I've been at work 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.
If you're going to spend so much time complaining about personal attacks, perhaps you should spend less time engaging them. I consider a 'lie' to be an accurate representation of your mischaracterization of my post. Perhaps if you spent less time complaining when people call you out on mischaracterizations of the words of others and more time explaining why you consider your commentary accurate and reasonable, coherent, rational and on-topic discussion could proceed. At the moment, you have all the characterstics of a troll: You make a post in a thread and when someone calls you out about it you derail the thread complaining about how it's unfair without actually putting any effort into defending your argument, then you come back later and repeat the same thing.
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 venue is completely relevant. Robitaille's biases are every bit as valid as Wakefield's or Carey's and people are right to treat Robitaille's assertions in cosmology with the same skepticism as they would treat Carey's in relation to modern continental drift theory. See, the thing is, the reason why the EU link is relevant is because the EU hypothesis precludes the big bang hypothesis. So here we have someone who was invited to a conference discussing why big bang cosmology is wrong, explaining to a group of people who believe that the big bang cosmology is wrong, why COBE and WMAP don't mean what mainstream cosmologists say it means. Why? Because
in his experience what they're claiming to do is impossible.
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.
I don't care. Did you know that? The point is that you repeatedly appealed to this guys authority.
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?
No, it's actually completely relevant.
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?
According to someone who has an agenda rooted in disproving big bang cosmology and replacing it with Electric Universe cosmology.
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.
It's a statement of fact, you deliberatrely mischaracterized my post to construct a strawman to allow you to dismiss my relevant points, which you have thus far
FAILED TO ADDRESS.
...merely an expert critique of Microwave signal processing and the limitations and pitfalls possible.
There you go again, appealing to his authority.
You know something? I'm not like you, I've
actually done some research into this guy. The only place he can get his criticisms of COBE and WMAP published is on Vixra. Something else I've noticed in his work, yet another shortcoming in his argument.
At no point in any of his work (at least teh work that I have looked at) has he ever:
1. Referenced the microwave absorption spectrum of water.
2. Explained how the emission spectrum of water, which is a continuum, can become thermalized to a perfect 2.7k black body emission spectrum.
3. Every criticism I have seen of his of blackbody assumptions can be resolved by considering instead a grey-body.
See? this is what paddo does, he makes misconstruings (like Tach used to do, even to Pete, James R, rpenner and everyone else until he was rightly permabanned) and everyone gets confused about what is being discussed, and people like you and Trippy and other eager troll-mod types just jump in and continue the furphy even though you don't know what's what because paddo confused you and it snowballed from there into 'uninformed kneejerk' stage like NOW from you as well. Good luck if you don't know what's what anymore, origin, you'll need it if you and others keep letting trolls 'shape' your uninformed reactions. Bye.
I'm getting sick and tired of this kind of commentary. It's insulting, did you know that? I commented on the EU background because I have
actually done some research into EU cosmology and what it means.
Get over yourself - seriously. If you put as much effort into addressing arguments as you did complaining, you'd get on a lot better.
Later paddoboy 'poisoned the well' for your 'reaction', and you made a smart aleck remark about what did I think you would want to watch it. I answered that it was, as I originally pointed out for your info, that it was a relevant expert's critique pointing to possible signal processing limitations and pitfalls involved in the manipulation/interpretation of CMB microwave signal data/sources.
The assumption that it took paddoboy to point anything out to anyone, or, for that matter, that Paddoboys posts are relevant to anyone other than paddoboy is so ridiculous it literaly makes me want to cry blood.
I didn't make a big deal of it at all, at any stage. Any further reference to the expert and the subject matter was in direct response to YOUR smart aleck refusal remark which was obviously misinformed by paddoboy's ASSOCIATING the video with EU even though the matter covered by that expert in the video had NOTHING at all to do with UE theory, irrespective of how it was used by others in other contexts.
This statement stands alone. The association with the EU hypothesis (it's not a theory) speaks for itself.
A bit restrictive isn't it? Seeing as we are in the middle of an exchange started and continued by you, Russ and PhysBang (and also Trippy) since I just made that passing link to someone else's expert comments on CMB signal processing (which blew up into troll-confusion exchanges still going on)?
Anyhow, if you, Russ and PhysBang (and also Trippy) are finished about this, then so am I. Good luck.
Congratulations. You found someone who claims to have relevant expertise because they work with microwaves who claims the entire hypothesis is bunkum. So now what? We accept the alternative hypotheses put forward by 9/11 truthers because they can find a demonlitions expert who says it looks like controlled demolition?
To restate:
In this post I have raised the following three points:
At no point in any of his work (at least teh work that I have looked at) has he ever:
1. Referenced the microwave absorption spectrum of water.
2. Explained how the emission spectrum of water, which is a continuum, can become thermalized to a perfect 2.7k black body emission spectrum.
3. Every criticism I have seen of his of blackbody assumptions can be resolved by considering instead a grey-body.
In this post I made four points:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...ve-theorists&p=3187908&viewfull=1#post3187908
That's seven points in total, and in spite of the fact that you have made 21 posts in this thread in the nearly 24 hours since I made my response, not once have you made even the slightest effort to address any of these.
The simple fact of the matter is that Robitaille's entire argument is constructed on strawmen, misrepresentations, appeals to authority, appeals to personal ignorance, appeals to ridicule, and, it seems, a few flawed underlying assumptions. This is the conclusion I have come to after not only watching your video but also reviewing the relevant background literature published by Robitaille. No amount of wailing and gnashing of teeth, hand ringing, or crying about mod-troll tag teaming is going to change that. What might change that is addressing the points I have made.
At this point, based on what I have seen, I'm not even confident in his interpretation of the signal processing methods used by the COBE and WMAP teams.
