The 2011 of the Nobel Prize for physics is a mistake

Discussions on astrology, homeopathy and superstition etc.

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Is Universe expansion in Euclidean space or not expansion in hyperbolic space?

Universe is expansion in Euclidean space
4
67%
Universe is not expansion in hyperbolic space
2
33%
 
Total votes : 6

Re: The 2011 of the Nobel Prize for physics is a mistake

#181  Postby LIFE » Oct 28, 2011 8:36 pm

Brain man wrote:
-This thread (and possibly others) is in the wrong category

yes that is correct. Due to the high google rank for this site, you need a separate fringe category section and agreement with several moderators based on demarcation rules between fringe and pseudoscience with some kind of in depth statement on the thread for why that has occurred. Otherwise it comes across as an unconsidered tabloid review.


This sounds like something you could suggest in our Feedback forum? Remember this place is still considered young and we're still in a situation where we are trying to figure out what would be the best direction to aim for.

Brain man wrote:
-It should not be in the wrong category and there seems to be a hidden agenda for it being in this category

I have no idea if there is an agenda or not. My experience and understanding is these things organize themselves for all kinds of reasons. Agendas kick in far later when enough people are interested in a particular self organized activity.

-The owner of this site just saw an opportunity to generate money

No idea at all on that one. Only the owner can say, or the opinions of a media expert has the tools to determine if this is true or if so, did it occur later. i.e. I was part of founding sports clubs founded from enthusiasm, which later became an economic concern when the activity grew. I still do not know. My opinion is It “looks” like it was founded from enthusiasm and an umbrella from the RDF fallout far as I can tell, but has gained value which the owner may or may not be aware off.

-In fact, there seems to be an overall underlying agenda to push atheist ideas but not scientific ideas

How would I measure that ? And again what is an agenda, self organized activity, consensually agreed intent, or some combination ?

All I can say is that i thought this was a science only site when I joined. Like a more wide scope topic form of physics forums. Later when I click on the active topics I can always find a lot of activity geared towards the atheist agenda. There is both going on at the same time. The point is these two aspects don’t work well together IRL science circles so there is no reason to expect that will happen here.

That theories are misclassified here in the manner they do shows what happen when science and politics mix.

-You will participate in attempts to bad-mouth this place on various sites


I don’t know what bad-mouth means in legal terms, but if you mean criticize and analyze the activity that would be correct but nowhere except one well designed site optimized to appear under this one in google. The idea is to take all the fringe theory out from the pseudoscience section, and re-appraises if they were classified correctly, with a method or not. Also laying out any attempts or appeals by their authors and what the result of that was. Opinion will be asked from the authors of those works on how they view all this. If they were to come here they will be barraged by ridicule and in joke discussions which do not address them directly. Depending on how this goes other sites will be looked at.

Also an introduction page summarizing what happened at RDF to give rise to these forums and how atheism and science have become mis-conflated for the worse set against example of higher level science activity where you rarely get this, and when it does trouble arises. However it can be done correctly. One prominent positive example where it was managed well was the "beyond belief" season on the science network.


I have no problems with this reply. Thank you for clarifying what originally did sound very aggressive to me.
From my part I don't think I need to address this any further :)

Brain man wrote:

Lastly, I have tried to attempt to discuss this matter here and it took 6 months to get a reply from moderator which was not a discussion but a thread cleanup.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/feedb ... 21288.html


I cannot comment on this myself as I'm not moderating, maybe you can ask staff why this was addressed only months later?
"If you think education is expensive, try the cost of ignorance" - Derek Bok
"Words that make questions may not be questions at all" - Neil deGrasse Tyson
User avatar
LIFE
Site Admin
 
Name: Bernhard
Posts: 7152
Age: 38
Male

Country: Germany
Germany (de)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: The 2011 of the Nobel Prize for physics is a mistake

#182  Postby twistor59 » Oct 28, 2011 9:08 pm

<awe> He has spoken. It is done. Let it be so. </awe>
A soul in tension that's learning to fly
Condition grounded but determined to try
Can't keep my eyes from the circling skies
Tongue-tied and twisted just an earthbound misfit, I
User avatar
twistor59
RS Donator
 
Posts: 4966
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: The 2011 of the Nobel Prize for physics is a mistake

#183  Postby Brain man » Oct 28, 2011 9:14 pm

twistor59 wrote:<awe> He has spoken. It is done. Let it be so. </awe>


Image
Inherently Dishonest Clueless Researcher
User avatar
Brain man
Banned Troll
 
Name: Aznali Exidore
Posts: 1351
Age: 51
Male

Country: UK
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: The 2011 of the Nobel Prize for physics is a mistake

#184  Postby Regina » Oct 28, 2011 9:21 pm

twistor59 wrote:<awe> He has spoken. It is done. Let it be so. </awe>

You'll want this:
:bowdown:
No, they ain't makin' Jews like Jesus anymore,
They don't turn the other cheek the way they done before.

Kinky Friedman
Regina
 
Posts: 15603
Male

Djibouti (dj)
Print view this post

Re: The 2011 of the Nobel Prize for physics is a mistake

#185  Postby Pulsar » Oct 28, 2011 9:43 pm

Brain man wrote:Annila published the incomplete conjecture on reimman because at that time there were about 4 new attempts being published so everybody was forcing each other to put their maths on the table in whatever state it was, OK.

In whatever state it was? Why would anyone try to publish partial attempts of a proof? He either has a proof or he doesn't. From the preprint, he definitely seems to suggest that he proved it. Now, did he?

Brain man wrote:how about you show us your body of creative work before you ridicule others.

I have six A1 publications in astrophysical journals, and two more in the pipeline. What about you?

Brain man wrote:Do you know what this is ?

http://www.lyndonashmore.com/

No this is not tired light. Unlike the wikipedia article there has been work an improvements on it published since 2001 that improve the calculations.

Oooh "big bang blasted"! And flashy colours! How exciting! You know, if Lyndon Ashmore wants to be taken seriously, why does his website look as if it's designed by someone with mental problems? But hey, let's look at what he claims:

Different frequencies of radiation are known to travel through space at different speeds [2] as is shown by gamma ray bursts. All frequencies may well start off at the same time but they will arrive here on Earth at different times - and the greater the redshift, the greater the pulse broadening! Who needs expansion and relativity - 'New Tired Light'.

I'm sorry, but that's retarded. If the speed of light depended on frequency, then supernovae would first appear blue and then gradually change their colour to red as the "slower long-wavelength" photons arrive. Of course, that doesn't happen: from the moment a supernova is observed, its entire spectrum is detected. The speed of light is constant, and it has been confirmed by countless experiments, ad nauseam.
About that horrible GRB press release that he mentions: he should look at what the authors say in the actual paper (http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0702008): "we argue that gradual electron acceleration in the emitting plasma can provide a natural explanation of the observed time structures". For more info, see their §5.2. No 'we have disproved relativity!' claims...

Brain man wrote:Do you know what this is ?

Ah, yes of course. The "scientists follow the mainstream because of grants" canard. The favourite fallacy of every pseudoscience fan.
Several colleagues of mine have done research on Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND); one of them even published in Nature about MOND. If your conspiracy theory were true, then how would this be possible? After all, MOND certainly isn't mainstream.
Look, every new scientific theory has to satisfy at minimum these requirements:
  • It has to be mathematically consistent.
  • It has to be consistent with every known relevant observation and experiment.
  • It should be testable (at least in principle), and predict where it will deviate from other existing theories.
In my opinion, Annila fails at the second requirement. I don't think he has much knowledge of relativity and cosmology. Now, somehow he managed to pass peer review. Well, good for him. But I predict that his paper will be completely ignored by the scientific community. Peer review alone doesn't determine the strength of a paper; its true (lack of) substance will become apparent in the long run.

The real question is: why are you so attracted by anything that goes against mainstream science? Why do you mistrust the scientific community? On what basis do you question today's standard models? And on what basis do you think that people like Annila or Ashmore are correct?
"The longer I live the more I see that I am never wrong about anything, and that all the pains that I have so humbly taken to verify my notions have only wasted my time." - George Bernard Shaw
User avatar
Pulsar
 
Posts: 4618
Age: 42
Male

Country: Belgium
Belgium (be)
Print view this post

Re: The 2011 of the Nobel Prize for physics is a mistake

#186  Postby Brain man » Oct 28, 2011 10:32 pm

Pulsar wrote:
In whatever state it was? Why would anyone try to publish partial attempts of a proof? He either has a proof or he doesn't. From the preprint, he definitely seems to suggest that he proved it. Now, did he?


obviously to see if anybody can break it. How many times have you worked on something and cant see clearly on the topic anymore. you have to submit it to others to break. Thats the whole idea, as to what he pronounced, its hard to tell, he has broken english in general, so little things like tense and adverbs give the wrong impression. Also they have different expression of statement and how they sequence their narratives, especially in north eastern europe. They may declare a strong intent, called putting your best foot forward (or kicking the door open) and then put limitations later. You really have to communicate directly (and politely) to get where many authors are at rather than ask me or presume. They cant all have US, UK comms levels and procedures.


Brain man wrote:how about you show us your body of creative work before you ridicule others.

I have six A1 publications in astrophysical journals, and two more in the pipeline. What about you?

2 accepted, four in progress (neuroscience) and then i could break my PHD in progress into another 4 if want to. Although its not a numbers game is it and medical area is tougher. its about progress impact. I know people who can spin out 12 publications per year from nothing important really just to hold on to their jobs. Mostly they are just reviews with a slight twist or even a summary, or modifications to other works.



Oooh "big bang blasted"! And flashy colours! How exciting! You know, if Lyndon Ashmore wants to be taken seriously, why does his website look as if it's designed by someone with mental problems? But hey, let's look at what he claims:


the mental problem of having a good sense of humour. how crazy is that ? :crazy:


I'm sorry, but that's retarded. If the speed of light depended on frequency, then supernovae would first appear blue and then gradually change their colour to red as the "slower long-wavelength" photons arrive. Of course, that doesn't happen: from the moment a supernova is observed, its entire spectrum is detected. The speed of light is constant, and it has been confirmed by countless experiments, ad nauseam.


Ok point me to where a supernova occurred and our equipment was so sensitive that we could eliminate no delay for any part of the spectrum before it arrived ?


Ah, yes of course. The "scientists follow the mainstream because of grants" canard. The favourite fallacy of every pseudoscience fan.
Several colleagues of mine have done research on Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND); one of them even published in Nature about MOND. If your conspiracy theory were true, then how would this be possible? After all, MOND certainly isn't mainstream.
Look, every new scientific theory has to satisfy at minimum these requirements:
[list]
[*]It has to be mathematically consistent.
[*]It has to be consistent with every known relevant observation and experiment.
[*]It should be testable (at least in principle), and predict where it will deviate from other existing theories.


it cant be consistent with every known observation. what researcher can take on that much work. they can propose that the old body of work is flawed and then say, because this and that reason.

As for grants, we should post up a few articles published in nature recently regarding Postdoc unemployment and departments jobs, being grant lead. It does not apply to every field. of course. In physics and maths, computational sciences. Basically anything an individual with time can contribute to without having to play ball to large interests.

The real question is: why are you so attracted by anything that goes against mainstream science? Why do you mistrust the scientific community? On what basis do you question today's standard models? And on what basis do you think that people like Annila or Ashmore are correct?


not by anything. about 90% of the work i have in my database is mainstream and i reject many non mainstream models. More than i do accepted models. I like the non mainstream theories that provide elegant solutions to previously bloated over complicated models. big bangs, dark matter, string theory, gravity particles, hodge bodge standard models, all done away with by altering one line of an equation used in relativity. Now thats interesting occams razor.

You must be aware that when humans goal direct their efforts even into completely ridiculous ideas they build a wall which is hard for an individual even with the right ideas to break. As humans our brains are not only wired to be interested to what the main crowd is doing, they are wired to fight and compete to be part of that. One essential mechanism for that goal is to publicly display to the the crowds you are worthy by beating down anything or anybody which does not fit in.

See this ?

Image

If i had one of these for everybody who argued with me vehemently on an internet forum for something in that groups interest then in PM admitted something else i would be...

well you know. :shhh:
Inherently Dishonest Clueless Researcher
User avatar
Brain man
Banned Troll
 
Name: Aznali Exidore
Posts: 1351
Age: 51
Male

Country: UK
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: The 2011 of the Nobel Prize for physics is a mistake

#187  Postby Mr.Samsa » Oct 30, 2011 9:16 am


!
GENERAL MODNOTE
@Brainman:

Your posts here, here, and here are off-topic.

I recommend that you review the Forum Users' Agreement once more, paying particular attention to the section where you agreed not to:

g. try to take threads off-topic


Please be aware that the continued derailing of threads is taken seriously as it prevents rational and intelligent discussion, so a failure to cease making off-topic comments about moderation in threads dedicated to physics or pseudoscience or whatever topic could lead to your 4th active warning and a suspension for one month. If you have a problem with the decision of a moderator, or disagree with some practice on RatSkep, then take it to the Feedback forum - discussing it anywhere else is a violation of the FUA.

If you have any questions or concerns, then feel free to PM me or another moderator, however, do not discuss moderation issues in this thread.
Last edited by Mr.Samsa on Oct 30, 2011 10:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Deleted unnecessary information
Image
Mr.Samsa
 
Posts: 11370
Age: 33

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: The 2011 of the Nobel Prize for physics is a mistake

#188  Postby hackenslash » Oct 30, 2011 9:48 am

The_Metatron wrote:Apparently, Allen hasn't met Goldenmane or Hackenslash yet.


I'm just catching the fuck up. :lol:


Edit: Only to realise that it looks as though the chew has gone from the toy, and all that remains is BrainMan and his usual bleating about how his pet fucknuttery was treated. Not much fun to be had here, I fear.
User avatar
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 21383
Age: 50
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Re: The 2011 of the Nobel Prize for physics is a mistake

#189  Postby patient zero » Oct 30, 2011 2:48 pm

Brain man wrote:See this ?

Image

If i had one of these for everybody who argued with me vehemently on an internet forum for something in that groups interest then in PM admitted something else i would be...

Penniless (or in this case, dollarless), of course.
Calilasseia wrote:...WHY DO PROFESSIONAL PROPAGANDISTS FOR CREATIONISM HAVE TO LIE FOR THEIR DOCTRINE?
patient zero
 
Posts: 492
Age: 48
Male

Print view this post

Re: The 2011 of the Nobel Prize for physics is a mistake

#190  Postby Jumbo » Oct 31, 2011 4:24 pm

Brain man wrote:
Jumbo wrote:
Fourth Property of Electrons? Electric Dipole Moment Would Explain Creation of Universe

Interesting though this is it can't create the imbalance in charge required by Ashmore.

Universal Vortical Singularity enlightenment on the dipole anisotropy pattern of CMBR

This site though is just plain silly. The appearance of a 'vortex' in the CMBR is only there because of the chosen projection to fit it onto a 2 dimensional screen. It also at times misrepresents the big bang as an explosion. it chucks out GR and requires a completely new theory of gravity oh and it requires an all pervading aether comprised of some sort of plasma. Plasma cosmologies are hampered by the slight issue that none of them work and they don't match observation.


I dont know where you got that idea. Its being view as a multipole expansion in 4 dimensions. Take it up with NASA who are doing the work and ask to edit wikipedia.

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap030209.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_mic ... anisotropy

I got this idea because the diagram where the so called vortex is is the projection onto a oval of the sky. If projected onto any other 2 dimensional shape the vortex disappears. The vortex in the instance posted is projection effect and is not present in 4 dimensional space time. This invalidates the whole rest of the argument.
The Feynman Problem-Solving Algorithm

1. Write down the problem.
2. Think very hard.
3. Write down the answer.
User avatar
Jumbo
 
Posts: 3599
Age: 40
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
 
Birthday
Print view this post

Re: The 2011 of the Nobel Prize for physics is a mistake

#191  Postby dcphysicsstudent » May 14, 2015 4:42 am

Pulsar wrote:
Brain man wrote:Annila published the incomplete conjecture on reimman because at that time there were about 4 new attempts being published so everybody was forcing each other to put their maths on the table in whatever state it was, OK.

In whatever state it was? Why would anyone try to publish partial attempts of a proof? He either has a proof or he doesn't. From the preprint, he definitely seems to suggest that he proved it. Now, did he?

Brain man wrote:how about you show us your body of creative work before you ridicule others.

I have six A1 publications in astrophysical journals, and two more in the pipeline. What about you?

Brain man wrote:Do you know what this is ?

http://www.lyndonashmore.com/

No this is not tired light. Unlike the wikipedia article there has been work an improvements on it published since 2001 that improve the calculations.

Oooh "big bang blasted"! And flashy colours! How exciting! You know, if Lyndon Ashmore wants to be taken seriously, why does his website look as if it's designed by someone with mental problems? But hey, let's look at what he claims:

Different frequencies of radiation are known to travel through space at different speeds [2] as is shown by gamma ray bursts. All frequencies may well start off at the same time but they will arrive here on Earth at different times - and the greater the redshift, the greater the pulse broadening! Who needs expansion and relativity - 'New Tired Light'.

I'm sorry, but that's retarded. If the speed of light depended on frequency, then supernovae would first appear blue and then gradually change their colour to red as the "slower long-wavelength" photons arrive. Of course, that doesn't happen: from the moment a supernova is observed, its entire spectrum is detected. The speed of light is constant, and it has been confirmed by countless experiments, ad nauseam.
About that horrible GRB press release that he mentions: he should look at what the authors say in the actual paper (http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0702008): "we argue that gradual electron acceleration in the emitting plasma can provide a natural explanation of the observed time structures". For more info, see their §5.2. No 'we have disproved relativity!' claims...

Brain man wrote:Do you know what this is ?

Ah, yes of course. The "scientists follow the mainstream because of grants" canard. The favourite fallacy of every pseudoscience fan.
Several colleagues of mine have done research on Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND); one of them even published in Nature about MOND. If your conspiracy theory were true, then how would this be possible? After all, MOND certainly isn't mainstream.
Look, every new scientific theory has to satisfy at minimum these requirements:
  • It has to be mathematically consistent.
  • It has to be consistent with every known relevant observation and experiment.
  • It should be testable (at least in principle), and predict where it will deviate from other existing theories.
In my opinion, Annila fails at the second requirement. I don't think he has much knowledge of relativity and cosmology. Now, somehow he managed to pass peer review. Well, good for him. But I predict that his paper will be completely ignored by the scientific community. Peer review alone doesn't determine the strength of a paper; its true (lack of) substance will become apparent in the long run.

The real question is: why are you so attracted by anything that goes against mainstream science? Why do you mistrust the scientific community? On what basis do you question today's standard models? And on what basis do you think that people like Annila or Ashmore are correct?


My ex-Physics Teacher is not retarded thanks very much
dcphysicsstudent
 
Posts: 1

United Arab Emirates (ae)
Print view this post

Re: The 2011 of the Nobel Prize for physics is a mistake

#192  Postby The_Metatron » May 14, 2015 2:13 pm

And, it seems he didn't teach you the difference between an attack on the person and an attack on his ideas, either.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
I AM Skepdickus!

Check out Hack's blog, too. He writes good.
User avatar
The_Metatron
Moderator
 
Name: Jesse
Posts: 20538
Age: 56
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Previous

Return to Pseudoscience

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest