What is needed to disprove an "accepted" theory?

The unity in science is brought about via the scientific method and peer review in general.
The essence of the scientific method is always the search for truth, but not the search to establish a preconceived agenda, like a god of the gaps as has been the case of some here.

I'm not going to argue with you about persecution agendas, but let me put something to you......
How about the scenario of hundreds, or thousands of scientists around the world...those just making a living....wouldn't they know that if they ever found anything concrete to extend the precision of GR, or the experiments that continue to reinforce it like aLIGO, that they would be world famous, and in line for the Nobel?
Most young and up and comers scientists would live such an opportunity.
And I dare say one day that will happen...But not on a forum such as this.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

They would, of course, like this opportunity.

But they would also know that to work out an alternative to GR would need a lot of time. And they would know that they have only a grant for two years, and if they don't publish during these two years, they are out of the game. If they would have a choice to spend their whole live developing an alternative to GR, with some 5% chance to win, they would choose this bet. It would be worth a try. But they do not have this choice.

See, I have made this choice. I was successful - an almost unimaginable success, if one looks at what I have reached (a viable ether theory explaining more that string theory even hopes for), and have even succeeded publishing it. This has taken a lot of time. Around 10 years this has been developed simply in my free time - and some working time, but only informally. Then, another 6 years, already full time without any money paid for this. This is what one needs to develop something new. No young scientist gets such a chance as part of a normal scientific career. Not a single one.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Paddoboy,

Since you have started again, the thread is again at the risk of getting derailed...so I will only say that you are too naively obsessed with "everything is great and ethical with the establishment" kind of understanding.

You see, the problem comes, when the science field is of non verifiable aspects....Major part of cosmology is in non-verifiable realms, so there is a huge possibility of contrarion opinions and proposals. It is nothing like pro GR or anti GR brigade. It is just that both sides are giving solutions, both are unverifiable, and of course advantage is always with establishment in such case. You also fail to understand that most of the top shots in cosmology who decide/fetch many aspects including funding etc are mainstream guys, that establishment bias will always be there even if we do not use the word dishonesty.

You see, the school kids of today, they study to score...they may or may not learn.
Similarly graduate students dependent on their guide, would be more interested in getting their degrees rather than taking cudgles with their guides.
The professor working on high end cosmological stuff would balance his work between getting funds and pushing the established boundaries.
The advantage in such set up is that, mainstream cosmology is going on for years now, funds are coming, things are mostly unverifiable, Sir SH can always say that oh I saw material creeping into a new universe from the dead end of BH..who will question him ? In a situation where the statements cannot be verified then the one who possesses power or majority is the winner. YOu get it. And the unfortunate part is alternatives are not in place. As Schemelzer says and I second that, GR is false no doubt about it, but what is the alternative which can explain all those explained by GR and resolve the issues left pending by GR.....thats not there at all as of now.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes, yes of course you do!
Yet you fail to realise that what you or anyone else claims on a science forum, means SFA.
You though as a nobody, like myself, only have amateurish forums such as this to try and preach your nonsense.
No, GR is not false....and that's a very silly unsupported thing to say, but something one can expect on forums such as this.
GR, just like Newtonian before it, has its zones of applicability. They are well know, and it is observationally and experimentally by far the most overwhelmingly supported and evidenced theory of gravity we have.
You know that, and that's what bugs you so much.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The few issues left pending by GR will in time be eliminated, by those same experts you decry so often...certainly not by any Tom, Dick or Harry, or trolls, cranks or religious fanatics, on any science forum. That's a fact that you need to get your head around.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Paddoboy,

Tell me why the success of GR should bug me ?

Why an ordinary member of this forum or any other forum cannot come up with some brilliant idea ? Idea does not require millions of dollars equipments.

You see for many these forums are like probes, they float their idea a bit, sift the responses and get some clues. This way they are able to fine tune their ideas or drop it altogether. Like you can always attempt to push your idea of BH being the arse end of whatever, very soon within few posts you will drop it or fine tune it. Then who knows it comes out to be a great idea. Did you need aLIGO interpherometer for this idea ? Honestly speaking you did not even need high school physics texts book for this idea (am I right ?), just the membership and regular participation in such forums helped you in getting this idea.

 

Many reasons including your religious agenda.

Most on this forum like yourself are amateurs and do not have the deeper knowledge to even attempt to overthrow established accepted theories, which are based on research, the scientific method and peer review, as well of course, with the help of state of the art technological precision equipment.

My idea is speculative and I make that known. I don't pretend to have somehow overthrown accepted cosmological theories.
And if it did happen to turn out to be a great idea, I would submit it professionally through the proper channels.

 

paddoboy:

This section is not the "religious" section, paddoboy; so please avoid bringing religion into it at almost every personal attack on those whom you describe as "god bothers". Just ignore them if they make religious comments; and avoid dragging in religious beliefs yourself. Thanks.

I am assuming, from your above response to The God, that he has religious beliefs of some kind. If that is so, where in the scientific method does it permit you to keep making allusions to his religious beliefs as some sort of excuse for you not addressing his scientific questioning of your own layman scientific beliefs which you admit to not understanding properly anyway?

As for myself, I am ATHEIST, and an objective thinker and scientist, so your tactics will not excuse you from the scientific method and proper, fair, science based and objectively (not personally) argued responses which the scientific subject demands of anyone pretending to criticize a scientific OP and its author (whoever that author may be).

Your "Most" does not equal "All". Which tacitly admits to your not knowing the actual science competency or background of anyone except in your own personal opinions which are based on your own admitted "layman" level of competency which, from your post record, is questionable level at best, and demonstrably trolling level at worst.

PLease try to engage without persistently bringing in gods and beliefs which are irrelevant. The science issue and OP is what you should address scientifically and objectively. If you cannot, then just linking and repeating your uninformed and uncomprehended "I support mainstream posters" is not part of the scientific method. I therefore (and I dare say many other members and readers) would appreciate it if you could avoid doing it in future so that discussions proceed on the science OP and not the author of the OP. Thanks.

If, as you admit, your posted ideas are "speculative", then why do you attack others personally when they fairly and properly question those "speculative" ideas scientifically? Have you got those ideas "peer reviewed" before daring to post them in this forum (which is what you demand of others constantly)? Double standards, paddoboy?

Please, paddoboy, realize that your continuing generalized assumptions and double standards based attacks, rooted in your own uninformed personal opinions, while ignoring actual scientific and objective engagement of the OP science issues regardless of the OP author, is only diminishing your own status every time you do that. If you have no science contribution to make that advances the scientific discussion, then just read and learn from the discussion, instead of interrupting it at every turn with uninformed, irrelevant, personal, double standard, trolling tactics. Thanks.

 

stuff up!

 

He does not question my beliefs. He questions and stupidly claims to rewrite near all 21st century cosmology, as well as insane comments such as aLIGO and GP-B being fraudulent, and of course his delusions that he is never wrong.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Sorry, I have good reasons to doubt the genuine nature of all three of those claims.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Sorry, wrong again,

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I believe I present the accepted mainstream view reasonably well, and also as we all know, [well most of us

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

] there are always contrarians in any discipline.
Mainstream science is mainstream, for the simple reason it makes the most sense, and couples with the scientific methodology and proper peer review, by most professionals.

Please don't presume to tell me anything, as going on past experiences, and periods of "loosing it" as I pointed out to you the other day, makes you certainly not qualified to do so. Alrighty?

Again, my opinion re the OP and its objectives, is as I have always said. If q-reeus had anything of any concrete nature, that invalidated GR type GW's and/or GR itself, he would not be here, or any other forum, open to all and sundry including cranks, trolls and those with religious and other agendas.

aLIGO and thousands of professionals around the world have now twice confirmed GW's as per GR, and as a consequence, also BH's.
That will most certainly not be invalidated on any run of the mill science forum, for the reasons already stated.
GR at this time, as well as GR type GW's stand as unchallenged.

 

paddoboy:

Your above response post is somewhat garbled, and you may have missed my edits. Please can you edit your post to reflect my edited post and reformat so the quotes and your responses are less garbled? Thanks.

ON EDIT: I see you reworked the quotes etc. Have you read my edited post? If not, please do so and rework your responses accordingly. Thanks.

 

No, not necessary. Your response going on past interactions, is nothing more than parroting what the god would say.
My response stands.
Questioning is fine...questioning without any intent of accepting any answer that conflicts with any preconceived agenda is dumb.

 

I do see the need to answer the following though........

Seems it is you applying double standards as well as totally and purposely misinterpreting what I say...That's what the god does also.
Science is always about speculation......But professional science does not claim such speculation to be scientific fact, as our trolls and cranks so often do.
Plus of course I always distinguish my own speculative ideas from accepted mainstream theory, which again our trolls, cranks and those with religious agendas do not. And thirdly, my speculative remarks near always are only applicable at regions where our normal laws of physics and GR do not generaly apply....you know, the quantum/Planck realm.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I'm still waiting for the god to give me his version of a QGT, which he presumes to have.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-P1600088/public

Abstract:
The first observational run of the Advanced LIGO detectors, from September 12, 2015 to January 19, 2016, saw the first detections of gravitational waves from binary black hole mergers. In this paper we present full results from a search for binary black hole merger signals with total masses up to 100 M☉ and detailed implications from our observations of these systems. Our search, based on general-relativistic models of gravitational wave signals from binary black hole systems, unambiguously identified two signals, GW150914 and GW151226, with a significance of greater than 5σ over the observing period. It also identified a third possible signal, LVT151012, with substantially lower significance, which has a 87% probability of being of astrophysical origin. We provide detailed estimates of the parameters of the observed systems. Both GW150914 and GW151226 provide an unprecedented opportunity to study the two-body motion of a compact-object binary in the large velocity, highly nonlinear regime. We do not observe any deviations from general relativity, and place improved empirical bounds on several high-order post-Newtonian coefficients. From our observations we infer stellar-mass binary black hole merger rates lying in the range 9–240 Gpc^−3 yr^−1. These observations are beginning to inform astrophysical predictions of binary black hole formation rates, and indicate that future observing runs of the Advanced detector network will yield many more gravitational wave detections.

 

paddoboy:

From his responses to your claims and assertions, he questions your 'admitted layman' competence to understand either the mainstream claims or the alternative questions counterclaims brought in discussion of those mainstream claims in areas where the science is far from settled. Meanwhile (whether ultimately correct or not), at least he posts science based responses, questions and counterclaims, whereas all you do is repeat uninformed opinions and your own uncomprehended regurgitation of mainstream claims which are themselves the very subject of discussion which you fail to offer any constructive scientific argument other than appeals to authority which is itself in question. The comparative performance between you and The God is therefore not quite as you characterize it, is it paddoboy?

The God, like many, have questioned the claims made and the assumptions and methodology that led to said claims.

Your continuing use of the phrase "confirmed by aLIGO" is also putting the layman cart before the layman horse. I explained somewhere the difference between "claims" and "confirmation". Do you understand the difference? For example, the aLIGO team made claims, but those claims have yet to be confirmed. Just because claims are made based on the assessment of the team (a la bicep2, remember?), it doesn't necessarily guarantee they are correct. Only proper and exhaustively applied scrutiny will decide that one way or the other.

So your repeated use of aLIGO etc claims as 'confirming' anything except the models and assumptions used therein, is premature and invalid in science discussion, since it is neither 'proof' or 'basis' for rebuttal of his questions and scrutiny as per the scientific method. Your personal opinions and beliefs in aLIGO claims are neither here nor there in science discussion. Do you understand that now?

So far, I have tried to keep to the science and discuss accordingly. Whereas you keep bringing god bothers and other irrelevant distractions to avoid addressing the science with arguments that do not involve your opinion and prejudices etc.

And "rolling eyes" does not change that fact in evidence almost every day, paddoboy.

Regarding your uncritical faith in mainstream assumptions and claims re GWs etc, please note this part of my last post to PhysBang, where I point out the longstanding case that mainstream has been avoiding the obvious known scientific causes for orbital decay in such extreme binary systems:

So paddoboy, as you can see from known science basis, the GW explanation for the orbital decay in such binary systems is still up in the air; and any assumptions upon which aLIGO was designed and executed are fraught with error potential; as their whole modeled profile for GW "ringdown" and other assumed characteristics may be total assumptive artifacts, irrespective of any aLIGO disturbances due to other more validly supported phenomena involving much closer gravitational dynamics of all sorts.

We have to discount all alternative scenarios, and actually confirm via further scrutiny, any claims made to date which you uncritically accept as being "confirmation of GWs" even though they are nothing of the kind at this early stage in the scientific process being applied to those claims.

You have presumed to tell others a lot of stuff based on your own opinions and uncritical acceptance of claims without confirmation. Why the double standards?

He is entitled to 'air' and 'soundboard' his ideas here in discussion. The site makes no unwarranted precondition of peer review before discussion of new ideas. Why do YOU presume to keep making such preconditions for others while you seem unabashed in presenting your own "speculative" ideas without having them peer reviewed first? Double standards again?

Nowhere in the scientific method does it imply that personnel and researcher numbers correlated with better guarantee of validity of assumptions and claims made. You keep making personal opinions as if you had some scientific basis for them. You haven't. So please stop making those same opinions as if you did, paddoboy.

Your claim that they "stand unchallenged" is falsified immediately by the very fact that these scrutiny and discussions on-topic and on-science are taking place here and in mainstream circles. So please do not presume for mainstream that which mainstream does not presume for itself, paddoboy. Thanks.

 

Your totally unqualified and obvious amateurish attempts to make this about you and me has failed.
My previous reply in fact is reinforced, "Sorry, I have good reasons to doubt the genuine nature of all three of your following claims". Those claims being of course....

As I pointed out to you,, going on your questionable, "loosing it" attitude a few days ago, your whole modus operandi is trollish to say the least, OK?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Sorry matey, science forums by there very nature, has no standing or bearing whatsoever, on scientific academic decisions and/or claims re confirmations. You insisting and pretending that they do and "having your self on" continually, is laughable.
PS: I won't be engaging your nonsensical cyber space wasting ranting anymore.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Obviously as shown in many many papers, the confirmation of GR GW's has been established, twice.
With BICEP2, just as obviously errors were made, but again errors corrected by and pointed out by mainstream csomologists and scientists along with the state of the art equipment available to them.....not by trolls and cranks and would be's if they could be's that infest science forums.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Here are some more data sheets on the two confirmed discoveries so far......

https://dcc.ligo.org/cgi-bin/DocDB/ListBy?topicid=46

https://dcc.ligo.org/cgi-bin/DocDB/ListBy?topicid=49

https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-P0900004/public

LIGO Document P0900004-v34

Toward early-warning detection of gravitational waves from compact binary coalescence

Abstract:
Rapid detection of compact binary coalescence with a network of advanced gravitational-wave detectors will offer a unique opportunity for multi-messenger astronomy. Prompt detection alerts for the astronomical community may make it possible to observe the onset of electromagnetic emission from compact binary coalescence. We demonstrate a computationally practical filtering strategy that could produce early-warning triggers before gravitational radiation from the final merger has arrived at the detector.

 

paddoboy:

How is it amateurish" in your opinion? I just posted the known science regarding Neutron Stars having extreme Magnetic fields (also consider the even more extreme Magnetic fields associated with Magnetars and Black Holes); which extreme fields interact according to known science of Magnetic fields, to produce the EM friction and EM radiation mentioned which takes away energy from such binary systems; and which therefore affect the system's orbital periods much more strongly than their balanced gravitational interactions as per orbital motion can.

So you calling that "amateurish" and "unqualified" merely highlights your own ignorance and lack of qualifications to know what the known science is, let alone understand the implications for this issue of assumptions re GWs.

If you have no science or argument based on same to offer, then don't make such unwarranted assumptions about those who do, paddoboy. Thanks.

You deny the right of a member to 'vent' when the trolls (ahem) keep derailing and insulting based on their own ignorant opinions and prejudices? How may times have you trolled and 'vented' your own frustration at your perceived enemies, even using foul language, paddoboy? Double standards again?

Science forums discuss science issues. That is their whole reason for being. Mainstream discussion venues also discuss the issue of aLIGO claims, and are scrutinizing same; while working towards future efforts at either confirming or falsifying same. Any venue where that happens according to the scientific method is valid scrutiny and effort towards that goal. Why do you want to prevent such valid scientific discussion and scrutiny here at Sciforums, paddoboy?

And the team of bicep2 was large; which also puts the lie to your claim that large number of people involved convinces you to accept their claims uncritically. That they were in error despite the large contingent involved, should have given you pause to reflect, paddoboy. And their error was initially pointed out by non-mainstream scrutineers; only much much later did the mainstream get going and properly scrutinize it. That is what is happening now for aLIGO; and your attempts to make it sound like that process has been completed is premature and almost fraudulent layman attempt at presuming for mainstream that which mainstream does not presume for itself. Please desist from doing that, as it is demonstrably based on your own irrelevant, uninformed and admitted uncritical belief, incompetent, 'layman opinion'. Thanks.

 

Apologies if the following has been posted before: So many papers supporting this great discovery that one loses count.

https://physics.aps.org/featured-article-pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102


PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS:

On September 14, 2015 at 09:50:45 UTC the two detectors of the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory simultaneously observed a transient gravitational-wave signal. The signal sweeps upwards in frequency from 35 to 250 Hz with a peak gravitational-wave strain of 1.0 × 10−21. It matches the waveform predicted by general relativity for the inspiral and merger of a pair of black holes and the ringdown of the resulting single black hole. The signal was observed with a matched-filter signal-to-noise ratio of 24 and a false alarm rate estimated to be less than 1 event per 203 000 years, equivalent to a significance greater than 5.1σ. The source lies at a luminosity distance of 410þ160 −180 Mpc corresponding to a redshift z ¼ 0.09þ0.03 −0.04 . In the source frame, the initial black hole masses are 36þ5 −4M⊙ and 29þ4 −4M⊙, and the final black hole mass is 62þ4 −4M⊙, with 3.0þ0.5 −0.5M⊙c2 radiated in gravitational waves. All uncertainties define 90% credible intervals. These observations demonstrate the existence of binary stellar-mass black hole systems. This is the first direct detection of gravitational waves and the first observation of a binary black hole merger.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

Obviously anyone with any Interest in science, will realise that nothing is really 100% certain within the science discipline. But scientific theories are our best explanations, and do grow in certainty over time, and as they keep matching observational data and making successful predictions.
It is also just as obviously, a fact that many will hang their hat on and claim their god of the gaps mythical nonsense, particularly when such scientific theories are limited.

 

Concluding remarks from previous link....
VIII. CONCLUSION
The LIGO detectors have observed gravitational waves from the merger of two stellar-mass black holes. The detected waveform matches the predictions of general relativity for the inspiral and merger of a pair of black holes and the ringdown of the resulting single black hole. These observations demonstrate the existence of binary stellar-mass black hole systems. This is the first direct detection of gravitational waves and the first observation of a binary black hole merger.

 

paddoboy:

Why are you "bombing" this thread with claims which we are all familiar with long ago? The questioning and scrutiny of these claims is what the discussion here and in mainstream circles is all about now. These "publish or perish" publications of the "claims" carry no further weight than the original papers and claims.

A part of these further discussions and scrutiny, according to SCIENTIFIC METHOD principles, involves considering what possible alternative or previously known scientific explanation can account for the observed Hulse-Taylor etc observations upon which the assumptions of GWs being responsible were based.

I just presented, for your scientific consideration, the known fact that extreme magnetic fields associated with the extreme bodies involved in the binary systems being observed, can explain the observed changes in the orbital period. The EM (magnetic fields etc) energy in that intervening space between the Neutron stars (or magnetars or black holes or any combination of same) in such extreme energy and mass binary systems is orders of magnitude greater than the net balanced interaction of gravitational force can muster on the system for changing its orbital dynamics as observed.

So, paddoboy, here is your chance to be scientific:

1) Address my posted point re the greater Magnetic forces at play between the binary system bodies.

2) Research the known science about such things and come back and rebut anything I have pointed out for your benefit.

3) Make your scientific case (if you can) for ignoring such greater effects from EM forces in such observations of Neutron Star etc binaries which were the basis for GW assumptions and claims etc from Hulse-Taylor to aLIGO.

That is the only way to avoid you further "bombing" with links and claims already in evidence and being the subject of question and scientific scrutiny as in my posts to you. If you can accomplish that, then I will concede on this GW and aLIGO issue. If not, then you must concede. Fair enough?

I look forward to science instead of "bombing" and insulting etc from you. Best of luck, paddoboy.

 

This is a science forum, open to amateurs which I believe you are.
As I tell q-reeus, if you have anything invalidating the current confirmations, then follow the scientific method, and undergo proper peer review.
While you instead carry on with plastering this forum with pesonal issues because the god was banned, you will never achieve anything, OK?

I leave the insults to you my friend, as per you "loosing it" the other day.
And most certainly, science will always prevail over crankdom, and religiously inspired agendas.