The BICEP2 Project at the South Pole:
- Thread starter paddoboy
- Start date
I especially like dthe comparisson of the modern state of cosmology to the state of things in 1905.
Exactly! The formulation of SR/GR, the discovery of Expansion, the CMBR, the dawning of the space age, Satellites, and the many other instrumental probes out there, available to mainstream astronomers/cosmologists/physicists/Astrophysicists, have seen us proceed at exponential rates, and yet there is still so much more out there waiting.
As a non scientist, I am in appreciative awe.
Any astronomers out there need their 'scope polished?
Last edited:
I'm sure brucep will not mind me transposing his excellent post from another thread to here...I see it as quite appropriate...Thanks brucep.
In reply to undefined, re: your #6 post.
I'm uncertain as to your over-all views...that said, I concur with most, if not all, of your #6.
"Real" science has been replaced by suppositional "castles in the air" with calculus providing the "footings", at least as far as QM is concerned.
(I don't care much for "camera whores" who espouse the "party line" in the same manner as a "Scientific Dr. Goebbels" of cant)
There seems a "meme" mind-set in-place with regard to modern theory...a mindset that dictates "anything "we" imagine can be true".
"Blackholes" are suppositional, not fact...yet they are treated as "real things!", despite the fact they are strictly theoretical states. (oh well...whatever! Lets forget logic and proportion,
and Einstein as well...after all, he's dead and can't answer to our new findings)
(Thanks for reading!)
I'm uncertain as to your over-all views...that said, I concur with most, if not all, of your #6.
"Real" science has been replaced by suppositional "castles in the air" with calculus providing the "footings", at least as far as QM is concerned.
(I don't care much for "camera whores" who espouse the "party line" in the same manner as a "Scientific Dr. Goebbels" of cant)
There seems a "meme" mind-set in-place with regard to modern theory...a mindset that dictates "anything "we" imagine can be true".
"Blackholes" are suppositional, not fact...yet they are treated as "real things!", despite the fact they are strictly theoretical states. (oh well...whatever! Lets forget logic and proportion,
and Einstein as well...after all, he's dead and can't answer to our new findings)
(Thanks for reading!)
Another excuse laden cop out.
Conveniantly, like undefined, you forget the fact that the "doubt" shrouding this experiment, has come about through mainstream peer review process.
And of course [not withstanding the all ready made up minds of our anti anti brigade] this peer review process is continuing and a decision may be reached by the end of the year: see post 125.
Again whatever conclusion that review comes up with, will in no way invalidate Inflation.
The only mindset is that exhibited by our alternative hypothesis pushers and the rest of the anti anti brigade and the Ignorance they show in ignoring available evidence in line with their own agendas.
And of course, most of what we imagine, if it aligns with the known laws of physics, certainly can be possible.
BH's are a good example of this.
Unless of course you have some new ground breaking mechanism by which the observed effects we can only attribute to BH's, can be produced by another method?
In reply to paddoboy, re: #127.
No "cop-outs" from me, paddo. No excuses either. If you see what I write as heresy or just plain denial of "facts?" then that's okay.
For you BH theory is a "done deal" and 99% "provable". (all "dinky di", yes?)
I don't "see the facts", paddo. None of blackhole theory makes sense to me...it is not because I'm "anti" anything, it's because I just don't "get it".
.....
I cannot reconcile "the rules of the road" in our own Solar system with "what we think we see across a vast gulf of space". There is far too much "supposition" and the direct or
indirect posits that "things are different and have different rules out there"
.....
NO and still NO...I believe there is a lot of inherent bias involved, a mindset that jumps from "what we think we are observing" suddenly becomes "this IS what we have established
as true as the result of observations!!!"
"Ignoring available evidence?" What evidence, paddo? There is NO "evidence" that conclusively proves that BH theory is "true and correct", other than calculus constructs!
(I can make numbers mean whatever I want them to mean, paddo...and so can you, as well as anyone else!)
(Thanks for reading!)
No "cop-outs" from me, paddo. No excuses either. If you see what I write as heresy or just plain denial of "facts?" then that's okay.
For you BH theory is a "done deal" and 99% "provable". (all "dinky di", yes?)
I don't "see the facts", paddo. None of blackhole theory makes sense to me...it is not because I'm "anti" anything, it's because I just don't "get it".
.....
I cannot reconcile "the rules of the road" in our own Solar system with "what we think we see across a vast gulf of space". There is far too much "supposition" and the direct or
indirect posits that "things are different and have different rules out there"
.....
NO and still NO...I believe there is a lot of inherent bias involved, a mindset that jumps from "what we think we are observing" suddenly becomes "this IS what we have established
as true as the result of observations!!!"
"Ignoring available evidence?" What evidence, paddo? There is NO "evidence" that conclusively proves that BH theory is "true and correct", other than calculus constructs!
(I can make numbers mean whatever I want them to mean, paddo...and so can you, as well as anyone else!)
(Thanks for reading!)
I have simply asked you to describe another scenario that matches the evidence to show that BH's exist.
If you are unaware of any evidence, I suggest you google.
It's really straight forward stuff.
Thanks Nimbus. That paper will be awesome.
Yes, should be interesting what ever way it pans out.
If there are red faces when the paper is released, then so what!
Honest mistakes happen, the only people who are always right are trolls…
And me
The contribution to the gravitational wave signature which can be associated with 'dust' has been under question throughout the entire project experiment. What you posted ['reading between the lines'] is the Plank experiment and BICEP2 experiment are 'figuring out' how the two experimental teams will share 'in the discovery'. I think they already know the Planck data will resolve [pun intended] in favor of a limit on the dust contribution leaving the remaining signature only attributable to the primordial gravitational wave. Love that word. Primordial. Idle speculation on my part. What's truly amazing is the monumental cosmological experiments.
What's even more amazing, is that all our anti mainstream experts, of all persuasions, and their intrepid closet supporters, can express and waffle about there great alternative scenarios, without access to such monumental cosmological experiments, 'scopes and the many space probes in operation, like Planck.
Now that is amazing [tic mode on of course]
It's all happening at the human zoo [the internet] I do believe it, I do believe it's true .... at the zoo [the internet].
I like waffles...
paddoboy, I was the one lambasted by Captain Stumpy and his fellow troll friends over at phys.org forum, merely for being the first there to recommend they not 'believe' the BICEP2 claims, because I saw obvious assumptive/interpretational, methodological and systemic flaws 'in-built' into their 'treatment' of the data because of the 'confirmation bias' for BBang and inflation/expansion hypothesis.
It was obvious, and many mainstream scientists found the same (but not all) of the 'in-built' flaws when they took up my recommendation to have a closer scrutiny of that obvious 'publish-or-perish' offering from that BICEP2 'team' (that became more obvious as the competition/jealousy between them and the Plank team became obvious and explained the unprofessional 'paper' they offered.
Over at phys.org, the mainstream 'true believers' trolls were already trumpeting the BICEP2 (obviously flawed) work/claims as 'proof' of 'prime-ordial' gravity waves which 'supported' the BBang/inflation/expansion hypothesis! They were like giddy schoolgirls all agog at how magnificent the 'work' and the 'proof' was and how it 'confirmed' this and that about BBang etc. How wrong they were, and wouldn't listen to my suggestion that they do their own closer due diligence before accepting the BICEP2 teams' word for anything let alone their 'work' and 'conclusions' as presented in their paper.
The mainstream 'true believer' trolls over there and elsewhere were already using that BICEP2 'paper' against the 'cranks', even though the BICEP2 work/claims were obviously flawed! So much for 'objectivity' from the mainstream trolls, when they 'believe' any old 'obvious 'publish-or-perish' offering as long as it's from 'mainstream' scientists/teams! A case of when the source is more important than the content! lol.
This is what I have been trying to get through to you, paddo. It's not whether it's 'mainstream' or 'other' SOURCE that's important, it's whether it's logical and soundly based on reality and not on confirmation bias for fantasy hypotheses! The BICEP2 paper was NOT science, it was publish-or-perish from start to finish because of the inbuilt assumptive/interpretational and methodological ansd systemic flaws which even mainstream scientists have found to be as obvious as I did almost immediately upon scrutinizing the 'treatment' in their offered paper/claims etc.
Blind faith by 'true believers' of 'source' rather than 'reality' is NOT science but religious-like 'confirmation-bias' masquerading as 'science'. That's why peer review is flawed, since it has 'passed' so much flawed stuff like the BICEP2 claims/assumptions etc in the past few decades.
Hence the 'inbuilt flaws' which 'compound' with each subsequent 'treatment' and 'paper' using the prior flawed peer-reviewed 'passed work' as a basis/reference etc to start the treatment/interpretations from.
The take-away message from that fiasco?...
Just be more scientifically OBJECTIVE and careful and less trusting, paddoboy, everyone; and do your own closer scrutiny in future; and maybe you too might see the obvious flaws as quickly as I did, and as mainstream scientists have done after they took up my recommendation for same in that case.
Bye for now. I'll be reading-only you all again for a while. Good luck and good thinking, everyone.
You seem to overlook the fact that the possible anomaly, was highlighted by the mainstream that you so much hate.Of course people such as yourself and Farsight would deride anything and everything with regards to mainstream thought and observed facts, so obviously, as maybe the case this time [note maybe: Still undegoing peer review and research] you hit upon something you may be right on. So????
It still does not invalidate Inflation: It does not invalidate our cosmological model as it stands, as much as you would like it to do.
Come back at the end of the year [when the research has finished and peer review has finalised] and do your crowing then if it turns out you are correct.
Of course people such as yourself and Farsight would deride anything and everything with regards to mainstream thought and observed facts, so obviously, as maybe the case this time [note maybe: Still undegoing peer review and research] you hit upon something you may be right on. So????
It still does not invalidate Inflation: It does not invalidate our cosmological model as it stands, as much as you would like it to do.
Come back at the end of the year [when the research has finished and peer review has finalised] and do your crowing then if it turns out you are correct.
Why do you persist in rationalizations against the obvious, paddo? The mainstreamers were initially hailing it from the rooftops as 'proof' and 'confirmation' of this or that. I suggested that they look and find the obvious assumptive/interpretational , systemic and methodological in-built flaws. When mainstream scientists DID take a more close look because of my suggestion, they found the flaws (but not all) which I saw immediately.
Unlike you and other trolls from both 'sides', paddo, I DON'T 'deride automatically' based on the source, only the content. Get it yet? You have faith but don't comprehend, so you base your beliefs on the source, and trust that the content is trustworthy. In this case, and in so many cases before it, the source was NOT trustworthy, simply because the CONTENT was obviously UNtrustworhty, as I and then mainstream scrutinizers found to be the case.
The only time I have problems with 'mainstream orthodoxy' is when that orthodoxy is based on such FLAWED 'work' and 'conclusions as that one, in a long line of such that have passed 'peer review' over decades and have become inbuilt into all subsequent orthodoxy 'confirmation bias 'work' and 'publish-or-perish' offerings from 'mainstream' like that BICEP2 'paper' was obviously...even according to mainstream scientists/observers and not just me.
So please get off your 'personality cult' and 'generalization/rationalization 'mantra megaphone' and stop cluttering the discussions with your self-serving 'versions' and putting words/motives in other peoples' mouths/observations. OK? Discuss with trolls and genuine discoursers ALIKE on th basis of content, not 'personality' etc. And if you do NOT really comprehend what is being discussed in its deepest details/implications, then BUTT OUT (like you should have done from that "SR Issue" thread, and left the mathematicians/physicists get on with their relevant point-by-point exchange on the maths/physics, and just observe SILENTLY and LEARN from those exchanges instead of just cheerleading mindlessly without anyn real comprehension of what's going on with the maths/physics involved in that thread. OK?
Anyhow, no hard feelings, paddo. Just try to keep your word about "leaving the mathematicians to it" in that thread, and don't clutter it up any more, hey?
Bye for now. Will be reading-only you all as I get the time. Good luck and good thinking.
No one or no thing is perfect. It happens sometimes, but what is obvious is it is still being researched by that same mainstream.
You, you, you and more you. Sorry, I don't believe they would know you from a bar of soap.
Just saying.
Anyhow, no hard feelings, paddo. Just try to keep your word about "leaving the mathematicians to it" in that thread, and don't clutter it up any more, hey?
I'll pop in when necessary, to see how the troll is doing arguing against the certain observed facts of SR.
You keep saying that. "nudge nudge, wink, wink"