For the alternative theorists:

[Russ_Watters]

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.

Odd choice of venue, then, isn't it? Why would he choose that "conference" as a venue and why would they let him present if it had nothing to do with EU?

In either case, that claim doesn't really help you any, does it? The video lacks credibility because of the source and venue, regardless of the exact subject matter. We've said that multiple times. This whiney, pathetic, failed attempt at hairsplitting of yours doesn't have any bearing on 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?

It does. And it doesn't matter how many times you deny it: crackpots are as crackpots do. Crackpots associate with crackpots because they are crackpots and mainstream people won't associate with them. If this talk were worthy of consideration in mainstream conferences, it would have been presented in mainstream conferences!

 

[Undefined]

Odd choice of venue, then, isn't it? Why would he choose that "conference" as a venue and why would they let him present if it had nothing to do with EU?

In either case, that claim doesn't really help you any, does it? The video lacks credibility because of the source and venue, regardless of the exact subject matter. We've said that multiple times. This whiney, pathetic, failed attempt at hairsplitting of yours doesn't have any bearing on that.

It does. And it doesn't matter how many times you deny it: crackpots are as crackpots do. Crackpots associate with crackpots because they are crackpots and mainstream people won't associate with them. If this talk were worthy of consideration in mainstream conferences, it would have been presented in mainstream conferences!

Who cares why it/he was there? The Objective Scientific Method isn't concerned with who or where the facts are presented for objective consideration according to its scientific merits. Period.

I have 'looked at' many mainstream and non-mainstream things appearing in the oddest/informal settings. But I did not fixate on the venue/person/reputation/association, only the facts/logics etc presented for objective consideration by me according to the objective scientific method. Period.

The fact that you are still banging on about things that are IRRELEVANT to the application of the objective scientific method is telling. Why should you care about all that crap if the information is there from an expert in the relevant signal processing field applicable? Why do you care about anything else except the facts there for your own due diligence on the matter?

Who cares WHY that particular video/presentation was put out at that venue? What does it matter to the objective facts involved/presented by that expert? The objective Scientific Method certainly doesn't care about such things at all. Nor should it. Ever. Get it?

Now if you are done making excuses for NOT following/applying the objective scientific method in this instance, go take a look at that video linked in my PS to you in post #196. Then come to informed conclusions based on the expert info involved, not on some prejudicial and spurious 'venue/motive' etc considerations which have no bearing at all in the scientific method application and assessment of the facts presented based ONLY on their technical/logical merits.

I may not be posting for a while after today/tomorrow, so, just in case I don't get a chance to 'speak' with you again before I withdraw completely from posting, I will take this opportunity to wish you good luck, Russ.

 

[Russ_Watters]

Who cares why it/he was there?

I do. Those in the scientific mainstream do. Those who wouldn't let him present his findings in mainstream conferences do. The EU people do.

And, I daresay, you do too. You can't possibly be so dense that you don't think it matters. If this were presented at a mainstream conference, you'd damn sure be hanging your hat on that. Edit: Afterall, you are trumpeting his resume.

The Objective Scientific Method isn't concerned with who or where the facts are presented for objective consideration according to its scientific merits. Period.

The scientific method isn't a person, so it doesn't concern itself with anything. But people do concern themselves with such things.

I have 'looked at' many mainstream and non-mainstream things appearing in the oddest/informal settings.

No doubt: you lack a filter for discerning between quality science and crap. That's one of the defining qualities of crackpots.

Why should you care about all that crap if the information is there from an expert in the relevant signal processing field applicable? Why do you care about anything else except the facts there for your own due diligence on the matter?

Because there is a lot of crap out there and people only have finite amounts of time. They can't just read/watch everything that comes their way. They must filter it to make the best use of their time. Even you: you, apparently, filter out the quality and focus on the crap.

 

[Trippy]

Who cares why it/he was there? The Objective Scientific Method isn't concerned with who or where the facts are presented for objective consideration according to its scientific merits. Period.

So according to you the anti-vaxxers should be given equal air time?

The rest of us look at the fact that Wakefield was paid a significant sum of money by lawyers to 'prove vaccinations cause autism' so they could use the paper in a court case and alarm bells start ringing - not to mention the patents he held on the alternative he stated was 'safer'.

See, the thing is source matters - just because Samuel Carey was a widely respected geologist doesn't make his expanding earth hypothesis any less wrong.

 

[Trippy]

Has mankind truely sampled the first trillionth of a trillionth of a second after the big-bang?

Well, no, because that's not the claim being made. The CMB is predicted to have come from the decoupling of radiation and matter, that occured something like 36,000 years after the big bang.

Now of course, they immediately say that a possible explanation has been done by these cosmologogists [Dicke, Peebles, Roll and Wilkinson] now what happenes in astrophysical journal, actually, is that this interpretation by Dicke, Peebles, Roll and Wilkinson actually precede the Penzias and Wilson publication. Since when in science do we publish the finding after the interpretation.

That's an excellent point, let me think about it for a minute.
Oh wait, my mistake, that's absolute crap.

Dicke had made predictions of the existence of the CMBR as early as the '40s. Dicke et al were working on constructing a Dicke radiometer independently of Penzias and Wilson. Penzias and Wilson got their radiometer operational and took their measurements before Dicke et al were able to. Moreover, there were the measurements made by Le Roux ten years earlier which would have given them confidence. It wouldn't surprise me if Dicke had most of a paper written or outlined based on the assumption of success, and consequently it doesn't surprise me in the least - I mean let's not forget what he is reported to have said when Penzias and Wislon phoned him to tell him of their results "Boys, we've been scooped".

The long and the short of it is he's making mountains out of molehills.

They're always having trouble with water...

And numerous other similar statements... He's distancing himself from mainstream cosmologists. Do I really need to go into the significance of that?

You can't subtract these signals because you violate thermodynamics.

Bollocks!

There's a number of other things he says that max out my crank-o-meter.

 

[PhysBang]

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.

And that's the problem, you buffoon.

You prefer to post videos that (you think) agree with your conclusion. That is the extent of your analysis. You don't bother to read the papers that the videos are about. So you see a video that you shouldn't trust because it is from a group of crazy people, yet you refuse to ever read any of the WMAP papers that the video discusses. You half-remember a video with Sean Carroll on it, yet you refuse to read ant of Sean Carroll's papers.

That is why you fail.

 

[Trippy]

And that's the problem, you buffoon.

You prefer to post videos that (you think) agree with your conclusion. That is the extent of your analysis. You don't bother to read the papers that the videos are about. So you see a video that you shouldn't trust because it is from a group of crazy people, yet you refuse to ever read any of the WMAP papers that the video discusses. You half-remember a video with Sean Carroll on it, yet you refuse to read ant of Sean Carroll's papers.

That is why you fail.

He thinks the assignment of the background radiation to a cosmic source is wrong.
He thinks that the sun is a liquid, rather than a solid.
He tried applying the laws of thermal emission in the same manner as Penzias and Wilson to the human head and came to a wein's displacement temperature of less than 1k, and it was this that led him to turn his mind to cosmology.

 

[leopold]

what is "dark matter"?
has science produced any in their "atom smashers"?

edit:
science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy/

could it be that what we see is actually a subset of something else?
don't ask me to explain that, i can't.

 

[paddoboy]

what is "dark matter"?
has science produced any in their "atom smashers"?

edit:
science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy/

Other then probably a certain percentage being MACHO's, and the rest WIMPs and more exotic non baryonic stuff, scientists do not as yet know.
None as yet been produced in any particle accelerators to my knowledge.
But not knowing does not mean that it doesn't exist.

 

[Undefined]

@Russ, Trippy, PhysBang.

Sigh. You are so fixated with venue, reputation and source and personal/elitist minutiae that you miss the point of my referencing that video for your consideration overall, and not just 'selected' comments. The point I took from his lecture was that there ARE signal processing limitations and pitfalls in these situations. And that these may lead to 'processing artifacts' which when 'connected' with assumptions and biases and make the 'conclusions/interpretations' suspect.

Even more recently, the BICEPS 'discoveries' papers are also being critiqued by mainstreamers who also point to obvious possible flaws related to assumptions/biases, processing limitations/artifacts and insufficient distinguishing of the 'signal' from all possible sources NOT associated with BBang scenario/genesis and which may overwhelm any such BBang 'signals' in fact. That was the overall current mainstream CMB work context and reason to refer (in passing, in a PS) that video to Russ for his own interest in that aspect of processing limitations/interpretations etc.

If you just 'pick out' certain comments in the video lecture and IGNORE the overall thrust of what that expert points to as the possible OVERWHELMING swamping of the 'signal' by noise and other sources (in both local and wider universe) more prevalent and many orders of magnitude stronger/numerous in the relevant channels, then you naturally limit your own understanding of what the lecture has to teach you. So you kneejerk and 'select' minutiae/personal aspects because of reading bias which ignores the greater thrust/import of what that expert pointed out overall.

I don't read things with biased mind, I just listen to the whole overall thing and glean the overall sense of the import/implications, without fear or favor. That is what I do. I listen to all 'sides', not just those I 'approve' of 'prejudicially'.

It's not a question of 'giving equal time', Trippy; it's a question of when I DO come across some interesting, relevant things 'out of the usual way/venue', I listen and take in both the good and bad bits. That is the only way one finds 'gems among the dross'. That is what I do, as a scrupulously independent objective observer/researcher.

I am not limited by professional/group tendencies/time/resources etc considerations. I read and research EVERYTHING. I don't see it as 'wasted time and effort'. I see it as an advantage I have over those 'scientists' and 'priests' who SELECT what they will 'look at' just based on time limitations, personal preferences, personal reputations, site/source/venue etc etc considerations which the Objective Scientific Method I have followed since age nine treats as IRRELEVANT. Unlike you, who see the time wasted and take 'short cut' PRE-SELECTED 'reading list' as your only source of new ideas/discussions, I take EVERYTHING I can come across in my researches/cogitations into consideration, no matter how 'unpromising' at first glance...because that way lay true objective 'balanced' scanning/researching of all 'sides' to matters which CAN result in findings/insights which the more 'self-selecting' mode of your own approach may miss. Serendipity as well as objective thoroughness are best when the WHOLE PICTURE is at stake, and not just some partial picture that 'near enough is good enough' as long as it's useful' within limited domains of applicability.

I have been embarked on the whole picture of objective reality, not just 'more of the same' minutiae and partial views which seem the fate of the present 'self-selecting' approaches.


Anyhow, I will leave it at that, as I have more work to do elsewhere. I trust you finally get where I am coming from, and that the point was to actually read without selective biases based on personal and source related 'selection' as o what you will look at. Only by objective and thorough hearing of the overall information, without 'kneejerking' on selected snippets and then ignoring the good bits, can one claim to have heard all the evidence for and against. And just because the motive/venue may not suit or may 'offend' you personally, it should not dissuade you from listening and finding the objective gems amongst the subjective dross. That is what the objective scientitific researcher/discourser DOES as a first principle, no matter the time it takes or the calibre of the information/presentation in any one instance.

Some will be complete wastes in terms of correct info/ideas, BUT SERENDIPITOUS TRAINS OF THOUGHT can often be started in your mind by INCORRECT perspective as CONTRAST to a more correct one which may spring to mind precisely because of that contrast. That is the whole raison detre' of wide reading, casual undirected discussion, brainstorming nonsense, considering CONTRASTING views etc etc, irrespective of how/where/when these occur.

Try to tone down the personal/selective bent in your approach, for the sake of objective balanced scientific method/research/comprehension of 'the full reality picture' if nothing else.

I am as anti-denialist/anti-creationist/anti-religionist/anti-stupidity/anti-criminality as anyone can be, but I don't let that get in the way of looking for gems among the dross whenever something interesting is being discussed by whomever, be they 'crank', amateur/professional scientist or religious/political speaker/venue. I sift it all and make my cogitations more complete and less open to 'missing something important as fact or contrast' just because I DIDN'T LIKE the source/person/venue etc. Good luck, guys.

 

[Russ_Watters]

@Russ, Trippy, PhysBang.

Sigh. You are so fixated with venue, reputation and source and personal/elitist minutiae...

In case you forgot, here is what you said in your setup to the video:

By the way, have a look at this video...

...by an MRI and MICROWAVES expert

It was you who brought his resume into this, right from the very first sentence of your introduction of the video. And why would you do that? Typically, we would assume that a paper/talk posted as a source is given by a person who is a relevant expert in the field. So why would you cite his expertise without us even asking? I think you knew that he wasn't a relevant expert and were defending by going on the offensive. Woulda worked out better for you if you hadn't because then you could at least claim, honestly, that it wasn't you who brought his qualifications into the conversation (not that that would make them less relevant).

...that you miss the point of my referencing that video for your consideration overall, and not just 'selected' comments. The point I took from his lecture was that there ARE signal processing limitations and pitfalls in these situations. And that these may lead to 'processing artifacts' which when 'connected' with assumptions and biases and make the 'conclusions/interpretations' suspect.

Did you post it in the wrong thread, perhaps? This thread is about how to use the scientific method, not about the Big Bang Theory. So the only relevant takeaway to posting a piece of evidence would be a critique of the quality of the evidence as pertains to the advice given in the OP. In other words: the thread exists to explain to you why that video is a bad piece of evidence, not to discuss the video's implications for the BBT.

That was the overall current mainstream CMB work context and reason to refer (in passing, in a PS) that video to Russ for his own interest in that aspect of processing limitations/interpretations etc.

I never expressed such an interest. Perhaps you were mistaking me and/or this thread for another.

I am not limited by professional/group tendencies/time/resources etc considerations. I read and research EVERYTHING. I don't see it as 'wasted time and effort'. I see it as an advantage I have over those 'scientists' and 'priests' who SELECT what they will 'look at' just based on time limitations, personal preferences, personal reputations, site/source/venue etc etc considerations which the Objective Scientific Method I have followed since age nine treats as IRRELEVANT.

And how's that working out for you? How much of a contribution to the human race's body of knowledge has that enabled you to make?

 

[Trippy]

@Russ, Trippy, PhysBang.

Sigh. You are so fixated with venue, reputation and source and personal/elitist minutiae that you miss the point of my referencing that video for your consideration overall, and not just 'selected' comments. The point I took from his lecture was that there ARE signal processing limitations and pitfalls in these situations.

Liar.
On the one hand, it is you and no one else that made consideration of the sources reputation relevant to the discussion by appealing to his authority.

On the other hand, I directly addressed points that your source raised in thw video you linked to so...

 

[paddoboy]

Our knowledge of the Universe around us proceeds at an incredible rate.
The incredible insights we have to the reality of the Universe has in no small way been made possible by the vast network of probes and Satellites that have been sent aloft....Planck, Kepler, Spitzer, WMAP, COBE, Fermi GRST, HST, and others.
The great theories of the 20th century, by equally great men like SR, GR, BB, go together like hands in a glove...All three support one another.
The theory of nuclear fission and fusion has lead us to finally understanding the mechanics of stars...
The theory of how the weakest of the four forces [not an actual force at all] has inexorably shaped our Universe that we see today.......
The all encompassing logically based self correcting discipline we know as the scientific method and peer review has worked well, revealing and testing new theories that have added to our knowledge, while at the same time, filtering out the dross and pseudoscientific nonsense, that individuals tend to raise outside the mainstream, in their forlorn attempt to gain fame and fortune.

In this now rather lengthy thread, the 12 reasonable points in the OP seem to have been forgotten by those deluded souls still pushing unsupported unreviewed and unevidenced alternative/conspiracy pseudoscience.
It should not be, and wont be by the world of science and particularly the branches of cosmology, astronomy and Astrophysics.

 

[paddoboy]

Liar.
.

Plus misinterpretations, taking others and their statements out of context, trying to limit critique by lay people such as myself.
It would be really laughable if it wasn't really so sad.

 

[Undefined]

Liar.
On the one hand, it is you and no one else that made consideration of the sources reputation relevant to the discussion by appealing to his authority.

On the other hand, I directly addressed points that your source raised in thw video you linked to so...

You're supposed to be a mod, for pity's sake. Set a proper example. See how you just provided an excuse for the 'noisemaker/cheerleader' troll above? You are directly responsible for that one, Trippy. So leave out the 'tired and emotional' language which only encourages and gives 'cover' for that silly troll. What are you going to do about him, Trippy, now that he is emboldened by your own bad example? You are making a rod for your own 'mod' back. Good luck.

And I initially mentioned the expertise of the speaker because of the subject matter he addressed as expert in that matter. As normal info for Russ to be aware of IRRESPECTIVE of VENUE etc. That's it.

The only reason I even mentioned it again later was because RUSS made a big song and dance about the person/source/venue etc, and conflated that content with the VENUE....which was precisely the thing I wanted to avoid him 'kneejerking', hence I mentioned the RELEVANT expertise of the speaker.

Go back and read the relevant exchange starting from the PS to Russ in post #196. It was ONLY in response to Russ (and paddoboy's trolling attempt at bringing irrelevant UE crap into it) that I was forced to mentioned it again later. That's it. OK?

And it's the signal processing limitations and pitfalls that were the interesting thing to me overall, not the minutiae in any one particular part of his critique. Get that?

Again, please act like a 'grown up and responsible mod', will you? Leave out the 'liar' tactic/language, ok? It's so passe' in this day and age. Thanks.

 

[paddoboy]

You're supposed to be a mod, for pity's sake. Set a proper example (see how you just provided an excuse for the 'noisemaker/cheerleader' troll above? You are directly responsible for that one, Trippy.). So leave out the 'tired and emotional' language which only encourages and gives 'cover' for that silly troll. What are you going to do about him,

I'm not trolling undefined, and more importantly, I'm not lying.
I do realise though that for someone that sees himself as an Einstein, potentially rewriting cosmology and giving humanity truth and reality, being told by a layman you are wrong, would be terribly deflating.

 

[Undefined]

@Trippy. Since I am withdrawing from posting soon anyway, I can speak clearly for your benefit and that of the site without fearing anything worse than permabanning by you, Trippy. So....

How long are you going to let that silly "paddoboy" troll misconstrue and make personal, cluttering, irrelevant, science empty posts while accusing others falsely based on his self-serving 'version' rationalizations about what has transpired? Surely even you (even as a biased/emotionally immature mod, which is plain to see above) can finally see paddo for what he is by now? Do something before he ruins not only your reputation as mod (like Dave/Lady Elizabeth/Marchioness Doughnut, etc etc etc is still doing to rpenner as mod over at physforum because his crazy trolling wasn't nipped in the bud long ago!), but also the site's reputation as well by the damage he is doing. with his 'diarrhic deluge' of trolling posts. Good luck, Trippy.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

@Trippy. Since I am withdrawing from posting soon anyway, I can speak clearly for your benefit and that of the site without fearing anything worse than permabanning by you, Trippy. So....

How long are you going to let that troll misconstrue and make personal, cluttering, irrelevant, science empty posts while accusing others falsely based on his self-serving 'version' rationalizations about what has transpired? Surely even you (even as a biased/emotionally immature mod, which is plain to see above) can finally see paddo for what he is by now? Do something before he ruins not only your reputation as mod but the site's reputation as well by the damage he is doing. with his 'diarrhic deluge' of trolling posts. Good luck, Trippy.

Cause what you said is the complete opposite to the truth?

 

[Uncle Ira]

@Trippy. Since I am withdrawing from posting soon anyway, I can speak clearly for your benefit and that of the site without fearing anything worse than permabanning by you, Trippy. So....

How long are you going to let that troll misconstrue and make personal, cluttering, irrelevant, science empty posts while accusing others falsely based on his self-serving 'version' rationalizations about what has transpired? Surely even you (even as a biased/emotionally immature mod, which is plain to see above) can finally see paddo for what he is by now? Do something before he ruins not only your reputation as mod (like Dave/Lady Doughnut, etc etc etc) is still doing over at physforum because his crazy trolling wasn't nipped in the bud long ago!), but also the site's reputation as well by the damage he is doing. with his 'diarrhic deluge' of trolling posts. Good luck, Trippy.

How you are Really-Skippy? Before you go Cher, would you explain to me this energy-space thing? Is this a real thing that the smart peoples come up with? Or is something you made up on your own? It don't seem to make much since to ol Ira and it seems to not be much sense to the google-Skioppys either no. Maybe you could spend more time explaining what you mean so the smart peoples won't be having the big fun with you because you just made it up and don't know what it means.

Explain better for me okayeei Neg? Oh yeah I almost forget,,, you do better now mate-Skippy.

 

[PhysBang]

Sigh. You are so fixated with venue, reputation and source and personal/elitist minutiae that you miss the point of my referencing that video for your consideration overall, and not just 'selected' comments. The point I took from his lecture was that there ARE signal processing limitations and pitfalls in these situations. And that these may lead to 'processing artifacts' which when 'connected' with assumptions and biases and make the 'conclusions/interpretations' suspect.

And you are clearly interested in only the conclusions that people come to. You stupidly ignore the actual science and then whine when people won't watch your crazy video.

Even more recently, the BICEPS 'discoveries' papers are also being critiqued by mainstreamers who also point to obvious possible flaws related to assumptions/biases, processing limitations/artifacts and insufficient distinguishing of the 'signal' from all possible sources NOT associated with BBang scenario/genesis and which may overwhelm any such BBang 'signals' in fact. That was the overall current mainstream CMB work context and reason to refer (in passing, in a PS) that video to Russ for his own interest in that aspect of processing limitations/interpretations etc.

That was a great example of how stupid you seem for never reading the science. BICEP2 looks at a radically different thing than the WMAP and other CMB observations, yet you can't tell the difference.

If you just 'pick out' certain comments in the video lecture and IGNORE the overall thrust of what that expert points to

But you can ignore everything ever written by people working with WMAP and instead trust the word of someone publicized by known crazy people. Don't you feel a little embarrassed about that?

I am not limited by professional/group tendencies/time/resources etc considerations. I read and research EVERYTHING.

But this is clearly a lie. You have never read a WMAP paper. You refused to read anything by Sean Carroll, instead trusting to your poor memory of a video.

It's great to see you signing off with such obvious lies.