Do these discoveries change your view of the universe?

[Xris]

Mechsmith. The point of this thread was the idea that gravitational waves have been observed from that so called singularity. What scientific right have they to call them waves? I just don't get it. As for your black holes. I fear they just another illusion created from the incorrect concept of how light permeates space distance. Lets take the idea that nothing can escape them. So why do we see EM radiation of a different frequency to light escaping from them? And most importantly after decades of searching not one image of them exists? Not one has been observed directly. The BB is becoming a scientific embarrassment, only maintained by faith.

[Philosophy Explorer]

Misty asks:

"What do you mean by "change your view of the universe," in what way do you mean?" In every possible way. Some people will never change their point of view, no matter what and some may.

It depends.

PhilX

-- Updated March 22nd, 2014, 3:03 pm to add the following --

Spiral Out said:

"Philosophy Explorer wrote: I'm sure the scientists who discovered direct evidence for the gravitational waves knew what they were doing in their three-year study.

That is called "faith" and has no place in science."

Au contraire mon Capitaine, since we're talking about scientists, then this has a definite place in science. And isn't it true that science is based on postulates, laws, axioms and any assumptions that explain?

Since Spiral Out keeps misinterpreting my posts, I refrain from going over my posts in further detail since it may encourage him into circular reasoning. But I may change my mind on that.

Let me ask this question instead. What would it take to convince you that BICEP/BICEP2 has made a legitimate discovery?

PhilX

-- Updated March 22nd, 2014, 3:18 pm to add the following --

To help out Mechsmith and others, I copied the following from a website:

"The speed of light in a vacuum is 186,282 miles per second (299,792 kilometers per second), and in theory nothing can travel faster than light."

[Spiral Out]

Spiral Out said:

"Philosophy Explorer wrote: I'm sure the scientists who discovered direct evidence for the gravitational waves knew what they were doing in their three-year study.

That is called "faith" and has no place in science."

Au contraire mon Capitaine, since we're talking about scientists, then this has a definite place in science. And isn't it true that science is based on postulates, laws, axioms and any assumptions that explain?

Out of all of the points and questions I raised in my last post, that is the one & only point you chose to "address"? (and quite poorly in my opinion)

Have you given up? It's ok if you're giving up, but please let me know so I don't waste my time arguing points with someone who doesn't have points to argue or who perhaps has points but cannot adequately argue them.

Since Spiral Out keeps misinterpreting my posts…

Ok so now I'm misinterpreting your posts? If that's the case then please clarify beyond any doubt as to what you're really saying because my "interpretations" were formed using your own words.

I think we are starting to witness the weaknesses of your position in trying to defend science and the scientific method.

Also, I find it quite telling that you refuse to answer the key questions posed to you.

…my arguments get stronger and stronger…

Still remains to be seen. You must prove such claims.

[Philosophy Explorer]

Since Scott is big on sources, even though the speed of light is well known to scientists, I'll name the source in post #62.

That source is http://www.space.com/15830-light-speed.html

PhilX

-- Updated March 22nd, 2014, 3:43 pm to add the following --

Spiral Out said:

"Ok so now I'm misinterpreting your posts? If that's the case then please clarify beyond any doubt as to what you're really saying because my 'interpretations' were formed using your own words."

Would you like me to write you a long book using many technical terms you wouldn't understand, assuming I can anticipate all of your objections?

PhilX

[Mechsmith]

Xris,

I don't subscribe to the BB. I don't know why you think I did As far as Black Holes it will be impossible to see them directly but the math that predicts them is quite understandable. The Swartzchild Radius is also fairly straightforward. I stated that they may have been observed due to some temporary aberrations in the positions of some stars. I haven't heard anything else though.

Also as far as I know "Hawking Radiation" has not been seen yet. There is some doubt as to whether or not it exists as it would require a disentanglement of particles which may never happen naturally. Quantum Mechanics is still a fairly young school of thought.

Happy Thinking, M

[DarwinX]

Just another false alarm. Give the man a cupie doll. Nobel prizes are only for idiots. The real geniuses like Nicola Tesla, Dayton Miller and Stephen Hurrell won't be getting one because they have real answers which the establishment doesn't want.

[Xris]

Xris,

I don't subscribe to the BB. I don't know why you think I did As far as Black Holes it will be impossible to see them directly but the math that predicts them is quite understandable. The Swartzchild Radius is also fairly straightforward. I stated that they may have been observed due to some temporary aberrations in the positions of some stars. I haven't heard anything else though.

Also as far as I know "Hawking Radiation" has not been seen yet. There is some doubt as to whether or not it exists as it would require a disentanglement of particles which may never happen naturally. Quantum Mechanics is still a fairly young school of thought.

Happy Thinking, M

Mechsmith. If you listen to plasma cosmologist a simpler explaination can be found. You find asking simple questions like why certain EM radiation can escape black holes stumps the most informed cosmologist.

[Mechsmith]

Xris

Hawking came up with one as I mentioned before. It just hasn't been observed. Basically it involves instant or faster than light communication between subatomic particles which if it happens should result in "Hawking Radiation". Hasn't been observed yet to my knowledge. Perhaps won't be. This may only be due to the characteristics of very short wave radiation.

[Xris]

Xris

Hawking came up with one as I mentioned before. It just hasn't been observed. Basically it involves instant or faster than light communication between subatomic particles which if it happens should result in "Hawking Radiation". Hasn't been observed yet to my knowledge. Perhaps won't be. This may only be due to the characteristics of very short wave radiation.

Gamma rays escape from black holes before the event horizon but we are expected to believe that light can not. Hawkins is not suggesting black holes do not exist, nor does he answer my question concerning the anonomly of two EM frequencies. One being drawn from outside the singularity while the other manages to escape the gravitational pull of this black hole. You also hsve to ask how do gravitational waves manage to escape?.These black holes stsrt denying themselves. Have you ever consided the BB singularity only lasted for a fraction of a second but we are told the BB is eternal.Plasma cosmology will tell you there is no reason to assume these enigmatic concepts exist.

[Mechsmith]

Xris,

The book "The Big Bang Never Happened" also discussed Plasma formed forms . I thank that a plasma which is easily acquired from a Black Hole is a necessary pre requirement for a Galaxy and quite probably for a star.

Carl Sagan has discussed heavy metal formation in stars but I found some difficulties there also. Mostly with the time frames involved.

M

[Bohm2]

A paper just came out questioning first direct evidence for cosmic inflation:

"Radio loop" emissions, rather than signatures of the early universe, could account for the observation of B-mode polarization announced by the BICEP2 collaboration earlier this year. That is the claim of a trio of cosmologists that has found evidence that local structures in our galaxy generate a polarized signal that was previously unknown to astronomers studying the cosmic microwave background (CMB). The new foreground, which can be detected in the radio and microwave frequencies, is present at high galactic latitudes and could potentially be misinterpreted as a B-mode polarization signal caused by primordial gravitational waves, thus casting doubt on the BICEP2 finding...Fortunately, Sarkar, Coles and Spergel all agree that all eyes are now on the upcoming polarization data from the Planck satellite, which should clarify the situation within the year.

Have galactic 'radio loops' been mistaken for B-mode polarization?
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/new ... larization

[Philosophy Explorer]

A paper just came out questioning first direct evidence for cosmic inflation:

"Radio loop" emissions, rather than signatures of the early universe, could account for the observation of B-mode polarization announced by the BICEP2 collaboration earlier this year. That is the claim of a trio of cosmologists that has found evidence that local structures in our galaxy generate a polarized signal that was previously unknown to astronomers studying the cosmic microwave background (CMB). The new foreground, which can be detected in the radio and microwave frequencies, is present at high galactic latitudes and could potentially be misinterpreted as a B-mode polarization signal caused by primordial gravitational waves, thus casting doubt on the BICEP2 finding...Fortunately, Sarkar, Coles and Spergel all agree that all eyes are now on the upcoming polarization data from the Planck satellite, which should clarify the situation within the year.

Have galactic 'radio loops' been mistaken for B-mode polarization?
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/new ... larization

Only time will tell. Thanks for the update.

PhilX

[Obvious Leo]

Not a single conclusion drawn from the epistemological models of physics has ever been proven correct. These models have extraordinary predictive power but no explanatory authority whatsoever. If we use models which are specifically designed to predict what the observer will observe then it is rather disingenuous to afterwards feign amazement when the observer duly goes ahead and observes what the model has predicted. To claim some sort of ontological validity for the explanation being offered is simply doing science backwards from induction and is therefore not science at all. This is one of the many problems of physics and the confected joy at the discovery of the Higgs boson likewise fooled nobody but the scientific illiterates who provide the funding for these expensive games.

The physicist should consult his lexicon and look up the meaning of the term "confirmation bias". Do we see what we want to see, or more cynically, do we see what is in our own best interests to see? The truth lies somewhere in between because in fact we see what our experimental protocols have directed us to see.

Regards Leo

[Xris]

Thanks for that. I agree, if relativity tells us space is bent by gravity then you will find gravitationsl lensing. There can be no other explaination. Modern cosmology is driven by preconceived concepts that looks for evidence to support them rather than approach their subject with true scientific independence.

[Steve3007]

Leo:

Not a single conclusion drawn from the epistemological models of physics has ever been proven correct.

Could you give an example of a conclusion that has been drawn from an epistemological model and the sense in which it has not been proven correct? What would you regard as a proof of correctness?

These models have extraordinary predictive power but no explanatory authority whatsoever. If we use models which are specifically designed to predict what the observer will observe then it is rather disingenuous to afterwards feign amazement when the observer duly goes ahead and observes what the model has predicted.

If it were logically certain that the predictions were going to be accurate then I would agree. Clearly amazement would be a strange reaction to a logical certainty. But the whole point of the predictions of the models (as opposed to the descriptions that they provide of observations that have already been made) is that they are not certain.

To take a classic example: Newton's model of the ways in which apples are observed to fall from trees and moons are observed to go around planets. He proposed that both of these (at the time) seemingly entirely unrelated phenomena could be described by the same underlying model. To somebody who isn't brought up with our modern knowledge of gravity, this is far from intuitively obvious. So, if calculations of the precise movements of apples and moons show it to be accurate, surely people are justified in showing some genuine amazement?

To claim some sort of ontological validity for the explanation being offered is simply doing science backwards from induction and is therefore not science at all. This is one of the many problems of physics and the confected joy at the discovery of the Higgs boson likewise fooled nobody but the scientific illiterates who provide the funding for these expensive games.

Any model which can correctly predict the outcome of an as-yet-undone experiment has some merit, in my view. I don't know the sense in which you think this is "doing science backwards from induction". Could you explain?

The physicist should consult his lexicon and look up the meaning of the term "confirmation bias". Do we see what we want to see, or more cynically, do we see what is in our own best interests to see? The truth lies somewhere in between because in fact we see what our experimental protocols have directed us to see.

Confirmation bias is indeed a deeply ingrained aspect of human nature. How would you propose to tackle it?