kristalris

Well I actually only picked up rowing when I was thirty, and copy my couch captain and rowing mate who is a former dutch champion who is very pleased with Sir Redgraves rowing. Anyway, everybody who learns changes as did Einstein. So you copy changing as well. Yet Einstein proved before hand he could hack it, Even though he couldn't as then sell it. So you still oppose integrating?

I've no qualms with this paper of Bicep2 whatsoever: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1403.3985.pdf It doesn't claim on the probandum that it supports the BB as far as I can see. It just provides the find and only puts it in as relevant on expansion. Well that it is I agree and have already agreed. This claim and several others like it: "Astronomers have found the first direct evidence of cosmic inflation, the theorized dramatic expansion of the universe that put the "bang" in the Big Bang 13.8 billion years ago, new research suggests." ​I do strongly oppose for it has no bases on stated probandum. Or in what the Biceps2 paper states. To do that it must state its claimed relative probative value in relation to all other ideas / concepts and models. The Biceps2 group is under obligation thus to publicly refute these claims that they as far as I can see haven't made. ​It is a rule of logic and thus also mathematics that the probative value is relative and thus as strong as its weakest link. You can only state and support an integral model such as BB on an integral basis. Logic dictates that that basis can only be as strong as its weakest link. Well then where is this integral basis from which we can compare any model, let alone mine? I've given an integral basis including BTW the instruments between the ears.You lot left that out. You should be red-shifted for shame of doing that. And please don't tell me you are already up to scratch on that instrumentation. And why is it then that an old lawyer like I can run intellectual rings around you lot, as my rowing team does with students in rowing, even though I admit having limited knowledge on mathematics and cosmology etc.? Because I heed the basic lessons that can be learnt from Einstein and Sir Redgrave etc.. You lot don't. ​Now first integrate then compare, otherwise go back to your old or a better mathematics teacher to ask if you can state integral positions without integrating. So Biceps2 has claimed nothing on BB and so also works for me (and others that are consistent).

You copy all of Steve Redgrave the early one and the later one. With Einstein ditto. Learn rowing the way Sis Steve did. learn to get to grips with Nature the way Einstein did. He of course had to ultimately conform to the rules laid out by those who didn't understand him as he himself also stated. And he didn't understand what the mathematicians did either as he stated as well. The rest of your post I'll react to in reaction to Bignose.

Indeed, I agree bad sales department. Even when I'm only claiming to be 1/1000th of an Einstein, being a totally different personality altogether yet belonging to a 10% of the population then that indeed still happens. Effectively thus preventing to learn from Einstein, or any other creative genius like say Leonardo da Vinci with his helicopter parachute etc how it should be done. That is thus anti-scientific if you do that, isn't it? When I row I copy Steven Redgrave, and I compare my rowing to his in the sense that I try at my best to emulate that. That is something different than actually thinking my rowing is in anyway up to par with his. You, like most people BTW (so don't feel bad), are mirroring: i.e. projecting yourself on me and judging me. Namely implying I'm a crackpot i.e. mad. Yet what do you know of psychiatry at all? What do you claim in that respect? In effect in current psychology it thus says more about you than me. Now prove that you can also look on this question in a relative way. Bet you can't. And what would that prove? Apart from that you lot have only via me just learnt and in part acknowledged the need to look into the instrumentation between the ears in respect to BB and BICEPS2 etc. Now you are suddenly an expert implying me being a crackpot? Well in my new DSM VI, I indeed am, yet everybody is, except people who for instance suddenly kill anyone and eat them I.e. far less than 1% of the population instead of the DSM V 47.5%. They are then the normal ones. I might still have some teething problems with that model though. Maybe some mathematics can solve it, like the mathematics involved in DSM V? Now Swantsont asked earlier on where I got the numbers from. (I'll react to him later on) The problem there is it is not sufficiently published by psychologists on internet. So you will have to buy a standard textbook on basic psychology. Any that accepts the Big Five will in principle do. I have had long discussions with an assessment psychologist and two scientists working on the currently hot theme of creativity. A basic problem is also that psychologists don't publish their raw data via open source. They do this I guess because then they will fall through that their research is in effect no more than collective educated guesswork. Nothing wrong with that, yet there is in claiming that it is more than that. In effect they don't get further than the above mentioned six year old puzzle. The question at hand is however very simple, lest Bignose again claims that I'm clouding the issue: Does BICEP2 provide as much evidence in favor of BB as it does in respect to any other position taken in science? (= the probandum and thus topic of this thread) I say it logically doesn't when you can't prove that you put equal effort in the other positions as far as these positions are still consistent with the BICEPS2 find. If you lot differ than that is pseudo scientific with or without mathematics, for mathematics can't help you there. As your mathematics teacher should of taught you. Yet if your logic is on the authority of the book / bible you hold in authority as paradigm and not on the stated goal i.e. the probandum and topic of the thread. You will then as the science on the instruments between the ears show go in a loop of reasoning that you must stick to the paradigm in order to change the paradigm. Acquiring as with BICEPS2 ever more relevant evidence on the topic but not being able to differentiate between BB, Champagne bubble cosmology or any other idea or model in a logical way. Mathematics won't help you other than pointing towards the need to integrate - being the central theme of Champagne bubble cosmology. Yet for that you have to first solve the six year old puzzle. Indeed as Einstein showed you, but you won't look. You don't have to be an Einstein to do that. You lot are not integrating but disintegrating the puzzle. DE, DM, BICEPS2, BB, GR & QM anyone going to try and integrate the coming 100 years without just fear of getting Arped? Anyway: you lot prove - YOUR! - probandum. Not mine, I just point out that you lot failed at that and show you how you should go about it. The latter I don't have to prove it is basic.

Writing a half century later in 1946 in his Autobiographical Notes, Einstein recounted a thought experiment conducted while he was a 16 year old student in 1896 that marked his first steps towards special relativity. "...a paradox upon which I had already hit at the age of sixteen: If I pursue a beam of light with the velocity c (velocity of light in a vacuum), I should observe such a beam of light as an electromagnetic field at rest though spatially oscillating. There seems to be no such thing, however, neither on the basis of experience nor according to Maxwell's equations. From the very beginning it appeared to me intuitively clear that, judged from the standpoint of such an observer, everything would have to happen according to the same laws as for an observer who, relative to the earth, was at rest. For how should the first observer know or be able to determine, that he is in a state of fast uniform motion? One sees in this paradox the germ of the special relativity theory is already contained." Well, according to Einstein it was earlier when he was 16 and done intuitively. Exactly what I'm now doing. Yet I've a much more easy starting position with much more relevant data. Yet something science has missed up on grasping. No. When we have five suspects for a murder and we know only one person could of committed the crime and the culprit has O positive blood. Having then tested all five suspects only three of which have O positive not enhance the probability of these three being the culprit and lower the probability of the other? And, as you see I don't need numbers on P to pull that bit of logical reasoning off. What you've done in the BICEP2 experiment is reason we have say five potential suspects, We got in a result that only one suspect mr Big Bang is the true suspect because we tested him O positive via our BICEPS2 method, even would you believe it with a quantifiable method. The others we didn't test and therefor aren't true suspects and can thus be ignored. We will only continue the investigation only with suspect BB. Simple error in reasoning. Now on intuitively doing it correctly a la Einstein you need an instrument between the ears that can actually think independently of any authority: i.e. is open minded as personality trait. Otherwise it won't work. You need to be creative. You take all data in its purist essence and ask your instrument between the ears the right questions. Above average good guessers will strike good ideas that fit the criteria that you should be using. A thought experiment to explain how that works: Go to a puzzle shop and buy three puzzles of the Mona Liza representing MN of 1 m2^ each.. One for ages 6, (12 piece puzzle) one for ages 12 (500 piece puzzle)and one for experts (5000 piece puzzle).. Now have three identical diner tables and three low tables. Put the 6 and 12 year old puzzles together and glue the 12 year puzzle on top of the 6 year old puzzle. In such a way that the 6 year puzzle can still be used. Then split the 6 year puzzle in half. Then remove all the bits of the 12 year puzzle that are sticking out of the 6 year old puzzle. Keep the snit bits. And paint the side red of both halves. Now place one of the halves on one high table and the other on the second high table with the third high table in-between. Take a pen and write QM on one half and GR on the other. Let a little apple with an arrow pointing down on each puzzle piece. Then turn GR 90 degrees. Then take a piece out of the GR or QM puzzle with snitbits missing, and replicate it. Write massive gravity exerting absolutely straight flying photon on it. With a picture of a galloping unicorn to go with it.And cut part of it away to represent a non fit. Then on the other piece write a massive red-shift in the turn accelerating back to c photon, not exerting gravity. also with a galloping unicorn. The table tops represent part of the instrument between the ears. What I've done is take out the galloping unicorn photon replace it with the other galloping unicorn and turn and slide the GR towards QM (or vice versa) for a 6 year old puzzle fit. Indeed the twelve year fit isn't done yet, other than writing the other galloping unicorn on the snitbits my two particles >c in absolute nothing. It indeed is not an accurate fit yet it shows you the red line where you should start looking. What science is doing is taking the third table out replacing it with a low table slide the puzzle of the table and say: see it disintegrates. And science painstakingly fits a snitbit to one or both of the puzzles by extrapolating mathmatics. Indeed eventually you will get there. BICEP2 provides a new snitbit. The fact that it is accurate says nothing towards the proof of BB as I've already shown you. This is the way you solve a crime scene or find a lost Boeing 777. You first try to find the haystack via the six year old puzzle method. Only after which do you try and find the needle. The latter is a lot of work yet to be done on the expert puzzle. The only thing the simple puzzle as a intuitive tool does, is give you oversight in order to see where to look. Ultimately you will have to look even closer at a higher norm than you are applying now. You are working a twelve year puzzle with bits missing. My six year old puzzles has an integral fit in verbal logic. That is sufficient and points you where to start looking. Yet then with the expert puzzle norm and not the twelve year old norm. Having a extremely orderly glacier of the crystal moving down and a massive photon thus holding course is a beautiful fit of the six year old puzzle. It dictates a predicable yet to be exactly predicted polarization. It is the intuitive integral art of making a testable scenario as an elegant composition. Integration comes first as Einstein showed you accuracy comes later as he also showed you. Yet in an unsafe environment non open-minded instruments simply fail for fear. It simply doesn't compute, unless an authority (book, pope, whatever) says so. You simply don't have the right matching table height.If you like you can switch the heights the other way round for the one personality isn't more intelligent than the other. They are different that is all.

Indeed that proves that the prediction has been very accurately been proven to be true. Now then the instrument between the ears extremely probably on the basis of what is known about the workings thereof in an unsafe environment goes into interpretation mode: on average 80% of astronomers (under very extreme danger than less than 1% will dare to differ) say that this thus provides evidence for the BB model from which the accurate prediction stems. Thereby simply ignoring even denying the logical truth that it also provides evidence for any other model that is consistent with the find. Even if that model needs adjustment; as long as the probability of the model after adjustment can be said to have risen after correction. I.e. become more simple, or more elegant or covering a vaster ground. It is a simple error in reasoning namely a self fulfilling professy to state that the model that has the mathematics or more supportive accurate data is the better model. For by denying the alternate the possibility to do research i.e. pulling Arp cs from behind the telescope or not funding the other, the alternates simply can't compete. Not only that, the Arp affair even when now 25 years back has very probably started off a BB in production modus as our knowledge on this instrument between the brain teaches us: if you are pro BB you get a good carrier as an astronomer, you get more time and funding get better results and thus compound the wrong idea that BB is correct because of that. It becomes ever stronger. It is in fact simple statistics that models such as these over time become more and more dominant even though they are probably wrong. The same goes for say DSM V having over time become the dominant model in psychiatry having at the moment 47,5% of the population suffering from some sort of madness. Also our Einsteins, and Newtons are deemed mad. They are told that they have a mental deficiency and disorder and need to take Ritalin. In stead of providing creatively intelligent education you damage via this pseudo scientifically based DSM model these essential instruments between the ears and have them become either depressed bad janitors, clerks or junks or ending up in the looney bin, instead of behind the telescope solving the bloody problem. DSM like BB become over time more and more dominant. The cure for this situation starts by identifying the problem. No one dares to integrate anymore hence we get more and more accurate data that seems to conflict with everything. Which is very much predictable. Instead of converging on a solution you more and more will diverge. That is if you don't start to properly integrate everything including the proper use of the instrument between the ears. In principle correct use of the instrument is very simple, yet because we are already in a downward spiral the taboo character of it, combined with to high expectations and ingrained value systems, makes it extremely difficult / dangerous to penetrate. If you like I can go deeper into the workings of that instrument between the ears. It will be for some if they actually go to a - good- ergo creatively intelligent - ergo open-minded psychologist for a personal assessment an eyeopener. I.e. are you what you think you are? An Einstein type looks on mentioned data (depending on the amount of knowledge experience of that brain) in a totally different way than say a Dirac type brain (ditto experience and knowledge input). The first supporting a non BB and the latter a BB model say. BTW I'm fairly convinced that it all is very much more DNA and interaction of DNA driven than is politically correct to state. This doesn't however mean that I thus support DSM or other rigid systems. DSM is namely more rigid then our data based knowledge allows it to be. It becomes a dangerous and damaging model in the hands of not open-minded people simply applying it all over the place. In the hands of open-minded research types it is far less of a problem. They don't take it to seriously. Because not everything in DSM is wrong. ADD types (like Einstein) do exist yet it is no deficiency or disorder. Only when you place our Einstein in a boring schoolroom does it become that. And, don't make him a janitor (for I guess caretaker might puzzle you). If he couples ADD to a low EQ he will probably be unhappy, and otherwise a happy sloppy janitor. But certainly not mad, just out of place. He's a thinker, a daydreamer if you don't put his instrument between the ears in focus on a problem. A good janitor is on the ball and happy in a happy building where there never is a light that is broken. For when you go to the janitor to report it he will say that it isn't so, you check and low and behold the light works. Magic?

Oh I agree wholeheartedly with Jimmy Wales and the rules of Wikipedia. On the rules: you have the few important basic rules, with hardly any exceptions, then you have the important guidelines as rules that you need to explain why you deviate from these communis opinio rules and you have your non-rules for the people who are in training, the uninterested and the limited of required talent to that rule. (You as I will show you later on are in breach of the basic rules. Yet / because you only adhere to the communis opinio rules.) The reason why this discussion is IMO on topic in a thread on cosmology is that astronomers don't frequent fora on philosophy, psychology for deemed wishy washy non exact scientific. Because the discusion is then not on the instrumentation between the ears we get the Arp problem. Even given that Arp was a complete loony, crackpot and yet to be proven completely wrong then still the way he was treated 25 years or so ago in Astronomy causes serious disaray in the instrumentation involved in reaching the stated goal of providing evidence and proof of BB or any alternate. How much knowledge do you claim in relation to the instrument between the ears of the Astronomers in general at the moment? Are you certain it has no baring. Based on what your expertise in that field? Guess not, put please put forward your claim. Given the Arp affair alone how do you possibly hope to prove let alone even make plausible that the entire pro BB lobby comunis opinio is not a whopping confirmation bias? You can't. For only by giving Arp cum suis maximum support could you - scientifically according to its basic RULES! - have done that. Astronomers first have to make amends like Desmond Tutu and Nelson Mandela. If you don't you simply don't understand the instrumentation between the ears and how that interacts even with astronomers. At least if they are humans. There is evidence to that effect I guess, but do correct me if I'm wrong. Apart from that I think Arp cum suis was on the right track, though I guess his instrumentation apart from that between the ears was simply not up to it, or he wasn't given enough time and collective support to pull it off. No bloody way you can disprove that. Indeed the problem isn't just in astronomy, it is also rampant in psychology (proof: DSM V => 47,5% populace is mad.) and law (hence my point) etc (it's in our DNA but that is politically incorrect to say but he, sue me or Arp me). Yet in this thread all instrumentation must thus be on topic. The astronomers involved need to know / at least discuse this point if they want to claim evidence of BICEP2 on BB.

Short answer: see the link to Marmet and what I claimed on my model and the way to test it. It is my claim. Yet I'll explain it to you more in full, yet that is a longer response to what you posted earlier.

No, what I'm saying is, that there is an unsafe environment in general. Of course I'm not saying that you three are the cause of it. Yet oddly enough it is a taboo subject in this thread so I'll leave it at that. What I am saying is that the unsafe environment clearly prevails to this day if you look at the quote I gave on this subject by Marmet in 2013 and the way he sees it necessary to tiptoe through the tulips lest he hits some over sensitive toes. You place the Arp situation in a context of who was right and who was wrong. That you shouldn't do. To create a safe environment the way people acted towards one and other should even after twenty years talk about the way in which they had the debate. I.e. about the way in which we treated each other and the way we should do so. That has in itself nothing to do with who is right or wrong. Well on the correctness or incorrectness of Arps model well baring him from further research certainly prevented him proving himself right. The thesis only shines through giving maximum support to the anti-thesis. In this case Arp cs. An extremely serious breach of correct scientific procedure still to this day thwarting any BB claim to correctness. Who dares oppose after that debacle? On my model I'll react to YodaP lateron. Yes, you were off topic because on topic was until it got split off just now the instrument between the ears that needs to be integrated yet is scientifically taboo. Funny concept the latter especially in the context of your demanded clarification. The nitpicking on what Arp etc. was or wasn't about is and was indeed off topic. Nitpicking that you continue to do even in the light of what I just showed you I guess creates an unsafe environment. Why is that? The topic is champagne bubble cosmology in light of the BICEPS find and is thus on all red-shift CMB and otherwise for that is were the answer lies and that is how you can see already see that it is a fallacy to state that BICEPS2 find provides evidence in support of the BB. But I'll go into that in this my thread further in reaction to YodaP.

OK (just read BTW that "OK" is the most used "word" in the world and it has its anniversary today.) BTW you mentioned something about a quote function being switched off? Is it ok if it stays off? Usually when I change things in my computer or receive updates sometimes the bloody thing goes haywire.

Swansont your question in #37 although off topic IMO requires a reaction I’m told. Okay here it is. BTW the first link was given in my first reaction. http://www.astr.ua.edu/keel/galaxies/arp.html The title already reads: as you could of read by simply reading the already provided caption all bold markings and …. And underlining mine: Alternate Approaches and the Redshift Controversy, it would have been a pointer. “ Much of our understanding of the physics of AGN depends on knowing their absolute properties (luminosities, size scales) and thus their distances. There is a small but vocal school which claims that much of the redshift of QSOs (at least) arises not in the Hubble flow but in exotic physical processes, and thus that redshift distances to (some?) QSOs are nonsense. This point of view has been defended in Arp's book (Quasars, Redshifts, and Controversies, Interstellar Media, Berkeley, later joined by Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science), with some of his best cases. ………. There has been much fruitless discussion of what might appear a straightforward statistical problem - …………………….. If any of these claims hold up, extragalactic astronomy is in for a real shock. We will examine the direct issues individually, hoping to avoid the "oh yes it is - oh no it's not" tone of many published papers. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/07/science/space/halton-c-arp-astronomer-who-challenged-big-bang-theory-dies-at-86.html?_r=0 A vast majority of astronomers dismissed Dr. Arp’s results as coincidences or optical illusions. But his data appealed to a small, articulate band of astronomers who supported a rival theory of the universe called Steady State and had criticized the Big Bang over the decades. Among them were Fred Hoyle of Cambridge University, who had invented the theory, and Geoffrey Burbidge, a witty and acerbic astrophysicist at the University of California, San Diego. Dr. Arp survived both of them. “When he died, he took a whole cosmology with him,” said Barry F. Madore, The redshift controversy came to a boil in 1972, when Dr. Arp engaged in a debate, arranged by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, with John N. Bahcall, a young physicist at the Institute for Advanced Study. Timothy Ferris described the event in his book “The Red Limit” (1977): “When the debate was over, it was difficult not to be impressed with Arp’s sincerity and his love for the mysterious galaxies he studied, but it was also difficult to feel that his case had suffered anything short of demolition.” As Dr. Arp’s colleagues lost patience with his quest, he was no longer invited to speak at major conferences, and his observing time on the mighty 200-inch telescope began to dry up. Warned in the early 1980s that his research program was unproductive, he refused to change course. Finally, he refused to submit a proposal at all on the grounds that everyone knew what he was doing. He got no time at all. Dr. Arp took early retirement and joined the Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics near Munich, where he continued to promote his theories. He told his own side of the redshift story in a 1989 book, “Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies.” Cosmologist Michael Turner of the University of Chicago in Illinois quips, “Precision cosmology is hard; accurate cosmology is even harder.” http://www.nature.com/news/cosmologists-at-odds-over-mysterious-anomalies-in-data-from-early-universe-1.14368 http://www.marmet.org/cosmology/redshift/mechanisms.pdf This shows what the topic is in this thread on red-shift, as already pointed out: here too a quote of more recent date that shows that the heat is potentially still on, on what I was yammering about as you so aptly put it, already proving my point BTW: “David Dilworth convinced me to add my own critique for each mechanism instead of giving an otherwise neutral observation. After all, if my colleagues can’t stand the heat of critique, particularly from a sympathetic ear, how can their idea ever stand the test of open review?” Now why would he of written that if he doesn’t believe in the danger of a bitter fight over red-shift with gross consequences? There was more that I can’t find just now with three monkeys at the end on sweeping the problem under the carpet. Can’t find it at the moment. Anyway the Arp history is in itself ample proof of my point on an issue concerning unmentionable instruments with grave effect. In that sense the link to the Nature paper and the other quote is given. What you need to understand is that the discussion in fact was fought over is on the applicable norm. Namely too low! More accuracy and precision was asked for by Arp c.s.. Just what you and Big nose are lamenting on towards me. Now I’ll go into that in my reaction to YodaP. Satisfied your question? You are in an unsafe environment. Why did you ask it BTW?

The topic is champagne-bubble-cosmology split off in lieu of the Biceps2 find. Champagne bubble cosmology is based central around first integrating everything (inductive) and then disintegrating if you like in the deductive faze. The psychology is not tangent for this question at hand needs to also integrate the instrument between the ears. Now I've been thinking how to get the thread back to the actual question and at the same time get all the finds I based myself on earlier. Took me quite some time, and I've found most yet not all so I'll leave them out till I've found them all if you're still interested then. Actually this paper is going n the direction that I'm pointing. I.e. laying the groundwork for integrating everything we've got so far. So, I'll start off by providing that link to the paper. On the Interpretation of Red-Shifts: A Quantitative Comparison of Red-Shift Mechanisms Louis Marmet 6th February, 2013 http://www.marmet.org/cosmology/redshift/mechanisms.pdf For champagne bubble cosmology point 6.6 the massive photons (with mathematics) and 9.2 the tired photons are of interest. As is B. (edit I couple the medium of 9.2 to the Higgs field as you know. Wasn't found then, yet is now.) Louis Marmet only touched the one thing he didn't fully integrate the psychology, though he does abide by its rules: quote: "David Dilworth convinced me to add my own critique for each mechanism instead of giving an otherwise neutral observation. After all, if my colleagues can’t stand the heat of critique, particularly from a sympathetic ear, how can their idea ever stand the test of open review?" So I then have an intriguing question? Were the thought experiments of Einstein wishy washy? They were weren't they? Were they essential? In what aspect were they essential? I'll tell you: getting it integrated first BEFORE going into detail. Now, then what is an Einstein brain? An instrument between he ears on which we are all equally proficient? Was it only on one axes of only IQ that he excelled, such as speed of brain, or does more come into play? Yes, according to current psychology. There are even different sorts of Einstein brains. Even at every speed of brain level. Everybody up to a degree can copy the way Einstein probably used his brain, that is copy at any given speed of brain level. Yet only to a degree and dependent on the prevailing culture both micro and macro. For instance Einstein probably wouldn't of been the best intelligence for being the caretaker of the Biceps 2 institute if there is such a thing. He'd probably be unhappy and sloppy, having everyone to a degree ditto. Critique is always difficult to handle. You point at the bad side. Yet then leave out the good side. Point at the good side then you leave out the bad side. Pointing at both sides is vague wishy washy. I.e. we need to integrate. You can not but loose sight of detail when soaring up in order to get overview via thought experiments. Only after that can you go into mathematical etc. detail on these issues that encompass vast arias of science. If you get hung up on details you won't spot the possibility of distinguishing a thin red-line worth of very much closer inspection. And, lest I forget the absolutely straight flying photon of GR is also an as yet un-observed galloping unicorn. Like the gravity exerting twin photons that left a distant galaxy are also galloping unicorns. The as to be expected weak points in GR. Why does this one of the best laws of science have weak spots? It doesn't fit QM that's why. The weak spots in QM? The same as in GR I guess, including also the mass-less photon in GR and QM. See there the point where you can integrate GR to QM. I.e. the mathematics of QM and GR can still be applied in there respective fields.

You / Swansont got a direct answer in post 41 with the links provided. Please reread it. There is indeed more but I then need some more time if you want to press that point to find the better links I had again, although the ones I gave should suffice given post 41. Psychology isn't physics or mathematics old boy. The instrument between the ears sometimes gets pressed in unintended and even unexpected ways. And please bear in mind that what some feel as a safe environment feels unsafe for others. And, you misunderstand me if you think that I think that science is bad or even rotten. I don't. Indeed it needs IMO improvement. That's all. Yet essential improvement no less. I really have to go now.

Did you two think this through? If you do, it points both ways, doesn't it? Bit touchy as well though? In line of that, who is clouding the issue? Not me certainly? Pressed for time I pressed the key as Swantsont so aptly pointed out. And indeed, Bignose the poignant difference between "all" and "some". Anyway I"m certain that you both are genuinely concerned about a non bitter discourse on red-shift not turning blood red and have thus by now found the three monkeys and the sweeping under the rug references on the net, so that you are honestly satisfied as to both cherishing the thought to see my difficulty in given a reaction on YodaP's last brilliant post when I get round to it.

I indeed put in quick Google and noticed that some of the links such as the red shrimp had nothing to do with anything. Anyway I was - as now a bit pressed for time. Yet still I knew that you would start cherry picking. And that you would make a strawman. The context of BBC in lieu of the instruments between the ears, and the essential need of a safe environment for a discussion is thus the point. So I can make my point by showing either such an unsafe culture in science in general, or astronomy in general or astronomy in particular on red-shift the latter IMO inherently on BBC because IMO the need to show photons curve. Be it thus a red-shift anomaly concerning CBM or a galaxy is immaterial. The prevailing culture of an unsafe environment is the issue. As is the way the norms are applied as a result there of. Indeed to be found in at least one of the links. Or do you think that at least 80% of astronomers psyche isn't acutely aware of an even potential unsafe environment? Then you really need to brush up on your knowledge of basic psychology. If we want to investigate whether or not the universe is expanding then working together on a clearly stated common goal is as a group psychological point of view essential, to remedy this. Then you get to a near 100% cooperation, otherwise you quickly drop to only 50% or as in an unsafe environment a 10% that dare to think out of the box for a paradigm shift that is undeniably needed and the later is inherently out of the box. You simply won't get there by only thinking in the box.

Hubble's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble's_law‎ Vertaal deze pagina 3.1 Redshift velocity and recessional velocity ..... The value of the Hubble constant was the topic of a long and rather bitter controversy between Gérard de ... Alternate Approaches and the Redshift Controversy www.astr.ua.edu/keel/galaxies/arp.html‎ Vertaal deze pagina Alternate Approaches and the Redshift Controversy. Much of our understanding of the physics of AGN depends on knowing their absolute properties ...Ontbrekend: bitter Re: Dear mJournal*, 1 of 3 - Red Shift Press redshiftpress.com/dear-mjournal-1-of-3/‎ Vertaal deze pagina redshiftpress.com · Home · About Us ... In a non-bitter sort of way. Me, I have to ...Scholars debate these conflicting meanings with great vigor. 33 01:17AM 0 ... The Last Testament of Perry Raymond Russo - Red Shift Internet ... www.redshift.com/~damason/lhreport/.../perry.html‎ Vertaal deze pagina There has been quite a lot of controversy regarding the testimony and the ... The Cubans came back bitter and very determined that they would mount a second ... Quasars Prompt Debate . - Google News news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1915... - Vertaal deze pagina ense controversy in astronomy since a bitter debate spill dial normally ... had been resolved when it was proved that the a space object's redshift, the more ... W Keith Fisher: Astronomy - The Red Shift Controversy wkfisher.blogspot.com/.../astronomy-red-shift-contro...‎ Vertaal deze pagina 19 feb. 2010 - The controversy centers around the question if observed red shifts of galaxies is indicative of their velocity of recession. This controversy has ...Ontbrekend: bitter [PDF] @ issue - Apeiron redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pre2001/.../NR17ISS.P...‎ Vertaal deze pagina 17 okt. 1993 - Correspondence, conference threads and debate. ... universe expanding, we observe a redshift ..... none of the bitter acrimony usually di-. Chapter 1 THE ORIGIN OF MATTER PART 4 evolutionfacts.com/Ev-V1/1evlch01d.htm‎ Vertaal deze pagina In accord with the current theory` of redshift, quasars are called the most distant ....Debate continues as to the implications of these long-distance beacons. .... been characterized as one of the most bitter episodes in the history of astronomy. Amazon.com: Customer Reviews: Seeing Red: Redshifts ... www.amazon.com/...Red-Redshifts.../0968368905‎ Vertaal deze pagina There are abundant examples of high-redshift quasars which are physically .... in thedebates of Cosmology and physics, this book will mark a dramatic shift in ... Debate over Asian carp shifts to Congress - Peoria Journal Star www.pjstar.com/article/20140107/NEWS/.../NEWS‎ Vertaal deze pagina 7 jan. 2014 - The Corps said the measures in its report could shut down pathways for 13 potential animal and plant attackers, from the bloody red shrimp to ... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Volgende Well, you are now using Bayes. Very good. What I stated was that it is consistent and fits like a clove a words to that effect. And it does. So it proves that it is not inconsistent with the data. Not only that it provides a very nice explanation as to the why of the polarization. Bicep2 doesn't do that. The latter isn't integrated. All Bicep2 can claim is that there is more evidence in support of the - seeming - expansion of the - visible - universe. Well, that it was seemingly expanding we already agreed. And now we have more evidence for that. And again if you look at the big picture you will see that polarization is a side issue in resolving the question whether it is a CBC or a BB. Red-shift is what is in need of much more rigorous scrutiny. I.e. do photons fly absolutely straight or not?

Well, first of all you pull a strawman on me. I never hinted even that a hundred degrees is not a hundred degrees. Quit the contrary even. Period. Secondly you pull yet another strawman on me. I already acknowledged in making a mistake in thinking that Biceps2 was about red-shift as well. In fact stated the sacred formula of R&D: oops learned from the mistake. Yet I learned that there is a long bitter discussion on red-shift. What has that then to do with Biceps2? Well the claim that Biceps2 states that they found a result that fits the model and that thus you have further evidence for an expanding universe. I showed you - uncontested by you BTW - that this is a Escher-istic fallacy. I even asked you as a mathematician - granted in shorthand - so now in a completer way: what you think of stating / claiming something on an integral issue without having integrated all relevant data as far as possible in order to prevent a garbage in problem on an integral question? I.e this model they have supported with further evidence and that has an expanding universe does that model have an infinite or non infinite or unambiguous universe to start with? I gave you a very nice example of what happens when you get this wrong. Or do you indeed think that water streams upwards given the proven prediction in the Escher example? I have integrated it. I gave that as a claim. I also explained that you don't have to be accurate whilst doing this integrating. Yet I can, but thus don't have to give more than befitting a verbal concept in order to integrate. Your not interested in that so I can leave it with the claim. I.e. you don't have to integrate in detail as you demand, Actually you should't even get hung up on details like you are. So being very detailed in your model on a part issue doesn't remedy the whopping mistake of not integrating oversight before concluding that evidence on an integrated issue has been put forward. Nothing to do with philosophy. I.e. integrating all relevant data as far as possible is more important than accuracy as long as it is above 50% correct. Then you're good. That is specific enough for a model in order to show where to start testing. That is what you need it for and all you need it for. To answer the claim by Biceps2 correctly whether or not it provides evidence in support of any model of an expanding universe you need to integrate. If you do that as I've done you will see that the relevant question is not so much in polarization but in red-shift. The subsequent testing should of course be accurate. Yet my point is already made. Even though I myself can't get to the required accuracy I can and have pointed out where to start looking. Doing that is not my job. And it is there BTW to that current science fails for being too inaccurate in wiping the red-shift bitter debate under the rug. Also BTW uncontested by you. A chain is as strong as its weakest link. Your defense on the accusation that the psychology of the instrument between the ears is a problem is nearly non extent so weak as it is. Especially because it is based on current psychological and even neurological insights even backed by history. Your pointing towards something that isn't my job doesn't wash away the clear shortcomings that I've pointed out let alone the fallacies I've shown. Not having integrated the model by Biceps 2 stands in the way of claiming that it provides evidence of an expanding universe. If you had integrated it you would see that it supports quite the opposite .I've given you an uncontested example of the fallacy unless you want to claim that the water in that example indeed has been given evidence as to stream upwards.

How I know? Good question. The answer is in part given to Big Nose in my previous post. I know this because I first did some proper groundwork on integrating the picture first. Let me explain: During a sabbatical after being a prosecutor I was working on evidence and proof in law in science. At a point there was a lull in activity and I had nothing to do so I started using my Just Proof model on the TOE issue as a pass time. Just Proof simply being the way I was thought to think in science class and at home. It started off with I don't believe in something from nothing, saying BB and ending in nothing or what not. Or pretzel shaped universes. The next question is then what do I then believe in? Well I believe in an absolute truth that is unattainable as an absolute truth yet can be very well be extremely accurately guessed correctly and written in some elegant E =mc2^ type formulas. I then asked myself what is the simplest way to build me a universe: answer one particle. I thus reached to the same conclusion as the great Greek Dio whats his name did via an other form of reasoning and his atom. In a swoop down as far as I can go I had a look at all the evidence for what it actually portrays: i.e. in its essence: Thus not just looking at the mathematics for that is just the tool. What does it mean what analogies does it provide? Time dilation or Atom clock slowing down? Length contraction or Doppler effect? Curved space or both Euclidean and non-euclidean space? etc. Then I asked my brain who to do that: a dynamic crystal popped into mind. Now that immediately felt okay for an infinite universe filled with an infinite amount of moving stuff as a crystal has a link to waves, holographic solving of interference of light problems and the possibility of being cyclic. Via the cycle of induction and deduction I came to a particle that of its own accord went in circles. That I didn't like. (Later I found that there is another logical problem, can you guess / deduce which?) Anyway I then dropped that for two particles one larger one smaller and faster both made of the same absolutely conductive stuff filling all of space in a very short period of time. The third entity a huge amount of absolute nothing. Later I found that having the balls only on average be absolutely conductive was more elegant. For I can get it in and out of spin quickly in a yin and yang of order and chaos. It is not lame like present physics because I've pressure in the system. My biceps has a triceps current physics lacks. My model quickly and elegantly solves all the questions like: DM DE gravity magnetism GR and QM married via Newton still all remaining laws of physics. Just don't use them outside their respective domains. Because light has mass and doesn't travel in a straight line. Double slit experiment. Jumping of electrons (this I did after a physicist put forward the Martian normal response on how then does my model elegantly can do that.) Making a 90 degree turn of electrons (on a Martian question of how I explain that, I can elegantly again.) On this site: ions with electrons still on the less the faster, after making a mistake. Before Higgs was found in fact describe the Higgs mechanism. Mounting entropy No more something from nothing nonsense. Having a nice Pool provide me a link to SM. Any other problems you see that I need to address? In law we call (in fact incorrectly) this circumstantial evidence. Viewed from great height outside your safe paradigm it all fits. Inherently vague of course, yet integrated. Even integrated with the used instruments between the ears science forgot to integrate as well. Now for the swooping down on in super focus on the details in order to disprove this. = try on ever better computers to get the balls in the box to go to order= = try to get moving mass to generate more gravity => DM & DE = try to see red-shift anomaly proving light travels in a curve = Now to come back to your question how I know. Well my model has an inward moving glacier of the double crystal. The analogy with plastic being pulled down is striking. So is the fact that my photon has mass so the effect is then to be expected. I also dove into the mathematics and ad nausea Bayesed and LP you lot showing that in the swoop up you are in verbal logic country. Otherwise you can't get the REQUIRED BY SCIENTIFIC DICTATE integration. Only then can I swoop down as far as I can get verbally. Because indeed to g deeper requires mathematics other than Bayes and also inherent cooperation of many disciplines and that is not my job. My model is integrated contrary to any other baring Krauss who believes in magic. BTW the amount of polarization isn't the direct problem my model points at to be solved in this respect. first attend to red-shift and lay that bitter discussion to rest in astronomy. If you don't have humour then you don't have sufficient talent for relativity to swoop up high enough above the paradigm to see 3D. Kruger Dunning you check logic (catch me on any fallacy on this forum if you can. Language: please bear in mind I'm not a native speaker and I'm also bilingual in German (learnt that via TV between 8 and 12) and Dutch. And humour. There is another site where I can show how that works when flamed in the subtle art of counter flame. If you are a serious type and don't understand irony and homour even when you know all the formulas on relativity you can't hack it outside the paradigm. Yet you hack it better in the paradigm than Martians. Close is close enough for testing. Does this answer you question?

Good yet incomplete point Bignose. Well in fact I'm doing both. This route of anonymous internet however is a valid one not only for my learning, yet discussing in an open fora showing that the defenders of current science don't get past the "we are right, your wrong" fallacy of authority.Like you now dodging the issue because it is more than just Bayes, it is also the point that not all instrumentation has been taken into account. In fact the major point, that I via current science have proven to you, but also why this current psychology also shows why it won't easily come across. On BICEP2 I've uncontested shown that the instruments between the ears have not been taken into account. That is a serious accusation on current science that is evidently true. And you even leave it out. And, that the problem of misinterpretation of the data resides there. Inspired by an analogy used by Einstein on a different issue see here a picture of the water streaming upwards by Escher. https://www.google.nl/search?q=escher+water+upwards+picture&espv=210&es_sm=122&tbm=isch&imgil=XMIyMIS9FED_DM%253A%253Bhttps%253A%252F%252Fencrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com%252Fimages%253Fq%253Dtbn%253 Now say this is what BICEP2 has been about. Our current paradigm of the world is a flat 2D world and the height of the rear tower is obscured from observation. Yet we do know the length to the base and the angels etc. Cleaver scientists have worked out mathematically a prediction of the height of the tower and other cleaver scientists built BICEPS2 that can peer through the mist and observe the rear tower. They do the measurement and bingo! Spot on, so they publish that evidence in support of the water streaming upwards (inflating universe) has been found. The problem I'm on about is the instruments between the ears that have been used. It is like mixing up a Volt with an Amp meter, blowing up the latter. Men and woman from Venus - especially in an unsafe environment as is the case here then they form 80% of the populace - are subconsciously blocked from thinking outside the paradigm. In casu in 3D. Men and woman from Mars in a dangerous environment only 10% of the population can think open and out of the box in 3D. They immediately spot that water streaming upwards is probably bs and that a fallacy has been made. There is a serious communication problem with the other instruments from Venus. For this MN has an interface 10% of men and woman from Venus are logically relationship based and also remain open-minded and non-panicked in the communication. Creatively selling any point to all. The Martian is on an other wavelength than the Venusian, Higher on the top of the amplitude has open birds-eye broad perspective and oversight to subsequently swoop down eagle-eyed super focus on the prey much deeper than the Venusian can follow. From a (relative!) perspective of Venus the birds-eye view is wishy washy vague boundless, and thus the strike on the prey unsupported. In moderation the tendency is to snip the ups of and ignore the downs. Is Mars then better than Venus? No that would indeed be a Venus attitude. You need both. Hubble from Mars on just very very few dots spotted the picture: expansion. But got it wrong for having earth older than the universe. This was corrected by Venus. There is more where both support each other. Now back to our flat Escher picture lying flat on the erratically vibrating table. This complicates executing the 3D point to notice that the paper isn't flat yet has a 3D texture. As an analogy of the red-shift anomalies.Sufficient Marsians let loose and given support on that problem will find ways to distinguish the paper from the table and show and prove a 3D world as the new paradigm. Subsequently Venusians also think they have the creative talent they simply lack when they via the new paradigm can also see 3D. Until that time they play their majority driven game by applying the norms upside down. To accurate when soaring up, and too inaccurate when diving down. They can't help themselves. As is proven by the bitter red-shift anomaly debate that has been going on between astronomers the past years. BTW proving an unsafe and thus anti-scientific environment. Are all Martians the same? No of course not. Einstein could soar much higher and dive deeper for speed of brain. Open and closed mindedness is like a fear driven on- off switch. Truly if you look at the picture in 3D you will see the illusion MN has tricked you in. No-one dares to integrate into the birds eye view anymore. Again the more relevant evidence the easier it becomes to spot and not harder as Venusians think. History repeats itself. The more so the more book wisdom is blocking making mistakes. Marsians like intuitive common sense. Yet will accept non-intuitive solutions only insofar it works on a part issue. But not on inherent integral issues like BICEPS2 is about. The expanding or not expanding universe. Bignose you are a mathematician accept the way that is reasoned by the BICEPS2 that what is found is evidence in support of the inflation of the universe? I.e. treating an integral problem without integrating? Finally grasp the - relativity !- of predictions proven true? The gravity of the problem finally beginning to dawn on you?

On the red-shift anomaly and polarization interpretation current science is not organized to be open-minded enough in general to get it even vaguely correctly integrated and not enough in super focus to observe the subtleties of the observed anomalies rigorously enough. The tool of mathematics doesn't solve that garbage or non garbage in problem for you. Correct analysis of all used instrumentation including the different sorts of instruments between the ears will, in order to achieve correct organization of what is obviously needed. That is not discounting the inherently vague yet sufficiently accurate guesses which is inherently wrong as is trying to simplify the issue by sweeping anomalies under the carpet. Too less risk in the discovery faze and taking to much risk in the deductive faze. A recipe for disaster.

Probabilisticly speaking that is nonsense. Scientific reasoning is probabilistic reasoning as a conditio sine qua non. As a physicist you have not properly taken into account all the instruments that have been used in this topic on red-shift and polarization in lieu of CMB on the probandum of BB. All our brains are inherently probabilistic. It just dawned on me that even if by proposed test with light from a distant galaxy is done that even if it shows an anomaly it will probably be deemed statistically insignificant, in the same way that red-shift is swept under the carpet by the instruments between the ears of the inherent majority of fast thinkers with lots of experience and knowledge because the are logic on authority driven freezers. They are subconsciously mentally (you might even say physically) incapable of dealing with out of the box idea's on this inherent out of the box problem. They have the majority and thus can via the communis opinio of democratic science - arbitrarily - choose the norm i.e. amount of risk on the statistics. Selling it as science by sweeping anything that contradicts their prior idea under the carpet until neigh absolute truth is provided. Only then (when it usually is to late, as history on and on shows as well) do they let go of their paradigm banana. They can play Mozart flawlessly but they can't vary or compose. They play out of key then. Straight flying photons are a clear dissonant . Men and woman from Venus believe on difficult issues in Santa Clause. The predicted discovery by BICEPS2 is like getting a present for BB. When pointed out that the other model also got the same wrapped present it is pointed out that they didn't predict it prior. As if the gift rapper counts the one who's prediction comes out has the nicer rapper. It is what is the observation that counts, i.e. what is the present. To interpret that you need the instrument between the ears to put it into an integrated picture. Otherwise you indeed have nothing. The BB clan haven't got an integrated picture. If you look at the integrated picture you see that BB is not the probable suspect other than it being OCC. The idea of cosmic inflation as an interpretation is extremely improbable. Mathematics doesn't help you there. Venusians stare at the language of mathematics in stead of building in their minds-eye what it actually probably is what is observed i.e. what that language actually describes. Their instrument between the ears isn't built to perform that task. Men and woman from Mars should learn to work together using their respective optimized instruments on the different tasks. They are on different frequencies so to speak: Mars high frequency highly open on top and in super focus down creatively swinging. Venus is a low frequency baseline accurate dependable checking what can be - ultimately - as science on the highest rigorous norm attainable. Yin and yang like the Biceps and triceps of an arm. You need to balance this in the right tension. That is what MN is all about. Also in every ones brain left right and in every group of humans as well. Dictate of the science of group psychology on the workings of the brain in groups. Physicists evidently ignored this. Only when you put the instruments in the right order and thus work together do you make fast progress. With my mistake making guesswork I found the weak spot in GR, and my model came out stronger on the ions showing why the more electrons they have why they like a helicopter can't get to c without shedding the rotor. Before that I had in effect described the Higgs mechanism before it was found and now I hit the red-shift anomalies and polarization that all very probably fit in the integrated testable picture. The probability trend is undeniably strongly upward. The pieces of the puzzle like a crime scene ever more quickly fall into place. That undeniably has probative value in science or proves that there is something seriously wrong in science. Which is clear having non creative scientists being forced to publish or perish Venusian production trying to be creative which they are not and having Martians forced to do publish or perish production that they also hate. In science proper you on a integral probandum don't have an integrate testable idea at all. So in science proper you have nothing.

Well I thought I gave the link in the OP. There was somewhere along the line mention of a red-shift anomaly in reference to BICEP2. Can't find it again at the moment. I guess now that it was on the choice of the part of space they chose to look more closely at because of the amount of red-shift anomaly. Because I now see I predicted something that has already been observed i.e. anomalies in red-shift from distant light outside gravitational fields i.e. CMB cold-spots etc. I today also noticed a fairly bitter discussion the last years between scientist astronomers claiming that the anomalies are wiped under the carpet by the main stream. Psychologically that gives an unsafe environment. I found this on my phone and can't find this again on my laptop. Even twice mention of psychology by astronomers being the reason for the differences would you believe it. Anyway if you democratically choose to heighten any threshold because you want the data to fit the model then any anomaly can be deemed mainstream insignificant. Group psychology in progress. My model requires a slight measure of red-shift anomalies contrary to BB inflation, so these anomalies nicely fit my model and is clearly with a lot of massaging of data consistent with BB. I wasn't aware of the BTW many references to this and thus have trouble finding the same links again. Can do though. And, my model loves the polarization as stated. Believe it or not I got there by guesswork. I made my prediction without knowing that CMB concerned light. Anyway spot on then. ?

As said I did not predict polarization yet it fits my model elegantly. Like doing a crime scene when you've guessed right the pieces of the puzzle quicker and quicker fall in place. There is correlation but no causal effect between polarization and red-shift in my model. If the glacier doesn't move then the photon will still arc and red-shift. If the photon could fly straight through the crystal and the glacier moves it will be pulled into polarization. In effect this observation of BICEPS2 makes it that photons are indeed probably containing mass. Again no problem with GR or QM for concerning issues where everybody agrees they apply you simply take the photons as being mass-less even though at a deeper level they aren't. Straw man: I never said red-shift = polarization. I didn't predict polarization. I understand that BICEPS2 shows a red-shift anomaly in so far that it shows more red-shift than can be contributed to gravity. That is most certainly what I predicted. It is not as much what you say but what you do that shows democratic majority authority peer rule or not. The peers don't take into account the instrument between the ears either. Nor yours nor theirs. That is just the problem. If you take into account the instrument between the ears properly instead of peerily you will see that my prediction is as accurate as it should be for testing. And if BICEPS2 has shown more red-shift of photons than can be attributed to gravity then I've even hit the mark. Nothing to do with polarization. (Oh and BTW I don't oppose peer review and do of course support the need for replication. I oppose to high a norms before starting testing in order to get the needed observations. And, I oppose to inaccurate testing.)

I most certainly did give an accurate description and details of the anomaly. (An anomaly then being an observed phenomena not complying to current science) I stated that light from an as distant as possible galaxy would show a difference in red-shift from one to the other side even when traveling outside gravitational fields. This because light doesn't travel in a straight line so the photons on the outside of the curve will be observed to be more red-shifted. This has been observed in so far that red-shift of light has been observed conforming a prediction. Now if I understand you correctly you say light red-shifts even though it lies absolutely straight. Well we can remedy that problem by doing the observation I proposed. Of course I don't know if it will run into insurmountable measurement problems because of course I'm aware that this is probably going to be a very difficult observational test. Now are you saying that if we indeed observe a difference in red-shift from light from one side to the other that that is then not proof of photons not flying straight even outside gravitational fields? Of course you can't. Nothing lame about it. And probably the observed red-shift by Biceps is due to photons doing that arcing outside gravitational fields conforming to GR as far as the arc red-shift is concerned yet not to GR as far as it then should be gravity, yet isn't. So you straw-maned me in calling my prediction lame. It isn't. There either is a red-shift outside a GR gravitational field or there isn't. I predicted there is. WHAM! my guess was right. My bet to you was that the claim should not be TO vague. I guess yours is. Mine obviously wasn't. Look at it and weep.

ok Well, so far so good. Ah, well this is where history shows that group psychology comes in. You think that science is a democratic affair. It isn't. As a physicist you are required to take into account all instruments used in an experiment, right? Of course I'm right. Have you physicists in general taken into account the instrument between your ears? No indeed you haven't. Is there a problem then? Yes on this topic to ascertain the required level of formulating the norm in an unsafe environment 80 to 90% of the populace at any speed of brain level is not logically goal orientated yet logically authority (80%) or relationship (10% male/ female) orientated. Even in a safe environment it is 50% male / female from Mars goal orientated and 50% male / female relationship orientated. The latter accurately going by the book. The latter is no problem on a question where there is no lack of evidence. Alas it is a major problem on a question where you do have a lack of evidence as is this topic. Your 50 to 80% majority is wrong on this issue. Again science is not a democratic affair as you make it out to be probably following your authority. The instrument between the ears rules out all conflict with the authoritative paradigm even before that person becomes aware of it. It feels unsafe. Male / females from Venus simply can't guess above average per speed of brain group. They go from a less than 50% say 45% probability with the first guess (when they guess at all that is, or not even recognizing that in effect a guess is made even then guessing that following the book is best). When that probably goes wrong the next guess is even worse say 20%. Ultimately ending up following the book in a Bayesian inversion being convinced that something comes from nothing. Believing in magic probability of being correct 0,000000000.........00000000000.......000000000000000000000000000..........something. Only from Mars can on average guess above 50%. First guess of mine on this topic of TOE was say 70% correct. I OOPSed a lot in the learning curve and went from say 80% to now 90% probability of being correct. By slightly adapting the model to what I learned. And as you observe simply by guess work I nailed a testable position observing red-shift of photons outside any gravitational field as I predicted accurately before hand. And you are using the wrong mathematical instrument. I don't care what your book says. The book on mathematics dictate the use of Bayesian mathematics on issues with incomplete evidence. PERIOD. It is not democratic it is a dictate. This is inherently an issue with incomplete evidence. AS YOU SEE STILL TRYING TO GET TO GRIPS WITH THE QUOTE BOX SYSTEM. MORE REACTIONS PENDING