Notice that this has received minimal mention amongst science journalists …
From a recent April 8, 2014 paper titled Fingerprints of Galactic Loop I on the Cosmic Microwave Background …
We have found evidence of local galactic structures such as Loop I in the ILC map of the CMB which is supposedly fully cleaned of foreground emissions. This contamination extends to high galactic latitude so the usual procedure of masking out the Milky Way cannot be fully eective at removing it. It extends to sufficiently high frequencies that it cannot be synchrotron radiation but is more likely magnetic dipole emission from ferro- or ferrimagnetic dust grains, as suggested by theoretical arguments (Draine & Lazarian 1999; Draine & Hensley 2013). This radiation is expected to be highly polarized.
It has not escaped our attention that the lower part of Loop I, in particular the additional loop structure identified by Wolleben (2007), crosses the very region of the sky from which the BICEP 2 experiment has recently detected a B-mode polarisation signal (Ade et al. 2014). This has been ascribed to primordial gravitational waves from inflation because “available foreground models” do not correlate with the BICEP maps. The new foreground we have identied is however not included in these models. Hence the cosmological signicance if any of the detected B-mode signal needs further investigation. Forthcoming polarisation data from the Planck satellite will be crucial in this regard.
It might help to remind people about the former conversations on this subject …
I wish I could also address any of the things said by “Hannes Alfven”, but then I have tried before to no avail. He talks a lot about how modern science is all myth or dogma and how useless peer review is; but at the same time he is happy to quote other things with almost no evidence at all, or straight-out wrong, even Velikovsky’s junk-science-supported-by-junk-history.
I’ve also recently posted on the problems presented to conventional comet theory by the Hale-Bopp comet – which also have failed to materialize in science journalism. When corrections fail to get reported on, it really begs the question of whether our beliefs in science are actually reflective of science. After all, bias is a problem which impacts every individual, so we should expect that science journalists would tend to bias towards our expectations.
Why are you referencing me on this, as if what I said is at all contradicted? I didn’t say this particular detection of gravitational waves was certain, and in fact I understand that new science rarely is. That quote was mostly referring to your ridiculous claim that a near-uniform background radiation isn’t evidence for a big bang at all, because an alternate cosmology that was never uniform but fractal on all scales could always assume one ad hoc. There is a lot wrong in that argument, and it’s not alone in that.
But what do I get out of discussing that with you? It’s been pointed out to you before when you’ve said something plainly false, and I don’t know you’ve ever responded. It’s been pointed out where you have severe double standards for evidence – and here’s another minor case, since you advised everyone to be ultra-skeptical of the previous finding but are taking this one as certain – but still quote the same thing again and again while accusing others of bias.
And again and again; your whole comment history is nothing but repeating the same “just asking questions” and electrical universe talking points. It would be interesting if it were trustworthy, but you’ve made it plain to me it’s not. It’s all just promotion, and bad promotion at that; it’s very much the stuff you see around bad ideas, and if I ever decide plasma cosmology deserves a good look, I will be doing so in spite of the selective evidence and half-truths you post here.
Personally I would consider this a great violation of the no-spamming-talking-points rule, same as people who try to make everything about libertarianism or creationism. The mods are evidently more generous, even after you tried to circumvent a suspension with a sockpuppet account, something I hope you appreciate. So I was going to trust their judgment and leave you to it, you know, focus on some of the other topics other people discuss.
But trying to use me as an example of how people aren’t being fair to your disingenuous arguments, just because I gave up on interacting with it, is different. I don’t like and will avoid people who try to mislead me, but I’m not giving a pass to people who try to mislead about me. I see no other reason to bring me up, and I will ask you to stop and leave me alone.
Also, how many topics like this do you expect to be posting here? You’ve already posted quite a few…
Yes, and the response here has been the same as elsewhere. It’s really quite fascinating to observe … for my general understanding is that this is a blog dedicated to design, and designers are generally familiar with how innovation works. So, it’s a bit perplexing to observe outright hostility to critical thinking in science. There is no sense here or elsewhere that there has been a debate about how to model plasmas for 40 years, and it is based upon the work on cosmic plasmas by a Nobel laureate who created the equations which astrophysicists use to this day to model cosmic plasmas.
My observations of the slashdot community led to surprises as well, for here was a community which had the technical savvy to easily comprehend what plasmas are – and yet the people there consistently refuse to engage the subject on its technical merits.
Cosmology and astrophysics are not like traditional empirical sciences. We are pushing the limits here of what science can do. It’s vital that people take care to carefully contemplate the concepts, critiques and philosophical guidelines. What is happening today online is actually anti-innovation. We need to build new systems for talking about science which actually encourage critical thinking and help people to refer to philosophical principles. I don’t just talk to the Electric Universe theorists; I also communicate with the Critical Thinking Institute and information architects, and I study the works of professional concept mappers and conceptual modelers.
But, would you care to elaborate on your own comment? Are you suggesting that we don’t need critical thinkers in science today?
Is this the right place to keep bringing that same topic up, over and over?
At this point, it feels like holocaust denial and homeopathy apologetics. I am a skeptic about all this physics stuff, but the truculence with which these posts keep coming up is kind of ridic… My vote is to blast them. No one will be harmed, not even me: yet another skeptic.
Is a design website the right place to publish articles on science?
A microwave fog coming at us from all directions is actually what we would expect to see in an electrodynamic universe. Plasmas naturally emit microwaves when they transmit currents. Which part about this is ad hoc?
When people look at that fog and declare that it must be related to the creation of our universe – and then ridicule or socially isolate those who question it – it’s not clear to me that what is happening here is what we would call “science”. There are many ways to explain a microwave fog – using physics – and we should probably hear them all out before settling on the most metaphysical explanation we can think of. Don’t you think?
The mob mentality I see online is really quite extraordinary. It isolates all ideas which deviate from textbook theory, as though they are cancers. The standards for ruling out ideas are completely arbitrary. It mostly follows from what people were taught in school or on television, regardless of how absurd the claim might be. The amount of actual thought and discussion happening online is really quite low. Most of the comments attached to the science articles on BB are pithy remarks. If all I did was post meaningless pithy remarks, then this community would accept me. Is that what I should do?
Partly where you said it’s simply added in, partly where it’s inexplicably uniform; but you haven’t answered what I get out of discussing this with you. What are the odds I’m going to break through your shell of physics confirmation bias and projection, if you don’t understand something as clear and simple as leave me alone?
You know, condensed matter looks quite uniform as well, even though we all know it’s made of molecules. Yet, we don’t try to infer that there is some higher meaning to it. We understand that the uniformity is simply a result of reaching the limit of our ability to observe the structure.
So, is the uniformity truly inexplicable? How hard have those who believe it actually tried to explain it? Something which is inexplicable implies that people have actually checked into many ideas without any success. Something cannot just become inexplicable without people actually trying to listen to competing explanations. There is an important step which has been skipped over here, and I am not a villain for helping people to see that.
You missed the part where she asked you to leave her alone. Again. So far we’ve had dragging others into your crazy pants post, some tl;dr including an appeal to authority, an off-my-lawn type complaint about the level of discourse online, and an inference that you feel you are being unfairly cast as the villain of the piece. Have you considered it might just be that you’re getting on people’s tits?
@HannesAlfven You’ve had your say and you’ve been asked to stop replying to @chenille directly. So here it comes from me, STAHP IT!
This topic was automatically closed after 1035 days. New replies are no longer allowed.