Astronomers complete cosmic dust census

Mar 18, 2014
Astronomers complete cosmic dust census
Galaxies in the Herschel Reference Survey. The images are presented in false-colour to highlight different dust temperatures, with blue and red representing colder and warmer regions respectively. Credit: ESA/Herschel/HRS-SAG2 and HeViCS Key Programmes/L. Cortese (Swinburne University)

An international team of astronomers has completed a benchmark study of more than 300 galaxies, producing the largest census of dust in the local Universe, the Herschel Reference Survey. Led by Dr Luca Cortese from Swinburne University of Technology in Melbourne, Australia, the team used the Herschel Space Observatory to observe galaxies at far-infrared and sub-millimetre wavelengths and captured the light directly emitted by dust grains. The results appear in the journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.

"These are believed to be fundamental ingredients for the formation of stars and planets, but until now very little was known about their abundance and physical properties in galaxies other than our own Milky Way," said Dr Cortese.

'Cosmic dust is heated by starlight to temperatures of only a few tens of degrees above absolute zero, and can thus be only seen at far-infrared/sub-millimetre wavelengths."

The two cameras on board the Herschel satellite, SPIRE and PACS, allowed astronomers to probe different frequencies of dust emission, which bear imprints on the of the grains and therefore were critical for this study. Although the SPIRE data were obtained three years ago, the team had to wait for the completion of the PACS survey last year.

The Herschel Reference Survey at infrared wavelengths. Collage of galaxies in the Herschel Reference Survey, the largest census of cosmic dust in the local Universe. The galaxies are presented in false-colour to highlight different dust temperatures, with blue and red representing colder and warmer regions respectively. The collage is presented with dust-rich, spiral and irregular galaxies in the top left, and giant, dust-poor elliptical galaxies in the bottom-right. The images were composed from PACS and SPIRE observations at 100, 160 and 250 micron. Credit: ESA/Herschel/HRS-SAG2 and HeViCS Key Programmes/L. Cortese (Swinburne University)

"The long wait was worthwhile, as the combination of the PACS and SPIRE data shows that the properties of grains vary from one galaxy to another – more than we originally expected. As dust is heated by starlight, we knew that the frequencies at which grains emit should be related to a galaxy's star formation activity. However, our results show that galaxies' chemical history plays an equally important role," commented Dr Cortese.

Co-author of the work, Dr Jacopo Fritz, from Ghent University in Belgium, said: "This affects our ability to accurately estimate how much dust is in the Universe. It is particularly an issue for the most distant galaxies, which have a star formation and chemical history significantly different to the one in our own Milky Way."

The Herschel Reference Survey at visible wavelengths. Collage of the 323 galaxies in the Herschel Reference Survey, shown at visible wavelengths by the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. The colour distribution highlights different stellar ages, with red and blue indicating older and younger stars, respectively. Credit: Sloan Digital Sky Survey/L. Cortese (Swinburne University)

The data obtained for the Herschel Reference Survey have been made publicly available to allow further studies of dust properties in nearby galaxies. Although the Herschel Space Telescope completed its mission in April 2013, the combination of data in the Herschel archive, with future observations from the newly commissioned Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) in Chile, will help astronomers to further unveil the mystery of in in the years to come.

Explore further: Four new galaxy clusters discovered 10 billion light years from Earth

More information: L. Cortese, J. Fritz, S. Bianchi, A. Boselli, L. Ciesla, G. J. Bendo, M. Boquien, H. Roussel, M. Baes, V. Buat, M. Clemens, A. Cooray, D. Cormier, J. I. Davies, I. De Looze, S. A. Eales, C. Fuller, L. K. Hunt, S. Madden, J. Munoz-Mateos, C. Pappalardo, D. Pierini, A. Rémy-Ruyer, M. Sauvage, S. di Serego Alighieri, M. W. L. Smith, L. Spinoglio, M. Vaccari, and C. Vlahakis, "PACS photometry of the Herschel Reference Survey – far-infrared/submillimetre colours as tracers of dust properties in nearby galaxies,"
MNRAS first published online March 17, 2014 DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stu175

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

The diversity of distant galaxies

Jun 10, 2013

(Phys.org) —With the advent of powerful space infrared telescopes like the Spitzer Space Telescope and the (recently deceased) Herschel Space Telescope, astronomers have been able to study the properties ...

Early universe was less dusty than believed

Dec 09, 2013

(Phys.org) —Dust may be more rare than expected in galaxies of the early Universe, according to an international research team, led by Swinburne University of Technology astrophysicist Dr David Fisher.

Super-freezer supernova 1987A is a dust factory

Jul 05, 2013

(Phys.org) —Surprisingly low temperatures detected in the remnant of the supernova 1987A may explain the mystery of why space is so abundant with dust grains and molecules. The results will be presented ...

Recommended for you

Swirling electrons in the whirlpool galaxy

16 hours ago

The whirlpool galaxy Messier 51 (M51) is seen from a distance of approximately 30 million light years. This galaxy appears almost face-on and displays a beautiful system of spiral arms.

A spectacular landscape of star formation

23 hours ago

This image, captured by the Wide Field Imager at ESO's La Silla Observatory in Chile, shows two dramatic star formation regions in the Milky Way. The first, on the left, is dominated by the star cluster NGC ...

Exoplanet measured with remarkable precision

Aug 19, 2014

Barely 30 years ago, the only planets astronomers had found were located right here in our own solar system. The Milky Way is chock-full of stars, millions of them similar to our own sun. Yet the tally ...

New star catalog reveals unexpected 'solar salad'

Aug 19, 2014

(Phys.org) —An Arizona State University alumnus has devised the largest catalog ever produced for stellar compositions. Called the Hypatia Catalog, after one of the first female astronomers who lived in ...

User comments : 51

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Landrew
4 / 5 (3) Mar 18, 2014
I know it all looks like dust through the Hubble, but what size really are the particles? I assume it could include rock particles up to the size of an SUV. In that case, "dust" may be a deceptive term.
Q-Star
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 18, 2014
I know it all looks like dust through the Hubble, but what size really are the particles? I assume it could include rock particles up to the size of an SUV. In that case, "dust" may be a deceptive term.


This is not the Hubble telescope. It's the Herschel, it only views in the far infrared and sub-millimeter bands. But, to answer your question, the dust they are mapping is dust grains. The light they absorb and emit is a function of their tiny size. Larger objects wouldn't show up in this type of survey.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 18, 2014
Hi Landrew.
I know it all looks like dust through the Hubble, but what size really are the particles? I assume it could include rock particles up to the size of an SUV. In that case, "dust" may be a deceptive term.


Hi Q-S.
This is not the Hubble telescope. It's the Herschel, it only views in the far infrared and sub-millimeter bands. But, to answer your question, the dust they are mapping is dust grains. The light they absorb and emit is a function of their tiny size. Larger objects wouldn't show up in this type of survey.


Wouldn't scattering from the big stuff just increase the chances of the radiation being absorbed by the smaller stuff of the right size, such that the 'measured intensity' of the light received might skew the estimate of the clouds' smaller-size density/content towards more than it really is, while 'masking/missing' whatever big stuff is also there?

Just a question in passing. Cheers.
Whydening Gyre
3 / 5 (2) Mar 18, 2014
Okay, RC. That was a fair question....
Uncle Ira
4 / 5 (4) Mar 18, 2014
Okay, RC. That was a fair question....


@ Whydening-Skippy what is "fair" mean where you are? Is that another word for Really-Stupid-Skippy? I wish the Captain-Skippy or the Q-Skippy were around to tell us how stupid that question is. Is it a hard question, eh? Do you know what it is? I can no find it on the google me.
Q-Star
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 19, 2014
Wouldn't scattering from the big stuff just increase the chances of the radiation being absorbed by the smaller stuff of the right size, such that the 'measured intensity' of the light received might skew the estimate of the clouds' smaller-size density/content towards more than it really is, while 'masking/missing' whatever big stuff is also there?

Just a question in passing. Cheers.


The short answer is: No it wouldn't make a significant difference. They are observing in several different bands of light and the relative contributions by constituent parts are readily accounted for.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Mar 19, 2014
They are observing in several different bands of light and the relative contributions by constituent parts are readily accounted for.
@Q-Star
THANKS for clarifying that... I was going to ask you about that to make sure...
I had not finished reading from the study http://mnras.oxfo...pdf+html
so I am guessing that he didnt read it either? He's Trolling here too?
Q-Star
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 19, 2014
They are observing in several different bands of light and the relative contributions by constituent parts are readily accounted for.
@Q-Star
THANKS for clarifying that... I was going to ask you about that to make sure...
I had not finished reading from the study http://mnras.oxfo...pdf+html
so I am guessing that he didnt read it either? He's Trolling here too?


Trolling here too? I don't know, probably. One of his tactics is to start out with a "reasonable" opening with a plan for further trolling opportunities.

I only replied because often people don't realize that objects aren't just looked at with one type of detector. They are viewed in as many different EM bands/regions as possible, because each band offers a little different aspect of the overall picture. By comparing the "light" being detected at different wavelengths you can make fine-tuned inferences about the object under study.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 19, 2014
Hi Q-S.
Trolling here too? I don't know, probably. One of his tactics is to start out with a "reasonable" opening with a plan for further trolling opportunities.
It's all about personality and politics with you lot, isn't it. The objective message/discussion takes second place with you lot it seems.

I meant what I said, it was a passing question.

Anyhow, the point was that since the re-radiation is also the function of temperature, chemical properties (of small and large material surfaces scattering/absorbing/re-reradiating), it is possible that the received intensity/wavelengths 'signature' is the result of more than just a simplistic heating and re-radiating by small stuff alone. That was the point. The article even points out near the end how difficult it is to know exactly because the chemistry and the input starlight may be not what we assume it to be from this distance.

Was just a passing question/contribution to discussion. Why call 'troll' unless it's 'personal'. :)
Q-Star
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 19, 2014
Was just a passing question/contribution to discussion. Why call 'troll' unless it's 'personal'. :)


Ya established your modus operenda RealityCheck,,,, long, long ago. Ya can't blame me for your reputation. Suck it up and drop the victim routine, that one is well established too.
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 19, 2014
Was just a passing question/contribution to discussion. Why call 'troll' unless it's 'personal'. :)


Ya established your modus operenda RealityCheck,,,, long, long ago. Ya can't blame me for your reputation. Suck it up and drop the victim routine, that one is well established too.
Meanwhile, back in reality, your lot's modus operandi is to 'bury' the message in the personality cult way you and others 'do science discourse'. Right. Gotcha. My reputation is neither here nor there, but your lot's reputation for 'ignoring the objective message in preference for personality cult gossip' is all too here and there. Do better if you wish to claim to being a 'scientist'. See ya round. :)
Q-Star
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 19, 2014
Meanwhile, back in reality, your lot's modus operandi is to 'bury' the message in the personality cult way you and others 'do science discourse'. Right. Gotcha. My reputation is neither here nor there, but your lot's reputation for 'ignoring the objective message in preference for personality cult gossip' is all too here and there. Do better if you wish to claim to being a 'scientist'. See ya round. :)


Yeah, yeah, okay RealityCheck. We've heard it all before. Do better if ya wish to be known as something other than a troll. (And not a very good one at that.)
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 19, 2014
Meanwhile, back in reality, your lot's modus operandi is to 'bury' the message in the personality cult way you and others 'do science discourse'. Right. Gotcha. My reputation is neither here nor there, but your lot's reputation for 'ignoring the objective message in preference for personality cult gossip' is all too here and there. Do better if you wish to claim to being a 'scientist'. See ya round. :)


Yeah, yeah, okay RealityCheck. We've heard it all before. Do better if ya wish to be known as something other than a troll. (And not a very good one at that.)

I don't wish to "be known" as anything. The objective work what counts, not person/source. Haven't you learned that yet, as a supposed 'scientist'?

Maybe you are driven by wanting to "be known" for your 'personality cult gossiping"?

Me, I will let the book/work speak for itself. I don't have to 'publish or perish' because I want to "be known" for this or that, as you 'mainstream BS-ers' expect/applaud. :)
Q-Star
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 19, 2014
I don't wish to "be known" as anything. The objective work what counts, not person/source. Haven't you learned that yet, as a supposed 'scientist'?

Maybe you are driven by wanting to "be known" for your 'personality cult gossiping"?

Me, I will let the book/work speak for itself. I don't have to 'publish or perish' because I want to "be known" for this or that, as you 'mainstream BS-ers' expect/applaud. :)


Sure whatever ya say. I'm sure that's correct. "Me, I will let the book/work speak for itself",,,, ya sure do a lot speaking without saying anything. Is there more in the book?

By the By: Are ya still having trouble getting along at all the other forums where ya keep talking about this TOE and how every "good scientist" should think and communicate? Doesn't matter, ya are safe from the banning "peer review" process here.
Whydening Gyre
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 19, 2014
@ Whydening-Skippy what is "fair" mean where you are? Is that another word for Really-Stupid-Skippy? I wish the Captain-Skippy or the Q-Skippy were around to tell us how stupid that question is. Is it a hard question, eh? Do you know what it is? I can no find it on the google me.

It was fair because he actually asked questions without calling anyone "children or just stupid "mainstreamers". Unlike some of his other posts...
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 19, 2014
Poor Q-S. :)
Sure whatever ya say. I'm sure that's correct. "Me, I will let the book/work speak for itself",,,, ya sure do a lot speaking without saying anything. Is there more in the book?
Are ya still having trouble getting along at all the other forums where ya keep talking about this TOE and how every "good scientist" should think and communicate? Doesn't matter, ya are safe from the banning "peer review" process here.
When I discuss I engage. When I can't engage I allude to points in passing. No more; no less. When others who pretend mainstream authority (and purposely ignore and personalize the issues to avoid being shown to be possibly wrong/premature to believe all orthodoxy) that the situation is personalized and a reminder is necessary to avoid that on all 'sides', if discussion is to have a hope of coming to objective conclusions based on reality not personality/abstraction, and not 'buried' under the usual troll-mod tactics. Lies do it for you still? Nasty. :)
Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (4) Mar 19, 2014
So.... when do we get to see this "book"? And - what's it gonna cost?
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 19, 2014
I only replied because often people don't realize that objects aren't just looked at with one type of detector. They are viewed in as many different EM bands/regions as possible, because each band offers a little different aspect of the overall picture. By comparing the "light" being detected at different wavelengths you can make fine-tuned inferences about the object under study

@Q-Star
well, given the other unsubstantiated claims and the inability to provide proof... and then when I opened the study and started reading so that I could post something for Ira... it appeared that it was trolling because it seemed to me that the study spelled out all the steps quite satisfactorily.
Maybe I read something wrong... that is why I asked.
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 19, 2014
So.... when do we get to see this "book"? And - what's it gonna cost?

When it's ready and properly finalized and proof read. You can't rush quality and complexity.

The profit motive is not my thing, so I will be making the hard copy available to all sorts of recipients free and many others as cheaply as possible.

That is the hard copy (which some may buy for the sense of holding an 'historical artifact' in their hands.

Then there is the on-line version which I will not cost at all if I can control what happens there.

Patience. My motivation is not 'publish or perish'; nor publish for profit; nor 'publish for ego' etc etc.

Anyhow, I think that should be an end to the kerfuffle made over my caution to look for obvious flaws (I wasn't the only one finding them obvious, other mainstreamers also did) in those latest mainstream offerings. Unless Q-S et al trolls want to keep it up!

I'll say goodbye for now, Whyde, everyone! Good luck; don't 'believe' sources. Think it out! :)
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 20, 2014
in those latest mainstream offerings. Unless Q-S et al trolls want to keep it up!
@RealityCheck
I asked you to address your derogatory comments about the team
you did not provide any proof supporting the following claim
I just wanted to put it on the phys.org record that the 'science work' of this 'team' is more 'iffy' than much of what I have read in/from the 'mainstream' literature/activities over the years!
therefore I CAN prove you were trolling
You made a claim that affects how someone will view a result. I wanted to know the basis for your claim. Thus far you have provided NONE.
I will NOT back up from this. So long as you are willing to call me a liar (in another thread) and suggest that I am trolling (here) then I will challenge you to produce evidence

and dont start with any "I misunderstood what you said" quotes either. I have not changed my issue, nor my request for clarification, therefore address it or shut up
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 20, 2014
CaptS. :)

It was Q-S et al who have been lying about the UN-fair RealityCheck bans made over the years by those mod-troll gangmembers who controlled the forums for a long while and abused the mod power and colluded with egregious trolls to frame and lie and then ban RealityCheck irrespective of the merits of the science arguments I presented in support of my posts/observations etc.

Q-S et al STILL peddle the big TROLL lie that I "never posted anything on the forums that supported my observations/conclusions etc." Where's the 'integrity' in their LIES about me? Why should any 'respect' Q-S er al when they can LIE and be a disgrace to mainstream?

Follow the facts and the objective interpretations rather than LIE about and disparage the PERSON. Their blind belief, as 'true and indisputable', everything issuing from mainstream SOURCES is AGAINST the scientific method of review.

So unless you yourself think 'the shoe fits', I wasn't even thinking of you when I accused Q-S et al. OK? :)
Whydening Gyre
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 20, 2014
When it's ready and properly finalized and proof read.

Who's doing the proofing?
Does publication mean you will allow "peer review" at that time?
Q-Star
4 / 5 (4) Mar 20, 2014
It was Q-S et al who have been lying about the UN-fair RealityCheck bans made over the years by those mod-troll gangmembers who controlled the forums for a long while and abused the mod power and colluded with egregious trolls to frame and lie and then ban RealityCheck irrespective of the merits of the science arguments I presented in support of my posts/observations etc.

Q-S et al STILL peddle the big TROLL lie that I "never posted anything on the forums that supported my observations/conclusions etc." Where's the 'integrity' in their LIES about me? Why should any 'respect' Q-S er al when they can LIE and be a disgrace to mainstream?


Ya are becoming unhinged (again). Everything I've said is true and even posted links to back what I said. Do ya post verifying links? Not so much, ya never post links to back up your lies.

So calm your nerves, ya are making an unseemly spectacle of yourself (again.)
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 20, 2014
PS to CaptS. :)

By the way, mate, I may soon be making a very critique of some of Guth's and others stance regarding these latest 'papers' re gravity-waves/CMB B-mode 'interpretations' etc as purported 'proof' of BB hypothesis/assumptions. I was prompted to do so for many reasons, and one reason was to let you know that you seemed upset about my caution/comments re the latest 'scientific papers' in question. I like and have respect for your honesty and willingness to see the other point of view, so I am willing to undertake some small risk that perceptive inferences drawn by readers from what I will say may 'let more cats out of my ToE bag' than I intended at this stage.

I can't do the critique here as this site's limited text etc format would make it too cumbersome and possibly lead to cross-purpose exchanges and confusions rather.

I will come back and post a link to whatever I will say further on the BB/grav-waves/CMB 'interpretations' etc 'papers' of late. Cheers, CaptS! :)
Q-Star
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 20, 2014
By the way, mate, I may soon be making a very critique of some of Guth's and others stance regarding these latest 'papers' re gravity-waves/CMB B-mode 'interpretations' etc as purported 'proof' of BB hypothesis/assumptions.


Is it going to be anything more than "obvious flaws immediately jumped out but I'm not going to tell ya what they are, ya should go find them for yourself"? Everyone is still waiting for ya to tell what these flaws are that were so "obvious" to ya. (And I doubt anyone is going to forget ya made the claim of seeing them and ya can't name them.)
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 20, 2014
Poor Q-S. :)

Ya are becoming unhinged (again). Everything I've said is true and even posted links to back what I said. Do ya post verifying links? Not so much, ya never post links to back up your lies.
Your links were just links. The TRUE and COMPLETE background information about what actually transpired and why was OMITTED by you regarding the PROVEN (via internet experiments) TROLL-MOD tactics and abuses which led to the bans while the mod-troll gangs (which you appear to approve in tactics/intents) ran riot; and framed and lied and otherwise created wrong impressions about their victims.

They controlled DELETED/DISTORTED the record as they had the power to do; so your links were TOTALLY MISLEADING if they did not involve 'due diligence' as to the actual reality of what happened behind those bans.

I never lie. You also lied that I don't post on other sites as RC or other Admin-approved replacement name.

I DO post there. So your 'links' were LYING BY OMISSION. Fraud. :)
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 20, 2014
Poor Q-S. :)

By the way, mate, I may soon be making a very critique of some of Guth's and others stance regarding these latest 'papers' re gravity-waves/CMB B-mode 'interpretations' etc as purported 'proof' of BB hypothesis/assumptions.


Is it going to be anything more than "obvious flaws immediately jumped out but I'm not going to tell ya what they are, ya should go find them for yourself"? Everyone is still waiting for ya to tell what these flaws are that were so "obvious" to ya. (And I doubt anyone is going to forget ya made the claim of seeing them and ya can't name them.)

See, CaptS? Q-S is already 'personalizing' and 'framing' what he doesn't even know will issue yet. The obvious point that I will make a brief critique in addition to my cautionary/heads-up comments to date does not even get a look-in when the mind of a TROLL like Q-S is bent on making the PERSON rather than the FACTS the issue.

CaptS, how can anyone respect this obvious troll Q-S Fraud.
Q-Star
4 / 5 (4) Mar 20, 2014
Poor Q-S. :)


Yeah, poor me. Ya are becoming shrill and unhinged (again.)

Your links were just links.


I post links. Ya don't. Hmmm, makes one think,,,,,,,,

The TRUE and COMPLETE background information about what actually transpired and why was OMITTED by you regarding the PROVEN (via internet experiments) TROLL-MOD tactics and abuses which led to the bans while the mod-troll gangs (which you appear to approve in tactics/intents) ran riot; and framed and lied and otherwise created wrong impressions about their victims.

They controlled DELETED/DISTORTED the record as they had the power to do; so your links were TOTALLY MISLEADING if they did not involve 'due diligence' as to the actual reality of what happened behind those bans.


They all conspired against ya. On multiple sites. Got it..

I never lie.


Of course ya don't.

I DO post there. So your 'links' were LYING BY OMISSION. Fraud. :)


I post links. Ya don't. Hmmm, makes one think,,,,
Q-Star
4 / 5 (4) Mar 20, 2014
See, CaptS? Q-S is already 'personalizing' and 'framing' what he doesn't even know will issue yet. The obvious point that I will make a brief critique in addition to my cautionary/heads-up comments to date does not even get a look-in when the mind of a TROLL like Q-S is bent on making the PERSON rather than the FACTS the issue.

CaptS, how can anyone respect this obvious troll Q-S Fraud.


I post links to back up my FACTS. All ya do is become shrill and cry victim. Don't cry so much that people don't know what ya know, spend some time telling us what it is that ya know and we are missing.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 20, 2014
Poor Q-S. :)
Your links were just links.
I post links. Ya don't.
You post links but not the background facts which if missing make those 'links' useless, misleading and FRAUDULENT BY OMISSION of the underlying real facts.
They all conspired against ya. On multiple sites. Got it..
What is it with you trolls? You missed the point that they were a PROVEN GANG of TROLL-MODS colluding across MANY sites against MANY victims. The "Forum Mafia" gang was a perfect example at physforum (now split from phy-org).

I post links. Ya don't.
I DO post at the three sites. So your 'links' supposedly 'supporting' your LIE that I did not post there were LYING BY OMISSION. Fraud. :)

I have to post in CAPITALS to you because your troll skull is too thick to think let alone be truthful unless your nose is rubbed in your LIES/FRAUDS revealed in CAPITALS.

Hmmm, 'due diligence' seems alien to you; just perfect for publishing fraudulent 'science papers'. Troll and Fraud. :)
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 20, 2014
What is it with you trolls? You missed the point that they were a PROVEN GANG of TROLL-MODS colluding across MANY sites against MANY victims. The "Forum Mafia" gang was a perfect example at physforum (now split from phy-org).
BAHAHAHAHAHA that is the best, latest, Stupidest, conspiracy claim I have ever heard!! LOL troll-mods!!! Hahahahaha! They following you around are they Reality Missed? Hahahahaa!!!

Are you including a chapter on this in your book? Can you give us a wee peek at that chapter?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!!!!
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 20, 2014
Poor, Poor, Maggnus. :)

What is it with you trolls? You missed the point that they were a PROVEN GANG of TROLL-MODS colluding across MANY sites against MANY victims. The "Forum Mafia" gang was a perfect example at physforum (now split from phy-org).
BAHAHAHAHAHA that is the best, latest, Stupidest, conspiracy claim I have ever heard!! LOL troll-mods!!! Hahahahaha! They following you around are they Reality Missed? Hahahahaa!!!

The fact that it was proven via objective internet experiments across many sites at the time in question does not even figure in your mindless "HAHAHAHA" way of checking the facts? No wonder you go along with Q-S et al. Lame-brain "me too" trolls and frauds together pretending to 'mainstream authority' while so tragically ignorant of what has been ALREADY WELL PROVEN to be FACT. How can you even function while such cognitive dissonance runs rife in your capesa? Amazing. Do better, Maggnus. :)
Maggnus
4 / 5 (4) Mar 20, 2014
Hey Reality Checked-out - I thought you were so busy writing your book you didn't have time to respond to these comment threads? Claimed you knew about some "obvious" errors, but couldn't get into discussing them cause you had no time! Yet here you are, commenting away! How about you give an answer there looney?

Oh my, watch out, here come them troll-mods, out hunting you!!!!! Bahahaha!!
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 20, 2014
Poor, Poor, Maggnus. :)

Hey Reality Checked-out - I thought you were so busy writing your book you didn't have time to respond to these comment threads? Claimed you knew about some "obvious" errors, but couldn't get into discussing them cause you had no time! Yet here you are, commenting away! How about you give an answer there looney?

Oh my, watch out, here come them troll-mods, out hunting you!!!!! Bahahaha!!
It takes no time at all, while I am reading through the archives of Phys.Org I just check and see what you silly trolls have been lying about again. Post a quick reality-check for you and leave you to stew.

And your trollish tendency to ignore the 'inconvenient facts' about the troll-mod gangs and tactics rife back then (proven via internet experiments) still not sinking into you 'troll scientist' so-called 'brain', I see.

Great material for a book, sure. Might just write it if I get bored after I publish my complete ToE book.

Enjoy your chuckles, Poor Maggnur
Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (4) Mar 20, 2014
Great material for a book, sure. Might just write it if I get bored after I publish my complete ToE book.


Might actually be worth something more that your imagined TOE.
verkle
3 / 5 (4) Mar 20, 2014
PHYS.ORG Editor, can you please erase ALL of the above comments and start over with this article? There are some young children snapping at each other, and none of them want to quit and start to behave like adults, nor stick to talking about the article on hand. I am put up with this kind of behavior on PHYS.ORG.

Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Mar 20, 2014
PHYS.ORG Editor, can you please erase ALL of the above comments and start over with this article? There are some young children snapping at each other, and none of them want to quit and start to behave like adults, nor stick to talking about the article on hand. I am put up with this kind of behavior on PHYS.ORG.

Verkle, my man. We're all here for the entertainment value... Gave RC more than enuff time to at least provide some HINT of what he might have - an he just calls everyone dumb...
I for one, am tiring of it.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Mar 21, 2014
It was Q-S et al who have been lying about the UN-fair RealityCheck bans
@RealityCheck
this is NOT the topic
Follow the facts and the objective interpretations rather than LIE about and disparage the PERSON
THIS is the TOPIC of which I want you to SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS
I can't do the critique here as this site's limited text
not to sound rude, but I dont care (about this critique or ToE), I want you to specifically address your "disparaging remarks about the persons" you made here
the 'science work' of this 'team' is more 'iffy' than much of what I have read in/from the 'mainstream' literature/activities over the years
which is, BTW, what you are complaining of about others. you want them to stop, but you still have not justified your own derogatory comments. You were WRONG to do it, and it deserves to be addressed.

IOW - until you either justify your comments or retract them and apologize, you are no better than any other troll behavior you are complaining about
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Mar 21, 2014
one reason was to let you know that you seemed upset about my caution/comments re the latest 'scientific papers' in question
@RC
I keep trying to tell you, THAT is NOT the issue here
you are complaining of other people "lying about you" and yet you were so thoughtless as to do EXACTLY THE SAME THING when discussing the team that published the results: are you saying that it is OK for YOU to make disparaging remarks about others, but its NOT ok for others to reciprocate?
Where's the 'integrity' in their LIES about me
in the EXACT SAME PLACE that your integrity was when you published libelous personal conjecture on this public comments section when you were so derisive of the team in your own comments (see last comment for your direct quote)

You've admonished people in the past not to make it personal, and I push for links/proof so that conjecture is kept out of it, therefore your inappropriate comments need to be addressed. provide evidence of "iffy science work"
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Mar 21, 2014
I will come back and post a link to whatever I will say further on the BB/grav-waves/CMB 'interpretations' etc 'papers' of late
@RC
just so we are very clear... I will read your posts, BUT
UNTIL YOU ADDRESS YOUR FOLLOWING COMMENTS
the 'science work' of this 'team' is more 'iffy' than much of what I have read in/from the 'mainstream' literature/activities over the years
THEN there really is nothing to discuss

you are complaining that people are saying things about you, and you claim they are not true... well, your comments above are every bit as bad, if not worse, because THEY are not able to be here and defend themselves and you NEVER provided proof that they were true

THEREFORE you MUST produce proof of your comments, or PUBLICLY RETRACT YOUR STATEMENTS as being FALSE
you were boldly proclaiming them, now prove them and vindicate your behavior or suck it up and admit you lied and apologize
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Mar 21, 2014
Hi CaptS. :)
Please first read my posts to Mimath224 here: http://phys.org/n...nal.html

Regarding my disparaging comments re the work/team I cautioned against being too eager to 'believe' and to do your own 'due diligence' to find the fatal flaws which I said were obvious (and which mainstream professionals are now also finding obvious), what is the problem? I pointed to THEIR 'paper' and made my opinion clear for the record that it is flawed and should be scrutinized further without the usual BS assumptive-cascade that 'peer review' has been 'passing' for decades now. I and a_p posted about the (proven) horrendous failures of 'peer review' that have 'passed' BS 'work/papers' which then are used for further BS 'work/papers' until everyone ASSUMES that latest 'crop' of BS-publish-or-perish (or even outright fraud) outputs from the mainstream 'teams' can't be BS. I saw it was 'iffy' (to put it politely) because the flaws started way back and now are built-in.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Mar 21, 2014
CaptS(cont.)

I disparaged their WORK, not them personally. I don't know them nor do I care who they are. The SOURCE is not important, only the work/science that goes into their 'papers'. If it's BS and obviously lawed in my opinion, I say so and move on because I don't have time for BS. I am working to publish an overacrching ToE work that will eliminate all these built-in BS assumptions and 'publish or perish' etc piecemeal 'outputs' predicated on obvious cascade of flawed assumptions which unfortunately ifects all current professional 'interpretations' and 're-interpretations' of DATA that may be readily interpreted differently if the currently built-in BS/ flaws are eliminated from the professional 'practice' and 'peer review' etc which has now cleary been proven inadequate against ensuring the PREVENTION of BS and flaws being built-into the 'work' by a cascade of earlier 'peer review passed' BS interpretations which have 'contaminated' mainstream 'treatments' DEEPLY. Good luck. :)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Mar 22, 2014
re the work/team I cautioned against being too eager to 'believe' and to do your own 'due diligence' to find the fatal flaws which I said were obvious
@RC
yes, you made that comment, but you also said
the 'science work' of this 'team' is more 'iffy' than much of what I have read in/from the 'mainstream' literature/activities over the years
which indicates that they have a past history of posting "iffy science" which is a direct contradiction to your comment
not them personally
because of the simple fact that YOU PROVIDED NO BASIS FOR THIS ARGUMENT, and therefore, because you provided no evidence, you TROLLED the thread. YOU ATTACKED THE WORK as well as the TEAM through their historical publications WITH NO PROOF.
I can do my "due diligence" but when you make a far reaching claim with no prof, you are no better than a troll making blanket aspersions to defame out of whatever egotistical mindset you may have at that moment,& now you are attempting to justify it
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Mar 22, 2014
I and a_p posted about the (proven) horrendous failures of 'peer review' that have 'passed' BS 'work/papers'
@RC
and I have posted as well. I've read them as well. BUt this does not justify such a team attack on historical publications
I saw it was 'iffy' (to put it politely) because the flaws started way back and now are built-in
And THIS is the POINT I WANT PROVEN. this is the conjecture that you posted that I want to see empirical data on! THIS IS THE WHOLE ARGUMENT RIGHT HERE IN A NUTSHELL! you want to cast aspergions, and I want empirical data proving such conjecture as I figure that, given YOU made the blanket claim, YOU CAN PROVIDE PROOF... but I have seen NONE. also, when you make such a GRANDIOSE CLAIM (especially under such conditions) it is YOU WHO NEED TO PROVIDE PROOF of claims, not I

NOW DO YOU GET IT?
NOW do you understand why your comments are TROLLING?
I will address your other cross-post comments in the other threads
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Mar 22, 2014
@CptSt.
the 'science work' of this 'team' is more 'iffy' than much of what I have read in/from the 'mainstream' literature/activities over the years
which indicates that they have a past history of posting "iffy science" which is a direct contradiction to your comment
How on earth can an objective reader get that from what I said? I compared their work to WHOLE mainstream literature from ALL over the years.
not them personally
because of the simple fact that YOU PROVIDED NO BASIS FOR THIS ARGUMENT,
What argument? I clearly said from the outset I posted ONLY my opinion/caution ABOUT THE WORK and left it to your due diligence. Period.

Takes no time at all exposing trolls/personal attackers for who they are. They've done a good job turning you into someone who twists words of others and buries thread in troll/personal shite. Good job!

Any wonder why I decided to NOT get into further detailed science discussion here?

Trolls/pretenders. Carry on, mate. Goodbye.
philw1776
5 / 5 (2) Mar 22, 2014
You guys need to Get A Room!
Enough with the back & forth.
Glad to see Q-Star stop rising to the bait.
I really enjoy learning from the physicists here but the troll debates, not so much. A one time debunking per thread should suffice. Pile ons kill the SNR here.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Mar 23, 2014
A voice of reason! Thanks for the circuit-breaker, mate. Message received and understood. Wilco at my end; Over and Out! Cheers. :)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Mar 23, 2014
Apologies to philw1776: this will be my last time addressing this
@RC
this is the last thing I will say about your TROLL post
read your reply. its crap. YOU TROLLED THE SITE
EITHER: you did NOT read the paper and posted, which makes it a TROLL POST
OR
you DID read the paper and just refused to post supporting evidence, which is the same thing as TROLLING
why didnt you post your "4 fatal flaws"?
is it mysteriously tied to your decade long ToE book that never appears?
yes, I am being hostile, & for good reason
the people you put down (Q-Star for one) post references and links to support their claims, and they help MANY people on this site, whereas you posted unsupported conjecture, and then got your panties in a wad when called out for TROLLING
normally I am open to suggestions, but you posted NO argument supporting your claims till others in the field publicly spoke out which supports the TROLL moniker

what you did was WRONG. it is TROLLING
PERIOD

Sorry to everyone else
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Mar 24, 2014
CaptS. You missed that the record has been deleted/distorted at some forums by proven mod-troll gangs in charge. You miss that the lies about RealityCheck's bans were started and now promulgated still by Q-S et al irrespective of the truth. You miss that I have supported with scientific evidence and reality-referenced logics my arguments/perspectives (those that I was at liberty to discuss/provide) also in a number of other forums. You miss that I already told you why I don't want to divulge/discuss ToE details anymore here because of just such insensible trolls and timewasting emotional/personal BS like you STILL posting after my straightforward opinion/caution urging you to find OBVIOUS flaws in that latest mainstream 'publish or perish' offering which even mainstreamers are readily finding some (not yet all) of same flaws which were obvious to me because of the built-in 'cascade' of flawed works which the PROVEN BROKEN peer review passed before. You're trolling. Wasted effort. Bye.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Mar 24, 2014
CaptS. You missed that the record has been deleted/distorted
@RC
cross posted TROLLING again
see: http://phys.org/n...low.html

either provide empirical data or at least legitimate supporting proof of claims or SHUT UP and QUIT TROLLING
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Mar 24, 2014
@Captain Stumpy. :)

What claims? Only opinion cautioning/urging you to find for yourselves a number of obvious flaws which even mainstream are finding some of. Calm down and stop with your trolling innuendoes and move on, mate. :)