Friction of the vacuum could slow the rotation of pulsars

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Plazma Inferno!, Aug 1, 2016.

  1. expletives deleted Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    410
    Re paddoboy's above referenced exercise.

    If the poster could actually understand what he was referencing/quoting, he also might be able to spot this exercise as a 'perfect storm' of confirmation biased assumptions, interpretations, conclusions and retro-fitting as ever there was.

    As I pointed out previously, the above referenced exercise is in the context of TERMINAL STAGE dynamics.

    And they acknowledge that interactions between extreme magnetic fields of Two Merging NSs.

    But they have NOT actually quantified and explained the full effects of the extreme magnetic interactions, before again opting for gravitational wave context explanations without any actual justification, other than that is what they assumed from start to finish of that exercise!

    And even when they DO cursorily allude to the long-duration phase dynamics, involving VERY SLOW rate of BINARY SYSTEM ORBITAL decay rate, they still haven't actually quantified the magnetic interaction effects fully; but instead, again, opt straight for their assumption throughout: that 'gravitational wave radiation' is what issues from both the LONG DECAY stage and the TERMINAL STAGE MERGER stage scenario.

    In both cases, IGNORING the possible alternative much stronger effects from extreme mutual interaction between the MAGNETIC FIELDS that DO create a LOT of EM radiation and consequent material wind outflows at all stages from the long duration to the terminal merger dynamics!

    They THEN make the same 'gravitational wave radiation' assumption for the long-duration phase dynamics; despite the extreme magnetic interactions must also occur (at the appropriately attenuated levels due to not being at distances so short as that during actual later stage terminal merger magnetic interactions). Yet here too they ignore their own magnetic interaction findings and opt straight for 'gravitational wave radiation' instead of actually quantifying the magnetic interaction effects and consequent EM radiation and consequent materials outflows which they DO admit occurs but not actually quantify properly because they already have the gravitational wave 'explanation' at the ready even before they started the exercise!

    Hence why the above exercise described in paddoboy's references is a 'perfect storm' of confirmation biased assumptions/interpretations leading to unbelievably circuitous arguments and conclusions favoring gravitational wave 'explanations' while ignoring the alternative REAL STRONGER possibility that the extreme magnetic field interactions and EM radiation and material outflow effects may cause the necessary radiation in EM form and material outflows, which would explain the long phase, slow decay, energy/mass loss AND the terminal extremely short terminal merger phase, energy/mass loss.

    Until proper consideration and quantification of the full effects of REAL magnetic interaction and EM radiation etc is actually done for Hulse-Taylor scenarios, the HYPOTHETICAL gravitational wave radiation 'explanation' assumptions for the dynamics, AT ANY STAGE, are just that: assumptions. Until that is done, all is assumption and confirmation-biased exercises/papers when it comes to gravitational wave biased 'studies' which ignores real processes that may explain the observations without the need for hypothetical gravitational waves. Thanks. Best.
     
    Last edited: Aug 27, 2016
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    More unsupported rhetoric?

    They probably did not need to as the effects were not worth concern.
    But again, more unsupported rhetoric on your part.
    Educated professional experts as opposed to your unsupported nonsense? Guess which I accept?
    As it is obvious what you are insinuating, claiming, evangelising, is just pure hogwash, the rest of your post is treated as above.
    Support what you say if you want any credibility attached to those claims.
    As usual, and not withstanding your rhetoric, the Hulse Taylor Binary Pulsar stands as the first evidence of gravitational radiation for which the Nobel prize was awarded.
    That's the way it was the last time I looked and obviously, nothing has changed.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. expletives deleted Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    410
    I'll try one more time.

    I pointed out certain aspects for your information. That you mischaracterize it, as "rhetoric", demonstrates your subjective emotional bias and unwillingness to consider fairly what is posted for your benefit.

    That excuse is both uninformed and circuitous. If they did not properly consider and quantify the magnetic effects (as I point out), then there is no basis for concluding that it was "not worth concern". And if they were not concerned enough to properly consider and quantify it, then they cannot claim that gravitational waves is the main cause.

    I recall you and others accepted the BICEP2 claims because they were from "Educated professional experts".

    Their exercise was flawed from the start, in assumptions and confirmation biased way of 'interpreting' etc, based on a "modeling" and "template" etc which was obviously self-selecting as to how the 'result' was characterized (ie, HYPOTHETICAL "primordial gravitational waves" INSTEAD of the REAL dust polarizing the CMB).

    And likewise in the Hulse-Taylor scenario etc (and even in the totally different terminal stage merger paper scenario you linked to), the gravitational wave assumptions and interpretations and characterizations were already 'built into' the exercise; which effectively excluded possibility STRONG Extreme Magnetic fields-interactions effects from the start, or treated them a-priori as 'insignificant'-----even though they didn't properly consider or quantify their actual effects which may be of the order necessary to explain most of what is observed of the Binary Orbital Period decay rate.


    Extreme magnetic field interactions are KNOWN to have great EM-radiation consequences. The same would apply in extreme NS Binary situation. Hence these are REAL things (no insinuating or hypothesizing by me involved; just scientifically informed extrapolating from the known to the likely, of REAL magnetic field interactions).

    Whereas gravitational waves were HYPOTHETICAL not REAL things; and the assumption and preference for gravitational waves 'interpretations' and 'conclusions' IN EXCLUSION of the REAL things which they didn't properly consider let alone quantify, makes the whole exercise, from Hulse-Taylor to most recent, merely assumptive circuitous because, as was commented above by the poster concerned:

    The words in brackets in that quote are mine, indicating the relevant context and issue involved.

    And we can see how the poster concerned subscribes to the naive belief that the words 'awards', 'experts' and 'professionals' are automatic guarantee of 'inerrancy'.

    That is the sort of naive subjective attitude that flies in the face of The Scientific Methodology and Principles of Objectivity and Relevance. Something that BICEP2 team members have learned is not a good thing to do; and is especially likely to happen when chasing 'awards'.

    Let us hope that objectivity and relevance and the scientific methodology makes an appearance in the reading, thinking, understanding and discussing process of the poster concerned. Hopefully sooner than later. Best.
     
    Last edited: Aug 28, 2016
    dumbest man on earth likes this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    I mischaracterise nothing. Your statements are totally unsupported and defy accepted facts: As such it remains as rhetoric. Even James has asked you in other threads to support what you say.
    Magnetic interactions were considered, and obviously plenty of reasons for concluding not worthy of concern. These are professional experts, unlike you and I my friend that are indulging in tit for tat rhetoric, unsupported on your part.
    And it was educated professional experts that invalidated that claim, not unprofessional amateurs on science forums.
    When anti science or those with agendas literally oppose any and all scientific claims and discoveries, in time, they will "jag" one that they will immediately claim supports their stance: Please read previous answer.
    Totally and uniquivocally false and without basis.
    The Hulse Taylor Pulsar Binary system remains as the first real evidence of gravitational radiation and has continued to be researched over many years.
    More unsupported rhetoric on your part.

    Magnetic interactions are likely as most agree and that has been discussed, but it may occur in conjunction with gravitational radiation, certainly not exclusive of it.
    Again, unsupported, trivial rhetoric which you are unable to support.
    What can I say? More unsupported nonsense. Gravitational waves were evidenced with the H/T system, and recently been confirmed twice within any reasonable definition of a scientific theory. Denying that fact does not change the reality of the situation, nor the lack of credibility in unsupported statements to the contrary.
    Fairy tales and unsupported rhetoric do not count.
    Not at all, as neither are scientific theories. They do though stands head and shoulders above unsupported silly claims made on forums such as this that count for absolutely nothing.
    The premature claims of the BICEP2 people was researched and invalidated by other professionals: Not by you or me or any other discussion/s on science forums.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    This appear to be one of your main problems in accepting. This is a forum, nothing more, nothing less.
    Please do not pretend anything else.
    I always adhere to the scientific methodology, and I have shown that it is yourself fact that declines reasonable requests to support your claims: Claims which with monotonous regularity seem to go against anything and everything generally accepted by mainstream.
    In this particular case it appears to be the unsupported unreasonable claim that gravitational waves were not the cause of the degradating orbits of the H/T system, rather it was interacting magnetic fields.
     
  8. expletives deleted Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    410
    @ paddoboy:

    My observations and arguments are based on known science and on the content of same papers/quotes you linked to; so what more support needed?

    Whereas your personal opinions, assertions and beliefs are based on your own uncritical belief in mainstream inerrancy; and/or misunderstanding and/or not understanding of what you read both from others and from the papers/quotes you linked to.

    Nowhere in the linked papers have they properly quantified the effect I spoke of. They mentioned it in passing and dismissed it even before the exercise started because it was "gravitational waves explanations" they were trying to "confirm". Hence the confirmation biased approach of not concerning themselves seriously with proper study and quantification of extreme magnetic field interaction effects in Hulse-Taylor scenario binary orbital period decay rates.

    That is evident in the papers even you linked. So if you have found where they actually properly considered and quantified what I spoke of in the Hulse-Taylor scenarios, then please link it now and explain in depth what you understand it says about their methodology and quantification re same. Thanks.

    You missed the point that argues against your beliefs and opinions re "awards", "experts", "professionals", "educated people" as somehow having any relevance in objective consideration of an idea/issue on its own scientific merits not on status or reputation of source.

    Do you understand that, the fact that, in that BICEP2 case, those "educated people" of yours stuffed up the exercise; and that to even think of 'offering' such obviously confirmation biased and multiply flawed 'work', as supposedly valid 'science' in the first place, is an affront to the scientific methodology?

    Which makes your opinions and personally invested 'trust', based on your unwavering a-priori belief in the inerrancy of such "educated people", an affront against the scientific methodology also. Do you understand that?

    Based on your apparent 'paranoid' delusions about me, you make generalizations which are not only wrong in themselves, but also irrelevant to the point at hand. I stick to the science point while you bring in all sorts of irrelevant personal baggage. Please stop doing that. Thanks.



    No, it remains the first case of confirmation biased study where hypothetical gravitational wave 'interpretations' were put on the observations; while completely ignoring or not suspecting that extreme NS magnetic field interactions in the binary may actually be significant and explain observations. But to this day no proper consideration and quantification of that very real effect has been done to the level where it can be scientifically ruled in or out as main cause explanation instead of grav-wave 'explanation'.

    Until proper exhaustive investigation involving proper exhaustive consideration and quantification of the effect I spoke of is done, then no claim about grav-wave being the main cause can be tenable scientifically. Until then this makes such grav-waves claims mere hypothetical and inconclusive because the exercises which led to those claims were confirmation biased and flawed by pre-conceived expectations and interpretations which made them prematurely dismiss an obvious alternative possibility.

    What can you say? Plenty, it appears; and all of it unscientific belief and misunderstanding of what science methodology demands from you as well as all those "educated people" who make claims based on obviously confirmation biased exercises. What value such grav-waves interpretations and claims if the exercises leading to them was seriously flawed or incomplete; as I point out, and as your own linked papers confirm have never properly treated and quantified the REAL extreme magnetic field effects but instead concentrated on 'pre-preferred' HYPOTHETICAL grav-waves 'effects'.

    Isn't that what What Susskind's ER =EPR is? Science Fiction/Fantasy? Yet you prefer that, to actual scientific arguments against that. You prefer flawed, incomplete or outright fantasy claims just because they come from mainstream which you believe inerrant; while you happily ignore and/or mischaracterize the stand alone valid scientific arguments against such fiction/fantasy brought by people whom you then attack personally as 'anti-science'. Not very scientific of you; to be so subjective and partial as to what you will 'accept' or 'reject', depending on the source rather than on the science.

    And the point at issue was about the lack of proper consideration and quantification of the effect I spoke of, and that they were confirmation biased towards grav-waves explanation. That is still the issue. No "unsupported rhetoric", as you mischaracterize it, from me at all.

    Please clarify what 'neither' you refer to? Thanks.

    First they were scrutinized by non-mainstream; only later did mainstream get serious and follow suit. Non-mainstream scrutiny can arise in any venue, even such forums as these. Your attitude is anti-science and anti-productive to the science discussion in modern era of Internet. Your dismissive approach based on the venue or persons is not helpful to anyone, including modern scientists; or to modern science advancement.

    On what planet? You insist on (repeatedly) bringing personal irrelevancies and accusations and attacks (even invoking 'god bothers' tactic against me who am an atheist). Meanwhile you ignore, misunderstand/don't understand and/or mischaracterize on purpose (as an evasion or trolling tactic) the actual science point at issue. That's some special-edition 'personalized' version of 'scientific methodology' you are applying there, paddoboy.

    My observations are supported by the very SAME links you posted. They show that what I observed is correct; namely: that they have not properly and unbiasedly considered, let alone scientifically quantified, the effect I spoke of (which is real effect; not hypothetical like grav-waves' were, and are still, until the effect I spoke of is properly investigated and quantified before repeating 'grav wave' interpretations as 'main cause' for what is observed in Hulse-Taylor type scenarios).

    Thanks. Best.
     
    Last edited: Aug 29, 2016
  9. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Your observations are skewered badly and totally contradict all papers I have submitted, which is further more made more obscure by your obviously total lack of credentials and supporting citations, documents, links or references.
    I make no assertions or claims that are not supported by the simple fact that the H/T binary pulsar system was the first evidence of gravitational waves and for which the Nobel prize was awarded.
    Saying that repeatedly as you have, does not change the facts that all you have is unsupported rhetoric and at this stage it is obvious that is all you will ever have. Hence the lack of credibility in your claims.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    In your mind and obviously in your mind only...well maybe the god's too

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    You need to consider the following expletive deleted. Your claims are registered on a small sliver of cyber space, on a remote science forum, by a probable lay person who is totally unqualified, without any supporting citations, that is all totally unknown to the scientific world and academia and would obviously be treated with the contempt such inane claims deserve.
    The rest of your posts just boringly continues on with paragraph after paragraph of unsupported fairy tales that are obviously, purposely designed to tickle your ego.

    Lets sum up once again.
    The H/T binary pulsar system was the first evidence of gravitational radiation for which they received the Nobel prize for. Many binary systems as detailed in papers have confirmed the same gravitational wave effect, with positive confirmed sightings in the recent aLIGO experiment, which also confirmed BH 's at least to the certainty that scientific theories entail.

    That will most certainly not be invalidated by any noise on a forum open to the public, and which is totally unsupported.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    But I'll keep checking expletive deleted and will let you know if anything changes.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    For those that have come in late to this thread and the totally unsupported fairy tale assumptions that have been imagined by expletive deleted:
    The Hulse Taylor Binary Pulsar system, and subsequent result for which the Nobel prize was awarded: ie gravitational waves, the following diagram sums up the result perfectly and logically.
    http://www.astro.cardiff.ac.uk/research/gravity/tutorial/?page=3thehulsetaylor

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    The figure (from Weisberg and Taylor (2004)) shows the cumulative shift of periastron time for PSR 1913+16. This shows the decrease of the orbital period as the two stars spiral together. Although the measured shift is only 40 seconds over 30 years, it has been very accurately measured and agrees precisely with the predictions from Einstein's theory of General Relativity. The observation is regarded as indirect proof of the existence of gravitational waves. Indeed, the Hulse-Tayor pulsar is deemed so significant that in 1993 its discoverers were awarded the Nobel prize for their work.
     
  11. expletives deleted Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    410
    @ paddoboy:

    You still don't understand that scientific methodology demands that all possible real alternatives have to be properly considered and quantified as to effect before dismissing them and making scientifically improper claims for grav-waves as main cause.

    Is it that hard for you to get? Science demands that it be done properly; not me personally. Objective science, not personal druthers. Understand, paddoboy?

    But your own links to those papers make clear that what I observe is correct: they did not properly exhaustively consider and quantify the REAL effects I point to. Hence their conclusions and claims must scientifically be taken as INCONCLUSIVE until they do what I suggest is the scientifically proper thing to do. It is the scientific methodoloy that demands it, not me personally. Do you understand that, paddoboy?

    No, paddoboy; it is SCIENTIFIC methodology that demands it; not me or anyone else's "mind". The whole point of Scientific Methodology is to remove the SUBJECTIVE person/mind from the exercise, and keep it in the realm of Objective Relevant observation and conclusion. Do you understand that, paddoboy?

    Your "sum up" unscientifically ignores the crucial scientific point. Again. There is NO "evidence", indirect or otherwise, unless and until the scientific methodology has been properly followed and all possible real alternative causes investigated and quantified sufficiently to tell which is the main cause. No amount of just interpreting and claiming it's 'grav-waves' will make it so in science acceptability terms. It is either science done properly or not done properly. As I pointed out, it is still not done properly; hence no amount of your personally uncritical "sum up" will make it the "evidence" you uncritically believe it to be. That is not "evidence", that is interpretations and claims ONLY which can and must be challenged if they have not and continue not to properly quantify the REAL effect I pointed out. Do you understand that, paddoboy?

    Again with your emotionally biased driven mischaracterizations having nothing to do with the objective reality, paddoboy. The data as observed is what it is. No question. But if that data can be explained in ways other than the way claimed above, then (as James R, others, I, and even prof Max Isi, pointed out to you) your claims are not exclusive or proven correct scientifically speaking. That is why unless and until the studies of Hulse-Taylor binary dynamics exhaustively treats the REAL (not hypothetical like grav-wavs) effects I spoke of, then no amount of your opinion and bias can make scientifically PREMATURE and/or erroneous claims appear tenable in science terms. It's all just claims (like for Bicep2, remember?) until it is scientifically scrutinized properly and the effects I spoke of are considered and quantified properly as part of that scientific scrutiny. Do you understand that is according to the dictates of objective relevant scientific methodology, not me personally, paddoboy?


    Please remove your personal wishes, beliefs and biases (re venue, source, personal status, reputation, opinion, awards etc) from the equation, paddoboy. Let the scientific methodology and principles of relevance and objectivity inform your thinking and opinion for a change. Thanks. Best.
     
    Last edited: Aug 30, 2016
  12. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    The scientific methodology and the demands of any alternative propositions, have all been researched and considered over 40 years by expert professionals, as opposed to rhetorical, unsupported, amateurish, fairy tale chit chat on a public science forum

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    You really need to break through the delusions as shown in your entirely rhetorical posts, and accept that which is fact and has been decided by professionals

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Let me again say.......
    "Your unsupported claims are registered on a small sliver of cyber space, on a remote science forum, by a probable lay person who is totally unqualified, without any supporting citations, that is all totally unknown to the scientific world and academia and would obviously be treated with the contempt such inane claims deserve".

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Not withstanding your predicted emotionally driven reply.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. expletives deleted Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    410
    @ paddoboy:


    I take it that now you understand that it was not me personally (or any anti-science or other irrelevant and incorrect motives attribution from you) but the scientific method, objectivity and relevance principles that prompt the scrutiny. Good.

    But you still ignore the self-demonstrable fact that your own linked papers actually showed they have NOT done all that you claim they have. And so my observation as to that lack stands as made, supported by your own linked papers; and that lack as I observed makes all the grav-wave claims, interpretations, explanations and conclusions, based on those to date scientifically incomplete or outright confirmation bias flawed 'studies' (as in Bicep2 example) untenable and/or premature until they do as I suggest according to the dictates of the objective relevant scientific methodology.

    Paddoboy, your continuing personal obsession with irrelevant opinions re venues and persons and status etc are worth nothing at all in the scientific arena. Dispense with that more than unhelpful obsession; as science discussion demands. Thanks. Best.
     
  14. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Wrong end my friend.
    It seems your posts are all reflecting some sort of complicated delusional scenario where you believe people are not reading what [1]the professionals are saying based on evidence and observational data, [2]What you are saying, totally unsupported, unevidenced and unqualified, and[3] What appears to be your general anti mainstream "modus operandi" in many threads, logically and reasonably reflecting an agenda of sorts, which experience points to as religious/deity myth. Despite your emotional denial of such.

    In essence as I'm sure you know deep down, the H/T binary pulsar data and observation, pointed to accurately that gravitational waves were/are responsible for the orbital degradation.
    All other unsupported claims by you, are probably a result of some aformentioned bias or agenda, as this alternative hypothetical of yours, simply adds to the other many unsupported hypothetical alternative scenarios you appear to preach to this forum.
    A forum by the way, that is open to all and sundry for variable chit chat and which plays no part of the real workings of professional scientific academia.
    You have a good day ya hear!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Aug 30, 2016
  15. expletives deleted Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    410
    @ paddoboy:

    I have no "beliefs", I act on the science as it is discovered and discussed based on the facts in evidence. I have objectively observed that the Hulse-Taylor scenario studies lacked scientific rigor as to possible real alternative which I pointed to; hence any interpretations, conclusions and claims are not tenable until they do properly and scientifically quantify the effect I pointed to. I cannot do more than point out that lack in the same linked papers you offered.

    So please be reasonable, paddoboy; it is illogical to demand I 'link' or 'quote' something that hasn't happened and is non-existent, even in your own referenced Hulse-Taylor studies/papers.


    Please be reasonable, paddoboy; I am rational intellect, unapologetic atheist and strictly objective scientist; and I have long concluded that gods and demons do not exist.

    So please stop trying to mischaracterize my approach to the discussion and to science. I am the calm objective reasonable one so far in this present exchange between us two; whereas you keep bringing in your emotional subjective opinions about irrelevant things while ignoring the possibly importance scientific observation I posted for your personal benefit and scientific understanding in this matter of the Hulse-Taylor studies and claims to date.

    There is nothing "hypothetical" about magnetic field interactions producing EM radiation and braking forces and mass expulsion consequences in certain circumstances. For example every time you employ electric motors you employ magnetic interactions which can produce heat radiation, motional retardation/acceleration forces and also explosive ionized gas/plasma discharges etc under certain conditions.

    So be reasonable, paddoboy, and realize that what I spoke of is REAL not "hypothetical" phenomena; and that if you extrapolate (from what I just pointed out re magnetic field interaction consequences in electric motors) to the extreme magnetic field conditions and their interaction between TWO extreme bodies like Neutron Stars (as in Hulse-Taylor Binary system), then you must allow that the potential is great for braking forces and EM radiation to explain such Binary Orbital Period decay and energy losses in Hulse-Taylor scenarios.

    So be reasonable, paddoboy: I have pointed to a lack in the Husle-Taylor studies/papers (even in the ones you linked);p namely that they did not properly and scientifically and exhaustively investigate and quantify that (very real, not hypothetical) aspect I just described. Which situation to date, in scientific terms, makes such studies/papers and consequential claims incomplete or erroneous; because they failed to properly consider real alternative effects that may explain the slow binary orbital period decay rate observed in Hulse-Taylor and such like cases. Until they rectify that serious scientific oversight, all claims based on Hulse-Taylor interpretations and conclusions are open to scientific challenge and scrutiny, as I have objectively pointed out here.

    That is all that science demands, paddoboy. And I ask for no more than the same, ie: Proper science and not incomplete and/or biased exercise with grav-wave assumptions and explanations at the ready and improperly dismissing possible real alternative explanations and causes.

    That is the reasonable and scientific attitude to take, isn't it paddoboy? I only ask that you please reciprocate in kind and stop the personal etc tactics and irrelevances. Thanks. Best.
     
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2016
  16. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    You certainly do have beliefs....beliefs that defy the science and data involved, not only on this matter, but also other past threads on accepted science such as red shift, gravitational waves and DM.
    The only objectivity is that shown by the H/T team and the much research done by many scientists since.
    I most certainly am reasonable....unlike your posts, I am not ignoring 40 years of science, I do not have any agenda, and I do link, quote and cite reputable articles and papers.
    You need to try it sometime.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Atheist? that's nice

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Scientists?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    What I have seen reflected in your posts in many threads, all critical of accepted mainstream science, and with requests from myself and others re links, citations etc, that you ignore, has me and others doubting that self assessment.
    No, your posts reflect a scenario that seems to entirely dismiss mainstream accepted science in general, and past emotive reactions by yourself, certainly do not add any credibility to your hypothetical claims, which you have never supported with any links, citations etc.
    I do not dismiss magnetic field probable interactions. The real underlying issue here is you dismissing 40 years of research in favour of your own hypothetical. But nice try....again!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    The hypothetical fact is that you are claiming that the H/T binary system was entirely magnetic field interactions.....You claim that without any citation or link supporting said hypothetical.
    The H/T binary system orbital degradation [and others since] have all been totally researched with all contingencies taken into account.
    The verdict for which the Nobel prize was given was that it matched gravitational radiation near perfectly.

    If any of that had one iota of truth in it, you would not be here. You would be showing the professionals where they were wrong.
    Again, your posts reflect a total delusion of the facts, which indicates an agenda of sorts, as this supposed "contradiction" by yourself of what mainstream accepts, is just one aspect of many you contradict.
    The H/T results most certainly stand as is, unfazed by your delusions.
    The only tactics in question, are your unsupported hypothetical re magnetic field interactions and dismissal of that which has now been confirmed in line with any reasonable, logical definition of a scientific theory.

    The Hulse Taylor binary Pulsar system [and others since] was the first documented and researched evidence of gravitational waves.
    Since then of course the aLIGO results have added near certainty to that accurate finding on two occasions.
     
  17. expletives deleted Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    410
    @ paddoboy:

    I made objective observations based on known science and understandings of same gained by objective research into the matters according to the scientific methodology and principles of objectivity and relevance. The question of "beliefs" does not enter into it at any stage as far as I am concerned. Whereas the constant personal refrains in your own posts and tactics seems to be riddled with your beliefs of one kind or another which are irrelevant to the scientific issues raised in discussion. And what I accept or not accept is dictated by application of the scientific methodology and principles of objectivity and relevance, irrespective of source or claim or beliefs or personal attacks; as science demands in the stricture to question everything and not just accept possibly flawed claims: no matter how longstanding the claims; and no matter how reputable the claimants. The scientific method is all that is needed. Beliefs and other subjective irrelevancies not required.

    My observation puts that belief of yours into question. I observed that lack I mentioned; and so far even your own references cannot counter that observation I made. That is the status quo re the Hulse-Taylor studies/papers and claims to date: until the rectify that observed lack as described, the Hulse-Taylor grav-waves interpretatiins, conclusions and claims remain open to serious scientific question. Not a happy situation for them to be in, but science demands that people's 'happiness' takes a back seat to proper investigation and understanding before making claims which may make some 'happy' but may unfortunately be erroneous nonetheless.

    I ignored nothing. I questioned precisely because I noted everything relevant to the matter in question. Hence my objective observations for your consideration according to science methodology which demands such questions when something does not seem to be right when examined scientifically and impartially, as I have done.

    As for the links, I explained that your own links confirm what I observed. Understand that?


    Being critical of mainstream is part of the scrutinizing process which science itself demands of any objective researcher in whatever matter or claim is under scrutiny. The person or motive or other irrelevant and/or misattributed characterizations ahve nothing to do with the scrutiny process of the science point and claims at issue. You understand?

    It has been already pointed out that I speak of real phenomena (didn't you read the electric motor analogy involving braking forces and EM radiation etc?). I 'claimed' nothing, paddoboy. I observed a certain methodological etc lack in the relevant studies/papers, even the ones you linked. That observation remains until it can be countered by your links. Understand?

    I have 'dismissed' nothing. I merely observed to you that lack I described. If the relevant studies/papers were not up to scratch as far as the scientific method is concerned (which method is what I am complying with insofar as scrutiny is concerned), then I cannot be blamed just for pointing it out; precisely because I did not ignore things that may have been ignored by others.

    Is there such a thing as "hypothetical fact"? Maybe you meant something else?

    Anyway, I did not claim "that the H/T binary system was entirely magnetic field interactions". Please don't confuse your misunderstandings with the actual observation I made. I pointed out that NSs also have extreme magnetic fields and these would produce extreme effects when interacting inn the binary system. That's it. Anything else is your own misconstruction. The Hulse-Taylor case is different from terminal merging phase cases. Please don't conflate the two entirely different scenarios. And awards are no guarantee of inerrancy. Science has the last word; not Nobel committees.


    If any of that had one iota of truth in it, you would not be here. You would be showing the professionals where they were wrong.
    Again, your posts reflect a total delusion of the facts, which indicates an agenda of sorts, as this supposed "contradiction" by yourself of what mainstream accepts, is just one aspect of many you contradict.
    The H/T results most certainly stand as is, unfazed by your delusions.

    The only tactics in question, are your unsupported hypothetical re magnetic field interactions and dismissal of that which has now been confirmed in line with any reasonable, logical definition of a scientific theory.

    The Hulse Taylor binary Pulsar system [and others since] was the first documented and researched evidence of gravitational waves.
    Since then of course the aLIGO results have added near certainty to that accurate finding on two occasions.
    [/QUOTE]

    You are merely reiterating claims which are yet to be fully scrutinized scientifically, paddoboy. How many times do you want to repeat yourself in reiterating claims yet to be properly scrutinized scientifically? The first many times were sufficient. No need to keep filling up threads with repetitive listing of claims still open to scientific scrutiny. Thanks.

    Paddoboy, understand once and for all: I am 'here' at this site to discuss with whom I would have hoped were others interested in discussing what science matters I am interested in. If you are not interested in discussing the science with me on those scientific issues which interest others also, then why are you 'here' at all? Why keep badmouthing and belittling the venue which nowadays represents one of many INTERNET venues where science may be more readily discussed without fear or favor or other irrelevant imperatives. Just because you feel you don't understand what is being discussed and therefore feel you have nothing of value to offer science discussion by being here, then why not just leave and let those who have regard for the potential of the site get on with their discussions without your constant negativity of person and site?

    Thanks for your kind attention. Best.
     
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2016
  18. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Try as many times as you like....It does not invalidate facts.
    Those facts are that the H/T binary pulsar system was the first evidence of gravitational radiation, and 40 years of research certainly guarantee that all contingencies were accounted for.
    No that reasoning is factual and is what the professionals arrived at and have researched for 40 years, not withstanding the conspiracy like nonsense on public forums such as this.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Of course you were not a part of this forum then so how would you know, secondly, the BICEP2 premature results were invaliadted by other professionals within 6 months not 40 years later by an unknown unqualified lay person on a remote science forum.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Scientists are not perfect and the premature result was updated in short time. Obviously too, when we have groups of god bothering fanatical anti mainstream people claiming all of science is wrong, then they are likely to "jag" something that they can cling to, to supposedly claim some credibility......at least in their own minds.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Again total unsupported nonsense, similar in many ways to the crazy claims made by another, that the GP-B and aLIGO results were fraudulent.
    Real "scraping the bottom of the barrel" nonsense

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Instead then of evangelizing your hypothetical nonsense on a forum, why not submit a paper showing how the professionals over 40 years are all plain wrong. You may get the Nobel, but please, don't ask me to hold my breath!
    I have deleted most of your preaching to conclude once again, that you are in your right to claim what you like...spaghetti monster, unicorn, god of the gaps, or whatever, it changes nothing in the greater [and lesser scheme of things.
    The true professionals will continue with your escapades, and certainly without my continued recording of their facts and research.

    The Hulse Taylor binary Pulsar system [and others since] was the first documented and researched evidence of gravitational waves.
    Since then of course the aLIGO results have added near certainty to that accurate finding on two occasions
     
  19. expletives deleted Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    410
    @ paddoboy:


    Please review the relvant post, as I was editing while you were replying. Thanks.

    Anyway:

    Try what? I made the observation. It has not been countered. It stands as made, supported even by your own references. You keep mischaracterizing as me ignoring 'facts'; which claimed 'facts' are precisely what is subject of scrutiny now. Understand?

    But you haven't addressed the point of the observation I made. You miss that if they dismissed it because they didn't consider it worth their proper investigation, then how can any claims be tenable against scientific method which demands exhaustive investigation of all the possibilities and not just the 'preferred' ones involving assumptions of grav-waves as a priori focus of the exercise? Be reasonable and address that, don't evade and just repeat your beliefs and mantras. Thanks.

    I was an unregistered reader in many forums. That's how I knew of some past science issues discussed here and elsewhere; especially the bicep2 case which made headlines for all the wrong reasons! You couldn't miss it, no matter which forum one was reading at the time! Anyhow, I decided to join this one eventually. Is there a problem?

    I am an atheist. A scientist. Please don't talk to me about gods or demons or whatever it is that is fixating your ire. Irrelevant. Incorrect. Please stop it.

    The bicep2 case was what it was. No excuses please. Thankyou. It demonstrated what it demonstrated, about scientists and their flaws and the possibility that some science 'exercises' may be flawed because of the flaws they brought to it that contravened or failed to fulfil properly the dictates of the scientific method and principles of objectivity and relevance.

    The lesson we all took away from that bicep2 case should be applied in the case of the Hulse-Taylor studies/claims. Until the latter 'results' are scrutinized properly; and the studies reviewed to properly treat and quantify and determine the extreme effects of what I pointed out (real effects not hypothetical like grav-waves), then those claims and assertions you keep repeating re Hulse-Taylor are open to scientific doubt and scrutinuy as demanded by science methodology. Understand?

    James R, others and I, and even your reference Prof Max Isi, explained to you that claims don't automatically confirm. And that any observation may be possibly explicable by other factors/theory than the ones assumed for the aLIGO etc exercise. Please indicate that you understand the subtleties of that advice to you from all those people. Thanks.

    I am at the stage of open discussion. I do not schedule or constrain my scientific interactions with others based on what you feel is or is not what I should do. Thanks anyway, but your advice is immaterial to my participation and/or publishing schedule or venues. What you call "preaching" is your mischaracterizations and evasions tactics. It has become obvious now. You should try to be more subtle in your 'tactics', else you just appear biased and unresponsive to the science observations and points made.

    Do as you see fit, paddoboy. The actual science discussion will proceed here and elsewhere regardless. Thanks anyway.

    Repetition of claims still open to scientific scrutiny. Not good science discussion methodology, paddoboy. Clutter and evasion is no good to anybody or science. Thanks anyway for your kind attention. Best
     
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2016
  20. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    No, that's called delusions on your part...nothing more, nothing less. It stands as meaning absolutely fuck all, and certainly not supported by my references and citations.
    The truth, apparently as hard as it is to accept for you is that the "Hulse Taylor binary Pulsar system was the first evidence of gravitational waves, over 40 years ago and consequently with plenty of research and repeat observations with other systems.
    You made no point or observation that was not already made by professionals over 40 years and which were taken into account and dismissed.
    So in essence I suggest you practice what you preach and address the obvious facts as I have put them.
    [1] You are not an expert in the relevant discipline.
    [2] You have no citation, link, or reference to support your non expert opinion.
    [3] You have made the same non expert denial of many other accepted cosmological phenomena, all with absolutely no support, citation or link to support your lay person's position.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    It appears you are full of excuses and coupled with the points you continue to ignore, gives good reason to take what you say/claim/preach, with a grain of salt.
    You are most certainly not a scientists on the evidence so far.
    On your atheism, I believe I have spoken on that also.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    The BICEP2 case is what it is, and which is as obvious as what the H/T system is and neither was or will ever be affected/changed/modified by the rantings/preachings of any Tom , Dick or Harry from any science forum.
    To believe any different is again delusions.
    The subtleties involved are what you refuse to see.
    GR stands as the overwhelmingly supported model of gravity in line with any reasonable definition of a scientific theory. Even q-reeus since you have seen the need to bring this up, disagreed strongly with James when he was trying to be even handed.
    q-reeus' claims were wrong as James also said as inferred by the title of that thread, and his claims were refuted by two other professionals in Professor Isi and Schmelzer, Schmelzer of course addmittedly for entirely different selfish reasons.
    you need to do better expletive deleted.
    What I see as preaching is exactly that. What I see as an agenda driven anti mainstream science rant is exactly that. What I see as unsupported, unqualified nonsense, is exactly that.
    Which stifles any "open discussion" that you pretend to take part in.
    The actual science discussion in this instant is as I am saying from the beginning.
    The Hulse Taylor binary pulsar system, 40 years ago, was the first evidence of gravitational waves. That has been followed up with similar sightings and finally in recent times the two exciting, confirmed aLIGO observations as per reasonable definition of scientific theory.
    If you dispute that, then as you have been asked by others such as James, PhysBang, Dave and your's truly, please support your hypothetical with some reputable citations, links and references, as you see me do.
    Whether you accept my advice changes nothing either way. The H/T system stands as I have stated, but I will inform you if there happens to be any changes in that....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2016
  21. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    And neither any unqualified, unsupported, lay person on a public science forum.

    As many times as is required to refute pretentious nonsense that is unsupported by an unqualified poster on a public science forum.
    expletive deleted: Please understand once and for all, that this is a public forum, like many other public science forums, where all would be asking you the same questions as I, James, PhysBang and Dave has, and which you have steadfastly refused to answer or nimbly side-stepped.
    The other fact is that some of the other forums would now have you banned in not answering or supporting all you have said.
    No bad mouthing of forums, no misunderstandings on my part, no attempt to short circuit genuine scientific endeavours, but certainly plenty of derision of those that want to approach with a cynical nature, full of wrath, from atop of a mythical tower.
    My well supported, well evidenced and well accepted claim stands:
    The Hulse Taylor binary Pulsar system [and others since] was the first documented and researched evidence of gravitational waves.
    Since then of course the aLIGO results have added near certainty to that accurate finding on two occasions.
     
  22. expletives deleted Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    410
    @ paddoboy:

    Your repeated reiteration of claims made by mainstream doesn't prove those claims tenable. It merely restates those claims. So you are like a hamster on its wheel, going round and round and getting nowhere in reality. You, or anyone, is yet to show where the extreme magnetic interaction, between extreme magnetic fields of the two Neutron Stars in the Hulse-Taylor binary, was QUANTIFIED properly instead of merely 'mentioning magnetic fields and dismissing them' in favor of pre-concluded Grav-Wave 'interpretation' of the observed Binary Orbital Period decay rate.

    Do you understand, paddoboy? Just 'mentioning and dismissing', without proper scientific exhaustive investigation and QUANTIFICATION of the effects of known magnetic binary interactions, is NOT being 'exhaustive' or scientifically objective.

    That is the same MO that the Bicep2 team got into trouble with because of their CONFIRMATION BIASED 'exercise' which was already couched in terms of 'primordial Grav-Wave' etc 'expectations', rather than actually properly considering and QUANTIFYING the DUST alternative cause.

    See, paddoboy? No matter how many years that Hulse-Taylor exercise and 'results', interpretations' and claims have been 'doing the rounds' in the CITATION INDEX, it doesn't automatically make them correct.

    And if they did NOT actually do it properly scientifically (ie, that which I observed and explained has NOT been done PROPERLY scientifically), then they fell into the same trap that Bicep2 exercise/claims did so many years later on another CONFIRMATION BIASED 'exercise' with preconceived 'interpretations' and claims as to 'cause' BUILT INTO the exercise from start to finish.

    So please see, paddoboy, that them just mentioning the magnetic fields of the respective NSs (which was not in question), BUT THEN NOT considering and properly QUANTIFYING the EXTREME INTERACTION EFFECTS of between the two NSs fields in BINARY dynamics between them, is why such studies were basically CONFIRMATION BIASED exercises all along; especially since they all admit those exercises were concentrating on 'maths fitting' to Grav-Wave 'templates' and calculations refinements etc according to grav-wave hypotheses which they were looking to 'confirm' as 'main cause'.

    Thanks anyway, paddoboy, for your kind attention. Best.
     
    Last edited: Sep 3, 2016
  23. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Firstly I need to prove nothing, secondly your use of the word "proof/prove' once again, reflects the ignorance of your posts, thirdly the mainstream claims and evidence for the H/T binary pulsar system stands as is, fourthly the onus is on you to invalidate or show any error in the evidence of 40 years ago and subsequent research in the meantime, fifthly you as an unknown and preaching on a public forum changes sweet fuck all, sixthly, when you finally accept that, you may be half way there in curing the delusions you obviously are under.

    Sorry, again the rest of your nonsensical delusions ignored as like your hamster, on your ferris wheel, you are going round and round and round and round.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    You need to do better.
     

Share This Page