Seeking Evidence of Cosmological Inflation:

No you don't see obviously:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Have to be??? No sometimes common sense in understanding and recognising less then ideal journalism should be initiated. Particularly since this forum has been crawling with totally wrong ideas and false assumptions about cosmology, which strangely you ignore. Perhaps you recognise the cranks though that promote this nonsense as mavericks such as yourself and the ether nonsense and see the need to go easy on them while at the same time attending to supposed journalistic interpretations that do not detract from the article involved.
Accusing me of claiming I said the universe has an edge, when I didn't, actually enforces what I believe is really going on here.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Not real professional I must say.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Feel free to support misinformation by incompetent journalists because you consider them as less stupid than some cranks in the forums. But I will not follow you.

I don't consider cranks as very dangerous. In fact, even if one does not do anything, they usually disqualify themselves. Instead, low quality science journalism is dangerous. Because if people start to understand that science journalists write stupid nonsense - and, if what is written is stupid nonsense, they will understand this - they will become much more open to anti-scientific nonsense.

It looks like the next few months we will see some 287 references to this trivial misunderstanding, where I have already said "sorry".

BTW, it is your fault which has caused this misunderstanding. If one quotes some text, there are well-known established method to give that information: using quoting environment

or using quotation marks "like this". If one doesn't use these methods to identify a quote as a quote, this is named plagiarism and condemned in the scientific community.

You haven't, and that's why I have thought this is your text.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ignoring your usual cop outs, with the above of course, it appears you are scraping the bottom of the barrel but nothing is there:
It's patently obvious I always supply links to all articles, sometimes at the beginning and at the end of it.
I have always done that and always will which is in line with the rules and certainly no hint or otherwise of plagiarism.
In fact this furphy beats hands down the squirming. twisting and avoidance of the issues at hand, that you have in any of your extreme political arguments.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Again, not a good look for a professional on your part, but that is happening often now.
Do better.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And that's why I have simply said "sorry" and not accused you of plagiarism.

And I simply recommend you not to use unbased polemics containing "squirming. twisting" and similar nonsense.

And, if you have some counterarguments against my political arguments, feel free to make them. At places where they are on-topic. Here, mentioning my political views is simply an off-topic ad hominem.

Moreover, I can tell you a secret: What you think about my professional qualities is not really interesting.

 

Sure your political views are off topic, but I can see a connection of sorts.
With regards to your recommendation, so far you have gone from pop science treating Inflation like a horror, claiming that spacetime does not expand at FTL, then back tracking slightly and admitting it is an interpretation, then claiming FTL Inflation somehow infers no other period of the universe can go FTL, on to claiming I said the universe has an edge, and retracting that, and finally suggesting plagiarism, and getting upset because I claim you are squirming?
And no I won't be attempting to argue against any political beliefs as I have seen you in action over there.

Secret??

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Not really, as your "don't care" attitude is well known to me.

 

And finally, here's another paper on this interesting experiment

https://open.library.ubc.ca/cIRcle/collections/facultyresearchandpublications/36883/items/1.0107581

7. SUMMARY
PIPER is a balloon-borne polarimeter for searching for the polarized signature from inflation. It observes with two cryogenic co-pointed telescopes, each of which has a front end VPM for polarization modulation and detects both orthogonal linear polarization components in order to both maximize sensitivity and to monitor and remove systematic effects. PIPER will fly the first of four frequency configurations in 2013.

 

Anyone not knowing Paddoboy, will get confused by his Post #12. The way he has taken extract from the link, appears as if the text was written by him, it is bad and dishonest if done deliberately. If not done deliberately, then he must learn to use proper quotes or italics.

 

If pop science describes inflation this is indeed horror. Feel free to provide counter-evidence with a pop science article who does not make factually wrong claims, that would be really good news.

The expansion rate is not a velocity, thus, to claim that it expands FTL or not is simply meaningless. One can treat such meaningless nonsense in a favorable way, as a claim about FTL between sufficiently far away galaxies. But this does not really help, given that in this case, because in this case we have always FTL expansion, completely independent of inflation or not, so any connection between FTL and inflation is nonsense, at least misleading. This is a consistent point of view, in full agreement with the mainstream as you know yourself (you have linked Sean Carroll's explanation). If you see here some "squirming", this may be caused by your own misinterpretations.

I have made a minor error - not identified correctly what, from a formal point of view (no indication of quotation) was a plagiarization from your side, and said sorry for this. If this is "squirming", I would like to see at least some "squirming" sometimes from your side.

And, whatever, accusing somebody of "squirming" is clearly negative valued, thus, a personal attack. So it is better to avoid it at all, but if one does it, one would have to justify it with explicit quotes.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Professor Carroll, is a physicist I have great respect for, and I support his stance that time is real, despite many other physicists taking an opposing view.
On the FTL issue, the same situation applies and is a matter of opinion, interpretation and pedant. Others like Professor Krauss still support the FTL.
On this point I disagree with Professor Carroll and see absolute reasonability in using the FTL description.
Obviously as a consequence I also disagree with you, and I'm sure on the issue of an ether and your unsupported claims on that, so to would Professor Carroll.

 

Fine, at least no more "squirming". On the other hand, another problematic behavior: Fell free to hope that most mainstream scientists would support your, hm, ideas or so. But to make claims that a particular person, here Sean Carroll, would support your criticism of my theories is .... [self-censored] ... something I recommend you not to do.

 

You object to the word squirming in relation to your posts? Then perhaps you need to cease with some of the unecessary pedant nonsense you raise, particularly when much of it is based on opinions, interpretations, and past interactions.

On your recommendation, as much as I respect Professor Carroll, on this issue I don't believe he is entirely correct in what he is saying.
Other reputable cosmologists also support my view.

 

http://gizmodo.com/how-is-it-possible-that-galaxies-are-moving-away-from-u-1736224001
I stand with Einstein when I say that nothing can move faster than light through space, but objects embedded in space can appear to expand faster than the speed of light depending on your perspective.

This article originally appeared at Universe Today is and is republished here with permission. Top image of galaxy cluster: NASA/Hubble
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

https://physics.aps.org/articles/v7/64

• Lawrence M. Krauss, Department of Physics and School of Earth and Space Exploration, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA and Mount Stromlo Observatory, Research School of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Australian National University, Weston, ACT 2611, Australia

Inflation—the hypothesis that the Universe underwent a phase of superluminal expansion in a brief period following the big bang—has the potential of explaining, from first principles, why the Universe has the structure we see today.

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0011070

Superluminal Recession Velocities

Hubble's Law, v=HD (recession velocity is proportional to distance), is a theoretical result derived from the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker metric. v=HD applies at least as far as the particle horizon and in principle for all distances. Thus, galaxies with distances greater than D=c/H are receding from us with velocities greater than the speed of light and superluminal recession is a fundamental part of the general relativistic description of the expanding universe. This apparent contradiction of special relativity (SR) is often mistakenly remedied by converting redshift to velocity using SR. Here we show that galaxies with recession velocities faster than the speed of light are observable and that in all viable cosmological models, galaxies above a redshift of three are receding superluminally.

 

It is a very important point of science that one has to be very careful of every detail. What you name "unnecessary pedant" is essential.

And the same "pedantism" you also need to distinguish between what I criticize and what I do not criticize. If I criticize a detail in a description of inflation, I criticize this detail. It does not follow that I criticize inflation as a theory. And if I clarify such a misinterpretation, to clarify that this criticism is not directed against inflation, but against the nonsensical description of inflation, it does not mean that I'm "squirming".

If you see a contradiction between what he is saying and what other cosmologists are saying, give the details. That means, quotes from above, which, iyo, contractict each other, and we will see if there is a contradiction, and, if there is some, who is correct. If he is correct or not is not a question of belief.

 

"
Firstly............
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/pedantic
Pedant:
There's nothing wrong with focusing on the details, but someone who is pedantic makes a big display of knowing obscure facts and details.
Pedantic means "like a pedant," someone who's too concerned with literal accuracy or formality. It's a negative term that implies someone is showing off book learning or trivia, especially in a tiresome way. You don't want to go antique-shopping with a pedantic friend, who will use the opportunity to bore you with his in-depth knowledge of Chinese porcelain kitty-litter boxes.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Secondly when I say I believe you and Professor Carroll are wrong, I mean you are wrong in the pretentious attitude that other interpretations are wrong and that what you describe is the only one.
As per the scientific papers I have linked to, FTL expansion is still a valid description of what happens to explain recessional velocity.
Thirdly, you misunderstand my meaning when I use the word squirming:
See the pedant definition. Also the obfuscation shown in the following rhetoric........

To claim that Inflation was an epoch of FTL expansion, in no way impinges on the fact that other epochs of spacetime expansion also occurs at FTL: Specifically at this time with regard to the "edge" of our Hubble volume.
Please note carefully, when I used the word "edge" purposely, [just as in the article where you picked up what you inferred to as an error] I mean the edge or circumference of our hubble volume, not inferring the universe has an edge.
That could also be construed as being pedantic.

No more negative or personal then what you also have indulged in.

Congratulations though on picking up the nonsense as inferred by Farsight: Good to see.

 

Paddoboy, I know the meaning of "pedantic", the German translation "pedantisch" is quite accurate here. My point is that in science it is appropriate and even necessary to care much more about getting the details correct. Good intentions or a nice gist are, instead, completely irrelevant.

Note also that I have not named the use of "edges" an error, but have only recommended you to avoid it. (Some pedantic approach in this case too. But, of course, this extends to everything I write, to political theory too. I care about the details, and not, or at least much less, about the gist.)

Note also that there is a difference between an unbased, unjustified attack and a justified one. The problem is not that those who don't like my scientific or political view attack me, but that this is far too often done in a primitive way, without any justification at all, or with strawmen, accusing me of telling things I have never said. A few misunderstandings are for free, no problem, this happens, but if this happens too often, I start to insist that every claim about what I think has to be justified with a quote and a link to the context. So, note, not on stopping the attack, but on justifying the claim with a quote.

 

Here is now my file where I explain another error in common pop-science descriptions of inflation: http://ilja-schmelzer.de/gravity/inflation.php

It discusses also the cosmological horizon problem, and why one needs inflation to solve it.

 

Yep, I have given you that definition.

Then perhaps you need to apply some common sense in your approaches to both science and politics. With regard to "the edges" comment, it was in reference to the edges of one's Hubble volume and quite within reason to apply.

Let me I hope finalise this silly argument. I'm not disagreeing with your interpretation and view in explaining galactic recession...OK? And I have never done this as yet.
What I'm disagreeing with is your claim [which is only an opinion] that saying spacetime expands at FTL is wrong. Now the reputable Professor Carroll may agree with you on this, but there are also reputable others like Professor Krauss, and the ones in the links I have given you that support my interpretation. [Although I must add that you did appear to give a little bit of ground for a short period of time in one post]
Then as I have mentioned, you remain remarkably silent when others make gross idiotic statements like one just this morning [now my time] in another thread re SR.

Also why give a link from your own web page referencing Professor Carroll when I have already given that same link....and why do you believe I did give that link?.

 

I think that judging based on some "gist", ignoring errors if this "gist" is fine, is stupid. According to common sense. Both in science and in politics. In science, the overall culture is higher, and, therefore, such elementary common sense is simply more common. In politics, we have too much lies, distortions and so on, and such a low level of culture, that people with sufficient common sense will simply despise politicians in general. And what is "common sense" among politicians and their supporters is nothing I would care about. It is not implausible that it may be "common sense" for them to evaluate only the "gist" of some text (with us or against us?), and, if the "gist" is fine, to support this nonsense even if it contains horrible errors.

But look at the argument. The expansion has the unit 1/time. A speed has the unit distance/time. To compare them is nonsense. It does not matter at all if I'm alone proposing this argument, or if some Mr. Carroll supports me, or if you think some Mr. Krauss disagrees. The only thing which matters are the scientific arguments. By the way, some more arguments against pop science about inflation you can find at http://ilja-schmelzer.de/gravity/inflation.php

Of course, I do not respond to any idiocy. I have to admit that once I have started a discussion, I tend to continue it, even if the opponent is completely off (as can be seen from my long discussions with joepistole). But I prefer, of course, discussions with more reasonable people. And why I should answer some completely meaningless babble?

 

There are many disagreements on interpretations in science and each side is capable of putting good arguments. And the possibility of each argument being correct is also possible. Explaining this to the god was difficult, when he was inferring that even mainstream science was not consistent in their views and hence invalid. I gave him two interpretations of gravitational lensing that in my opinion are both correct.....[1] We see the light as bending, or my interpretation, [2] Light is simply following geodesics or the shortest path in curved spacetime.
Galactic recession is commonly used both professionally and in pop science interpretations. I see it as legit and a far better way of explaining spacetime expansion and the observed recession of galaxies.