Eternal and Infinite Physical existence?

[Leonhard]

I am thinking Leonhard, and Penrose never published anything before the finding of these circles that predicted that such circles would the result of universes bumping.

Try this link here, this was published in 2006 and its not the only article on the subject. Just skip to the conclusion and you'll see him sketch the reasons for why his proposal would predict gravity wave induced anomalies in the CMB. Since you quested his motives try looking a little further back in that same article. You'll see him openly and fairly discussing some questionable propositions his hypothesis would need. Compare the date of that article to the date of the article that had the search for concentric ring anomalies in the CMB here, 2010. So its fair to say that he had the predictions in mind a good time before he started searching for them.

[shunyadragon]

Good so we agree that this is not evidence for other universes.

No, we do not agree. You are clueless on math, physics and cosmology,

And I may not understand every detail of this Shuny, but I do recognize faulty inductive reasoning. You are correct NO ONE predicted that "bumping" would cause such a things, because there was no reason to believe it would. And no one can show that such circular patterns could ONLY be caused by said bumping. Glad we are on the page...

There are two ways new knowledge such as this enters science; one is that a predictive theory as in black holes, and the other is a phenomenon is discovered and theories and models are developed to explain them, for example the 'red shift' in star color, and large circle regions in space

No we are not on the same page, you are into layman speculation and clueless on math and cosmology.

I have repeated it at least two times, 'no one said these circular patterns can only be created by this bumping. Please read and cite the article properly.

[shunyadragon]

I am thinking Leonhard, and Penrose never published anything before the finding of these circles that predicted that such circles would the result of universes bumping. He found an anomaly and tried to fit his predisposed belief into it. One that other scientists say is bunk...

Why would you believe it important that they have to predict the circles? No one predicted the discovery of the red shift in star color. There are two ways things like this happen; one a predictive model or theory is proposed, for example black holes and dark matter and energy (which may not in reality exist). the other is something is discovered and theories and models are proposed to explain it, for example the red shift in the color of stars.

[seer]

Try this link here, this was published in 2006 and its not the only article on the subject. Just skip to the conclusion and you'll see him sketch the reasons for why his proposal would predict gravity wave induced anomalies in the CMB. Since you quested his motives try looking a little further back in that same article. You'll see him openly and fairly discussing some questionable propositions his hypothesis would need. Compare the date of that article to the date of the article that had the search for concentric ring anomalies in the CMB here, 2010. So its fair to say that he had the predictions in mind a good time before he started searching for them.

You do know that these anomalies have been seen, to degrees, for over eight years? And the mapping that his study relies on started over eight years ago? And where in the first paper that you linked did he predict such circular anomalies in the CMB. I read it twice, and I did not see that. Perhaps I missed it? Or didn't understand it. Could you paste that part here?

[seer]

No, we do not agree. You are clueless on math, physics and cosmology.

Well Shuny, these guys know more about math, physics and cosmology than you or me and they say it's all bunk! Now who do I believe?

Adam Moss, Douglas Scott, James P Zibin

http://www.mendeley.com/research/evi...e-circles-sky/

Amir Hajian

http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.1656?__utm...__utmk=6449841

[shunyadragon]

Well Shuny, these guys know more about math, physics and cosmology than you or me and they say it's all bunk! Now who do I believe?

Adam Moss, Douglas Scott, James P Zibin

http://www.mendeley.com/research/evi...e-circles-sky/

Amir Hajian

http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.1656?__utm...__utmk=6449841

Please cite and explain. Arguing by weblink is unethical on Tweb.

One of your references will not open.

[seer]

Please cite and explain. Arguing by weblink is unethical on Tweb.

One of your references will not open.

Here is the first abstract:

http://www.mendeley.com/research/evi...e-circles-sky/

In a recent paper, Gurzadyan & Penrose claim to have found directions on the sky centred on which are circles of anomalously low variance in the cosmic microwave background (CMB). These features are presented as evidence for a particular picture of the very early Universe. We attempted to repeat the analysis of these authors, and we can indeed confirm that such variations do exist in the temperature variance for annuli around points in the data. However, we find that this variation is entirely expected in a sky which contains the usual CMB anisotropies. In other words, properly simulated Gaussian CMB data contain just the sorts of variations claimed. Gurzadyan & Penrose have not found evidence for pre-Big Bang phenomena, but have simply re-discovered that the CMB contains structure.

Get it: Gurzadyan & Penrose have not found evidence for pre-Big Bang phenomena, but have simply re-discovered that the CMB contains structure.

So Shuny, who am I to believe?

[shunyadragon]

This reference di not say anything is bunk?!?!?!?

It simply offered an alternative possible explanation based on the evidence.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.1656?__utm...__utmk=6449841

Are There Echoes From The Pre-Big Bang Universe? A Search for Low Variance Circles in the CMB Sky

The existence of concentric low variance circles in the CMB sky, generated by black-hole encounters in an aeon preceding our big bang, is a prediction of the Conformal Cyclic Cosmology. Detection of three families of such circles in WMAP data was recently reported by Gurzadyan & Penrose (2010). We reassess the statistical significance of those circles by comparing with Monte Carlo simulations of the CMB sky with realistic modeling of the anisotropic noise in WMAP data. We find that the circles are not anomalous and that all three groups are consistent at 3sigma level with a Gaussian CMB sky as predicted by inflationary cosmology model.

© source where applicable

Please explain this in detail how it describes the other scientist's view as bunk, I believe you are clueless as to what it means and did not read the article. As i said previously they are not considered anomalies, and there are possible alternate explanations for them. The previous scientist did not say what he proposed was the only possible explanation.

[shunyadragon]

Here is the first abstract:

So Shuny, who am I to believe?

You need a much better background in math, physics and cosmology to even com close to anything more than a guess, and dump your layman's traditional theist bias.

I personally would not make a judgment at present and wait for further information before I would agree to the most likely explanation.

One clarification the first scientist said they were anomalous readings, and not anomalous regions. Rereading the second papers I would favor their explanation.

I never cited this literature as evidence of multiverses.

[seer]

You need a much better background in math, physics and cosmology to even com close to anything more than a guess, and dump your layman's traditional theist bias.

Nonsense Shuny, I just linked to scientists who have much better background in math, physics and cosmology than you or I and they say:

Gurzadyan & Penrose have not found evidence for pre-Big Bang phenomena, but have simply re-discovered that the CMB contains structure.

So they say this is not evidence pre-Big Bang phenomena.

More:

http://www.usnews.com/science/articl...ea-may-be-dead

“The reason that Penrose and Gurzadyan believe that their result is significant is that they are comparing the [microwave background] observations with the wrong theoretical model,” says cosmologist David Spergel of Princeton University. “If an advanced undergraduate made this mistake in my class on a problem set,” he adds, “they would get a failing grade for the problem.”

Interesting...

[Leonhard]

You do know that these anomalies have been seen, to degrees, for over eight years?

You will need to be more specific than this. Penrose and the other teams predictions were different from each other as to what they'd see. If you can find me someone else who's been doing the same kind searches be my guest. I'm not aware of any, but if you can find some I'd be glad to change my mind.

And the mapping that his study relies on started over eight years ago?

Are you referring to the WMAP data? I don't see the relevance of when the dataset came from.

And where in the first paper that you linked did he predict such circular anomalies in the CMB. I read it twice, and I did not see that. Perhaps I missed it? Or didn't understand it. Could you paste that part here?

"This has the implication that gravitational radiation (described by K_{abc}^d) actually survives at the future boundary (whereas C_{abc}^d vanishes there) and its presence shows up as a non-zero normal derivative of C_{abc}^d at the boundary. This gives rise to density fluctuations at the Big bang, and possibly primordial gravitational radiation."

This is a rough description of a gravity wave surviving today, as a density fluctuation with with cylindrical symmetry across the CMB, which is basically what he later ended up testing for.

[shunyadragon]

Nonsense Shuny, I just linked to scientists who have much better background in math, physics and cosmology than you or I and they say:

Gurzadyan & Penrose have not found evidence for pre-Big Bang phenomena, but have simply re-discovered that the CMB contains structure.

So they say this is not evidence pre-Big Bang phenomena.

Nonsense seer. I see no evidence as which is the better scientist. At present I prefer the second, but I reserve judgment. I never claimed this was evidence for multiverses nor pre big band phenomena. I do not consider you remotely qualified to make this judgement.

[seer]

"This has the implication that gravitational radiation (described by K_{abc}^d) actually survives at the future boundary (whereas C_{abc}^d vanishes there) and its presence shows up as a non-zero normal derivative of C_{abc}^d at the boundary. This gives rise to density fluctuations at the Big bang, and possibly primordial gravitational radiation."

This is a rough description of a gravity wave surviving today, as a density fluctuation with with cylindrical symmetry across the CMB, which is basically what he later ended up testing for.

Ok, I guess you could tell me just about anything at this point since I don't understand it - but I see nothing about "cylindrical symmetry" in your quote from the paper. BTW Leonhard in the other things I'm reading it seems that Penrose never actually found what he said he found - so I guess the point is moot.

[seer]

Nonsense seer. I see no evidence as which is the better scientist. At present I prefer the second, but I reserve judgment. I never claimed this was evidence for multiverses nor pre big band phenomena. I do not consider you remotely qualified to make this judgement.

Ok, so now it is a matter of preference? And I'm not making a judgement these scientist are. And BTW Shuny YOU DID SAY THAT THIS WAS EVIDENCE for some more than our universe existing.

I Said: Shuny, where is the evidence that something besides our universe exists? Where is the proof?

You said: First, this old turf seer, your approaching this as a laymen with a traditional theist bias, and little or no knowledge in the subject.

Second, big time ongoing groundhog day problem with laymen traditional theists, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS PROOF IN SCIENCE.

The background of what you cited is some of the evidence.

So you said that the Penrose study (which was what I linked) was in fact evidence for something more than just our universe existing.

Here is what another set of Scientists are saying:

http://www.usnews.com/science/articl...ea-may-be-dead

[Leonhard]

Ok, I guess you could tell me just about anything at this point since I don't understand it - but I see nothing about "cylindrical symmetry" in your quote from the paper. BTW Leonhard in the other things I'm reading it seems that Penrose never actually found what he said he found - so I guess the point is moot.

That would be from the symmetry of a gravity wave at those scales, but lets not dive into it. I don't feel like dissecting it. And actually I agree with you that there's no evidential support for proposal Penrose gave. I think he shares that opinion (judging from a talk at Unbelievable Radio, he seems fairly humble). I suspect he'll try the algorithm's on the Planck dataset once it comes out. Just because you're arguing with me, it doesn't mean that I disagree with everything you say. You don't seem to get the point which was that you accused him of just making up predictions unmotivated. That's a serious accusation Seer, and I think I've given plenty of evidence that this is wrong. Actually it was only this that I was objecting to.