The BICEP2 Project at the South Pole:

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by paddoboy, Mar 29, 2014.

  1. Declan Lunny Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    131
    Noted and I pass. Nice try but that bait is getting stale. Do better.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Undefined Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,695
    Give over, paddo!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    You say: "...the BICEP2 'results' "stand"? On what? It has no legs to stand on. The BICEP2 "results" (as you so cavalierly call them) are only ARTIFACTS of their obviously confirmation biased 'work' and 'claims' etc which I and mainstream itself has already deemed too FLAWED to be a serious scientific exercise/offering as it was done/presented at that stage by the BICEP2 'team' who failed to adhere to the strict scientific method and self-checks and balances because they were too eager to be 'first' etc to 'publish' SOMETHING to 'confirm' whatever hypotheses they started out assuming/interpreting/massaging 'data' with GIGO maths treatments which are no substitute for real scientific scrutiny at all stages. Learn from it and move on, instead of applying double standards which makes it ok for mainstream to present FLAWED 'work' while you decry 'cranks' for allegedly doing the same thing. Do better.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Undefined Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,695
    What 'bait', Declan? You deny that all the usual suspect mainstream trolls were uncritically 'accepting' those BICEP2 claims of confirmation etc of BBang processes/CMb etc; and were eagerly using it to bash the alleged 'crank' who pointed out the flaws and suggested closer scrutiny before 'believing' that BICEP2 BS 'work/paper/claims'? So quick to attack 'cranks', but oh so 'precious' when it turns out the BICEP2 offering/claims even though they were WORSE than 'crank' stuff? In denial much, Declan. Come on, don't see it as 'bait', see it as an exhortation to learn from that fiasco, and do better DUE DILIGENCE in future, irrespective of source/authority, hey?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Declan Lunny Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    131
    A brilliant scientist such as yourself should understand: "I pass". The second try was not as nice as the first one, they are getting lamer. So either quit trying or Do better.
     
  8. Undefined Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,695
    So 'evasion' and 'denial' is ok when it suits you. But when a 'crank' pleads the same excuse for not responding properly on the points made, suddenly your double standards come into play and you all crucify a 'crank' when they try to 'beg off' the same as you just did.

    See the double standards and bias in your tactics, Declan? And why won't you just admit to being 'taken in' by that BICEP2 BS claims etc, just as all the usual suspect trolls and self-appointed 'crankbusters' and 'defenders of mainstream' were? If not for the alleged 'crank' who called that BICEP2 BS out for what it was, mainstream would still probably be pussyfooting around the elephant in the room, making all sorts of excuses for such sloppy BS 'work/claims' just because it issued from 'mainstream source/authority'.

    Come on, be honest with yourself, and admit you were taken in, and are now making rationalization 'versions' of what went down, so that your ego will not be upset. A true scientist admits when he is proven wrong by the facts/history regarding what went down there. Be a true scientist and just face it and learn from it and move on, Declan. And curb your own penchant for confirmation bias and double standards which drip from your recent posts 'excusing' the inexcusable from BICEP2 'mainstream' team. Good luck.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Ho hum.....
    If the cap fits, wear it.
    really, your continued fairy tale rants are getting quite boring. Do better.
     
  10. Declan Lunny Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    131
    I PASS! RC that means I'm not interested. Go work someone else. Do better.
     
  11. Undefined Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,695
    More lame evasions of the point made, paddo?

    The point you conveniently avoid facing squarely is: that you uncritically accepted/believed 'patently and seriously flawed 'work', just because it issues from 'mainstream' source; and you now rationalize all sorts of 'double standard' excuses and apoligisms for same, while the alleged 'crank' who pointed out that it WAS seriously and patently FLAWED is attacked for being an OBJECTIVE OBSERVER and SCIENTIST and calling "BS" on that BICEP2 offering.

    You can't 'opinionate' and 'spam-link' your way out of that obvious fact, paddo. So just face it, learn from it, and move on a better, more objective observer. Good luck.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    A couple of points...I do not rationalise anything, nor do I accept flawed work.
    The only mistake made with this exciting experiment, was excited scientists [who are only human afterall] announcing something that was not as yet 100% validated.
    That situation is now being worked on with collaboration between BICEP2 and Planck.

    Secondly, the possible problem in the results was inferred by mainstream anyway, certainly not some alleged out in left field crank.
    The facts are that as yet positive results are inconclusive and some certainty or otherwise will be given in October.
    Simple as that.
     
  13. Truck Captain Stumpy The Right Honourable Reverend Truck Captain Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,263
    I hope this works right...
    I was not going to answer this at all, but I couldn't read the BS that you posted and then allow it to be said without defending myself or others.
    Declan was perfectly fair. for anyone wanting to see the truth, see for yourself here at: http://phys.org/news/2014-03-rumours-gravitational.html

    Go see what really happened... read the commetns for yourself and make up your own mind. I am going to add some things below to your "post here" that I feel needs to be said.
    Your actual words on the site were
    And for anyone following along, you can see that I took aception to your negative comments without ANY support, link, proof or evidence. I said
    again, anyone is free to click the above link anf follow the conversation
    this is what I would call TROLLING as well as being a [EXPLETIVE DELETED BY USER]
    an obviously hostile statement meant to deride another without and substance or proof of conjecture supporting the position taken by the author
    and I still support my comments
    to denigrate the team and comment about claws and then not offer any support or proof of your conjecture is pretty much the work of an [EXPLETIVE DELETED BY USER] and you should be ashamed of yourself.
    SHOW ME ONE LIE THAT I MADE THAT I DIDNT RETRACT OR APOLOGIZE FOR PUBLICLY
    JUST ONE!

    THERE WAS NONE
    NOT ONE
    TO YOU OR ANYONE ELSE
    unlike you, I am not afraid to admit my mistakes, and again, anyone who wants can click the links and read my posts on PO, which are much more likely to be aggressive than here.
    For a couple of reasons, INCLUDING a continuing Psyche study that I am collecting data from, which sometimes means that I have to puch buttons on people and get them to react
    I've only ever had two comments pulled by PO, both were off topic and I respected their decision, the third was pulled, but when reviewed, put back (against RealityCheck, funny enough) becaue it was empirical, had relevant information, was on topic and pointed out that RC was trolling, which was likely why he reported it.
    THAT is my history to date at the PO site with deleted comments, if anyone really cares
    this is absolutely correct, YOU TROLLED and made it all about you because you were wanting attention, then you spent dozens of man-hours ranting about how unfair we were being for pointing out that you offered nothing and were TROLLING the site.

    AGAIN! I REITERATE
    YOU MADE CLAIMS AND THEN REFUSED TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF YOUR CLAIMS
    INCLUDING THE ERRORS ON THE PDF's THAT WERE SO GLARINGLY OBVIOUS
    your problem is that you don't like mainstream physics... so what. who cares.
    but taking it out on the team WITHOUT EVIDENCE is pretty much TROLLING
    you gave ZERO evidence
    the others can read for themselves.
    then why did you KEEP comming back to argue how unfair we were being and NEVER ONCE post any justification for your comments?
    not one link? not one supporting fact... just trolling comments and whiny BS
    I am sure everyone here has heard about how ONLY YOU can be objective
    and how fair you always are
    and of course, no one ever learns but you
    ok. whatever.
    If you are truly leaving, then there may be proof, right here of a God after all...
    but given your tactics on PO, and from what I've read here so far... well, it is not likely that you've left anything.
    I don't make any claims about not being irritated with realitycheck/undefined
    I have never liked a liar, nor have I ever liked someone who was willing to denigrate another without any facts to bolster themselves and offer NOTHING supporting their reasons for said hostility.
    nor do I like people who constantly try to whine about mistreatment when it is their own fault that they're treated the way they are.

    Sorry if the MODS do not like this explanation, but I felt that I was justified, and that Declan was in the right. I support his comments here as I've never seen him lie yet and he has corrected mistakes in the past.
    Thanks

    this will be the last time I answer this troll.
    some might say not to feed the trolls, but I could not let the situation go unanswered. for those who wish, read the real convo's on the PO link i left.
    again, apologies to the mods and to others who have to suffer through RC's crap and my reply.
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2014
  14. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
  15. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    What does all this mean?
    The BICEP2 team were already considering the dust problem.
    The Planck data confirms that as a possibility.
    These results certainly cast some doubt on the origin of the readings, but by the same token do not entirely dismiss the long sort after evidence for gravitational radiation.
    Perhaps a BICEP3 with greater sensitivity?
    Certainly worth continuing the search.
     
  16. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    And of course all findings, including the original from BICEP2, and the following updates and opinions, were all from mainstream science teams, using mainstream science state of the art equipment.
     
  17. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    I haven't read the entire paper but the abstract seemed to say this. They couldn't find any region that is clear of dust and that the analysis is still ongoing ( by Planck and BICEP2) to reduce the uncertainty associated with the dust. The conclusion section at the end of the paper gives some details. That paper was submitted in the middle of September and has 17 citations already.
     
  18. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    http://skeptoid.com/blog/2014/09/24/is-the-evidence-for-inflation-and-gravity-waves-just-dust/

    One of the strengths of science and the scientific method is that it is self-correcting. As new evidence is found, old ideas are tested against that evidence. Should they fail, they are either modified or discarded and new ideas take their place. In such ways we improve our knowledge and better understand our Universe.

    Back in March, I wrote about new evidence for cosmic inflation and gravity waves from the Backgroun Imaging of Cosmic Extragalactic Polarization (BICEP2) project. BICEP2 analyzed the cosmic microwave background radiation looking for a specific kind of polarization called B-mode polarization. At the time, the data from this project was strong and looked to be supporting the inflationary model of universe expansion, moments after the Big Bang.

    Well, wouldn’t you know it, but it appears that this evidence wasn’t quite as good as hoped and, perhaps, such announcements were a bit premature. Several articles came across my news feed in the last few days discussing the BICEP2 data and the claims made by the team based upon that data.

    The article “Ripples from dawn of creation vanish in a puff of dust,” in New Scientist by Jacob Aron, does a good job of covering the details. The light polarization which was used by the BICEP2 team could have been caused by inflation and gravity waves, but cosmic dust can also polarize light in the same way. Aron writes:

    But other cosmic objects, like the dust that litters the Milky Way, can also polarise light, masking any patterns created by inflation. Initially the BICEP2 team claimed to have eliminated this possibility by pointing their telescope at one of the cleanest regions of the night’s sky, accessible only from the South Pole.

    The BICEP2 team did attempt to control for the effects of the dust, however, Jo Dunkley of the University of Oxford notes, “The BICEP analysis gave a degree of confidence that I think people agree was based on an over-optimistic estimate of what the dust could have been, and not based on data.”

    Dr. Dunkley is part of a team working with the data from the European Space Agency’s Planck spacecraft, which collected polarization data over the entire sky from 2009 to 2012. Aron continues, “In a paper published this morning the [Planck] team say it is very likely that BICEP2’s signal was just down to dust.”

    Happily, the Planck and BICEP2 teams will be sharing data and collaborating on re-analyzing the combined data to see what can be learned. This is science in action, folks. Not always pretty or simple, but it’s still the best tool we have for learning about our Universe.
     
  19. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543

    BINGO!
    In other words, the results may still be from Inflation and Gravitational radiation, or it may also be from dust.
    As an optimist, I still remain hopeful :fingers, toes crossed:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    This symmetry issue reveals the result of the joint analysis, BICEP2 + Planck, of the BICEP2 signal. Along with some discussion about further experimental analysis.
    http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/art...nflation-remains-undiscovered?email_issue=673
     
  21. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
  22. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    It still hasn't been completely resolved. Pun intended. What's been learned will help in defining the BICEP3 experiment.
     
  23. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,951
    The verdict is in, as of two days ago. The bicep2 polarization observation was from interstellar dust, not primordial gravity wave remnants. These aren't the droids you were looking for. Move along.
     

Share This Page