swansont Posted March 23, 2014 Posted March 23, 2014 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. ? In science a "nice fit" is one where the data matches a numerical prediction (i.e. they agree to within experimental error) derived from a mathematical model. It's not a prediction if it's already known. So, from a scientific perspective, you have nothing.
kristalris Posted March 24, 2014 Author Posted March 24, 2014 In science a "nice fit" is one where the data matches a numerical prediction (i.e. they agree to within experimental error) derived from a mathematical model. It's not a prediction if it's already known. So, from a scientific perspective, you have nothing. 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.
imatfaal Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 ! Moderator Note Stop talking about Bayes and Godel - this is a cosmology thread (well almost). Three posts split off which were pure hijack - others remain above as impossible to unsplice. Do not respond to this moderation.
kristalris Posted March 24, 2014 Author Posted March 24, 2014 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.
Bignose Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 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. So then, why are you wasting time posting on this forum? Seems to me that you should have some papers to write. If you really think your ideas can support all of the above, why aren't you writing them up and publishing them? If your ideas are really that strong, supporting evidence for them ought to be easy to come by. I don't know why you are wasting time with anonymous internet schlubs when -- if you can support your claims above -- you should be driving a physics revolution. Conversely, based on the fact that you are here, and based on the so-called evidence you've provided in this and prior threads, you still demonstrate a gross negligence of what is actually meaningful in science. In this and many prior threads, people have tried to point you in the right direction. I don't understand why you refuse. Even if you think that science is flawed in some great way (and again based on past threads, you do)... science is great in that if you can actually demonstrate a better way, science will change!. All you need is compelling, objective, statistically significant evidence. Your evidence to date has been wishy-washy, subjective, cherry-picked. I'm sorry, but I'm going to go with the current status which requires objectivity and significance. Again, if you think your ideas are so correct, why is it so hard to produce objective and significant evidence? I hope that you will ponder on this for a while. There is no point arguing about probabilities and Bayes ad nauseum if you can't actually provide evidence that your idea makes predictions that are are least in the neighborhood of the current predictions and their agreement. You are asking for an equal seat at the table because you think you are 'probably' correct. Science no longer accepts that. Demonstrate something besides 'probably' correct (which, BTW, I don't think you've demonstrated either, but let's set that aside for now) -- via prediction and agreement with measurements -- and you'll earn a seat at the table. Science really is simple in that regard -- predictions that agree with measurement win out. All this Bayes stuff is really just obfuscation that you have never actually published a model that does anywhere near as well as the current mainstream. If you disagree, just actually post a straight forward, non-wishy-washy, non-generic, non-vague prediction and compare that with what is actually measured. And then, really, if you can actually provide this forum that -- you ought to be preparing it for publication. Because if it really is straight forward, non-wishy-washy, non-generic, and non-vague, it is publishable. I guess I'm not going to hold my breath for that.
ydoaPs Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 As said I did not predict polarization yet it fits my model elegantly. How do you know? Your model doesn't say how much polarization and in what direction. Light scattering through moving particles is always going to have some level of polarization. What's significant about the BICEP results is that the amount and direction of the polarization fit the model. "There should be polarization" is worthless. Unless you can say how well the data fits your model, you don't get to claim the data fits your model.
kristalris Posted March 25, 2014 Author Posted March 25, 2014 (edited) So then, why are you wasting time posting on this forum? Seems to me that you should have some papers to write. If you really think your ideas can support all of the above, why aren't you writing them up and publishing them? If your ideas are really that strong, supporting evidence for them ought to be easy to come by. I don't know why you are wasting time with anonymous internet schlubs when -- if you can support your claims above -- you should be driving a physics revolution. Conversely, based on the fact that you are here, and based on the so-called evidence you've provided in this and prior threads, you still demonstrate a gross negligence of what is actually meaningful in science. In this and many prior threads, people have tried to point you in the right direction. I don't understand why you refuse. Even if you think that science is flawed in some great way (and again based on past threads, you do)... science is great in that if you can actually demonstrate a better way, science will change!. All you need is compelling, objective, statistically significant evidence. Your evidence to date has been wishy-washy, subjective, cherry-picked. I'm sorry, but I'm going to go with the current status which requires objectivity and significance. Again, if you think your ideas are so correct, why is it so hard to produce objective and significant evidence? I hope that you will ponder on this for a while. There is no point arguing about probabilities and Bayes ad nauseum if you can't actually provide evidence that your idea makes predictions that are are least in the neighborhood of the current predictions and their agreement. You are asking for an equal seat at the table because you think you are 'probably' correct. Science no longer accepts that. Demonstrate something besides 'probably' correct (which, BTW, I don't think you've demonstrated either, but let's set that aside for now) -- via prediction and agreement with measurements -- and you'll earn a seat at the table. Science really is simple in that regard -- predictions that agree with measurement win out. All this Bayes stuff is really just obfuscation that you have never actually published a model that does anywhere near as well as the current mainstream. If you disagree, just actually post a straight forward, non-wishy-washy, non-generic, non-vague prediction and compare that with what is actually measured. And then, really, if you can actually provide this forum that -- you ought to be preparing it for publication. Because if it really is straight forward, non-wishy-washy, non-generic, and non-vague, it is publishable. I guess I'm not going to hold my breath for that. 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? Edited March 25, 2014 by kristalris -1
kristalris Posted March 25, 2014 Author Posted March 25, 2014 How do you know? Your model doesn't say how much polarization and in what direction. Light scattering through moving particles is always going to have some level of polarization. What's significant about the BICEP results is that the amount and direction of the polarization fit the model. "There should be polarization" is worthless. Unless you can say how well the data fits your model, you don't get to claim the data fits your model. 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? -1
Bignose Posted March 25, 2014 Posted March 25, 2014 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. No. What I've seen you try to do is claim that your generic, wishy-washy, non-specific prediction of red shift is somehow validated by polarization data. I am not going to speculate on what's with your psychology, but I will say that I don't think that this is a broad problem of misinterpretation; rather a much more specific personal problem of misinterpretation. I think that you are ascribing too much philosophy to science. At its purest form, science is prediction and agreement with measurement. The "interpretation of that measurement" is related in that there could be various ways that a measurement that doesn't have good agreement with prediction affects how prediction needs to be re-done. But, the data itself is the data. If a thermometer reads 100 deg C, then -- unless you have strong reason to suspect the measuring device is broken -- the temperature is 100 deg C. Period. Again, if you were expecting it to read 200, then there may be various interpretations as to why it isn't reading 200. But the reading itself is solid. This why I don't get all this obfuscation about polarization and red shift. Polarization is an orientation of the light. Red shifting is the change in frequency of light. They aren't the same thing. I can't stick a thermometer under my tongue and get my weight. And you can't take my temperature alone and tell me I am over or underweight. There is no arguing about interpretations here. And even if somehow this arguing this help your cause -- I really disagree, obviously -- the simple truth is that someone predicted a certain amount of polarization with this model and the measurements agree with that. If there is any interpretation, isn't it rather obvious that one should interpret that this suggests that that model is even stronger now? This is what I keep suggesting to you: to make specific predictions because when those predictions are shown to be right, then your model is interpreted to be more right. This seems so very, very simple to me. I notice that despite a few hundred lines of reply to myself and ydoaPs, there is still no specific model or predictions. You want to talk about interpretations? I interpret the lack of specific models and predictions to mean that you have a loosely combined set of ideas that haven't been worked out very thoroughly (if at all). That you desperately want people to accept that your ideas have merit, but don't want anyone to dissect the gossamer that surrounds the idea, because if you actually start to peer in, the inside is broken. Because if it wasn't really broken, it should be straightforward to make specific models and predictions. That still hasn't happened, despite this forum asking you for it for quite some time now. 2
kristalris Posted March 25, 2014 Author Posted March 25, 2014 (edited) No. What I've seen you try to do is claim that your generic, wishy-washy, non-specific prediction of red shift is somehow validated by polarization data. I am not going to speculate on what's with your psychology, but I will say that I don't think that this is a broad problem of misinterpretation; rather a much more specific personal problem of misinterpretation. I think that you are ascribing too much philosophy to science. At its purest form, science is prediction and agreement with measurement. The "interpretation of that measurement" is related in that there could be various ways that a measurement that doesn't have good agreement with prediction affects how prediction needs to be re-done. But, the data itself is the data. If a thermometer reads 100 deg C, then -- unless you have strong reason to suspect the measuring device is broken -- the temperature is 100 deg C. Period. Again, if you were expecting it to read 200, then there may be various interpretations as to why it isn't reading 200. But the reading itself is solid. This why I don't get all this obfuscation about polarization and red shift. Polarization is an orientation of the light. Red shifting is the change in frequency of light. They aren't the same thing. I can't stick a thermometer under my tongue and get my weight. And you can't take my temperature alone and tell me I am over or underweight. There is no arguing about interpretations here. And even if somehow this arguing this help your cause -- I really disagree, obviously -- the simple truth is that someone predicted a certain amount of polarization with this model and the measurements agree with that. If there is any interpretation, isn't it rather obvious that one should interpret that this suggests that that model is even stronger now? This is what I keep suggesting to you: to make specific predictions because when those predictions are shown to be right, then your model is interpreted to be more right. This seems so very, very simple to me. I notice that despite a few hundred lines of reply to myself and ydoaPs, there is still no specific model or predictions. You want to talk about interpretations? I interpret the lack of specific models and predictions to mean that you have a loosely combined set of ideas that haven't been worked out very thoroughly (if at all). That you desperately want people to accept that your ideas have merit, but don't want anyone to dissect the gossamer that surrounds the idea, because if you actually start to peer in, the inside is broken. Because if it wasn't really broken, it should be straightforward to make specific models and predictions. That still hasn't happened, despite this forum asking you for it for quite some time now. 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. Edited March 25, 2014 by kristalris
ydoaPs Posted March 25, 2014 Posted March 25, 2014 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. There would have been polarization anyway. So, your retrodiction that there should be polarization means nothing whatsoever. P(polarization|champagne bubble cosmology)=P(polarization). We all know that for something to be evidence, the likelihood must be greater than the probability of the evidence. So, for it to be evidence, you would need P(polarization|champagne bubble cosmology)>P(polarization), but that's not what you have since you can't get any more specific than 'polarization'.
swansont Posted March 25, 2014 Posted March 25, 2014 What is this "red-shift bitter debate" you keep yammering about?
kristalris Posted March 25, 2014 Author Posted March 25, 2014 What is this "red-shift bitter debate" you keep yammering about? 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 There would have been polarization anyway. So, your retrodiction that there should be polarization means nothing whatsoever. P(polarization|champagne bubble cosmology)=P(polarization). We all know that for something to be evidence, the likelihood must be greater than the probability of the evidence. So, for it to be evidence, you would need P(polarization|champagne bubble cosmology)>P(polarization), but that's not what you have since you can't get any more specific than 'polarization'. 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?
swansont Posted March 25, 2014 Posted March 25, 2014 So is the bitter controversy about the value of the Hubble constant as per your first link, or about quasars, which you've not mentioned before, and is the subject of several other links. Or is it about the Cuban connection to Kennedy's assassination (the topic of one of your links)? Or a diary entry about various things, which is another link? Perhaps it's the Asian carp invasion of the great lakes link. (Absent anything else, one might be tempted to think the depth of your understanding here is limited to Googling keywords and being able to copy/paste) So pick one and tell us the connection to Big Bang Cosmology.
ydoaPs Posted March 25, 2014 Posted March 25, 2014 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. I didn't say it was inconsistent with the data. If it were probabilistically inconsistent with the data, then P(polarization|champagne bubble cosmology)<P(redshift). If it were logically inconsistent with the data, then P(polarization|champagne bubble cosmology)=0. I did, however, say neither of those things. What I said is that your vague 'prediction' doesn't get to claim the BICEP results as evidence, because it didn't predict the results. It predicted something that there would be on any cosmological theory if light is being scattered by a cloud of particles. You didn't derive from your model an amount or direction of polarization. You just said that there should be polarization. There would be polarization anyway. So, P(polarization|champagne bubble cosmology)=P(polarization). Anyone even vaguely familiar with the literature knows that something is evidence iff P(e|h)>P(e) [and it's true]. Equivalence is not the same an a greater than inequality. According to the Bayesian theory of evidence, the results are not evidence of your model. Not only that it provides a very nice explanation as to the why of the polarization. Bicep2 doesn't do that. Actually, it does and in every relevant theory of explanation. It is deductively deducible from lawlike statements and other assumptions, so it satisfies the Deductive Nomological model of explanation. It makes the individual data more likely on the theory than not on the theory, so it satisfies both the Inductive Statistical model of explanation and the Statistical Relevance model of explanation. It provides a causal process for the results, so it satisfies the causal models of explanation. Your model, however, fails every single one of them. Keep in mind that there would be polarization on any cosmology if light is scattering in a cloud of particles. You can't derive the specific polarization from the lawlike statements in your model and the accompanying assumptions from observation, so it fails DN. Your model doesn't make that specific polarization more likely than it would be otherwise, so it fails both IS and SR. Finally, your model doesn't provide a causal story for the BICEP results, so it fails the causal models as well. Your model only even arguably satisfies two of the models of explanation for just "there is polarization". You can provide a causal story, so you get that one. You may or may not be able to make a valid deductive inference from the model and empirical assumptions to the fact of polarization, so you may or may not get DN. So, no, your model doesn't explain the BICEP results. Nor are the results evidence for your theory.
kristalris Posted March 26, 2014 Author Posted March 26, 2014 So is the bitter controversy about the value of the Hubble constant as per your first link, or about quasars, which you've not mentioned before, and is the subject of several other links. Or is it about the Cuban connection to Kennedy's assassination (the topic of one of your links)? Or a diary entry about various things, which is another link? Perhaps it's the Asian carp invasion of the great lakes link. (Absent anything else, one might be tempted to think the depth of your understanding here is limited to Googling keywords and being able to copy/paste) So pick one and tell us the connection to Big Bang Cosmology. 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.
swansont Posted March 26, 2014 Posted March 26, 2014 That you would tap-dance around and not answer the question is completely unsurprising to me. (As is the "I noticed it but didn't acknowledge it until someone else pointed it out" gambit)
Bignose Posted March 26, 2014 Posted March 26, 2014 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. It's not a strawman when you actually do it! If you knew all those links have absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand, why would you post them?!? It takes literally 5 seconds to highlight them and hit the delete key. All this is to me is more evidence that you simply delight in obfuscating the real discussion. Whenever anyone actually asks for something specific, the response is to throw up as much chaff as possible and hope the confusions buys you some time. Why this continual refusal to answer questions directly?
kristalris Posted March 26, 2014 Author Posted March 26, 2014 (edited) 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. Edited March 26, 2014 by kristalris
Bignose Posted March 26, 2014 Posted March 26, 2014 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? I'm not so much touchy as I am tired of being told how rotten our science is in your eyes without anything tangible being shown that your ways is better. As well as I am tired of asking direct questions and getting no similarly direct answers. It makes me think that you are insincere in your supposed attempt to actually make things better. If you truly wanted to make things better, you would do a better job of answering our questions to help us understand. I don't ask questions simply to see my words on a computer screen -- I am asking them because I want to more fully understand your points, even if I possibly don't agree with them. Not answering direct questions tells me that you don't really care if I understand or not, and then it makes me wonder if you understand the purpose of an information sharing tool like a forum. I wouldn't be so 'touchy' about all this if it wasn't a pattern you repeat over and over and over. What you call being 'touchy', I would call being direct and asking you straight up to answer some questions.
kristalris Posted March 26, 2014 Author Posted March 26, 2014 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.
swansont Posted March 26, 2014 Posted March 26, 2014 You / Swansont got a direct answer in post 41 with the links provided. Please reread it. You still haven't answered my question of which issue you linked to is the one you're talking about. You went off on a tangent about psychology (again), which isn't the topic of this thread. So, no, you haven't given a direct answer.
kristalris Posted March 27, 2014 Author Posted March 27, 2014 (edited) 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. Edited March 27, 2014 by kristalris
ydoaPs Posted March 27, 2014 Posted March 27, 2014 The topic is champagne-bubble-cosmology split off in lieu of the Biceps2 find. Indeed, it was. And in the split, you claimed the results supported champagne bubble cosmology. I, however, have demonstrated that that is not the case. Not only are the results not evidence for your cosmology, they're not even explained by your cosmology. It's been a page since I last posted explaining why your cosmology doesn't explain the results, and you've not yet responded. That's ok, though, it was at the bottom of the page and easy to miss. And you probably have the automatic quote notifications turned off. Don't worry, I'll just copypasta it here. 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. I didn't say it was inconsistent with the data. If it were probabilistically inconsistent with the data, then P(polarization|champagne bubble cosmology)<P(redshift). If it were logically inconsistent with the data, then P(polarization|champagne bubble cosmology)=0. I did, however, say neither of those things. What I said is that your vague 'prediction' doesn't get to claim the BICEP results as evidence, because it didn't predict the results. It predicted something that there would be on any cosmological theory if light is being scattered by a cloud of particles. You didn't derive from your model an amount or direction of polarization. You just said that there should be polarization. There would be polarization anyway. So, P(polarization|champagne bubble cosmology)=P(polarization). Anyone even vaguely familiar with the literature knows that something is evidence iff P(e|h)>P(e) [and it's true]. Equivalence is not the same an a greater than inequality. According to the Bayesian theory of evidence, the results are not evidence of your model. Not only that it provides a very nice explanation as to the why of the polarization. Bicep2 doesn't do that. Actually, it does and in every relevant theory of explanation. It is deductively deducible from lawlike statements and other assumptions, so it satisfies the Deductive Nomological model of explanation. It makes the individual data more likely on the theory than not on the theory, so it satisfies both the Inductive Statistical model of explanation and the Statistical Relevance model of explanation. It provides a causal process for the results, so it satisfies the causal models of explanation. Your model, however, fails every single one of them. Keep in mind that there would be polarization on any cosmology if light is scattering in a cloud of particles. You can't derive the specific polarization from the lawlike statements in your model and the accompanying assumptions from observation, so it fails DN. Your model doesn't make that specific polarization more likely than it would be otherwise, so it fails both IS and SR. Finally, your model doesn't provide a causal story for the BICEP results, so it fails the causal models as well. Your model only even arguably satisfies two of the models of explanation for just "there is polarization". You can provide a causal story, so you get that one. You may or may not be able to make a valid deductive inference from the model and empirical assumptions to the fact of polarization, so you may or may not get DN. So, no, your model doesn't explain the BICEP results. Nor are the results evidence for your theory. So I then have an intriguing question? Were the thought experiments of Einstein wishy washy? They were weren't they? Actually, no, they weren't. If you'd bothered to actually read Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper, you'd know that his derivation of SR and the predictions therein weren't wishy-washy at all. In fact, it's quite precise. What he didn't do is take a specific result and make it vague as possible to the point that it is something that is expected on any cosmology. You, however, did.
imatfaal Posted March 27, 2014 Posted March 27, 2014 ! Moderator Note kristalris I have already had to split off a set of posts in which you branched your own cosmology-based thread off to talk about Godel - I will not be so delicate next time; posts with psycho-babble about methods of thinking, the benefits and pitfalls of critiquing, or a return to bayes and godel will just be split off to the trash. Even though the thread is in the Speculations Forum this is a cosmology thread - you will stick to science. You have been asked specific questions that you are yet to answer - please go back through Bignose's and SwansonT's recent messages and address their questions. FYG a keyword search followed by cut'n'paste will not be accepted. You have made bold and specific claims - start to back them up. Do not respond to this moderation.
Recommended Posts