Critical Test for the Big Bang and Discrete Fractal Paradigms

In a parenthetical comment, mjh wrote:

[Mod. note: it's supposed to be Lev Landau who
said that `cosmologists are often in error, but
never in doubt'. Most working cosmologists, of
course, would not fall into the elementary error
in classical statistical tests of confounding a
confidence level of rejection of the null
hypothesis with a confidence level of acceptance
of one's favourite alternative -- mjh]

Most scientists of any stripe would not fall into
the error of seeing such an outlandish level of
"confidence", and blithely accepting it, but would
instead make the reasoned inference that some
completely incorrect assumption about physical
reality had intruded, and was the much more likely
source of "confidence" more firm than the limits of
accuracy even of quantum theory, the most precise
theory known to science.

xanthian.

Thus spake Kent Paul Dolan
In a parenthetical comment, mjh wrote:

[Mod. note: it's supposed to be Lev Landau who
said that `cosmologists are often in error, but
never in doubt'. Most working cosmologists, of
course, would not fall into the elementary error
in classical statistical tests of confounding a
confidence level of rejection of the null
hypothesis with a confidence level of acceptance
of one's favourite alternative -- mjh]

Most scientists of any stripe would not fall into
the error of seeing such an outlandish level of
"confidence",

This is the statistical definition of confidence. If someone tossed a
coin 377 times, and it came up heads 288 times and tails only 89 times,
you would be pretty confident that there was something funny going on.

and blithely accepting it, but would
instead make the reasoned inference that some
completely incorrect assumption about physical
reality had intruded,

That is the point. Clearly an incorrect assumption about reality has
intruded. The test is simple enough however, that there is not a lot
that can be wrong, apart from the assumption that the standard Doppler
law applies.

and was the much more likely
source of "confidence" more firm than the limits of
accuracy even of quantum theory, the most precise
theory known to science.

Quantum theory does not apply here. It is a simple test analogous to
tossing a coin.

Regards

--
Charles Francis
moderator sci.physics.foundations.
substitute charles for NotI to email

Oh No wrote:
Thus spake Kent Paul Dolan

Most scientists of any stripe would not fall into
the error of seeing such an outlandish level of
"confidence",

This is the statistical definition of confidence.

Oh, nice job of splitting a sentence in the middle
and then answering a fragment whose meaning has been
completely changed by not allowing the thought to be
completed. Since I was nowhere quarreling with the
standard definition of staticial confidence, your
followup is a complete non sequitur.

and blithely accepting it, but would instead make
the reasoned inference that some completely
incorrect assumption about physical reality had
intruded,

That is the point. Clearly an incorrect assumption
about reality has intruded. The test is simple
enough however, that there is not a lot that can
be wrong, apart from the assumption that the
standard Doppler law applies.

Oh really? And what would the test have produced if
your assumption that dopplar shifts should be
spherically isotropic from the solar system were
instead the incorrect assumption?

Your agenda commitment to teleconnection blinds you
to much more obvious sources of error in your
thinking, error that would create a blatantly
incorrect null hypothesis and thus provoke such
unbelievablely high "confidence" when that
"confidence" is incorrectly misdirected to support
of your agenda.

The galaxy has been a busy and frequently explosive
place, on levels large and small. I can think of no
reason whatever to presume that looking different
directions from the solar system shouldn't find you
looking at groups of stars with vastly different
histories, and therefore properties.

Indeed, according to recent TV cosmology
presentations, the Milky Way is already a composite
galaxy made up of several smaller collided galaxies,
not to mention the collision upcoming with
Andromeda.

There have not yet been sufficient total turns of
our galaxy to throughly blend the star populations
of the separate galaxies of which it is comprised,
so looking different directions from Sol will be
looking at different mixture proportions (think
"stripes in an incompletely stirred mixture of
vanilla and chocolate pudding", if it helps) of the
contributing collided galaxies, making different
average motions the _expectation_, not some
astonishing discovery that supports overthrowing the
accepted wisdom of cosmology.

Verba volant, scripta manent.

xanthian.

Thus spake Kent Paul Dolan
Oh No wrote:
Thus spake Kent Paul Dolan

Most scientists of any stripe would not fall into
the error of seeing such an outlandish level of
"confidence",

This is the statistical definition of confidence.

Oh, nice job of splitting a sentence in the middle
and then answering a fragment whose meaning has been
completely changed by not allowing the thought to be
completed. Since I was nowhere quarreling with the
standard definition of staticial confidence, your
followup is a complete non sequitur.

I am glad to hear it. By putting confidence in inverted commas, you
rather made it appear that you did not know what the word means in
context.

and blithely accepting it, but would instead make
the reasoned inference that some completely
incorrect assumption about physical reality had
intruded,

That is the point. Clearly an incorrect assumption
about reality has intruded. The test is simple
enough however, that there is not a lot that can
be wrong, apart from the assumption that the
standard Doppler law applies.

Oh really? And what would the test have produced if
your assumption that dopplar shifts should be
spherically isotropic from the solar system were
instead the incorrect assumption?

I have pointed out that an alternative is to drop assumptions on which
all our physical theories are based. You are welcome to do that if you
find it more reasonable.

Your agenda commitment to teleconnection blinds you
to much more obvious sources of error in your
thinking,

Your agenda on the other hand appears to be committed to hurling insults
with regard to things you do not understand. Indeed, as I recall, when
you objected to the formation of sci.physics.foundations, it was on the
ground that hurling abuse was against the charter.

error that would create a blatantly
incorrect null hypothesis and thus provoke such
unbelievablely high "confidence" when that
"confidence" is incorrectly misdirected to support
of your agenda.

As Martin has pointed out, no competent cosmologist is likely to make
such an elementary error. It is your error to accuse me of it, not mine.
As I pointed out, I have used the word confidence in the statistical
sense, as a level of confidence for rejecting the null hypothesis, not
as a level of confidence for accepting a particular alternative. If you
are not happy with that, then you should study the definition and stop
arguing with it.


Regards

--
Charles Francis
moderator sci.physics.foundations.
substitute charles for NotI to email

Thus spake Kent Paul Dolan
The galaxy has been a busy and frequently explosive place, on levels
large and small. I can think of no reason whatever to presume that
looking different directions from the solar system shouldn't find you
looking at groups of stars with vastly different histories, and
therefore properties.

Indeed, according to recent TV cosmology presentations, the Milky Way
is already a composite galaxy made up of several smaller collided
galaxies, not to mention the collision upcoming with Andromeda.

Before you complain that I snipped the rest of your post, may I just
point out that if you had followed any of the analysis you would already
know that your hypothesis that such things can explain the result can be
rejected with just as high a level of confidence as the null hypothesis
used in the tests.

Regards

--
Charles Francis
moderator sci.physics.foundations.
substitute charles for NotI to email

Oh No wrote:

As I pointed out, I have used the word confidence
in the statistical sense, as a level of confidence
for rejecting the null hypothesis, not as a level
of confidence for accepting a particular
alternative.

So, then, the posting:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.a...b49dbe7e53af8e

In which it is claimed, essentially, that by
rejecting the null hypothesis, the only hypothesis
that is left is the one of your agenda:

In this there is only one alternative, as
far as I know at the present time.
Understanding the alternative fully means
delving into recherche areas of differential
geometry, but I don't see how there can be
another alternative consistent with the
general principle of relativity, and
consistent with foundations of quantum
theory.

was forged by someone else in your name, since
you claim here that you've made no such illogical
presumption?

I'll reiterate the advice I gave to Oldershaw, he

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.a...9fb976c7e71191

Those who are unwilling to behave as scientists,
should not feel that they have the right to demand
to be treated with the respect freely granted to
those who do.

Verba volant, scripta manent.

xanthian.

[Mod. note: please try to talk about the science, not each other's
motivations --- mjh]

Thus spake Kent Paul Dolan
Oh No wrote:

As I pointed out, I have used the word confidence
in the statistical sense, as a level of confidence
for rejecting the null hypothesis, not as a level
of confidence for accepting a particular
alternative.

So, then, the posting:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.a...b49dbe7e53af8e

In which it is claimed, essentially, that by
rejecting the null hypothesis, the only hypothesis
that is left is the one of your agenda:

In this there is only one alternative, as
far as I know at the present time.
Understanding the alternative fully means
delving into recherche areas of differential
geometry, but I don't see how there can be
another alternative consistent with the
general principle of relativity, and
consistent with foundations of quantum
theory.

was forged by someone else in your name, since
you claim here that you've made no such illogical
presumption?

Of course I claim no such thing. Distinguish the logical steps, and be
precise with the language. The null hypothesis is rejected at a high
level of confidence according to statistical analysis. That does not
allow you to apply that level of confidence to another theory. As a
second, and distinct logical step once the null hypothesis has been
rejected, if there is only one theory consistent with the facts,
consistent with general relativity, and consistent with quantum theory,
then one is lead to accept that theory. Even so, you cannot apply the
statistical definition of confidence to the acceptance of that theory,
since that would neglect things which may not have been thought of.

I'll reiterate the advice I gave to Oldershaw, he

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.a...9fb976c7e71191

Those who are unwilling to behave as scientists,
should not feel that they have the right to demand
to be treated with the respect freely granted to
those who do.

I don't think you are in a position to advise until such point as you
know what you are talking about. In this case it is your out of hand
rejection of both scientific theory and of empirical analysis which
shows whether you are willing to behave as a scientist. Note that while
posters here scientifically more minded and also better qualified than
yourself, such as Philip Helbig, Steve Willner, and the moderator
himself, will obviously not accept what I say purely on the basis of my
say so, nor do they reject it out of hand. In contrast to yourself, they
have given good advice.

[Mod. note: further purely personal discussion in this thread will be
rejected. -- mjh]

Regards

--
Charles Francis
moderator sci.physics.foundations.
substitute charles for NotI to email