For the alternative theorists:

[Trippy]

So...Trippy, why would you, as a sane person, "genuinely and whole heartedly wish that" you "could cry blood"???!!!

It was intended as an expression of my level of frustration at an inane assertion. Talking about wanting to cry didn't seem strong enough, and talking about making my soul weep or bleed seemed to metaphorical. :shrug: If you don't like it, that's fine, move along.

Also, Trippy, if I did not "point out such errors for" you, you would not be able to Post such lame rationalizations for your errors. Do you possibly adhere to the belief that a poor excuse is better than none?

I'm not here to impress you and I really don't care what you think of the explanation. The simple fact of the matter is that I have been typing for more than twenty years and when I was taught to type, I was taught to touch-type. My typing style, however, is not a good touch-typing style. I know where the keys are and tend to watch what I type rather than watching the keyboard, however, I don't use the home keys the way they're intended to be used and my wrists are in completely the wrong position. The consequence of all of this is that the two most common errors I make are my fingers being in the wrong place or not pressing a key hard enough the second time. The first kind of error produces things like 'yjr' in place of 'the'. The second kind of error is what you picked up on.

Usually I pick up on these errors, occasionally I do not. Often when I fail to notice them it's because I'm either tired or have too many windows open (either that or my wife or kids are talking at me while I'm trying to type). That's all the explanation there is. It was an unnoticed typographical error. :Shrug: If you don't like it, that's fine, move along.

At any rate, why is this Thread not in the Cesspool?

Goodbye, Trippy.

Because it seemed like a reasonable discussion at the time. :shrug: If you don't like it, that's fine, move along.

 

[forrest noble]

i think it should be pointed out that "dark matter" is a symbolic name given to this phenomenon.
it might not be "matter" at all.

Yeah, as a place holder or symbolic name, I see nothing wrong with the use of the words dark matter. I think, however, that most astronomers and physicists would be very surprised if dark matter was not really matter of some kind but instead a mass-less aether entity like photons, something else, or just the mis-formulation of gravity/GR as is proposed concerning MOND. Many theorists have come up with many different proposals as to what dark matter might be, or whether it really exists.

 

[paddoboy]

Yeah, as a place holder or symbolic name, I see nothing wrong with the use of the words dark matter. I think, however, that most astronomers and physicists would be very surprised if dark matter was not really matter of some kind but instead a mass-less aether entity like photons, something else, or just the mis-formulation of gravity/GR as is proposed concerning MOND. Many theorists have come up with many different proposals as to what dark matter might be, or whether it really exists.

The two forms of DM that cosmologists think could be responsible for the missing mass, are MACHO's [Massive Astronomical Compact Halo Objects] and WIMP's [Weakly Interactive Massive Particles] or possibly some other form of non baryonic stuff we are as yet not aware of.

The problem with the MOND interpretation, [from what I have read] is that although it appears to satisfy some galaxies and circumstances, it fails in others and needs to be tweaked.

DM may have originally been a "fudge factor" when first used to explain the apparent anomalous movements of galaxies, but much evidence since [like the bullet cluster observations] do support its concept.

Maybe when the LHC is operating at full capacity, we may get a glimpse of a possible as yet undiscovered sub atomic, non baryonic particle.

 

[Trippy]

The two forms of DM that cosmologists think could be responsible for the missing mass, are MACHO's [Massive Astronomical Compact Halo Objects] and WIMP's [Weakly Interactive Massive Particles] or possibly some other form of non baryonic stuff we are as yet not aware of.

The problem with the MOND interpretation, [from what I have read] is that although it appears to satisfy some galaxies and circumstances, it fails in others and needs to be tweaked.

DM may have originally been a "fudge factor" when first used to explain the apparent anomalous movements of galaxies, but much evidence since [like the bullet cluster observations] do support its concept.

Maybe when the LHC is operating at full capacity, we may get a glimpse of a possible as yet undiscovered sub atomic, non baryonic particle.

Irony: MOND and its extension TeVeS Gravity weren't originally proposed to replace Dark Matter. According to the original author of MOND he only ever believed that MOND would reduce the amount of Dark Matter required.

The problem with MOND and TeVeS is they fail to correctly predict the apparent mass distribution observed within the bullet cluster, among other things.

And that folks is why I waste my time researching these alternative theories and reading publications such as those by Robitaille.

 

[forrest noble]

Yeah, as a place holder or symbolic name, I see nothing wrong with the use of the words dark matter. I think, however, that most astronomers and physicists would be very surprised if dark matter was not really matter of some kind but instead a mass-less aether entity like photons, something else, or just the mis-formulation of gravity/GR as is proposed concerning MOND. Many theorists have come up with many different proposals as to what dark matter might be, or whether it really exists.

Yes, I will be very surprised if dark matter is really a WHIMP of some kind, and a little bit less so if it consists of MACHO'S of some kind. My expectation, as I have said before, is that it is a mass-less aether which is the source of what they now believe is dark matter, and the it is the source of all gravity.

MOND has been shown to be quite successful as a gravity formulation predictor concerning spiral galaxies, but it has no strong theoretical basis -- a criticism of many physicists. GR uses as the basis for its formulations the warping of spacetime and for its variation from Newtonian gravity.

 

[forrest noble]

Irony: MOND and its extension TeVeS Gravity weren't originally proposed to replace Dark Matter. According to the original author of MOND he only ever believed that MOND would reduce the amount of Dark Matter required.

The problem with MOND and TeVeS is they fail to correctly predict the apparent mass distribution observed within the bullet cluster, among other things.

And that folks is why I waste my time researching these alternative theories and reading publications such as those by Robitaille.

Based upon continuing discoveries, hopefully it won't be a waste of your time

 

[paddoboy]

I am not sure that paddoboy's Posts are even relevant to paddoboy!

Let me explain to you.....
Firstly as an obvious fanatical supporter of the right of all to say what they like, and claim what they like, you need to be reminded that although I also agree with that, it should be said that all are responsible for what they say and to whom it reflects on.

Now in a forum such as this, its logical to assume that the standard incumbent mainstream model or theory is the obvious default position.
It's also obvious to most, that anyone with an alternative hypothesis, needs to at least explain more accurately and more succulently, all observational and experimental data that the incumbent model already has, and extend beyond those parameters.
If it doesn't do that, its destined for the waste bin and to forever remain a hypothesis only ever seeing the light of day on isolated science forums such as this.

So we get to the reason for this thread.
As its initiator, I saw a situation where human conditions such as delusions of grandeur, tall poppy syndrome, general conspiracy leanings and distrust in scientific establishment working methods was getting way to numerous, and threatening the reasons for any science forums.

That is not to say that anyone with any alternative hypothesis, is not worth considering. In fact I have my own alternative hypothesis about a couple of cosmological issues that I have discussed here, in the appropriate manner, and certainly not with any of the above mentioned maladies.

The 12 points listed in the OP are a reasonable framework with which any alternative hypothesis needs to abide.
Most reputable, no all reputable people here agree with that.

Worth noting that the alternative hypothesis pusher that needs to decry the scientific methodology and peer review system, or that sees the giants of the past, and the excellent verified models that they have presented as inferior to their own untested, unreviewed nonsense.
They see the establishment as "out to get them" and cry victimisation. They progress from an alternative theorist, to pseudoscience and then conspiracy nutter.

In that respect this thread has and is serving its purpose in most cases. The numbers have dropped off and some are permanently gone.
And for that I thank the likes of Grumpy, brucep, origin and many others in making this thread the success that it has been.

No doubt, the alternative modelers will continue...no doubt they will in some cases turn to pseudo quackery...no doubt some will raise supposed conspiracies...no doubt some will complain about lay people needing to tell them some home truths.....no doubt they will also have their bleeding heart supporters crying on their behalf.

And no doubt as common sense and logic dictates, these crazies will be opposed by the correct method and the proper peer reviewed theories, some of which are as near set in concrete as can be.

Again, check out points 10, 11, and 12.

 

[paddoboy]

MOND has been shown to be quite successful as a gravity formulation predictor concerning spiral galaxies, but it has no strong theoretical basis -- a criticism of many physicists. GR uses as the basis for its formulations the warping of spacetime and for its variation from Newtonian gravity.

I don't know the real detailed methodology or mechanics of MOND, but I am having difficulty seeing how it could be deemed successful, when it needs to be tweaked according to galactic types and conditions.
Limited success maybe......

 

[paddoboy]

Why wasn't this Thread moved to the "Cesspool" some 335 or so Posts ago?

Well at least certainly all those starting threads/posts that claim 100% faitre complei certainty with any alternative hypothesis, plus the silly pedant illustrated at 336 and 339 should indeed be in cesspool.


Other then that, this thread has highlighted a problem and has had success in doing so.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

Let me explain to you.....

paddoboy, I'll let you explain to me a few things :

1.) - Could you explain to me the following statement :

Firstly as an obvious fanatical supporter of the right of all to say what they like, and claim what they like, you need to be reminded that although I also agree with that, it should be said that all are responsible for what they say and to whom it reflects on.

I am NOT "an obvious fanatical supporter of the right of all to say what they like, and claim what they like"! Though you claim to "agree with that"!!

paddoboy, although you claim to be "an obvious fanatical supporter of the right of all to say what they like, and claim what they like"- your actions do not seem to match your claim!

The only part of your statement that I can agree with is that "all are responsible for what they say and to whom it reflects on"!

TO WIT:

Now in a forum such as this, its logical to assume that the standard incumbent mainstream model or theory is the obvious default position.
It's also obvious to most, that anyone with an alternative hypothesis, needs to at least explain more accurately and more succulently, all observational and experimental data that the incumbent model already has, and extend beyond those parameters.
If it doesn't do that, its destined for the waste bin and to forever remain a hypothesis only ever seeing the light of day on isolated science forums such as this.

2.) - How is one supposed to explain something "succulently"?

So we get to the reason for this thread.
As its initiator, I saw a situation where human conditions such as delusions of grandeur, tall poppy syndrome, general conspiracy leanings and distrust in scientific establishment working methods was getting way to numerous, and threatening the reasons for any science forums.

3.) - Could a person suffering "delusions of grandeur" or "tall poppy syndrome" be so arrogant and egotistical as to Post in this Forum without performing the due diligence of re-reading and editing/correcting those Posts prior to Posting them?

4.) - paddoboy, why did you not start this Thread in the "Alternative Theories" section of SciForums in the first place?

 

[forrest noble]

I don't know the real detailed methodology or mechanics of MOND, but I am having difficulty seeing how it could be deemed successful, when it needs to be tweaked according to galactic types and conditions.
Limited success maybe......

MOND has successfully predicted rotation rates of spiral galaxies. From what I've seen its calculated results are much better than calculations using dark matter and Newtonian gravity/ GR, compared to actual observations. Problems with MOND concern galaxy groups and clusters, and the bending of light. To work it also requires more matter than what can be observed, but less than what is needed for Newtonian gravity and GR. MOND is a phenomenological equation based upon galaxy observations rather than strongly based in theory. For this reason I expect MOND, and eventually also GR to be replaced by equations from a different strongly based new theory.

 

[paddoboy]

4.) - paddoboy, why did you not start this Thread in the "Alternative Theories" section of SciForums in the first place?

Ignoring your usual pedant rubbish and your denial of the obvious, I'll answer the last question.
BECAUSE AS ANY REASONABLE PERSON, NOT BLINKERED WITH AN AGENDA CAN SEE, I'M NOT PROPOSING ANY ALTERNATIVE THEORY OR HYPOTHESIS.
JUST STATING THAT WHICH IS ALREADY ACCEPTED BY MAINSTREAM SCIENCE AND MAINSTREAM SCIENTISTS.

Good bye dmoe.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

Well at least certainly all those starting threads/posts that claim 100% faitre complei certainty with any alternative hypothesis, plus the silly pedant illustrated at 336 and 339 should indeed be in cesspool.


Other then that, this thread has highlighted a problem and has had success in doing so.

paddoboy, ARE YOU FECKLESSLY ATTEMPTING TO PLAY YOUR LITTLE GAME OF "STRAWMAN" OR "BAITING" WITH ME?

If you are, I must tell you that I see it as nothing more than a thinly and poorly disguised childish attempt at an insult!

Remember paddoboy, "all are responsible for what they say and to whom it reflects on"!

 

[dumbest man on earth]

Ignoring your usual pedant rubbish and your denial of the obvious, I'll answer the last question.
BECAUSE AS ANY REASONABLE PERSON, NOT BLINKERED WITH AN AGENDA CAN SEE, I'M NOT PROPOSING ANY ALTERNATIVE THEORY OR HYPOTHESIS.
JUST STATING THAT WHICH IS ALREADY ACCEPTED BY MAINSTREAM SCIENCE AND MAINSTREAM SCIENTISTS.

Good bye dmoe.

So paddoboy, you evidently prefer not to practice what you preach?

To Wit :

In my Opinion>....
Anyone with alternative theories they wish to discuss should follow a few simple procedures:

[7] You’re going to be asked tough questions. When someone asks you a question answer it.

[8] When someone demonstrates a point you made is wrong, acknowledge that it is wrong and accept it:

T A L L P O P P Y S Y N D R O M E ? ? ?

 

[paddoboy]

???
Like I said, I'm not claiming to have an alternative theory, nor to rewrite 20th/21st century cosmology.
And as of now, I can see what you are leading to, and following the advice of others that have messaged me, I'll let you stew in your own juice/prejudices and peculiarities.
Taking that advice, I won't be playing your games in this thread, anymore.

 

[paddoboy]

When you cite scientific papers rather than crank videos.

Isn't that obvious? You really do come off as someone who knows nothing when you present garbage and you obviously haven't read the source material.

Correct, although it really pales into insignificance when deliberate misquoting, and misinterpreting that is rampant in his style.
Like claiming Sean Carroll doesn't really say time is real in the following video, when he says it at least three times in the first 1 minute 40 seconds.
http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/10/18/is-time-real/

and ignoring what Sten Odenwald says at.....
https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/a11332.html

As I inferred earlier just simple alternative hypothesis from a small minority of alternative pushers, leads inexorably to pseudoquackery and conspiracy rubbish.
Quite sad and bizarre.

 

[Undefined]

Good morning, Trippy. Since you are back and stringing this loose end on for another day, I will do likewise in reply. I trust you will not default to mod-troll trumped up excuse of 'off topic' or some such lame abuse of power in order to ban me and shut the victim up as you have been doing as a matter of course so far, Trippy? Let's hope for the best, hey!

I've been at work so...

Yes, you already said long ago that you are 'time limited' in your mod duties, and so may make mistakes because you cannot give full and proper attention to what's what before you come in and make mod actions which may be wrong and/or inflame the situation because of your own uninformed assumptions/intrusions which only serve to confuse the situation further. That's why you often ban the victim and let the troll off to do it again another day. Whatever 'personal' limitations are, the fact that you allow them to seriously affect your impartiality/performance as mod in NO LIGHT MATTER when it happens again and again, forcing victims to complain again and again....which you then use as an excuse to castigate the victims because YOU FORCE them (by your dereliction/incompetent modding actions) to complain again and again because of your failures to act properly/timely against the trolls. You have a history of defaulting to 'blaming the victim' and characterizing his forced defense against trolls as 'the problem' rather than dealing with the trolls who created the 'problem'. If you can stop acting like troll-mod and do your job timely/fairly against those who DERAIL discussion with PERSONAL/TROLL TACTICS, then most of these victims' complaints would not be necessary, would they. While 'blaming the victim' may be 'convenient' and less trouble to you than actually going after the trolls who start it all the time, it is NOT ACCEPTABLE to use the excuse for your incompetent actions of "It doesn't matter who started it". It DOES MATTER when it is being STARTED ALL THE TIME and you blaming the victim and letting the trolls off is ENCOURAGING that 'starting' all the time, and forcing victims to defend and try to keep the discussion on-track. Your latest 'emotional/personal' calling a member "liar" is just adding to your 'emotional/incompetent' reputation as 'mod' Can't you see that, Trippy? An impartial scientist/mod would not allow such personal problems (time poor, ego attachment, anger spilling over from personal tiffs with one's spouse/partner, bad business/financial problems etc etc interfere with their duty of care to scientific objectivity and any trusted mod duties). You have failed all too often in your objectivity/trust as scientist and mod during discussions here and elsewhere. Remember the old "forum mafia' days, remember Tach and his tactics/collusions with 'willing mods' to frame, disrupt and ban (eventually doing it to Pete, James R and other mainstreamers and finally someone banned him?). It was real and not imagined HISTORY of you and other troll-mod types in BEHIND THE SCENES COMMUNICATION/COORDINATION collusion, here and elsewhere. Now you plead "time poor" etc etc as excuses for not doing your mod duties fairly and timely to PREVENT the problems/complaints arising. Instead you STILL use the WORN OUT and IRRELEVANT cop-out characterizations/excuses "doesn't matter who started it" and "time poor" etc for your FAILURES which exacerbate and ADD to the problems you blame on the victims instead of FINALLY BANNING the trolls who DO START IT all the time and force victims to complain all he time. You seem to fixate on blaming the victim instead of treating the disease of KNOWN TROLLS and their tactics of disruption/confusion etc which then brings YOU in as INCOMPETENT MOD to make a further mess of both the discussion and the blame. Correct that egregious deficiency in your MOD PERFORMANCE OR RESIGN as the honorable thing that will REMOVE MUCH of the 'problem' because you don't act against those who ARE the problem who "start it" with their personal etc tactics which you ignore but ban the victim when he defends in kind. Not a good 'mod' record so far, Trippy, especially all the DOUBLE STANDARD trumped up excuses for banning for things which you and the trolls do all the time but only the victims trumped up 'transgressions' are 'relevant' when you come to bannings, not yours or the other trolls, hey?

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.

If you allow the trolls to start in 'personal' tactics and innuendoes which derail objective discussion, and they do it ALL THE TIME, then how can you with a straight face still BLAME the victims for complaining when YOU DON'T do anything to to the trolls who cause these complaints to arise by their tactics which YOU SOMETIMES ADD to and encourage either tacitly or by expressly making your own troll contributions which derail discussion and make complaints/problems worse with your example to the trolls who take your own transgressions as 'ok to troll because we won't be banned by our tame/friendly 'mod-troll' Trippy'! Look to your own 'history' and 'motives' and 'failures' all these years, before going on about me (your victim on more than one occasion hey?), Trippy!

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.

I only linked to the video for Russ's info for microwave signal processing aspects which he and anyone can assess for themselves. Period. Any 'association' with EU people is neither here nor there to me as an objective scientist listening ONLY to the relevant info on signal processing by the expert involved. Anything else is a PERSONAL phurfy that I do NOT have time for, from either 'side' in the EU crap. OK?

I don't care. Did you know that? The point is that you repeatedly appealed to this guys authority.

You should care, Trippy, about the CONTEXT in which that reference to his expertise was made as INTRODUCTORY context for the subject matter involved in that video I linked IN PASSING PS to Russ for HIS info. And the context that I only further referred to his expertise in RESPONSE to Russ asking WHY he should look at the info. I mentioned his expertise in signal processing. That's ALL. I neither supported or denied anything about EU crap. I'm not interested in anything other than what the speaker had to explain about signal processing limitaions and pitfalls. That link was IN PASSING in a parting PS to Russ. I was NOT expecting to have all this EU and other irrelevant troll crap to defend/respond to. Get it, Trippy? All this to-do, and all your 'impressions' of what was intended etc, is all the result of DERAILING BY TROLLS who introduced all IRRELEVANT EU 'associations' and kneejerking crap which I did not care about one way or the other, since I am NOT INTERESTED in EU crap, only the expert info relevant to the matter presented by the speaker regardless of venue/history. I listen to relevant facts and that's IT. I do not care (unlike you and the 'personality cult' trolls like you) about WHO or WHERE I come across relevant information on what I AM interested in using depending on its technical (not source/personal/associations etc) merits OBJECTIVELY.

No, it's actually completely relevant.

What is? That the trolls derailed the innocent PS intent and made it a mess, as usual, so you could come in and make it a BIGGER mess by not paying attention to what it was about (and NOT about) before you put your own derailing/confusing oar in? Get things straight, or you will lose track of what is or is not relevant, as you have lost track in this instance too, Trippy.

According to someone who has an agenda rooted in disproving big bang cosmology and replacing it with Electric Universe cosmology.

What's personal motivation got to do with assessing the objectively presented info? Are you an objective scientist or a 'personality cult' driven 'socially filtering' sort of biased reader/listener? Make up your mind, Trippy. You can't be an emotionally/egotistically/socially/personally 'invested' intellect and call yourself an 'objective' reader/listener/scientist.

Unlike you and all these other trolls pretenders/egotist/elitists and 'social media' types on the net, I have no qualms with listening to ALL SORTS of people in ALL SORTS of venues IRRESPECTIVE of 'personal considerations' as to their mothers' name, or their aims/motives or their 'associations' etc etc. I just listen to the info OBJECTIVELY and make my own mind up as to what's what according to the technical merits or otherwise. Period. All else is just politics and ego getting in the way of objective science discourse/assessment of what 'comes across your desk' for consideration of relevant matter.

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.

See how it has 'ballooned' from my innocent passing PS to Russ linking a video for his own attention, without any further comments from me on how he should assess the info? The trolls and now YOU have made it about ME and YOU, and so the point about "LOOKING FOR YOURSELVES and making your own assessments" has been BURIED and CONTORTED into an argument between you and me about what he said and what should be 'believed' etc. I don't give a damn about all this irrelevant troll-engendered crap. I just referred the video for Russ's info and left it at that. Only in RESPONSE to Russ's question about WHY he should view it, did I re-iterate that the info was about signal processing and the expertise of the award winning expert presenting it. Period.

There you go again, appealing to his authority.

This is bizzare, Trippy, even for you. Why keep making such a big deal about the provision of MINIMAL COURTESY background info when posting a LINK to Russ as to whomever is speaking and the subject matter involved? You act as if it is a CRIME to make such minimal INTRODUCTORY allusion to who is speaking and what is being being spoken of in that video. No more than that. No opinion or argument either way, just a LINK for his own perusal. Period.

The trolls do MUCH MORE and MUCH WORSE every day, but I don't hear you complaining about that. Instead you pick on THIS passing reference out of courtesy when linking.

Double standards again, hey Trippy? They will be the undoing of whatever's left of your 'mod' reputation, Trippy. Take better care to avoid it in future IF you are still 'modding' here or anywhere else. Good luck with that.

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.

And you know what, Trippy?....I am NOT LIKE YOU, in that I did NOT bother to go into the person/source/venue etc, I just LOOKED and LISTENED OBJECTIVELY to what he had to present in his expert capacity regarding the possibly limitations and pitfalls he encounetered (and CMB processing encounters) when 'signal processing' methods are employed on the data. Period. Unlike you, I was not PRE-INFLUENCED into biased listening of what was presented. I just listened and made objective assessments according to technical/logical merits associated ONLY with the info objectively presented. Any prior personal history MEANS NOTHING to ME, as a scrupulously independent and strictly (obsessively even) objective SCIENTIST not some 'personality cult' Trolls who are interested in personal history more than the objective info regardless of person/source.

Yeah, Trippy, it's plainly obvious (from your troll-mod behavior; your latest ego/emotion-tripping and self-serving 'excursions' into subjective victim-blaming and characterization/rationalization; and your being more interested in the source/person than the objective listening to objective info etc etc) that you and I are TOTALLY DIFFERENT 'types'. I prefer my approach to objective science/comprehension irrespective of venue etc, than your obviously ego/emotional/vested interest in personality cult and other irrelevant considerations as to what and how you will treat an objective info presentation by whomever. Maybe that is why you have no original/sweeping contributions to make towards realistic whole picture Objective comprehension and ultimate ToE. Fortunately people who are different from you (myself for one) do exist, and it will be from that quarter that advance will come, and not from biased and incompetent mod-troll types who don't know when to stop abusing their position for persona/emotional reasons. How can you ever get an objective whole wider picture comprehension when you are so fixated on SUBJECTIVELY 'choosing' irrelevant details and personality cult and abuses of power as discussion points while ignoring the essential objective points discourse which passes you by because you are distracting your intellect in thatb way all the time, even while pretending on the internet to be objective 'mod' or 'scientist'?

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.

Just imagine how sick and tired your and the other trolls' victims have been getting, Trippy! As indicated by all the complaints, hey? Or has your 'sharp' intellect MISSED that essential objective observable which all can see EXCEPT those trolls and mod-trolls who CONVENIENTLY blame the victims and carry on as usual to make such complaints and commentary NECESSARY DEFENSE of the victims against the trolls and mod-troll ABUSES which have been proven by experiment more than once now, so that even YOU, Trippy, cannot deny any longer the reality which you wish to STILL 'distort' in your own self-serving' troll-mod excuses for blaming the victim. It's not healthy, Trippy, to continue as mod if you are both incompetent AND biased mod-troll interested in PERSONAL BACKGROUND more than INFORMATION PRESENTED irrespective of source. Take a break, learn what it is to BE fair and balanced and objective mod/scientist eschewing 'personaity cult' and irrelevancies, and then return as a BETTER mod and BETTER scientist, hey? Good luck and best wishes on that, sincerely.

Get over yourself - seriously. If you put as much effort into addressing arguments as you did complaining, you'd get on a lot better.

Right back at ya, Trippy! If you'd spend as much time (whatever time you do have) in treating the TROLL menace/tactics with proper MOD actions, then you wouldn't be creating such a rod for your own back/reputation because of incompetence, bias, untimely and exacerbating intrusions/actions (like this latest, for instance). You STILL default (because you have no time to actually determine what's what) to 'convenient' blaming of victim, letting trolls off to start it again another day, and then making it many times worse by adding your own troll-mod silliness and confusions to what has transpired so that no-one is clear on what was going on and who should BE banned, not the victim.

Remember how effective that tactic of collusion with troll-mods was in Tach's day, Trippy? The tactic has been 'blown' long since and exposed by experiment, but you still have relict troll-mod 'try-it-ons' HERE, seemingly with YOUR incompetence of direct connivance (either ay, it's not a good look when you again try to blame the victims complaining when its all started by the trolls and YOU tacitly/actively encourage because they think they are 'safe from you banning them' because you prefer to ban the victims due to your incompetent, time-poor and biased/abusive PERFORMANCE of MOD duties.

So look to yourself, Trippy, before you EVER AGAIN DARE to blame any more victims of you and your 'old pals' trolls from the old Tach/Mod-troll gang days, hey!

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.

What's WRONG with you? Didn't you even LOOK at the posts that started this EU associations furfy? It was Paddo's post. And Then Russ said he would look at the link. You're OBTUSE or just plain BIASED in your reading/comprehension of what transpired and led to all this malarky derailing a simple linked reference for Russ's benefit irrespective. Trippy, all your rationalizations and twisting self-serving 'versions' here and elsewhere are getting lame, even for you. Quit doing that and just become a better mod/scientist. OK? You are not doing yourself or your mod reputation any favors by using such TACH troll tactics to twist and contort things so no-one has a clue what happened and so post their own further misconceived two-cents making the thing worse.

This statement stands alone. The association with the EU hypothesis (it's not a theory) speaks for itself.

How can you misunderstand so badly, and still function at all, in any capacity, Trippy? I alluded to paddo making the 'association' with EU venue as being IRRELEVANT to the content presented in that stand-alone presentation. Period. How you can come back and make out it was 'relevant' or that I shouldn't have told Russ it was not relevant, it beggars the most kind interpretation of what is going on in your biased mind while you write that sort of self-serving twisted strawman. Don't you even see that you are doing it, Trippy? Is that it? You are insensible to your OWN FAILURES of both character and intellect here and in other instances? Take a long hard objective (if you are capable of it at all by this stage) look at yourself and your actions, Trippy. Take a break while you do it. 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.

What does it matter what his 'claims' are, or what the 'motivation' is, Trippy. To an objective scientist/listener, that SHOULD NOT COME INTO IT at all. Only listening to the objective info presented and making up your OWN mind about its technical/logical standing or not. Period. All this other personal/troll crap trying to make it about EU claims/motives in NOT RELEVANT to me. I just listened to the info about microwave signal processing and its possible limitations and pitfalls given the whole gammut of local/far sources and complications that may affect the interpretation/conclusion based on signal processing methods which may be affected. Period. All that other crap about 'claims' and 'motives' I don't give a crap about. I don't belong to any group espousing their claims or hypotheses etc, I am a LONER and LISTEN OBJECTIVELY to info where I find it. Period. So I don't care what gripe or biases or whatever axe you have with the venue/person/sponsor etc, as I don't belong to/make any of that or other IRRELEVANT group/claims etc. I just listen objectively irrespective and make up my own mind. Which is what I thought Russ would do when I linked that stand-alone video for his own considerations. And I wanted o leave it at that except the troll and trolling started and made a mess of even that innocent and impartial act of linking to a video for Russ's own assessment. I don't give a rats ass who or why. Get that?

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.

I don't give a rats ass about his personal 'history' or or 'motivations' or 'associatione' crap because it was irrelevant (to me and my objective listening). I just LISTENED objectively to what info he had on signal processing limitations and pitfalls that seemed RELEVANT to CMB signal processing techniques etc. OK?

And if you are so offended by 'strawmen', then take a look at the history of troll-made strawmen desogned to derail/confuse discussions so mods will ban the victim and close the threads they sabotaged. Tach was a master, ably assisted by obliguingf troll-mod mates.

The fact they had to ban him only after Tach got insane enough to do the same to Pete, and other mainstreamer threads, tells you that the mods didn't want to act about Tach UNTIL he became a nuisance to THEM. Note that when they complained, it was not attacked by mods as 'victimization complex', like you do with ordinary member VICTIMS' complaints. Doesn't that TELL you to STOP blaming the victims and their 'complaints' and DO SOMETHING about the REAL TROUBLEMAKER TROLLS who KEEP STARTING it and causing these victim complaints? Or is that simple objective observation too 'crank' for your elitist troll-mod intellect to 'process' and act accordingly INSTEAD of blaming and banning VICTIMS and using the excuse that the victim and his complaints are the problem while letting the trolls off TO DO IT AGAIN AND AGAIN to the NEXT VICTIM?

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.

OK, Trippy, have a look at this news item at Phy.Org...

http://phys.org/news/2014-05-image-milky-magnetic-fingerprint.html

Note the last paragraphs quoted here...

In March 2014, scientists from the BICEP2 collaboration claimed the first detection of such a signal in data collected using a ground-based telescope observing a patch of the sky at a single microwave frequency. Critically, the claim relies on the assumption that foreground polarised emissions are almost negligible in this region.
Later this year, scientists from the Planck collaboration will release data based on Planck's observations of polarised light covering the entire sky at seven different frequencies. The multiple frequency data should allow astronomers to separate with great confidence any possible foreground contamination from the tenuous primordial polarised signal.
This will enable a much more detailed investigation of the early history of the cosmos, from the accelerated expansion when the Universe was much less than one second old to the period when the first stars were born, several hundred million years later.

Note the assumptive tone about the motives and interpretations/aims of any exercise in this field (ie, to find confirmation for BBang scenario 'primordial' CMB radiation/pattern). Then note how the mainstream scientists are now facing up to the fact that up till now the signal processing and assumptions/interpretations/conclusions MAY and PROBABLY HAVE been affected in some SERIOUS way by local galaxy and its surrounding processes.

Then extend that possibility to include all the eons and multitudes of the many intervening distance galactic/intergalactic processes and radiation 'mixers/attenuators' etc, and you can see why the BICEPS and prior 'claims' to have 'discovered' this or that about 'primordial' gravity waves/CMB patterns etc are HIGHLY SUSPECT. The mainstream has been forced to make MORE of this possibility of late precisely BECAUSE of others (usually non-mainstream) pointing out the very real possible limitations and pitfalls of signal processing giving 'artifacts of processing' and/or invalidly 'cleaned' images which in reality the signals for the 'cleaned' image may have been SWAMPED and overwhelmed in detectors, such that much GREATER CARE should be taken to prevent 'processing artifacts' based on mathematical/modeling techniques which 'clean' the signal using assumptions and self-biasing 'cleaning loops' etc which give what the 'researcher' wants to 'see' but MAY NOT BE THERE if the real situaton is not 'cleaned up' to suit expectations....and so leading to PREMATURE claims of 'discoveries' which may be mere artifacts of signal processing.


So, Trippy, unlike you and other trolls, I don't trust anyone, nor do I just accept the word of a paper/info just because it is mainstream/crank or not. I look at it objectively and make up my own mind on the merits objectively, not on reputation or venue or associations etc irrelevancies.

That is why I could immediately spot the obvious assumptive/systemic/methodology flaws 'built into' in those latest 'CMB papers' claiming 'discoveries' (alleged 'primordial' gravity waves/CMB confirmation etc) which could not be tenable IF ALL the possibilities were considered properly and objectively, and not in the 'convenient' manner employed therein to date, which has a 'cascade of flaws' built into all the 'work' because of prior equally suspect 'work/claims/discoveries' based on CMB assumptions and processing etc which use/accept 'without question' earlier flaws into later 'treatments'.

So, if you trolls are done 'killing the messenger and blaming victims', how about concentrating your time and intellects on objective listening and thinking FOR YOURSELVES instead of cheerleading/coat-tailing on possibly flawed mainstream stuff and pretending it justifies your accusing everyone who disagrees with you of being a 'crank'. The professional mainstreamers are now on-board and more closely re-examining the CMB 'work' done to date, and looking properly for the first time (now that better instruments are available) to see and actually allow for the possibly MANY OVERWHELMING galactic/space sources/processes which CAN produce MICROWAVES NOW and IN INTERVENING SPACE/PROCESSES since the HYPOTHESIZED 'BBang era primordial microwave signals' which may have totally been erased/attenuated by later/intervening signal-producing processes having no connection with that hypothesized 'BB era'....assuming such a 'beginning' radiation signal of BB was ever a reality. Time and more close study will tell.

Enough of this loose end now, Trippy, everyone?

 

[Undefined]

And you state this as a fact because you a) didn't read the actual work and b) trusted the word of a crank video.

Don't you think that makes you look stupid?

No, I didn't, because I just listened objectively and assessed the info in context of what I already knew from mainstream science in the relevant area of interest. You are just assuming things because it suits your strawman way of twisting. Not good.

If you are really interested, then just look above at the post to Trippy, and read the last part in blue. It's mainstream, not crank stuff as you want to portray it, kiddo. Good luck.

 

[paddoboy]

I think we have a total of about eight members here who have those qualifications. And isn't it interesting that these are the members who never claim to have found the flaw in relativity. Or heliocentricity.

The above extract is from a lengthy exceptionally good post at 16:
Would it be possible for the administrators to have these folk known...maybe with a simple exclamation mark after their handle, with the words PhD and in the particular field.
I think it would help tremendously and give the casual observer some inkling as to the actual experience that any particular individual may have, and consequently some thought by others before any silly alternative stance is initiated.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

Real eyes realize real lies!