The BICEP2 Project at the South Pole:

P

paddoboy

Valued Senior Member
Cosmologists cast doubt on inflation evidence
Mar 25, 2014 by Jason Major, Universe Today:

It was just a week ago that the news blew through the scientific world like a storm: researchers from the BICEP2 project at the South Pole Telescope had detected unambiguous evidence of primordial gravitational waves in the cosmic microwave background, the residual rippling of space and time created by the sudden inflation of the Universe less than a billionth of a billionth of a second after the Big Bang.

And so, for better or worse (just kidding—it's definitely better) this is how science works and how science is supposed to work. A claim is presented, and, regardless of how attractive its implications may be, it must stand up to any other possibilities before deemed the decisive winner. It's not a popularity contest, it's not a beauty contest, and it's not up for vote. What it is up for is scrutiny, and this is just an example of scientists behaving as they should.
Still, I'd keep that champagne nicely chilled.


Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-03-cosmologists-inflation-evidence.html#jCp
 
paddoboy said:
Cosmologists cast doubt on inflation evidence
Mar 25, 2014 by Jason Major, Universe Today:

It was just a week ago that the news blew through the scientific world like a storm: researchers from the BICEP2 project at the South Pole Telescope had detected unambiguous evidence of primordial gravitational waves in the cosmic microwave background, the residual rippling of space and time created by the sudden inflation of the Universe less than a billionth of a billionth of a second after the Big Bang.

And so, for better or worse (just kidding—it's definitely better) this is how science works and how science is supposed to work. A claim is presented, and, regardless of how attractive its implications may be, it must stand up to any other possibilities before deemed the decisive winner. It's not a popularity contest, it's not a beauty contest, and it's not up for vote. What it is up for is scrutiny, and this is just an example of scientists behaving as they should.
Still, I'd keep that champagne nicely chilled.


Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-03-cosmologists-inflation-evidence.html#jCp
Click to expand...

The big deal is finding the gravitational wave signature in the CMBR. Then measuring it. Finding cosmological models that predict a gravitational wave signature in the CMBR is something cosmologists do. If you read the paper you can probably find out which model they're talking about.
Killing the Straw Man: Does BICEP Prove Inflation?
http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.5166v1

The abstract:

"The surprisingly large value of r, the ratio of power in tensor to scalar density perturbations in the CMB reported by the BICEP2 Collaboration provides strong evidence for Inflation at the GUT scale. In order to provide compelling evidence, other possible sources of the signal need to be ruled out. While the Inflationary signal remains the best motivated source, the current measurement unfortunately still allows for the possibility that a comparable gravitational wave background might result from a self ordering scalar field transition that takes place later at somewhat lower energy. However even marginally improved limits on the possible isocurvature contribution to CMB anistropies could rule out this possibility, and essentially all other sources of the observed signal other than Inflation."
 
Farsight said:
It's good to see some balance on this over-hyped affair. Also see Alexander Unzicker's blog.

If you follow up on my black hole thread by reading about inflation, you may appreciate that there may be some issues coming for inflation. Like, it is superfluous.
Click to expand...

Really? Superfluous? Quit trolling this thread with nonsense. See where they mention the word MEASUREMENT that's what they do when they do the experiment. Something you've never had any knowledge of.
 
brucep said:
Really? Superfluous? Quit trolling this thread with nonsense. See where they mention the word MEASUREMENT that's what they do when they do the experiment. Something you've never had any knowledge of.
Click to expand...

It never ceases to amaze me, how our alternative pseudoscience friends, will pounce on a seemingly negative, [no matter how small that negative is] to try and discredit the still far more likely positive verification of Inflation.
And of course as you and the article alluded to, the big deal is the possibility of gravitational wave signature in the CMBR.
And that fact alone, further reinforces GR....

Grasping at straws by the Alternative brigade is all they have left I'm afraid.
 
paddoboy said:
It never ceases to amaze me, how our alternative pseudoscience friends, will pounce on a seemingly negative, [no matter how small that negative is] to try and discredit the still far more likely positive verification of Inflation.
And of course as you and the article alluded to, the big deal is the possibility of gravitational wave signature in the CMBR.
And that fact alone, further reinforces GR....

Grasping at straws by the Alternative brigade is all they have left I'm afraid.
Click to expand...

Who's "grasping at straws"? Lol.


DO try to get over your elitism 'thrall' to orthodoxy built on cascades of abstract maths fantasy and incestuous 'passing' by 'peers' of more of the same.

Didn't you catch where INTERNET EXPERIMENTS using computer-generated math/physics terms gobbledegook passed 'peer review' system because either the 'peers' didn't understand any of it but didn't want to appear dumb; or because they just ASSUMED it was OK because of all the CITATIONS list and 'reputable persons/institutions' the submissions 'spoofed' for the experiment/submissions? Hilarious, if it wasn't so seriously tragic for 'modern cosmology' science and 'peer review' both.

And haven't you read the latest mainstream 'publish or perish' motivated lame offerings which are inherently flawed systemically, assumptively and procedurally PRECISELY BECAUSE of the cascade of past flawed work/interpretations becoming inbuilt to all the subsequent work/interpretation 'papers' which CITE and DEPEND of those prior flawed 'passed' papers for their 'justification/validity'? I found the obvious GLARING flaws almost immediately, because I recognized the 'smell' of PAST flaws inbuilt to the very starting/cited premises/interpretations/conclusions of their 'work' which was nothing more than a 'publish or perish' BS exercise which they hoped would get past the 'peer reviews' like all the others in the past, and hope no-one would notice this time either.


But this 'crank' noticed, and said so immediately. And NOW the other mainstream physicists are forced to look again, and NOW ARE noticing also some of the very same IN-BUILT assumptive/interpretive FLAWS I noticed. So mate, the way 'modern cosmological science works' is apparently by hoping to pass more 'publish or perish' BS by the 'peer review' and hoping no-one notices....and then depending on the 'crank' to call their BS....and then having to actually DO REAL peer review PROPERLY without the built-in incestuous biases it has been done in recent decades.

The mainstream cosmologists 'publish or perish' crowd are the ones "clutching at straws" of BS hoping no-one notices since the past 'peer reviews' have failed to notice. Broken, pure and simple. No continuing desperate mainstream BS "straws clutching" is going to fix the big problems caused by 'modern cosmology' mainstreamer penchant for 'blind believing' in maths and abstractions in preference to doing the necessary REAL reality-checking along the way.

Thanks to us 'cranks', things are changing, as even the mainstreamers themselves have finally been woken up to the deplorable failures of mainstream 'per review' system that has allowed seriously flawed 'work/papers' to be CITED by later/latest mainstream 'publish or perish' BS work/papers/exercises. Let's hope they not only find the flaws in the latest BS work/papers, but also TRACE BACK to where they went wrong initially and since which has led to this sorry state of affairs in cosmology science mainstream flawed orthodoxy set of 'interpretational systems' and 'incestuous reviews' based on same.

Good luck to us all, 'mainstreamers' and 'cranks' alike! :)
 
Undefined said:
Who's "grasping at straws"? Lol.
Click to expand...



You have a barn full of them!

With the rest of your agenda laden post, it wasn't any crank that found a "possible" "maybe" anomaly....It was other mainstream science.
That's why I posted the article, to reinforce the scientific methodology and peer review process, without any hindrance from the nut bag society.
Get with it sonny!
 
paddoboy said:
You have a barn full of them!

With the rest of your agenda laden post, it wasn't any crank that found a "possible" "maybe" anomaly....It was other mainstream science.
That's why I posted the article, to reinforce the scientific methodology and peer review process, without any hindrance from the nut bag society.
Get with it sonny!
Click to expand...

They were late to the party, boyo. I was there first. I even got flack from some overzealous 'mainstream defenders' who got all outraged that I would claim such a thing as that mainstream work/paper having obvious systemic, assumptive and procedural flaws which I saw immediately on its publication. The other brave mainstreamers encouraged by the 'crank' picking up on the OBVIOUS flaws then were emboldened enough to make their own observations clear that it was no done deal as 'evidence of BB/Gravity waves etc' at all as it was being touted to be until that point. Go suck it in, mate. You have no clue what's going on in the real world of cosmology science. And yet you are full of uninformed assumptions and opinions that are disastrously amiss....much like some of the mainstream publish-or-perish BS 'offerings' lately! You should apply for a position in the cosmological sciences somewhere as the 'mascot' for uninformed assumptions and opinions, mate. You should go down a treat! :)
 
Undefined said:
You have no clue what's going on in the real world of cosmology science. And yet you are full of uninformed assumptions and opinions that are disastrously amiss...
Click to expand...

You keep saying that... :)
You keep saying peer review is flawed....
You keep saying the mainstream scientists are intrangencent....
You keep saying you have a ToE....
You keep saying all mainstream cosmology is wrong.......

Like all anti mainstream nutters, you keep saying......
Words, that's all you have.
 
paddoboy said:
You keep saying that... :)
You keep saying peer review is flawed....
You keep saying the mainstream scientists are intrangencent....
You keep saying you have a ToE....
You keep saying all mainstream cosmology is wrong.......

Like all anti mainstream nutters, you keep saying......
Words, that's all you have.
Click to expand...

The truth hurts you so badly that you become incoherent with rage and embarrassment and lash out indiscriminately at everyone who won't go along with your mindless and uncomprehending beliefs in flawed 'authority' which has been well proven to be flawed for some time now? Isn't that what religious nutters do when they have been confronted with the reality that threatens their cozy little fantasy world constructed from unreal things? Yep, cognitive dissonance is a biggie for such types. Take care. :)
 
Undefined said:
The truth hurts you so badly that you become incoherent with rage and embarrassment and lash out indiscriminately at everyone who won't go along with your mindless and uncomprehending beliefs in flawed 'authority' which has been well proven to be flawed for some time now? Isn't that what religious nutters do when they have been confronted with the reality that threatens their cozy little fantasy world constructed from unreal things? Yep, cognitive dissonance is a biggie for such types. Take care. :)
Click to expand...

Not in the least...In fact I sense the reverse is true, regarding the rage, embarressment, and lashing out...:shrug: Take it easy.
Certainly no truth exists on your side.....You are simply promoting some personal unscientific belief. You are the one trying to tear down established science, not me...:shrug: again.
If the cap fits undefined, wear it.
 
paddoboy said:
Not in the least...In fact I sense the reverse is true, regarding the rage, embarressment, and lashing out...:shrug: Take it easy.
Certainly no truth exists on your side.....You are simply promoting some personal unscientific belief. You are the one trying to tear down established science, not me...:shrug: again.
If the cap fits undefined, wear it.
Click to expand...

How would YOU know where the truth exists? You don't understand either side of what is being presented, let alone your linked 'appeals to authority'. How long do you think you can go on with that self-justifying rationalizing stuff?

Anyway, to cut short any more opining from you from your beliefs not reality, did you catch this I posted to you in my thread, especially the bolded PS to same...
The real PHYSICAL entity/mechanism thing is 'energy-space' (not 'spacetime') in which and from which all comes. The 'time' abstraction is from the 'energy' part, and that energy is already included as the real thing in the energy balance/content appearing/active in the Casimir setup energy-space processes. You have to drop the facile 'explanations' from abstract modeling and just concentrate on the real empirically determinable entities/mechanisms and processes of energy-space at play in any situation under study. Good luck. :)


PS: Before you kneejerk on that, remember that QM effectively posits 'Vacuum-Energy' universal physical substrate in which and from which and back to which everything comes and evolve and subsides. When that 'Vacuum-Energy" QM concept is looked at via my ToE complete perspective, it effectively boils down to Energy-Space. So QM is closer to the real things than purely abstract math/geometry 'space-time' concept from Relativity model. :)
Click to expand...

Good luck with finally getting back to what's real, mate. Thanks for the interesting chats across the threads. G'night. :)
 
Undefined said:
How would YOU know where the truth exists? You don't understand either side of what is being presented, let alone your linked 'appeals to authority'. How long do you think you can go on with that self-justifying rationalizing stuff?
Click to expand...


Because I align with the mainstream position and that is mainstream because it is the most reasonable, evidenced based position.
I don't need to boost my ego and make up shit to appear to be smart as you have done.
You should be in pseudoscience....period!
 
paddoboy said:
Because I align with the mainstream position and that is mainstream because it is the most reasonable, evidenced based position.
I don't need to boost my ego and make up shit to appear to be smart as you have done.
You should be in pseudoscience....period!
Click to expand...

You can't bring yourself to admit that even QM "Vacuum-Energy" context, and my ToE's even more deeply and physically explained "Energy-Space" perspective, is more real than the 'spacetime' abstraction construct of Relativity modeling can ever be, can you? Come on, just admit it, and the angst from ignorance will be just that much lessened in you. :)
 
brucep said:
Really? Superfluous?
Click to expand...
Yes. Really. And you read it here first. Oh, and I did that black hole thread in response to your challenge. Whereupon you did a runner. I'm with Krauss and co on this one. See what Unzicker said: How could an effect of the first 10^-32 seconds be tracked over 50 orders of magnitude, to 380,000 years? Absurd.
 
paddoboy said:
It never ceases to amaze me, how our alternative pseudoscience friends, will pounce on a seemingly negative...
Click to expand...
I'm the guy who tells you what Einstein said and points out the hard scientific evidence, remember? Don't you get it yet? I'm not into alternative pseudoscience. You are.
 
Farsight said:
I'm the guy who tells you what Einstein said and points out the hard scientific evidence, remember? Don't you get it yet? I'm not into alternative pseudoscience. You are.
Click to expand...

No, your the Guy that takes Einstein out of context, has no evidence to support your ideas but claims outright certainty [against the scientific methodology stating nothing 100% is proven] ] in what you present.
Like undefined, you are pushing shit uphill in coming here and brow-beating the forum into accepting your nonsense.
And of course also like undefined, you claim the moral scientific high ground without peer review. :)
The speed of light is of course constant, one of the more obvious mainstream SR postulates that you mangle among many other aspects of accepted scientific modeling..
In reality you are in the scientific cesspit.
 
Farsight said:
No, I'm the guy who shows you what Einstein said and the evidence that proves he was right. You're just some abusive kid who won't pay attention to what Einstein said.

No, you are.
Click to expand...

No you are..No you are... :roflmao:


Let me tell you some facts.....
I'm not against alternative theorists per se.
I congratulated one here [Everton I think] a couple of months ago, in the manner he approached with a idea/theory, for appraisal.
There the type of alternative theorists, that do learn, that only forumulate some model/theory, when there is short comings in the incumbent model, willing to take criticism, willing to change.....Einstein was one of them. The real Einstein, not the one you misquote out of context....

Then we have the likes of you, and undefined...barge onto the forum, demanding recognition of some personal idea/model, claiming that it is 100% valid, no ifs or no buts, claiming 100 years [or more] of mainstream cosmology is wrong, deriding the accepted peer review system, deriding anyone and everyone that dares to question what you have.

Eventually one will come along, with something brilliant and revealing...It won't be from the latter.

Two qualities I have noticed the latter variety seem to share amongst their many varied different interpretations and claims.
They are completely adverse to any criticism, and secondly have arrogance to burn.
 
Paddo, have you caught up where the other mainstreamers are finally catching up with the 'cranks' and joining in on the all round dismissal of that obviously flawed 'publish or perish' work/paper? You are even slower than the mainstream. let alone us 'cranks' at getting up to speed on anything. Maybe you should spend less time making 'paddo noise' around the threads and actually reading and understanding at least some little of the stuff you 'me too' and cheerlead' and pretend too 'have a handle' on, mate. So far you've been a pathetically embarrassing (to all 'sides') sycophantic needy troll case. Not healthy. Take a break and then do better. Good luck. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top