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
    @ paddoboy:

    Your resort to semantics won't help you in this instance, paddoboy. My use of the word proof/prove was in the ordinary "evidentiary proof" context; as in evidence that the claims are "true" as claimed; and not merely yet-to-be-confirmed-as-true and valid" claims. You tried to sound clever by mouthing others' distinction made between maths theorem 'proofs' and physical hypotheses 'confirmations'. But that distinction is not what applies in the context I used it. Bad luck; but good try, paddoboy.


    I already pointed out what the claims were; and I already pointed out that the 'evidence' is not as you/they claim or believe if the lack which I also pointed out is significant enough to make those claims premature and scientifically unsound unless and until that lack is remedied properly and exhaustively as I described.


    I don't have to do any such thing,paddoboy. Don't you understand? It is the scientific method that demands proper quantification etc of what I pointed to which is real and extreme effect that has not been properly quantified. It's up to the claimants to show where they have done what I described before they opted for the pre-preferred grav-waves interpretations and conclusions; which latter are not 'evidence' for anything until they do as I suggested.


    There you go again, ignoring the scientific method and concentrating on person rather than the substantive science issue irrespective of 'person' provenance. And your use now, of my earlier 'Hamster on Wheel' description of your repetitive person/irrelevance etc posting seems a little too late to be of use to you here, paddoboy. But thanks anyway; they do say that "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery". But never mind, no harm done, paddoboy, as I am not susceptible to flattery; since letting blandishments affect one's objectivity would go against the scientific method, and also against my own personal code when dealing with scientific and problem solving matters. Better luck next time. Best.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    wrong thread....
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    No help needed, and no semantics either...It is a fact that god bothering science deniers, often use the fact of saying with regards to a scientific theory, "ah well its only a theory" and consequently demand proof.
    Possibly just more revelation as to your own modus operandi I suggest.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    You have attempted to "point out" many things concerning many areas of 21st century cosmology, and all have been shown to be invalid, wrong, or just plain fabricated nonsense...this instant concerning the H/T system is no different.
    The H/T binary pulsar system was the first evidence for gravitational waves which still stands 40 years later, unhindered and stronger than ever after recent confirmations by aLIGO.
    I keep checking for you expletive deleted, but sorry, nothing has changed....
    In fact it appears your expertise, prowess and knowledge re 21st century cosmology is unknown to those that matter at the coal front.
    You need to try it up there [the coal front] instead of preaching fire and brimstone here on a public forum.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    No that's again just wishful thinking on your part, driven by the delusions of grandeur shown in your posts.
    The evidence supports gravitational waves and the papers show that all contingencies were considered. You are claiming that magnetic field interactions explain it exclusive of gravitational waves...that is wrong, simple as that, and 40 years of research in the proper quarters attest to that fact.
    But of course if you have evidence invalidating the H/T system scenario, then write up this paper I have been urging you to do.
    The truth being of course is all you have is pretentious rhetoric.

    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!

    Of course you aren't!!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    But really, for you to speak of any moral personal code and/or your abuse of the scientific method is highly hypocritical.
    And please expletive deleted, don't imitate your Hamster on the wheel again....it's rather repetitive and nonsensical.
    Just show some citation/link/reference supporting what you are claiming....
    Write up a scientific paper and show that 40 years of professional experts are wrong.

    C'mon ol chap! The balls in your court...if you want to salvage any credibility from this debacle you created under a pretense, then do one or both of the highlight above...easy peasy!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Or if you are unconcerned about your lack of credibility, then ignore the same.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    410
    @ paddoboy:

    Seriously, do you get many "god botherers" coming to your door and then declaring to your face: "There is NO god", paddoboy?

    If not, then why keep harping on about "god botherers" to ME, an ATHEIST and scientist, paddoboy? Can't you separate your personal fixations and fantasies from the fact that I am an atheist and scientist who declares that "there is no god", paddoboy?

    Can you drop that dishonest insinuations 'tactic', paddoboy? It's becoming an embarrassingly painful to watch you doing that time and again. Please realize that some things you do, not only go against science method, but also against common standards of social ethics.

    I merely point out where is the lack, as already described and explained to you. Just because I discuss it here doesn't mean I'm not intending to mention it in other arenas. You mind what you are doing, and I will mind what I am doing, paddoboy. Please don't presume to dictate or constrain what science discussions I have or where I have them. Thanks.


    Firstly, you claiming to judge truth is one step too far, given your layman misunderstandings of science and personal mischaracterizations, paddoboy.

    And where is the delusion of grandeur in posing scientific observations, questions and discussion points on this site, paddoboy? If I was interested in grandeur, delusional or otherwise, I would be publishing all sorts of publish or perish fantasy offerings for people like you to read and make me famous by your uncritical beliefs and fandom (much as too many 'physicists' have been doing for a while now, and you've been lapping up all the maths sci-fi fantasies as if it meant anything in scientific reality).

    As it is, I am discussing science on a science site. No delusions of grandeur brought by me. You'll have to provide that for yourself, paddoboy.


    I will write what I want when I want where I want, according to my own application of the science method and discussion schedule. I'm not interested as you seem to be, in personal glory or awards motivations (you saw what such unscientific considerations did to the Bicep2 team's "scientific credentials" when first they put Nobel and Personal Glory considerations into the science process, paddoboy!). So please stop trying to foist your unscientific considerations and demands on me, paddoboy. Not interested. Thanks anyway. Best.
     
    Last edited: Sep 3, 2016
  8. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    When you finally drop your own pretentious posts and unsupported claims about me, I may consider mentioning that which appears to be paonfully obvious anyway.


    You have pointed out nothing worth considering in my opinion and obviously hasn't been considered before..



    No, I don't judge truth, I judge wreckless anti science propaganda put ever so subtly and obviously supported by the agenda you so much hate men mentioning.
    And yes, I'm a lay person, just as you obviously are.
    I mean you are not a scientist of any sort...possibly an electrician or maybe a family company director.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Obviously you do not write up a paper because [1] you are not qualified, [2] you have nothing to support your claim, and [3] nothing to invalidate the accepted mainstream model.
    No, you are simply trying to at every opportunity at best, question mainstream cosmology in general, and at worst, push your own unsupported nonsense.
    You have a good night and please do not lose too much sleep over me.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
  10. expletives deleted Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    410
    @ paddoboy:

    Playing games again, paddoboy. Not a good sign.

    What you consider worth considering or not is totally irrelevant to science method, paddoboy. Unless it is considered and quantified properly then the science method has not been followed scrupulously (and you saw what that did to the Bicep2 team 'claims' credibility).

    You have neither the full information or the ability to understand it even when it is supplied you. How can you possibly think yourself capable of judging anything, be it science or persons? You even just fantasized what I might be or do. And you seriously think that such random scattergun incorrect speculation is any way to judge the reality? It's random shots in the dark, paddoboy; much like your simplistic science 'understandings' so far. Don't give up your day job.

    I am engaged discussing science issues. Please don't presume to make assumptions about my motivations and capabilities which you obviously are in no position to fairly or correctly judge. And please stop trying to constrain what I do and when (you tried that on day one of my joining; it was improper then, and remains improper while ever you keep doing that). Please stop it. Thanks.

    paddoboy, it is demanded by science method. It has nothing to do with me. Any scientist will tell you that part of science is to question everything; especially if you are not satisfied, in that the logics and claims and science method may have been flawed when arriving at those claims. It is what science does. My personal motivation has nothing to do with it. It never has. Only you seem to be obsessed with such irrelevant personal considerations and attributions.

    Stick to the science issues, not the personal irrelevancies, paddoboy. Best.
     
  11. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    No, why? I will put my reputation on line here for our peers to judge along with yours any day of the week.
    Do I believe you have an agenda? Yes:
    Do I believe that is a god of the gaps agenda? Yes again.
    Why do I believe that?
    Because [1] not many people, even lay people like you and I that frequent public forums, are opposed or under guise cunningly continue to question, near all of mainstream cosmology.
    [2] The recent implications I have made re god botherers and religious agendas, have not been directed at you, yet you immediately jump up and down and object.
    [3] Your often used term of "proof" or "prove" which is known to be a ploy of god botherers in relation to the definition of a scientific theory and its definition.



    Wrong again. It's your considerations, questions, claims, implications, that are in question, not mine.
    It's you making implications, supposedly asking questions, making claims, that all remain unsupported and without reference and citations.
    It's you whose credentials at best are unknown and yet according to evidence in your posts are non existent with relation to the subject matter.
    It's you obviously considering the previous facts, whose credibility is in question, not mine.

    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!

    The information that I do have is properly accredited and recognised and supported via the scientific method and peer review.
    The nonsense you believe you supply is your own fairy stories...




    So you keep saying...question all you like, but do not imply that something that has been validated and evidenced for 40 years is wrong, when you cannot support or offer any citation to your cause.
    The case in question the H/T system is near certain in its claims and as the papers show, not withstanding your ignorant denials, gravitational waves were the culprit.
    Stop hiding behind the scientific method and the edict re everything should be questioned...because we all agree with that...Don't hide behind the false pretense that "it may be flawed" it possibly could, but that will be determined and agreed upon by professionals...stop trying to pretend to be a professional when you offer nothing to support that concept, even when asked by many posters including James....stop pretending to be so indignant when others question your implications and claims, particularly when those implications and claims are obviously just not "questioning" as you claim....stop acting all surprised and mortified when others apply common sense to your questions/claims/implications, and surmise an agenda of sorts, since those questions/claims/implications apply over a broad range not just a particular scenario...stop claiming reputable papers as pop science, when those reputable papers are numerous in content and by noted professionals.
    I do, just as I have from the beginning re this thread on the Hulse taylor Binary Pulsar system and the evidence which pointed to gravitational radiation.
    If you have issues with that, support those issues with references and citations, just as I always support the mainstream issues with reputable references and citations.
     
  12. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    In conjunction with my previous post and one of the prime illustrations as to why expletive deleted is totally wrong in all he is claiming, suggesting and with relation to the accepted mainstream scenario, ignoring........


    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.
     
  13. expletives deleted Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    410
    I note that during my absence neither paddoboy nor anyone else has actually cited where, in the Hulse-Taylor studies, the actual exhaustive scientific quantification of the extreme forces and effects on the binary dynamics from extreme NS magnetic fields interactions were done. That negative finding of relevant reference means the study of said magnetic field interactions between the two NSs was not done as required by scientific rigor to determine their effect on the binary orbital period decay rate observed. Which means that the authors went straight to pre-conceived hypothetical grav-wave fitting, interpretations and conclusions while dismissing without proper cause the real significant possible effect I alluded to. Thanks for effectively confirming my original and still standing observation re that lack identified in all the Hulse-Taylor 'studies' and 'explanations'. Best.
     
  14. KilljoyKlown Whatever Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,493
    This is a very interesting topic. I'm still not convinced that virtual particles exist but am willing to keep an open mind on the subject. There existence does solve some big problems. For one thing if they don't exist then neither does hawking radiation. However if virtual particles do exist that would change the nature of how we think of space/time itself. It could possibly offer an explanation for dark energy and why our local universe is expanding the way it appears to be.
     
  15. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    Well you have one course open to you my friend.....Write up a paper for peer review refuting their findings for which they received the Nobel prize for, plus refuting the 40 0dd years of research since that day, and of course supporting the effect of magnetic interactions.
    In the meantime, the findings stand as is and the first evidence of gravitational waves, and in reality, all we have is your own unsupported, unevidenced claims suggesting the contrary.
    Your assumptions, after assumptions, after assumptions are either wrong or just to incredibly crazy to entertain and identical to the arguments put by god botherers and cranks in general.
    Firstly in many of the reputable papers I have linked to, magnetic fields were discussed.
    To believe that while discussing magnetic fields, they would not discuss how they could maybe interact to also add to any orbital degradation, is to believe in fairy tales.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    But you also deny cosmological redshifts, BH's and gravitational waves also among other fairy tales, correct?
    And of course your claim that the authors of those papers all had "pre-conceived hypothetical grav-wave fitting, interpretations" is nonsense, and just a cunning ploy of reversing the fact that many god botherers see it as their evangelisitc mission and/or crusade to belittle established science, whenever they can, with their own mythical beliefs.

    In other words, you are pissing into the wind.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Sep 7, 2016
  16. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    http://www.sciforums.com/threads/hawking-radiation-observation.157614/
     
  17. trevor borocz johnson Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    248
    Ok, now that I think about it wouldn't friction slow the object moving through the universe? It moves at a continuous undisturbed motion if traveling through plain empty space just as Newton says. The empty space doesn't contain friction but carries limits probably related to the density of the fundamental particles and the gravity field they create inside the object traveling through space.
     
  18. KilljoyKlown Whatever Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,493
    Virtual Black holes, why not? I think this simulation is one way to get at the truth, but it's only a simulation and not real proof. But I do want scientist to keep working on the problem. If virtual particles are real, I would like to know how they might interact with light. Just maybe they are responsible for the light speed constant.
     
  19. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    Many scientific simulations are used in many respects..weather forecasting is one, and at least where I come from the results are pretty impressive.
    Having direct observation of Hawking radiation is pretty hard, but from where I stand, if one accepts virtual particles [and they are a part of the standard model] then I see Hawking Radiation as a legitimate outcome.
     
  20. KilljoyKlown Whatever Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,493
    I would say that other things may point to the reality of virtual particles such as a possible link to Dark Energy. But whatever, it will take more time than I have to sort it out. Like I said before I am keeping an open mind on the subject.
     
    paddoboy likes this.
  21. expletives deleted Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    410
    Again I note that paddoboy could not provide the relevant reference requested of him, as follows:


    James R and other Moderators: how about we break paddoboy's reply down to see what he did 'provide' in his above response:

    paddoboy's irrelevant mantra again; telling others to go elsewhere and do whatever he demands they do, all the while he ignores and evades the science methodology and other points noted in my post.

    paddoboy repeats yet-to-be-fully-tested claims for still hypothetical grav-waves, by studies which lacked scientific rigor regarding real effects alternative explanations which I pointed to, yet he keeps believing those yet-to-be-tested claims, based only on hypothetical assumptions, fittings and model dependent interpretations etc, are somehow 'evidence' for grav-waves.

    paddoboy mischaracterizes real effects now known to occur between the two Hulse-Taylor NSs Extreme Magnetic fields, and calls them an 'assumption'. He also again invokes the irrelevant and improper "god bothers" association, even though he knows I am Atheist who doesn't believe in gods or demons; and he also again irrelevantly and improperly labels as "crank" anything he cannot refute himself; which in this instance only requires him to cite where the scientifically rigorous quantification of the real effect (which scientific quantification I pointed out was lacking in the Hulse-taylor studies/papers) was actually done. He is still unable to provide it.


    paddoboy believes that merely 'discussing' magnetic fields is automatically the same as exhaustively and scientifically quantifying their effects. He provides no cites where the proper quantification was done before discussing and dismissing them as possible explanation for observed binary orbital period decay rate in Hulse-Taylor studies/papers.

    paddoboy again introduces irrelevant and out of context issues from other discussions/threads which he misunderstands and mischaracterizes here for his own unscientific and improper tactics because he cannot refute the observation and point I made here in this present discussion/thread.

    paddoboy ignores that in the Hulse-Taylor studies/papers all the discussion and data analysis techniques and parametric fitting and modeling was concentrated first and foremost on trying to confirm if the observed data could 'match' hypothetical grav-wave assumptions and calculations etc.

    paddoboy again tacitly admits to having nothing but irrelevant ridiculous personal opinions and colorful disparaging irrelevances to 'provide' the discussion; based on his own mischaracterizations and misunderstandings and inability to refute what I originally observed and pointed out re the rigorous science methodology requirements which the Hulse-Taylor studies/papers did not satisfy before claiming hypothetical grav-waves as 'real' cause for observed data.


    James R and other Moderators will hopefully see that I tried my level best to keep to the relevant point raised by me; while paddoboy keeps coming back with irrelevant personal and evasive repetitions of mantra and opinion etc etc, all of which did nothing to refute my original observation and point re the scientifically real effect of binary interaction of extreme magnetic fields, and the lack of proper exhaustive scientific treatment in the Husle-Taylor studies/papers as possible real alternative cause for observed data. Thanks, James R and other Moderators, for your kind attention to this matter. I tried it your way but the paddoboy-style trolling, cluttering, evading, insulting and gratuitous irrelevant and improper demands and/or advice etc continues despite all your warnings and other 'slap on the wrist' moderation attempts re his behavior here. I hope you now see what the 'problem' really is; and that more 'special excuses' made for him will never remedy it, only enable it more. In any case, best.
     
    Last edited: Sep 7, 2016
    dumbest man on earth likes this.
  22. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    More appeals to authority?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    The fact remains that many of the papers discuss magnetic fields and just as many see the effects as negligible or non existent: much as a photon/light will also warp spacetime albeit ever so insignificantly.
    [1]If you have any evidence invalidating gravitational radiation as the cause, then supply it.
    [2] If you have any link, citation, reference supporting what you suggest/claim/imply, then supply it.
    [3] If you were at all scientific about this claim of yours, then submit a paper on the matter.
    Now you can ignore all those requests, you can claim that they are all irrelevant until the cows come home, but the one fact remains: The Hulse Taylor binary Pulsar system remains as the first evidence for gravitational waves, which in recent times have now been confirmed within any proper definition of a scientific theory.

    I would add as I said before, your claim that the authors of those papers here and elsewhere where you have also argued against accepted scientific argument, all had "pre-conceived hypothetical grav-wave fitting, interpretations" is nonsense, and just a cunning ploy of reversing the fact as many god botherers do, and see it as their evangelisitc mission and/or crusade to belittle established science, whenever they can, with their own mythical beliefs.
     
    Last edited: Sep 7, 2016
  23. expletives deleted Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    410
    Note this:

    The author of the above quote does not realize that there is a chasm of meanings difference between the phrase "appeal to authority" and a "request for moderator attention".

    He also still believes that cursory and superficial 'discussion and dismissal' is equivalent to rigorous and exhaustive 'scientific consideration and quantification'.

    He also still doesn't understand that the science methodology puts the onus on the claimants to justify scientifically their claims; and that a questioner of those claims merely has to point to methodology and/or confirmation bias etc flaw(s) in the Hulse-Taylor study/paper to justify that science based challenge.

    He also evades the question and instead presumes to tell the questioner what to do; instead of answering the question raised, by posting either the requisite reference which will properly refute the observation and implications of the question raised, or graciously and properly concede the correctness of the observation and question originally posed.

    He also still mistakes 'claims made' as somehow being 'evidence for'. A fatal mistake in a science discussion (as many of his own 'reputable sources' have tried to explain to him with no apparent avail).

    What hope is there for a real science discussion on this site, as long as the site allows the author of the above quoted post to repeat ad nauseam his irrelevant and opinionated misunderstandings and mischaracterizations instead of addressing the point and refuting it if he disagrees with it? Fast approaching zero chance, if the above is allowed to continue by the moderators. One can only hope for the best. Best.
     
    Last edited: Sep 7, 2016
    dumbest man on earth likes this.

Share This Page