Champagne Bubble Cosmology

[kristalris]

"Since the cosmic microwave background is a form of light, it exhibits all the properties of light, including polarization. On Earth, sunlight is scattered by the atmosphere and becomes polarized, which is why polarized sunglasses help reduce glare. In space, the cosmic microwave background was scattered by atoms and electrons and became polarized too." http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/2014-05

 

Well then this is consistent with tired photons that point towards Champagne bubble cosmology as I predicted that an anomaly should be seen akin GR from distant light from one side of a distant galaxy in reference to the other side. Light doesn't travel in a straight line and thus becomes red-shifted. The further off the more clear it becomes. No gravity needed.Because it curves it seems to come from all directions, hence the illusion.

Edited March 21, 2014 by kristalris

[swansont]

Show us where you actually predicted/mentioned B-mode polarization. I can't find any post where you mention it in a scientific context (only political).

[kristalris]

Show us where you actually predicted/mentioned B-mode polarization. I can't find any post where you mention it in a scientific context (only political).

So nice you being only political for just one warning point. Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine praevia lega poenali. Anyway indeed I didn't predict polarization. But I did predict a red-shift anomaly outside GR gravitational fields. You left that out didn't you?

 

And, I predicted a dynamic crystal glacier moving inwards. Now would that polarize a photon traveling through it? Yes it would. Simple common sense. (How do you make a polariod sunglase you pull (i.e. stretch) the plastic down like the moving glacier does. Good point BTW (apart from the warning that is.)

Edited March 21, 2014 by kristalris

[swansont]

So nice you being only political for just one warning point. Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine praevia lega poenali.

 

You hijacked a thread with mention of your pet theory, a violation of rules 5 and 10. (The hijack was later moved here.) The rules predate your offense and it's laughable to suggest otherwise.

 

 

Anyway indeed I didn't predict polarization. But I did predict a red-shift anomaly outside GR gravitational fields. You left that out didn't you?

 

And, I predicted a dynamic crystal glacier moving inwards. Now would that polarize a photon traveling through it? Yes it would. Simple common sense. (How do you make a polariod sunglase you pull (i.e. stretch) the plastic down like the moving glacier does. Good point BTW (apart from the warning that is.)

It's so easy for vague predictions to be retrofitted with observation. That's one reason why science strives for precision and rigor.

[ydoaPs]

And, I predicted a dynamic crystal glacier moving inwards. Now would that polarize a photon traveling through it?

How much? What direction? If you can't provide a specific answer that we can check against the data, your ad hoc 'prediction' is worthless.

It's so easy for vague predictions to be retrofitted with observation. That's one reason why science strives for precision and rigor.

And that's why one should read all posts before replying. Swansont beat me to it.

[kristalris]

 

You hijacked a thread with mention of your pet theory, a violation of rules 5 and 10. (The hijack was later moved here.) The rules predate your offense and it's laughable to suggest otherwise.

 

EQ

 

Oh you have power but not authority on this legal subject. I tell you again that you are wrong. Read up on your law. Now you hijack my thread because it is off topic. The latter verdict you would feel unjust yet it has precedence against me by you. Unjust and incomprehensible -?-, alas: quid pro quo. And might I ad I reason the way to you on law as you do to me on physics. Qpq again.

 

 

It's so easy for vague predictions to be retrofitted with observation. That's one reason why science strives for precision and rigor.

Yes it is easy - for some -, yet also being proven right on that less rigorous yet not to vague point, as I've been is for some unattainable. Or prove your statement make a (not too) "vague" prediction on a physics subject contrary to the current paradigm and be proven right. Bet you can't. I've did that trick now several times. For example as you know also with the Higgs particle BTW.

How much? What direction? If you can't provide a specific answer that we can check against the data, your ad hoc 'prediction' is worthless.

 

And that's why one should read all posts before replying. Swansont beat me to it.

My prediction was as rigorous and precise as was possible. Being more rigorous and precise would of been pseudo scientific for claiming more than can be delivered at that moment.

Example if current science states that we observe dark apples falling upwards and I predict that you'll observe these then light apples falling down then I've been accurate and precise enough. That I then din't have the formula St = v0t + 1/2at2^ with the constant a = 9,8 m/s2^ should scientifically be immaterial the prediction that the apple will be observed to fall down is what should count. for it also shows you where to start looking. As I've also done in this case by saying to look for anomalies of changes in red-shift from light from distant galaxies. Like the tired light that Spyman pointed out to me as being in effect what I was saying in lieu of my earlier Champagne bubble cosmology. I then didn't know that back ground radiation also behaves like light.

 

So undisputed and un-disputably I can claim to have predicted tired light anomaly that has indeed been observed. Light does NOT travel in a straight line outside gravitational fields, it gets red-shifted. BIG POINT TO ME THEN!

 

The direction of the glacier is down and the direction of the galaxies (Champagne bubbles) is up. In reference to our position we as yet don't know where up and down is. So start looking for it. The problem is also in part that gravity distorts the picture. So "up"and "down" is a sufficient prediction for current paradigm states a rising space cake bubble.

 

And, it goes further. I also predicted that photons have mass. I got that wrong earlier for I thought that current physics had them mass-less as Swansont pointed my error in knowledge. Yet in stead of making my point weaker it made it stronger for it showed me the weak spot in GR: two photons sent side by side from a distant galaxy traveling billions of years without having any measurable gravitational attraction are two un-observed galloping only mathematically extrapolated unicorns. Which I've supplanted with two galloping unicorns in my concept.

 

It is on topic to integrate all used instruments used in the observation. Well contrary to physicists I integrate the instrument between the ears and show why in this unsafe environment most physicists observe what their Bayes in the brain guesses what their authoritative peers think they observe. (Nothing more than survival DNA working in a ditto DNA environment.)

 

Further more I use the correct tool of logic dictated by Bayes and the Lex Parsimony in integrating the observations and making accurate as possible yet not to accurate predictions. On this site the English language.

 

Another nice point is that this new observation in effect also is consistent with photons having mass. Mass-less photons couldn't be pulled down and thus into polarization as we now observe. Simply Newton. That is very much consistent with my concept and inconsistent with the current paradigm.

 

I also pointed out earlier what a photon is and what polarization in my model means: I'll do it again.

 

The larger fundamental particles are like spinning tops in spin rotation. See this as marbles if you were to travel with them. Place your finger tips of one hand between the index finger and thumb of your other hand. This is the surface tension tunnel of the double crystal that is built of same yet un-spun particles. A string that spirals through the double crystal.

 

Now looking at it at a larger scale put your index finger on your thumb with one hand. Then put the index finger of the other hand through the mentioned fingers and place on the thumb. We have then a representation of two interlocked counter rotating strings that bounce i.e. wave through the crystal. When a gravitational field pulls the crystal away the photon can accelerate by becoming un spun i.e. the marbels get larger. The photon gets red-shifted holding c in the curved space of the gravitational field and like a car giving gas in a curve will curve in at twice the Newton value. As we observe.

 

Because nothing can travel in a straight line through the crystal that acts like a Galton Board in a way (as in the double slit experiment shows) a photon also becomes red-shifted outside any gravitational field. It becomes tired.

 

Because the crystal move inward at the same rate as the Champagne bubbles move outward in order to remain in balance Yin Yang cyclic order with waves as we observe a photon not only red-shifts but also polarizes. Newton has the mass want to move forward. A fresh photon the one string is vertical the other horizontal. The glacier pulls it into both strings either being horizontal or vertical.

 

On Occams razor and Bayes you lot have been smashed. Extremely elegant, accurate enough predictions - that again fit new observations like a glove.

 

And again my model fits SM like I showed with our Polish friend. Only qualms with quarks. I can build you another larger string if need be. My concept elegantly deals with DE, DM, marries GR to QM and is nicely Newton. And it loves Higgs explains the seeming something from nothing. In the double slit experiment I can explain why having moving mass is not at odds with QM or GR and interference of light. You only have to look at the same evidence differently. Inside the fields where GR and QM apply by all means take mass less particles. It is like using a flat earth law when making a city map. Only one little problem with GR - which is a problem that is to be expected!- massive photons. No problem then GR and QM remain standing as the best laws we humans ever had. Just don't say they apply everywhere: as to be expected they don't apply outside the double crystal we are in. This crystal is only the crust of a whopping sphere. Go to small and GR and QM break down, as they do when you go to large.

 

Theres obviously pressure in the system. My infinite universe with an infinite amount of moving un-splitable massive particles provide this. And all matter acts like little black holes causing an under-pressure perceived as gravity rising momentum and thus accelerating via the Higgs field bringing mass from the crystal in spin joining the strings. Giving thus DE and DM and slowing down your accelerated atom clock. With slowly mounting entropy.

 

Ergo the ONLY integrated simple elegant testable concept on TOE hits the mark spot on again. Predictable. The more relevant data it should most probably become more simple instead of more complex. How is it probable that an old lawyer with very limited knowledge of science can possibly come up with that? Well how can a short-tracker possibly win gold at a 1500 meter speed skating? Well better at doing curves that's why. Solving crimes scenes is making creative integral scenarios and testing them.'I'm well trained at that. Psychology shows only open minded people can do that trick with probable plausible scenario's. Exactly what is needed on TOE as well. The rest is Wikipedia and Google. It is so easy even a 1/1000 of an Einstein like I can perform it. MN made it predictably easy. And if you have no humour you don't understand relativity not even when you know all the formulas. By reproducing Mozart accurately doesn't make you a Mozart. A moment of inspiration followed by a lot of transpiration. But not of a lawyer, no one likes sweaty lawyers, apart from that I'd have to bill you, anyway it is not my job. It's a scientists job. The rest is extremely difficult and painstaking.

 

Cobbler, stick to thy last. Indeed yet an academic person uses an academic last and thus knows his chalk from cheese: with your something from nothing, Escher institute mathmatical extrapolations and silly dogma of not integrating accurately only looking at part issues not seeing the woods from the trees in breach of basic scientific rules of Bayes and the lex parsimony.

Edited March 22, 2014 by kristalris

[ajb]

And again my model fits SM like I showed with our Polish friend.

Who is our Polish friend?

 

Anyway, unless you have a decent mathematical model in which you can make some numerical predictions, hand-waving arguments that loosely fit the data is not enough.

[swansont]

 

My prediction was as rigorous and precise as was possible. Being more rigorous and precise would of been pseudo scientific for claiming more than can be delivered at that moment.

 

 

Nonsense. The cosmologists made more specific predictions about the polarization observations than you did. Ergo, it is possible to do it.

So undisputed and un-disputably I can claim to have predicted tired light anomaly that has indeed been observed. Light does NOT travel in a straight line outside gravitational fields, it gets red-shifted. BIG POINT TO ME THEN!

 

Red-shifting is a change in frequency, not a change in direction.

[kristalris]

Who is our Polish friend?

 

Anyway, unless you have a decent mathematical model in which you can make some numerical predictions, hand-waving arguments that loosely fit the data is not enough.

The Polish friend: http://www.ultimate-theory.com/en/2012/12/21/how-to-build-universe-with-just-two-particles yet I go one deeper than he does my two strings built up of two particles are smaller than his.

 

Again Godel is wrong you have the burden of proof to show he took into account Bayes. And you have the burden of proof to show that Bayes can't hack deterministic reasoning. For Bayes and the lex parsimony point to the use of - on this site - English language as the correct language in stead of Bayesian mathematics, that can also be used yet is too complicated. Ergo you may NOT demand the use of mathematics and probably even shouldn't when integrating all available data. Which inherently is all available data to you and not all of science which would grind all science to an immediate halt. What is forward becomes backward for nobody can or dares to integrate anymore. Yet it is a conditio sine qua non of science to integrate all data in the inductive faze. You are in breach of this. A breach of logic and thus science.

 

You may not as you are doing use a norm on the nano-meter with a deviation in more than trillion light years and claim to work accurately. Neither may you work a problem without integrating all of the evidence in one consistent scenario. It shows you in a non vague way where to look. I predicted via this method to look for anomalies in red-shift with light from a distant as possible light source.

 

There is nothing vague or hand wavy about stating that such an anomaly will be observed as it indeed has been. If I predict via a consistent logical integral scenario that on a certain island there is an apple tree where you will observe apples flying upwards out of a tree and you subsequently indeed observe this, then it is logically irrelevant whether or not I gave exact predictions on the speed etc. of these upwardly falling of apples.

 

Again it is the way that you can quickly and successfully solve crime scenes. This is no different.

 

You simply don't understand what the worth of (what is incorrectly named BTW) circumstantial evidence is. Even after it has been again proven correct what I'm on about. I said look for this, for other reasons it indeed was and undeniably Bingo!

 

Now go look at the proposed computer simulation and the proposed rise of gravity when a large gyro is brought in spin.

 

Apart from that even if I hadn't done any prediction the simple fact that I've come up with a logical concept that is integral and in no way at this inherently somewhat vaguer level is inconsistent with ANY observation, proves a concept worth investigation. Unless you can come up with a better or easier testable integral concept. You can't and on this or any other site there isn't not even one that does that or even claim that.

 

Nonsense. The cosmologists made more specific predictions about the polarization observations than you did. Ergo, it is possible to do it.

 

Red-shifting is a change in frequency, not a change in direction.

No nonsense for me it wasn't possible.

 

Where you fail is in being integral. I don't fail there. Where you fail is having a test with at least a probable route to get to a TOE quickly. I have that.

 

Well according to GR the red-shifting as I understand it is linked to curved space due to gravity. Are you predicting that this red-shift that is observed is consistent with this "light"traveling in an absolutely straight line when not in a gravitational field?

 

And, you've made a claim that it is easy to come up with a "vague"concept that is integral logical and testable that proves to provide predictions that fit. Well then if it is easy as you say: prove it! Don't dodge it.

 

Oh and BTW my concept is much more elaborate i.e. fits much more of physics than that I've up till now shown you. Yet of course I'll have mistakes in that. Like the mistake with the ions, remember? I got the definition wrong that time yet my concept model again un-disputably came out stronger after opposition. It works like a helicopter with the tip of the rotor hitting c. The smaller the rotor the closer to c the chopper gets. Exactly what we observe. Nothing vague to it.

 

The same way my strings can account for the jumping of electrons in the rings of an atom. You can use your hand again. Index finger to thumb one string / ring. Index finger to index finger thumb to thumb two strings second ring. etc. Fits like a gem. All across the board on ANY observation you throw at it.

 

And I simply steal the mathematics of GR and QM in the fields where everybody knows they apply. I.e. I don't have to understand how DNA matching works in order to tell a forensic scientist where to take a swipe on the crime scene. No book will tell you that. Only good guesswork based on correct observation of all evidence integrated via a elegant probable scenario does that for you. That the latter is vague and subject to alteration of even better idea's more scenario's is irrelevant.

 

If crime scenes where dealt with the way you go after TOE the body will have decomposed before you got to taking a cleaver swipe for DNA in the right place. Or you would be prosecuting an innocent person who's DNA was on the crime scene because you swiped without integrating it all first.

 

Edit: and my prediction to look at anomalies in red-shift around the light sent from distant galaxies now all the more comes into view as something to be looked at. If what I say is correct then it proves that light doesn't travel in a straight line and that red-shift also occurs outside GR strong gravity fields.

 

I thought about the consequences of the glacier pulling photons into polarization being different when a photon comes from the bottom or from the side. Alas even if what I say is correct then polarization might or might not always be expected. It might be that from the bottom non polarized light is also present from the given distance.

 

Anyway the fact that the polarization fits the prior given moving glacier and prior given way photons are polarized is neat, to say the least. And that also confirms the way that when you make an above average good guess (or vague guess in your terms) on a crime scene say naming three suspects, given that only two of these are indeed the culprit then further accurate investigation (or testing) will render relevant data making an even better next guess possible with an even higher probability of being correct. When you guess correctly practice and probabilistic mathematics show that you are zeroing in on the answer. Logic.

 

Not integrating when it is clear on ANY issue of incomplete evidence then you are on a fools errand. taking ages to figure it out.

 

As this mathematically and logically and even practically proven insight shows when under pressure a concept gets easily better as is the case here - you probably are on the right track. Ergo logic dictates to put more effort into it.No hand-waving but pure practically proven logic.

Edited March 22, 2014 by kristalris

[ajb]

Godel is wrong you have the burden of proof to show he took into account Bayes. And you have the burden of proof to show that Bayes can't hack deterministic reasoning.

I don't think there is much point going over Bayes' again, we already have a thread on that.

[ydoaPs]

My prediction was as rigorous and precise as was possible.

Then you don't get to claim the data as evidence.

[kristalris]

I don't think there is much point going over Bayes' again, we already have a thread on that.

Albeit that the extra evidence compounding the proof of you being incorrect is in this thread. A new version of the brilliant documentary Cosmos by Carl Sagan is running now on dutch TV. In the old one he showed that an Egyptian let's call him Crank had noticed that at the same point in time the shadow of an obelisk in the north was longer than in the south. And that thus the earth must be curved. Now let's assume that the high priest Godel had claimed to have proven that the earth was flat as the current science of the time. In science proper the simple observation on the shadow would disprove the stated proof. I.e. you then don't know either way. I.e. no proof either way.

 

My simple point that Godel hasn't taken into account that Bayes suffices to disprove his - claimed - proof. For his supporters - like you clearly are - then to re-prove. I.e. you have no proof either way. On you to disprove that Bayes can't deal with deterministic absolutes. it clearly can because you don't have to divide by zero. It is the instrument albeit as a logarithm between our ears that you have to take into account. Physicists are bound to take into account all used instruments. Yet they leave out the one between the ears, yet still claim to know best. When you do then your position is sunk. The norm to integrate is not the mathematical language of algebra, geometry etc. but the logical tool of - in this site the English language. That you must integrate is an a priori dictate of logic anyway BTW. Only! Bayes deals with that mathematically working on incomplete evidence.That the evidence is incomplete is evident: is the universe infinite or not. Please fill in your answer on the dotted line ............. You even ignore the latter. I.e. Bayes and the Lex parsimony rule: dictate English language to integrate in the inductive faze. I've done that and again proven that it actually works.

 

In this thread I've provide further - compelling - evidence that this actually works. You are in a Bayesian inversion: to high a norm in order to act and to low a norm on the actual test where you need super focus. This is exactly what current psychology teaches us on the instrument between our ears. When the Bayesian logic algorithm between the ears is directed on what the authoritative peers think (or on the relation) instead of the stated goal TOE in this case, then the brain blocks off all internal (before the conscious brain becomes aware of the idea) or external idea's as fearful and thus wrong.A Bayesian inversion ensues in which the hilariously improbable is deemed correct. Such as something from nothing or hardly taking any risk by only looking at part issues.

[swansont]

No nonsense for me it wasn't possible.

Indeed.

 

 

Where you fail is in being integral. I don't fail there. Where you fail is having a test with at least a probable route to get to a TOE quickly. I have that.

If you have rigorous tests you're doing a good job of keeping them secret. Odd for a discussion board.

 

And, you've made a claim that it is easy to come up with a "vague"concept that is integral logical and testable that proves to provide predictions that fit. Well then if it is easy as you say: prove it! Don't dodge it.

I didn't say it was easy to come up with concepts, I said "It's so easy for vague predictions to be retrofitted with observation."

There is nothing vague or hand wavy about stating that such an anomaly will be observed as it indeed has been.

 

But you didn't state that such an anomaly will be predicted; that implies you explained the details of the anomaly. Any anomaly would fulfill the prediction, which is why it's vague and hand-wavy. I can do it, too: in the coming year, some aspect of science will present anomalous results and require rethinking of a model. That's about as risky as predicting the sun will rise in the east tomorrow.

[kristalris]

Then you don't get to claim the data as evidence.

? of course I do. Data is per definition evidence. Only when the data is deemed unreliable (which again is then the same way of proving that) are you allowed to leave it aside. Exact scientists have a lot of problems grasping this when they are highly conscientious and low on openness as personality traits..They then simply can't work situations with incomplete evidence. To survive we need both personality traits (Mars 20% female and Venus 20% male in a safe environment) to work together. They don't understand each other. For this MN / God provided the personalities who have a high EQ, the Bayesian logic is on the relationship. (Normally! all people have to a higher or lower extent all traits. In an unsafe environment the basic trait shows in 80% of cases due to fear. They simply can't compute. This is current psychology neurology BTW. 10% are even in an unsafe environment open on the stated goal and 10% open (i.e. Bayesian logic on) keeping a good relationship.

 

This environment is unsafe for stating idea's because (= proof) you are deemed a crank / crackpot if you differ from the paradigm. (Please notice that for a Band of Brothers soldiers it is safe to attack a machine-gun post and get killed and unsafe to let your peers (= the band of Brothers) down.

 

In an unsafe environment only 10% can do relativity and in a safe one 50% given a certain speed of thought. (Simple Big Five and freeze / fight / flight/ flirt statistics.) to a much lesser extent 100% of normal (i.e. > 99 % of the populace). (It is of course norm dependent.) In this context often physicists refer to Dunning Kruger yet they forget that is on language, logic and humour. The latter to show the trait to be able to use relativity (= see from different perspective) in stead of only mirroring ( = only see things from the own perspective.) BTW nothing wrong with the one or the other. As long as you acknowledge the strengthens and weaknesses of both.

[swansont]

? of course I do. Data is per definition evidence.

 

"Evidence" here is shorthand for scientific evidence supporting a model. No specific predictions (because there's no real model) means it's not evidence.

 

You can do an inclined plane physics experiment, but the data is not evidence for evolution. Data is not, per definition, evidence.

 

This environment is unsafe for stating idea's because (= proof) you are deemed a crank / crackpot if you differ from the paradigm. (Please notice that for a Band of Brothers soldiers it is safe to attack a machine-gun post and get killed and unsafe to let your peers (= the band of Brothers) down.

 

 

Generally cranks don't actually recognize why they are identified as such. One example is the assumption that simply questioning the status quo is what causes this. It misses the fact that scientists question the status quo all the time.

 

The label is intimately tied in with the method(s) by which the status quo is questioned, and the ratio of certainty to evidence that is given.

[kristalris]

 

Indeed.

 

EQ

 

Quite and that is the appropriate scientific norm. Otherwise no-one can integrate anymore.

 

Q

 

If you have rigorous tests you're doing a good job of keeping them secret. Odd for a discussion board.

 

EQ

 

Secret? No way the mentioned balls in the box is rigorous yet you choose to only use ideal gasses =/= rigorous. You fail on the required rigors of the proposed test. The required rigorousness is given. Your error in reasoning is in that you want neigh absolute proof before putting effort in testing. That is different. You simply can't compute inaccurate close is close enough for testing versus a super-focused actual rigorous test.

 

Q

I didn't say it was easy to come up with concepts, I said "It's so easy for vague predictions to be retrofitted with observation."

 

EQ

 

Oh, I say that there is a red- shift anomaly with distant light, there is and that then doesn't count because it is easy? Okay make a prediction and try to easily retrofit then. Bet you can't. I indisputably have several times including this issue. And might I add looking at the light of a distant galaxy and observing a red-shift anomaly - of what ever magnitude - will readily prove light doesn't travel in a straight line. Providing thus further evidence for my concept. This given observation on red-shift warrants rigorous scrutiny in search of my stated anomaly.

 

Q

 

But you didn't state that such an anomaly will be predicted; that implies you explained the details of the anomaly. Any anomaly would fulfill the prediction, which is why it's vague and hand-wavy. I can do it, too: in the coming year, some aspect of science will present anomalous results and require rethinking of a model. That's about as risky as predicting the sun will rise in the east tomorrow.

 

EQ

 

No mate the predicted anomaly is that there is more red-shift on one side versus the other side of light that can be assumed to have originated at the same time from the one versus the other side of a galaxy. The only vague bit is then how much, yet that is irrelevant for any observed anomaly (= difference in red-shift) suffices to prove my point that light doesn't - ever - travel in a straight line.

 

 

"Evidence" here is shorthand for scientific evidence supporting a model. No specific predictions (because there's no real model) means it's not evidence.

 

EQ

 

Wrong. Reliable data is evidence per definition. Your definition only works/ should be applied in a environment (= on a question / probandum) with complete evidence. The question at hand is inherently one with incomplete evidence. => your position is busted / falsified. For whta then is your complete evidence on the question whether the universe is infinite or not. Or that that question is irrelevant? Ergo busted!

 

Q

 

You can do an inclined plane physics experiment, but the data is not evidence for evolution. Data is not, per definition, evidence.

 

EQ

 

Straw-man fallacy on your part.

 

Q

 

Generally cranks don't actually recognize why they are identified as such.

 

EQ

 

So, sometimes they do. I recognize the fact that you deem me a crank / crackpot (although I guess they are used as synonyms (?)) Simply because the ones that deem the other a crank / crackpot are only capable of mirroring: i.e. taking themselves and the current status quo as norm. That is 80% of scientists then old boy. fear inhibits there brain to compute relative thoughts by placing themselves in another position. Albeit on a photon like Einstein did or in the shoes of a victim or culprit of a crime. You don't agree with current science on psychology then.

 

Q

 

One example is the assumption that simply questioning the status quo is what causes this. It misses the fact that scientists question the status quo all the time.

 

EQ

 

Well questioning something doesn't mean that you have a clue. Someone who is born to go by the book on a crime scene simply hasn't a clue where to look unlees the book or an authority tells him/ her. In an unsafe environment the brain of non open-minded people is simply blocked before becoming aware of the thought of all fearful thoughts. Be it external or internal. Simple - and important ! - survival trait.

 

Q

 

The label is intimately tied in with the method(s) by which the status quo is questioned, and the ratio of certainty to evidence that is given.

 

EQ

 

The label of crank/ crackpot you mean? With hindsight all geniuses were more often than not deemed crackpot cranks. The problem is to make the distinction between the two before hand. Otherwise you are in a hind sight bias. Your simple every challenge of the paradigm is a crackpot crank is a repeatedly historically dis-proven hilarious even running gag: Vogons, march of folly,

minkukels, Monty Python, and Dunning Kruger BTW.

 

And before anyone gets me wrong again: my position is that we should be much more respectful to one another. So not to have DSM V deem half the populace mad and dumb as scientific fact. In general less than 1% of the populace should possibly be deemed a crack crackpot or to dumb. And then not in those wordings.

 

Mars (male/female)and Venus (M/F) simply don't understand each other. It is at the division of complete and incomplete evidence, i.e. the difference between R&D and production. Sales on the other hand should merge the two, open minded logic on the relationship. That is who MN / God intended it. Ergo brush up on the knowledge concerning all our -different - instruments between your ears and the interaction between these different instruments.

Edited March 22, 2014 by kristalris

[swansont]

There is now a tutorial on the use of the quote function. Please read it.
http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/82164-the-quote-function-a-tutorial-in-several-parts/

Quite and that is the appropriate scientific norm.

 

 

No, it's not. If you aren't capable of formulating science at the level that's required you stay out of the field. Or, as so often happens, you discuss it in an online forum that tolerates (for whatever reasons) such level of discourse, precisely because the scientific norm is beyond the reach of some.

 

Oh, I say that there is a red- shift anomaly with distant light, there is and that then doesn't count because it is easy? Okay make a prediction and try to easily retrofit then. Bet you can't.

You gave no details on the nature of the anomaly.

I did make a prediction, one as lame as yours. The real question is whether I'lll have to wait a whole week for it to come true.

 

 

No mate the predicted anomaly is that there is more red-shift on one side versus the other side of light that can be assumed to have originated at the same time from the one versus the other side of a galaxy. The only vague bit is then how much, yet that is irrelevant for any observed anomaly (= difference in red-shift) suffices to prove my point that light doesn't - ever - travel in a straight line.

 

 

I thought we were referring to the BICEP2 results. How is a polarization equated with a difference in redshift?

[kristalris]

Okay, this is just going over things we have discussed before and we are getting off the topic of this thread. There is a thread open on this already and maybe we should continue this in that thread.

ok

There is now a tutorial on the use of the quote function. Please read it.

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/82164-the-quote-function-a-tutorial-in-several-parts/

 

Well, so far so good.

There is .......

 

No, it's not. If you aren't capable of formulating science at the level that's required you stay out of the field. Or, as so often happens, you discuss it in an online forum that tolerates (for whatever reasons) such level of discourse, precisely because the scientific norm is beyond the reach of some.

 

Ah, well this is where history shows that group psychology comes in. You think that science is a democratic affair. It isn't.

 

As a physicist you are required to take into account all instruments used in an experiment, right? Of course I'm right. Have you physicists in general taken into account the instrument between your ears? No indeed you haven't. Is there a problem then? Yes on this topic to ascertain the required level of formulating the norm in an unsafe environment 80 to 90% of the populace at any speed of brain level is not logically goal orientated yet logically authority (80%) or relationship (10% male/ female) orientated. Even in a safe environment it is 50% male / female from Mars goal orientated and 50% male / female relationship orientated. The latter accurately going by the book. The latter is no problem on a question where there is no lack of evidence. Alas it is a major problem on a question where you do have a lack of evidence as is this topic.

 

Your 50 to 80% majority is wrong on this issue. Again science is not a democratic affair as you make it out to be probably following your authority. The instrument between the ears rules out all conflict with the authoritative paradigm even before that person becomes aware of it. It feels unsafe. Male / females from Venus simply can't guess above average per speed of brain group. They go from a less than 50% say 45% probability with the first guess (when they guess at all that is, or not even recognizing that in effect a guess is made even then guessing that following the book is best). When that probably goes wrong the next guess is even worse say 20%. Ultimately ending up following the book in a Bayesian inversion being convinced that something comes from nothing. Believing in magic probability of being correct 0,000000000.........00000000000.......000000000000000000000000000..........something.

 

Only from Mars can on average guess above 50%. First guess of mine on this topic of TOE was say 70% correct. I OOPSed a lot in the learning curve and went from say 80% to now 90% probability of being correct. By slightly adapting the model to what I learned.

 

And as you observe simply by guess work I nailed a testable position observing red-shift of photons outside any gravitational field as I predicted accurately before hand.

 

And you are using the wrong mathematical instrument. I don't care what your book says. The book on mathematics dictate the use of Bayesian mathematics on issues with incomplete evidence. PERIOD. It is not democratic it is a dictate. This is inherently an issue with incomplete evidence.

 

 

AS YOU SEE STILL TRYING TO GET TO GRIPS WITH THE QUOTE BOX SYSTEM. MORE REACTIONS PENDING

Edited March 23, 2014 by kristalris

[swansont]

Ah, well this is where history shows that group psychology comes in. You think that science is a democratic affair. It isn't.

Wow, really? That's what I think? Funny, that. I just did a search and found a dozen posts where I say science isn't a democracy.

 

I don't see how what I said would lead you to that conclusion anyway. My statement was saying that we discriminate on the basis of the quality of ideas, which is not democratic.

 

As a physicist you are required to take into account all instruments used in an experiment, right? Of course I'm right. Have you physicists in general taken into account the instrument between your ears? No indeed you haven't.

Actually yes. This is why we have peer review and why ideas aren't accepted until we have replication. The whole history of physics is about people challenging ideas and finding new ways to test them to see if they're right or wrong.

 

The broader subject is off-topic and something you have discussed elsewhere, so discussion belongs in that thread. What we were discussing here is how vague predictions aren't rigorous enough to count, a fairly non-democratic concept that science has.

[kristalris]

 

You gave no details on the nature of the anomaly.

 

I did make a prediction, one as lame as yours. The real question is whether I'lll have to wait a whole week for it to come true.

I most certainly did give an accurate description and details of the anomaly. (An anomaly then being an observed phenomena not complying to current science) I stated that light from an as distant as possible galaxy would show a difference in red-shift from one to the other side even when traveling outside gravitational fields. This because light doesn't travel in a straight line so the photons on the outside of the curve will be observed to be more red-shifted.

 

This has been observed in so far that red-shift of light has been observed conforming a prediction. Now if I understand you correctly you say light red-shifts even though it lies absolutely straight. Well we can remedy that problem by doing the observation I proposed. Of course I don't know if it will run into insurmountable measurement problems because of course I'm aware that this is probably going to be a very difficult observational test.

 

Now are you saying that if we indeed observe a difference in red-shift from light from one side to the other that that is then not proof of photons not flying straight even outside gravitational fields? Of course you can't. Nothing lame about it.

 

And probably the observed red-shift by Biceps is due to photons doing that arcing outside gravitational fields conforming to GR as far as the arc red-shift is concerned yet not to GR as far as it then should be gravity, yet isn't.

 

So you straw-maned me in calling my prediction lame. It isn't. There either is a red-shift outside a GR gravitational field or there isn't. I predicted there is. WHAM! my guess was right.

 

My bet to you was that the claim should not be TO vague. I guess yours is. Mine obviously wasn't. Look at it and weep.

[swansont]

I most certainly did give an accurate description and details of the anomaly. (An anomaly then being an observed phenomena not complying to current science) I stated that light from an as distant as possible galaxy would show a difference in red-shift from one to the other side even when traveling outside gravitational fields. This because light doesn't travel in a straight line so the photons on the outside of the curve will be observed to be more red-shifted.

 

Your prediction lacks any mention of polarization. Redshift ≠ polarization. Thus the BICEP2 results do not do anything to confirm your so-called prediction. (which lacks an amount of redshift anomaly one would expect)

 

This has been observed in so far that red-shift of light has been observed conforming a prediction. Now if I understand you correctly you say light red-shifts even though it lies absolutely straight. Well we can remedy that problem by doing the observation I proposed. Of course I don't know if it will run into insurmountable measurement problems because of course I'm aware that this is probably going to be a very difficult observational test.

 

Now are you saying that if we indeed observe a difference in red-shift from light from one side to the other that that is then not proof of photons not flying straight even outside gravitational fields? Of course you can't. Nothing lame about it.

 

And probably the observed red-shift by Biceps is due to photons doing that arcing outside gravitational fields conforming to GR as far as the arc red-shift is concerned yet not to GR as far as it then should be gravity, yet isn't.

 

So you straw-maned me in calling my prediction lame. It isn't. There either is a red-shift outside a GR gravitational field or there isn't. I predicted there is. WHAM! my guess was right.

 

My bet to you was that the claim should not be TO vague. I guess yours is. Mine obviously wasn't. Look at it and weep.

 

Redshift ≠ polarization

[kristalris]

 

 

I thought we were referring to the BICEP2 results. How is a polarization equated with a difference in redshift?

As said I did not predict polarization yet it fits my model elegantly. Like doing a crime scene when you've guessed right the pieces of the puzzle quicker and quicker fall in place.

 

There is correlation but no causal effect between polarization and red-shift in my model. If the glacier doesn't move then the photon will still arc and red-shift. If the photon could fly straight through the crystal and the glacier moves it will be pulled into polarization. In effect this observation of BICEPS2 makes it that photons are indeed probably containing mass.

 

Again no problem with GR or QM for concerning issues where everybody agrees they apply you simply take the photons as being mass-less even though at a deeper level they aren't.

 

Your prediction lacks any mention of polarization. Redshift ≠ polarization. Thus the BICEP2 results do not do anything to confirm your so-called prediction. (which lacks an amount of redshift anomaly one would expect)

 

 

Redshift ≠ polarization

Straw man: I never said red-shift = polarization. I didn't predict polarization.

 

I understand that BICEPS2 shows a red-shift anomaly in so far that it shows more red-shift than can be contributed to gravity. That is most certainly what I predicted.

Wow, really? That's what I think? Funny, that. I just did a search and found a dozen posts where I say science isn't a democracy.

 

I don't see how what I said would lead you to that conclusion anyway. My statement was saying that we discriminate on the basis of the quality of ideas, which is not democratic.

 

 

Actually yes. This is why we have peer review and why ideas aren't accepted until we have replication. The whole history of physics is about people challenging ideas and finding new ways to test them to see if they're right or wrong.

 

The broader subject is off-topic and something you have discussed elsewhere, so discussion belongs in that thread. What we were discussing here is how vague predictions aren't rigorous enough to count, a fairly non-democratic concept that science has.

It is not as much what you say but what you do that shows democratic majority authority peer rule or not. The peers don't take into account the instrument between the ears either. Nor yours nor theirs. That is just the problem.

 

If you take into account the instrument between the ears properly instead of peerily you will see that my prediction is as accurate as it should be for testing. And if BICEPS2 has shown more red-shift of photons than can be attributed to gravity then I've even hit the mark. Nothing to do with polarization.

 

(Oh and BTW I don't oppose peer review and do of course support the need for replication. I oppose to high a norms before starting testing in order to get the needed observations. And, I oppose to inaccurate testing.)

Edited March 23, 2014 by kristalris

[swansont]

As said I did not predict polarization yet it fits my model elegantly. Like doing a crime scene when you've guessed right the pieces of the puzzle quicker and quicker fall in place.

 

…

 

Straw man: I never said red-shift = polarization. I didn't predict polarization.

Then you can't claim that this supports your model! Why did you even bother bringing it up?

 

I understand that BICEPS2 shows a red-shift anomaly in so far that it shows more red-shift than can be contributed to gravity. That is most certainly what I predicted.

Give a citation that says this. I can't find red shift or redshift mentioned once in their arXiv paper. BICEP2 is a polarimeter. It does not measure the amount of redshift.

[swansont]

I can do it, too: in the coming year, some aspect of science will present anomalous results and require rethinking of a model. That's about as risky as predicting the sun will rise in the east tomorrow.

 

It took all of a day. Easy when the prediction is vague.

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/82334-human-evolution-challenging-the-serial-founder-model/

[kristalris]

 

Then you can't claim that this supports your model! Why did you even bother bringing it up?

 

 

Give a citation that says this. I can't find red shift or redshift mentioned once in their arXiv paper. BICEP2 is a polarimeter. It does not measure the amount of redshift.

Well I thought I gave the link in the OP. There was somewhere along the line mention of a red-shift anomaly in reference to BICEP2. Can't find it again at the moment. I guess now that it was on the choice of the part of space they chose to look more closely at because of the amount of red-shift anomaly. Because I now see I predicted something that has already been observed i.e. anomalies in red-shift from distant light outside gravitational fields i.e. CMB cold-spots etc. I today also noticed a fairly bitter discussion the last years between scientist astronomers claiming that the anomalies are wiped under the carpet by the main stream. Psychologically that gives an unsafe environment. I found this on my phone and can't find this again on my laptop. Even twice mention of psychology by astronomers being the reason for the differences would you believe it.

 

Anyway if you democratically choose to heighten any threshold because you want the data to fit the model then any anomaly can be deemed mainstream insignificant. Group psychology in progress. My model requires a slight measure of red-shift anomalies contrary to BB inflation, so these anomalies nicely fit my model and is clearly with a lot of massaging of data consistent with BB.

 

I wasn't aware of the BTW many references to this and thus have trouble finding the same links again. Can do though. And, my model loves the polarization as stated. Believe it or not I got there by guesswork. I made my prediction without knowing that CMB concerned light. Anyway spot on then.

 

It took all of a day. Easy when the prediction is vague.

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/82334-human-evolution-challenging-the-serial-founder-model/

?