What is needed to disprove an "accepted" theory?

Do you lack the balls to admit that you said....

and then refuse to admit to an error?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Or expeletive deleted, please show any reference that says anything re Sir Roger Penrose being a "founding Father" of the BB theory.
Anything!!! C'mon, the balls in your court!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

[no pun intended

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

]

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

paddoboy:

Regarding your "challenge" to James R (a very patient and tolerant admin or moderator, by any measure!), have you considered the common factor in the whole "reports" stream? It seems to be you! In the form of your unceasing incitements and inflaming and appeals to authority spam (bombs) and insults and name calling and etc; with which others may naturally take issue, because it is against the rules and disruptive to science discussion on merits of OP and arguments in support, and not on your personal opinions and attributions and biases against the person posting.

So paddoboy, the posting and reports history shows many of the flare ups, and in kind aggrieved retaliations, from others are due to you coming into a thread and disparaging and insulting while having no scientific arguments of your own to counter OP etc. How can you be blind to that "common factor" in all the messes that James R and other moderators have to waste their valuable time cleaning up after you?

Get some proportion and self control, paddoboy. Try that for a while. Stop playing the "injured party" with James R, and just desist from your usual "reportable" behavior. Then see who the troublemakers are if YOU do not start the trouble. James R and other moderators will then have an easier time spotting the trolls apart from yourself if you are not so prolific in trolling as you have been to date. Thanks.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Still avoiding the issue of being in error...again?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

A case of the pot calling the kettle black, if there ever was one!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And when I have trolls/cranks, ganging up on me, submitting reports, having more than one handle, etc to make any semblance of a case, then I'm certain I'm doing something right.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Now are you going to admit to your errors.....including the nonsensical claim of yours re the Hulse-Taylor binary Pulsar system for which they received the Nobel prize for.
Then I'll answer all your questions...every last one of them.....

 

paddoboy:

The question of the reliability of "experts" calling something "nonsense" even when they have no answer, or the time to consider and answer properly, is still before you paddoboy; as illustrated by that Penrose example where he too did what all the Big Bang "experts" did at one stage. Now that previously labeled "nonsense" question they avoided has become mainstream research subject matter. Have you learned anything from that as to the implications for your own appeals to "expert" authority that has not properly considered or faced the detailed questions and subtle points made in discussion on this site?

The rest is diversion from you. Please stick to the germain point made to you via Penrose example as described. Thanks, paddoboy.

 

paddoboy:

Read the history properly. He was one of the mathematicians who helped ESTABLISH that Big Bang as a theory. Founding fathers were of many types and over long time during the evolution of the initial BB hypothesis to the final mathematical basis version having THEORY STATUS.

Please stop picking nits and splitting hairs in order to evade the main point made to you which you have not yet even acknowledged let alone indicated having learned anything from. Go back to the original Penrose example re "experts'" and "nonsense" which I posted to you. Then come back and face that point bravely without any further evasion tactics, and tell us what you have learned regarding its implications for your own "appeals to authority" bombing. Thanks.

 

You claimed he was one of the founding Fathers of the BB theory.
You are wrong again...unless you can show me any reputable article claiming Sir Roger Penrose was one of the founding Fathers of the BB, 40 years or more after it was proposed by Father George LaMaitre.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Oh stop it! I have a belly ache! you said.....
paddoboy:

I'm really not interested in your pretentious attempts to preach to me about anything after having "lost it" just a few days ago.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

paddoboy:

Do you understand the difference between postulation-hypothesis stage and mathematically establishing said things to THEORY STATUS, paddoboy?

In any case, it's semantics. I consider him as one of the "establishers" of the Big Bang hypothesis to THEORY status. What you and others call him in semantics is your own affair.


Now, again, have you addressed and thought about the implications of the Penrose example and turn-about regarding "experts" and "nonsense" etc which I posted to you originally?

If you have, then please tell if you do (or not) see the obvious implications for your present "bombing" of appeals to authority "experts" who may casually call something "nonsense" for many reasons, including kneejerking etc (which Penrose also indulged in early on and later regretted; eg, in order to avoid facing and answering properly the legitimate scientific and logical question of "What came before Big Bang?").

 

You said......

But nice to see a retraction of sorts.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Big_Bang_theory
Not a mention of Penrose with relation to the BB theory, but I do remember as I said, some work with Hawking re singularities in the late sixties.
The BB was properly accepted in the fifties and was validated much further in the early/mid sixties with the discovery of the CMBR, and its two competing hypotheticals, "Steady State" and "Oscillating" fell well out of favour at that time.

Obviously due to your fixation and misunderstanding of "appeals to authority"you have the bull by the balls...that's dangerous.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Perhaps you have forgotten,

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

or perhaps it was the god I explained it to,
If I want expert opnion on growing tomatoes, I don't approach a dentist.
By the same token, the expert opnion obtained from cosmologists/astronomers/ physicists, is a valid method of gathering info and views and most certainly over rides the opinion/views/ and misunderstandings of cranks, trolls and even lay people like myself and the said trolls and cranks, who frequent science forums.
To constantly write them off, or claim pop science, is just a cop out and makes no sense.
Rest assured for the benefit of this science community as a whole, I will whenever able and whenever inclined, get whatever professional, authoritive expert opinion on the subject of GR and cosmology, from those most qualified to give it.
I hope that satisfies you my friend, and again congrats on at least stepping away from the rather silly inference you made re Penrose and the BB.
Perhaps if I keep trying hard enough, I may even get you to see your nonsensical aspect in relation to the Hulse-Taylor Pulsar system and the evidence of gravitational waves.

 

paddoboy:

Enough semantics and distractions and evasion tactics, paddoboy.


The original and salient point made to you, paddoboy, was and still is:

Penrose example tells of his regrets re "experts" and "nonsense" response (due to kneejerking etc) to legitimate scientific and logical questions and challenges.

Does that have any implications for the reliability of your own 'bombed' appeals to authority "experts" and "nonsense" responses (due to possibly kneejerking etc) to questions/challenges without proper addressing and answering of possibly subtle difference and details raised in discussions here?

That is all you have to indicate, either way, for this exchange to be properly concluded, paddoboy. Thanks.

 

It is impossible to argue with Paddoboy and bring him to rationality. I have tried and failed, James R tried and failing, ED is trying and failing, Q-reeus failed and stopped engaging, Smelzer called him and gave up, Dhansaven gave up, DMOE gave up..... The list is endless. Although it appears that he is with mainstream without understanding but he can be on either side of the argument depending on the wind direction. He wont let anyone put his hands on his shoulders. May be Thorne yes, David Yes, Hamilton Yes, Link Yes. Not some member of an obscure science forum like this. [Obscure science forum = Paddoboy epitaph for this forum].

 

No, no ,no...no semantics, no distractions and no evasion tactics, unless you are performing them.
You claimed Penrose was one of the founding Fathers of the BB.
You were wrong.
You then claimed he was instrumental in bringing it from hypothetical to theory stage,,,,,,
You were wrong again.
You claimed the Hulse-Taylor binary Pulsar was a case of magnetism.
Again, you were wrong. And that's why both gentlemen got the Nobel prize for that effort.
And of course your question was answered, as I do most all questions, unless those asked with a hidden agenda as trolls are apt to do.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And yet again, despite the gathering of the trolls and name dropping with regards to James, it is your posts, that end up at pseudoscience, free thoughts and even the cesspool.
Why do you think that is?
You need to do better then playing tag with your mate.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

ps; you did forget Farsight in your list.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

In the company of professional experts, is not really called for.
I'm intent on quoting or E-Mailing the greats as opposed to those on obscure forums such as this.
Thank you anyway.

 

This one is funnier than your emojis....

 

That could be, either I have posted some BS or Mods were not equipped to understand that. But in your case it is clearly BS..

 

Returning to the question in the subject line: "What is needed to disprove an accepted theory", my response would be that accepted theories are rarely disproved.

Problematic observations don't typically disprove theories in the strict logical sense. And even if they did, the threatened theory can usually be saved by modifying auxiliary assumptions around the edges to once again make it logically consistent with observation. I get the feeling that in cosmology, imagining variations in the cosmological constant (or the mass-density of the universe) has served as a giant fudge factor in permitting that, as cosmic inflation and dark energy were grafted onto earlier theory.

What happens is that over time, problematic observations and the ad-hoc adjustments in the prevailing theory necessary to make room for them add up. The theory becomes less pleasing aesthetically, and starts to look more and more contrived. So theorists are motivated to hypothesize about alternative ways of conceiving things that appear cleaner, simpler and more elegant.

 

paddoboy:

Stop with your distractions which are irrelevant to the germain point, paddoboy. I call him founding father in ESTABLISHING stage of big bang maths THEORY. You and others may disagree. So, I agree to disagree. No more need to be distracted by semantics and opinions on that.

Now as Yazata says, "Returning to the question in the subject line: "What is needed to disprove an accepted theory", my response would be that accepted theories are rarely disproved."

Now as to Magnetic forces responsible for Orbital decay observed in Hulse-Taylor etc binary systems

Have you or anyone actually refuted what I just pointed out about the extreme E-M forces which interact and produce E-M radiation that draws energy out of that binary dynamics system even more than any purely balanced gravitational-inertial interplay can given the known science regarding those extreme-bodies and different dynamics and forces?

If you have any valid scientific or logical refutation of that, paddoboy; or know of any which you base your so far unsupported opinion on, please post references to same. Until then, please don't keep bombing mere claims which are the subject of the challenge represented by the E-M forces perspective mentioned by me for your proper consideration (not for your repeated denials with appeals to authority which do not actually address my point as made). Thanks.

Anyhow, did you read what Yazata just posted re theory and corrections to same etc?

If so, do you understand that at one time, early on before new information and reviews which bring into question aspects which were claimed (but may not be as claimed now, and which no earlier Nobel can make valid now), a Nobel may have been given which later proves to be done due to possibly incorrect assumptions or now-questionable interpretations or just plain incomplete information?

Your faith in Nobels, reputations and orthodoxy imprimaturs, makes you unequipped for objective and advancing self-correcting science and discussion on its merits now (not in some error prone earlier era), paddoboy. Please leave it to those so equipped, and stop bombing and distracting and making claims and opinions for mainstream which mainstream does not claim or opine for itself.

Thankyou, paddoboy. Best.

 

Distractions? Irrelevancy??

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

More just a cop out.
Let me again say in no uncertain terms, you were wrong in claiming that Penrose was a founding Father of the BB, and also wrong in insinuating that he had any say in raising it from hypothesis to theory stage.
His only connection to the BB theory was in conjunction with Hawking and talks of the Singularity and nature of.
But of course you can stopthis right now by showing some reputable history or link claiming Penrose was either one of the founding Fathers, or instrumental in establishing the BB.
Afterall you did mention you have read his history, so nows your chance to verify what you claim.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

No one has ever claimed that magnetic forces do not have some effect, but the evidence shows that energy lost via gravitational radiation is the main cause and matches what is seen in orbital decay......
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1411.3930.pdf

Abstract
The 1974 discovery, by Russell A. Hulse and Joseph H. Taylor, of the first binary pulsar PSR B1913+16, opened up new possibilities for the study of relativistic gravity. PSR B1913+16, as well as several other binary pulsars, provided direct observational proofs that gravity propagates at the velocity of light and has a quadrupolar structure. Binary pulsars also provided accurate tests of the strong-field regime of relativistic gravity. General Relativity has passed all the binary pulsar tests with flying colors. The discovery of binary pulsars had also very important consequences for astrophysics: accurate measurement of neutron star masses, improved understanding of the possible evolution scenarios for the coevolution of binary stars, proof of the existence of binary neutron stars emitting gravitational waves for hundreds of millions of years, before coalescing in catastrophic events radiating intense gravitational-wave signals, and probably leading also to important emissions of electromagnetic radiation and neutrinos. This article reviews the history of the discovery of the first binary pulsar, and describes both its immediate impact, and its longer-term effect on theoretical and experimental studies of relativistic gravity.


Concluding remarks
The 1974 discovery of the first binary pulsar has given us a cornucopia of important scientific benefits. The most spectacular ones concern the first experimental evidence that Einstein’s theory of General Relativity is valid beyond the usually tested quasi-stationary, weak-field regime. Indeed, binary pulsar data have probed, for the first time, relativistic gravity in regimes involving (either together or separately) radiative effects and strong-field effects. The citation accompanying the award, in October 1993, of the Nobel Prize in Physics to Russell A. Hulse and Joseph H. Taylor read: “for their discovery of a new type of pulsar, a discovery that has opened up new possibilities for the study of gravitation”. As we have discussed, these new possibilities for studying gravitation have been even more sucessful than what was envisaged in the months following the discovery. Even more importantly, the class of systems discovered by Hulse and Taylor promises to bring new discoveries in the near future, through the physics of the late stages of evolution of compact binaries: gravitational waves, probes of nuclear-matter equation of state, possible connection with gamma-ray bursts,. . . Let us finally mention the hope that radio pulsars in orbit around a black hole will soon be discovered. The black hole companion could be either a ∼ 10 M⊙ black hole, or, possibly, a much more massive black hole. Recently, a magnetar was discovered near the massive (∼ 4 × 106 M⊙) black hole at the center of our Galaxy [97]. Searches are underway for discovering pulsars having better timing stability, and closer to the galactic center. Such a discovery would be a fantastic new milestone for General Relativity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1209.0667.pdf

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1209.0667.pdf


http://arxiv.org/pdf/1407.2164.pdf
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Due to the fact that the evidence shows that gravitational radiation was the prime result of the Hulse-Taylor binary Pulsar system, as well as many others, they were awarded the Nobel prize for physics.
Yes, I can understand how you may now like to deride, denigrate at attempt to cheapen the world recognised top award for the sciences, but I really suggest you do some inner soul searching.
You, as a no body [like me] rattling away and preaching your gospel on a public science forum, really and truly, makes absolutely no difference to anything in academia and the professional ranks, just by the way as James has also mentioned.
The question that needs to be asked is how, and/or why so many cranks are under such delusional complexes as to believe they are making any difference to the science world in general.

On that score, I may take James advice and leave you to stew in your own juice with of course your next lengthy evangelistic lesson naturally directed at me.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Unless of course you do have some link to support your nonsensical claim re Penrose and/or the Hulse-Taylor Pulsar Nobel prize winning evidence for gravitational waves.

 

Fact!!
Most of your threads questioning standard cosmology, and raving against mods and/or myself, are shifted to the fringes.
If you want to stop that, start talking sense.