John Cuthber Posted March 30, 2014 Posted March 30, 2014 "You copy all of Steve Redgrave the early one and the later one." You can't: he changed.
kristalris Posted March 30, 2014 Author Posted March 30, 2014 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? I've no qualms with this paper of Bicep2 whatsoever: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1403.3985.pdf It doesn't claim on the probandum that it supports the BB as far as I can see. It just provides the find and only puts it in as relevant on expansion. Well that it is I agree and have already agreed. This claim and several others like it: "Astronomers have found the first direct evidence of cosmic inflation, the theorized dramatic expansion of the universe that put the "bang" in the Big Bang 13.8 billion years ago, new research suggests." I do strongly oppose for it has no bases on stated probandum. Or in what the Biceps2 paper states. To do that it must state its claimed relative probative value in relation to all other ideas / concepts and models. The Biceps2 group is under obligation thus to publicly refute these claims that they as far as I can see haven't made. It is a rule of logic and thus also mathematics that the probative value is relative and thus as strong as its weakest link. You can only state and support an integral model such as BB on an integral basis. Logic dictates that that basis can only be as strong as its weakest link. Well then where is this integral basis from which we can compare any model, let alone mine? I've given an integral basis including BTW the instruments between the ears.You lot left that out. You should be red-shifted for shame of doing that. And please don't tell me you are already up to scratch on that instrumentation. And why is it then that an old lawyer like I can run intellectual rings around you lot, as my rowing team does with students in rowing, even though I admit having limited knowledge on mathematics and cosmology etc.? Because I heed the basic lessons that can be learnt from Einstein and Sir Redgrave etc.. You lot don't. Now first integrate then compare, otherwise go back to your old or a better mathematics teacher to ask if you can state integral positions without integrating. So Biceps2 has claimed nothing on BB and so also works for me (and others that are consistent). -3
swansont Posted March 30, 2014 Posted March 30, 2014 Namely implying I'm a crackpot i.e. mad. Yet what do you know of psychiatry at all? I suspect nobody trained in psychiatry actually tends to use the term "mad" to describe issues related to their profession, which raises the question of what you know of psychiatry? Further, I doubt anyone here thinks crackpots are "mad". There are, I'm sure quite a few traits a psychiatrist would be able to identify in the behavior, wherein someone declares themselves as being far more competent than they really are (often because they are competent in other areas and they think the ability is transferrable), or they tend to compare themselves favorably to the luminaries of science, like Einstein or especially Galileo (confusing criticism is being the same as the dogmatic attacks by the church), taking criticism as a personal attack and often being overly sensitive to any contradiction, assuming that if they don't understand something that it must be wrong, thinking that having credentials or having worked for some great length of time makes them right, almost never presenting any math whatsoever, naming things after themselves, and a few more, I'm sure. A psychiatrist would probably have a field day diagnosing all of the personality traits, but I doubt it would generally rise to the level of a debilitating mental illness that would incite someone to call them "mad". 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. Actually an incredibly bad idea in many cases, for either physical or mental activity. Emulating someone whose strengths and abilities may differ from yours is a guarantee that you won't perform at your best. And I seriously doubt you can copy how someone is inspired or comes up with ideas. They typically can't explain it themselves.
kristalris Posted March 30, 2014 Author Posted March 30, 2014 "You copy all of Steve Redgrave the early one and the later one." You can't: he changed. Well I actually only picked up rowing when I was thirty, and copy my couch captain and rowing mate who is a former dutch champion who is very pleased with Sir Redgraves rowing. Anyway, everybody who learns changes as did Einstein. So you copy changing as well. Yet Einstein proved before hand he could hack it, Even though he couldn't as then sell it. So you still oppose integrating?
swansont Posted March 30, 2014 Posted March 30, 2014 I've no qualms with this paper of Bicep2 whatsoever: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1403.3985.pdf It doesn't claim on the probandum that it supports the BB as far as I can see. It just provides the find and only puts it in as relevant on expansion. Well that it is I agree and have already agreed. This claim and several others like it: "Astronomers have found the first direct evidence of cosmic inflation, the theorized dramatic expansion of the universe that put the "bang" in the Big Bang 13.8 billion years ago, new research suggests." I guess this puts a limit on how far you can see.
Bignose Posted March 30, 2014 Posted March 30, 2014 So Biceps2 has claimed nothing on BB and so also works for me (and others that are consistent). If you're going to claim success for your lawyering skills, maybe you ought to actually, I don't know, provide evidence of this? You STILL STILL STILL have not provided any quantitative predictions for "yours and others that are consistent." If your idea really is "consistent", this should be a cakewalk to do, yet you still refuse. Exactly why is that? My lawyering skills have deduced that it doesn't exist and you're just angry about that fact. Besides the fact -- that has been pointed out to you many, many times now -- the standard for evidence in the eyes of the law is significantly different than the standards of evidence in science. Deliberately so, too. Somehow, I'm not surprised that you are a lawyer -- the obfuscation techniques demonstrated here fit right in the stereotype. And, just so there is no confusion, I fully admit that that was a biased statement. Let's get back to the main point -- provide some evidence that the data supports that your claim is consistent, or just drop it. Admit that the data fits the BB theory better. You can fix all these issues about biases and psychology by actually showing us that the data fits your model, too!!!. Otherwise, and again I will fully admit whatever biases you want to attribute to this: I will continue to be biased toward the model that makes the more accurate predictions. Because that's actually, you know, science. Objective, data-driven, statistically significant science.
kristalris Posted March 30, 2014 Author Posted March 30, 2014 (edited) I guess this puts a limit on how far you can see. Well indeed then. Please enlighten me where in the paper they explicitly state that their model of an expanding universe is backed by the found data better than any other model. They as far as I can see didn't. For if they did, they would of jumped the gun. This has nothing to do with legal evidence and proof what so ever but with any scientific evidence and proof. Yet you can of course compare it to a legal casus as I've done with suspect BB also having type O blood. Now lets say that was Bicep1 find. And now we have Bicep2 showing DNA mach of DNA found on the crime scene with BB. Say you are the suspect BB Swansont. Would you accept the fact that you are guilty (whether you are or not) on that basis? This in light of only mention of an other Champagne drinking suspect? Don't think so, yet now you do. Proof as in being more on the right track then any other model / idea. Edited March 30, 2014 by kristalris
Bignose Posted March 30, 2014 Posted March 30, 2014 Well indeed then. Please enlighten me where in the paper they explicitly state that their model of an expanding universe is backed by the found data better than any other model. They as far as I can see didn't. For if they did, they would of jumped the gun. This has nothing to do with legal evidence and proof what so ever but with any scientific evidence and proof. Once again, it is not on them to compare to every single model that had ever been presented ever. If someone else wants to use that data, it is publicly and freely available. What is stopping you or anyone else from comparing their measurements to your predictions? Nothing. This research group was interested in comparing to the predictions from BB, and that's what they published. So if you want to see how the data supports other ideas: do it, then, dammit! Make some predictions with your ideas, compare to the measurements given, and publish it.
kristalris Posted March 30, 2014 Author Posted March 30, 2014 (edited) Once again, it is not on them to compare to every single model that had ever been presented ever. If someone else wants to use that data, it is publicly and freely available. What is stopping you or anyone else from comparing their measurements to your predictions? Nothing. This research group was interested in comparing to the predictions from BB, and that's what they published. So if you want to see how the data supports other ideas: do it, then, dammit! Make some predictions with your ideas, compare to the measurements given, and publish it. Sorry mate, it is. Period. And as Einstein and Leonardo da Vinci and many other creative out of the box thinkers belonging to the 10% instruments that can actually even under pressure perform the required task have again and again shown is, that the only thing you have to do is integrate and then compare. Now then, show me where you have integrated it all? The burden of scientific proof thereof is on you. You claim that the Bicep2 find supports BB and proves to be on the right track. Well then prove it! That can logically AND MATHEMATICALLY - ONLY - be done by integrating. Care to differ (again)? All I have to do is like others state a possible alternate. Sorry to put your Bignose on this logically and mathematically point that you've clearly in your whole scientific carrier done this wrong. As so many as 80%/ 90% other scientists and lawyers and the rest of the populace. So don't feel to bad, but shape up: learn from Einstein: => INTEGRATE! Science is about finding the truth. Well stating that the (BTW brilliant) Bicep2 find supports BB more than others is not only not the truth but a conscious untruth, or in other words a blatant lie! The latter is simple probabilistic (common sense) reasoning. As did Einstein and Leonardo having it much more difficult. This BTW shows that BB is extremely improbable in light of all other models. Any of the 10% creative six year olds can see that if you put ALL the pieces of the puzzle on the table. For this conclusion I don't even have to put my Champagne bubbles on the table BTW, Edited March 30, 2014 by kristalris
John Cuthber Posted March 30, 2014 Posted March 30, 2014 Kristalris, You don't seem to have understood the situation here. The requirement for evidence from you to support your point is not a debating position, or an optional extra. There is no negotiation to do here. You must supply the evidence. Incidentally, you are no Einstein: he produced testable numerical predictions.
Bignose Posted March 30, 2014 Posted March 30, 2014 (edited) Sorry mate, it is. Period. How do you get to just say that? Where does it end? Why aren't you railing against the BICEP2 data not comparing to a geocentric model as well? You got a bunch of those... Ptolemeic, Greek, Roman, etc. Really, all of those should be compared, too, right? How about the one where the earth is riding on the back of a turtle... BICEP2 didn't address that, either, did it? When I type "Big Bang Theory" into Google Scholar, it results 162,000 results. Basically, even new paper really ought to reference all 162,000 of those papers, right? And compare every single result. Not to mention all the other ones, like a steady state cosmology, etc. Really, every paper should probably have over a million references, shouldn't it? Stop me when this gets too ridiculous. Why do you think you should get to force anyone to write about something? Why are you taking away their right to publish what they want to publish? In this case, that paper only wanted to compare the BB predictions with their measurements. ONE MORE TIME: if anyone else wants to compare a different set of predictions to this data, THEY CAN! THE DATA IS FREELY AVAILABLE. Why is this so hard to understand?!!?!?!?!? I don't get why you think someone else is compelled to write about things they don't want to write about. If you want to see those comparisons, DO IT! Science is about finding the truth. Well stating that the (BTW brilliant) Bicep2 find supports BB more than others is not only not the truth but a conscious untruth, or in other words a blatant lie! Science is NOT about truth. How many times do I have to repeat this? Science is about accurate prediction of phenomena. If you want truth, you are looking at philosophy. Edited March 30, 2014 by Bignose
kristalris Posted March 30, 2014 Author Posted March 30, 2014 (edited) How do you get to just say that? Where does it end? Why aren't you railing against the BICEP2 data not comparing to a geocentric model as well? You got a bunch of those... Ptolemeic, Greek, Roman, etc. Really, all of those should be compared, too, right? How about the one where the earth is riding on the back of a turtle... BICEP2 didn't address that, either, did it? When I type "Big Bang Theory" into Google Scholar, it results 162,000 results. Basically, even new paper really ought to reference all 162,000 of those papers, right? And compare every single result. Not to mention all the other ones, like a steady state cosmology, etc. Really, every paper should probably have over a million references, shouldn't it? Stop me when this gets too ridiculous. Stop there. You only have to do the six year old puzzle and you do that in verbal logic. Simple. As Einstein and Leonardo showed you. Simplify and not complicate the issue (Occam dixit). I.e. you got your norms mixed up. I can give you the simple rules you have to adhere to. Try and put your logic on the goal and not on the authority of the paradigm you want to change = the goal namely changing that. Why do you think you should get to force anyone to write about something? Why are you taking away their right to publish what they want to publish? In this case, that paper only wanted to compare the BB predictions with their measurements. Strawman! I agree with their paper! I've even explicitly more than once done that! I've even called their paper and find brilliant. What the hell are you talking about? ONE MORE TIME: if anyone else wants to compare a different set of predictions to this data, THEY CAN! THE DATA IS FREELY AVAILABLE. Why is this so hard to understand?!!?!?!?!? I don't get why you think someone else is compelled to write about things they don't want to write about. If you want to see those comparisons, DO IT! The Biceps2 group doesn't have to do more than they have done other than prevent others from claiming in their name things that are untrue. I don't say they have to compare anything. Science is NOT about truth. How many times do I have to repeat this? Science is about accurate prediction of phenomena. If you want truth, you are looking at philosophy. Science is indeed not about absolute truth. Yet it is about RELATIVE truth (you know relativity & Einstein) and the appropriate norms. I.e. is it to be held true or false to warrant further funding into BB or other fields of research? Now that is an actual question, that since the Arp debacle has - provable incorrectly - been answered with: BB research. The Biceps2 find or even claim doesn't change that. Edited March 30, 2014 by kristalris
swansont Posted March 30, 2014 Posted March 30, 2014 Well indeed then. Please enlighten me where in the paper they explicitly state that their model of an expanding universe is backed by the found data better than any other model. They as far as I can see didn't. For if they did, they would of jumped the gun. This has nothing to do with legal evidence and proof what so ever but with any scientific evidence and proof. I wouldn't expect them to, because their assumed audience is not you, it's scientific professionals who are familiar with the connection. Journal papers reporting research don't bother re-teaching what everybody is assumed to know. They give an introduction, which sets the context. In this paper they mention the standard cosmological model and then inflation. Everyone Every cosmologist and astrophysicist (and most other physicists and astronomers, and by the look of it, almost anybody with reasonable science acumen) would already understand the link between expansion, inflation and the big bang. Sorry mate, it is. Period. And as Einstein and Leonardo da Vinci and many other creative out of the box thinkers belonging to the 10% instruments that can actually even under pressure perform the required task have again and again shown is, that the only thing you have to do is integrate and then compare. Now then, show me where you have integrated it all? The burden of scientific proof thereof is on you. You claim that the Bicep2 find supports BB and proves to be on the right track. Well then prove it! That can logically AND MATHEMATICALLY - ONLY - be done by integrating. Care to differ (again)? All I have to do is like others state a possible alternate. Sorry to put your Bignose on this logically and mathematically point that you've clearly in your whole scientific carrier done this wrong. As so many as 80%/ 90% other scientists and lawyers and the rest of the populace. So don't feel to bad, but shape up: learn from Einstein: => INTEGRATE! Integrating what, exactly? You keep saying "integrate"like we're supposed to magically understand what you mean by it.
ajb Posted March 30, 2014 Posted March 30, 2014 (edited) You claim that the Bicep2 find supports BB and proves to be on the right track. Well then prove it! You can find 70 preprints that discuss this at http://arxiv.org/find/grp_physics/1/abs:+BICEP2/0/1/0/all/0/1 I am not a expert in this field, so I am not sure how best to guide you here. However, based on a quick scan it looks like the Bicep2 data puts further constraints on the parameters in the Lamdba CDM model, but none of the paramaters are drastically changed. Thus it all looks quite consistent. Edited March 30, 2014 by ajb
kristalris Posted March 30, 2014 Author Posted March 30, 2014 You can find 70 preprints that discuss this at http://arxiv.org/find/grp_physics/1/abs:+BICEP2/0/1/0/all/0/1 I am not a expert in this field, so I am not sure how best to guide you here. Very nice, seems to me that the same critique that I got from a Google post earlier on is in order. And this time I can say see how serious the mistake is! Everybody then seems to be parroting that the Biceps2 find supports BB. Whereas - as a scientific indisputable fact - it bloody red-shifted doesn't!
swansont Posted March 30, 2014 Posted March 30, 2014 Everybody then seems to be parroting that the Biceps2 find supports BB. Whereas - as a scientific indisputable fact - it bloody red-shifted doesn't! Then enlighten us. How does BICEP2 contradict the big bang?
kristalris Posted March 30, 2014 Author Posted March 30, 2014 I wouldn't expect them to, because their assumed audience is not you, it's scientific professionals who are familiar with the connection. Journal papers reporting research don't bother re-teaching what everybody is assumed to know. They give an introduction, which sets the context. In this paper they mention the standard cosmological model and then inflation. Everyone Every cosmologist and astrophysicist (and most other physicists and astronomers, and by the look of it, almost anybody with reasonable science acumen) would already understand the link between expansion, inflation and the big bang. Yes, so did I understand that they have found data that fits their expansion based model. So? Still don't get it do you?
ajb Posted March 30, 2014 Posted March 30, 2014 Integrating what, exactly? You keep saying "integrate"like we're supposed to magically understand what you mean by it. I second this request for some explanation here. It may be something we understand, just phrased in an odd way.
kristalris Posted March 30, 2014 Author Posted March 30, 2014 I second this request for some explanation here. It may be something we understand, just phrased in an odd way. Was just in the process of doing that. "Integrating" means taking into account ALL (= integrating) data. AND it means in situations of incomplete data of answering ALL (= integrating) relevant questions. Well then, please do. -3
ajb Posted March 30, 2014 Posted March 30, 2014 (edited) Okay, so taking into account all the data we see that the Lambda CDM model fits the observations very well. BICEP2 puts further constraints on the parametrs and may even rule out specific models of inflation (again I am not an expert in this) but it does not contradict the standard model of cosmology. The latest data support the notion of inflation, but it is not nessisarily a proof. There are still other mechanisms that could explain some of the data and these need ruling out carefully. That said, given what we now today inflation at the GUT scale seems the most likley mechanism. Edited March 30, 2014 by ajb
kristalris Posted March 30, 2014 Author Posted March 30, 2014 (edited) Then enlighten us. How does BICEP2 contradict the big bang? Good question. Ok what is all the data we have to contend with? Quite a lot but anyway I can only take into account what I know of. Introduce more relevant data as several open minded scientists have done in reaction to what I state because that is the only relevant - scientific - reaction. So what do I have on my table for my Einstein/ Leonardo induced 6 year old puzzle? - QM = SM; - GR (&QM) exempt straight flighing massless photons exerting gravity not holding c in the red-shifted curve; - Atom clocks slowing down in a function of the speed they gain; - Waves being a clear function of all observations; - Mounting entropy; - All fully observed functions are cyclic; - Black holes; - Everything small is spiraling/ spinning except photons? etc. etc. Now in verbal logic, if you want / can mathematics or drawings or thought experiments fuse (= integrate) all data in one elegant probable scenario if you can. BTW if you can't reach the mathematical norm then use the verbal logic norm, but integrate all you know to be pure observations. AND close is close enough for - scientifically required ! - further investigation on subsequent logically inferred norms. THEN and only THEN do you scientifically compare and conclude! Edited March 30, 2014 by kristalris
ajb Posted March 30, 2014 Posted March 30, 2014 (edited) So how does the above list contradict the big bang and more specifically the Lambda CDM model? Edited March 30, 2014 by ajb
ACG52 Posted March 30, 2014 Posted March 30, 2014 None of what he's written at any point makes any sense. He knows nothing about science. I can't fathom why the mods allow this drivel to continue. Swansont appears to enjoy playing with Kristalkris, and that's the only reason I can see for keeping this thread open. 2
Unity+ Posted March 30, 2014 Posted March 30, 2014 (edited) None of what he's written at any point makes any sense. He knows nothing about science. I can't fathom why the mods allow this drivel to continue. Swansont appears to enjoy playing with Kristalkris, and that's the only reason I can see for keeping this thread open. Then why do you even visit the topics in this section? I think it is a waste of posts if you are going to simply diminish other people. I know he doesn't make sense, but then I don't post in threads that don't make sense unless I see potential, even if it is a potential of .000000000000000000000...1. "Science isn't about determining who is right or wrong. It is learning from one's mistakes and making discoveries from such mistakes"(can't remember the exact quote, but it gets to the point). Edited March 30, 2014 by Unity+
ACG52 Posted March 30, 2014 Posted March 30, 2014 "Science isn't about determining who is right or wrong. It is learning from one's mistakes and making discoveries from such mistakes" There's no science in this thread.
Recommended Posts