Champagne Bubble Cosmology

[kristalris]

What is this "red-shift bitter debate" you keep yammering about?

 

 

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?

Edited March 28, 2014 by kristalris

[ydoaPs]

Now I’ll go into that in my reaction to YodaP.

Be sure to quote me so I get a notification.

[kristalris]

Be sure to quote me so I get a notification.

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.

[Bignose]

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?

So, just to be sure I am clear exactly what you're saying: That Swansont, YdoaPs, and myself are making an unsafe environment because we have skepticism in thinking that light polarization data didn't satisfy your vague prediction of redshifted light?

 

As for the larger issue. The simple truth is that science is still conducted by human beings. Sometimes they aren't treated fairly. But if the predictions are actually more accurate than other ideas, it will eventually win out. If the Arp idea was so good, what has happened in the last 25 years? We've continued to take more and more accurate measurements, including the ones that started this thread. Is that model still viable? Or has it lost more and more favor simply because as more data comes in, its predictions are shown to be worse and worse? Frankly, if you aren't prepared to demonstrate that that model is still just as accurate as the current best models, I don't know what bringing up stuff that happened more than 25 years ago has to do with the question of how accurate your predictions are today.

[swansont]

Swansont your question in #37 although off topic IMO requires a reaction I’m told.

Wait, you brought it up and I'm off-topic for asking for clarification?

 

 

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.

It would have been a pointer if you had not included several other links to different subjects, including one on the Hubble constant. Or, you could have just written something — it would have taken all of a sentence or two.

 

You're right, though: as this issue is about quasars it is a red herring in the context of discussing the CMB. So I assume it won't come up again.

[kristalris]

So, just to be sure I am clear exactly what you're saying: That Swansont, YdoaPs, and myself are making an unsafe environment because we have skepticism in thinking that light polarization data didn't satisfy your vague prediction of redshifted light?

 

As for the larger issue. The simple truth is that science is still conducted by human beings. Sometimes they aren't treated fairly. But if the predictions are actually more accurate than other ideas, it will eventually win out. If the Arp idea was so good, what has happened in the last 25 years? We've continued to take more and more accurate measurements, including the ones that started this thread. Is that model still viable? Or has it lost more and more favor simply because as more data comes in, its predictions are shown to be worse and worse? Frankly, if you aren't prepared to demonstrate that that model is still just as accurate as the current best models, I don't know what bringing up stuff that happened more than 25 years ago has to do with the question of how accurate your predictions are today.

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.

Wait, you brought it up and I'm off-topic for asking for clarification?

 

 

It would have been a pointer if you had not included several other links to different subjects, including one on the Hubble constant. Or, you could have just written something — it would have taken all of a sentence or two.

 

You're right, though: as this issue is about quasars it is a red herring in the context of discussing the CMB. So I assume it won't come up again.

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.

Edited March 28, 2014 by kristalris

[ydoaPs]

The topic is champagne bubble cosmology in light of the BICEPS find and is thus on all red-shift CMB

Where'd that 'thus' come from?

[kristalris]

Where'd that 'thus' come from?

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.

[Bignose]

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.

I agree that people don't always treat each other well. And yes, that still happens today. Unfortunately it happens in all aspects of life, science included. I guess I understand the current maturity level of mankind and understand that this is going to happen.

 

But, in terms of 'right'... that's exactly what science is. Figuring out which models are more right than others.

 

I am not saying that it was ok to treat someone poorly, even if their model turned out to be less right. I am saying that in terms of seeing how good your prediction is, that how someone was treated is irrelevant -- despite your repeated bring it up.

 

I find it a little ironic that on the one hand, you seem to be arguing that people shouldn't be treated poorly based on their ideas. That is, arguing that ideas should stand on their own merits. Yet, you keep bringing up examples of that not happening -- instead of presenting you idea clearly so it can stand on its own merit. You seem so vested in calling out some kind of discrimination that you still don't ever present your model so that we can judge it on its own merit.

 

And maybe that's the biggest point here. We are trying not to judge you the person. We are trying to judge the model. A model you don't present super clearly. And when we ask for clarification, you immediately jump to us judging the person. Instead of clarifying your model. Well, the rules here say we can't attack a person, and the mods do a good job enforcing that rule. So, just present your model and the mods will make sure that it is on the model that gets questioned, not you.

[swansont]

There's also the issue of "the instrument between the ears" and yet there are no concrete examples of how this impacts science. Just assertions. The only way to know if science works is to compare models with how nature actually behaves. Science works.

 

If you think science needs to be done in some other way than that basic idea, you're free to go somewhere and start a neo-scientific revolution. But not here. Here, you need to do science as it's been defined.

 

This situation reminds me of the recent reaction of Jimmy Wales to the petition to have alternative medicine be held to a lower standard on wikipedia

http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/03/wikipedia-founder-calls-alt-medicine-practitioners-lunatic-charlatans/

 

No, you have to be kidding me. Every single person who signed this petition needs to go back to check their premises and think harder about what it means to be honest, factual, truthful.

Wikipedia's policies around this kind of thing are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals—that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately.

 

What we won't do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of "true scientific discourse." It isn't.

 

 

While the specifics are different, the idea is the same. There are expectations of scientific discourse that one must follow, even if the topic of discussion is a perceived flaw in scientific discourse. Refusing to give specific examples or predictions is indistinguishable from being unable to. The rules of science demand it, and the rules of the board demand it. There are no loopholes to this — I'm tired of the attempts to get out of following the rules.

[kristalris]

There's also the issue of "the instrument between the ears" and yet there are no concrete examples of how this impacts science. Just assertions. The only way to know if science works is to compare models with how nature actually behaves. Science works.

 

If you think science needs to be done in some other way than that basic idea, you're free to go somewhere and start a neo-scientific revolution. But not here. Here, you need to do science as it's been defined.

 

This situation reminds me of the recent reaction of Jimmy Wales to the petition to have alternative medicine be held to a lower standard on wikipedia

http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/03/wikipedia-founder-calls-alt-medicine-practitioners-lunatic-charlatans/

 

 

While the specifics are different, the idea is the same. There are expectations of scientific discourse that one must follow, even if the topic of discussion is a perceived flaw in scientific discourse. Refusing to give specific examples or predictions is indistinguishable from being unable to. The rules of science demand it, and the rules of the board demand it. There are no loopholes to this — I'm tired of the attempts to get out of following the rules.

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.

[Bignose]

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.

You keep railing on this. I'm going to give you one chance to prove your point:

 

Please open http://arxiv.org/pdf/1403.3985.pdf

 

Please look at figure 2. The red lines are the predictions made by theory. The black markers with the error bars around them are the measurements made by BICEP2.

 

What "instrumentation between the ears" is needed to compare the accuracy of the predictions with the measurements taken? And how does this affect how I should look at the graph?

[swansont]

Legalese in a science argument is something I find to be unpersuasive. Science is not fashioned after the law — in science one has an obligation to consider evidence that disagrees with you, rather than simply trying to prove your case to a jury and having another person present the opposing case. If you don't do that, you lose credibility regarding the thoroughness of your investigation. It's also not the proper jargon for the discussion.

Meaning that you can't just throw an idea out and wait for people to try and shoot it down. It's not assumed to be true in the absence of objection. That's not how the system works. Your legalese is falling on my deaf ears.

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.

Did I ever claim that it has no bearing? Show me the evidence, or retract the claim.

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.

What science does is make the case that the evidence matches the model, and has made the best effort to do so in a falsifiable way. That is, consider biases of all sorts. The way that this happens is that one publishes, and anyone with sufficient expertise can critique the results, either by pointing out flaws or by developing and publishing a different model.

You can claim confirmation bias all you want, but will continue to be ignored. You need to come up with actual examples of confirmation bias, and specifically how it manifested itself in this bit of cosmology. Where is the confirmation bias? Your claim, your burden of proof.

[kristalris]

You keep railing on this. I'm going to give you one chance to prove your point:

 

Please open http://arxiv.org/pdf/1403.3985.pdf

 

Please look at figure 2. The red lines are the predictions made by theory. The black markers with the error bars around them are the measurements made by BICEP2.

 

What "instrumentation between the ears" is needed to compare the accuracy of the predictions with the measurements taken? And how does this affect how I should look at the graph?

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?

Edited March 29, 2014 by kristalris

[Bignose]

Indeed that proves that the prediction has been very accurately been proven to be true.......

I don't see how any of that demonstrates your idea that the psychology of someone affects how accurate that graph is. You certainly didn't provide any actual evidence of it, just a lot more story telling. And, you kind of danced around the reality of the situation in there: other models get to use that data too. If those other models, either in the original or a modified form, fits the measurements better than the original model, then the other one will gain favor. This happens all the time. That's why data is published. That's why I asked about the last 25 years of the Arp model -- have the last 25 years of data helped support his idea or demonstrate it wrong in other ways. I'd really like an answer, because I don't know.

 

And ultimately, it really is simple. Better agreement is all that science is looking for.

 

So, if you truly believe your model is better, when can we expect you to publish graphs of the same kind? Show us the predictions (and I would suggest explicit detail on how you calculated those prediction) and compare them to the current best predictions and new data.

 

No psychology; no madness; no DSM V; none of this other obfuscation. I just want to see how big the delta is between your prediction, the current best predictions, and the measured data. I plan to judge the model objectively in terms of how well its predictions agree with measurements. I can think of no fairer way.

Edited March 29, 2014 by Bignose

[swansont]

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.

 

Where do you get these numbers? What "extreme danger" are you talking about?

 

 

Thereby simply ignoring even denying the logical truth that it also provides evidence for any other model that is consistent with the find.

At a very basic level, this part of science can be summarized as "put up or shut up". That is, if you want to claim that the evidence supports another model, you have to actually have a model and show that the model and the data agree. Otherwise you are just spouting nonsense. It's like the old phrase about buying a pig in a poke — you don't hand over your money until the seller can actually show you the pig. If s/he doesn't show it, then you have to assume they are a charlatan.

 

So it's put up or shut up time. If the data are consistent with some non-inflationary model*, show us how that is so.

 

*you have never presented a model, so we can't be talking about yours.

 

 

[kristalris]

 

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.

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.

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.

 

 

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.

 

 

 

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.

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.

[swansont]

Well, according to Einstein it was earlier when he was 16 and done intuitively. Exactly what I'm now doing.

 

Einstein wasn't trying to get his idea accepted as science when he was 16. He was describing the start of his idea, not the culmination of it. Relativity was only accepted as valid science once it had been experimentally confirmed, by matching a specific, numerical prediction with an observation.

 

Yet I've a much more easy starting position with much more relevant data. Yet something science has missed up on grasping.

And yet you're doing a poorer job. When Einstein presented his idea to the world, he had math and the ability to make specific predictions.

[Sensei]

Exactly what I'm now doing.

 

 

I have never saw any bit of math in your posts..

Just pure text.

Can you please show me your calculations of anything?

[Bignose]

Now on intuitively doing it correctly a la Einstein

...and we're back to kristalris' 'Einstein at 16' trope. It is amazing how long you're keeping this going. Usually, when a show starts repeating itself, it has 'jumped the shark' and cancellation isn't to far behind because people don't want to see it anymore.

 

I concur with swansont 100% in that your citing Einstein seems grossly disingenuous at best, considering what Einstein actually did. The kernel of Einstein's ideas may have formed at age 16, but at least he was smart enough then not to go around claiming his idea was right without any predictions. One can't help but wish that maybe this was a lesson you should have taken more to heart from your idol.

[ajb]

Also, comparing yourself to Einstein, unless you really do have something in common like a birthday or lived in the same street etc, is a surefire way to get no-one to listen to you. It is a major sign of crackpotism.

[kristalris]

Also, comparing yourself to Einstein, unless you really do have something in common like a birthday or lived in the same street etc, is a surefire way to get no-one to listen to you. It is a major sign of crackpotism.

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.

Edited March 30, 2014 by kristalris

[John Cuthber]

"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."
OK, but the first time Sir Steve got in a boat, he wasn't a good rower.

It would be a bad idea to emulate his style from back then.

Why emulate a 16 year old version of Einstein, when you can try to copy the older, wiser one?

 

"Anyway: you lot prove - YOUR! - probandum."

Proof of truth in science isn't usually an option.

Asking us to do it shows that you still don't understand how science works.

On the other hand, we have already put forward evidence in support of it.

You have not done so.

The ball is in your court.

[Bignose]

So you're saying that when someone publishes data, they have to compare their data to every possible model or there? Lest they show bias?

 

I disagree. Anyone who thinks the data supports their idea can use that data. It's actually all on the BICEP2 webpage. All they have to do is download it and compare it to their own predictions. And then publish it.

 

As I asked in my last post, any chance this will be happening for the idea you are supporting?

Edited March 30, 2014 by Bignose

[kristalris]

"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."

OK, but the first time Sir Steve got in a boat, he wasn't a good rower.

It would be a bad idea to emulate his style from back then.

Why emulate a 16 year old version of Einstein, when you can try to copy the older, wiser one?

 

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.