Galaxies are running out of gas: study

Wouldn't it be great to use a star to communicate with other civilizations via solar flare? Just like a small transistor can change a large current with a small one, we could use the solar seasons and a little finesse to send signals that can be easily heard by other civilizations (RF signals are too weak to pass through interstellar space over inverse square distances.)We may not have the amount of power output as a whole to do this yet, but that tells us a lot about what to expect from other civilizations. Stars are the lighthouses of the universe.

X-rays would be an excellent candidate just for the simple fact that they can go through interstellar gas, and be filtered for analysis. I could also see large clouds of charged interstellar gas used in similar fashion. Whatever the right frequency, I think this is the best way to get attention; or listen...

Galaxies are running out of gas

No.

Galaxies continue to generate more gas and the universe expands faster because the driving force is:

a.) Neutron repulsion [1]
b.) Causing neutron emission, and
c.) Free neutrons decay into H-atoms,
d.) With V(finial)/V(initial) ~1,000,000,000,000,000 [2].

1. "Neutron Repulsion", The APEIRON Journal, in press, 19 pages (2011):

http://arxiv.org/...2.1499v1

2. "Is the Universe Expanding?", The Journal of Cosmology 13, 4187-4190 (2011):

http://journalofc...102.html

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo

How did this paper get past the referees? Carbon monoxide may be a good proxy for molecular hydrogen in galaxies, but it is assuming a lot to assume that primordial gas (created shortly after the big bang) contains the same amount of CO as gas in galaxies. The galactic gas should contain more carbon and oxygen due to supernova.

nonsense oliver. Give it up already, your idea(and your life) are failures.

nonsense oliver. Give it up already, your idea(and your life) are failures.

It's more legitimate than whatever theory you have. I don't think you're in a position to debunk neutron repulsion. Come back when you have your PhD and similar qualifications and then people might listen to what you have to say.

Up until that time, gravity dominated the Universe, so the gas was naturally pulled in to galaxies

So if gravity dominated, why didn't the universe collapse back into the singularity that it supposedly came from? What was counter-acting that force to the extend that the universe continued to expand? Then why did the Dark-energy suddenly kick in ? What caused it to arise in the first place?

Up until that time, gravity dominated the Universe, so the gas was naturally pulled in to galaxies

So if gravity dominated, why didn't the universe collapse back into the singularity that it supposedly came from? What was counter-acting that force to the extend that the universe continued to expand? Then why did the Dark-energy suddenly kick in ? What caused it to arise in the first place?

Kevin, just so you know, in science you dont ask questions like these thinking you already know the answer. Not if you actually want to FIND the answer, that is.

If your god was there then finding the answers to questions such as these would tend to reveal him. Sadly, all the answers science has uncovered so far seem to lead directly away from the god you so cherish. Too bad.

"Up until that time, gravity dominated the Universe, so the gas was naturally pulled in to galaxies"

Just to answer that question, it wasn't a matter of gravity "dominating" the universe, it's simply that during that epoch gravitational attraction was more powerful than dark energy, and the RATE of expansion was slowing (i.e, not speeding up, reduction in acceleration). Yet the universe itself was still expanding.

Further details of this are available in relation to distant supernova studies, our "standard candles" (we think).

duh.h.h.h.h

nonsense oliver. Give it up already, your idea(and your life) are failures.

It's more legitimate than whatever theory you have. I don't think you're in a position to debunk neutron repulsion. Come back when you have your PhD and similar qualifications and then people might listen to what you have to say.

oliver has exactly 0 training in this field. if you think his work is credible it says alot about yours.

@omatumr - You've posted your links on here quite a bit, and I must admit I've generally avoided them. However I just had a quick read through, and it's pretty intriguing stuff actually.

To be honest I'm still trying to get to grips with QCD, and I can't imagine being able to comment on this for or against without being a QCD expert (or an astrophysicist I guess).

Which unfortunately leads me to having to take your ideas like I take any physics idea that I don't understand yet, and put it to the side for now.

Anyway, fun theory regardless.

@jsdarkdestruction - Just to clarify in advance... I'm not supporting omatumr's theory, nor am I against it, I just wanted to say it was fun to read through, and even if it is wrong for whatever reason, it's still interesting to speculate on...

yeah, at first. but then when oliver attacks you for asking him to explain things that dont make alot of sense and then provides the same links he did the first time that didnt explain what you are asking it takes the fun out of it. Then you see his climate change world conspiracy theory repeatdly spammed and that he molested all his children and is a convicted sex offender you really grow to dislike the man. He belongs in prison or a coffin for what he did. Can you imagine how his children all felt? the man is a monster

@omatumr - You've posted your links on here quite a bit, and I must admit I've generally avoided them. However I just had a quick read through, and it's pretty intriguing stuff actually.

Which unfortunately leads me to having to take your ideas like I take any physics idea that I don't understand yet, and put it to the side for now.

Anyway, fun theory regardless.

Thanks, Pete1983. It is wise to admit what we do not know.

Professor Paul K. Kuroda was my graduate research advisor in chemistry.

www.omatumr.com/a...aphy.pdf

www.omatumr.com/a...itic.pdf

Professor John H. Reynolds was my post-doctoral research advisor in physics.

www.nap.edu/html/...olds.pdf

All is well,
Oliver

Lao Tzu: "To know that you do not know is best.
To pretend to know what you do not know is a disease."

isdarkdestruction
I've reported you for posting abusive comments. I'm posting this is so you know who reported you to prevent personal attacks on all and sundry. You might want to re-read what you've posted today and consider whether you should be posting to this forum if all you have to contribute is vitriol and abuse!

@jsdarkdestruction - As much as Oliver may indeed be a horrible person for the reasons you suggest, I tend to view humans in a more meme-theory sense. I.e - we are the products of our experiences... and yeah conciousness is probably just a scam, so I don't really blame people for anything as such, I blame the system within which we live (which are pretty screwed up). Purchase any luxury and you are, in a way, supporting child labour. It's all screwed up. Basically I'm saying I've given up on any theory of morality and judgement, because they simply don't make sense.

That being said I'm not exactly going around making friends with child-molesters! But in this case, it's an internet discussion, I can't really make any character judgements on here. Also it's physics/maths, they make no judgements.

Anyway, @Oliver - It's not so much wise to admit we do not know, as just obvious I think! We only woke up to science really in the last few hundred years. We know NOTHING, pretty much.

Anyway, @Oliver - It's not so much wise to admit we do not know, as just obvious I think! We only woke up to science really in the last few hundred years. We know NOTHING, pretty much.

I agree. Here's our choice:

a.) Enjoy a life of continuous discovery, by admitting that you do not know, or

b.) Fool yourself into thinking that you know and live a miserable life, learning nothing new and telling others that they are not as smart as you think you are.

Only a complete fool would choose b.)

With kind regards,
Oliver

@omatumr - Socrates was just fantastic wasn't he? I still remember even opening Plato for this first time... Simply amazing.

"I know that I know nothing"

I can't help but get the impression that the world would be a much better place if only people read more of the classics.

isdarkdestruction
I've reported you for posting abusive comments. I'm posting this is so you know who reported you to prevent personal attacks on all and sundry. You might want to re-read what you've posted today and consider whether you should be posting to this forum if all you have to contribute is vitriol and abuse!

You simply dont understand the full situation. I've not lied or said anything that cant be found by looking online. Do some research into oliver and his constant attacks of modern science as a huge global conspiracy thats a bunch of liars when he lied and pretended to be a decent human while molesting his own children and lying and conspiring to stop information to get out(the info of him molesting his children.) Also, I dont really care what others think on this, i believe its for the good of society i reveal olivers lies and disgusting past and im not going to stop. Sorry

@jsdarkdestruction - I'm not going to comment on a lot of what you are saying there js, however Oliver appears to be quite reserved in his suggestion.

I've seen many people on physorg go on and on about a global conspiracy by scientists to not let anyone know that the big bang didn't really happen and it was a fairy or something, so I'm well aware of what you mean when you say this. However Oliver doesn't seem to just out and attack anything, he just quietly keeps uploading his pdfs, and thats about it. It's not THAT horrible.

As far as the stuff you're talking about in relation to his personal character, I simply do not care. He is American, and I've never met a sane American. To say he's evil and out of his mind just means he is American, as all Americans seem to worship the god of money, which makes them all quite nuts. Not as nuts as people who believe in God, but pretty close.

please read all of olivers posts like i have and tell me if you feel the same still. lol, but you did miss my point a bit. Oliver is attacking other scientists credibility and integrity calling them liars and frauds and all in on a global conspiracy and I point out that oliver lived a lie for his whole life read this.
Dr. Oliver Manuel arrested for multiple counts of rape and sodomy of his children
By Michele Martin on 8/30/06 Share Facebook Twitter del.icio.us

The allegations that are being prosecuted came from four of Manuels children. Sharon Manuel, 50, his adopted daughter, alleged the abuse took place from the time she was 6 to 14 years old. Oliver Manuel Jr., 43, his biological son, alleged that the abuse took place from the time he was 11 to 17 years old. James Rosenburg, 34, his stepson, alleged the abuse took place from the time he was 7 to 17 years old. Sirikka Llohoefner, 27, his biological daughter alleged the abuse took place from the time she was 5 to 11 years old

his other daughter killed herself. its a miracle the rest of his children have not.
I'll give it to oliver that ever since ethel red finally started showing olivers theories many flaws which oliver refused to discuss other than repeat the same stuff that he just said over and over again he has not attacked too many people over actual science and has been going off in rants on the global conspiracy theory of his.

Hmm.... I guess I can't stop thinking of Manuel as a polite british butler... Because of course all british butlers are called either Manuel or Jeeves.

Anyway I don't know what to make of these allegations of yours js. I can't find any reference online to them beyond google references to sites that don't respond...

Either way, it does not matter sir! Let it go. Oliver is clearly going to be around for a while, my searching has shown he's been at this for 7 years or so, and I don't think you're going to change his mind anytime soon.

Let it go and go read the article about the beer yeast... and then go have a beer. Thats what I'm going to do.

I don't think you're in a position to debunk neutron repulsion.

Anyone can be in that position as Oliver is not in a position to support neutron repulsion. There is NO evidence whatsoever supporting Oliver's claim. The ONLY thing he has is ONE table that fits the Pauli Exclusion Principle and frequent request for anything that distinguish neutron repulsion from the PEP is met with evasion or stonewalling.

Anytime Oliver wants to start answering the questions he pretends don't exist then he will have begun to behave like a real scientist instead of a spamming crank.

Please keep in mind that Oliver has never even taken one astronomy class yet he attacks astronomers frequently. He has no more education on QM than I do and less on astronomy. He is not some god just because he has PhD behind his name. He has to have actual evidence and he doesn't. Read his papers. I have.

Then note that he mostly cites himself and none of the other people he cites agree with him.

Ethelred

Professor Paul K. Kuroda was my graduate research advisor in chemistry.

And he never backed Oliver.

Professor John H. Reynolds was my post-doctoral research advisor in physics.

And he never backed Oliver.

NO physicist or astronomer has backed Oliver. Not even the people he cites in his papers. The evidence does not back Oliver.

a.) Enjoy a life of continuous discovery, by admitting that you do not know, or

So when are you going to do that in regards to the questions I keep asking. I have even suggested that you do so if you can't produce any evidence. Instead you pretend the questions weren't asked.

Only a complete fool would choose b.)

However that was a false dichotomy since there are many other options. Only a complete ass would those two were the only options for going through life.

Ethelred

@Ethelred - ah cmon, that last one wasn't so bad. Admitting you do not know something is a GOOD thing, and thats what we were discussing. There was nothing more to it...

Anyway, I get it, you guys are obviously very sick of dealing with Oliver, and thats fine, but just don't get too caught up in it. The internet is a playground, and I wouldn't have it any other way.

google oliver k. manuel arrested, the site of the university he used to have emeritus status at has a good summary of it. if you want to see it for yourself still

Up until that time, gravity dominated the Universe, so the gas was naturally pulled in to galaxies

So if gravity dominated, why didn't the universe collapse back into the singularity that it supposedly came from? What was counter-acting that force to the extend that the universe continued to expand? Then why did the Dark-energy suddenly kick in ? What caused it to arise in the first place?

kevin, give it up already. so annoyed at reading your posts...go find another site to troll, errr wait, im sure your covering all the popular sites that mash w your views, as a matter of fact is that you i argue with on natgeo all the time? pfft. if its not you im sure its one of your creationist buddies...you all troll out and cover a site then report back to the head toolbag about your days rants and raves.

mission accomplished.

ironically, sending out about the same message as George W sent when he stood under that banner back in what was it '03?

Anyway I don't know what to make of these allegations of yours js.

I read the results of the court case. He plead guilty to the one count that was not past the statute of limitations.

Barakn posted the first information about this on this web site. I followed up because I am not going to take one persons word.

https://www.court...seNumber

Case number
08BA-CR00444

Sorry but I can't get direct link to the case. You can use the case number in the search. Then click on the case number since it does not take you directly to the case.

Description: Attmpt-Sodomy { Felony C RSMo: 566.060/564.011 }

Disposition: Guilty Plea - 07/24/2008

IMPOSITION OF SENTENCE SUSPENDED AND DEFT. PLACED ON 5 YEARS SUPERVISED PROBATION ON CONDITIONS (SEE DOCKET ENTRY)

The Docket Entries tab has the most information

More

Megan's Law page
http://www.mshp.d...leName=K


No it does not make his science invalid. The lack of supporting evidence does that. It does make him an unreliable source of uncorroborated information. Most of what he posts is uncorroborated and he really does evade relevant questions.

Admitting you do not know something is a GOOD thing,

Did I leave out an important word again?

Nope.

He has NOT done that. Only one single time in the two years I have been asking him relevant questions has he admitted that he couldn't answer whatever it was. Just once. Don't remember what it was. I have asked a LOT of questions since and mostly he pretends they are invisible. Or reposts the papers that are in question.

Ethelred

Not enough information. We 'think' we see all galaxies, but then again, we know we don't. We think we see galaxies that are at distances of up to xxx light years, but we don't have a clue as to whether we are correct.

Another heated exchange about Oliver. Personally I wouldn't touch him with a stick but I'm not a police man. However, I did read some of his 'papers' and they are kindergarten level at best. He drones on about how we need to accept that we don't know the details of this world but somehow this 'wisdom' only extends to his opponents. Oliver himself ferociously defends his ideas no matter how ridiculous they are, not much humility on his behalf.

We 'think' we see all galaxies, but then again, we know we don't.

We see galaxies and stars and other things. Would you care to make that a bit more clear?

. We think we see galaxies that are at distances of up to xxx light years, but we don't have a clue as to whether we are correct.

Actually we do. We have multiple standard candles for checking distances. Not just one. We don't know PERFECTLY the distances but we sure do have ample evidence to say that the distances to the nearest galaxies is reasonably accurate. The farther galaxies that have only been checked by their red shift is more iffy but the error range isn't so bad that we should pretend that we don't have a clue when we most certainly do. So far supernova evidence supports the redshift evidence to a reasonable degree.

If you want to claim that we don't know shit you had better be able show why you think that. Otherwise you haven't a leg to stand on.

Ethelred

Jsdarkdestruction, Mr. Manuel is here to discuss the science. Let's join him and stick to the topic okay? I too am starting to report your attacks on him as inappropriate for this site. If you could find a grown-up to help you type it, I would like to see your opinion on any of the subjects actually brought up by the articles. Mr. Manuel's physics ideas are fair game, but personal issues outside of the science arena this web site serves are not.

"Jsdarkdestruction, Mr. Manuel is here to discuss the science...."

Is he really? Please point to the relevant work on neutron repulsion that is not from Oliver (and more of his self-referential, independently-uncorroborated papers). Ethelred, barakn, jsdd, myself and others have tried numerous times to discuss *science* with Oliver.

In reply, we get rants about Gore, China, Eisenhower, international conspiracies and coverups and the IPCC-climategate "debacle" instead (and more useless, spammed links to his papers). You want to talk science with Oliver, be my guest. It'll be a one-sided conversation for sure.

Yes Oliver, you can downrank my legitimate complaint, but you can't answer simple questions put to you multiple times by multiple people here at PhysOrg. You fool no one but yourself......and maybe your pet worshipper Kio. Wanna discuss *real* non-Oliver backed science? I'm ready any time.

[Where's that Sag A* SED curve, after all? And why is the sky dark at night?]

*******************crickets*******************

you can't answer simple questions put to you multiple times by multiple people here at PhysOrg.

I'm ready any time.

Great!

1. Read papers reviewed by nuclear and space scientists,
2. Study the experimental data reported there, and
3. Decide if you are capable of learning.

You can then answer yourself.

1. www.omatumr.com/a...tnuc.pdf

2. www.springerlink....ak3lyrc/

3. www.springerlink....6685079/

4. www.omatumr.com/a...2002.pdf

5. http://arxiv.org/...410717v1

6. www.omatumr.com/a...dity.pdf

etc, etc.

8. http://arxiv.org/...2.1499v1

"Read papers reviewed by nuclear and space scientists......"

Oliver, thank you for the extensive list of papers and monographs you have coauthored over time supporting your NR notion. Do you have links to *independent* research papers (without your name affixed) by co-authors Bolan, Katragada, Insall, Zhomg, Miller, Friber & Ninham that explicitly back up your NR assertions?

[Study that last question carefully, and decide if you are capable of learning you are (nearly) alone in your crankery]

Where is the *independent* confirmation of NR, galaxy 'fragmentation', pulsar-sun, etc. (and not that lone paper by Toth again, seen it. Ethelred rightly rags you on it on occasion).

Do you doubt the experimental data?

Do you have a better explanation?

Are you capable of learning?

As stated earlier:

1. Read papers reviewed by nuclear and space scientists,
2. Study the experimental data reported there, and
3. Decide if you are capable of learning.

Isn't the best method for measuring gravity still an almost frictionless ball whose weight is accurately defined falling a vacuum?

The gravity from out supermassive black hole (galactic center) is supposedly pressed into a giant spinning pancake because of the speed the black hole is spinning and its huge mass. So what kind of distortions to time and space does flat disc of gravity cause?

"Do you doubt the experimental data?"

Yes, yes I do doubt the experimental data. Why are there no independent confirmations of your findings? These are not complicated experiments. There should be dozens if not hundreds of confirmatory experiments, yet you can not link ONE independent example of neutron repulsion in the literature. Not one. Only you and your collaborators (and no collaborator on their own) on the aforementioned papers assert NR exists and is not a manifestation of the Pauli Exclusion Principle.

There is no independent corroboration of your NR hypothesis. Why is that? Some conspiracy I guess.

Do you doubt the experimental data?

Do you have a better explanation?

Are you capable of learning?

As stated earlier:

1. Read papers reviewed by nuclear and space scientists,
2. Study the experimental data reported there, and
3. Decide if you are capable of learning.

your data doesnt prove a supermassive neutron star is in the center of our galaxy. it proves nothing other than the pauli exclusion principle. you've closed your mind a long time ago oliver, the rest of your post is horse shit. i do have a better explanation, but you wouldnt learn anything from it anyway.

Jsdarkdestruction, Mr. Manuel is here to discuss the science. Let's join him and stick to the topic okay? I too am starting to report your attacks on him as inappropriate for this site. If you could find a grown-up to help you type it, I would like to see your opinion on any of the subjects actually brought up by the articles. Mr. Manuel's physics ideas are fair game, but personal issues outside of the science arena this web site serves are not.

have you actually read his posts? 99% go on about some global conspiracy....not real science. as for your attack on me not being an adult. Whatever, doesnt bother me what you think.

"Do you doubt the experimental data?"

Yes, yes I do doubt the experimental data.

If you actually read any the papers in detail, you would know that I did not personally generate all of the data. In fact, for the most controversial conclusions, . . .

I routinely used the best available data from the best laboratories.

a.) From the University of Chicago

www.omatumr.com/D...Data.htm

b.) From Brookhaven National Laboratory

www.omatumr.com/D...Data.htm

c.) From Mainz and Cal-tech

www.omatumr.com/D...Data.htm

d.) From Bern, UC-Berkeley, Univ. Minnesota

www.omatumr.com/D...Data.htm

e.) From the $1,000,000,000 Galileo Probe into Jupiter

www.omatumr.com/D...Data.htm

"I routinely used the best available data from the best laboratories."

I don't question your source of data(for the most part). I question why no other independent, corroborating research exists that backs up your claims. Why no independent replication of your findings using identical data sets? That's what makes no sense.

Independent corroboration. The lack of it speaks volumes.

Sorry, I do not think I can help you.

I prepared these documents for todays ACS Webinar: Critical Look at Global Warming Data: Wickedly Complex System Called Climate.

http://dl.dropbox...inar.doc

http://dl.dropbox...inar.pdf

I have not yet been allowed to speak, but other critics of AGW are included in the program.

Conclusion: "Group think" consensus science is now waning. You may see this if change in attitude toward both AGW and SSM models.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo

I question his sources of data. Let's examine just one, the Galileo probe's Xenon data. In January 1998 Dan Goldin released preliminary data due in part to pressure from Oliver. This data showed a higher than solar Xe-136 to Xe-134 ratio. Oliver took this as evidence of a differentiated precursor star and non-mixed supernova, though despite repeated questions from me and others, he has offered no reason why this wouldn't support Xe from multiple sources. This was by no means the last word on that data. Oliver, for his own peculiar reasons, would be the last to admit that a rich scientific discussion of the data and its method of collection has transpired since 1998.

One of the most important recent papers was Mahaffy, P.R., H. B. Niemann, A. Alpert, S. K.Atreya, J. Demick, T. M. Donahue, D. N. Harpold, and T. C. Owen, Noble Gas Abundance and Isotope Ratios in the Atmosphere of Jupiter from the Galileo Probe Mass Spectrometer, JGR Planets 105, 15061 - 15071 (2000).

The need for this paper was obvious. The FU (flight unit) mass spectrometer and associated systems were pre-calibrated using pressures, temperatures, and gas mixtures that were expected to be found on (in) Jupiter. If we had known exactly what to expect there would have been no reason to send a probe, and of course things didn't go exactly as expected. The parachute deployed a minute later than expected (luckily, as it had been miss-wired and the accelerometer was likely upside down). The Jovian atmosphere proved to be more efficient at moving thermal energy to/from the thermal enrichment cells than expected, resulting in greater-than-expected temperature swings during noble gas entrapment.

With this in mind, Mahaffy et al used EUs (engineering units) almost identical in design to the FU and recalibrated using the actual temperature and pressure profile experienced by the FU during Jupiter descent, as well as using gas mixtures closer to actual Jovian composition.

When reanalyzing the probe data, The Xe ratios came out to be the same as solar, albeit with large error bars. I pointed this out to Oliver, and suggested he critique the paper. His only response was to conclude that the Goldin data must be superior because it had smaller error bars. His argument has no legs to stand on. First of all, the new evaluation includes data that was not available from the original FU calibration, so one should not expect the same error. Secondly, ignoring possible sources of error is a bad thing, not a good thing. If anything, the Mahaffy data is a more honest and realistic look at the quality of data possible from the Galileo probe's mass spec. My conversation with Oliver deteriorated at that point. He started questioning my own credentials, which was an argumentum ad hominem considering that I was pointing out relevant literature that I myself was not an author of. Still waiting for an honest critique....

@barakn,

Thanks for the additional info wrt the Galileo data Oliver refers to frequently in his posts. I remember some of your earlier 'discussion' with a recalcitrant and evasive Oliver but I could not remember the details of the conversation. Again, thank you for the specific references on the Galileo mass spec data, and I daresay Oliver would remain mum on the matter, especially as it pertains to his isotopic Jupiter claims.

Conclusion: "Group think" consensus science is now waning.

Consensus science? As opposed to random cranks making shit up with no critical support science? Well may you wish for the scientific method to be waning, given your MO.

When reanalyzing the probe data, . . .

A. In 1983 we predicted [1] the Galileo probe would find excess Xe-136 in Jupiter's He-rich atmosphere.

B. In 1995 the Galileo probe entered Jupiter's Jupiter's He-rich atmosphere and observed excess Xe-136. But the data were hidden.

C. In 1996 I attended the Lunar Science Conference and asked for the data. I was told the data was "normal" and confirmed the SSM. That was untrue.

D. In 1998 I asked Dr. Dan Goldin for the data. He released it immediately and said the data belonged to the American people [2] !

E. H and He isotope data also falsify the SSM [3]

References:

1. "Solar abundances of the elements", Meteoritics 18, 209-222 (1983)

http://www.omatum...nces.pdf

2. Dr. Dan Goldin's response

www.youtube.com/w...IFmZpFco

3. "Abundances of Hydrogen and Helium Isotopes in Jupiter"

www.omatumr.com/a...ietz.pdf

C. In 1996 I attended the Lunar Science Conference and asked for the data. I was told the data was "normal" and confirmed the SSM. THAT WAS UNRRUE!
why's that? because it goes against your theory? Oliver, you cling to your beliefs despite all the evidence to the contrary.

The fact is that NASA scientists hid experimental data from the Galileo probe into Jupiter.

Data that cost American taxpayers $1,000,000,000 were hidden like personal property and misrepresented in meetings.

Why?

Maybe barakn knew the data would undercut claims that Earth's heat source is a stable H-fusion reactor.

I had not yet heard the AGW propaganda story in 1983, when we showed that Apollo data undercuts the SSM dogma.

When the Galileo mission reached Jupiter twelve years later, we still had not heard the AGW propaganda story.

But two expensive space missions that cost over $1,000,000,000 each falsified SSM before we realized that SSM was the cornerstone of the official AGW dogma that emerged in public later.

Anyway, I do not blame barakn.

He/she was probably an innocent pawn, misled into believing he/she was doing his/her patriotic duty by hiding experimental data that would disprove the Standard Solar Model.

I doubt if he/she knew that SSM was the cornerstone of the AGW scam that would appear later.

See news reports on yesterday's ACS meeting on climate change:

http://judithcurr...part-ii/

"In 1998 I asked Dr. Dan Goldin for the data. He released it immediately...."

So this data has been available to the public for over a decade, and yet you are the only qualified scientist who has looked at this data and concluded that this is evidence the Sun has a pulsar at its' nucleus?

No *independent* published research exists that uses this 1998 Galileo data to show that the sun is really a pulsar surrounded by a semi-rigid shell of iron-bearing material; or do you have an independent reference discussing the Galileo data that includes your pulsar-sun theory?

@barakn,

"Still waiting for an honest critique...."

Looks like its going to be a long wait. No mention of the scientific critique you offered on the Galileo mass spec results(again). Just more conspiracy theories and politics. And now you're being labeled an agent of disinformation, along with Ethelred, and anyone else who doesn't see the NR "light".

....and denial is a river in Egypt.....

oh yeah oliver its some conspiracy to hide data. of course. thats such nonsense, do you even bother to think before you talk/type anymore or was it because you are in denial?(SOUNDS LIKE A RELIGION TO ME, as ive heard you say about "big bang theory multiple times). Get real man, its getting pathetic.

Sure do wish I had all that all that money the Crank thinks I was paid.

And that IS Cranking to accuse your opponents of being paid to oppose you. It is also what you do when you don't have a real answer to the very relevant questions.

Ethelred

I gave him over a month to respond. Real scientists check each other's work by perusing each other's papers for flaws and by independently repeating experiments. Back when he was a legitimate scientist, his specialty was mass spectrometry, and so if anyone was qualified to re-analyze data from Galileo's mass spectrometer or calibrate leftover engineering-unit mass specs, it was him. But did he? He certainly has not offered an in-depth critique of the Mahaffy paper, but did he even bother to read it and spend a minimal amount of energy looking for obvious problems like math errors? Did Oliver run the sort of mathematical analysis that would expose data manipulation (much like the sort of inquiries that exposed some teachers changing answers on their students' standardized tests to get better scores)? No, he hasn't.

The fact that Oliver has not made the effort and has instead decided to slander thousands of scientists shows how little interest he has in the truth. His true interest is in propping up his circus tent of a theory, despite lost tent pegs, frayed ropes, snapped poles, a howling gale, despite how the few clowns, carneys, elephants and freaks willing to help him always pull in the wrong direction.