What is needed to disprove an "accepted" theory?

[paddoboy]

The fact that a "standard" GR model nicely fits the LIGO data doesn't rule out the possibility that the data (a) will also be nicely fitted by another theory, such as the one Q-reeus is discussing, or (b) will be better fitted by an alternative theory.

While that is certainly possible, if it happens to be the case, the point is then the incumbent model stands.

From messages quoted above, apparently somebody named Carver is trying to work out what his theory would predict, so that it can be tested against the LIGO data. Results aren't in yet, so we have to wait and see whether he comes up with anything.

Agreed, so why the ridiculous, provocative headlines thus.....
"Simple geometric proof GR's GW's are impossible"

Realise that no data confirms GR, as against all other possible theories. It is conceivable that at some stage we may find data that is inconsistent with GR, and therefore demands that GR be replaced by something else. So far, there's nothing compelling enough to warrant replacing GR by something else yet. But that doesn't mean people have given up trying to find alternatives.

Sure, but if that were to eventuate, that won't happen on this or any other science forum.

The best that can be said about the LIGO data, so far, is that it is consistent with GR being correct. We can also say that there's no proven better theory than GR. But that doesn't mean GR is "confirmed" as some kind of ultimately final theory.

I have never said it is a final theory. I would love a verified, validated QGT to be discovered before I kick the bucket.
Although I believe you underestimate the importance of the aLIGO discovery.
A confirmation of gravitational waves and more certainty for GR, and confirmation also of BH,s.

 

[paddoboy]

In a 'conversation' aka PM some time back, you were privately acknowledged as being a troll, by someone in admin. Live with that thought.

That statement, and that statement alone, confirms the desperation you are in to simply convince anyone that GR GW's are impossible.
Whether it is true or not is irrelevant, although I realize one mod certainly does not like my style:shrug:, although there is a certain amount of irony attached to that fact.

I stand by my claim, that if you really did have anything concrete, you would be doing this in the proper scientific and professional manner, as Carver is doing.
I also stand by my claim that neither you or anyone else will invalidate the aLIGO results from this or any other science forum.
But I'll leave things to you now and let Schmelzer and PhysBang handle you, although they seem to have also realised the futility of some of your reasonings and reactions.

 

[expletives deleted]

paddoboy:

The fact that a "standard" GR model nicely fits the LIGO data doesn't rule out the possibility that the data (a) will also be nicely fitted by another theory, such as the one Q-reeus is discussing, or (b) will be better fitted by an alternative theory.

While that is certainly possible, if it happens to be the case, the point is then the incumbent model stands.

As we just got through agreeing in that other thread, paddoboy, the "incumbent model" may "stand", but not "unquestioned". Have you figured out that, while the incumbent is "there" at the moment, it is open to scientific scrutiny by whomever and wherever that scrutiny is expressed (like, for instance, here at Sciforums)?

So the tone and implication of your repeated "I support mainstream" as some sort of "rebuttal" to said questioning and alternative points at issue must change to reflect this important "rider" to your statement.

Although I believe you underestimate the importance of the aLIGO discovery.
A confirmation of gravitational waves and more certainty for GR, and confirmation also of BH,s.

Your unwavering and uncritical belief that such have been "confirmed" by aLIGO claimed "GW detection" and "BH Binary source Identification" is again premature, paddoboy. Given that the cosmological theory is still in flux and the many questions and possibilities which are at present under consideration which may make the aLIGO claims not as high-sigma as claimed (because of many alternative signal and source characterizations still yet to be fully excluded; owing to the many possible "systemic or analysis artifacts" and "assumptions, interpretations and modeling" biases etc involved that may have produced the aLIGO "events").

So, yes, you have a right to your personal opinion regarding whether you believe or not what aLIGO has claimed; but the scientific process involves, nay demands, much more independent scientific scrutiny for all the possibilities before anyone can accept those claims, no matter what "sigma" level of confidence is currently claimed for the "events".

So paddoboy, I hope that now you can see what James R has tried to point out to you, that is: the difference between your personal uncritical beliefs and opinions, and the objective skepticism and deeper scrutiny demanded by the scientific method.

 

[paddoboy]

paddoboy:

As we just got through agreeing in that other thread, paddoboy, the "incumbent model" may "stand" but not "unquestioned" as the tone and implication of your repeated "I support mainstream" as some sort of "rebuttal" to said questioning and alternative points at issue. Have you figured out that while the incumbent is "there" at the moment, it is open to scientific scrutiny by whomever and wherever that scrutiny is expressed (like, for instance, here at Sciforums).

Question all you like. The big questions though questioning any incumbent model, is mostly expressed by professional experts, not rank amateurs on forums such as this.

Your unwavering and uncritical belief that such have been "confirmed" by aLIGO claimed "GW detection" and "BH Binary source Identification" is again premature, paddoboy. Given that the cosmological theory is still in flux and the many questions and possibilities which are at present under consideration which may make the aLIGO claims not as high-sigma as claimed (because of many alternative signal and source characterizations still yet to be fully excluded; owing to the many possible "systemic or analysis artifacts" and "assumptions, interpretations and modeling" biases etc involved that may have produced the aLIGO "events").

No, wrong. The aLIGO discoveries are accepted as confirmed as illustrated in many scientific parers that you have probably ignored.

So, yes, you have a right to your personal opinion regarding whether you believe or not what aLIGO has claimed; but the scientific process involves, nay demands, much more independent scientific scrutiny for all the possibilities before anyone can accept those claims, no matter what "sigma" level of confidence is currently claimed for the "events".

And likewise you are entitled to your own views, but the views that count are not those in discussions on forums such as this, but the views held by professionals in academia, and in this case with aLIGO it is as I suggested.

So paddoboy, I hope that now you can see what James R has tried to point out to you, that is: the difference between your personal uncritical beliefs and opinions, and the objective skepticism and deeper scrutiny demanded by the scientific method.

James runs a forum lax on rules and content that is banned for its nonsensical nature on other forums. Here at this time with our low participating rate and posts daily, cranks and trolls form a big part.
That doesn't stop me from expressing and pointing out mainstream accepted science when needed, as has often been the case with your own misconceptions in past threads.

 

[expletives deleted]

paddoboy:

Question all you like. The big questions though questioning any incumbent model, is mostly expressed by professional experts, not rank amateurs on forums such as this.

Thanks, but I did not need or request your permission to do just that, paddoboy.

And the fact that such questions have been, and are being asked right here in the science and logics threads/Ops and discussion on Sciforums (just as they also are on other science forums), immediately falsifies your above claims re "Professional experts" having a monopoly on the opportunity and or the qualifications to ask the "big" questions.

Please try to check your posts, for self consistency and or absence of immediate contradiction by the facts, before punching the submit button in future, paddoboy.

No, wrong. The aLIGO discoveries are accepted as confirmed as illustrated in many scientific parers that you have probably ignored.

Just as you already admitted, much of the papers in the current crop are still under the speculative category until the cosmological theory is much better confirmed overall. Until then, just claiming "confirmation" and "high sigma" confidence etc does not in itself guarantee reliability or basis for your own uncritical beliefs of anything issuing from mainstream sources merely going along with the tide of aLIGO claims in order to boost their own publish or perish stats and "acceptability" by peer reviewers. You know this happens. The literature is full of such papers. Please try to take James R's advice and curb your preference for personal opinion and belief above the application of objective scientific scrutiny.

And likewise you are entitled to your own views, but the views that count are not those in discussions on forums such as this, but the views held by professionals in academia, and in this case with aLIGO it is as I suggested.

Anyone who applies the scientific method and objective reason to the observable and logical evidence and implications has ipso facto right to put their scientific views and questions in any venue, whether amateur or professional.

You're taking too much upon yourself, paddoboy, trying to impose your personal likes and dislikes on the scientific discussion in order to subjectively and selectively choose which views you will 'allow' as 'counting'. That way lay unscientific censorship and denial syndrome, paddoboy. Avoid doing that in future; it is against all science method principles.

James runs a forum lax on rules and content that is banned for its nonsensical nature on other forums. Here at this time with our low participating rate and posts daily, cranks and trolls form a big part.
That doesn't stop me from expressing and pointing out mainstream accepted science when needed, as has often been the case with your own misconceptions in past threads.

Has it occurred to you that you are one of the reasons why the participation rates are low? As Nacho just expressed to 'quantum wave', the almost certain chance that you would immediately "bomb' any thread with your cut and pasted links and assertions uncritically based, is enough to dissuade many who would otherwise cheerfully join in the discussion or post their own Ops for discussion.

And, paddoboy, do us all a favor, will you; before you 'see' cranks and trolls of "all types", make sure you are not one of those "types" of trolls and cranks yourself? The self-realizations which may come to you if you took the time to do that honestly might save you and many here much avoidable hassles and animosities (again, something the moderators would no doubt appreciate as it would minimize time needed for interventions etc). Thanks paddoboy.

 

[paddoboy]

Ignoring the usual cluttering.....
The following paper......
http://journals.aps.org/prl/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.241103
concludes thus........
. CONCLUSION
LIGO has detected a second gravitational-wave signal from the coalescence of two stellar-mass black holes with lower masses than those measured for GW150914. Public data associated with GW151226 are available at [89]. The inferred component masses are consistent with values dynamically measured in x-ray binaries, but are obtained through the independent measurement process of gravitational-wave detection. Although it is challenging to constrain the spins of the initial black holes, we can conclude that at least one black hole had spin greater than 0.2. These recent detections in Advanced LIGO’s first observing period have revealed a population of binary black holes that heralds the opening of the field of gravitational-wave astronomy.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

To be able to detect spin in at least one of the BH pairs, adds to the precision and reliability that this instrument and others around the world are capable of finding, and most certainly detecting GW's of GR mode.

 

[Q-reeus]

Agreed, so why the ridiculous, provocative headlines thus.....
"Simple geometric proof GR's GW's are impossible"

How about - because it's correct. And nobody here has so far pointed to any actual relevant flaw in the argument. Especially not you. Instead, 'best effort' has been foolish attempts from two here at implying my #1 is 'incomprehensible words'. Thus blowing back on themselves, implying they have imbecile level comprehension.

Sure, but if that were to eventuate, that won't happen on this or any other science forum.

Endlessly repeated theme. Ditto again in #79. What is true is that a 'test run' here has proven to be a minor disaster in terms of the unexpected levels of hostility, of irrational and disingenuous tactics. That just wastes everyone's time and effort.
Oh, one more thing. When sending or pointing to my 'whole OP' as you put it, did you bother to allow that unless he was logged in (I doubt Thorne would ever consider registering here!), my illustration would be invisible to him? I doubt it. So, assuming there is a next email correspondence, do the right thing, and provide this direct link to that illustration:
https://s26.postimg.org/axee7pdmh/GR_GW_paradox_2.png

 

[Schmelzer]

How about - because it's correct. And nobody here has so far pointed to any actual relevant flaw in the argument.

In itself, your "argument" is not even an argument, but a meaningless collection of words. I have tried to interpret it in a meaningful way. This was not successful, because you have refused to answer some simple questions, and made, therefore, a further discussion meaningless.

Answer the questions, then I may try to continue to give your word salad some meaning.

 

[Q-reeus]

In itself, your "argument" is not even an argument, but a meaningless collection of words. I have tried to interpret it in a meaningful way. This was not successful, because you have refused to answer some simple questions, and made, therefore, a further discussion meaningless.

Answer the questions, then I may try to continue to give your word salad some meaning.

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/si...gws-are-impossible.157012/page-2#post-3392131
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/si...gws-are-impossible.157012/page-2#post-3392171 ***********
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/si...gws-are-impossible.157012/page-3#post-3392192
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/si...gws-are-impossible.157012/page-3#post-3392199
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/si...gws-are-impossible.157012/page-3#post-3392209

Stick to your feigned 'noble position'. Any respect I had for you has evaporated. Attempts to again poison the atmosphere here as per #85 just reinforces that assessment. Do not bother me again.

 

[Schmelzer]

Stop to distribute lies, and I will not bother you.

 

[paddoboy]

How about - because it's correct. And nobody here has so far pointed to any actual relevant flaw in the argument. Especially not you. Instead, 'best effort' has been foolish attempts from two here at implying my #1 is 'incomprehensible words'. Thus blowing back on themselves, implying they have imbecile level comprehension.

Ahhh, the whole world is wrong and I'm its only Saviour argument once again.
Again and as tiresome as it is telling you, if you have anything get it properly peer reviewed. Now! and stop your whinging and whining because people are not dutifully falling into line with your typical anti GR rant.

Endlessly repeated theme. Ditto again in #79. What is true is that a 'test run' here has proven to be a minor disaster in terms of the unexpected levels of hostility, of irrational and disingenuous tactics. That just wastes everyone's time and effort.
Oh, one more thing. When sending or pointing to my 'whole OP' as you put it, did you bother to allow that unless he was logged in (I doubt Thorne would ever consider registering here!), my illustration would be invisible to him? I doubt it. So, assuming there is a next email correspondence, do the right thing, and provide this direct link to that illustration:
https://s26.postimg.org/axee7pdmh/GR_GW_paradox_2.png

Sorry Buddy, Professor Thorne is a professional scientist and argueably the world authority on BH's and associated sciences.
So if you need to be told again, you have nothing, then E-Mail him yourself.

 

[Q-reeus]

Sorry Buddy, Professor Thorne is a professional scientist and argueably the world authority on BH's and associated sciences.
So if you need to be told again, you have nothing, then E-Mail him yourself.

Then you basically acknowledge having failed to email my 'whole OP' for reason I gave in #84. Such emailing being your initiative thus your responsibility to get right. And evidently now refuse to correct that oversight. So be it. Another permanent record for any future reference.

 

[paddoboy]

Then you basically acknowledge having failed to email my 'whole OP' for reason I gave in #84. Such emailing being your initiative thus your responsibility to get right. And evidently now refuse to correct that oversight. So be it. Another permanent record for any future reference.

So be it indeed!
You imagine and picture it the way you like.
You have convinced no one as yet.

 

[James R]

paddoboy:

The fact that a "standard" GR model nicely fits the LIGO data doesn't rule out the possibility that the data (a) will also be nicely fitted by another theory, such as the one Q-reeus is discussing, or (b) will be better fitted by an alternative theory.

While that is certainly possible, if it happens to be the case, the point is then the incumbent model stands.

In case (b), the incumbent model potentially falls and is replaced by the alternative model. Although, one data set alone probably won't immediately bring on that result. Scientists tend to be careful about overturning hugely successful theories.

Agreed, so why the ridiculous, provocative headlines thus.....
"Simple geometric proof GR's GW's are impossible"

I agree that this title looks sensationalist.

Sure, but if that were to eventuate, that won't happen on this or any other science forum.

Probably not.

Notice that the opening post does not refer to work done here on this science forum, but to external work that I suppose is done by an "expert".

I have never said it is a final theory. I would love a verified, validated QGT to be discovered before I kick the bucket.
Although I believe you underestimate the importance of the aLIGO discovery. A confirmation of gravitational waves and more certainty for GR, and confirmation also of BH,s.

I believe I haven't said anything about the importance of the LIGO discovery. What leads you to the conclusion that I have somehow underestimated its importance?

 

[James R]

That statement, and that statement alone, confirms the desperation you are in to simply convince anyone that GR GW's are impossible.

Why are you so desperate to convince people that they are possible? Isn't your own conviction that you have all the answers the same kind of conviction that Q-reeus has?

I stand by my claim, that if you really did have anything concrete, you would be doing this in the proper scientific and professional manner, as Carver is doing.

Q-reeus isn't "doing" anything here, other than pointing to work done by somebody else. Q-reeus apparently believes on the basis of that work done by somebody else that gravitational waves as described by general relativity are impossible. At this stage, I can't say I understand why he has come to that conclusion, but as I said I don't have time to delve into the article he is relying on and he apparently isn't keen on explaining the smoking gun that he believes kills GR GWs.

I also stand by my claim that neither you or anyone else will invalidate the aLIGO results from this or any other science forum.

Nor will you validate them.

Does this mean that we shouldn't discuss different interpretations of the LIGO results here - either your preferred reading of them or Q-reeus's?

 

[James R]

James runs a forum lax on rules and content that is banned for its nonsensical nature on other forums.

Can you show why the theory that Q-reeus has raised in nonsensical?

If so, go to it. If not, I suggest you don't jump to conclusions.

That doesn't stop me from expressing and pointing out mainstream accepted science when needed, as has often been the case with your own misconceptions in past threads.

Please explain why it is not valid to discuss the theory that Q-reeus has referred to here. Don't forget to explain how you know that this is not part of "mainstream" science.

 

[James R]

So be it indeed!
You imagine and picture it the way you like.
You have convinced no one as yet.

What would it take to convince you that Q-reeus is correct, paddoboy? A personal email from Kip Thorne saying he agrees with Q-reeus, perhaps?

More importantly, what information do you have, if any, that is directly relevant to Q-reeus's theory, that shows that it is mistaken?

It's one thing to try to drown him out by posting irrelevancies. It's another thing to actually address the thread topic.

 

[James R]

Oh, and just for the record, in case paddoboy somehow thinks I've gone over to the Dark Side or something...

How about - because it's correct. And nobody here has so far pointed to any actual relevant flaw in the argument.

Here we have a belief statement from Q-reeus, followed by a statement about what people have shown in this thread. I admit that I am not currently in a position to judge whether Q-reeus's strongly held belief is, in fact, correct. My suspicion is that he is wrong, but I can't be sure, so I am content to reserve judgment on the matter pending more information (which may well not come to me in this thread or on this forum, or indeed at all).

But the second statement appears to me to be correct. Nobody here has pointed to an actual flaw in the argument, as far as I can see. That's because nobody has really addressed the actual argument, not because it is necessarily flawless.

 

[Q-reeus]

paddoboy quoted:
Agreed, so why the ridiculous, provocative headlines thus.....
"Simple geometric proof GR's GW's are impossible"

I agree that this title looks sensationalist.

James, surely what matters is whether subsequent content of such admittedly assertive headline stands up to objective scrutiny. Have you noticed anything so far here that could pass on that criteria?
And btw, like the subsequent rapid-fire posts!

 

[paddoboy]

paddoboy:
In case (b), the incumbent model potentially falls and is replaced by the alternative model. Although, one data set alone probably won't immediately bring on that result. Scientists tend to be careful about overturning hugely successful theories.

Hmmm, I disagree. Unless any new theory makes any further predictions, or matches any further observations above and beyond any incumbent theory, then the incumbent theory stands. I believe we do have examples of this.

I agree that this title looks sensationalist.

That's nice.

Probably not.

Probably not. While the chances of that happening is certainly non zero, it's far closer to zero then 1.

Notice that the opening post does not refer to work done here on this science forum, but to external work that I suppose is done by an "expert".

The OP makes the outrageous, unsupported claim that GR type GW's are impossible. That is totally wrong.
And while the work done maybe external to this forum, it is still not peer reviewed and is overwhelmingly invalidated by the many many reputable, peer reviewed papers and the excellence of the precision of the experiments themselves and the thousands of scientists around the world, helping in achieving the known confirmations.

I believe I haven't said anything about the importance of the LIGO discovery. What leads you to the conclusion that I have somehow underestimated its importance?

This....

The best that can be said about the LIGO data, so far,

With all due respect, perhaps you may be unaware of the efforts that were initiated to allow for all possible contingencies and of course the best possible accurracies and precisions that were undertaken to make this experiment [aLIGO] along with GP-B as two of the greatest experiments of recent times, and perhaps since the start of the age of cosmology. There are many papers alluding to that fact.

Why are you so desperate to convince people that they are possible? Isn't your own conviction that you have all the answers the same kind of conviction that Q-reeus has?

My desperation comment was in reply to the remark by q-reeus thus......

In a 'conversation' aka PM some time back, you were privately acknowledged as being a troll, by someone in admin. Live with that thought.

Now I'm not sure if you as the owner of this forum, condone the less than decent and reasonable tactics of divulging PM's but I see it as a mark of desperation, performed by desperate trolls that resent being brought face to face with the truth, as I have presented to q-reeus.
Whether what he claims is true or not, I don't give a flying fuck, but I do know that PM's I have had with mods and yourself, stay as PM's and will not be disclosed, unless with express permission and extenuating circumstances.
BTW, the same desperate tactic is also pulled by the less then reputable charecter, expletive deleted.
But hey!, If you condone that sort of stuff, [revealing PM's] then great! I'll withdraw the comment/s.

Q-reeus isn't "doing" anything here, other than pointing to work done by somebody else. Q-reeus apparently believes on the basis of that work done by somebody else that gravitational waves as described by general relativity are impossible. At this stage, I can't say I understand why he has come to that conclusion, but as I said I don't have time to delve into the article he is relying on and he apparently isn't keen on explaining the smoking gun that he believes kills GR GWs.

Pointing out? I refer you to the thread title once again...and the other thread title claiming GR is invalidated.
And if you have the time, perhaps you can afford that time in checking out q-reeus's posts and his continued claim of liars, trolls, etc etc, including of course me, PhysBang, and less then complimentary remarks to another professional
Schmelzer . BTW, before we get any remarks from the peanut gallery, Schmelzer and myself, have been also known to be in fervent disagreement about a few things. Yet he also writes off the q-reeus claim as bunkum.

Nor will you validate them.

I'm not a physicist James: Like the god, expletive deleted, dmoe, and others, I'm a lay person.
Plus of course I do not need to validate the aLIGO results: That has already been done. All I'm doing is spreading the incredible message that again, GR and Einstein have been further validated.

Does this mean that we shouldn't discuss different interpretations of the LIGO results here - either your preferred reading of them or Q-reeus's?

I don't believe there are different interpretations of the aLIGO results within aLIGO. The only result that has been confirmed is GR type GW's, caused by binary BH systems.
Any other interpretations are rather few, if we can go by the Internet and subsequent news. The only one so far is the yet to be reviewed hypothetical raised by q-reeus. When that is done, and when proper peer review express the misgivings of the ridiculous thread title, then we may have something.Some free advice though...Don't hold your breath.