The bullet cluster is the first direct observation of dark matter. That's what it is. You're not familiar enough with the literature to make this comment meaningful. "No theorists or observations that I know of have claimed to have confirmed the existence of DM." The team that worked on the Bullet Cluster experiment claim it directly verifies, something we call dark matter, exists as real natural phenomena. We just don't know 'exactly what it is'. It's part of this universe. It interacts with all matter gravitationally but doesn't interact with all matter electromagnetically.
For the alternative theorists:
- Thread starter paddoboy
- Start date
The bullet cluster is the first direct observation of dark matter. That's what it is. You're not familiar enough with the literature to make this comment meaningful. "No theorists or observations that I know of have claimed to have confirmed the existence of DM." The team that worked on the Bullet Cluster experiment claim it directly verifies, something we call dark matter, exists as real natural phenomena. We just don't know 'exactly what it is'. It's part of this universe. It interacts with all matter gravitationally but doesn't interact with all matter electromagnetically.
Still just tying up loose ends, so briefly...
Anyhow, if you watch that video for yourself you will find that it's a STAND ALONE CRITIQUE by an EXPERT in MRI and MICROWAVE techniques for PROCESSING microwave signal-to-noise data irrespective of source.
IIRC, he even won an award for his technical work in signal processing in MRI imaging techniques/solutions. He is expert in the signal processing techniques and extraneous factors involved in the IMAGE PROCESSING aspects, irrespective of WHERE/WHO the sponsor/audience was.
Don't let the reputation of the venue deter from hearing and assessing the OBJECTIVE EXPERT TECHNICAL FACTS for yourself. Good luck.
What does it matter where new facts/critiques by a relevant expert in MRI and MICROWAVES presents his factual review of the TECHNICAL LIMITATIONS and IMPLICATIONS of the COBE/WMAP signal/source treatments and conclusions?
He is an acknowledged expert in the MRI and MICROWAVE technical field. Can't get more relevant than that. He probably knows way more about the actual limitations and pitfalls involved in such exercises than the mathematicians/theorists manipulating the COBE/WMAP 'signal' info.
Anyhow, if you watch that video for yourself you will find that it's a STAND ALONE CRITIQUE by an EXPERT in MRI and MICROWAVE techniques for PROCESSING microwave signal-to-noise data irrespective of source.
IIRC, he even won an award for his technical work in signal processing in MRI imaging techniques/solutions. He is expert in the signal processing techniques and extraneous factors involved in the IMAGE PROCESSING aspects, irrespective of WHERE/WHO the sponsor/audience was.
Don't let the reputation of the venue deter from hearing and assessing the OBJECTIVE EXPERT TECHNICAL FACTS for yourself. Good luck.
Oh come on undefined.....You mislead the forum with your continuing claim that Sean Carroll supported your view re time. And you are doing the same here.
He is an obvious stooge of the Thunderbolt Project/Plasma/Electric Universe pseudoscience.
If there was any truth in what he was saying, it would be big news in scientific/cosmological circles.
Again, still tying up loose ends, so briefly...
The source is NOT important in objective scientific method. Anyone who claims different is NOT a truly objective scientist, but a self-interested and/or subjectively-trapped religionist or politically motivated intellect NOT prepared to assess the objective information presented on its technical/logical merits. It is becoming clear that some people on the forums are mere pretenders and not scientists if the source/venue clouds your objectivity and/or limits your preparedness to listen to differing technical information irrespective of source/venue.
Yet you took many days to finally watch that video. And had to finally admit that Sean/Perlmutter said that space was Euclidian to infinite extent beyond the observable universal horizon. Any other 'twisting' of that fact by you now is pure politics and ego, not scientific integrity. You called me a liar before you even watched it. Not very objective of you, was it? More emotional/ego blinkers than scientific preparedness to check the facts before making your accusations.
Anyhow, you now understand that universal space extends to infinity and is Euclidean (except in localized regions as affected via gravitational mechanisms/bodies), as Sean and Perlmutter conclude from the information they considered in that relevant BBC video which you finally viewed. That was all I tried to point out at the time. No more, no less. All the rest of your distracting emotional/ego-driven 'personalizing' crap tactics are neither here nor there when the facts speak for themselves in that BBC video. Just as they speak for themselves in the latest video I linked for Russ to view before he too makes uninformed prejudicial comments/judgements based on just venue/source.
Try to be less prejudicial and more prepared to listen, irrespective of source/venue. That is how objective science finds the gems among the dross as far as new ideas and perspectives/insights are concerned. Blind defense of the status quo 'beliefs' is a priest's MO, not a scientist's. Good luck to you both.
PS: I just noted that in your post #233 to forrest noble you asked him...
Do you see the irony in your own words when you and Russ REFUSE to watch the video I linked to so that you could actually LOOK and hear the information for yourselves BEFORE making opinions on things you haven't looked at, and calling people 'liars' etc because you haven't actually looked at what I pointed you to which contain the facts that speak for themselves irrespective of source/venue or who linked to it for you to look for yourself?
The source is NOT important in objective scientific method. Anyone who claims different is NOT a truly objective scientist, but a self-interested and/or subjectively-trapped religionist or politically motivated intellect NOT prepared to assess the objective information presented on its technical/logical merits. It is becoming clear that some people on the forums are mere pretenders and not scientists if the source/venue clouds your objectivity and/or limits your preparedness to listen to differing technical information irrespective of source/venue.
Yet you took many days to finally watch that video. And had to finally admit that Sean/Perlmutter said that space was Euclidian to infinite extent beyond the observable universal horizon. Any other 'twisting' of that fact by you now is pure politics and ego, not scientific integrity. You called me a liar before you even watched it. Not very objective of you, was it? More emotional/ego blinkers than scientific preparedness to check the facts before making your accusations.
Anyhow, you now understand that universal space extends to infinity and is Euclidean (except in localized regions as affected via gravitational mechanisms/bodies), as Sean and Perlmutter conclude from the information they considered in that relevant BBC video which you finally viewed. That was all I tried to point out at the time. No more, no less. All the rest of your distracting emotional/ego-driven 'personalizing' crap tactics are neither here nor there when the facts speak for themselves in that BBC video. Just as they speak for themselves in the latest video I linked for Russ to view before he too makes uninformed prejudicial comments/judgements based on just venue/source.
Try to be less prejudicial and more prepared to listen, irrespective of source/venue. That is how objective science finds the gems among the dross as far as new ideas and perspectives/insights are concerned. Blind defense of the status quo 'beliefs' is a priest's MO, not a scientist's. Good luck to you both.
PS: I just noted that in your post #233 to forrest noble you asked him...
PhysBang to forrest noble said:
Do you see the irony in your own words when you and Russ REFUSE to watch the video I linked to so that you could actually LOOK and hear the information for yourselves BEFORE making opinions on things you haven't looked at, and calling people 'liars' etc because you haven't actually looked at what I pointed you to which contain the facts that speak for themselves irrespective of source/venue or who linked to it for you to look for yourself?
Here's some more loose ends for you to tidy up in your never ending tying of loose ends.
Sean Carroll has said nothing that infers time is not real.....The best you could latch onto was he says it may possibly be debatable......
here it is again.......
http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/10/18/is-time-real/
In fact he says more then once, in no uncertain terms, that time is real.
And for you to speak of other people as prejudicial is just misleading.
You have taken Albert out of context, you have claimed support from Sean which is just plain wrong, you first pretend to have a paper, now its only a book, and you continually rant about some non existent ToE, which has been hatching under your wings for more than a decade that's going to rewrite 20th/21st century cosmology.
Do you really expect people to believe you?
Or is this just pretend play?
Tying up loose ends...
Well, if, like Russ and PhysBang et al, others REFUSE to LOOK and LISTEN to the facts objectively presented, what happens to the logic of your above rationalization for NOT looking and listening for yourself before making such uninformed personally prejudicial opinionating excuses for NOT being objective scientists? Priests won't listen to those they brand heretics because they don't want to listen. See the similarities so far in this instance? Good luck with your noise-post count. I see it's going great and you'll soon hold the 'noisemaking' empty personalizing uninformed posts record, paddoboy, if your latest bout of such posts since your return is anything to go by. Objective and original science/discourse is obviously not your thing up to now. Good luck in the future.
PS: Paddo, I just saw your latest post. I won't comment more than to observe that your rationalizations for you remaining personal, prejudicial and uninformed are getting lamer by the post. Maybe you could spend the time better actually looking and listening objectively and not with the prejudicial blinkers of your philosophical/abstract/personal 'beliefs' which are not supported by empirically self-evident facts. Good luck.
Please stop using 'personality' tactics to distract from the facts presented as objective stand-alone relevant technical expert critique in the field of MRI and MICROWAVES involved in the signal processing/treatments which he covered as an objective expert. Your claims of him being a 'stooge' of anyone is neither here nor there unless you can assess and refute the technical information/conclusions his expert work implies for the COBE/WMAP interpretations and treatments by anyone at all, let alone theorists who are not familiar with the limitations and pitfalls inherent in what they are doing with the data/signals they are manipulating/interpreting.
Well, if, like Russ and PhysBang et al, others REFUSE to LOOK and LISTEN to the facts objectively presented, what happens to the logic of your above rationalization for NOT looking and listening for yourself before making such uninformed personally prejudicial opinionating excuses for NOT being objective scientists? Priests won't listen to those they brand heretics because they don't want to listen. See the similarities so far in this instance? Good luck with your noise-post count. I see it's going great and you'll soon hold the 'noisemaking' empty personalizing uninformed posts record, paddoboy, if your latest bout of such posts since your return is anything to go by. Objective and original science/discourse is obviously not your thing up to now. Good luck in the future.
PS: Paddo, I just saw your latest post. I won't comment more than to observe that your rationalizations for you remaining personal, prejudicial and uninformed are getting lamer by the post. Maybe you could spend the time better actually looking and listening objectively and not with the prejudicial blinkers of your philosophical/abstract/personal 'beliefs' which are not supported by empirically self-evident facts. Good luck.
That is nothing but blinkered codswallop on your part.
He is obviously to anyone not having an agenda, a stooge for some alternative pseudoscience crackpottery company.
I wont answer the rest of your personal crap, and as has been noted by others here that no you better the I,
you have been posting this sort of pseudoscientific conspiracy stuff for more than a decade now.
It's you that needs the good luck in the future...take it with both hands! :shrug:
Have you actually listened and understood the technical expert critique of the relevant signal processing limitations and pitfalls involved? If not, then who are you to say anything at all except make uninformed opinions about persons, venues, source which objective scientific method does NOT place any value on when assessing objective technical merit. The facts not the source is what objective scientists are after. You are obviously a noisemaking 'personality cult' gossiping troll who has no actual technical contribution to make to the science/discourse except personal uninformed posts on a forum site. How many more noise-making science empty personalizing/rationalizing posts will you make today? Good luck with that.
You should be ashamed of yourself! Why in the name of all that is holy are you wasting your time 'tying up loose ends' here, when you have the answer to the biggest problem in physics, probably all of science and all you have to do is write it down!
Geeze, have you lost sight of what is important? You should not be spending one second on this site when it is taking time away from you advancing all of science.
I don't get it, if I had that knowledge wild horse couldn't keep me from sharing it.:shrug:
Already done, origin. Just finalizing/formatting for publication now. Have to take some breaks from proof-reading and so on, anyway, for eyesight/general health reasons. By the way, the latest family has been accommodated in Nowra in a large family size home. Much better than camping in the bush during winter coming up! I also wangled a 1-year lease for them so they don't have to move again until school is out next year (although as far as I can ascertain the owner (private renting) is currently open to extending for another year after that if everything goes well). It's great when things go well for a change, and the children can have some security and stability. It shows on their faces already, and they can't wait to start in their new school now school vacation is over!
It's not that I don't want to share it, it's just that I haven't the life/energy left to be tied up in all that 'priority' and 'piecemeal' publishing and other crap that many scientists in history got caught up in and had to endure for years and in some cases brought about their early demise.
Better to just publish the whole work complete and leave posterity to it while I slip away into that long goodnight that awaits us all sooner or later. No profit/fame motives in my work of many decades.
Anyhow, it's always good and worthwhile to occasionally take the opportunity to remind people (here and elsewhere) that objectivity and fairness is paramount, and to fight prejudicial thinking/acting and unfairness/inhumanity when one comes across it. Else what's science/humanity about if not that, hey? Cheers and best of luck to you, origin. I hope it won't be too much of a shock for you when it's out.
That is something that you could have looked up.
That you didn't bother to look it up, and that you have never bothered to read any WMAP papers, is a personal failing on your part.
Is that an acknowledgement that you know your previous claim of it having nothing to do with EU was false? So you were trying to deceive me, but failed, is that it?* Were you aware of the source? Was that just an error or was it a lie: were you trying to hide the fact that it was EU and hoping we wouldn't notice?
The source matters because it is an instant indicator of credibility.
Uh, yeah you could: he should instead be an expert in astronomy/cosmology/physics. There are lots of uses of microwaves and just because someone is an expert in one does not make him an expert in others.
*I note here that you're doing the crackpot dance with the last few posts; posting a piece of nonsense, having it knocked down, then moving on to the next without following-up the last. It's the throwing crap a the wall until something sticks tactic. Let's sum-up your recent crap that hasn't stuck:
-You falsely claimed Einstein to be non-mainstream.
-You falsely claimed any new theory is by definition non-mainstream.
-You falsely claimed that the mainstream of physics wasn't prepared for a new theory of gravity.
-You falsely claimed that scientists should read/watch anything thrown at them, from anywhere.
-You falsely claim a non-physicist to have the relevant expertise to make a contribution to physics.
-You falsely claim the source to not come from EU.
That's an awful lot of crap you've thrown at us in one day, Undefined. Sorry, but none of it stuck to the wall.
Scientists cannot waste their time on people who ignore the literature like you and the people you cite.
It is stupid to look for a truly objective method. Scientists show their methodology so that people, including other scientists, can make pragmatic decisions about whether to make choices based on their results. There are good reasons not to waste time on your links.
Because it is not readily available and because i know that you were grossly incorrect about what the scientists were saying on that video. You finally had to admit that they never said "energy space".
I never had to admit that, because I knew that it was true to an approximation. Someone who studies the science knows that the global properties of the universe at the scales of cosmology are not the properties at smaller scales. Perlmutter explicitly uses curved space in his papers; I know this from studying them in detail and writing papers about them. You have never bothered to read them, yet you feel free to make grand claims about them.
I knew you were a liar because you were making blatantly false statements about Sean Carroll. These statements remain untrue and you remain a liar; you care nothing for the truth and only for putting yourself forward as some sort of expert.
WTF? Now you are changing your story? Again, you were saying that space is completely flat, trying to support Farsight's bonkers claim and then continually used the statements in the video to support that fact. You are bringing forth a new lie or you are more delusional than you previously appeared.
You really have to be a pathetic human being to defend your lies about WMAP along with your refusal to read anything written by WMAP on the basis that I didn't watch a video, a video from a legitimately crazy organization, about WMAP.
If you have a problem with WMAP, why not show us in the WMAP papers themselves? Why do you go to the crazies?
You are telling us to trust this person, trust that they are competent. That is not an objective thing, that is a pragmatic commitment. You want us to ignore relevant information about this person because you trust them. And it seems that the only reason you trust this person is because they are telling you what you want to hear about WMAP and you are unwilling to learn anything from WMAP directly.
That is personal failing.
I've taken the time to look at the WMAP papers. Yet here you are, decrying them without looking at them. So who has the problem here?
Loose ends...
What are you on about? What is it I didn't look up'?
I was the one who saw the video and it contained pertinent expert info/critique on the CMB MICROWAVE signal processing/interpretations being applied currently. That's it.
I pointed Russ to that video for his own 'looking up' and making his own objective conclusions on the technical merits involved. He refused to 'look it up' because he was under the impression it was "EU" theory/matter involved. It wasn't, it was a stand alone delivery by an expert on CMB signal processing etc. Period.
The rest is all distraction and excuses for Russ refusing to view it just because the venue/source is 'tainted' by association with where/who delivered the relevant expert info/critique. Objective scientist should not jump to conclusions without 'looking it up' for themselves IRRESPECTIVE of where lecture delivered or by whom IF the info is objective expert critique ONLY.
That's it, really. Good luck.
What are you on about? What is it I didn't look up'?
I was the one who saw the video and it contained pertinent expert info/critique on the CMB MICROWAVE signal processing/interpretations being applied currently. That's it.
I pointed Russ to that video for his own 'looking up' and making his own objective conclusions on the technical merits involved. He refused to 'look it up' because he was under the impression it was "EU" theory/matter involved. It wasn't, it was a stand alone delivery by an expert on CMB signal processing etc. Period.
The rest is all distraction and excuses for Russ refusing to view it just because the venue/source is 'tainted' by association with where/who delivered the relevant expert info/critique. Objective scientist should not jump to conclusions without 'looking it up' for themselves IRRESPECTIVE of where lecture delivered or by whom IF the info is objective expert critique ONLY.
That's it, really. Good luck.
I like the way these investigators put it:
An 8-sigma significance spatial offset of the center of the total mass from the center of the baryonic mass peaks cannot be explained with an alteration of the gravitational force law, and thus proves that the majority of the matter in the system is unseen.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0608407
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0608407
Now if the cranks had any idea what this sentence even means we'd probably see them on the road to rehabilitation.
I didn't link to any other 'papers'. Only to that one video in my PS in my post #196 to Russ. That's it. If you are thinking of some other discussion, it's not the one involving my link to a video for Russ to look at. Ok? Maybe you are conflating this with other CMB discussion because of all the 'noise' from that clutter-troll confusing the exchanges with his own personal irrelevant commentary?
What's wrong with you? The linked video had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE EU MATTER. It was a VENUE for delivering HIS EXPERT CRITIQUE of the CMB signal processing aspect per se. Nothing more than that.
Didn't you undertand that the VENUE/SOURCE does NOT signify either here or there in OBJECTIVE SCIENTIFIC METHOD cpnsiderations of the presented facts? Why obssess about irrelevant 'messenger/venue' when you culd be fixating on the expert info/critique presented as a STAND ALONE lecture ON CMB signal processing limitations and pitfalls?
Give me a break, Russ. Just go view the blasted video and see for YOURSELF that it deals ONLY with the CMB signal processing etc. OK? No more of this political/irrelevant personal/venue/source crap, hey? It's just wasting time and making you look less objective. Stop following 'noisemaking troll' opinions and do your OWN due diligence on the actual matter presented. That's all a scientist should be concerned with, not all this side-play and personal tactics and distractions engaged in by the trolls who are not interested in science only personal crap. OK? Good luck.
Now if the cranks had any idea what this sentence even means we'd probably see them on the road to rehabilitation.
Have you ever seen an Elephant hanging over a cliff, with his tail tied to a Dandelion?
Some loose ends are being unnecessarily teased out beyond breaking point it seems...
Actually I have not ignored anything, mainstream or alternative. That is my point and MO. I look at all 'sides' to a question/discussion/argument. Always have done. Unlike some.
It's YOU and Russ and certain other trolls who are more interested in the persona/source/venue than looking at that video I linked for Russ in my post #196.
See? All your latest claims that I don't look things up are exactly what YOU and RUSS were doing when you REFUSED to look at the videos I alluded to but you still made uninformed accusations and comments without having seen the videos!
Look to your own refusal to look things up before making prejudicial uninformed comments and claims about me, hey? Remember how long you REFUSED to look for that BBC video after I mentioned what Carroll said in it? Yet you still called me 'liar' etc even though you had no idea what Sean actually said in that video, because you hadn't seen it when you made your comments. Good luck with that refusal to look before you judge/conclude/accuse, Phys, Russ.
Actually I have not ignored anything, mainstream or alternative. That is my point and MO. I look at all 'sides' to a question/discussion/argument. Always have done. Unlike some.
It's YOU and Russ and certain other trolls who are more interested in the persona/source/venue than looking at that video I linked for Russ in my post #196.
See? All your latest claims that I don't look things up are exactly what YOU and RUSS were doing when you REFUSED to look at the videos I alluded to but you still made uninformed accusations and comments without having seen the videos!
Look to your own refusal to look things up before making prejudicial uninformed comments and claims about me, hey? Remember how long you REFUSED to look for that BBC video after I mentioned what Carroll said in it? Yet you still called me 'liar' etc even though you had no idea what Sean actually said in that video, because you hadn't seen it when you made your comments. Good luck with that refusal to look before you judge/conclude/accuse, Phys, Russ.