Stars are younger: 'Reionization' is more recent than predicted

February 5, 2015, International School of Advanced Studies

This is a visualization of the polarization of the Cosmic Microwave Background, or CMB, as detected by ESA's Planck satellite over the entire sky.

Credit: ESA and the Planck Collaboration

The highly anticipated update of the analysis of data from the European Space Agency's Planck satellite starts with a first paper published in Astronomy and Astrophysics, which already holds in store a few major surprises. The first article in fact "rejuvenates" the stars of our Universe. Thanks to new maps of cosmic background radiation (in particular, those containing "polarization anisotropies" of radiation) scientists have found that the "reionization" process could be more recent than estimated until now.

Reionization is one of the most important processes in cosmology as it is associated with star formation, which cosmologists data back to after the "dark ages" of the Universe, when there was still no starlight. The NASA WMAP satellite, launched in 2001, had given an initial estimate of the period when the process may have taken place.

The discovery, which still requires validation by the measurements that Planck is still able to provide that will be published in about a year's time, is associated with the publication of maps of "polarized" (the first light in the Universe produced by the Big Bang). WMAP was the first satellite to attempt to provide this map, but today new Planck data suggest that reionization may have occurred approximately 550 million years after the Big Bang, i.e., 100 million years later than WMAP had estimated.

"According to Planck's observations, stars may be younger than believed, in bearing with other independent astrophysical indicators, and this finding may have major consequences on our attempts to understand the dark components of the Universe", explains Carlo Baccigalupi, SISSA cosmologist and coordinator of the SISSA group involved in the Planck experiment. "The contribution of the Trieste team involved in producing maps for the LFI on board Planck - consisting of SISSA and INAF-OATS scientists coordinated by Andrea Zacchei - was to generate new maps of the polarized light seen by the LFI which cover the whole sky. Now we're awaiting data from the high-frequency instrument (HFI), whose maps are mostly constructed by the French team. These additional maps should provide confirmation and a clearer picture of the evidence we detected".

This is a visualization of the polarization of the Cosmic Microwave Background, or CMB, as detected by ESA's Planck satellite on a small patch of the sky measuring 20º across. Credit: ESA and the Planck Collaboration

This is a visualization of the polarization of the Cosmic Microwave Background, or CMB, as detected by ESA's Planck satellite on a small patch of the sky measuring 20º across.Credit: ESA and the Planck Collaboration

Explore further: Gravitational waves according to Planck

Related Stories

Gravitational waves according to Planck

September 22, 2014

Scientists of the Planck collaboration, and in particular the Trieste team, have conducted a series of in-depth checks on the discovery recently publicized by the Antarctic Observatory, which announced last spring that it ...

Researchers report on data analysis from Planck spacecraft

December 4, 2014

(Phys.org)—A team of researchers analyzing data from a telescope aboard the European Space Agency's Planck spacecraft gave a presentation at Planck 2014 recently—a meeting held in a palace in Italy—to outline findings ...

New revelations on dark matter and relic neutrinos

December 5, 2014

The Planck collaboration, which notably includes the CNRS, CEA, CNES and several French universities, has disclosed, at a conference in Ferrara, Italy, the results of four years of observations from the ESA's Planck satellite. ...

Galaxy dust findings confound view of early Universe

January 31, 2015

What was the Universe like at the beginning of time? How did the Universe come to be the way it is today?—big questions and huge attention paid when scientists attempt answers. So was the early-universe discovery that made ...

Astronomy & Astrophysics: Planck 2013 results

October 29, 2014

Astronomy & Astrophysics is publishing a special feature of 31 articles describing the data gathered by Planck over 15 months of observations and released by ESA and the Planck Collaboration in March 2013. This series of ...

Recommended for you

An exoplanet loses its atmosphere in the form of a tail

December 6, 2018

A new study led by scientists from the Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias (IAC) reveals that the giant exoplanet WASP-69b carries a comet-like tail made up of helium particles escaping from its gravitational field and ...

53 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

big_hairy_jimbo
3.4 / 5 (7) Feb 05, 2015
Quite a hypnotic photo. Now make it colour cycle through a palette of colours, and I'll stare at it for hours like watching animated fractals.
Protoplasmix
3 / 5 (8) Feb 05, 2015
They have a slew of impressive, mesmerizing figures in their picture gallery: http://www.cosmos...-gallery

Imagine what a complete-scan, all-sky, full-spectrum, real-time composite would be like...

Past time to fashion the tax-payer owned bounty of the military industrial complex into plowshares to understand and then reach—the stars.

I must apologize to Fox "News" for calling them republican headquarters. They just used their powerful platform to aid and abet the terrorism of burning a live human being to death by broadcasting an unedited, in-it's-entirety version. They are quite clearly republican talking-hemorrhoid hindquarters.
theon
1 / 5 (3) Feb 06, 2015
We don't bother to give the redshift. We write for trolls only.
bbbbwindows
1.5 / 5 (15) Feb 06, 2015
Reionization???......really? When will these guys stop with their failed theories and accept the fact that radio telescope data is signaling the death knell for gravity-based cosmology models.
Accept the fact that we live in an electric universe where the major driving force is electromagnetic energy. Gravity is 10 to the MINUS 39TH as powerful as electromagnetic forces. In other words, it's zero. Gravity is a remnant of the ashes left over from powerful electromagnetic events.
Every single thing has an electromagnetic foundation from the smallest bits of matter to the galaxies. Even the thoughts one has while reading this article are electrochemical events.
Time to leave Newton behind. Welcome to Faraday and Maxwell. Plasma physics will govern cosmology in the 21st century.
brahmix
3.3 / 5 (3) Feb 06, 2015
Van Gogh obviously could see radio waves - the image looks like 'starry night'

:-)
Losik
Feb 06, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Z99
1 / 5 (1) Feb 06, 2015
ESA produced film clip (can find it here:http://www.worldt...e/16768) on this says that these results are a good fit to current models for THE SMALLER SCALE (features) but NOT so good at THE LARGER SCALE. They, ever hopeful, go so far as to suggest it may point to 'new physics', and at the least points to our failure to fully understand what actually happened. The ESA site claims that moving the beginning of reionization forward in time helps because the theoreticians were having trouble explaining how enough stars could have formed by 420My to start reionization. And yes, it 'should' be spelled with a zed, lol.
IMP-9
3.9 / 5 (11) Feb 06, 2015
which should be therefore invisible due to ionized hydrogen


No, as usual Zephr you don't know what you're talking about. Before reionisation there was neutral hydrogen not ionised and things before then are not invisible, they can be detected at wavelengths above the rest frame Lyman alpha where the neutral hydrogen does not strongly absorb.

The Gun-Peterson Trough is evidence of reionisation and is observed. I guess AWT is dead.

Humbled1
1 / 5 (9) Feb 06, 2015
No Gravity waves = A failed General Relativity prediction.

Failed prediction means unreliable tool.

Unreliable tool for measurement means distances can't be trusted.

Back to formula, people....back to formula.
Benni
1.4 / 5 (10) Feb 06, 2015
reionization may have occurred approximately 550 million years after the Big Bang


The problem is, these deductions of CMBR don't fit the recent http://news.natio...covered- formed 380 million years after the alleged Big Bang.... such galaxies would have no time to form and separate from each other.


So why let a few facts get in the way of a good theory by a bunch of Trekkies who never saw a Differential Equation they could solve.

.....the distant Universe is of roughly the same appearance, like the Universe all around us.

AWT explains nothing, but to your other point, anything that can't be explained within the popular theory of early cosmology is considered an "anomaly" by the protagonists. Everything we presently observe in the structures of the most distant galaxies does not fit the "theory", but those are all anomalous observations....we're at the point where everything is anomalous.


Benni
1.9 / 5 (13) Feb 06, 2015
The Protagonists of the popular theory of cosmology hang onto to their failed Trekkie science (as poignantly exhibited by this article) because they assume criticism by the Antagonists means the Antagonists are "Creationists".

The Protagonists admit via the expose premise of this article that the science of "observation" does not support their theories, but if you fail to continue to believe in their fairy tale funny farm science you are a de facto Creationist. This manner of thinking gets in the way of the factual observations of science. Fully matured galaxies almost the same age as the Universe are proven to exist at 400K years of the BB demand the science must change to fit the new observations.

The dilemma for the present Protagonists of Big Bang is that they have for so long considered their theories as "settled science" that new facts are getting in the way of their de facto mindset & they are out to defend outdated "settled science" no matter how silly they appear.

IMP-9
3.5 / 5 (11) Feb 06, 2015
Fully matured galaxies almost the same age as the Universe are proven to exist at 400K years of the BB


400 k years after the Big Bang was when the universe recombined and the CMB was emitted. There is no evidence of any galaxies of any kind back then. You obviously mean millions but even then you are talking nonsense. What evidence is there that this galaxy is fully matured? None. What data do we have on it? A few bands of photometry. Enough to get a very rough photometric. Certainly nothing to point to a mature galaxy,

As I already explained and you ignored galaxies of this redshift are allowed, they are not invisible.
Benni
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 06, 2015
Imp, you need to get up to speed:

The Frontier Fields program is pushing the Hubble to look further into the past than it has ever done before, in hopes of learning more about the early Universe and to discover if the galaxies discovered by Hubble's Ultra Deep Field (which existed 400,000-800,000 years after the Big Bang) are standard for that time around the Universe. The announcement of Abell2744 is the first from this program. It is hoped that many discoveries of this nature will follow as the program progresses.
Benni
2 / 5 (8) Feb 06, 2015
Imp, here's additional speed for you:

JD2 is an interesting object in the Hubble Ultra Deep Field
(UDF; Thompson et al. 2005; Beckwith et al. 2006 ). Its nondetection
shortward of the 1.1 m bandpass, even in ultradeep
Advanced Camera for Surveys (ACS) UDF optical data that are
sensitive down to 29 AB magnitude, has been interpreted as
being due to the redshifted Lyman break. In addition, it displays a
break in its broadband spectral energy distribution (SED) between
2.2 and 3.6 m, which has been interpreted as the redshifted
Balmer break. Mobasher et al. (2005) argue that it may be a very
massive (6 ; 1011 M) galaxy with very little ongoing star formation
at z= 6:5.

Anomalous you think? Well, you ain't seen nothin' yet, wait till the James Webb Telescope kicks into action with it's super sophisticated infrared spectroscopy capability as it trails the Earth in its orbit around the Sun.
Benni
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 06, 2015
..........and just look as the 1 Star rage voters come aboard to vent their rage against the science of some real observational astro-physics.
Losik
Feb 07, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Losik
Feb 07, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
viko_mx
1 / 5 (5) Feb 07, 2015
..cnt
viko_mx
1 / 5 (5) Feb 07, 2015
If one star can be formed naturally by the alleged process of accretion can be easily verified by finding where is the intersection point of two curves. The first curve represent the increase of the intensity of the gravity in the proto cloud in dependance on its density, that attempts to increase the density and pressure of the gas and the curve which represents the relationship between the increase in the intensity of the pressure in the proto cloud in dependance of its density. If this intersection happen long before the density of the cloud is enough to create necessary conditions for fusion reactions, gravity can not shrink further proto cloud and the formation of the star is impossible in a natural way. With other worls If the pressure in proto cloud which is trying to expand it grow faster in intensity than the intensity of gravity acting in the direction of contraction, the formation of the star is impossible by natural process.
Losik
Feb 07, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Benni
1.4 / 5 (10) Feb 07, 2015
@Losik- You're not doing too bad of a job all things considered with the nonsensical AWT stuff you're hung up on. I'm giving you 4 out of 5 only because you have this compulsive need to insert that infinite AWT stuff, otherwise you're not doing so bad.......far better than Imp by far. I think you'll find the following paragraph very interesting (read it & weep Imp):

GR bursters need to have great mass--metals, in other words. With a GRB now observed at 520 m/y is not enough time for a pure hydrogen/helium universe to have evolved into secondary mass accretions that would lead to massive stars (or objects) that could become GRBs. This alone suggests that the universe is much more than 13.7 Gyr old. Much, much older--even taken into account inflation & all the other patchwork theories holding the present concept of BB theory in place.
Benni
1.4 / 5 (10) Feb 07, 2015
Imp, more reading for you & the other anti-science trolls:

An object named ULAS J1120+0641, is around 100 million years younger than the previously known most distant quasar. It lies at a redshift of 7.1 which corresponds to looking back in time to a Universe that was only 770 million years old, only five per cent of its current age. Prior to this discovery, the most distant quasar known has a redshift of 6.4, the equivalent of a Universe that was 870 million years old.

The observations show that the mass of the black hole at the center of the new quasar was about two billion times that of the Sun. This very high mass is hard to explain to early on after the Big Bang. Current theories for the growth of supermassive black holes show a slow build up in mass as the compact object pulls in matter from its surroundings. According to these models, the mass of the quasar's black hole is not expected to be higher than one-quarter of the value now determined for ULAS J1120+0641.
IMP-9
4 / 5 (12) Feb 07, 2015
Hubble's Ultra Deep Field (which existed 400,000-800,000 years after the Big Bang)


No. The high test redshifts in he deep fields are about z~10 which is 400 million years not thousand.

z~6.5 is about 800 million years after the Big Bang, nothing like your original claim. There are quite a few redshift 6 galaxies but you pick this one. Lack of star formation does not make it mature.
IMP-9
3.8 / 5 (10) Feb 07, 2015
Current theories for the growth of supermassive black holes show a slow build up in mass as the compact object pulls in matter from its surroundings. According to these models, the mass of the quasar's black hole is not expected to be higher than one-quarter of the value now determined...


Wrong on many levels. There is no one model of SMBH formation and none of them are slow. In the EAGLE simulation for example SMBHs grow primarily though gas accretion even though this is only one model, they gain most of their mass in only half a gigayear. There is no one value you can write down as a limit because the models don't agree, also because mergers occur which can double black hole mass. There is an intrinsic bias too as this is one of the brightest QSOs at that redshift hence being a rare find, so we have set off with an anomaly.
viko_mx
1.7 / 5 (7) Feb 07, 2015
How scientists can understand that black holes are real physical objects in the universe or remain only mathematical phenomena? I argue that there are no black holes as hidden from the event horizon singularity. Physical processes in the universe are strictly defined and such mathematical objects have no real analogue.
Losik
Feb 07, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Uncle Ira
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 07, 2015
I argue that there are no black holes
Saying "I argue" isn't arguing.
considered with the nonsensical AWT stuff you're hung up on
Even Sheldon Cooper http://www.quantu...zinga...


@ Zephir-Skippy how you are Cher? I'm good today too, thanks.

Are you saying that a silly television show is the evidence of the AWT?
Losik
Feb 07, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
cantdrive85
1.9 / 5 (12) Feb 07, 2015
Reionization? More theoretical metaphysical mumbo jumbo from the theologically based big bang fairy tale.
Benni
1 / 5 (9) Feb 07, 2015
Hubble's Ultra Deep Field (which existed 400,000-800,000 years after the Big Bang)


No. The high test redshifts in he deep fields are about z~10 which is 400 million years not thousand.

z~6.5 is about 800 million years after the Big Bang, nothing like your original claim. There are quite a few redshift 6 galaxies but you pick this one. Lack of star formation does not make it mature.

Impo-if you ever learn anything about nuclear physics, come back, then we can have an intelligent conversation.
Benni
1 / 5 (10) Feb 07, 2015
"This alone suggests that the universe is much more than 13.7 Gyr old"

"At least 250x according to this study"

Losik, when you're not on AWT stuff, you're pretty good at comprehending the fallible premises on which the current age & size of the universe is based. But there is more to it than the superfluous arguments only alluded in texts on cosmology.

In a nutshell, the biggest bomb will be dropped when the James Webb telescope goes into action. It is likely to reveal some unique observations about the so-called Primordial Gas Cloud.

When more images of massive galaxies like JD2 show up not only inside it, but beyond what has been supposed to be the boundary of the universe, cosmology will go topsy turvy. I already know astrophysicists are preparing themselves for this event. The JWT infrared spectrometry is designed to see right through gas clouds, and when it looks right through the Primordial & sees more galaxies just like JD2, etc, well, just imagine what comes next.
viko_mx
1 / 5 (4) Feb 07, 2015
The abundance of heavy elements in last generations of stars can you explain with another mechanism besides synthesis during the detonation of a new super novas? Can any atom to be transformed from one element into another by the will of the Creator? Or each atom to have a communication channel through which it can be reprogramed with different behavior and structure?
Losik
Feb 07, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Benni
1 / 5 (9) Feb 07, 2015
In a nutshell, the biggest bomb will be dropped when the James Webb telescope goes into action. It is likely to reveal some unique observations about the so-called Primordial Gas Cloud

What will reveal is already known in certain circles (into which I happen to belong too) - the crowds of other galaxies with extreme red shift existing & living well before the alleged Big Bang. But in certain directions only, which will be related to axis of CMBR anisotropy.


You're on the right track with the extreme redshift that may be detected by the JWT. And soon after the JWT looks right through that so-called Primordial Gas Cloud, every redshift calculator on the internet will have to be scrapped, they'll be scrapped because if it is discovered there are galaxies on the other side of that vaunted sacred Primordial Cloud, it means the universe is a whole lot bigger than ever imagined & certainly not 13.7 Gyr but in fact much older.

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Feb 07, 2015
Hi folks. Just keeping in touch. Still busy, so can't stay long.

Brief comment re conventional cosmological CMB, BigBang etc etc hypotheses, observations/interpretations/biases etc...

For decades I pointed out the 'mixmaster' nature of the vast universal physical energy-space dynamics as it affects CMB anywhere observed.

Recent Plank-BICEP2 results confirm I was correct all along. Including re far distant (in space and epoch terms) complicating component contributions to ANY 'locally observed' CMB 'patterns/features'.

It is now become clear/irrefutable that prior KNOWN science/observation supported my longstanding observations/cautions in this area of research/interpretation; but was willfully/expediently IGNORED by many 'scientists' due to Confirmation Bias and/or Publish-or-Perish (and other personal, not scientific, motives) in order to suppress bleeding obvious KNOWN science for so long to keep Big Bang etc 'alive' in denial of reality.

Slowly, but we got there! :)

Benni
1 / 5 (6) Feb 07, 2015
@Losik: Below I have provided a link to formulae used to derive redshift. You don't need to proficient in calculus here to understand the basic problem with the derivation. Look at the notes under Figure 1 which is the first graph of Redshift (z)/Cosmic Time (Gyr). Now look at this statement they make in explaining the graph:

"derived in this paper and the broken line represents t ≈14Gyr/(1 + z)^3/2"

......14 Gyr used throughout their redshift derivation is presented as a "constant", it is given judicial notice treatment as if we should believe it is as correct as we believe the sun is coming up again tomorrow morning. They could just as well as have said 2+2=5 and made a statement that you're stupid if you don't believe it. But this 14 Gyr limit is how every redshift calculator on the internet calculates redshift (z), based 100% on a constant that has been a moving target for decades.

http://arxiv.org/...79v2.pdf
Uncle Ira
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 07, 2015
Hi folks. Just keeping in touch. Still busy, so can't stay long.


@ Really-Skippy, how you are too Cher? Everything is good with me too, thanks.

Slowly, but we got there! :)


Does that mean you finally finished your toes book about everything? How long before we can pick him up in paperback?

IMP-9
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 07, 2015
But this 14 Gyr limit is how every redshift calculator on the internet calculates redshift (z), based 100% on a constant that has been a moving target for decades.


No, as usual you're taking complete crap. That expression is a rule of thumb for some redshifts not a derived expression, note "approximately equal to". The real expression is an integral which includes the best measured cosmological parameters, of course they can change as measurements improve.

http://www.bo.ast...ools.pdf

At least 250x according to this study


Neither of you can read. The study makes the argument the larger universe is at least 250 times larger than the observable universe, that does not mean those parts of the universe are visible nor that the universe needs to be older.

Benni
1 / 5 (6) Feb 07, 2015
But this 14 Gyr limit is how every redshift calculator on the internet calculates redshift (z), based 100% on a constant that has been a moving target for decades.


No, as usual you're taking complete crap. That expression is a rule of thumb for some redshifts not a derived expression, note "approximately equal to".
The real expression is an integral which includes the best measured cosmological parameters, of course they can change as measurements improve.


At least 250x according to this study


Neither of you can read. The study makes the argument the larger universe is at least 250 times larger than the observable universe, that does not mean those parts of the universe are visible nor that the universe needs to be older.


Impo- I haven't gotten to the complex Integral yet, you couldn't follow the math anyway, so go back to bed.
Losik
Feb 07, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Losik
Feb 07, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
viko_mx
1 / 5 (4) Feb 08, 2015
It is strange that this post have ratring !

" viko_mx 1 / 5 (3) Feb 07, 2015

..cnt

"
I think that some people that disagree with some evolutionary consepts in this site are included in a list for automatic voting system and low rating which increase over time. I have no other reasonable explanation. Writing such script is a matter of minutes.
Losik
Feb 08, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
bluehigh
1 / 5 (6) Feb 08, 2015
Observations of interstellar objects are distorted.
What is seen leads to incorrect conclusions.
Stars are not so far away. Lensing is not a result of a gravitational effect.
When Sols optical em field is diminished by circumstance then interstellar objects can be seen as a more realistic image. A hole allowing a clearer more accurate view.

The universe is still very young.
IMP-9
4 / 5 (8) Feb 08, 2015
If the light travels in constant speed, then every increasing of its scope for spreading also increases the universe age.


No, it's not part of the observable universe. Light has not had time to cross it. The universe has not got any older.
Benni
1 / 5 (6) Feb 08, 2015
"Ellis led a team that used Hubble to look at one small section of the sky for a hundred hours. The grainy images of faint galaxies include one researchers determined to be from a period 380 million years after the onset of the universe—the closest in time to the Big Bang ever observed.

The cosmos is about 13.7 billion years old, so the newly discovered galaxy was present when the universe was 4 percent of its current age. The other six galaxies were sending out light from between 380 million and 600 million years after the Big Bang. (See pictures of "Hubble's Top Ten Discoveries.")"

The big question that the JWT will answer is : How many more galaxies were formed at less than 550 million Lyrs of the BB.

As limited as Hubble observations are, it has already proven that the first galaxies were in existence long before the BB theorists were predicting that the first stars came into existence which they originally set at 550 million yrs.

TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (4) Feb 08, 2015
It is strange that this post have ratring !

" viko_mx 1 / 5 (3) Feb 07, 2015

..cnt

"
I think that some people that disagree with some evolutionary consepts in this site are included in a list for automatic voting system and low rating which increase over time. I have no other reasonable explanation. Writing such script is a matter of minutes.


Do not be paranoid like there would be some plot against you. Allow me an alternative explanation.

cont.
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (4) Feb 08, 2015
...
Where I live in the province of Quebec, Canada, there are not much creationists. Sure there are people of many different religion and faith but nobody is trying to push a creationist agenda on the education system. All the public schools here are laic and the private schools have a stringent cursus to follow. So from my point of view you are not a menace and personally I think you are quite polite and enjoyable to discuss with. But, in states where creationists are lobbying to include their view of the world in the education system, I can understand that there are people would have strong aversion by the kind of narrative you are holding. So my guess is that you are systematically being downgraded by people where creationists are a nuisance to the education system.
Benni
1 / 5 (5) Feb 08, 2015
@TechnoCreed

I for one do not care what anyone thinks about how things got here. It only becomes a problem to me personally when a protagonist on either side of an issue becomes rigidly dogmatic based on material they distort to fit some pet hypotheses.

Both sides of an issue are often equally partisan, all the while claiming it is the other side that is closed minded. Science mixed with some music is my life, for me 2+2 must always equal 4, if it doesn't nothing in my life's endeavors have much meaning. It is for this reason I prod others to push to the next level, especially my kids. I tell my kids to always be looking at things going on around themselves, that will tell them where to go next.

TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (2) Feb 08, 2015
@Benni
I am not sure I understand what your comment is about. Are you asking me to speculate on the reasons that makes other commentators on Phys.org downgrade your comments? I am no psychologist and should probably abstain. I did it for viko because I feel that, although he and I have very different point of view on the world we live in, I would not upset him with my answer. He is a polite and well intentioned man and I he surely understands that defending creationism on a science site will not be met with warm embraced.
Benni
1 / 5 (4) Feb 08, 2015
@Benni
I am not sure I understand what your comment is about. Are you asking me to speculate on the reasons that makes other commentators on Phys.org downgrade your comments?


I was only making a generalized comment upon seeing your response to viko, it was far better response than the manner other posters here downgrade the comments of others with their foul mouths accompanied with a persistent rage vote......fresh air is nice to breathe.

jsdarkdestruction
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 15, 2015
It is strange that this post have ratring !

" viko_mx 1 / 5 (3) Feb 07, 2015

..cnt

"
I think that some people that disagree with some evolutionary consepts in this site are included in a list for automatic voting system and low rating which increase over time. I have no other reasonable explanation. Writing such script is a matter of minutes.

Really? With all the creationist nonsense you spew you can't think of any reason why you'd be down voted?
alextheaboveaverage
not rated yet Feb 26, 2015
I think that some people that disagree with some evolutionary consepts in this site are included in a list for automatic voting system and low rating which increase over time. I have no other reasonable explanation. Writing such script is a matter of minutes.


Nailed it!

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.