PDA

View Full Version : Smoot's Book: Quadrupoles and Omega=1


Patrick Powers
November 5th 04, 12:11 PM
I just read George Smoot's "Wrinkles In Time." There were two things
I didn't understand. First was that a quadrupole can be observed in
the cosmic radiation background. In theory there are two quadrupoles,
one cosmic and one galactic and it just so happens that they tend to
cancel so only one faint quadropole is observed. So what do these
quadrupoles mean?

"The more interesting component of the quadrupole anisotropy is due to
a distortion in the gravitational potential of the universe at the
time of decoupling of matter and radiation."

"long-wavelength gravitational waves (with wavelengths as big as the
visible universe itself) would result in a CMB quadrupole anisotropy"

Second he said that as we move back in time the ratio Omega must be
extremely close to one. ?

Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply
November 6th 04, 05:04 PM
In article >,
(Patrick Powers) writes:

> I just read George Smoot's "Wrinkles In Time." There were two things
> I didn't understand. First was that a quadrupole can be observed in
> the cosmic radiation background. In theory there are two quadrupoles,
> one cosmic and one galactic and it just so happens that they tend to
> cancel so only one faint quadropole is observed. So what do these
> quadrupoles mean?
>
> "The more interesting component of the quadrupole anisotropy is due to
> a distortion in the gravitational potential of the universe at the
> time of decoupling of matter and radiation."
>
> "long-wavelength gravitational waves (with wavelengths as big as the
> visible universe itself) would result in a CMB quadrupole anisotropy"

Just some general comments. Perhaps a CMB expert (Ted?) will add some
more details.

First, keep in mind that this book was written when the amount of
information we had from CMB observations was MUCH less than what we have
now.

As to the quadrupole, normally when one sees a "map of the CMB", two
things have been subtracted: the dipole due to our proper motion through
the universe (which means that we can never observe the cosmic dipole,
since it will never be possible to independently measure our proper
motion accurately enough) and the contribution of the galaxy.

As I understand it, the COSMIC quadrupole moment is low. That means
that AFTER subtracting the contribution of the galaxy, the cosmic
quadrupole moment is somewhat lower than what one would expect. The
usual explanation for this is "cosmic variance", which is important for
low multipoles: since there is only one universe to observe, we might
just happen to be in one which is a fluke, statistically. For lower
multipoles, statistical flukes don't get lost in "normal" values as they
do for higher multipoles since there are fewer independent patches of
sky to compare.

> Second he said that as we move back in time the ratio Omega must be
> extremely close to one. ?

This is a thorny issue. In the standard cosmological framework, ANY
cosmological model approaches arbitrarily closely the Einstein-de Sitter
universe (Omega_matter=1, Omega_lambda=0).

Some folks argue that, since the values of the cosmological parameters
are not that far from 1 today, there must be some "mechanism" which
"adjusted" them, producing this "fine tuning" in the early universe. On
the other hand, if the cosmological parameters were significantly
different than 1, it is extremely unlikely that we would observe them,
since that would mean that the universe had expanded for so long that
stars had died or, in the case of a recollapsing universe, that we were
close to the turnaround. An important point is that these parameters
don't evolve linearly with time, so one has to be careful in discussing
probabilities. There is an extremely good discussion in the book "Is
the Universe Open or Closed" by Peter Coles and George Ellis (both well
respected mainstream cosmologists) who come to the conclusion that many
of the arguments about the necessity of fine-tuning are exaggerated.

Patrick Powers
November 12th 04, 07:11 PM
(Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply) wrote in message >...

Thank you for the answer about the quadrupoles in the CMB. I think my
questions are more basic: how could any force result in a quadrupole?
Why would the galaxy and cosmos produce quadrupoles?

> In the standard cosmological framework, ANY
> cosmological model approaches arbitrarily closely the Einstein-de Sitter
> universe (Omega_matter=1, Omega_lambda=0).

That's news to me. Why is that?

> An important point is that these parameters
> don't evolve linearly with time

I don't understand how they evolve with time at all.

ebunn@lfa221051.richmond.edu
November 14th 04, 12:28 PM
In article >,
Patrick Powers > wrote:
(Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply) wrote in message >...

> how could any force result in a quadrupole?
> Why would the galaxy and cosmos produce quadrupoles?

The quadrupole is just a particular "pattern" in a temperature map (or
any other function on the sphere). One sort of quadrupole is a
pattern that's cold at the north and south poles and hot in the
middle. That's what emission from our own Galaxy looks like. Since
we live in a spiral galaxy with a disk, there's a lot of glowing stuff
near the Galactic equator and not much near the Galactic poles.

The processes in the early Universe that generated temperature
variations in the microwave background also produced variations with a
quadrupole pattern. There's no special reason why they did this: they
produced temperature variations of all sorts, on all scales, including
the quadrupole. Separating out the Galactic quadrupole from the
primordial quadrupole takes some effort, but when you do, you find
that the primordial quadrupole is lower than expected in theoretical
models. As Phillip observed, different people in the field disagree
over how much significance to attach to that discrepancy.

In addition to the quadrupole, we measure all the other multipoles
(that is, finer-angular-scale variations). Except for the quadrupole,
which may or may not be anomalously low, the rest of the multipoles
agree remarkably well with our theoretical models.

>> In the standard cosmological framework, ANY
>> cosmological model approaches arbitrarily closely the Einstein-de Sitter
>> universe (Omega_matter=1, Omega_lambda=0).
>
>That's news to me. Why is that?

All of the "Omegas" are densities of various things, measured relative
to the critical density. For instance,

Omega_matter = rho_matter / rho_crit

where rho_matter is the density of matter and rho_crit is the critical
density.

The Friedmann equation essentially
says that all of the Omegas, including a "curvature term" Omega_k, have
to add up to one:

Omega_Lambda + Omega_Matter + Omega_radiation + Omega_k = 1.


All of these densities change as the Universe expands, but they
all change in different ways. It turns out that

rho_lambda = constant
rho_k = constant / R^2
rho_matter = constant / R^3
rho_radiation = constant / R^4.

Here R is the scale factor of the Universe. (The matter one is easy
to see: if the scale factor goes up by some factor, the volume of any
given portion of the Universe goes up by the cube of that factor,
so the density goes down.)

As you go back further and further in time, R gets smaller and smaller.
So rho_lambda and rho_k become negligible compared to the matter
and especially the radiation terms. So in the early Universe,
we could ignore curvature and lambda.

>> An important point is that these parameters
>> don't evolve linearly with time
>
>I don't understand how they evolve with time at all.

Because they're densities. As the Universe expands, densities of
various things get less.

(That doesn't mean all the Omegas go down: the critical density
is also a function of time, so the ratios rho / rho_crit can go
either up or down. But they don't remain constant.)

-Ted

--
[E-mail me at , as opposed to .]

Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply
November 14th 04, 01:13 PM
In article >,
(Patrick Powers) writes:

> Thank you for the answer about the quadrupoles in the CMB. I think my
> questions are more basic: how could any force result in a quadrupole?
> Why would the galaxy and cosmos produce quadrupoles?

It sounds like you are thinking of quadrupoles as some sort of particle.
(I'm not sure, since I really don't understand your question.)
Basically, the CMB dipole is a difference in temperature 180° apart on
the sky, the quadrupole 90°.

> > In the standard cosmological framework, ANY
> > cosmological model approaches arbitrarily closely the Einstein-de Sitter
> > universe (Omega_matter=1, Omega_lambda=0).
>
> That's news to me. Why is that?

That's what the equations say. In the Einstein-de Sitter model, the
curvature is zero and there is no cosmological constant. As we go back
in time, the universe becomes smaller, so we can think of the curvature
approaching zero, like you don't notice the curvature of the Earth in
your living room (unless your house is comparable to the size of the
Earth). Similarly, the cosmological constant (Omega_lambda) is called
that since it is constant per unit volume. As the universe is smaller
further back in time, its effect goes down. So we are left with only
Omega_matter determining the expansion, and that is the definition of
the Einstein-de Sitter model.

> > An important point is that these parameters
> > don't evolve linearly with time
>
> I don't understand how they evolve with time at all.

Omega_matter is the ratio of a density to the critical density, which in
turn depends on the Hubble constant. The Hubble constant, in turn, is
the ratio of the speed of expansion of the universe to its size. As the
universe expands, in general all three of these quantities change
(obviously, the universe gets bigger and the density drops; the velocity
can change too). Similar for lambda, except in this case the density
doesn't change (that's why it's called the cosmological CONSTANT, i.e.
constant in time for a given volume of space, so in this case the change
is due to the change in the Hubble constant).

Patrick Powers
November 26th 04, 07:23 AM
wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> Patrick Powers > wrote:
> (Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply) wrote in message >...
>
> > how could any force result in a quadrupole?
> > Why would the galaxy and cosmos produce quadrupoles?
>
> The quadrupole is just a particular "pattern" in a temperature map (or
> any other function on the sphere). One sort of quadrupole is a
> pattern that's cold at the north and south poles and hot in the
> middle. That's what emission from our own Galaxy looks like. Since
> we live in a spiral galaxy with a disk, there's a lot of glowing stuff
> near the Galactic equator and not much near the Galactic poles.
>

OK. So how about that cosmic quadrupole?

ebunn@lfa221051.richmond.edu
November 30th 04, 06:47 PM
In article >,
Patrick Powers > wrote:
wrote in message >...

>> The quadrupole is just a particular "pattern" in a temperature map (or
>> any other function on the sphere). One sort of quadrupole is a
>> pattern that's cold at the north and south poles and hot in the
>> middle. That's what emission from our own Galaxy looks like. Since
>> we live in a spiral galaxy with a disk, there's a lot of glowing stuff
>> near the Galactic equator and not much near the Galactic poles.
>>
>
>OK. So how about that cosmic quadrupole?

How about it?

The cosmic quadrupole is there, but it's a few times lower in
amplitude than is predicted in standard theories. It's hard to decide
how to assign a statistical significance to this discrepancy, so no
one knows whether or not to be worried about this.

I don't know if this helps. Ask a question that's roughly a thousand
times more specific, and I'll try to answer!

-Ted


--
[E-mail me at , as opposed to .]

greywolf42
December 1st 04, 01:14 AM
> wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Patrick Powers > wrote:
> wrote in message
>...
>
> >> The quadrupole is just a particular "pattern" in a temperature map (or
> >> any other function on the sphere). One sort of quadrupole is a
> >> pattern that's cold at the north and south poles and hot in the
> >> middle. That's what emission from our own Galaxy looks like. Since
> >> we live in a spiral galaxy with a disk, there's a lot of glowing stuff
> >> near the Galactic equator and not much near the Galactic poles.
> >
> >OK. So how about that cosmic quadrupole?
>
> How about it?
>
> The cosmic quadrupole is there, but it's a few times lower in
> amplitude than is predicted in standard theories.

That translates as not in accordance with standard predictions.

> It's hard to decide
> how to assign a statistical significance to this discrepancy, so no
> one knows whether or not to be worried about this.

This translates to "we're going to ignore it, until we come up with an
explanation". i.e. A new epicycle.

> I don't know if this helps. Ask a question that's roughly a thousand
> times more specific, and I'll try to answer!

--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}

Patrick Powers
December 1st 04, 05:06 PM
wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> Patrick Powers > wrote:
> wrote in message >...
>
> >> The quadrupole is just a particular "pattern" in a temperature map (or
> >> any other function on the sphere). One sort of quadrupole is a
> >> pattern that's cold at the north and south poles and hot in the
> >> middle. That's what emission from our own Galaxy looks like. Since
> >> we live in a spiral galaxy with a disk, there's a lot of glowing stuff
> >> near the Galactic equator and not much near the Galactic poles.
> >>
> >
> >OK. So how about that cosmic quadrupole?
>
> How about it?
>
> The cosmic quadrupole is there, but it's a few times lower in
> amplitude than is predicted in standard theories. It's hard to decide
> how to assign a statistical significance to this discrepancy, so no
> one knows whether or not to be worried about this.
>
> I don't know if this helps. Ask a question that's roughly a thousand
> times more specific, and I'll try to answer!
>
> -Ted

Why is there a cosmic quadrupole at all?

According to Smoot the cosmic quadrupole tends to cancel the galactic
quadrupole. Is that correct?

ebunn@lfa221051.richmond.edu
December 2nd 04, 12:15 PM
In article >,
Patrick Powers > wrote:

>Why is there a cosmic quadrupole at all?

The short answer is "Why not?"

Some process in the early Universe appears to have produced variations
in density and temperature. Some of these variations are tiny in
length scale (i.e., they correspond to very short-wavelength
"ripples") and some are very long-scale (i.e., they correspond to very
long-wavelength "ripples"). That jumble of ripples on all different
scales leads to a pattern of hot and cold patches in the observed
temperature of the microwave background radiation.

Like the ripples that produced them, those temperature variations
cover a wide range of scales, from very small (i.e., ripples that
oscillate multiple times per degree on the sky) to very large (i.e.,
ripples that oscillate only once or twice around the whole sky).

The very largest-scale ripple we can observe in the microwave
background is called the quadrupole. It gets a lot of attention
because it's the biggest, and because there's been some controversy
over whether it agrees well enough with theoretical predictions. But
other than that, it's not really special: the quadrupole is there for
the same reason that the ripples on all other scales are there.

Of course, I haven't told you what that reason is! Nobody is 100%
sure where those initial variations came from. The leading theory
is that they were produced during an epoch called "inflation" in the
very, very early Universe. During that time, quantum fluctuations
got enlarged by the incredibly rapid acceleration of the Universe.
Those quantum fluctuations led to the microwave background temperature
variations.

One consequence of this theory is that fluctuations should exist on
all scales from the quadrupole (and even larger, although those
larger-scale ones are hard to observe) on down.

>According to Smoot the cosmic quadrupole tends to cancel the galactic
>quadrupole. Is that correct?

Not really, although when Smoot wrote his book there was some reason
to think it might be true. In fact, the cosmic quadrupole and the
Galactic quadrupole are pretty close to orthogonal to each other.

Look at the article

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0302496

The top left panel of Figure 15 shows the cosmic quadrupole. In the
same coordinate system, the Galactic quadrupole would look like
hot band running horizontally across the middle, with cold spots
at top and bottom.

-Ted

--
[E-mail me at , as opposed to .]

greywolf42
December 3rd 04, 10:54 PM
> wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Patrick Powers > wrote:
>
> >Why is there a cosmic quadrupole at all?
>
> The short answer is "Why not?"

Well, the "why not" is because it wasn't predicted by the current theory.
If the BB is good for anything, it must be for predicting previously
unobserved phenomena. However, once again, the BB theorists now must go
looking for another ad hoc explanation of yet another surprise.

> Some process in the early Universe appears to have produced variations
> in density and temperature.

Or the BB theory (latest inflation model) is contradicted by observation.

> Some of these variations are tiny in
> length scale (i.e., they correspond to very short-wavelength
> "ripples") and some are very long-scale (i.e., they correspond to very
> long-wavelength "ripples"). That jumble of ripples on all different
> scales leads to a pattern of hot and cold patches in the observed
> temperature of the microwave background radiation.
>
> Like the ripples that produced them, those temperature variations
> cover a wide range of scales, from very small (i.e., ripples that
> oscillate multiple times per degree on the sky) to very large (i.e.,
> ripples that oscillate only once or twice around the whole sky).

Again, this assumes the BB is correct.

> The very largest-scale ripple we can observe in the microwave
> background is called the quadrupole.

Odd. Others claim observing an octupole. Why do you claim that this can't
be observed?

> It gets a lot of attention
> because it's the biggest, and because there's been some controversy
> over whether it agrees well enough with theoretical predictions.

Well, that would tend to be controversial.

> But
> other than that, it's not really special: the quadrupole is there for
> the same reason that the ripples on all other scales are there.

And what is the reason for it being aligned with the ecliptic -- unlike the
rest of the ripples?

> Of course, I haven't told you what that reason is! Nobody is 100%
> sure where those initial variations came from.

Then you don't have a viable theory, do you?

> The leading theory
> is that they were produced during an epoch called "inflation" in the
> very, very early Universe. During that time, quantum fluctuations
> got enlarged by the incredibly rapid acceleration of the Universe.
> Those quantum fluctuations led to the microwave background temperature
> variations.

However, according to the paper, this scenario (inflation) is disproved at
the 99.9% confidence level.

> One consequence of this theory is that fluctuations should exist on
> all scales from the quadrupole (and even larger, although those
> larger-scale ones are hard to observe) on down.
>
> >According to Smoot the cosmic quadrupole tends to cancel the galactic
> >quadrupole. Is that correct?
>
> Not really, although when Smoot wrote his book there was some reason
> to think it might be true. In fact, the cosmic quadrupole and the
> Galactic quadrupole are pretty close to orthogonal to each other.
>
> Look at the article
>
> http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0302496
>
> The top left panel of Figure 15 shows the cosmic quadrupole. In the
> same coordinate system, the Galactic quadrupole would look like
> hot band running horizontally across the middle, with cold spots
> at top and bottom.

And how is this relevant to the issue?

--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}

Greg Hennessy
December 4th 04, 04:21 AM
In article >,
greywolf42 > wrote:
> > The very largest-scale ripple we can observe in the microwave
> > background is called the quadrupole.
>
> Odd. Others claim observing an octupole. Why do you claim that this can't
> be observed?

He didn't. You are aware, are you not, that a quadrupole is of larger
scale than an octupole?

Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply
December 4th 04, 09:12 PM
In article >, "greywolf42"
> writes:

> > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > Patrick Powers > wrote:
> >
> > >Why is there a cosmic quadrupole at all?
> >
> > The short answer is "Why not?"
>
> Well, the "why not" is because it wasn't predicted by the current theory.

Of course it was. Haven't you been reading CMB papers? Years before
they were observed, the amplitude of various multiples was predicted for
various assumptions about cosmological parameters etc. The fact that
one can predict these is the whole reason to do an experiment like WMAP.

> If the BB is good for anything, it must be for predicting previously
> unobserved phenomena. However, once again, the BB theorists now must go
> looking for another ad hoc explanation of yet another surprise.

Again, no surprise in the low multipoles if you understand statistics,
though of course there can be other explanations (which were also in the
literature before the observations: look for "non-trivial topology",
"small universe" etc).

> > Some process in the early Universe appears to have produced variations
> > in density and temperature.
>
> Or the BB theory (latest inflation model) is contradicted by observation.

Confusing the BB theory with the latest inflation model is not a good
idea.

Aaron Bergman
December 4th 04, 09:14 PM
In article >,
"greywolf42" > wrote:

> > The very largest-scale ripple we can observe in the microwave
> > background is called the quadrupole.
>
> Odd. Others claim observing an octupole. Why do you claim that this can't
> be observed?

Octopoles are smaller than quadrupole.

It might be helpful to get things like that straight before making
sweeping pronouncements about the viability of inflation.

Aaron

greywolf42
December 5th 04, 08:28 PM
Greg Hennessy > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> greywolf42 > wrote:


> > > The very largest-scale ripple we can observe in the microwave
> > > background is called the quadrupole.
> >
> > Odd. Others claim observing an octupole. Why do you claim that this
> > can't be observed?
>
> He didn't. You are aware, are you not, that a quadrupole is of larger
> scale than an octupole?

I missed that qualification.

Any comment on the substance of the post?

--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}

Greg Hennessy
December 5th 04, 08:44 PM
In article >,
greywolf42 > wrote:
> > He didn't. You are aware, are you not, that a quadrupole is of larger
> > scale than an octupole?
>
> I missed that qualification.
>
> Any comment on the substance of the post?

Other than pointing out your claim was wrong, no.

alistair
December 6th 04, 01:16 PM
wrote in message >...
> Look at the article
>
> http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0302496
>
> The top left panel of Figure 15 shows the cosmic quadrupole. In the
> same coordinate system, the Galactic quadrupole would look like
> hot band running horizontally across the middle, with cold spots
> at top and bottom.
>
> -Ted

The authors mentioned close to the end of the paper that a universe
which had one spatial dimension suppressed would account for the
unexpected features of the quadrupole.The gravity of a second universe
of missing antimatter, to one side of our universe, would flatten one
spatial dimension in our universe,by stretching it in one direction.

greywolf42
December 6th 04, 08:18 PM
Greg Hennessy > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> greywolf42 > wrote:
> > > He didn't. You are aware, are you not, that a quadrupole is of larger
> > > scale than an octupole?
> >
> > I missed that qualification.
> >
> > Any comment on the substance of the post?
>
> Other than pointing out your claim was wrong, no.

Devastating. ;)

--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}

greywolf42
December 6th 04, 08:19 PM
This post was banned from sci.physics.research, by Phillip Helbig, my
"opponent" in the discussion. The rationale of Phillip his quite amusing:

"Unfortunately, the article you posted to sci.physics.research is
inappropriate for the newsgroup because the quoted discussion you were
replying to WAS confined to the discussion of amplitudes. A reply must
correctly address the stuff it quotes."

Quite simply, Phillip is attempting to protect his own argument that "at
this point the discussion was confined to amplitudes, not directions." This
was my *first* set of posts in response to the simple argument that Phillip
(repeatedly) made in all four posts.

If Phillip wishes to dispute whether my statistics support my point, he is
duty-bound to address that under the terms of the group, not simply spike
the opposition.


================================================== ==============

Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply >
wrote in message ...
> In article >, "greywolf42"
> > writes:
>
> > > No. It translates as people are interested it and have proposed many
> > > possible explanations, but because the value is within inherent error
> > > bars, it might just be nothing.
> >
> > But it's not "nothing". That's the whole point. It's a very
> > statistically significant and ordered measurement that is aligned
> > with the ecliptic.
> >
> > In other words, it's not "within error bars" -- whatever you mean by
> > "inherent".
>
> Again, at this point the discussion was confined to amplitudes, not
> directions.

Neither this discussion, nor the paper, nor the data was "limited" in any
way.

> It appears that the low amplitudes are not that mysterious.
> The alignment IS mysterious.

Only to the standard cosmology. Not to an aether theorist. ;)

> A few years ago, there was a paper published which claimed that a planet
> around a pulsar had been discovered, with a period of exactly one year.
> It turns out that the motion of the Earth was not taken into account.

I'm aware that there are many available pitfalls in data reduction.

> Perhaps, on a higher level, there is some data-analysis problem here.

This is true of all experiments, everywhere. Even those that give results
that seem to support the dominant paradigm.

> At least until someone comes up with a theory which explains the
> alignment AND everything else "standard theory" can explain (i.e. is on
> the whole better than standard theory and not ad-hoc), this appears to
> me to be the most likely explanation.

Such a statement is simply a non sequiteur. It may be the explanation most
commonly used to avoid the implications, but it has nothing to do with the
actual probabilities. The fact that there is not (or you are not aware of)
a theory that explains the new data, does not in any way affect the
existence of data that is at odds with a known theory.

> I think this whole episode gives another reason for the existence of the
> Planck Surveyor, even if WMAP will measure "everything good enough".

Funny, that's what was initially said about COBE. Deviations from
black-body were predicted by the BB theories as 1 part in 100 to 1 part in
1000. So COBE was designed to 1 part in 10,000. But nothing was found. It
took computerized "data enhancement" of the noise below the design threshold
to find anything. Then the models were adjusted to match.

If what WMAP finds contradicts (or appears to contradict) the predictions,
WMAP will not measure "good enough", either.

> Confirmation of results---especially strange, unexpected results---by
> independent experiments is essential.

I notice that confirmation of results is not ususally done, when results
appear to confirm expected results.

--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}

greywolf42
December 6th 04, 08:19 PM
This post was banned from sci.physics.research, by Phillip Helbig, my
"opponent" in the discussion. The rationale of Phillip his quite amusing:

"Unfortunately, the article you posted to sci.physics.research is
inappropriate for the newsgroup because a) as pointed out in another
rejection note, the stuff you quoted WAS confined to the discussion of
the amplitudes. The remarks about probability also referred to this.
These ARE acceptable as within the cosmic-variance errors. (If not, we
would have been hearing much more about this in the last few years; the
low quadrupole was seen already by COBE). More puzzling is the
alignment, but the stuff you quoted and were replying to wasn't
discussing that."

Quite simply, Phillip is attempting to protect his own argument that "at
this point the discussion was confined to amplitudes, not directions." This
was my *first* set of posts in response to the simple argument that Phillip
(repeatedly) made in all four posts.

If Phillip wishes to dispute whether my "evidence" supports my point, he is
duty-bound to address that under the terms of the group, not simply spike
the opposition.


================================================== =====================

Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply >
wrote in message ...
> In article >, "greywolf42"
> > writes:
>
> > > > > The cosmic quadrupole is there, but it's a few times lower in
> > > > > amplitude than is predicted in standard theories.
> > > >
> > > > That translates as not in accordance with standard predictions.
> > >
> > > That is too harsh, since the "standard predictions" are statistical.
> >
> > It's not harsh at all. It doesn't matter if the standard prediction is
> > statistical.
>
> Evidence, please? :-)

Given in the next response.

However, I'll try again. All predictions are "statistical" in nature.
There is nothing special about the BB predictions, in this event. For
example, let us assume that we must predict the net results of 10 coin
flips. We may "predict" 5 heads and 5 tails. But statistics tells us that
this is not guaranteed. We may see 6 heads and 4 tails. Or 7 heads and 3
tails. Now in this case, we find that we have observed 10 straight heads
and 0 tails. Now, of course this is possible -- by the nature of
statistics. But there is a 99.9% CL that this is not an honest head-tail
coin.

Now we can just assume that the prediction is simply a "statistical"
observation, and ignore the evidence. But I'd take my money to another
casino.

> > > It
> > > is somewhat difficult to quantify statistics with only one universe.
> >
> > Not in the least. One universe is all anyone has. And the statistics
> > are supposedly based on this observable universe. There is no theory
> > that cannot be insulated against any disproving observation by simply
> > claiming that *our* universe is just statistically lucky.
>
> It appears that you don't understand the concept of cosmic variance. It
> is NOT an excuse which can apply to any anomalous observation.

The special plead fallacy, followed by the proof-by-assertion.

> > > This "cosmic variance" has been discussed in the literature for years.
> > > It might be more surprising if every quadrupole was right on the nose.
> >
> > The prediction was for pure random. The observation was for highly
> > localized with the ecliptic. This isn't a "random" event.
>
> Again, at this point the discussion was confined to amplitude, not
> direction.

The discussion was not limited. The paper was not limited. My response was
not limited. I'm sorry if your "defense" is limited to random effects. The
data wasn't random.

> > > There was an episode of Star Trek in which McCoy figured out the
> > > aliens were not the humans they pretended to be since his
> > > instruments not only said they appeared human, but appeared as
> > > "textbook humans".
> >
> > Since when do we base "research" on Star Trek episodes?
>
> I don't. However, as I'm sure most readers are aware, it illustrates my
> point (as does the snipped part about radioactive atoms) that one does
> NOT expect ALL specific predictions (like multiple amplitudes) to be
> "right on the nose". Rather, some variance is expected.

Of course. However, when the variance well beyond the expected variation,
it's called "non-conformation" of the theory.

> A perfect,
> fair coin has a 50-50 heads-tails probability, but I doubt that if you
> toss it 40 times it will come up 20 and 20.

No one claimed this. But in this case, it seems to have come up 35-15.
Possible, but it might make one suspect a biased coin-flipper. That's the
99.9% confidence level (for contradiction of inflation) that's in the paper.

Why don't you address the statistics in the paper -- numerically -- instead
of providing these useless, hand-waving charicatures of the situation?

> > > This might be a case of "the exception proves the rule".
> >
> > Since when do we base "research" on social platitudes? Exceptions never
> > prove the rule in the scientific method.
>
> In this case, I think that this proverb, admittedly normally used in
> another context, is appropriate.

The exception *never* proves a rule, in science.

> > > See the "Was WMAP wrong?" thread for a possible explanation.
> >
> > Perhaps you'd care to be a bit more specific?
>
> Why? Should I quote other posts in that thread in their entirety?

I never asked for such.

> > > What is YOUR explanation?
> >
> > I don't need one, to point out a contradiction to the standard theory.
>
> Initially, perhaps. However, science normally progresses by explaining
> more as time goes by.

Unless it's gone down a blind alley.

--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}

greywolf42
December 6th 04, 08:19 PM
This post was banned from sci.physics.research, by Phillip Helbig. The
rationale of Phillip his quite amusing:

"Unfortunately, the article you posted to sci.physics.research is
inappropriate for the newsgroup because, as already pointed out, your
repeated (wrong) claims about the definition of cosmic variance are too
repetitive."

Of course, I wasn't discussing the defintion of cosmic variance at all.
Only how it is applied, and it's applicability to the situation.


================================================== =================

Aaron Bergman > wrote in message
news:abergman-A2F72E.20595503122004@localhost...
> In article >,
> "greywolf42" > wrote:
>
> > Aaron Bergman > wrote in message
> > news:abergman-AF95CE.11190501122004@localhost...

> > > No. It translates as people are interested it and have proposed many
> > > possible explanations, but because the value is within inherent error
> > > bars, it might just be nothing.
> >
> > But it's not "nothing". That's the whole point. It's a very
> > statistically significant and ordered measurement that is aligned
> > with the ecliptic.
> >
> > In other words, it's not "within error bars" -- whatever you mean by
> > "inherent".
>
> Prior to the analysis, it was.

??? How could something be "within error bars", prior to the analysis?

> Now that it's been analyzed further, it
> appears to be systematic (most likely) or new physics (less likely but
> not impossible).

We agree that these are the possibilities (though we may disagree on the
relative likelihoods).

> By inherent, I mean that there is a natural error associated to the low
> multipoles called cosmic variance.

Cosmic variance is not an inherent error. It is simply a fancy name for
claiming coincidence, and artifically pumping up the error bars whenever one
finds an apparent discrepancy. It is not invoked when observations seem to
match the dominant paradigm.

--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}

greywolf42
December 6th 04, 08:19 PM
This post was banned from sci.physics.research, by Phillip Helbig, my
"opponent" in the discussion. The rationale of Phillip his quite amusing:

"Unfortunately, the article you posted to sci.physics.research is
inappropriate for the newsgroup because it is too repetitive (you have
already made your claim, and repeating it won't make it true). Also,
the quote you have does not even support your claim."

Quite simply, Phillip is attempting to protect his own argument that "at
this point the discussion was confined to amplitudes, not directions." This
was my *first* set of posts in response to the simple argument that Phillip
(repeatedly) made in all four posts.

If Phillip wishes to dispute whether my quote supports my point, he is
duty-bound to address that under the terms of the group, not simply spike
the post.


================================================== =================

Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply >
wrote in message ...
> In article >, "greywolf42"
> > writes:
>
> > > >> The cosmic quadrupole is there, but it's a few times lower in
> > > >> amplitude than is predicted in standard theories.
> > > >
> > > >That translates as not in accordance with standard predictions.
> > >
> > > False.
> > >
> > > To decide whether a measurement x agrees with a theoretical prediction
> > > y, you need to know not just the difference between x and y, but
> > > also the uncertainty. In this case, the uncertainty is large
> > > (because of a phenomenon called "cosmic variance"),
> >
> > Actually, "cosmic variance" is simply an escape clause that can be used
> > to claim that any observation is not at variance with theory.
>
> False. As I pointed out in another post, it seems that you don't
> understand the term.

This is nothing but a special plead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_variance
"Cosmic variance is a notion related to the fact that we only observe one
copy of the Universe." {more on the webpage}

As I said, it's simply an escape clause to get out from under contradictory
observations. It could be invoked to disprove actual observations, as well.
But it's never used in that manner.

> > > so it's
> > > not clear whether the discrepancy is significant.
> >
> > But it's quite clear. It is a highly ordered, statistically significant
> > observation that there is something physical going on, that is aligned
> > with the ecliptic.
>
> Again, at this point the discussion was confined to amplitudes, not
> directions.

My discussion was not so limited. Nor is the data.

--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}

greywolf42
December 7th 04, 02:06 PM
Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply >
wrote in message ...
> In article >, "greywolf42"
> > writes:
>
> > > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > In article >,
> > > Patrick Powers > wrote:
> > >
> > > >Why is there a cosmic quadrupole at all?
> > >
> > > The short answer is "Why not?"
> >
> > Well, the "why not" is because it wasn't predicted by the current
> > theory.
>
> Of course it was.

Not according to Smoot's paper.

> Haven't you been reading CMB papers?

I've been reading some CMB papers. But it is *Smoots* paper that is under
discussion. If you want credit for something else, you'll have to be
specific.

> Years before
> they were observed, the amplitude of various multiples was predicted for
> various assumptions about cosmological parameters etc. The fact that
> one can predict these is the whole reason to do an experiment like WMAP.

How is this relevant to the question of the value and orientation of the
multipole that was actually observed?

> > If the BB is good for anything, it must be for predicting previously
> > unobserved phenomena. However, once again, the BB theorists now must go
> > looking for another ad hoc explanation of yet another surprise.
>
> Again, no surprise in the low multipoles if you understand statistics,

A completely self-serving special plead. The Smoot paper identified a 99.9%
CL that inflation was disproved. That *IS* statistics. Simply waving your
hands and saying "if you understand statistics" that you can ignore the
results, is worthless.

> though of course there can be other explanations (which were also in the
> literature before the observations: look for "non-trivial topology",
> "small universe" etc).

Go right ahead with a citation that disproves Smoot's claim.

> > > Some process in the early Universe appears to have produced variations
> > > in density and temperature.
> >
> > Or the BB theory (latest inflation model) is contradicted by
> > observation.
>
> Confusing the BB theory with the latest inflation model is not a good
> idea.

The latest BB theory by definition includes the latest inflation model. By
definition.

--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}

Joseph Lazio
December 8th 04, 12:46 AM
>>>>> "g" == greywolf42 > writes:

g> > wrote in message
g> ...

>>>OK. So how about that cosmic quadrupole?
>>
>> How about it?
>>
>> The cosmic quadrupole is there, but it's a few times lower in
>> amplitude than is predicted in standard theories.

g> That translates as not in accordance with standard predictions.

Correct so far.

>> It's hard to decide how to assign a statistical significance to
>> this discrepancy, so no one knows whether or not to be worried
>> about this.

g> This translates to "we're going to ignore it, until we come up with
g> an explanation". i.e. A new epicycle.

Of course, Ted explicitly says that it may be a concern.
Unfortunately, not everybody gets to live in your black-and-white
world.

All measurements have associated uncertainties. Sometimes it's quite
difficult to figure out how to determine what the uncertainties might
be. Until one is certain how statistically significant the
discrepancy is, jettisoning the theory is not the obvious answer
(particularly when there is no obvious replacement).

--
Lt. Lazio, HTML police | e-mail:
No means no, stop rape. | http://patriot.net/%7Ejlazio/
sci.astro FAQ at http://sciastro.astronomy.net/sci.astro.html

Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply
December 8th 04, 12:53 PM
In article >, "greywolf42"
> writes:

> The latest BB theory by definition includes the latest inflation model. By
> definition.

Whose definition? Yours? Reference, please.

Joseph Lazio
December 8th 04, 12:55 PM
>>>>> "g" == greywolf42 > writes:

g> Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply
g> > wrote in message
g> ...
>> In article >,
>> "greywolf42" > writes:
>>
>> > > wrote in message >
>> ... > > In article
>> >,
>> > > Patrick Powers > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >Why is there a cosmic quadrupole at all?
>> > >
>> > > The short answer is "Why not?"
>> >
>> > Well, the "why not" is because it wasn't predicted by the current
>> > theory.
>>
>> Of course it was.

g> Not according to Smoot's paper.

I think the original poster asked a question based on Smoot's popular
science book.

>> Haven't you been reading CMB papers?

g> I've been reading some CMB papers. But it is *Smoots* paper that
g> is under discussion. If you want credit for something else, you'll
g> have to be specific.

Uh-oh, here we go again. Although this isn't what's taught in middle
schools, the simple fact is that few (if any) theories or models will
fall on the basis of one experiment. One simple reason is that one
wants to double check any experiment with such significance. Smoot
may have claimed something in 1992. The point of all of the
observations since then is to double check those original experiments
and probe the models further.

>> Years before they were observed, the amplitude of various multiples
>> was predicted for various assumptions about cosmological parameters
>> etc. The fact that one can predict these is the whole reason to do
>> an experiment like WMAP.

g> How is this relevant to the question of the value and orientation
g> of the multipole that was actually observed?

Umm, maybe to verify that COBE got it right? Maybe to test
predictions arising out of the COBE observations?

--
Lt. Lazio, HTML police | e-mail:
No means no, stop rape. | http://patriot.net/%7Ejlazio/
sci.astro FAQ at http://sciastro.astronomy.net/sci.astro.html

greywolf42
December 8th 04, 09:12 PM
Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply >
wrote in message ...
> In article >, "greywolf42"
> > writes:
>
> > The latest BB theory by definition includes the latest inflation model.
> > By definition.
>
> Whose definition? Yours? Reference, please.

Since inflation only exists as an ad hoc modification to Big Bang theory (to
explain the non-lumpiness of the observed universe), the inference is
unavoidable.

--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}

greywolf42
December 8th 04, 09:12 PM
Joseph Lazio > wrote in message
...
> >>>>> "g" == greywolf42 > writes:
>
> g> > wrote in message
> g> ...
>
> >>>OK. So how about that cosmic quadrupole?
> >>
> >> How about it?
> >>
> >> The cosmic quadrupole is there, but it's a few times lower in
> >> amplitude than is predicted in standard theories.
>
> g> That translates as not in accordance with standard predictions.
>
> Correct so far.
>
> >> It's hard to decide how to assign a statistical significance to
> >> this discrepancy, so no one knows whether or not to be worried
> >> about this.
>
> g> This translates to "we're going to ignore it, until we come up with
> g> an explanation". i.e. A new epicycle.
>
> Of course, Ted explicitly says that it may be a concern.

But in doing so, he misrepresents the substance of the observation. That
the observation is that inflation is disproved to the 99.9% CL. This is
quite different than Ted's statment that the statistical significance is
"hard to assign."

> Unfortunately, not everybody gets to live in your black-and-white
> world.

My world is not black-and-white. I am an old (grey) wolf, and have
watched the perils of the BB theory for many decades. Time after time, the
BB theory makes a prediction .... that is contradicted by observation. Each
time this happens, the theorists first claim that the observation is
uncertain. A position that is maintained until they come up with yet
another ad hoc modification of the theoretical edifice.

> All measurements have associated uncertainties. Sometimes it's quite
> difficult to figure out how to determine what the uncertainties might
> be.

Apparently, it was not difficult in this case. The claim that it's "hard to
decide" is merely a reflection that the result is not desired by the
theorists.

> Until one is certain how statistically significant the
> discrepancy is, jettisoning the theory is not the obvious answer
> (particularly when there is no obvious replacement).

But the statistical significance *HAS* been calculated. Ted can't
contradict it, or address it in any scientific or substantive fashion. So he
simply is attempting to minimize the situation by diverting the issue.

And Ted's diversion has worked. Because you've been taken in.

--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}

greywolf42
December 8th 04, 09:13 PM
Joseph Lazio > wrote in message
...
> >>>>> "g" == greywolf42 > writes:
>
> g> Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply
> g> > wrote in message
> g> ...
> >> In article >,
> >> "greywolf42" > writes:
> >>
> >> > > wrote in message >
> >> ... > > In article
> >> >,
> >> > > Patrick Powers > wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > >Why is there a cosmic quadrupole at all?
> >> > >
> >> > > The short answer is "Why not?"
> >> >
> >> > Well, the "why not" is because it wasn't predicted by the current
> >> > theory.
> >>
> >> Of course it was.
>
> g> Not according to Smoot's paper.
>
> I think the original poster asked a question based on Smoot's popular
> science book.

Correction noted.

> >> Haven't you been reading CMB papers?
>
> g> I've been reading some CMB papers. But it is *Smoots* paper that
> g> is under discussion. If you want credit for something else, you'll
> g> have to be specific.
>
> Uh-oh, here we go again. Although this isn't what's taught in middle
> schools, the simple fact is that few (if any) theories or models will
> fall on the basis of one experiment.

You mean that most professional academics will hang onto a theory after a
theory has been contradicted by one experiment. Unless they think they have
a better theory. (As descrived in Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific
Revolutions").

> One simple reason is that one
> wants to double check any experiment with such significance.

According to the scientific method, one must double-check all experiments.
Not just those that seem to disprove popular theories. But this is not done
by academics today.

> Smoot
> may have claimed something in 1992. The point of all of the
> observations since then is to double check those original experiments
> and probe the models further.
>
> >> Years before they were observed, the amplitude of various multiples
> >> was predicted for various assumptions about cosmological parameters
> >> etc. The fact that one can predict these is the whole reason to do
> >> an experiment like WMAP.
>
> g> How is this relevant to the question of the value and orientation
> g> of the multipole that was actually observed?
>
> Umm, maybe to verify that COBE got it right? Maybe to test
> predictions arising out of the COBE observations?

I think you responded to a question other than what I asked. I did not ask
why the experiments or calculations were done (I agree with you). I asked
why Phillip made a statement that had nothing to do with the observed value
and orientation of the observed multipole.

--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}

Greg Hennessy
December 8th 04, 09:39 PM
In article >,
greywolf42 > wrote:
> But in doing so, he misrepresents the substance of the observation. That
> the observation is that inflation is disproved to the 99.9% CL.

How did you obtain that figure? What is the error you are using on the
determination of the observation, and what error bounds are you using
on the predicted value?

greywolf42
December 10th 04, 04:49 AM
Greg Hennessy > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> greywolf42 > wrote:

> > But in doing so, he misrepresents the substance of the observation.
> > That the observation is that inflation is disproved to the 99.9% CL.
>
> How did you obtain that figure? What is the error you are using on the
> determination of the observation, and what error bounds are you using
> on the predicted value?

From: http://www.cerncourier.com/main/article/44/10/4

=================
"To their surprise, the new method revealed at high statistical significance
(99.9% CL) that the observed quadrupole and octopole are inconsistent with a
Gaussian random, statistically isotropic sky (the generic prediction of
inflation). They also looked for correlations with any known directions on
the sky. No significant correlation with the Milky Way was found, but a
strong correlation with the orientation of the solar system (ecliptic plane)
and with its motion (measured as the CMB dipole) showed up."

"A comparison with 100,000 skies generated by Monte Carlo shows that each of
those correlations alone is unlikely at more than 99% CL. Therefore, there
is strong evidence either of some systematic error in the WMAP pipeline
(although in a preliminary analysis, the team is now discovering similar
features in COBE maps), or that the largest scales of the microwave sky are
dominated by a local foreground."
=================

See:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/msg/3c151a60c3df45c
d

Thread: "Was WMAP Wrong?"


And my apologies for getting two threads confused. The similar and
simultaneous claims on two parallel threads that deal with the quadrupole
and octupole data in the CMBR:

--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}

Greg Hennessy
December 10th 04, 01:34 PM
In article >,
greywolf42 > wrote:
> > > But in doing so, he misrepresents the substance of the observation.
> > > That the observation is that inflation is disproved to the 99.9% CL.
> >
> > How did you obtain that figure? What is the error you are using on the
> > determination of the observation, and what error bounds are you using
> > on the predicted value?
>
> From: http://www.cerncourier.com/main/article/44/10/4
>
> =================
> "To their surprise, the new method revealed at high statistical significance
> (99.9% CL) that the observed quadrupole and octopole are inconsistent with a
> Gaussian random, statistically isotropic sky (the generic prediction of
> inflation).

Right, and you are aware, are you not, that WMAP has measured hundreds
of l values, where l=1 is the dipole, l=2 is the quadrupole, l=3 is
the octopole, and WMAP has measured l greater than 500. The higher
order multipoles are not in conflict with inflation, but the lowest
poles are. And the lowest poles are most likely to have issues to the
model of the galaxy subtracted off, or long term electronic drifts.

Question for you, if you have 500 samples good to the 99.9% level, how
significant is it that two are more than .1 percent away from the
expected value?

greywolf42
December 12th 04, 02:48 AM
Greg Hennessy > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> greywolf42 > wrote:
> > > > But in doing so, he misrepresents the substance of the observation.
> > > > That the observation is that inflation is disproved to the 99.9% CL.
> > >
> > > How did you obtain that figure? What is the error you are using on the
> > > determination of the observation, and what error bounds are you using
> > > on the predicted value?
> >
> > From: http://www.cerncourier.com/main/article/44/10/4
> >
> > =================
> > "To their surprise, the new method revealed at high statistical
> > significance (99.9% CL) that the observed quadrupole and
> > octopole are inconsistent with a Gaussian random, statistically
> > isotropic sky (the generic prediction of inflation).
>
> Right, and you are aware, are you not, that WMAP has measured hundreds
> of l values, where l=1 is the dipole, l=2 is the quadrupole, l=3 is
> the octopole, and WMAP has measured l greater than 500.

A wonderful tribute to measuring noise.

> The higher
> order multipoles are not in conflict with inflation,

Noise is usually random.

> but the lowest
> poles are. And the lowest poles are most likely to have issues to the
> model of the galaxy subtracted off, or long term electronic drifts.

Or predictions made by non-GR, Big Bang theories. :)

> Question for you, if you have 500 samples good to the 99.9% level, how
> significant is it that two are more than .1 percent away from the
> expected value?

498 samples of noise are still noise.

99.9% CL does not mean that the observations are only 0.1 percent away from
the expected value.

--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}

Greg Hennessy
December 12th 04, 04:20 AM
In article >,
greywolf42 > wrote:
> > Right, and you are aware, are you not, that WMAP has measured hundreds
> > of l values, where l=1 is the dipole, l=2 is the quadrupole, l=3 is
> > the octopole, and WMAP has measured l greater than 500.
>
> A wonderful tribute to measuring noise.

Those measured frequencies are not noise.

> > Question for you, if you have 500 samples good to the 99.9% level, how
> > significant is it that two are more than .1 percent away from the
> > expected value?
>
> 498 samples of noise are still noise.
>
> 99.9% CL does not mean that the observations are only 0.1 percent away from
> the expected value.

I worded myself poorly. If you 500 samples of signal to noise
equivalent to a 99.9 percent confidence level, how many meaurements
would you expect to be discrepant?

greywolf42
December 13th 04, 07:25 AM
Greg Hennessy > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> greywolf42 > wrote:

> > > Right, and you are aware, are you not, that WMAP has measured hundreds
> > > of l values, where l=1 is the dipole, l=2 is the quadrupole, l=3 is
> > > the octopole, and WMAP has measured l greater than 500.
> >
> > A wonderful tribute to measuring noise.
>
> Those measured frequencies are not noise.

What makes you say that?

> > > Question for you, if you have 500 samples good to the 99.9% level, how
> > > significant is it that two are more than .1 percent away from the
> > > expected value?
> >
> > 498 samples of noise are still noise.
> >
> > 99.9% CL does not mean that the observations are only 0.1 percent away
> > from the expected value.
>
> I worded myself poorly. If you 500 samples of signal to noise
> equivalent to a 99.9 percent confidence level, how many meaurements
> would you expect to be discrepant?

Who cares? It's not equivalent to having *many* samples of observations of
a given *n-pole* measurement. Which -- after measurements over a long
period are 99.9% CL away from predictions of the BB-inflation theory.

Second, random results could as easily be noise. Not "signal to noise!"

--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}

Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply
December 14th 04, 06:09 AM
he identifies himself.

20. Notice the masochistic tendency of leftist tactics. Leftists
protest by lying down in front of vehicles, they intentionally provoke
police or racists to abuse them, etc. These tactics may often be
effective, but many leftists use them not as a means to an end but
because they PREFER masochistic tactics. Self-hatred is a leftist
trait.

21. Leftists may claim that their activism is motivated by compassion
or by moral principle, and moral principle does play a role for the
leftist of the oversocialized type. But compassion and moral principle
cannot be the main motives for leftist activism. Hostility is too
prominent a component of leftist behavior; so is the drive for power.
Moreover, much leftist behavior is not rationally calculated to be of
benefit to the people whom the leftists claim to be trying to help.
For example, if one believes that affirmative action is good for black
people, does it make sense to demand affirmative action in hostile or
dogmatic terms? Obviously it would be more productive to take a
diplomatic and conciliatory approach that would make at least verbal
and symbolic concessions to white people who think that affirmative
action discriminates against them. But leftist activists do not take
such an approach because it would not satisfy their emotional needs.
Helping black people is not their real goal. Instead, race problems
serve as an excuse for them to express their own hostility and
frustrated need for power. In doing so they actually harm black
people, because the activists' hostile attitude toward the white
majority tends to intensify race hatred.

22. If our society had no social problems at all, the leftists would
have to INVENT problems in order to provide themselves with an excuse
for making a fuss.

23. We emphasize that

Google

Loans - Frankfurt Rooms - Sport equipment - Ordenadores de sobremesa - Mortgage