For the alternative theorists:

[PhysBang]

The objective scientific method and objective scientists have regard to the content/facts presented, not their sponsor/source.

No.

Scientists need to consider the source of claims just like everyone else does. In this case, the only reason anyone has a chance to see that video is because of the existence of some well-placed nuts.

The scientist in the video is not some champion, he is merely grossly wrong.

 

[PhysBang]

But, but, but....how would you know what was 'being thrown at you' if you didn't watch that video from a PhD and expert on MRI and MICROWAVES etc critiquing the COBE and WMAP data/signal processing/sources etc in an as objective and scientific manner any true objective scientist would be GLAD of the opportunity to see and assess the facts presented for himself?

That has to be the most ridiculous thing you have ever written.

On this board, you clung to what you half-remembered from a video with a short segment interviewing Sean Carroll about the WMAP project, yet you refuse to read anything Carroll ever wrote about the CMB and you refuse to read anything published by the WMAP project.

You are the weird denier here that is refusing to confront information.

 

[leopold]

In essence you have failed the scientific methodology on most of the 12 points...that includes peer review.

what happens if you happen to find something that indeed goes against the mainstream view?
yes, it comes from a peer reviewed source.
yes, it was respected names that said it.
what happens then?
i've found 2 things:
i can't post it here without being moderated for it.
people such as yourself labels it creationist.

 

[Grumpy]

leopold

i've found 2 things:
i can't post it here without being moderated for it.
people such as yourself labels it creationist.

Probably because it is creationist garbage. You can find lots of "scientists" who say such things, none of them survive peer review, not because of bias, but because they are garbage.

Grumpy

 

[leopold]

leopold

Probably because it is creationist garbage.

from a respected science source said by respected people?
try again.

 

[Grumpy]

Respected by whom? Ken Ham is respected by some people, it's just that none of those people know a thing about real science.

 

[leopold]

Respected by whom? Ken Ham is respected by some people, it's just that none of those people know a thing about real science.

a respected science source doesn't get respected if it doesn't know science, and knows it well.

 

[Trippy]

what happens if you happen to find something that indeed goes against the mainstream view?
yes, it comes from a peer reviewed source.
yes, it was respected names that said it.
what happens then?
i've found 2 things:
i can't post it here without being moderated for it.
people such as yourself labels it creationist.

so much for your hallowed discipline.

No, you get misrepresented for the attitude you direct at others, as well as for lying and misrepresenting your source.

 

[forrest noble]

paddoboy,

Are you saying that the mainstream is doctoring findings and manufacturing a conspiracy? I mean why wouldn't that be allowed for, at least with the WMAP findings. Sorry, I just don't buy it.

No, they use a big bang interpretation concerning most every related observation. I have never seen the big bang model challenged concerning a contradictory observation study, even though there are a great many contradicting observations. For contradicting observations, instead new explanatory hypothesis are proposed. When no other mainstream explanation can be found for these observations, in time the new hypothesis may evolve into a permanent addendum to the Big Bang theory. Such examples of addendum hypothesis have been Inflation, Dark Matter, and Dark Energy. I think the reason why other possibilities are not considered is that only a small percentage of astronomers and theorists are familiar with, or have ever seriously studied or considered alternative possibilities/ theories. And the sources of their fundings are nearly always mainstream based. I am aware that there are dozens of serious alternative cosmologies, many originally proposed within the mainstream. Very few have been studied or disproved, in my opinion. Even though Big Bang proponents rarely ever consider alternative possibilities, by far the vast majority are still serious scientists trying to do their best, which I respect.

 

[PhysBang]

No, they use a big bang interpretation concerning most every related observation. I have never seen the big bang model challenged concerning a contradictory observation study, even though there are a great many contradicting observations. For contradicting observations, temporary hypothesis are proposed. When no other mainstream explanation can be found, in time the new hypothesis may evolve into a permanent addendum to the Big Bang theory. Such examples of addendum hypothesis have been Inflation, Dark Matter, and Dark Energy. I think the reason why other possibilities are not considered is that only a small percentage of astronomers and theorists are familiar with, or have seriously considered alternative possibilities/ theories. And their fundings are nearly always mainstream based. I am aware that there are dozens of serious alternative cosmologies, many proposed within the mainstream. Very few have been studies or disproved, in my opinion. By far the vast majority of mainstream practitioners are serious scientists trying to do their best, which I respect.

Maybe the reason that people do not take these "contradicting observations" seriously is that there is so much potential error in astronomical observations?

So far, inflation has been used to explain 0 contradictions to the standard cosmological model (despite what its proponents might say).

Dark matter and dark energy have had a host of confirming evidence. So much so that the (only barely not-crazy) alternative theory quasi-steady state theory has had to adopt them! And QSST still cannot match the standard cosmological model, with or without inflation.

 

[forrest noble]

Maybe the reason that people do not take these "contradicting observations" seriously is that there is so much potential error in astronomical observations?

Yes, I agree with that as a statement, not just as a question I think the primary problem, however, is often the interpretation of observations.

So far, inflation has been used to explain 0 contradictions to the standard cosmological model (despite what its proponents might say).

The Inflation hypothesis was proposed to primarily explain the Inflation and Horizon observation problems. "Problems" often involve potentially "contradicting" observations based upon analysis and interpretation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)

Dark matter and dark energy have had a host of confirming evidence. So much so that the (only barely not-crazy) alternative theory quasi-steady state theory has had to adopt them! And QSST still cannot match the standard cosmological model, with or without inflation.

There is no direct evidence to support the existence of dark matter particles, or evidence to show the source for dark energy. I think there are better non-mainstream explanations for both. Most of these explanations are contrary to their real existence.

 

[leopold]

No, you get misrepresented for the attitude you direct at others, as well as for lying and misrepresenting your source.

yeah, well, the only thing i regret saying is "so much for your hallowed discipline".
i shall edit the post accordingly.

 

[PhysBang]

Yes, I agree with that as a statement, not just as a question I think the primary problem, however, is often the interpretation of observations.

Have you actually looked at any observations? You bring up these things, but you show no evidence of having looked at the observations and how people justify their interpretations.

The Inflation hypothesis was proposed to primarily explain the Inflation and Horizon observation problems. "Problems" often involve potentially "contradicting" observations based upon analysis and interpretation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)

Congrats, you found wikipedia.

The horizon problem and the flatness problems aren't really huge problems in cosmology. The horizon problem could be solved with initial conditions. Inflationary theory doesn't even guarantee flatness anymore; inflaton fields can result in an arbitrary mass-energy density for a FLRW model.

There is no direct evidence to support the existence of dark matter particles, or evidence to show the source for dark energy.

I note the interesting, and deceptive, technique of referring to dark matter "particles".

Dark energy might just be a constant of gravitational interaction and thus have no source. The constant G also has no source, should we abandon it and ignore the satellites put into orbit using G?

If you want to ignore the evidence, that's fine. Just do not lie and say there isn't any.

I think there are better non-mainstream explanations for both. Most of these explanations are contrary to their real existence.

These explanations are contrary to good sense. The explanations simply can't match the data we have available.

 

[paddoboy]

There is no direct evidence to support the existence of dark matter particles, or evidence to show the source for dark energy. I think there are better non-mainstream explanations for both. Most of these explanations are contrary to their real existence.

How about the bullet cluster observation.
This cluster is actually two clusters of galaxies in the process of merging.
It was found that the normal baryonic matter in each cluster interacted with the baryonic matter in the other cluster and slowed down.
The DM on the other hand did not interact at all and passed through the merging baryonic stuff, and reveal itself at either end of the reactionary baryonic matter.

http://chandra.harvard.edu/press/06_releases/press_082106.html


And other tantalising bits of evidence since has also added to the DM confirmation.

 

[Russ_Watters]

No, they use a big bang interpretation concerning most every related observation. I have never seen the big bang model challenged concerning a contradictory observation study, even though there are a great many contradicting observations. For contradicting observations, instead new explanatory hypothesis are proposed.

Uh, what? You're talking nonsense and contradicting yourself while doing it. Proposing a new hypothesis to account for contradictory information is challenging the status quo ad is exactly how the scientific method works/is supposed to work.

 

[forrest noble]

Have you actually looked at any observations?

No, I've looked through a few telescopes in my time but I've not observed anything outside this galaxy.

You bring up these things, but you show no evidence of having looked at the observations and how people justify their interpretations.

I've studied many papers concerning observation studies over many years. Now it is much easier to find many of them, and discussions of their conclusions, on the internet. Of course I don't disagree with all interpretations of observations, but I do disagree with many conclusions where I think evidence could have supported other conclusions.

I note the interesting, and deceptive, technique of referring to dark matter "particles".

I do not consider my language deceptive. Precise language is very important. For instance if dark matter were not particulate how could it be called matter?

Dark energy might just be a constant of gravitational interaction and thus have no source. The constant G also has no source, should we abandon it and ignore the satellites put into orbit using G?

The constant G may have no source in mainstream theory. This does not mean that it does not have an ultimate source for its existence.

If you want to ignore the evidence, that's fine. Just do not lie and say there isn't any.

Mainstream science must believe there is evidence to support mainstream hypothesis, otherwise these hypothesis could never become part of mainstream theory and would remain speculation. Because it is believed that there is evidence for dark matter and dark energy, does not mean, however, that either exists or that the supposed evidence is valid. Many, or most still believe they still should be called hypothesis rather than theory.

These explanations are contrary to good sense. The explanations simply can't match the data we have available.

Some alternative explanations may seem contrary to good sense, granted, but to me, so do a number of mainstream explanations based upon the information and evidence available.

 

[forrest noble]

How about the bullet cluster observation.
This cluster is actually two clusters of galaxies in the process of merging.
It was found that the normal baryonic matter in each cluster interacted with the baryonic matter in the other cluster and slowed down.
The DM on the other hand did not interact at all and passed through the merging baryonic stuff, and reveal itself at either end of the reactionary baryonic matter.

http://chandra.harvard.edu/press/06_releases/press_082106.html

Yes, the bullet cluster seems like an interesting example of the possibility of dark matter. Rather than the dark matter interpretation, however, I expect there are other interpretations of what is being observed. I have my own.

And other tantalising bits of evidence since has also added to the DM confirmation.

I think "confirmation" is too strong a word. No theorists or observations that I know of have claimed to have confirmed the existence of DM.

 

[forrest noble]

Uh, what? You're talking nonsense and contradicting yourself while doing it. Proposing a new hypothesis to account for contradictory information is challenging the status quo ad is exactly how the scientific method works/is supposed to work.

New hypothesis can contradict existing mainstream hypothesis and speculations without necessarily overthrowing the primary theory. Prime examples of these are the Inflation hypothesis, the dark matter hypothesis, and the dark energy hypothesis. If you study the origin of these hypothesis you will see that each either replaced an assumption of the theory, a pre-existing hypothesis, and/or modifies the primary theory in some way.

I don't disagree with the scientific method, but the details, sequences, and details of the method and how it is applied based upon information, evidence, observations, etc., can validly vary from one group or individual to another, resulting in different conclusions. Logic must be involved to analyze and interpret, which will vary based upon the theories and hypothesis being assumed.

 

[paddoboy]

I think "confirmation" is too strong a word. No theorists or observations that I know of, have claimed to have confirmed the existence of DM.

I have often needed to inform some of our more enthusiastic alternative theorist [the ones that claim to have 20th century cosmology rewritten] that there is no proof or 100"% certainty in any scientific theory.
I was using confirmation though, on a sliding scale. eg: the theories of SR, GR are far more concrete then DM.


The following is one of the more recent discoveries that point to DM.....

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
The more that scientists stare at it, the more a strange signal from the center of the Milky Way galaxy appears to be the result of dark matter annihilation. If confirmed, it would be the first direct evidence for dark matter ever seen.

http://www.wired.com/2014/03/dark-matter-galactic-center/
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

 

[forrest noble]

I have often needed to inform some of our more enthusiastic alternative theorist [the ones that claim to have 20th century cosmology rewritten] that there is no proof or 100"% certainty in any scientific theory.
I was using confirmation though, on a sliding scale. eg: the theories of SR, GR are far more concrete then DM.


The following is one of the more recent discoveries that point to DM.....

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
The more that scientists stare at it, the more a strange signal from the center of the Milky Way galaxy appears to be the result of dark matter annihilation. If confirmed, it would be the first direct evidence for dark matter ever seen.

http://www.wired.com/2014/03/dark-matter-galactic-center/

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

Yes, they are interesting observations. They are based upon the speculation that gamma rays are created by interactions or destruction of DM particulates.