Nature peer-reviewed article debunking computer model doomsday climate change predictions is censored by mainstream media

climate change scaremongering scandal

Nature peer-reviewed article debunking computer model doomsday climate change predictions is censored by mainstream media

“It has been claimed that the early-2000s global warming slowdown or hiatus, characterized by a reduced rate of global surface warming, has been overstated, lacks sound scientific basis, or is unsupported by observations. The evidence presented here contradicts these claims.” – John C. Fyfe, et al., Making sense of the early-2000s warming slowdown, Nature Climate Change journal, v6, March 2016, page 224 (below).

Nature debunks climate change hype liars

Summary of the key evidence of the failure of doom predictions from 124 simulations of 24 CMIP-5 scare mongering computer models, as published in peer reviewed Nature.   This confirms that the official models which ignore feedback are wrong, as explained in detail in our “Failure Evidence for All 21 Ipcc Positive-Feedback Climate Models” http://vixra.org/abs/1302.0044  They can be fitted to 195-98 (by means of epicycles and fiddles), but are debunked by the latest observations.

1. In the most widely-hyped scare-mongering climate change report by IPCC in 2007, all 21 of its “different” models all identically ignored negative feedback entirely, while including all-positive feedback from water. Thus, they implicitly and wrongly assumed that warm moist air that absorbs heat doesn’t rise, expand and condense into sunlight absorbing clouds well above the ground/ocean/icecaps.

2. Dr Roy Spencer’s peer reviewed paper found that you can only identify negative feedback in specific tropical weather systems, where CO2 heating of the ocean generates cloud cover that soon wipes out surface temperature rises (below cloud bases). Idiot “critics” then pointed out that you don’t see water negative feedback in other data pertaining to land (no water to evaporate) and clear skies (no cloud cover). You can only see water’s negative feedback over the tropical monsoon systems that Spencer studied. This, “critics” claimed falsely, debunked Spencer’s findings. (By similar crackpot “reasoning”, the absence of ice in the sun would be held to prove that ice doesn’t exist.)

3. Correlation is not causation, so the biased data selection of a temperature correlation to CO2 doesn’t validate the simplistic greenhouse effect of CO2 controlling climate. In a greenhouse with an atmosphere about 100 miles high and with 71% ocean area, CO2 heating inevitably causes additional water evaporation: moist air that absorbs sunshine, heats, expands and rises buoyantly until it reaches cold air, where it makes additional clouds. The upper surfaces of the clouds heat up, reflecting and also absorbing energy and trapping the “energy imbalance” far away from the ground, ocean, ice caps.

4. This is “negative feedback” from water: the heating of the atmosphere seen from satellite albedo (reflected heat) and microwave temperature sensors that determine oxygen’s temperature. The satellite temperature data is biased against recording any negative feedback at all, because negative feedback by its nature only occurs under cloud cover (evaporation causes more cloud cover, negating as Spencer found, most of the warming effects of CO2).

5. The main driver of temperature as Nigel Calder (1950s New Scientist editor) recently proved is cloud cover seeding by natural cosmic rays, see https://calderup.wordpress.com/2012/03/03/climate-physics-101/ which is the inverse effect of the “no go theorem” used by deniers of natural climate change to debunk the idea that energy delivery is proportional to temperature. In the case of cosmic rays, as proved by C.T.R. Wilson’s Nobel Prize winning “Wilson cloud chamber”, the more ionizing radiation, the more ion trails for water droplets to condense upon, and thus the more cooling by clouds. The bigoted human climate change crackpots ignore this vital mechanism, and instead claim that Calder’s inverse correlation between cosmic ray intensity and climate temperature debunks the role of cosmic rays! In fact, it proves it, since cosmic rays boost the ionization that causes water vapour to condense into clouds, but deliver insignificant heating energy!

debunked hockey stick

Above: as we’ve long explained using controlled experiments with ice outdoors in the sun and in the shade and trees in shade and sun, tree ring growth proxies and ice sublimation (oxygen-16 to oxygen-18 ratio data, since lighter water molecules in ice sublime more readily -with less energy) are debunked by negative feedback (cloud cover increases due to increased evaporation from warming oceans in a real world “greenhouse” with oceans). In a nutshell, tree growth and ice sublimation doesn’t respond to temperature in the way observed in controlled experiments where cloud cover isn’t varied.

In the real world, the mean percentage of the sky covered by cloud increases with ocean temperature due to evaporation increasing the humidity and thus the percentage of the earth covered by saturated air (clouds).  This increase in clouds with temperature cuts down solar solar radiation exposure to trees and ice, thus shading them, and offsetting the effects of air temperature variation!  Thus, the flat part of Michael Mann’s hockey stick is not a real constant temperature, but instead is provably just the misinterpretation of the proxies.  You cannot determine any temperatures from ice sublimation or tree ring growth, because as mean air temperature rises, mean cloud cover also increases (evaporation of water from warm oceans) causing negative feedback, and offsetting the effect of the air temperature increase.  It proves impossible to get the few climate hype skeptical journalists like James Delingpole to grasp this.  This universally suppressed mechanism proves that climate is naturally far more variable than Mann indicates using unreliable ice and tree proxies.  Mann’s rising part of the hockey stick (20th century direct temperature measurements) is more reliable, but disagrees with tree records from the same period.  Instead of using this fact to debunk the entire set of tree and ice “proxies”, he simply cuts and pastes in the direct measurements, ignoring the discrepancy.  Journalists are complicit in this cover up, by making speculative or strawman style arguments instead of sticking to hard facts.  Once you grasp the mechanism, you can see that the recent apparent correlation of temperature to CO2 level isn’t impressive, since the natural variability means that at any time it’s about 50% likely that the temperature is naturally rising and 50% likely that its falling.  It’s not a flat line that suddenly goes up when CO2 emissions rise.

This Nature paper debunking the official models is being ignored by the BBC just as my paper explaining the mechanism is ignored by Nature.  The mainstream media avoids direct science controversy reporting and it is taboo to do scientific investigative reporting.

This is also relevant to quantum field theory controversy.  The mainstream media’s position of reverence to science’s “expert authority” (where it happens to suit their political agenda) can be amusingly debunked by taking the same position with their political reporting as follows:

  1. Only the government’s own famous politicians in charge are contemporary “expert authorities” in politics because they have power and full access to secret data, so only their speeches and writings are worthy of reporting. Opposition politicians are not in power, don’t know all the facts, and certainly aren’t in a position of similar authority.
  2. Anyone criticising the government is unfashionable by definition and thus boring.
  3. Reporting criticisms of the government will confuse the public, who won’t know what to believe.
  4. Trying to get to the bottom of controversy by looking at evidence and facts takes too much time, effort, and expertise that the media don’t have.  More money can be had more easily from fashionable celebrity interviews and censoring out fact based criticisms/alternative ideas.

These tactics by the mainstream media in politics would turn democracy into dictatorship. So why on earth do they do the same in science, which is supposed to be liberal with regards to freedom of information, new ideas and criticism of dogma?

(This post on politically corrupted media pseudo-science is cross-posted on our other blog, here.)

In the same way, nuclear weapons effects are routinely exaggerated by using idealized test data blast and radiation transmission in open deserts and from people outdoors (not in concrete buildings) in low-skyline Japanese cities (Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 1945). The exaggerations are then used by antinuclear bigots like CND to try not to lower the yields, but to try to ban nuclear weapons. However, this is debunked by an inspection of declassified surveys proving excellent survival rates in concrete buildings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki where fires were extinguished with simple water buckets (the firestorm peaked 2-3 hours later, not instantly as in CND type propaganda). It is further debunked for nuclear terrorism in recent studies of blast and radiation transmission in modern concrete skylines, which greatly absorb energy from the blast wave thus attenuating it, as well as absorbing radiation. Few people end up with burns, blast or radiation sickness inside modern concrete buildings. But even if they did, and even if nuclear weapons effects were exaggerated, couldn’t we just reduce the yields of stockpiled weapons instead of disarming? This is never discussed, a fact which tells you what’s going on.

As physicist Richard P. Feynman put it in his lectures on “This unscientific age”, since nuclear fallout is insignificant compared to natural background radiation, the anti-nuclear folk must be more concerned about banning natural exposure than nuclear test fallout (e.g., banning naturally radioactive potassium-40 in coffee and bananas, natural cosmic radiation in visits to mountain tops, Denver, and air travel). It is simply untruthful to hype a smaller threat as a danger while ignoring one a hundred times greater which is natural, and it is untruthful to claim that natural hazards are unavoidable. In other words, idealistic politics, not genuine nuclear safety, drives CND folk. Some are deluded by personality liars and nasty pseudo-scientists, but most can grasp that we need compact nuclear weapons to deter the invasions and military attacks that set of both world wars, when bulky, expensive conventional arms and mobilization not only failed to deter war, but helped to start it in 1914. As with eugenics, today’s media accepts anti-nuclear bigotry due to its lazy reliance on “science authority”. When you take account of the actual scaling for realistic city effects of nuclear weapons, the effects are not of a different order to conventional weapons. The millions of conventional weapons in a large war are actually equivalent to the thousands of nuclear weapons in a stockpile: there’s no “overkill”. The use of weapons to produce particular effects such as fallout, akin to lingering mustard gas bomb fears in WWII, were deterred and also largely negated by simple countermeasures and widespread education in defence.

In all of these examples, the media refuses to get engaged with the scientific arguments, preferring to quote “authority” figures, personalities, instead. This is precisely why the public remains ill-informed and the controversies are never ended by hard factual debunking of propaganda. Fundamental physics controversies are similarly treated as taboo by the media, by claiming it to be a mathematically “boring” subject, far beyond the skills of journalists to engage with. Instead, obsolete and often wrong interpretations of the equations are given, such as the notion that there is a single amplitude or wavefunction associated with a particle (that is the false 1st quantization theory, debunked by Dirac’s 2nd quantization and Feynman’s path integral). A particle in a “quantum computer” doesn’t have a single wavefunction amplitude which remains unchanging and indeterminate until measured, storing entangled state information that can be used to compute. Instead, as Feynman showed clearly in 1985, in relativistic quantum mechanics, it’s being endlessly affected by random interactions with field quanta. There is one wavefunction amplitude for every one of these interactions, which must be summed: the electron’s state is continually being changed by discrete, quantum interactions with its particulate Coulomb field. This has never been clearly revealed in the popular media, to debunk Bohr’s and Schroedinger’s incorrect (non-relativistic) belief in a single wavefunction amplitude per particle. Enforced ignorance and apathy results.

Truth (the complete facts) versus propaganda (selected facts used to enforce bigotry)

Truth (the complete facts) versus propaganda (selected facts used to enforce bigotry)

Nigel Cook quantum gravity the 1996 quantitative prediction of dark energy from a simple ENTIRELY FACT BASED calculation before its discovery in 1998 by perlmutter leading to his Nobel prize

It is now 20 years since 1996, when we proved using existing facts that we can predict dark energy:

  1. The mass of the universe can be estimated from observations of density and size.
  2. Newton’s second empirical law F = ma relates a force to mass and acceleration.
  3. The gravity cross-section is calculable from Feynman’s rules, by scaling an observed nuclear weak force cross-section to gravitation using the observed ratio of gravitational to Fermi (weak force) coupling.
  4. Applying simple Casimir geometry, facts 1-3 above predict dark energy from gravity!

What I’ve found however, from Physical Review Letters nonsense (here and here) as well as bigoted nonsense in Physics Forums and from physics friends, some with research PhD’s like Mario Rabinowitz, is that the above list of simple facts which predicted quantitatively a good, accurate estimate of dark energy in 1996, two years before observation, is hated.

It’s either falsely deemed “speculative” when it’s not, or it’s deemed to predict nothing, when it factually predicted a discovery in 1998 that won a Nobel prize for Perlmutter who observed evidence for dark energy in supernovae redshifts, or it’s simply hated for being “unorthodox”.

What we have in today’s “science” is an untruthful perversion of facts by propaganda, which deliberately censors out facts that would lead in new directions.  This is nothing “new”, we saw it in the way that people pandered to eugenicists like Charles Darwin’s cousin, Sir Francis Dalton, and also gas chamber pro-fascist eugenicist and Medical Nobel Laureate, Alexis Carrell.  Nobody ever opposed eugenics scientifically by simply pointing out that evolution requires diversity, e.g. diversity of ideas.  That’s why theoretical physics bigots have a field day now, turning it into groupthink socialism or a form of power-corrupt communism, a self-praising form of hatred towards all expressions of individual progress that don’t fit into a union or group that’s based on hatred towards innovators. Fact based theory is hated by everybody because there is no way to oppose it truthfully; all opposing the full facts (the truth) are wrong.  Everyone opposing the truth is wrong.  Of course, many of those nasty guys will have excuses to hand.  They don’t have time for such things, it’s somebody else’s responsibility, or whatever.

If instead of expressing ignorant hatred towards calculations they have not bothered to read, they spend just a small fraction of that wasted time on objective criticism and discussion, just imagine what progress could be made rapidly in quantum gravity!

Gravitational waves detected by LIGO from black hole collisions a billion years ago

Hat tip to vixra blog for these newly released plots of LIGO gravitational waves:

11 Feb 2016 LIGO gravitational wave data

gravitational wave discovery3

Physical Review Letters paper by B. P. Abbott et al., on discovery of gravitational waves, 11 February 2016
Physical Review Letters paper by B. P. Abbott et al., on discovery of gravitational waves, 11 February 2016.

The gravitational-wave event GW150914 observed by the LIGO Hanford (H1, left column panels) and Livingston (L1, right column panels) detectors. Times are shown relative to September 14, 2015 at 09:50:45 UTC:

gravitational wave discovery2

B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO collaboration), “Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger”, Physical Review Letters, volume 116, 061102 (2016):

“On September 14, 2015 at 09:50:45 UTC the two detectors of the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory simultaneously observed a transient gravitational-wave signal. The signal sweeps upwards in frequency from 35 to 250 Hz with a peak gravitational-wave strain of 1.0 × 10−21. It matches the waveform predicted by general relativity for the inspiral and merger of a pair of black holes and the ringdown of the resulting single black hole. … These observations demonstrate the existence of binary stellar-mass black hole systems. This is the first direct detection of gravitational waves and the first observation of a binary black hole merger.”

The two detectors used simply a long, large mass (a  tunnel in the ground) whose position was monitored by laser beams.  Working backwards from the observed signal to a possible cause using general relativity, the theory-interpreting “phenomenologists” (people tied to hyping one theory by ignoring all other theories that include gravity waves with different spin polarizations are bigots, not true phenomenologists who are careful to avoid the epicycles-error of contaminating data with one of many theoretical interpretations, in order to hype the theory as predicting the data, when really other theories could do that plus predict dark energy as well!) suggest the source is a pair of black holes of about 30 solar masses each, which collided 1.3 billion years ago – and 1.3 billion light years away (since gravity travels at light speed) and released enough gravitational wave energy to be detected here with the observed waveform.

The delay time between each detector station measuring the gravitational waveform was 7 milliseconds, corresponding to the light-speed difference in arrival time for the two stations.  The difficulty in detecting gravitational waves, requiring immense detectors and immensely massive, rapidly accelerating masses, stems from the relatively small gravitational coupling, which is a factor of about 10^40 times smaller than that of electromagnetism.  The seismic background activity on the earth (small tremors of masses, due to tidal forces from the moon’s orbit) covers up small gravitational wave signals, so it takes a massive event to be detectable.

Einstein claimed in a 1936 letter to Max Born that gravitational waves DON’T exist:

“Together with a young collaborator, I arrived at the interesting result that gravitational waves do not exist, although they had been assumed a certainty to a first approximation.”

This led to a long argument between Einstein and the editor of the Physical Review, after a peer reviewer disagreed with Einstein!  Eventually Einstein withdrew his paper, “Do Gravitational Waves Exist?”, improved his argument and reversed the conclusion (from “no” to “yes”) and submitted it elsewhere after promising never to submit to PR again!

(Similarly, the very first innovator to correctly calculate the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron in 1948, quantum field theorist Julian Schwinger, in 1991 resigned his fellowship from the American Physical Society after its lead journal, Physical Review Letters, refused to publish his papers on a controversial topic!  Schwinger’s 1991 resignation letter infamously stated: “The pressure for conformity is enormous. I have experienced it in editors’ rejection of submitted papers, based on venomous criticism of anonymous referees. The replacement of impartial reviewing by censorship will be the death of science.” Like Einstein, Schwinger was a Nobel Laureate.  Even such celebrities feel coerced and censored by fashion bigots!)

Wolfgang Steinick’s article, “Einstein and the Gravitational Waves”, Astron. Nachr. / AN 326 (2005), No. 7, points out that Einstein’s approach predicts quadrupole moment source gravitational waves, i.e. gravitational waves from pair of mass rotating around one another (and spiralling inwards towards one another, due to the conversion of kinetic energy into gravitational wave energy!).  Such masses have acceleration a = (v^2)/r where v is orbital velocity and r is radius of orbit.  However, you get a similar feature in classical (not quantum!) electrodynamics, e.g. the classic problem of radiation emission from orbital charges.  Steinick simply ignores this analogy and speciously (wrongly) claims classical electrodynamics makes a totally different wave prediction:

“In analogy to electrodynamics, where accelerated charges emit electromagnetic waves, the linearized theory creates gravitational waves, propagating with the speed of light in the (background) Minkowski space-time. A major difference: Instead of a dipole moment, now a quadrupole moment is needed. Thus sources of gravitational waves are objects like a “rotating dumbbell”, e. g. realized by a binary star system. As there was no chance for detecting gravitational waves, due to their extreme weakness … 

The existence of gravitational waves was always a matter of controversy. Curiously Einstein himself was not convinced in 1936. In a paper with Nathan Rosen he came to the conclusion, that gravitational waves do not exist! Curiously too is the story of its publication. Einstein’s manuscript, titled DO GRAVITATIONAL WAVES EXIST?, was rejected by the “Physical Review”. In an angry reply he withdrawed the paper, to appear later in the “Journal of the Franklin Institute” (choosing a less provoking headline [3]). To clear the situation, various approximation schemes were developed. One of the first, introduced by Einstein, Infeld and Hoffmann in 1938 [4], led to the famous EIH equations.

This “post-Newtonian” treatment describes slow moving bodies in a weak field (“bounded systems”). In the EIH approximation there is no radiation up to the order ( v c ) 4 , the energy remains constant. The QF appears in the next order, as demonstrated by Hu in 1947 [5]. What’s about fast moving particles? This problem had to wait until the early 1960’s, when the Lorentz-invariant perturbation methods (“fast-motion approximation”), describing “unbounded systems”, were developed. The question of an analogy to the QF (“radiation damping”) was strongly discussed. In 1975 a major boost was caused by the discovery of the binary pulsar PSR 1913 + 16 by Hulse and Taylor [6].”

Nigel Cook quantum gravity the 1996 quantitative prediction of dark energy from a simple ENTIRELY FACT BASED calculation before its discovery in 1998 by perlmutter leading to his Nobel prize

In reality, a pair of electric charges in orbit around one another are predicted to emit electromagnetic waves by classical electromagnetism, so there IS indeed a valid analogy to the quadrupole moment source in general relativity.  In other words, both theories (Maxwell with a coupling 10^40 times smaller for masses not charges, and general relativity) predict gravitational waves under the circumstances of the black hole collision, so it’s just nasty hype to claim that one particular celebrity-hyped theory rather than another was “proved” by observation.  By analogy, I predicted dark energy quantitatively from an entirely fact based theory in 1996, but this is censored out and even ignored by friends for precisely the same reason: I’m not a celebrity (I don’t want to be), and anything that doesn’t appeal to mass cult populism and sci fi hype is taboo.  The media won’t report the death of your grandma unless she is a princess, politician, queen or has some other call to fame or cult following that demands to know the “news”.  News is just celebrity hype.  Notice also that in 1975, Hulse and Taylor did discover gravitational wave effects, from the speeding up of radio pulses from the binary pulsar PSR 1913 + 16, due to a contracting orbit caused by loss of kinetic energy in gravitational waves.  This could thus be considered a discovery of gravitational waves.  The oscillation of a large mass in GIGO may seem more direct than the contraction of an orbit, but it’s also convincing evidence.

Readers will be aware of the groupthink dictators’s “controversy” over the gravitational wave spin.  Traditional mythology is driven by Pauli and Fierz in 1939, assuming two masses only exchanging quantum gravitational radiation, (duh, what about other masses around us all!) thus finding on the basis of that specious assumption that the gravitational radiation needs to be spin-2 for attraction to occur (M. Fierz and W. Pauli , “On Relativistic Wave Equations for Particles of Arbitrary Spin in an Electromagnetic Field”, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences, Vol. 173, No. 953 (Nov. 28, 1939), pp. 211-232).  A simpler analogy of gravitational radiation is like a Casimir pushing-together effect but with dark energy. The Casimir force decreases as 1/r^4 not 1/r^2 like gravity, but that’s because parallel conducting plates exclude only wavelengths which are greater than the separation distance between the parallel plates, so you get an IR cutoff for the spectrum causing pressure between the plate’s that changes as 1/r^2 i.e. as a function of distance r, thus the net pressure on the plates goes as 1/r^4 partly because of 1/r^2 shielding geometry and partly of the additional similar factor of 1/r^2 which is due to the distance-dependent spectrum which exists in the gap between the plates!  Naturally this is deliberately obfuscated by the nasty people in order to reduce popular understanding of how similar the Casimir mechanism is to gravitation.  Another trick they use is to point out that if you use not parallel places but concave plates like parabolic radar antennas to focus the exchanged energy from each plate into the other, while the outer surfaces of the places diverges the energy, reducing the inward pressure, and can thus give an overall or net repulsion effect:

Casimir effect with curved plates

Thus, an analogy to electromagnetic radiation emitted by accelerating charge and to dark energy as a source of gravitation, predicts small gravitational waves from accelerating masses, the smallness being due to the small ratio of the gravitational coupling to that of electromagnetism, but this doesn’t require the usual specious arguments for spin-2.  In fact a simple prediction of gravitational waves by analogy to electromagnetism was done long before Einstein (who in 1935 wrongly dismissed gravitational waves using a spurious argument that led to him refusing to publish ever again in the Physical Review).

Professor Henri Poincaré’s 5 June 1905 explicit prediction of gravitational waves from accelerating masses, by simple analogy to electromagnetic radiation from accelerating electric charges, is confirmed, CRT 140 (1905) 1504-1508 (Academy of Sciences, France):

“But that’s not all: Lorentz, in the cited book, found it necessary to complete his hypothesis by assuming that all forces, whatever their origin, being affected by a translation, in the same way that the electromagnetic forces, and, therefore, the effect on components by the Lorentz transformation is still defined by the equations (4). It was important to examine this hypothesis more closely and in particular to examine what changes it would require us to bring the laws of gravitation. This is what I sought to determine; I was first led to speculation that the spread of gravitation is not instantaneous, but occurs with the speed of light. … When we therefore speak of the position or velocity of the attracting body, it will be in this position or the speed at the moment when the gravitational wave is part of this body; when we speak of the position or velocity of the attracted body, it will be in this position or the speed at the moment when it attracted body was achieved by the gravitational wave emanating from the other body; it is clear that the first instant precedes the second.”

Dictators of the pro-spin-2 superstring variety will ignore the facts and try to hype up gravitational waves, regardless of the true spin, as a confirmation of popular celebrity star Einstein, not some obscure figure who made the prediction first.  In fact, Laplace had already proposed that gravitational propagates at light velocity, not instantaneously as Newton falsely assumed:

Poincare prediction of gravitational waves 1905

Above: Poincare’s 1905 prediction of gravitational waves propagating at light speed.

Here’s a copy of a comment by me to Dr Motl’s blog, the Reference Frame (it’s in the comment moderation queue there, so just in case it gets “lost” I’m adding it below):

It looks like a circular argument to me: they’ve spend months running a model of collapsing black holes to try to replicate the gravitational wave results LIGO detected. They then announce not only their data, but a claim that they know what the source was in great detail. Isn’t that a circular argument?

What I want from observations is data, not data interpretation, which is a hybrid of theory and data, that suffers from bigotry in fitting the data to fashionable theories.

Take general relativity.  In 1919, the deflection of starlight by gravity was found to follow Einstein’s model (twice the deflection of the Newtonian bullet).  Fair enough, but aside from a geometric model of spacetime, the actual physics in Einstein’s equations come from imposing energy conservation (the contraction effect causing the doubling of the Newtonian deflection) which may also work in all other models of gravity that impose energy conservation.  So you have a hyped theory, you test it, it agrees with the observations, then you claim it’s the one true final theory and we don’t need to worry about alternative models that might do the same, plus more, or provide better understanding.

Then you fit GR to cosmology (with help from dark matter and later dark energy too, after discarding Einstein’s 1917 static uinverse prediction, without ridiculing GR for that error of Einstein), and you measure gravitational redshift of gamma rays going upwards, and the 1975 gravitational waves from a pulsar which caused it to speed up (loss of kinetic energy, thus a decreasing orbit size and faster orbits) and now gravitational wave strains on tunnels.

Each time, the new observation which has been “explained” by the theory is hyped as “yet another test”, while alternative possibilities are not being researched.  It’s the “Matthew effect”.  All research goes into the first theory to have a real success, which becomes a celebrity, a fashion cult.  Sure, it’s one way to interpret the data successfully.  But is it the best theory just because it’s the first one to make checkable predictions?  It is the “only” theory merely because other ideas have been censored out as taboo without the work that has gone into the mainstream model?

For comparison, here’s the comment I made to Dr Motl’s blog yesterday, before the LIGO announcement was made:

It’s clear from an analogy to electromagnetic theory that if you accelerate a gravitational charge (mass-energy) you will get some radiation, i.e. gravitational waves. That’s not rocket science. But you are going to get a very low signal strength due to the small gravitational coupling relative to electromagnetism, and that’s going to be hard to distinguish clearly from seismic background effects on the large masses used as gravitational wave detectors. By correlating arrival times of gravitational waves from sensors in different places on the planet, you can tell their direction and speed (c) and thus correlate them to the part of sky where they originated and maybe find some supernova or black hole collision that may have caused them. But there’s going to be a lot of uncertainties in an attempt at a quantitative check, and it’s likely to be a communist-style “big science” mutual backslapping, “pay us more cash, we’re clever” celebrity hype event. The opposite of objectivity. Fools could predict gravitational waves and detect them by bouncing laser beams off large massive weights, given enough cash. That’s not hard science, just groupthink technology. It doesn’t put any theories under pressure!

Dr Motl at that time (yesterday) responded:

“Sorry, Nigel, the gravitational waves from the Cosmos are weak but they may be separated and/or distinguished from the seismic activity and, as tomorrow’s announcement will clarify, the people who have worked on exactly this problem have mastered this purely technical problem pretty well – and it will unavoidably get better in the future. So your cynical remarks are just garbage.”

However, now after reading LIGO’s PRL paper, he writes that as far as he’s concerned they have so far not clarified that technical problem pretty well:

“By the way, there are various technicalities they must have mastered but they are bothering me. One of them is that the two LIGO clones’ signals shouldn’t differ just by the overall intensity and a time delay. They measure polarizations with respect to slightly different axes (a “plus” in Washington state, a combination of “plus” and “cross” in Louisiana) so the precise functions of time may differ as well, right? Appreciate that the incoming signal may be partly circularly polarized, i.e. an out-of-sync superposition of the two “cross/plus” polarizations. I think it would be helpful to have at least 8 clones of LIGO, to measure the location of the source more accurately and to be more clear about the different polarizations.”

My point made clear, repeated again for the stupid: knock any big masses together and any quantum theory of gravity will predict some gravitational radiation.  What I would have found impressive in a theoretical interpretation paper is a visual observation of the source of the gravitational waves and a set of predictions based on that of what the amplitude and waveform of the instrument would be from a variety of different theories, and a comparison of those predictions with the observation.  Instead, we have just more political PRL crap again, a mixture of data with fashionable theory designed to hype it.

(Notice that Dr Motl and his colleagues also refuse to listen to objective, rational ideas and criticisms of superstring theory hype from Dr Woit, but the real fault is the celebrity and fashion obsessed media and educational establishment, hating/fearing alternatives.  The easily confused are more worried about not recalling the sacred text due to being overwhelmed with information, than missing out on the opportunity for genuine debate.)

Chenhao Tan, et al., “Winning Arguments: Interaction Dynamics and Persuasion Strategies in Good-faith Online Discussions”, http://arxiv.org/pdf/1602.01103v1.pdf, 2 Feb 2016:

“Changing someone’s opinion is arguably one of the most important challenges of social interaction. The underlying process proves difficult to study: it is hard to know how someone’s opinions are formed and whether and how someone’s views shift. … We find that persuasive arguments are characterized by interesting patterns of interaction dynamics, such as participant entry-order and degree of back-and-forth exchange.”[Hence, refusals to engage in discussion by “peer reviewers” and others is a defensive mechanism to avoid even going in the direction of rational debate and objective discussions.]

How to win a Facebook argument, according to science, by  February 11 2016:

  • … Respond in groups: You’re more persuasive to the person you’re arguing with if other people are arguing your side, too.
  • Have a few back-and-forth exchanges with your opponent, but never go past three or four. Up to that point, your chance of persuading them is pretty good. But Tan says that “when the back-and-forth goes on for too long, your chances at persuasion become very low.” …

All of these quoted “tips” are of course impossible if you’re really innovating and doing something unfashionable. You won’t have a group to back up up if you’re really doing something new and thus unfashionable (the whole reason for criticising orthodoxy and giving alternative ideas is that you’re trying to create a group to work on alternative ideas, by debating with people; in other words that’s a catch-22 situation), opponents are opponents precisely because they’re bigoted in favor of something else and so just want to ignore your points and make irrelevant comments or jokes, anything to close the discussion down without having a scientific debate.  They just want to discuss orthodoxy or something pertaining to orthodoxy.  The lesson that science is objectivity is set aside for hype of celebrity and fashion in science.