for cosmology and bloody hell, how far back are you willing to go? Aristarchus? Ptolemy?

Nothing like ignoring the whole HISTORY of the theory.

Already answered.

Bull. You did NOT cite any REAL or specific flaw in his math. You're only fooling yourself.

Why don't you show you can even talk in a sensible manner on these topics - put up some actual numbers as to why we are wrong - why we are ignoring "wavelengths" etc.

I just did that! I showed you a paper that explains these same effects using SCATTERING processes! Holy cow! Your denial thing runs deep doesn't it? If you keep denying the fact that I gave you EXACTLY what you asked me for (a mathematical alternative), I guess you figure that I never gave it to you. Sheesh. Haters are all alike. It's a pure denial based mentality followed by a healthy dose of verbal abuse.

Michael - you sell software/hardware for crying out loud

So what? Is that an appeal to authority fallacy you're pulling out of your back pocket now?

- you get all in a tizzy about some stuff you read and invest in emotionally and then when challenged about your knowledge you take offence.

You didn't challenge any paper I've presented. You shown no special "knowledge" of the topic of PC/EU theory either. In fact you've shown PURE IGNORANCE of fact when it comes to published works on PC theory that have a 100 year history at this point.

You always have on these forums. You know you haven't the background to argue the science quantitatively so you retreat to linking paper after paper and deflecting attention when cornered.

The problem is that haters never deal with the actual material. They call the author an IDIOT yet refuse to even cite a single mathematical flaw in the work. That isn't 'science', that's sleazy behavior. When cornered with real math, you folks just get personally nastier and nastier and nastier and remain in pure denial of the papers presented. Typical hater mentality.