Champagne Bubble Cosmology

[kristalris]

Then why do you even visit the topics in this section? I think it is a waste of posts if you are going to simply diminish other people. I know he doesn't make sense, but then I don't post in threads that don't make sense unless I see potential, even if it is a potential of .000000000000000000000...1.

 

"Science isn't about determining who is right or wrong. It is learning from one's mistakes and making discoveries from such mistakes"(can't remember the exact quote, but it gets to the point).

I agree with you. Sorry that I don't make sense to you but he. I hope that sir Falme alot doesn't.

So how does the above list contradict the big bang and more specifically the Lambda CDM model?

Well in the only way I see that it can be integrated and that contradicts BB.

 

But if you have a better model that does support BB - as long as it is integrated i.e. you answer what waves are and have a verbal TOE at least - then it's ok. IF it is potentially testable that is.

[Bignose]

Strawman! I agree with their paper! I've even explicitly more than once done that! I've even called their paper and find brilliant. What the hell are you talking about?

You're the one who told me that the authors were expected to compare their data to "any other model". What I did isn't a strawman if it is your exact position. All I was doing was taking your exact same logic and expanding it to any of the many, many other theories that have been offered throughout the history of mankind of the origins of the world and universe, and asking you how far back you wanted to go.

 

Science is indeed not about absolute truth. Yet it is about RELATIVE truth (you know relativity & Einstein) and the appropriate norms. I.e. is it to be held true or false to warrant further funding into BB or other fields of research? Now that is an actual question, that since the Arp debacle has - provable incorrectly - been answered with: BB research. The Biceps2 find or even claim doesn't change that.

Whatever, now you want to quibble (lawyer-ly) about specific meanings of words? If you want to talk about truths, the truth is that the BB theory makes predictions that agree pretty darn well with the newly measured BICEP2 data. Until some other theory can make a prediction that's equally as good, no other theory will be considered as scientifically good. Absolutely, relatively, or any other adjective you want to use.

 

As for the red herring about funding -- again science is done by human beings. Resources for funding are finite. So, yes, sometimes things are not funded as much as they should be. And sometimes petty politics does affect who gets funded and when. I still have faith that in the end, science makes progress because we've stuck to the concept of favoring the ideas that make the more accurate predictions. If you really think you have a better way, you surely haven't demonstrated it.

[pwagen]

"Science isn't about determining who is right or wrong. It is learning from one's mistakes and making discoveries from such mistakes"(can't remember the exact quote, but it gets to the point).

That is a good point, except some people never seem to learn from their mistakes. I'm in strong agreement with ACG52.

[kristalris]

Whatever, now you want to quibble (lawyer-ly) about specific meanings of words? If you want to talk about truths, the truth is that the BB theory makes predictions that agree pretty darn well with the newly measured BICEP2 data.

I don't and haven't disputed this. Show me where I have. You repeatedly say I have. That constitutes a strawman. No quibbling or whatever. I say science is about finding the truth you contradict. Want to quibble / legalize about that?

[Unity+]

There's no science in this thread.

Then why are you in this thread?

That is a good point, except some people never seem to learn from their mistakes. I'm in strong agreement with ACG52.

Then can't we simply ignore them?

 

EDIT: I think the problem is we aren't applying "evolution" to posting in the forum. If a thread in Speculation is bad then let it die. Other threads that are better will get more posts and last longer. And if someone tries to keep a bad thread alive then it gets put in the trash.

Edited March 30, 2014 by Unity+

[ajb]

Well in the only way I see that it can be integrated and that contradicts BB.

You will need to be much more specific than that; we don't really understand what you mean by integrated in this context.

 

Today as far as I know there is nothing on observational cosmology that goes against the lambda CDM model + inflation. We have aspect that we don't properly understand, including the Universe at the GUT scale and higher, but there is nothing that really contradicts the model. For sure there are details left to study, such as if the inflation epoch really existed and if so what kind of inflation was it.

[kristalris]

If you want to talk about truths, the truth is that the BB theory makes predictions that agree pretty darn well with the newly measured BICEP2 data. Until some other theory can make a prediction that's equally as good, no other theory will be considered as scientifically good. Absolutely, relatively, or any other adjective you want to use.

Again I don't dispute this. I.e. that Bicep2 brilliantly fits its predictions. Yet logically and mathematically that proves bugger all on BB. That is basic. The problem is between the ears but ok, you et all can't see that. It's rather funny the sudden panicky reaction of sir Flame Alot ACG52 cum suis to me cornering you lot.

[Unity+]

You will need to be much more specific than that; we don't really understand what you mean by integrated in this context.

 

Today as far as I know there is nothing on observational cosmology that goes against the lambda CDM model + inflation. We have aspect that we don't properly understand, including the Universe at the GUT scale and higher, but there is nothing that really contradicts the model. For sure there are details left to study, such as if the inflation epoch really existed and if so what kind of inflation was it.

I even think we found found undeniable proof of the current model of the Big Bang(using patterns found in gravitational waves detected). Am I correct on this?

Yet logically and mathematically that proves bugger all on BB.

What do you mean by this? Are you saying the mathematics behind the idea of the current Big Bang Theory is flawed?

 

 

 

The problem is between the ears but ok, you et all can't see that. It's rather funny the sudden panicky reaction of sir Flame Alot ACG52 cum suis to me cornering you lot.

I don't think it was panic. I don't agree with ACG52's use of words when stating that a speculative idea is flawed, but I think what we are getting at is your speculation doesn't have any predictions that could be made more efficiently than our current model of the Big Bang.

 

FRIENDLY NOTE: ACG52 takes science very seriously and when someone challenges a scientific theory that has so much evidence to back it up he takes the irrationality of denial ism as an insult(this isn't an insult towards you AC ). I take mathematics very seriously and when someone states something that is highly irrational, such as "1 does not equal .9 repeating", even when proven beyond a doubt, I tend to go towards AC's line of criticism.

Edited March 30, 2014 by Unity+

[Bignose]

Again I don't dispute this. I.e. that Bicep2 brilliantly fits its predictions. Yet logically and mathematically that proves bugger all on BB. That is basic. The problem is between the ears but ok, you et all can't see that.

See, this is a gross misunderstanding on your part. The evidence does NOT mathematically prove the BB. Nothing will. Science isn't out to prove anything. This new data just shows that the BB theory makes predictions that agree with what is measured. BB theory has done this a lot, very successfully. That's why it is the favored model right now. But, if someday, some other theory comes along and makes even better predictions than BB, that that some other theory will be the most favored. Because the theory that makes the most accurate predictions will be the most favored. Science is a pure meritocracy.

 

You clearly don't personally favor the BB theory, and you have your own idea. That's fine. Problem is that science is not going to come around to your point of view until it is demonstrated that your idea makes as many or better predictions than BB.

 

Talk about something not right between the ears, I don't get how this is so hard to understand and accept. And you clearly haven't accepted it, because you keep wanting to tell us about confirmation bias away from your idea, but when asked for concrete predictions, none are forthcoming. Obviously, you seem to think that the best way to get your idea accepted is to try to convince us all that we're prejudiced against it, instead of actually proving anything scientifically meaningful, like predictions.

[ajb]

I even think we found found undeniable proof of the current model of the Big Bang(using patterns found in gravitational waves detected). Am I correct on this?

Maybe, but we need to be open to other possibilites and let the experts rule out all the other options.

 

That said, I think just about everyone expects the Lambda CDM model + inflation to be the best description of cosmology we have right now.

Edited March 30, 2014 by ajb

[swansont]

Yes, so did I understand that they have found data that fits their expansion based model. So? Still don't get it do you?

 

No, I can't read your mind, especially the part where you play "guess what I'm thinking". It's almost as if you don't actually want to discuss science, which is odd behavior for a science site.

 

What non-inflationary model is out there that fits the data? And if you know, why is it something that you feel you need to keep a secret? If you don't know, why are you wasting our time?

 

 

It's long past put-up-or-shut-up time.

None of what he's written at any point makes any sense. He knows nothing about science. I can't fathom why the mods allow this drivel to continue. Swansont appears to enjoy playing with Kristalkris, and that's the only reason I can see for keeping this thread open.

 

AFAIK, the thread is open only because nobody has asked that it be closed and it's not a big enough issue in light of other moderation duties. I think the staff uninvolved with the discussion would be hard-pressed to defend that kristalris is in compliance with the rules.

[John Cuthber]

 

...

My model quickly and elegantly solves all the questions like:

 

DM

 

DE

 

gravity

 

magnetism

...

 

OK, prove it.

Solve them.

Edited March 30, 2014 by John Cuthber

[kristalris]

 

No, I can't read your mind, especially the part where you play "guess what I'm thinking". It's almost as if you don't actually want to discuss science, which is odd behavior for a science site.

 

What non-inflationary model is out there that fits the data? And if you know, why is it something that you feel you need to keep a secret? If you don't know, why are you wasting our time?

 

 

It's long past put-up-or-shut-up time.

I certainly stirred the Big Bang Beehive nest with the flurry of activity it invoked. Not panicked no, shall we say a slight heightend arousal state?

 

Mad Arp's (did I say he has a debilitating mental illness just now?) model is an inflationary model for inflationary only means that it must fit the data of the law of Hubble. Not all models that do that have a BB. The list of Marmet should have several that are consistent with Hubble yet at odds with BB http://www.marmet.org/cosmology/redshift/mechanisms.pdf. The instruments between the ears of 80% of authority driven Astronomers are very sensitive to Arp affairs, so no one including dead Arp has put further work into his model. If you want to prove that his model doesn't fit the data of Biceps2 then you will have to actually do research into that.

 

You lot claimed that the Biceps2 find supports BB more than any other model. Even though as I've pointed out the actual team of Biceps2 don't claim that at all. He who states a position must prove the position.

 

As I keep on pointing out there is another way, around this problem: you do as Einstein / Leonardo etc show how to do it. Yet then you have to adjust your norms both higher and lower. So if you don't want to get hung up in the extremely difficult and painstaking activity of proving your claim, as you per rules as the topic in this thread requires, you have first go.

 

My obligation of proof starts with the observation that you claim something that is not yet proven. I also claim that you can't comply in the way you demand yourself on your own norm of showing mathematically more accuracy to any potential other model of which I gave you a list and Arp. You et al carry that burden and NOT the Boceps2 team. They haven't made the claim. Again I claim you will fail and thus will be forced to use other norms.

 

So I can sit back sipping my champagne at the correct mental table awaiting you either succeed in that proof or come up with an integrated in effect thus a TOE with the mathematics. I predict you will fail that proof as well. For what do you have in that department? The inverted Titanic of Everything of Krauss. I'll certainly be a sport and throw my bottle of Bollinger when that one gets launched. Then we have your mainstream one that is invisible. And we indeed have our Polish friend who I'll call Sensei. He's short of waves to float on that I can provide as some repair strings for qualms with quarks.

 

Only after that does the shaken and not stirred bottle of Bollinger test come into play to see if it gives off a big bang or plop as I predict. Because this thread started off with Biceps2 to which you et all made first and first systematic claim your burden of proof. You'll see you can't comply proving my first point for starters. Nice thing with champagne is you can drink it with all courses.

 

Again your failing to comply to your own norms is my proof that you need to work it like Einstein / Leonardo showed you. And yes, that does comply to the rules.

[ajb]

You lot claimed that the Biceps2 find supports BB more than any other model. Even though as I've pointed out the actual team of Biceps2 don't claim that at all. He who states a position must prove the position.

 

I am not surprised that the Biceps2 team have not made claims in this direction. The data has been made available to cosmologists who can then see if the data sits okay with the models. As far as I know, it all sits okay with the Lambda CDM model as does all the other observations of the cosmos.

 

You could chase up some of the preprints I linked to...

[swansont]

You lot claimed that the Biceps2 find supports BB more than any other model. Even though as I've pointed out the actual team of Biceps2 don't claim that at all. He who states a position must prove the position.

No, I think that's a mischaracterization. BICEP2 is support of inflation, which is a BB model.

 

 

As I keep on pointing out there is another way, around this problem: you do as Einstein / Leonardo etc show how to do it. Yet then you have to adjust your norms both higher and lower. So if you don't want to get hung up in the extremely difficult and painstaking activity of proving your claim, as you per rules as the topic in this thread requires, you have first go.

 

My obligation of proof starts with the observation that you claim something that is not yet proven. I also claim that you can't comply in the way you demand yourself on your own norm of showing mathematically more accuracy to any potential other model of which I gave you a list and Arp. You et al carry that burden and NOT the Boceps2 team. They haven't made the claim. Again I claim you will fail and thus will be forced to use other norms.

All moot. You started the discussion by claiming that the BICEP2 results were support of your model, even though you admitted polarization is not something you predicted. You've never presented an actual model.

 

You claimed that BICEP2 measured redshift: "I understand that BICEPS2 shows a red-shift anomaly in so far that it shows more red-shift than can be contributed to gravity." You have yet to back that claim up.

 

Again your failing to comply to your own norms is my proof that you need to work it like Einstein / Leonardo showed you. And yes, that does comply to the rules.

This thread is about you and your claims. And (thankfully) you don't decide what complies with the rules.

[kristalris]

 

 

I am not surprised that the Biceps2 team have not made claims in this direction. The data has been made available to cosmologists who can then see if the data sits okay with the models. As far as I know, it all sits okay with the Lambda CDM model as does all the other observations of the cosmos.

 

You could chase up some of the preprints I linked to...

Well, I'm not surprised either because these are clever people who know that if they had done that they would of saddled themselves up with a burden of proof they can't comply with.

 

Preprints?

 

Anyway, having an absolute perfect fit of Bicepts2 doesn't prove a thing on the probandum that the BB model is superior to other models and thus warrants more funding then other models. Though the mechanics of the instruments between the ears do have that happen in this in effect democratic scientific way of thinking.

 

Yes that would indeed be too much work, and no, that then doesn't allow you to work that way because it is illogical. Science is per definition; thus as a conditio sine qua non logical.

 

Another major point is that applying rules of the current paradigm towards finding a new paradigm constitutes a logical contradiction. You can only use the rules of the current paradigm to where they apply. The BB question is inherently a need a different paradigm question requiring a different creative purely logic on that goal approach. very few instruments between the ears can comply there especially in an unsafe environment. That is based on current science on these instruments.

[ajb]

Well, I'm not surprised either because these are clever people who know that if they had done that they would of saddled themselves up with a burden of proof they can't comply with.

What was the "mission statement"? I expect it was more in line with the collection of data that can then be examined by cosmologists worldwide. But I don't know that, although that is clearly the impression I get from their website.

 

Preprints?

Yes on the arXiv, I gave you a link earlier to 70 preprints discussing the results. Most of the papers seem to be about testing particular models of inflation.

[kristalris]

 

No, I think that's a mischaracterization. BICEP2 is support of inflation, which is a BB model.

 

Oh no it isn't. You have the BICEP2 team on the record put forward that claim. They most certainly won't. You make it in to a misrepresentation. Inflation is the law of Hubble and not per definition in conflict with a stationary universe a la Arp cs. The latter is most certainly in conflict with BB. That is what got him kicked out from behind his beloved telescope.

 

All moot. You started the discussion by claiming that the BICEP2 results were support of your model, even though you admitted polarization is not something you predicted. You've never presented an actual model.

 

You claimed that BICEP2 measured redshift: "I understand that BICEPS2 shows a red-shift anomaly in so far that it shows more red-shift than can be contributed to gravity." You have yet to back that claim up.

 

 

This thread is about you and your claims. And (thankfully) you don't decide what complies with the rules.

No moot, you wish, I started off with an admitted mistake, as sir OOPSalot. I don't have to prove a claim I first made that I admit is wrong. I have to prove my point I made later, namely that you lot have claimed something that isn't claimed by the Biceps2 team. Well, I don't see them claim that. And I know why. They will run in exactly the same problem you lot are in, since I subsequently (and systematically) can show via predicting that you lot can't according to your own rules prove what you claim, prove my point that to change a paradigm, you need to adjust your current norms.

 

If I succeed in that proof, which I will when you fail as predicted, then I'll have the burden of proof to show best model. Which is easy for there is no other that fits the criteria if you've got your norms correct. Which I'm in the process of proving. We can talk about that later when you are forced to admit you failed in your claim.

 

Now then prove the Biceps2 team claims that their data fits BB best, or prove it yourself. My first claim is thus that you claimed this and that it is wrong.

Edited March 31, 2014 by kristalris

[John Cuthber]

Speaking of claims, remember these?
"My model quickly and elegantly solves all the questions like:

DM

DE

gravity

magnetism"?

Prove it.

[kristalris]

Speaking of claims, remember these?

"My model quickly and elegantly solves all the questions like:

DM

 

DE

 

gravity

 

magnetism"?

 

Prove it.

I'm in the process of doing that. First I need to prove my claim that your norms are incorrect. I do that in you lot failing your claim or the Biceps2 team failing that claim that the data better fit BB than any other model.

 

You want to have your paradigm cake and eat it. That is a contradiction a logical fallacy.

Edited March 31, 2014 by kristalris

[ajb]

Oh no it isn't. You have the BICEP2 team on the record put forward that claim.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1403.3985

 

They state that the data fits well with the Lamdba CDM model + tensor theoretical model.

 

 

Also by inflation we usually mean a rapid state of expansion around the GUT scale, something like 10^-35 seconds after the Big Bang. This is separate from the expansion that is to do with Hubble's law. It is also most likely quite separate from the current acceleration we are seeing.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

Sorry - this thread has become ridiculous - closed.

 

Kristalris - if you wish to discuss science then do so; if you wish to troll SF.Net members with pseudo-legalistic psychobabble then I afraid we will continue to lock your threads.

 

I told you to stop bringing discussions regarding methods of thought into the argument and to stick to cosmology, and I told you to answer some of the fundamental questions that had been asked of you; you complied with neither instruction. If you continue on this course in other threads sanctions may follow.

 

This is science site - not a forum for baseless argumentation; bring an argument of substance with evidence or do not open another Speculations thread.