# Move over Milky Way, elliptical galaxies are the most habitable in the cosmos

##### September 2, 2015 by Pratika Dayal, The Conversation

The search for extraterrestrial life is surely one of the most important tasks we humans can undertake. However, the cosmos is vast and we don't really have any idea which bits of it are actually habitable. But what if we could target the search? We have built the first-ever "cosmobiological" model mapping the galaxies in our local universe to help us understand which ones are habitable. Surprisingly, we found that our own galaxy was not one of the top candidates.

Ingredients for habitability

Drawing on our understanding of within a galaxy, we proposed that the overall of any galaxy depends on three key astrophysical criteria. One is simply the total number of stars capable of hosting planets, which is roughly related to the size of the galaxy. Another is the total amount of the building blocks of planets and life – such as carbon, oxygen and iron – the so-called astrophysical "metals". Another is the negative influence of supernova explosions, whose powerful (and poisonous) radiation could potentially inhibit the formation and evolution of complex life on nearby planets.

Interestingly, the largest survey of its kind ever undertaken, data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey observes exactly these three key properties for more than 150,000 galaxies in the nearby universe. This data shows that the largest galaxies have the largest amount of metals. Sifting through this data set we found that giant elliptical galaxies, which have a rounded shape rather than spiral arms like our Milky Way, win the "most-likely-to-be-habitable" title. Indeed, each giant elliptical that is at least twice as big as the Milky Way and has a tenth of its supernova rate could potentially host 10,000 times as many habitable (Earth-like) planets.

Our results, recently published in the Astrophysical Journal Letters, also show that they typically have a low rate of supernova explosions, ensuring that most of these planets remain unmolested by harmful radiation.

This is the first computation that discusses life on cosmological scales, rather than just within individual galaxies like the Milky Way. The model therefore opens up a new avenue, extending the understanding of habitability around individual stars to a true "cosmobiological" context, which allows us to discuss the habitability of the entire universe.

One of the most attractive features of the model is that that data used includes the entire history of all the galaxies in the universe that we see around us. The relationship between the number of stars, amount of metals and rate of supernova explosions essentially acts as the "fingerprint", uniquely identifying how any given galaxy formed. This is a key bit of information that we need to understand the chances of galactic habitability and which has been missing in this field.

Are we in the wrong galaxy?

By all accounts, our Milky Way is a typical spiral galaxy of average size that roughly makes one star like our sun every year. Given that ellipticals are much more hospitable to raises the interesting question of whether life here in the Milky Way is just a freak of nature.

Or does the presence of life on at least one planet in the Milky Way imply that these big elliptical galaxies might be absolutely teeming with life?

One drawback is that the nearest to the Milky Way, called Maffei1, is so far away that any radio signals beamed from this cosmic neighbour would take 9m years to reach us. Surveys such as the SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) that continually maps the skies for anomalous signals might one day detect such a signal in the far future, a call to us from our (not so) nearest neighbours.

Explore further: 'Galaxy fingerprinting' yields new clues about galaxy evolution

## Related Stories

#### 'Galaxy fingerprinting' yields new clues about galaxy evolution

June 1, 2015

Astronomers are a step closer to understanding the evolution of galaxies, thanks to new research that compares the chemical make-up of distant galaxies to those in our own galactic back yard.

#### How do galaxies die?

June 5, 2015

Everything eventually dies, even galaxies. So how does that happen?

#### Hubble looks in on a galactic nursery

July 27, 2015

This dramatic image shows the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope's view of dwarf galaxy known as NGC 1140, which lies 60 million light-years away in the constellation of Eridanus. As can be seen in this image NGC 1140 has an ...

#### Image: Hubble's compact blue dwarf galaxy UGC 11411

June 22, 2015

This NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope image shows a galaxy known as UGC 11411. It is a galaxy type known as an irregular blue compact dwarf (BCD) galaxy.

#### Hubble looks at stunning spiral

July 13, 2015

This little-known galaxy, officially named J04542829-6625280, but most often referred to as LEDA 89996, is a classic example of a spiral galaxy. The galaxy is much like our own galaxy, the Milky Way.

#### How do stars go rogue?

August 25, 2015

Rogue stars are moving so quickly they're leaving the Milky Way, and never coming back. How in the universe could this happen?

## Recommended for you

#### New computational tool harnesses big data, deep learning to reveal dark matter of the transcriptome

March 25, 2019

A research team at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) has developed an innovative computational tool offering researchers an efficient method for detecting the different ways RNA is pieced together (spliced) when ...

#### Study suggests trees are crucial to the future of our cities

March 25, 2019

The shade of a single tree can provide welcome relief from the hot summer sun. But when that single tree is part of a small forest, it creates a profound cooling effect. According to a study published today in the Proceedings ...

#### Matter waves and quantum splinters

March 25, 2019

Physicists in the United States, Austria and Brazil have shown that shaking ultracold Bose-Einstein condensates (BECs) can cause them to either divide into uniform segments or shatter into unpredictable splinters, depending ...

#### New virtual reality tool allows you to see the world through the eyes of a tiny primate

March 25, 2019

Imagine that you live in the rainforests of Southeast Asia, you're a pint-sized primate with enormous eyes that are roughly the same size as your brain, and you look a little like Gizmo from the movie, "Gremlins". You're ...

#### Wood-based technology creates electricity from heat

March 25, 2019

A University of Maryland-led team of researchers has created a heat-to-electricity device that runs on ions and which could someday harness the body's heat to provide energy.

#### The most aggressive spider societies are not always the ones that flourish

March 25, 2019

Evolutionary biologists at McMaster University who study the social lives and behaviour of colony spiders—some of which are docile, others aggressive— have found that the success of their cooperative societies depend ...

#### Apple pivot led by star-packed video service

March 25, 2019

With Hollywood stars galore, Apple unveiled its streaming video plans Monday along with news and game subscription offerings as part of an effort to shift its focus to digital content and services to break free of its reliance ...

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

##### docile
Sep 02, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
##### thefurlong
4.6 / 5 (22) Sep 02, 2015
Most important? Hardly.

Why? If humans ever show that we are not alone, it would have major implications for many of the world's religions, which take the anthropocentric view that God created the universe for humans.
Undoubtedly one of the most fruitless as well.

Why? Knowing that other life is out there is GOOD thing for many reasons. For one thing, if we ever get to the stars, we know where to be more careful in our exploration. If that life is similar to us, but is not intelligent, then we'll also know which planets are habitable.

From a scientific standpoint, finding life out there would be a watershed moment. It would allow us to establish more stringent condition for when life appears, and how it evolves, not to mention the myriad new species we would undoubtedly get to discover.

(to be continued)
##### thefurlong
4.2 / 5 (21) Sep 02, 2015
(continued)
Such scientists who make these claims don't even know where WE came from,

So?

1) We're getting there.
2) Not knowing everything does not imply that you don't know anything.
and pin it on a completely unproven theory of evolution.

And you're creationist. How quaint.

Sorry, Verkle. You aren't even using the right terminology. In Math, we PROVE things. In science, we DEMONSTRATE things.

Nothing in science can be proven. It can only be overwhelmingly demonstrated through decades of research despite many tried and true attempts to falsify it. I am sorry that this is not good enough for you.

Apparently, however, it IS good enough for you to accept stories out of an ancient book.
How prideful.

Look in the mirror.
##### JustAnotherGuy
3.7 / 5 (9) Sep 02, 2015
The search for extraterrestrial life is surely one of the most important tasks we humans can undertake.

Most important? Hardly.
Undoubtedly one of the most fruitless as well.

Such scientists who make these claims don't even know where WE came from, and pin it on a completely unproven theory of evolution. How prideful.

This is not science, folks.

Hmm, I see... Indeed... these are very deep ruminations you made from... hum.. what?... the first sentence from the article? Did you read anything or it's just your excuse to post your "free-of-argument" big claims?
Excuse me, dude.... what was all that "trolling" about?
##### thefurlong
4.6 / 5 (18) Sep 02, 2015
We have several far more pressing issues here on earth that need to be addressed.

One of the most pressing issues of our time is the stranglehold religion has on policy. Showing that we are not alone would diminish their power.

It would also put things in perspective for humans. Learning that we are not alone would mean that we are not special, and that our planet was not made just for us to live on.

Also, do I really need to spell out for you how discovering life would revolutionize pretty much all of scientific knowledge?

And you're creationist. How quaint.

Free country, free site.

Um. Ok.

It being a free country does not preclude me from chiding a person for being delusional. Indeed, I can do this because it IS a free country.
##### thefurlong
4.6 / 5 (11) Sep 02, 2015
In Math, we PROVE things.

Math describes things, it only "proves" anything if all the variables are measured prior to insertion into an equation.

And how do we measure things? Oh yes! Numbers?

What is the domain of numbers? Oh, right! Math!

You are just wrong.

Math is axiomatic. A proof is a demonstration of a mathematical statement under the assumption of those axioms. Sometimes, not everybody can agree on the axioms, for example, the Axiom of Choice, but a sequence of correct arguments using the axiom of choice is still a PROOF, by definition.
##### thefurlong
4.8 / 5 (16) Sep 02, 2015
The age of the words or who is saying them mean nothing.

That would be correct if we only used words. We don't. We back those words up with data.

Without data, we have NOTHING. Guess what the Bible doesn't have? No, guess.
Claiming theoretical science is even close to describing reality because it is math based,

Did I say that? No, I didn't. Reread what I wrote. Science isn't just math. It applies math to data, but even then, IT ISN'T ENOUGH. The final arbiter is overwhelming experimental verification.
when humans choose the unknown variables, is akin to accepting "stories"...the book is just newer.

Haha. You are so cute.

We don't choose unknown variables. We follow EVIDENCE. FROM DATA.

Yes, sometimes, we start our journey by taking a wild guess, and this has even been necessary, but we still, ultimately follow the evidence.

Religious books don't follow evidence. They make stuff up, and for some reason, people think that's enough.
##### JustAnotherGuy
4.2 / 5 (15) Sep 02, 2015
There are all sorts of creation mythologies. None of them, as far as I have been able to determine, are supported by any observational evidence at all. But modern cosmology has a great deal of evidence on its side. Therefore, imperfect though it may be, modern cosmology beats any and all creation mythologies.

Good post. Append to it Evolution theory and it should be the best comment for the entire thread.
##### thefurlong
4.6 / 5 (10) Sep 02, 2015
A contact with extraterrestrial life may give us much worse problems than a bunch of delusionists that are forced to slightly alter their narrative.

Actually, we are far more likely to encounter simple life than intelligent life, first.

Also, finding intelligent life does not mean that contacting it. Those are two different things.

Yes, we could inadvertently alert hostile aliens to our presence, but that is not a sufficient reason to spend our lives huddled in fear of an alien bogeyman. We also might alert benevolent aliens to our presence, or we simply might detect them before they detect us.

Indeed, the extraterrestrians are just the 10 lost tribes that were profetised to return soon !
https://en.wikipe...t_Tribes

Please tell me you are joking.
##### thefurlong
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 02, 2015
About the lost tribes, now that I read back my text, I must have been joking, smoking or drunk.
Those books are apocryphal so they are not true ;-).

My apologies. I am sure that Nathan Poe is beaming with pride, right now.
##### thefurlong
4.6 / 5 (12) Sep 02, 2015
We follow EVIDENCE. FROM DATA.

BLAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

OK...so as far as the big bang is concerned, what is the evidence that the universe arose from Physics beyond what we understand as physics?

You are jumping the gun, here, and likely confusing several different current, popular, physical HYPOTHESES with scientifically established facts, like the Big Bang. This is because you likely have not bothered to learn the difference between the Big Bang Theory (considered fact), the Inflation Hypothesis (not yet considered fact, as far as I know), and irrelevant metaphysics peddled to you by popular science articles.

Do you know what the Big Bang is, and do you know what evidence we have for it?
##### thefurlong
4.7 / 5 (13) Sep 02, 2015
https://en.wikipe...Big_Bang

No, no, no. That's a link.

In your own words, what is the big bang?

I'll start with the CMB, it is considered evidence of the initial state of the matter in the universe, despite the fact that it radiates as a black body as opposed to originating from the proposed state of matter at that time.

Um...what?

I suspect, you are saying that it doesn't appear to have originated from a source, and you'd be correct about that.

However, the Big Bang was a RAPID METRIC EXPANSION of space-time. It was not a typical explosion. It did not have a point source.

That alone makes it more likely that the CMB is a manifestation of Olbers paradox

Olber's paradox is from the rapid cosmic expansion during the Big Bang. You just made an own goal. Congratulations.
So cute.

Hey, that's my line. Get your own damn condescending catchphrase.
##### Benni
2.4 / 5 (13) Sep 02, 2015
One of the most pressing issues of our time is the stranglehold religion has on policy.

........presuming of course you are alluding to ALL "religion"? You're not cherry picking here right? Is Buddhism an example of "the stranglehold religion has on policy"?
##### Benni
2.3 / 5 (12) Sep 02, 2015
Actually, we are far more likely to encounter simple life than intelligent life, first.

How do you know this? Or what makes you think this? With the population of Elllptical galaxies outnumbering Spirals where life is least likely to be found, this makes chances of finding anything more than ourselves within the MW pretty slim if you ask me.
##### Benni
2.4 / 5 (17) Sep 02, 2015
Do you know what the Big Bang is, and do you know what evidence we have for it?

You're absolutely correct that we should "start with this". So do you know how the Big Bang hypothesis got its start? It was by Christian Harvard scientists, yeah, Creationists. So why do you want to adopt a religious viewpoint for the origin of the Universe?
##### Whydening Gyre
4.7 / 5 (15) Sep 02, 2015
The search for extraterrestrial life is surely one of the most important tasks we humans can undertake.

Most important? Hardly.
Undoubtedly one of the most fruitless as well.

Such scientists who make these claims don't even know where WE came from, and pin it on a completely unproven theory of evolution. How prideful.

This is not science, folks.

PROVE the theory of a god... using Science.
##### Benni
2.1 / 5 (11) Sep 02, 2015
A Belgian priest named Georges Lemaître first suggested the big bang theory in the 1920s when he theorized that the universe began from a single primordial atom. The idea subsequently received major boosts by Edwin Hubble's observations & soon adopted by Harvard scientists.
##### thefurlong
4.1 / 5 (13) Sep 02, 2015
This is Big Bang religion.

No. It isn't.
This is beyond what we can test in the physical world.

Not
http://www.astro....ests.pdf
Even
http://map.gsfc.n...sts.html
Close.
##### thefurlong
4.5 / 5 (16) Sep 02, 2015
I can say that God caused this to happen and cite any evidence you claim points to this as evidence of Gods hand at work.

Well, sure, you could, but it wouldn't be a useful theory. It would be about as useful as claiming a humongous cosmic gerbil did it. Who do you doubt The Gerbil? Praise HIS PAWS!

The thing that you don't get is that the BB theory is NOT about the origin of the Universe. It is about the rapid expansion the universe underwent ~13.8 years ago. So, your point is moot.

Even so, what matters is OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE. We use general relativity regularly in our GPS calculations, and we can look at distant galaxies (back in time) and see the immediate effects of the Big Bang.

(to be continued)
##### thefurlong
4.3 / 5 (13) Sep 02, 2015
(continued)
Good luck finding evidence for God. I am not saying God doesn't exist. I am just saying that evidence for God is rather non-existent, unless you count personal anecdotes as evidence.

You'd think God, being a mighty being, would give us a clear sign of his handiwork--say galaxy shaped like a cosmic thumb's up, with stars arranged in the sentence "God did it!", or something, instead of passive-aggressively giving objective "evidence" in the form of lower backs that are so weak they fail us mid-life, tongues we can easily bite through while chewing, and a laryngeal nerve that takes a puzzlingly long route from the vagus nerve to the larynx. But then again, God works in mysterious ways, right?

Special pleading? What's that?
##### thefurlong
4.3 / 5 (11) Sep 02, 2015
The thing that you don't get is that the BB theory is NOT about the origin of the Universe. It is about the rapid expansion the universe underwent ~13.8 years ago. So, your point is moot.

I meant ~13.8 Billion years ago.
##### thefurlong
4.5 / 5 (15) Sep 02, 2015
Do you know what the Big Bang is, and do you know what evidence we have for it?

You're absolutely correct that we should "start with this". So do you know how the Big Bang hypothesis got its start? It was by Christian Harvard scientists, yeah, Creationists.

Well, it really doesn't matter WHO developed the BB theory. It could have been time-traveling Jesse Ventura. It wouldn't matter a whit.

What matters is, what it is, and how it has been verified.
So why do you want to adopt a religious viewpoint for the origin of the Universe?

Look, if someone, in 1931 proposed that a giant, cosmic, Gerbil (praise His Paws) existed, and then, for the next 84 years, science consistently, and overwhelmingly confirmed this hypothesis through analysis of data, then we'd have to accept that, too.

And maybe, then, all the sane people would be Gerbilieans, and we'd actually have a religion that was backed by evidence.
##### thefurlong
4.3 / 5 (13) Sep 02, 2015
I apologize. I did score on my own net there.

Thank you for acknowledging your error.
It boils down to whether you believe photons red shift due to expanding space as you do, or whether you believe it is millions of light years of travel through a magnetic field that does this...which I do.

It isn't a matter of belief.

We have observed the metric expansion of space. Furthermore General Relativity, is based off a collection of well-tested physical principles. If you were smart enough, you could derive it yourself, starting with the Equivalence principle and the notion that the stress-energy tensor is the source of gravity. Since then, it has overwhelmingly been confirmed by experiment, and analysis of data.

When you mention a magnetic field permeating space, I don't know what you are talking about.
##### someone11235813
3.8 / 5 (5) Sep 02, 2015

Would someone please explain to me the relevance of searching for life in galaxies that are tens of millions of light years away.

##### thefurlong
4.3 / 5 (15) Sep 02, 2015

Would someone please explain to me the relevance of searching for life in galaxies that are tens of millions of light years away.

Curiosity.

Determining the astronomical conditions that lead to / are favorable to life.

Determining how long it takes life to develop.

Determining the frequency with which life develops.

Getting snapshots of how life terraforms a planet in vaious stages of development.

Determining whether life is necessarily carbon based.

Determining potential places for us to go once Earth no longer becomes habitable.

The list goes on...
##### docile
Sep 02, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
##### Benni
1.7 / 5 (12) Sep 02, 2015
The thing that you don't get is that the BB theory is NOT about the origin of the Universe. It is about the rapid expansion the universe underwent ~13.8 years ago. So, your point is moot.
This is not what Father Lemaitre the godfather of BB clearly states,he stated nothing about it being about some kind of rapid expansion, only that he observed it. He states it all began from a single primordial atom, or maybe he meant particle (?), you know a Hboson, but of course he wouldn't have known that.

I know, how about a Hboson dark matter particle, then you could really bury the BB hypothesis into dimensional obscurity where it could never be observed to be disproven, then you could have galaxies sprouting up all over the place from that which is invisible. Holy smokes, did I just suggest that dreaded "God-Word" that so permeates BB science? Maybe we're stumbling onto something here, all starting with those pesky Christian Creationists & their dodgy Big Bang theories.
##### Benni
2.7 / 5 (12) Sep 02, 2015
Would someone please explain to me the relevance of searching for life in galaxies that are tens of millions of light years away.
.....because this would be evidence that "GOD" does not exist, that everything that does exist does so based on a Statistical Probability that if it can exist it will exist.
##### Steve 200mph Cruiz
5 / 5 (5) Sep 02, 2015
There is much left to be desired from this study.
Elliptical galaxies also have more chaotic histories than spirals, and I bet they have a lot less stable of planetary systems from comets and rouge planets. It doesn't matter if their habitable now, it took 4 billion years for intelligent life to evolve here.

There's a lot of additional factors that come with alternative kinds of galaxies, life may evolve there, but it would be to different by our definition of intelligence to qualify for its designation.
##### Whydening Gyre
4.4 / 5 (15) Sep 03, 2015
Such random spewing by evolutionists show their inconsistency and lack of stable base.

And such random spewings by creationists indicate their lack of ability to produce tangible, demonstrable evidence proving their own case...

You demand incontrovertible proof from the evolutionary camp, pooh-pooh any that is provided and then finally provide an explanation that carries NO physical evidence, whatsover.
How is that "scientific" in your mind?
##### Vietvet
4.6 / 5 (11) Sep 03, 2015
Whydening, no, my words are not random spewing. And I am not inconsistent.

If you are serious, I would engage in further debate.
But, your responses show that you are not serious in engaging.

@verkle

Engaging with you is a waste of time. You don't understand science, you don't respect science
and you will not accept scientific evidence that conflicts with your misunderstanding of the bible.
,
##### Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (14) Sep 03, 2015
Free country, free site
@bschottTROLL
1- the internet is not a "country"
2- not all servers are in the USA
3- this is a science site, not a religious forum. you would complain on a religious forum if a physicist explained how your "miracles" were fallacy
4- science (and this site, by connection and stated rule), is about substantiating a claim with evidence, as noted by furlong (demonstrating), so the onus of proof/evidence is on the person making the claim
5- there is NO science in the creationist movement:
https://en.wikipe...Arkansas

The age of the words or who is saying them mean nothing
See: Scientific Method
it is not about semantics, it is about evidence

##### Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (17) Sep 03, 2015
no, my words are not random spewing
@verkleTROLL
yes, they are. you provide no empirical evidence or substantiation for your claims except religious dogma (that is the "spewing" part, AKA- proselytizing), and you randomly interject your religion into various science article comment sections which show intentional trolling
And I am not inconsistent
actually, you ARE... just because you are repetitious doesn't mean you are consistent
you have yet to be able to provide a consistent logical argument or any tangible evidence supporting your ASSertions

Engaging with you is a waste of time. You don't understand science, you don't respect science
and you will not accept scientific evidence that conflicts with your misunderstanding of the bible
@Vietvet
that pretty much sums up not only verkle, but ALL the creationists AND pseudoscience posters on the site, INCLUDING jvk, ren82, cd, hannes, zeph and more!

very concise and accurate!
THANKS
##### thefurlong
4.9 / 5 (10) Sep 03, 2015
Thefurlong says:
"In science, we don't PROVE things, we DEMONSTRATE things...."

Whydening Gyre says:
PROVE your theory...using Science.

Such random spewing by evolutionists show their inconsistency and lack of stable base.

Verkle, you do realise that Whydening and I are two distinct individuals, right?

I would submit that Whydening is using "prove" wrong, too. But the thing that Whydening understands, that you don't, is that you don't do science by asserting what you want to believe and then ignore a lack of evidence, or evidence that actually contradicts what you want to believe.
##### thefurlong
4.9 / 5 (12) Sep 03, 2015
This is not what Father Lemaitre the godfather of BB clearly states,he stated nothing about it being about some kind of rapid expansion, only that he observed it.

I don't see what this actually has to do with the actual definition of the Big Bang. Science constantly refines ideas. That Father Lemaitre was the first to suggest a massive explosion does not mean that he is the ultimate authority on his idea.

Bohr, at first, posited that electrons orbit around nuclei in discrete planet-like orbits, with angular momentum. So, he was the father of the idea that atomic orbitals have discrete angular momentum, and we know this to be true. What he didn't know, at that point, though, was that orbitals are not like planetary orbits at all.

That does not make the idea that orbitals have discrete angular momentum false.
##### thefurlong
4.6 / 5 (11) Sep 03, 2015
He states it all began from a single primordial atom, or maybe he meant particle (?), you know a Hboson, but of course he wouldn't have known that.

Hahaha.

You don't know what you are talking about.

The Higgs Boson is not the source of all matter. It isn't even the source of all mass as popular science articles would have you believe.

As I have said, before, an illusion of knowledge is crippling. How can you even BEGIN to argue against accepted theory if you don't even know what it actually says?
##### bluehigh
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 03, 2015
Many respectable physicists said that they weren't going to stand for this, partly because it was a debasement of science, but mostly because they didn't get invited to those sorts of parties.
##### Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (9) Sep 03, 2015
Whydening, no, my words are not random spewing.

Due to their lack of any empirical backing, they sure appear that way...
And I am not inconsistent.

You're right in a certain light. You're comments can always be viewed as consistently without any of the above-mentioned empiricity.
Verbal incontinence comes to mind...
If you are serious, I would engage in further debate.

Yes, I am. But no I wouldn't...
But, your responses show that you are not serious in engaging.

And DON'T call me Shirley...

##### thefurlong
4.7 / 5 (12) Sep 03, 2015
@Furlong - Nobody has observed the metric expansion of space

You probably don't even know what I mean by "observed." I mean that we have seen evidence for it happening RIGHT NOW

Educate yourself:
http://hyperphysi...acc.html
http://wmap.gsfc....ion.html
http://www.space....ars.html

You are probably using "observe" in the vernacular sense, which is to see something with your own eyes, but eyes make poor measuring devices.
(because if it were truly happening, measuring it would be impossible).

You, again, don't know what you're talking about.

But, I suppose I should be fair, and ask you WHY you think this.

I suspect it has to do more with, again, thinking that vernacular and technical definitions should precisely match. They don't. But, go on. Tell me why it should be impossible to observe the metric expansion of space.
##### thefurlong
4.6 / 5 (11) Sep 03, 2015
Mainstream science have INTERPRETED universal expansion based on GR...and the appearance that everything is moving farther away from everything else, attempting to use redshift as evidence that this is happening.

No. You have it wrong.

Mainstream science has constructed a MODEL, called General Relativity, of the universe that RELIABLY PREDICTS gravitational behavior. The interpretation of this model, while an interesting exercise in philosophy is ultimately BESIDE THE POINT. What matters in that the equations predict how things behave, and we observe these predictions.

When we say that we observe something, from a fly to a neutrino, and back out to metric expansion, what we really mean is that the data we obtain from our measuring devices reliably conforms to a model. Without that model, it's just data.

This is the case with human senses, too. Our brains have a model of reality, and the data we get from our senses INFORMS that model.
(to be cont.)
##### thefurlong
4.6 / 5 (11) Sep 03, 2015
(continued)
However, we know that our brains can easily be tricked, and this is where OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE, THEORY, and PEER REVIEW, comes in. It's very easy to fool your brain. It is very difficult to fool a calculation resulting from measurements of data.

Now, yes, GR does make a claim that space-time has curvature, but that's only because the data we observe is reliably modeled by it. It also predicts things that we didn't know about before-hand, like black-holes, and the expansion of the universe.

It is, thus, a useful model.

Saying "God did it" is not a useful model. It does not make quantitative predictions of how galaxies behave It does not reliably predict anything. I invite you to develop a quantitative theory of God, apply it rigorously to observational data, and show that it not only conforms with the data, but predicts things we didn't know about. If you can do this, then we will take your claims seriously.
##### Benni
1.7 / 5 (12) Sep 03, 2015
GR does make a claim.......... It also predicts things that we didn't know about before-hand, like black-holes, and the expansion of the universe.
...........showing just how little you know about Einsteins General relativity, because it does not predict black holes or the expansion of the Universe. Cite the sections if you please, or create a link to the specific sections of GR to which you make reference.

##### thefurlong
5 / 5 (12) Sep 03, 2015
It is impossible to measure if it is happening because there is no difference between the space between the SA particles in your measuring instrument and the space between galaxies. Your measuring instrument would be "expanding" at the same rate.

Haha. Try again. See here:

http://math.ucr.e...rse.html

Metric expansion happens ON A LARGE SCALE. Indeed, GR is a theory that actually deals with how space-time behaves LOCALLY, and then uses that to show how things in remote patches of space-time measure distances and times of events.

You STILL don't know what you're talking about. The question is, why do you persist in arguing against a theory you don't understand?
##### thefurlong
5 / 5 (13) Sep 03, 2015
GR does make a claim.......... It also predicts things that we didn't know about before-hand, like black-holes, and the expansion of the universe.
...........showing just how little you know about Einsteins General relativity, because it does not predict black holes or the expansion of the Universe.

Haha. Yes, please do argue with me about a subject I am currently studying at a technical level. That will definitely work out for you.

One of the solutions of the Einstein Field Equations is the Schwartzchild Metric, which describes space-time around a spherical, massive, body. Once this body becomes smaller than its Schwarzchild radius, you get a black-hole; i.e. escape-velocity exceeds the speed of light.

Don't look now, but that's a prediction.
Cite the sections if you please, or create a link to the specific sections of GR to which you make reference.

http://casa.color...hwp.html

BOOP!
##### Benni
1.6 / 5 (14) Sep 03, 2015
He states it all began from a single primordial atom, or maybe he meant particle (?), you know a Hboson, but of course he wouldn't have known that.

Hahaha.

You don't know what you are talking about.

The Higgs Boson is not the source of all matter. It isn't even the source of all mass as popular science articles would have you believe.

So, what we've been reading about concerning the HB is just a big yawning Hahaha to you. Yet you imagine you're so smart that you falsely identify black holes & universal expansion were predicted in Einsteins GR. I think Peter Higgs is still around somewhere, send him an email explaining to him why you are so much smarter than he is.

##### Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (13) Sep 03, 2015
you do realise that Whydening and I are two distinct individuals, right?
@furlong
probably not
Many respectable physicists said that they weren't going to stand for this, partly because it was a debasement of science, but mostly because they didn't get invited to those sorts of parties
@Blue
LMFAO - Adams ROCKS
I'll dumb this down for you as best I can
@bschott
and here i thought you were going to explain how freedom in one country is supposed to apply to the World Wide Web
Perhaps you should try re-reading my post for comprehension this time? or maybe get someone who is literate to re-read it to you and explain it
Also: it is all fine to make a claim... but until you can substantiate it, it is simply OPINION
nothing more
Personally, i loved Prof. Lewin's course... but maybe you need one that uses simpler language? given your comprehension levels demonstrated here
http://ocw.mit.ed...=physics
##### Benni
1.7 / 5 (11) Sep 03, 2015
GR does make a claim..... It also predicts things that we didn't know about before-hand, like black-holes, and the expansion of the universe.
.....showing just how little you know about Einsteins General relativity, because it does not predict black holes or the expansion of the Universe.

Haha.Yes, please do argue with me about a subject I am currently studying at a technical level.That will definitely work out for you.

One of the solutions of the Einstein Field Equations is the Schwartzchild Metric, which describes space-time around a spherical, massive, body. Once this body becomes smaller than its Schwarzchild radius, you get a black-hole; i.e. escape-velocity exceeds the speed of light.
......this is not found in Einsteins GR,

Cite the sections if you please, or create a link to the specific sections of GR to which you make reference.

........this is not a cite from GR. GR only please.

##### Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (11) Sep 03, 2015
The Furlong was confused by this
@bschott [BS]
not likely: it is much more likely you were not being clear on the subject, got schooled, and are now smarting from the poor choices you made
i am not even going to explain what he meant above, since it is apparent you are simply trolling with your anti- argument
a major point (and he also talks about it above to others) is still: evidence
ok, so you don't believe in mainstream astrophysics or the modern explanations of expansion, etc... we get it. but you've also not offered any refute or evidence and you sure as heck haven't published anything reputable and linked it here
go watch COPS, it suits you better
actually, it does- i am an investigator
that also means i can spot a CON... especially one that likes to TROLL without evidence

that doesn't mean that i don't understand... only that you can't make yourself unsderstood because it is hard to refute science with pseudoscience
##### thefurlong
4.4 / 5 (13) Sep 03, 2015
It is well acknowledged by all mainstream science that space is permeated with magnetic flux of varying degrees...a magnetic field.

Haha. No. Space, by and large is NOT permeated by a magnetic flux (at least, not in any meaningful sense). Magnetic flux is EXPLICITLY, the the "current" of magnetic field passing through a differential of space. Magnetic fields die out quickly (on the order of r^2, or worse). Hence, you don't have to get too far away from matter before it becomes NEGLIGIBLE.

Now, we mustn't neglect the CMB, but that is RADIATION. Photons, (which are bosons) constructively interfere. They do not (normally) lose energy by interacting with each other.

The Furlong was confused by this (although how you can comment on a science site and not know this is beyond me)

No, I am confused by your insistence on arguing about subjects that you clearly have not studied on a technical level.
##### thefurlong
4.7 / 5 (12) Sep 03, 2015
So, what we've been reading about concerning the HB is just a big yawning Hahaha to you.

Yes, because, your incompetent, ignorant, arguments regarding subjects you don't understand make you poster children for the Dunning-Kruger effect, and it brightens my day.
Yet you imagine you're so smart that you falsely identify black holes & universal expansion were predicted in Einsteins GR.

You do realize that Einstein was not the only person to contribute to GR, right? Like, the guy died in 1955. It's not like, when he died, all further progress in GR halted.

The theory of Black holes was developed by a host of researchers, including Schwarzchild, Eddington, Lorentz, Lemaitre, and Chandrasekhar. They used GR to predict black holes.
##### Uncle Ira
4.7 / 5 (23) Sep 03, 2015
@ furlong-Skippy or maybe Captain-Skippy.

I think I understand how the "predicts" thing works in science theories but I might be wrong so if this is wrong let me know.

@ Bennie-Skippy.

Just because Einstein-Skippy him self didn't write down "I predict the black hole" anywhere in his theory doesn't mean the theory did not predict him.

I don't think when the scientists say "the theory predicts" they mean that the prediction was included in the original writing down of the theory. When the scientists say that, what they are really saying is "this thing falls out the theory" or "the theory made it possible to find this later".

Is that wrong? Maybe it is and you should just Skippy-skip over him or tell how I make the mistake.
##### thefurlong
4.7 / 5 (13) Sep 03, 2015
I think Peter Higgs is still around somewhere, send him an email explaining to him why you are so much smarter than he is.

Hahah.

You don't even know what Peter Higgs believes. Maybe YOU should email him, and ask.

Now, I am not smarter than Higgs (as far as I know), but I am smart enough to do research from credible resources.

Now, Professor Matt Strassler, agrees with me, here:
http://profmattst...-or-not/

Here is an excerpt:
The Higgs field, though it provides the mass for all other known particles with masses, does not provide the Higgs particle with its mass.

Now, both Higgs and Strassler are experts. A question you need to ask yourself is what's more likely, that two high-profile theoretical physicists could disagree so fundamentally, or that you, a non-expert, don't actually understand the claims being made?
##### Captain Stumpy
4.7 / 5 (12) Sep 03, 2015
You do realize that Einstein was not the only person to contribute to GR, right?
@furlong
probably not
this is benni, after all... this is the man who said
the wobble cycle of Earth's rotational axis seems to correlate closely with the time required for our solar system to complete a full orbital passage around the galactic core of the Milky Way
found here:
http://phys.org/n...als.html

Neither the Chandler wobble nor the Milankovitch cycle is equivalent to the Galactic year... but thats not all, he also likes to denigrate others about "differential equations" claiming he can do them but others can't... except, when pushed for a demo, FAILED
http://phys.org/n...ood.html

i doubt that benni knows WTF is going on re: GR
just like i doubt the "nuclear engineer" is an actual engineer... he thinks throwing around terms makes him smart
##### thefurlong
4.6 / 5 (13) Sep 03, 2015
I don't think when the scientists say "the theory predicts" they mean that the prediction was included in the original writing down of the theory. When the scientists say that, what they are really saying is "this thing falls out the theory" or "the theory made it possible to find this later".

Is that wrong? Maybe it is and you should just Skippy-skip over him or tell how I make the mistake.

No, that's not wrong. Your explanation of prediction is right on the money.

A prediction is something that can be inferred from a theory.

For some reason, creationists tend to think that when somebody originates a theory, that makes them the ultimate authority on it, and that all further developments in the theory can be disregarded. That's simply not how it works.

The reason a person studies a theory is to CONTRIBUTE to it.
##### Benni
1.6 / 5 (13) Sep 03, 2015
So, what we've been reading about concerning the HB is just a big yawning Hahaha to you.

Yes......

Yet you imagine you're so smart that you falsely identify black holes & universal expansion were predicted in Einsteins GR.

You do realize that Einstein was not the only person to contribute to GR, right?
Wrong....you continue to demonstrate how little you know about GR, and his derivation of the Einstein Field Equations for Gravity.

The theory of Black holes was developed by a host of researchers, including Schwarzchild, Eddington, Lorentz, Lemaitre, and Chandrasekhar.
......but not Einstein, there is no predilection for black holes in his GR & none of the names you just posted assisted him, but you think to the contrary because you all you do is read what others write about what is contained in GR rather than taking the time to see for yourself that such content actually exists.
##### Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (10) Sep 03, 2015
Is that wrong? Maybe it is and you should just Skippy-skip over him or tell how I make the mistake.
@Ira
Nope, not that i can see!
Good job, Ira! for all his denigration of you, you've just outed benni again!
LOL

For some reason, creationists ...when somebody originates a theory... ultimate authority on it,....
@furlong
creationists are not the only ones... see also benni, cantdrive, hannes_alfven, zephir and all those other pseudoscience posters

the difference is creationists start out with a dogma and try to fit reality to it, whereas the pseudoscience posters like the rest are scientifically illiterate (despite their claims) so they can't actually see where they are going wrong!

and then there is the problem with conspiracy with them ALL... (including bs, posting above)
http://www.ploson...tion=PDF
##### Benni
2 / 5 (12) Sep 03, 2015
You do realize that Einstein was not the only person to contribute to GR, right?
@furlong
probably not
this is benni, after all... this is the man who said
the wobble cycle of Earth's rotational axis seems to correlate closely with the time required for our solar system to complete a full orbital passage around the galactic core of the Milky Way
i doubt that benni knows WTF is going on re: GR
just like i doubt the "nuclear engineer" is an actual engineer... he thinks throwing around terms makes him smart

..........all coming from a retired fire fighter who never never knew Differential Equations existed until I started making reference to them as found in Einsteins GR.
##### Benni
2 / 5 (12) Sep 03, 2015
Now, both Higgs and Strassler are experts. A question you need to ask yourself is what's more likely, that two high-profile theoretical physicists could disagree so fundamentally, or that you, a non-expert, don't actually understand the claims being made?
......why then do you imagine you're such an expert when you admit that you're not smarter than Higgs?
##### thefurlong
5 / 5 (11) Sep 03, 2015
You do realize that Einstein was not the only person to contribute to GR, right?

Wrong....you continue to demonstrate how little you know about GR, and his derivation of the Einstein Field Equations for Gravity.

...
Wow. Just. Wow.

The Internets never ceases to impress me with the degree of willful ignorance that its denizens can attain.

Go do yourself a favor and read about Lorentz, Weyl, Schiff, Shcoen, etc...

You know what? You can do something simpler than that.

Google "Contributers to General Relativity", and do some goddamn research that doesn't involve confirming your own bias by reading "Answers in Genesis."

I bet you couldn't tell me even what a one-form is, let alone, a tensor, or what why the stress-energy tensor should be the source of gravity, or parallel transport, or how we use Cristoffel symbols to model a metric, or even how any of those things actually relate to the EFEs. Just stop. You are embarrassing yourself.
##### thefurlong
5 / 5 (9) Sep 03, 2015
Now, both Higgs and Strassler are experts. A question you need to ask yourself is what's more likely, that two high-profile theoretical physicists could disagree so fundamentally, or that you, a non-expert, don't actually understand the claims being made?
......why then do you imagine you're such an expert when you admit that you're not smarter than Higgs?

I'm not an expert (on the Higgs mechanism). I am, however, an expert in using Google search, and finding theoretical physicists who can explain what the Higgs mechanism is, and where mass comes from. I also pay attention to actual experimental results.

For example, we didn't know the actual Higgs mass would be before measuring it. If we had a model, which explained the Higgs mass, we would have known, beforehand, what we would measure. I mean, we had a rough idea, but only a rough one. One of the major efforts of finding the Higgs was measuring its mass.
##### thefurlong
4.7 / 5 (12) Sep 03, 2015
the wobble cycle of Earth's rotational axis seems to correlate closely with the time required for our solar system to complete a full orbital passage around the galactic core of the Milky Way

found here:
http://phys.org/n...als.html

Neither the Chandler wobble nor the Milankovitch cycle is equivalent to the Galactic year... but thats not all, he also likes to denigrate others about "differential equations" claiming he can do them but others can't... except, when pushed for a demo, FAILED

So...we're dealing with He Who Must Not Be Named, and J.F. Prins, level of incompetence, here. Wonderful.
##### Benni
1.9 / 5 (14) Sep 03, 2015
I bet you couldn't tell me even what a one-form is, let alone, a tensor, or what why the stress-energy tensor should be the source of gravity, or parallel transport, or how we use Cristoffel symbols to model a metric, or even how any of those things actually relate to the EFEs. Just stop. You are embarrassing yourself.
......you imagine you know so much smarter than Higgs, but you still are unable to cite the section of Einsteins GR in which he predicted black holes. I have serious doubts you've ever seen a Differential Equation you could solve, you're in about the same quandry of math literacy as Stumpy & Ira, two more geniuses here still looking for relevancy on a science & math site.
##### thefurlong
4.7 / 5 (12) Sep 03, 2015
......you imagine you know so much smarter than Higgs, but you still are unable to cite the section of Einsteins GR in which he predicted black holes.

Einstein did not predict black holes. I already said this. GR predicts black holes, in the way that Ira so clearly described.

If you actually studied GR, and weren't a raving lunatic, YOU TOO, could predict something that Einstein never predicted. It's why we have people still studying GR, today.

Believe it or not, THEY are making predictions that Einstein never predicted. What is so difficult to understand about this?
##### Benni
1.9 / 5 (13) Sep 03, 2015
I'm not an expert (on the Higgs mechanism)
.....you've amply demonstrated this.

I am, however, an expert in using Google search, and finding theoretical physicists who can explain what the Higgs mechanism is, and where mass comes from.
Google searching......Great stuff for which to claim expertise, something to which every housewife in the country can also lay claim. Congratulations.

##### thefurlong
4.6 / 5 (11) Sep 03, 2015
I have serious doubts you've ever seen a Differential Equation you could solve

Heheh.

So cute.

Ok, big guy, well let's see if you actually know your way around differential equations. Let's start with something simple.

Solve the following:
"At time, t_0, a certain quantity was 1. The instantaneous rate of change of a quantity is equivalent to 10^-7 times the current quantity plus 10^-5 times the the squared time difference between the present and t_0. If 1 year has elapsed since t_0, how large is this quantity?"

I want to see the differential equation, I want to see the steps taken to solve it, and finally, I want to see the answer. You can provide it using a logarithmic scale, if it is too large to write down manually. You can provide the solution by uploading a file to a file sharing service, or provide it in the comments.
##### Uncle Ira
4.7 / 5 (25) Sep 03, 2015
Google searching......Great stuff for which to claim expertise, something to which every housewife in the country can also lay claim.

You mean like when this guy plagerized the Ask-Yahoo-The-Question? Look for Bennie-Skippy telling how to cipher out some of those "different equations" he is so fond of.

http://phys.org/n...firstCmt

Here is where Yahoo-Answers-Bennie's-Question told him what to say.

Congratulations.

Congratulations your self. You give out some really big fun today.
##### thefurlong
4.7 / 5 (13) Sep 03, 2015
I'm not an expert (on the Higgs mechanism)

.....you've amply demonstrated this.

And...you are an expert on the Higgs mechanism, then?
Google searching......Great stuff for which to claim expertise, something to which every housewife in the country can also lay claim. Congratulations.

You, too, can wield the phenomenal power known as Google search to find people who actually know what they're talking about.

Oh, wait. I forgot. The Bible is the only source of knowledge, thereby rendering any actual experts on the subject superfluous.

I mean, really, you're going to argue that I shouldn't use Google to locate experts?

What should I do, if I don't know, then? Magically divine this information in my head? You really think popular science articles are SUPERIOR to things written by actual scientists? Really?
##### thefurlong
4.6 / 5 (11) Sep 03, 2015
@Benni
Oh yes, and units of time are in seconds, BTW. So really, that 10^-5 coefficient also comes with units. Knowing your way around dimensional theory and diff eqs, you should be able to determine what those units are, yourself.
##### Whydening Gyre
4.5 / 5 (10) Sep 03, 2015
I have serious doubts you've ever seen a Differential Equation you could solve

Heheh.

So cute.

Ok, big guy, well let's see if you actually know your way around differential equations. Let's start with something simple.

Solve the following:
"At time, t_0, a certain quantity was 1. The instantaneous rate of change of a quantity is equivalent to 10^-7 times the current quantity plus 10^-5 times the the squared time difference between the present and t_0. If 1 year has elapsed since t_0, how large is this quantity?"

I want to see the differential equation, I want to see the steps taken to solve it, and finally, I want to see the answer. You can provide it using a logarithmic scale, if it is too large to write down manually. You can provide the solution by uploading a file to a file sharing service, or provide it in the comments.

Furlong,
I tried the same tack with Benni a few months ago. Still waiting for the response...
##### thefurlong
4.6 / 5 (9) Sep 03, 2015
Furlong,
I tried the same tack with Benni a few months ago. Still waiting for the response...

That doesn't surprise me.

I think his response will be similar to Ben Carson's at the end of this:
https://www.youtu...lBv8Z3NU
##### thefurlong
4.3 / 5 (11) Sep 03, 2015
@Furlong - DM crushed the predictability of the standard model.

Actually, no, it does not.

The SM is our most successful theory to date. Just because it does not predict certain things does not make it wrong. Newtonian mechanics does not predict gravitational lensing. That does not make it wrong, because lensing is outside of the regime in which it was formulated. We still use Newtonian mechanics in every day calculations.

The Standard Model works exceedingly well ( a little too well, actually ), in predicting things in its regime, too. It was not reformulated in GR's regime, which is cosmological.

Our data indicates that DM exists. We have much more than galactic rotation curves, at this point, indicating it exists. What's left is to detect it locally.

If we can't well, then GR MIGHT need to be revised.

Also, the general consensus is pretty much that the SM is NOT complete, and there is likely physics beyond it that leads to DM.
##### Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (11) Sep 03, 2015
all coming from a retired fire fighter who never never knew Differential Equations existedblah blah cry whine quit picking on me bohooo
@benni
this is called conjecture without evidence (and repeating it doesn't make it any more true than you repeating that you are an engineer, that you can do DE or that you know [insert any fact here] when you CAN'T PROVE ANY OF IT)
obviously you are not college educated because any idiot knows that to get any STEM degree, a knowledge of physics and your DE are required

again, the point is clear: it is about EVIDENCE
and you have YET to provide any evidence supporting your proclamations

@Furlong
he is going to continue to apply the same TROLL argument just to irritate you... benni can't even demonstrate basic engineering knowledge, let alone physics... and we also know he scorns sources, period, and can't google at all
demonstrated above
##### Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (10) Sep 03, 2015
pretends he has a clue
@bs
so where is your "evidence" that
DM crushed the predictability of the standard model. Or, I should say, the lack of DM
better yet... why not substantiate your claims with studies!
prove the SM is debunked with the scientific method!
or maybe reputable journal sources!

i know, i know... that is asking much from a pseudoscience poster who only wants to TROLL the science comments with his/her denigration of mainstream science... you aren't here to actually provide information, you are here to annoy the literate and proselytize your religious like beliefs!

glad to see all those linked studies you are using to prove your point...

oh wait...

I tried the same tack with Benni a few months ago. Still waiting
@Whyde
Yeah, i loved that comment thread. even linked it above!
AWESOME!
THANKS
##### Uncle Ira
4.7 / 5 (24) Sep 03, 2015
Furlong,
I tried the same tack with Benni a few months ago. Still waiting for the response...

@ Whydening-Skippy. How you are? I am good.

If you want to see Bennie-Skippy doing some of his different equating, just look up there are at the postum I put up. It has the link to the physorg article where Bennie-Skippy is trying to school somebody on black hole ciphering. And I put up the link too where he stole it word for word from the Yahoo-Answers-The-Skippy's-Question.

Now I know Bennie-Skippy don't like using the Google-Skippy, but I have to admit I cheated, that is how I found Bennie-Skippy stealing the exact words from the Yahoo-Answers-The-Skippy's-Questions.

If he don't use Google-Skippy like he says all the time, I wonder how he found that to steal and post up here?
##### Benni
1.7 / 5 (11) Sep 03, 2015
I have serious doubts you've ever seen a Differential Equation you could solve

Ok, big guy, well let's see if you actually know your way around differential equations. Let's start with something simple.........

Now why would someone who has admitted in the past that he's never seen a Differential Equation he could solve post data asking for a derivations he could never comprehend? And by the way Fur, from what internet site did you make your Copy?

##### Uncle Ira
4.7 / 5 (24) Sep 03, 2015
And by the way Fur, from what internet site did you make your Copy?

Well I checked the Yahoo-Answers-The-Skippy's-Question place and he didn't get him from there. That's where they keep all the good stuffs, eh?
##### thefurlong
4.6 / 5 (10) Sep 03, 2015
I have serious doubts you've ever seen a Differential Equation you could solve

Ok, big guy, well let's see if you actually know your way around differential equations. Let's start with something simple.........

Now why would someone who has admitted in the past that he's never seen a Differential Equation he could solve post data asking for a derivations he could never comprehend? And by the way Fur, from what internet site did you make your Copy?

Um, Benni, I never admitted that. That's in your head. Maybe God placed it there.

No, I am quite familiar with diff eqs, partial diff eqs, Laplace Transforms, Fourier Transforms, etc.

Now, quit stalling. Show us all how competent you are.

(Also, I generated that problem myself on the spot, which is why I don't yet know if the answer will be too large to express without logarithmic scales)
##### Benni
2.1 / 5 (11) Sep 03, 2015
Hey there WG & Fur, how about if you two guys make tracks to a General relativity site & point out the exact Differential Equations that you claim Einstein used to prove the existence of Black Holes?

Of course if you find an actual study of Einsteins GR too challenging, you can simply return to your grade school level of science & the Creationist contrived Big Bang Theory of the origin of the Universe, you don't need Differential Equations or Grade School Math for that.
##### thefurlong
4.2 / 5 (10) Sep 03, 2015
@Benni
"At time, t_0, a certain quantity was 1. The instantaneous rate of change of a quantity is equivalent to 10^-7 times the current quantity plus 10^-5 times the the squared time difference between the present and t_0. If 1 year has elapsed since t_0, how large is this quantity?"

There was a small typo in my word problem. Just in case your brain is too broken to figure it out, let me revise my word problem:
"At time, t_0, a certain quantity was 1. The instantaneous rate of change of THIS quantity is equivalent to 10^-7 times its current value plus 10^-5 times the the squared time difference between the present and t_0. If 1 year has elapsed since t_0, how large is this quantity?"
##### thefurlong
5 / 5 (10) Sep 03, 2015
@Benni
Are you going to solve that word problem?

You are supposed to know differential equations. If you want to admit that you don't know how to solve it, that's fine with me. It IS solvable, and I can show you how.

Hey there WG & Fur, how about if you two guys make tracks to a General relativity site & point out the exact Differential Equations that you claim Einstein used to prove the existence of Black Holes?

How about you scan upwards in the comments and look for the myriad places I, and other people pointed out that Einstein DIDN'T PREDICT BLACK HOLES.

GR did.

GR is not Einstein.

Einstein developed GR, and then people, like Schwarzchild, Lorentz, and so on, used it to predict black holes.

You buffoon.
##### thefurlong
4.6 / 5 (10) Sep 03, 2015
Of course if you find an actual study of Einsteins GR too challenging,

I am learning about it RIGHT NOW. You moron. You buffoon.

Currently, I am reading,
"Relativity" by Wolfgang Rindler.

Here, I will turn to a random page, and provide an excerpt:

In any case, the direct generalization of formulae (8.3) turns out to be too crude. More than one number at each point is needed to characterize fully the curvature properties of spaces of higher dimensions.

Page 169, section 8.2, second paragraph, first two sentences.

Before this, I was reading Schutz and Weyl.
##### thefurlong
4.6 / 5 (9) Sep 03, 2015
@Benny
Also, why do you persist in focusing on what Einstein did, and not what everyone else did after him?
##### Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Sep 03, 2015
who has admitted in the past that he's never seen a Differential Equation he could solve
Hey there, benni... since you are the omniscient omnipotent DE master, why not provide the quote and link showing where either furlong, Whyde or myself (etc) ever admitted to not being able to do DE's?
(what colour is the sky in your world?)
You would ask me for evidence that something is missing when it isn't there. Investigator my ass
@bsTROLL
ROTFLMFAO
so, your argument is that there is no evidence to support your claims, and that is the evidence supporting your claims?
my point: you made a claim
DM crushed the predictability of the standard model. Or, I should say, the lack of DM
but you can't provide evidence of this claim
IF your argument was legit, you would be able to at least demonstrate a mathematical argument, or you would be able to link studies supporting your conjecture (or at least, supporting your argument)
2bcont'd
##### Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Sep 03, 2015
to continue
There is no evidence of matter where it needs to be found in order for the standard model to remain
so, you want to argue MOND? is that what you are arguing?
if it is, just say so
I will happily study any sample of DM
how quaint: the term is a place holder until we can define what is being OBSERVED
(i don't expect you to actually understand that part, given your history)

given the lack of actual evidence, then we can conclude that you are:
Lying
trolling
conning
attempting diversion with circular logic
and that is just using COP logic, mind you
if you need a method to understand what this means
we have one, it is called the scientific method
and again, the point is NOT that you are making a claim, it is that you cannot provide ANY evidence supporting your conjecture

what you are doing is called "obfuscation" and can also be called a red herring or strawman

2Bcont'd
##### Uncle Ira
4.7 / 5 (25) Sep 03, 2015
@Benny
Also, why do you persist in focusing on what Einstein did, and not what everyone else did after him?

Well I can answer that one me. The book written by Einstein got his attention with the name recognitions. Not that he could understand anything in the book, but he figured it must be a really good one because he had no idea what Einstein-Skippy was telling him.

After he got the Einstein book he figured that was enough because he recognized the name and didn't want to fool around with buying more books to not understand by a bunch of people who had names he didn't recognize.

If you ask him nice he might even throw in a semi-circular-universe topped (that used to be his favorite before different equation) with an e=mc2 (he likes to write that almost as much as different equation) just to prove he really did read the Einstein-Skippy's book.
##### Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Sep 03, 2015
@bs cont'd
getting back to the original point
3/4 of what is required to keep it valid is missing...
what we have is a series of OBSERVED phenomenon, which we know doesn't jibe with what we knew... so we gave it a name: Dark Matter
https://en.wikipe...k_matter

so, science makes a hypothesis, then tests it:

http://spaceplace...ter.html

physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2010/oct/29/best-evidence-yet-for-dark-matter-comes-from-milky-way-centre

so, even when there is "There is no evidence of matter where it needs to be found in order for the standard model to remain" we can develop a means to calculate and make predictions, per the scientific method

but you say
if you need a method to understand what this means
then it makes me think: you don't know about the scientific method?

so we come back full circle to your post:
WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE for your claims?
##### thefurlong
4.6 / 5 (11) Sep 03, 2015
If you ask him nice he might even throw in a semi-circular-universe topped (that used to be his favorite before different equation) with an e=mc2 (he likes to write that almost as much as different equation) just to prove he really did read the Einstein-Skippy's book.

Haha. E=mc2. Cute.

You know who throws out E=mc^2 when they want to demonstrate they are familiar with physics? People who aren't familiar with physics.

It's like claiming to be a literature expert and then throwing out "To be, or not to be? That is the question" to show your chops.

E=mc^2 isn't even the full equation. It just captures how mass is related to energy in the rest frame.
##### Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Sep 03, 2015
Last point, @bs
to really drive home MY point: you said
You would ask me for evidence that something is missing when it isn't there. Investigator my ass
and yet, there IS observational evidence for Dark Matter
Dark matter's existence is inferred from gravitational effects on visible matter and gravitational lensing of background radiation
https://en.wikipe...evidence

that tells us that there is something with mass as well as something that we just can't see... even if there was "nothing", you should be able to produce evidence of that
Especially since i CAN produce evidence

so, really, this is about your TROLLING more than anything
You are (like benniTROLL) making false claims
then you denigrate anyone against you because you don't understand

i've stuck to the basics and followed the evidence, but you speculated and have SQUAT
but you think i am too simple to follow Cops?
LMFAO

ri-i-ight!
##### Uncle Ira
4.7 / 5 (26) Sep 03, 2015
E=mc^2 isn't even the full equation.

I am not the scientist-Skippy like Bennie-Skippy isn't either, but I knew that, it only covers the momentum stuff that Newton-Skippy already took care of.

But I got a whole collection of Bennie-Gems marked up to find real quick, like the one I use up there when he tries the "Google" line on peoples. He really did copy word for word from the Yahoo-Answers-The-Question place and glued him here right on the physorg pretending he was writing it down off the top of his head.

Some other of his good ones are.

"All energy is photons, no photons, not energy".

And

"gamma rays, x-rays and radio waves are not light, I work with spectrometers so I think I know what I am talking about"

And

"heat is NOT energy".

I've got lots of them marked Collecting stupid stuff from people that come to physorg to pretend they are scientists and engineers is one of my hobbies.
##### thefurlong
5 / 5 (8) Sep 03, 2015
Some other of his good ones are.

"All energy is photons, no photons, not energy".

haha. What is kinetic energy, and how does it work? Maybe he thinks that when things move, they go Super Sayan, are enveloped in light, and spontaneously grow spiky hair, and that's where the energy comes from?

"gamma rays, x-rays and radio waves are not light, I work with spectrometers so I think I know what I am talking about"

Oooh. Geez.

That's just...I am speechless. Are you sure he isn't a troll? Maybe he means they aren't VISIBLE light...please, oh great cosmic Gerbil, let that be what he meant!

"heat is NOT energy".

Well, technically, he's sort of right, though I doubt he understands why.

Heat is the transfer of energy by thermodynamic processes. It isn't actually energy.

The energy is actually the random movement of particles gained through heat. (heating)
##### matt_s
4.5 / 5 (8) Sep 03, 2015
Don't you need a hypothesis that explains everything GR explains AND THEN SOME... aka the dark matter you say cannot be correct? Or what exists at the "singularity" in a blackhole? So please. Don't be shy. Step up and explain your theory so it can get tested.

@bschott
and the morons like verkle and ren can take a stab at it too
##### thefurlong
5 / 5 (9) Sep 03, 2015
Don't you need a hypothesis that explains everything GR explains AND THEN SOME... aka the dark matter you say cannot be correct? Or what exists at the "singularity" in a blackhole? So please. Don't be shy. Step up and explain your theory so it can get tested.

@bschott
and the morons like verkle and ren can take a stab at it too

Goddidit.

*mic drop*
##### Uncle Ira
4.5 / 5 (24) Sep 03, 2015
"heat is NOT energy".

Well, technically, he's sort of right, though I doubt he understands why.

Well for some reason that does hurt my feelings a tiny little bit because I don't mind getting straightened out when I go a little wrong.

I learned about heat in the Marine Power classes I took a long time ago. It was only the community college not the four year science college, so they probably teach it different from the professional physics schools.

We learned that heat is energy being moved from one place to another place without doing no work on something buy moving it. Like our engines turn potential (chemical) energy of diesel fuel into heat energy which is turned into mechanical energy that the boat uses to move through the water (do work).

But that is okayeei with me. I am wrong a lot. Some peoples (like Bennie-Skippy) has never been wrong about anything in his whole life (which is why he loses his patience with us so much.)
##### bluehigh
1 / 5 (3) Sep 03, 2015
Wow, you almost made an entire comment without the annoying verbal technique.
Well done.
##### thefurlong
4.6 / 5 (9) Sep 03, 2015
Well for some reason that does hurt my feelings a tiny little

I hope not too much. My aim was not to that. I reserve that for arrogant idiots like Benni.
We learned that heat is energy being moved from one place to another place without doing no work on something buy moving it.

Right. So, that's correct, if you read it like this:

"heat is [energy being moved from one place to another place without doing no work on something buy moving it.]"

"heat is [energy] being moved from one place to another place without doing no work on something buy moving it."

When I first took thermodynamics, I was surprised to learn that that's how physicists define heat. I had always thought it was a form of energy. My prof. was actually very adamant about stressing that distinction.
##### Benni
1.8 / 5 (11) Sep 03, 2015
Some other of his good ones are.

All energy is photons, no photons, not energy
.....absolutely correct.

haha. What is kinetic energy, and how does it work? Maybe he thinks that when things move, they go Super Sayan, are enveloped in light, and spontaneously grow spiky hair, and that's where the energy comes from?
.....classic grade school science mistake due to the lack of education..

KE=1/2mv*2. It is the mechanical motion of orbital electrons as they change orbital positions for transfer of infrared from one atom to the next..

E=mc*2. This is photonic energy, has nothing to do with KE. Go study Einsteins Special Relativity.

##### thefurlong
4.3 / 5 (12) Sep 03, 2015
Wow, you almost made an entire comment without the annoying verbal technique.
Well done.

Ira's got an awesome manner of communicating. Everyone has their own way of speaking, and there are many English dialects in the U.S. alone. There is no "best" dialect. It depends on the region. Language barriers can be crossed. What matters. in the end, is what's in your mind.
##### Uncle Ira
4.5 / 5 (25) Sep 03, 2015
When I first took thermodynamics, I was surprised to learn that that's how physicists define heat. I had always thought it was a form of energy. My prof. was actually very adamant about stressing that distinction.

In our programs I had to take just the quarters of physics classes, but they were just basic stuffs. In the three classes (about three months each one) they had to cover everything from mechanics and sound and light and thermodynamics and electricity and magnetism so we did not learn exactly like the peoples who take the full four year college courses.

Most of our other classes had to do with math stuff and machinery and mechanical systems. With the odd history and sociology classes thrown in too. It was just the Associate Degree program, not the full science four year program. But I read a lot since then, that is how I catch Bennie-Skippy (and others too) saying silly stuffs.
##### Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (9) Sep 03, 2015
Don't you need a hypothesis that explains everything GR explains AND THEN SOME... aka the dark matter you say cannot be correct? Or what exists at the "singularity" in a blackhole? So please. Don't be shy. Step up and explain your theory so it can get tested.

@bschott
and the morons like verkle and ren can take a stab at it too

Goddidit.

*mic drop*

NO offense, Fur, but Eddie Murphy's version of that had much more effect...:-)
##### Uncle Ira
4.4 / 5 (27) Sep 03, 2015
Wow, you almost made an entire comment without the annoying verbal technique.
Well done.

Ira's got an awesome manner of communicating. Everyone has their own way of speaking, and there are many English dialects in the U.S. alone. There is no "best" dialect. It depends on the region. Language barriers can be crossed. What matters. in the end, is what's in your mind.

Thanks for that. Don't mind him, I did not even see it because he is one of the "don't show me this couyon's stuff" peoples that physorg does not show me. The people who make it on that list are the ones who use racial, sexual or ethic slur so they are no fun for me.
##### thefurlong
5 / 5 (8) Sep 03, 2015
.....classic grade school science mistake due to the lack of education..

KE=1/2mv*2. It is the mechanical motion of orbital electrons as they change orbital positions for transfer of infrared from one atom to the next

Sigh. No, Benni. No, it isn't.

First of all, energy is not a mechanism. It is the ability to do work.

Second of all, 1/2mv^2 is an approximation. It is correct in Newtonian Mechanics (which is also an approximation), but the correct expression is

E^2 = m^2c^4 + p^2c^2, where p is momentum = mv*gamma, which is the Lorentz factor.

In the rest frame, p vanishes, and you are left with E^2 = m^2c^4.

Third, no. Just. No.

Kinetic energy is NOT just from electrons moving from one orbital to another.

When entire objects have kinetic energy, the electrons stay in their orbitals. If what you said were true, we would see moving, uncharged, objects radiating photons, which DOESN'T HAPPEN.

(to be continued)
##### Benni
1.7 / 5 (12) Sep 03, 2015
When I first took thermodynamics, I was surprised to learn that that's how physicists define heat. I had always thought it was a form of energy. My prof. was actually very adamant about stressing that distinction.

I guess you must have flunked that thermodynamics course, because you still don't understand energy & the entropic distribution of heat. I learned it pretty well in my thermodynamics courses during my six years in Engineering school studying Electrical/Nuclear Engineering.

You simply do not understand how heat is transferred between atoms via the electron shell structure. This is a mechanical process, not a photonic process, which is why a photon originating at the center of our Sun requires centuries of passing time before it emerges from the surface.
##### thefurlong
5 / 5 (8) Sep 03, 2015
(continued)
E=mc*2. This is photonic energy,

No, Benni.

This is MASS energy.

Wherever the is mass, there is energy, and wherever there is energy, there is mass.

By that I mean the following thought experiment.

Take a box and fill it matter and anti-matter. Make sure that the box is hermetically sealed, a nearly perfect insulator, a black body, and made of stuff strong enough to withstand a huge explosion, so that stuff inside will negligibly interact with stuff outside. Now, let the matter and anti-matter annihilate inside.

If you were to weigh this box, regardless of the explosion inside, and any internal heating, you would find it weighed the same thing.

If you attempted to push it, you would find it would be just as difficult to push before the annihilation, and after.

That, is essentially mass-energy equivalence. When you get to GR mass-energy equivalence is extended to making the stress-energy tensor the source of gravity.
##### Benni
1.7 / 5 (11) Sep 03, 2015
If you were to weigh this box, regardless of the explosion inside, and any internal heating, you would find it weighed the same thing.
.....not if that box were to leak energy, it would weigh less due to the Mass/Energy Equivalence Principle Einstein put forth in Special Relativity, not General Relativity, a matter you are obviously confused about as well.

##### thefurlong
5 / 5 (8) Sep 03, 2015
I guess you must have flunked that thermodynamics course, because you still don't understand energy & the entropic distribution of heat.

Actually, I got an A- in my statistical mechanics course.
I learned it pretty well in my thermodynamics courses during my six years in Engineering school studying Electrical/Nuclear Engineering.

Oh? And what school was that? I am still waiting for you to solve that problem I gave you, BTW.
You simply do not understand how heat is transferred between atoms via the electron shell structure.

Physics words salad. Heat is not transferred. Energy is transferred through heat, which IS the transfer. It is also a MACROSCOPIC VARIABLE that only arises from an ensemble of particles. You do not transfer heat between atoms. You transfer energy between atoms, in the form of photons.

(to be continued)
##### thefurlong
5 / 5 (10) Sep 03, 2015
(continued)
This is a mechanical process, not a photonic process, which is why a photon originating at the center of our Sun requires centuries of passing time before it emerges from the surface.

Haha.

Mechanical processes are ultimately mediated by electromagnetic processes, unless you are using mechanical in a way that most physicists don't.

I don't know what you're trying to get at (besides, perhaps attempting to look like you understand undergraduate physics, (you aren't fooling anyone, by the way)), but "heat being a mechanical process" has nothing to do with photons taking so long. It has everything to do with the fact that the average length of a path a photon can travel before encountering an energetic particle (and getting deflected or absorbed) is much smaller than in a much less energetic environment. It's called the mean free path. Look it up.
##### thefurlong
4.6 / 5 (10) Sep 03, 2015
.....not if that box were to leak energy,

Read what I wrote again, Benni:

Make sure that the box is hermetically sealed, a nearly perfect insulator, a black body, and made of stuff strong enough to withstand a huge explosion, so that stuff inside will negligibly interact with stuff outside.

What is reading comprehension and how does it work?

Almost everything you say is wrong. Unfortunately, you say a lot.

This is a classic example of the Gish Gallop. (http://rationalwi..._Gallop)

The strategy is to attempt to overwhelm your opponent by throwing out gobs of technical sounding garbage. The hope is, eventually, you will say something your opponent is not so well versed in, and she/he will be unable to respond. To the layperson, this then looks like your opponent is stumped, when really all you've done is let loose a whole lot of hot air.
##### Benni
1.6 / 5 (13) Sep 03, 2015

I am still waiting for you to solve that problem I gave you
You, one who doesn't even know the difference between General Relativity & Special Relativity, think you know what about Differential Equations? Why don't you actually go to a site & study the math for yourself rather than challenging others to do what you apparently are incapable of comprehending. BTW, while your on a GR site, peel down to some of those Partial DEs & let us know how you're making out.
##### thefurlong
4.6 / 5 (10) Sep 03, 2015

I am still waiting for you to solve that problem I gave you
You, one who doesn't even know the difference between General Relativity & Special Relativity, think you know what about Differential Equations? Why don't you actually go to a site & study the math for yourself rather than challenging others to do what you apparently are incapable of comprehending. BTW, while your on a GR site, peel down to some of those Partial DEs & let us know how you're making out.

You wrote whole lot of words, and absolutely none of them had anything to do with solving that word problem I gave you. If you want to be taken seriously, then demonstrate you understand diff eqs. Better get cracking, bucko. Your veneer is wearing thin.

If you'd like some time, I can solve it first, and then provide a password-protected file to you whose password I will only provide once you solve it yourself.
##### Whydening Gyre
4.9 / 5 (12) Sep 03, 2015
Wow, you almost made an entire comment without the annoying verbal technique.
Well done.

Ira's got an awesome manner of communicating. Everyone has their own way of speaking, and there are many English dialects in the U.S. alone. There is no "best" dialect. It depends on the region. Language barriers can be crossed. What matters. in the end, is what's in your mind.

There's more to the Ira than he lets on, I think...:-)
I do worry that if he is keeping lists of others comments he may have too much time on his hands...:-)
But, then - that is a result of working on a boat...:-)
##### Uncle Ira
4.6 / 5 (29) Sep 03, 2015
TI do worry that if he is keeping lists of others comments he may have too much time on his hands...:-)

Some peoples collect stamps, some post cards, and some silly little cheap statues for the house. I collect silly things peoples say while trying to play scientist-engineer-expert when they are not any of those. WHILE ON A SCIENCE PLACE thinking they are going fool real scientists and real engineers and real experts.

It's more fun than collecting all that other junk.
##### gkam
1.2 / 5 (25) Sep 04, 2015
Some folk read comic books and think they are as gifted as the comic book characters. Others take introductory classes in science and think they are outsmarting those with advanced degrees, but are only playing semantic games, out of technical ignorance.

Ira, for instance, only responds to others, and does it personally, out of a lack of technical education. He misunderstands the concepts, then looks for semantic differences, to accuse others of playing the games he plays.
##### thefurlong
4.6 / 5 (11) Sep 04, 2015
Some folk read comic books and think they are as gifted as the comic book characters. Others take introductory classes in science and think they are outsmarting those with advanced degrees, but are only playing semantic games, out of technical ignorance.

Ira, for instance, only responds to others, and does it personally, out of a lack of technical education. He misunderstands the concepts, then looks for semantic differences, to accuse others of playing the games he plays.

Can you direct me to examples of this? I only see him mocking people who pretend to know what they're talking about when decrying scientific theories.
5 / 5 (12) Sep 04, 2015
Between superhabitable galaxies, superhabitable stars (more long lived than ours, i.e. slightly smaller) and superhabitable planets (larger surface and more long lived atmospheres than ours, i.e. slightly larger), it is clear that when we see ourselves not in such environments it is most likely because life, even complex life, is abundant.

But, what a derailed thread. Re the creationist trolls:

"Free country, free site."

Sure, but if trolls had any shame they wouldn't be trolls. If someone goes into a free creationist congregation and start to shout how it is all false, rejected by science, few would shrug it away as 'Free country, free place, I can be an interrupting jerk.'
##### gkam
1 / 5 (22) Sep 04, 2015
"Can you direct me to examples of this? I only see him mocking people who pretend to know what they're talking about when decrying scientific theories."
-----------------------------------

You show me your examples. Then, you can prove me wrong in my discussions with Ira. I sent him the proof of my assertions, but you choose to believe him. Okay.

Do you maintain power is not transferred by magnetic fields in transformers? Do you contest my assertions of Vogtle costs? What?

Then, perhaps you can fill us in on the contributions of Ira to the scientific discussions?
##### Uncle Ira
4.5 / 5 (25) Sep 04, 2015
I sent him the proof of my assertions, but you choose to believe him.

Lie much there Skippy? You did not send me any proofs of having the master degrees junior diplomas or the six different kinds of "senior engineers" you claimed you were. You send to me proof you dropped out of college and took a 32 week radio school in the Air Force. And yeah Cher, I mocked your proof just like I mock Bennie-Skippy and Really-Skippy. Saying you on the physorg that you done all those things don't mean you did them and so far the best you got is buzzy words and slogans.

Do you maintain power is not transferred by magnetic fields in transformers? Do you contest my assertions of Vogtle costs?

Yeah, I guess you do lie much. Where did I ever maintain that? Put the link in where you made the silly not-really-the-engineer type of comments if you want the fair answers from him to that question. I ain't never bought a Vogtle so how would I know what he costs?
##### gkam
1.2 / 5 (26) Sep 04, 2015
Ira, why don't you go to some site for social BS? This is science, not "The Ira Show", as you called it. Your silly gooberspeak is for tourists. I saw none of you when I worked in the South. I guess I stayed where they had electricity.

No, I am not going to send you my diploma, since you are not even real. Your silly goober-talk is a game, a front, silly stuff. Ask Mike Massen if you want to read the thesis. It was written so even you folk could understand it. But you get nothing, after your silly game of misrepresentation.

Please go to Twitter or Facebook, or some high-school site where they play those games.

You make me the topic because you cannot debate the science. It is part of your silly game.
##### Uncle Ira
4.5 / 5 (26) Sep 04, 2015
P.S. for you glam-Skippy. Keep in mind I said I was going to let things go but you seem to want kazoo me and look foolish.

Why you not try to ask him what he thinks of the person who posts in one article that he,

Designed and built and operated an electric battlefield for Robert McNamarra when he was 20 years old,

Then he was the "senior engineer" with semi-conductor company who designed ic's.

Then he was the another "senior engineer" for the foundry.

After that he was another "senior engineer" with plastic moulding company.

If that wasn't enough, after that went over to the P the G and the E to be the "senior engineer" who inspected the nuclear AND the coal utility plants.

Hooyeei, I don't see how you do it, I'm getting tired out just writing it.

You found time to get the environmental master degree and design and build a dairy power plant to sell electricity.

And fix robots in Shreveport.

And reactors in Grand Gulf

And teach over 33,000 engineers,

##### Uncle Ira
4.6 / 5 (27) Sep 04, 2015
You make me the topic because you cannot debate the science.

As you can see, I did not even mention you until YOU came along and made you topic. You are really not very good at this. You tell the lie again and don't even realize it, eh? You went first.

Oh yeah, when you ever tried to debate science? Every time you even put a toe in that waters to test it by saying "I was senior engineer" you usually include something really stupid that the engineer would never say. You usually get even the things you might know a little about wrong by pretending to know a lot.

But you do have a talent of bumper sticker slogans.
##### gkam
1.2 / 5 (25) Sep 04, 2015
Thanks for the chance to set you straight. No, Ira, once again, you got it wrong. Again and again.

Yup, at age 22 I got orders while at Edwards AFB to help organize, build, test, deploy, and operate the Electronic Battlefield for McNamara in Southeast Asia.. I was not there when he inspected us - I was at Field Four at Eglin AFB, on a counter-insurgency airstrip working the bugs out of the systems. Yup, while at Edwards, I earned Airman of the Month for the entire Air Force Flight Test Center. I sent you the pdf of the front page of the base newspaper.

I was a Test Engineer for National Semiconductor, using computing controllers and networks to run the test systems. After helping to set up a plastics company for a friend, I returned to California, and was Plant Engineer for H.C. Macaulay Foundry in Berkeley. After that, I was hired to do special studies for a research company, where we did the studies for NASA, the NRC, and DCPA.
##### gkam
1 / 5 (25) Sep 04, 2015
Ira, this is for you. After the research company, I went to school for my MS. After course work but before writing the thesis, I was hired by PG&E to go into the facilities of our customers, organize their people, show them how to improve the energy-using equipment, and even arrange financing when needed for them. Great job. After a while, they took me into Technical Services, a group of specialists as consultants for the company and our customers.

You folk seem to be confused by real people having to take a break from school to serve in a war. Perhaps if you had either one, . .

What were you doing?
##### Uncle Ira
4.5 / 5 (25) Sep 04, 2015
Thanks for the chance to set you straight.

My apologies to the peoples for that. I sure stepped into that one. glam-Skippy will use any excuse to write about all the things he did after he dropped out of college (three different ones, he sent me the proof.)

##### thefurlong
5 / 5 (5) Sep 06, 2015
It would be more beneficial to yourself if you would actually study Einsteins theses so to avoid making yourself look so foolish

I don't need to study Einstein's theses. People have developed far more sophisticated treatises on the subject since then, and have taken GR to places Einstein never imagined. Einstein is dead (sadly). His theory lives on.

Weyl, for example used GR as a spring board for what would become known as Gauge Theory.
Then to top that one off, you plainly stated you never heard of Schwarzchild who is no less than the godfather of black hole theory, and you didn't know that either.

Haha. Benni, stop lying.
##### thefurlong
5 / 5 (6) Sep 06, 2015
Now why should anyone, such as myself, believe anything you put up anywhere on the internet is simply not a concocted menagerie of drivel that you simply Copied & Pasted from somewhere else never comprehending one iota of what you were posting

Haha. Well if it were a "concocted managerie of drivel," and you knew differential equations, you'd be able to tell, wouldn't you?

Come on, Benni. It took me 15 minutes to solve this. What's taking you so long?
By the way, I only sign in to TRUSTED websites, who knows what kind of scam you're trying to contrive.

You don't have to sign into tinyupload to download files from it. You probably don't know computers very well either. Poor, dimwitted, Benni.

http://i3.kym-cdn...wwww.jpg
##### thefurlong
5 / 5 (4) Sep 06, 2015
@furlong
\$20 says he gets confused because his google will most likely bring up mr skin or religious historical people first

LOL! He'll probably spend an hour wondering how an male actress impersonator could have anything to do with "Einstein's GR".
##### thefurlong
5 / 5 (5) Sep 06, 2015
@AGreatWhopper
Of course the elephant in the room is "what is life-friendly anyway?" What does life look like? What if we're the few millenium stage between nature and cybernetic intelligence, which intelligence lasts millions of years and is therefore the most common form of life in the universe? Globular clusters might be their happy home.

I am sure that the answer, as usual, will turn out to be profoundly surprising. There was an article on here, once, about researchers who found that computer-simulated plasma (not blood plasma, but the phase) occasionally formed DNA-like structures, and even showed the potential for transcription and recombination.

Probably, once we detect life, it will pave the way for even better ways of detecting it. It's likely that a lot of it is currently unrecognizable to us as life.
##### thefurlong
5 / 5 (5) Sep 06, 2015
I only sign in to TRUSTED websites

this is good advise, HOWEVER, there are many ways to sign onto sites and be safe (and an electrical engineer would know that)

Yes, one option is to use sandbox software. With something like sandboxie, you can open up almost anything in sandboxed mode, and be pretty safe.
##### RealityCheck
1.2 / 5 (19) Sep 06, 2015
@Ira. :)
@ furlong-Skippy...if this is wrong let me know.
It's good that you've begun to consult a "smart-skippy", Ira. :)

It would've been even better if you had checked with them about "SINGULARITY" (ie, what it means/implies in maths/physics generally, and in the "Black Hole" context specifically) BEFORE you responded thus to me...
at NO stage did GR 'predict' BLACK HOLE per se, but rather its 'space-time' construct/maths was 'extrapolated' until it BROKE DOWN (ie, at 'singularity' condition in both 'space-time' construct/maths)
You been wrong before so don't feel to bad.
...and thus...
making GR spacetime/maths/extrapolations FAIL there
Put up something better.
FYI, 'singularity' means/implies that the maths/space-time analytical model/construct 'blows up'/breaks down at that stage; ie, it produces 'infinities of infinities' nonsense....much like you have to date. If you don't understand, then check with a "smart-skippy" or be quiet. Ta. :)
##### Uncle Ira
4.7 / 5 (23) Sep 06, 2015
@Ira. :)
@ furlong-Skippy...if this is wrong let me know.
It's good that you've begun to consult a "smart-skippy", Ira. :)

I am known far and wide for doing just that Cher. Ask any of the smart-Skipps here. Non Cher, sorry, not you. furlong-Skippy, xyz-Skippy, techno-Skippy, Capt-Skippy, Magnus-Skippy, IMP-Skippy and some others. Ask them, I always give way to them and ask them when I am not to sure of something. You haven't noticed because I never ask you, eh?

It would've been even better if you had checked with them

I did that. Don't read too good, eh?

about "SINGULARITY" (ie, what it means/implies in maths/physics generally, and in the "Black Hole" context specifically).

Don't need to ask them that one, I already know. It means your ciphering is giving you some troubles and past this place the theory stops. But up until that place the theory is still good.

You earn some more bad karma votes for that one.
##### RealityCheck
1.2 / 5 (19) Sep 06, 2015
@Ira.
about "SINGULARITY" (ie, what it means/implies in maths/physics generally, and in the "Black Hole" context specifically).
Don't need to ask them that one, I already know. It means your ciphering is giving you some troubles and past this place the theory stops. But up until that place the theory is still good.
And yet you trolled me when I correctly pointed that very same thing out in order to forestall further misunderstandings evolving between you and others in discussion of what GR 'predicted' and what it did not 'predict' re BHs and Horizons etc. So why did you troll if you knew it...and why was your 'understandings' leading you to argue with those that pointed out GR did NOT 'predict' BH 'singularities', but rather FAILED AT said 'singularity condition/stage' of the maths/physics 'space-time' construct/extrapolation?

You earn some more bad karma votes for that one.
Yeah, a bot-voting nincompoop dishing out his "karma votes". How 'original'! :)
##### Uncle Ira
4.5 / 5 (23) Sep 06, 2015
You earn some more bad karma votes for that one.
Yeah, a bot-voting nincompoop dishing out his "karma votes". How 'original'! :)

You don't need to thank me non. Just giving you the credit for doing your diligence. But it is not original Cher. I can not the take credit for that. Your karma points were in the toilet long time before ol Ira-Skippy showed up.
##### RealityCheck
1.2 / 5 (19) Sep 06, 2015
@Ira.
You earn some more bad karma votes for that one.
Yeah, a bot-voting nincompoop dishing out his "karma votes". How 'original'! :)
You don't need to thank me non. Just giving you the credit for doing your diligence. But it is not original Cher. I can not the take credit for that. Your karma points were in the toilet long time before ol Ira-Skippy showed up.
The forum notes you tacitly admit the accuracy of this part of my closing observation...
Yeah, a bot-voting nincompoop dishing out his "karma votes".
The forum also notes that "toilet" is where these idiots 'bot-vote' and troll-post from, so naturally the downvotes from mod-troll-gangs over the years (since exposed and mostly silenced), and now from "Uncle Ira" and "tooty" nincompoops, would have be "in the toilet", then as now.

Wake up to yourself, man. You could be contributing constructively to science/humanity instead of driveling/playing troll games. Your 'games' demean humanity/science.
##### Uncle Ira
4.7 / 5 (23) Sep 06, 2015
The forum notes you tacitly admit the accuracy of this part of my closing observation...

Kind of slow on the uptake Cher. I did not "tacitly" admit nothing. I have always been right up front and honest. I give the bad karma votes because you are like a whiny know-it-all who really don't ever say anything but:

I am the wise Big-Chief-Skippy and if you do not see things my way you are not worthy of science or posting on a science interweb place

???

so naturally the downvotes from mod-troll-gangs over the years (since exposed and mostly silenced), and now from "Uncle Ira"and"tooty" nincompoops, would have be"in the toilet" then as now

Well you should not be so picky Cher. This is the only place they will still let you post your silly inferior superior foolishment. You are a laughing stock Cher, and you were long before ol Ira-Skippy came along.

Wake up to yourself, man

What that means Cher? I am awake like always when I am typing.
##### gkam
1.2 / 5 (22) Sep 06, 2015
"You are a laughing stock Cher, , . . "

Ira, are you unable to discuss the real issues? Or are you her for your "games"? Yes, we know, you call it the "Uncle Ira Show" at home, where you play the idiot to make fun of others. Yup, that-there ole goober-speak does you and Mrs Skippette right.

Don't fall off that towboat now. The roaches down there can eat alligators.
##### RealityCheck
1.2 / 5 (19) Sep 06, 2015
Ira, Ira, Ira. When you don't understand anything being said, it's quite probable you would react in that way; especially if you are more concerned with 'personal' stuff for your 'karma' bot-voting and trolling than you are in the science/humanity discourse. But it's been a long time since you came on the internet with your 'cajun act' covering your ignorance and malignance at the expense of science/humanity. How long will it take to learn the lessons even the most thick-headed trolls in the old mod-troll-gangs did eventually. Are you going to go to your grave in that 'unfortunate' irrelevant/malignant 'condition' where everything you don't understand is your 'enemy' and 'target' for your lame 'karma bot-voting list'? Wake up, get out of that "toilet" you've been 'playing' in, and smell the fresh air of reason and integrity, for humanity's and science's sake if not your own and your family's sake. Stop your 'personal' angle and start actually engaging in objective discourse.
##### Uncle Ira
4.5 / 5 (23) Sep 06, 2015
Don't fall off that towboat now.

It would be a lie if I said it never happened, but it has been a long time. But thanks for your concern.

The roaches down there can eat alligators.

Roaches don't swim good like ol Ira-Skippy. Or is this supposed to be another racial slur? Cajuns and Creoles eat the alligator. Are at that again? The true colors of you new-agey liberal intellectual elitist usually come through especially when they are telling us stupid peoples what we ought to do.

You earn your bad karma votes the same way Really-Skippy and Bennie-Skippy and Returnering-Skippy and JVK-Skippy. Like all five of you came out of the same Couyon Factory. There is non difference between the crowd of you. You each all think the other four are the idiots and you are not at all like them. The interweb is only place you can go to pretend you know a lot of something about everything and it was really stupid to come here to do it.
##### gkam
1.3 / 5 (23) Sep 06, 2015
Save your silly goober-speak for the tourists.
##### RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (20) Sep 06, 2015
@Ira.
...

You earn your bad karma votes the same way Really-Skippy and Bennie-Skippy and Returnering-Skippy and JVK-Skippy. Like all five of you came out of the same Couyon Factory. There is non difference between the crowd of you. You each all think the other four are the idiots and you are not at all like them. The interweb is only place you can go to pretend you know a lot of something about everything and it was really stupid to come here to do it.
Good try at associating/dismissing tactics there, Ira. One problem with that tactic if you try to put me 'in the frame' like that: I have been proven correct again and again, just ask some of the "smart-skippys" you have been checking things with, and you'll find they learned not to try that tactic on me, because they usually end up with egg on their face.

So, Ira, for your own sake, wake up to yourself and your 'act', and leave me out of your 'personal' lying and trolling your 'toilet intellect' on the net, hey?
##### Uncle Ira
4.5 / 5 (26) Sep 06, 2015
Are you going to go to your grave in that 'unfortunate' irrelevant/malignant 'condition'

If I die tonight, I have no regrets. I've lived a pretty good life. Why in the world would I like to be like you? You seem really grumpy and frustrated in every one of your postums.

or humanity's and science's sake if not your own and your family's sake.

The family seems like they are doing fine like me.I pay my bills, the house and land is mostly paid for. Both cars and the truck too.Kid is doing fine in school and has what the other kids have. Mrs-Ira-Skippette has the good job like me and she has everything she wants.

Stop your 'personal' angle

You got the Alzheimer like glam-Skippy? You guys have trouble remembering who went first and how many times they were asked if they were sure they wanted to keep attracting my attention by calling me names. I asked you several times to back off but you were too smart for that, eh?
##### Uncle Ira
4.5 / 5 (25) Sep 06, 2015
Good try at associating/dismissing tactics there, Ira.

Apology accepted, I do what I can.

One problem with that tactic if you try to put me 'in the frame' like that: I have been proven correct again and again,

Saying that over and over is another thing all five of you have in common. Thanks for reminding me.

just ask some of the "smart-skippys" you have been checking things with, and you'll find they learned not to try that tactic on me, because they usually end up with egg on their face.

That is not the egg Skippy. That is them laughing at how silly you are.

leave me out

You dragged me into it even after I asked you to quit calling me names and telling peoples that they couldn't talk to me.

of your 'personal' lying and trolling your 'toilet intellect' on the net, hey?

You make the bed Skippy. Sleep in him or rip off the sheets and make him over or sleep on the floor, don't matter to me which you choose non.

##### RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (20) Sep 06, 2015
@Ira.
Are you going to go to your grave in that 'unfortunate' irrelevant/malignant 'condition'
If I die tonight, I have no regrets. I've lived a pretty good life. Why in the world would I like to be like you? You seem really grumpy and frustrated in every one of your postums.
You don't have any regrets for being a bot-voting nincompoop on the internet; or being a lying, trolling interrupter in otherwise objective discourse between others. Right. Got it. Good luck with that as the "Epitaph" on your Tombstone/Urn.
Stop your 'personal' angle
You got the Alzheimer like glam-Skippy? You guys have trouble remembering who went first and how many times they were asked if they were sure they wanted to keep attracting my attention by calling me names. I asked you several times to back off but you were too smart for that, eh?
No. Your unwarranted bot-voting of 'karma points' based on your 'personal list', and further trolling, was YOU 'going first', sad liar.
##### RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (21) Sep 06, 2015
Ira.
just ask some of the "smart-skippys" you have been checking things with, and you'll find they learned not to try that tactic on me, because they usually end up with egg on their face.
That is not the egg Skippy. That is them laughing at how silly you are.
Loser trolls and nincompoops in the "toilet" laughing after you/they got egg on their face? Nice picture. Take a snapshot and post a link so the forum can have a really good laugh. LOL
leave me out
You dragged me into it even after I asked you to quit calling me names and telling peoples that they couldn't talk to me.
You got Alzheimers, Ira. It's you keep alluding to me disparagingly; keep lying/repeating crap from your own 'toilet' hole. Sad.
of your 'personal' lying and trolling your 'toilet intellect' on the net, hey?
You make the bed Skippy..
"Sad liar and toilet-dwelling ass-wipe with a cajun act on the net". What an "Epitaph"-in-the-making for this bot-voting Ira-case.
##### TehDog
5 / 5 (11) Sep 06, 2015
You know what, I'm actually gonna research RC's posting frequency. Blame Stumpy :)
On a more serious note;
" I have been proven correct again and again, just ask some of the "smart-skippys" you have been checking things with, and you'll find they learned not to try that tactic on me, because they usually end up with egg on their face."
OK, I lied, sorry... ;)

##### Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (8) Sep 06, 2015

Actually WG, it's about the best filter there is for calling out phony scientists & their claims about themselves. Furlong now has a demonstrable track record of making claims about himself & his background in Physics which has been proven by his own words as being the huffing & puffing of a blowhard to which you assigned a 5 Star vote, of course you find this embarrassing to your voting record so you make this Comment: "Methinks thou dost protest too much"

Yeah, WG, you dost protest much too much, and no smiley face for you.

Not protesting at all. Have observed Furlong comments for quite a while and their validity has proven quite refreshing. As opposed to your own....
You need to take your nose out of your own arse for a bit and actually take an open look at info available to you, rather than closing your eyes to anything but you...
Your are not being honest with or about yourself...
##### RealityCheck
1 / 5 (19) Sep 06, 2015
@TehDog. :)
You know what, I'm actually gonna research RC's posting frequency. Blame Stumpy :)
On a more serious note;
" I have been proven correct again and again, just ask some of the "smart-skippys" you have been checking things with, and you'll find they learned not to try that tactic on me, because they usually end up with egg on their face."
OK, I lied, sorry... ;)

Tell the forum again how it isn't you trolling first, and so giving 'cover' for even more egregious trolls who take your trolls as 'encouragement' for their own further idiotic behavior against the science/humanity discourse.

##### TehDog
4.3 / 5 (12) Sep 06, 2015
Hey, you were here first, and compared to you, I am a mere rock troll, not even worthy of a bridge :(
BTW, when is your TOE going to be published?
##### RealityCheck
1.2 / 5 (19) Sep 06, 2015
@TehDog. :)
Hey, you were here first, and compared to you, I am a mere rock troll, not even worthy of a bridge :(
BTW, when is your TOE going to be published?
I wasn't trolling, but don't let that get in the way of your 'narrative' ignoring such little 'inconvenient' things, hey. :)

PS: Anyway, re the ToE finalizing/publication estimated lead time, it was to be before this year's end, but I was also working on some Climate Change Solutions which have taken on a more urgent timeliness, so I decided to take that work off the back-burner and try and finalize the experiments/patenting and publishing the climate solutions work asap (was aiming to coincide it with the upcoming Climate Change Conference final sessions before this year's end), so am delaying my ToE finalizing/publishing to first half of new year. Good luck to us all....including you and yours, TehDog. :)
##### Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Sep 07, 2015
I wasn't trolling
uhm...
In Internet slang, a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, or off-topic messages in an online community with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting...
https://en.wikipe...et_troll
a bot-voting nincompoop
these idiots 'bot-vote' and troll-post
"Uncle Ira" and "tooty" nincompoops, would have be "in the toilet"
driveling/playing troll games
your ignorance and malignance at the expense of science/humanity
How long will it take to learn the lessons even the most thick-headed trolls in the old mod-troll-gangs did
get out of that "toilet" you've been 'playing' in
being a bot-voting nincompoop on the internet; or being a lying, trolling interrupter in otherwise objective discourse
You got Alzheimers
so that is what you consider scientific discourse?
2Bcont'd
##### Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Sep 07, 2015
@rc cont'd
so, what you are saying is that: only you can make disparaging baiting troll comments in a thread?
why is that?
more importantly, you are NOT being honest, either
I have been proven correct again and again
No, you haven't!
you have been proven to be a blatantly obtuse liar time and again though, from your earthling ToE jam and your insistence that you are going to save us all from AGW... you have YET to be able to produce any substantiating evidence or validation for these claims to date
or your math free ToE? (math free means zero credibility and no predictability)

you consider all that BS (and the above baiting) to be serious scientific discourse? REALLY?

i downvoted you above because you ARE TROLLING and baiting for attention
You are going to post a huge rant now
Please consider each downvote from me equivalent to a post saying:
"You are trolling and Baiting: reported"
##### Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Sep 07, 2015
You know what, I'm actually gonna research RC's posting frequency. Blame Stumpy :)
On a more serious note...
OK, I lied, sorry... ;)
@TehDog
LMFAO
look me up on SciForums as Truck Captain Stumpy and PM me... maybe we can compare notes and data... i can give you some of the better links with the more outlandish comments like
...this GW solutions project has now become too urgent for me to leave it on the backburner any longer in all good conscience. Hang in there, guys! In both cases. The Reality-cavalry is coming to the rescue, whether you like it or not, or believe it or not.
here: http://phys.org/n...fic.html

he has a BUNCH of goofy stuff out there... including a "club" that posts, on the internet, private information!
(along with some of the worst pseudoscience and delusional writing i've seen ... worse than the eu and zephir!)

i would suggest counting his posts, but that would take far too long
##### Benni
1.9 / 5 (9) Sep 07, 2015
You need to take your nose out of your own arse for a bit and actually take an open look at info available to you, rather than closing your eyes to anything but you

Your are not being honest with or about yourself
....Hey there retired old codger, after you've learned to follow the Differential Equations in Einsteins GR & SR & learned the differences between the two theses like you & Furlong have never done, then come back brag about whose nose is in somebody's arse.

Hey, here's an idea, maybe you & Furlong can get together & start work on one or two of those Partial DEs in GR, then you can come back & brag about how much smarter the two of you are than Einstein ever was because you solved one. Or maybe you two can even followup on Furlongs bragadoceo about how much smarter he thinks he is than Peter Higgs & correct the fallacies Furlong is claiming Higgs made with the Higgs Boson. Yeah, two absolute neophytes out to fix the sciences of GR & the Hboson.
##### Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Sep 07, 2015
after you've learned to follow the Differential Equations in Einsteins GR & SR & learned the differences between the two theses like you & Furlong have never done
@benjiTROLL
hey Alzheimer's boy!
... i know this is hard for you to wrap your head around, considering your demonstrated dementia, but..
1- furlong DEMONSTRATED that he is capable of working ODE
2- furlong has DEMONSTRATED a mathematical ability in various physics and other (like climate change) threads
3- you have NEVER ONCE demonstrated ability to do ODE
4- you didn't even know the COMMON acronyms used to describe "differential equations" bringing into question your self-proclaimed abilities
5- you have been caught in more lies than jvk
lastly - as an elec engin... you should know more about computers than most people here, including coding: but you're an EPIC FAILURE with the basics?
WTF?

BenjiTROLL is a blatant lying troll looking for attention
case closed
##### Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Sep 07, 2015
@ last point to benjiTROLL
Hey, here's an idea
Here is a better idea

IF you are well versed in ODE's as claimed AND
IF you have the ability THEN
WHY NOT Actually demonstrate it here?
it serves to validate your claims and supports your assertions in the ONLY way you can prove without releasing personal data (and even that would be suspect until validated by the college, BTW)

We can PROVE you don't know math:
http://phys.org/n...ood.html

we can PROVE you can't do basic research or LIE about knowledge:
http://phys.org/n...als.html

that last link proves you can't do BASIC MATH as well!
it also demonstrates your narcissistic Dunning-Kruger and delusional belief in being intelligent

you haven't been able to PROVE anything about ANY claim you've made... you simply keep stating the same thing over and over: blah blah Einstein blah blah DE's blah blah I'm an engineer etc

now PROVE IT
##### RealityCheck
1 / 5 (18) Sep 07, 2015
Hi CapS. :) Mate, you'd do well to butt out, given your own posting 'record' and voting 'behavior'. You also conveniently leave out the OTHER HALF of the story, as usual. My posts were RESPONDING to OTHERS' unprovoked personal attacks/innuendoes etc. Those were the TROLLS perpetrators, I was merely defending against same by exposing/pointing out THEIR motives and behavior in those instances. Got it? If you never learn to remedy your 'half-truth' way of 'analyzing/reporting on an issue, no wonder your credibility/motives/behavior is suspect; and your own self-inflicted 'image' is even worse than the one your 'half-truths' drivel tries to 'paint' mine as. If you had any sense of decency, fairness and objective integrity, you'd stay shtum instead of fanning the flames which OTHERS start and I had to defend against. Good luck to you...and hopefully some good sense in knowing when NOT to butt in and make things worse in future, CapS. :)
##### RealityCheck
1 / 5 (18) Sep 07, 2015
Hi CapS (& TehDog). :)
look me up on SciForums as Truck Captain Stumpy and PM me.......
Hey, TehDog, for your reputation's sake, insist Stumpy gives you the WHOLE PICTURE, not just his selectively limited 'half-truths' version. For example, his references/links re Sciforums does not tell you that it was mod-troll gang and 'protected' trolls who 'framed' and sabotaged and banned me there even though I was correct.

If you don't believe me, just go look at what's been happening there since:

http://www.scifor...5/page-8

Note especially, twits Kittamaru (a mod!) and paddoboy (a 'protected' troll), being (rightly, at last!) taken to task by bells (a much better mod, even if not perfect).

The MODS are doing to EACH OTHER what they and 'protected' trolls were doing to ME. That's what happens when a site goes downhill in integrity/fairness values due to abuse of power by those who 'frame', 'ban' for their personal ego/power trips. Ugly.

##### TehDog
4.6 / 5 (9) Sep 07, 2015
"Hi CapS (& TehDog). :)

look me up on SciForums as Truck Captain Stumpy and PM me.......

Hey, TehDog, for your reputation's sake, insist Stumpy gives you the WHOLE PICTURE, not just his selectively limited 'half-truths' version. For example, his references/links re Sciforums does not tell you that it was mod-troll gang and 'protected' trolls who 'framed' and sabotaged and banned me there even though I was correct."

You;
" Take heed new members. This is what it comes to if you don't conform to the majority opinion around here.

"Take heed new members. This is another claiming victim status when his threads are unable to stand up to scientific scrutiny.
It just so happens that on a science forum, scientific methodology and scrutiny are generally held by the majority."

Bells was being a good mod, trying to keep folks on topic and polite, without waving the banhammer. He/She were not supporting you or your views.

##### TehDog
5 / 5 (8) Sep 07, 2015
look me up on SciForums as Truck Captain Stumpy and PM me
I'll register there.
... maybe we can compare notes and data... i can give you some of the better links with the more outlandish comments like
http://phys.org/n...fic.html

Yeah, that thread provided many chuckles.
The analysis thing, I was hoping I could use a Google API as a search filter to dump the date/time of posts to a text file. Looks like that's not an option. I'm now hooked, a general solution will be found (I hope, no idea what approach to take ATM, need to build the algorithm first :)
##### RealityCheck
1.2 / 5 (19) Sep 07, 2015
Hi TehDog. :) You've got the wrong end of the stick (that's what happens to anyone who has been listening to CapS et al and their lies) about me. It's not me in that thread, it's someone else who was still posting there when I left. That Sciforum Thread I linked...

http://www.scifor...5/page-9

...was opened by someone over there only LAST MONTH (on 23 August), and it's about someone ELSE being banned, NOT ME (I haven't posted there since I was banned many months ago! I only ever post on here at PO now, and that only occasionally now, since I am very busy with off-line work/life matters).

Take my advice, TehDog, drop this 'personal' stuff which 'certain others' have been 'priming' you with via half-truths and outright lies, trying to distract/manipulate you and make you complicit in their 'gang' machinations for personal motives having nothing to do with scientific or personal integrity or discourse.

Check before trusting them. :)

##### RealityCheck
1 / 5 (19) Sep 07, 2015
PS: @TehDog: The point was, that the mods are doing to each other in that thread what they and their 'protected' trolls did leading up to MY being banned. I make no comment re the banning of whoever it is that the thread itself was opened to query. I only ask that you check out the sort of 'verballing' and framing and disingenuous tactics and lies which Kittamaru (a mod) tried on bells (another mod) in order to 'justify' his own abuse of moderator power and 'excuse' his own prejudices and rule infractions. It was even worse when I was being 'framed for banning'. And I wasn't a mod, so was 'easy meat' for those abusing their power in 'gang' tactics against their chosen 'targets'. Anyhow, it was just the latest example of what was going on when I was banned by same using similar tactics/abuses to frame me. Good luck, TehDog. No hard feelings...you were misled. Cheers and best wishes for the future. :)
##### Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Sep 08, 2015
@rc
for your reputation's sake, insist Stumpy gives you the WHOLE PICTURE
i will post something relevant from your own link.. this specifically applies to YOU, rc, and it is ALSO the reason you were perma-banned TWICE from SciForums
Nope.
You were banned for being persistently obnoxious and ignorant.
But if you want to lie about it to make yourself feel better that's OK.
Since it was me that banned you I know exactly what the reason was.

Oh, almost forgot... your posts are OT and trolling/baiting
reported

PS
that's what happens to anyone who has been listening to CapS
i don't ask anyone to "listen" to me
I present evidence
EVIDENCE
then let them decide
you got perma-banned as a baiting troll
you deserved it
it doesn't mean anyone is "Mod/Troll gang" picking on you, it means you VIOLATED THE RULES

nice try, though
the REASONS you got banned are on the Ban List page: notice there isn't one MOD/TROLL GANG reason there?

##### Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Sep 08, 2015
The analysis thing
@TehDog
well, it is easier to simply collect as you go considering the prolific flooding and past ranting/floods of rc...
copying them to a DOC or into a spreadsheet or other file as you go works best...

if you are collecting past posts, you can google the moniker and site and then collect from each separate link, but it is time consuming. i don't know a way to speed that up unless you can code and develop a bot. it's not like PO doesn't have a bunch here already

i usually don't research past posts (due to the sheer volume) unless pointed at a specific series of grandiose claims (like i linked above)

I do NOT envy you your task... i can only tell you this:
He has made over 4,790 posts regarding BICEP and arguing to me about it
in all those posts, he has made ZERO posts with evidence supporting his assertions
i counted them up here:
http://phys.org/n...overy-ra
##### Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Sep 08, 2015
The analysis thing
@TehDog
about the above numbers: that was what was turned in to my class for a study we were doing...

to continue-
once you actually get the data, i suggest building a database and using it to collect, grade or rate the posts, assign tags, reference links, and number the posts... this will also allow you to pick out trends and piece together habitual claims or other various tactics etc...

you can use Access and then take some VBA courses... unless you are good at coding, then you may be able to get better results from integrating something like FormPro into a bot with keyword searches running through google results and linking the collection into a database of your choice

Good luck and good hunting
there is plenty there for you to peruse...

##### thefurlong
5 / 5 (4) Sep 08, 2015
@Furlong

You clearly have no clue about magnetic fields, to say that most space is devoid of them.

No, what I was saying is that they are negligible throughout most of space.
You clearly lack the understanding of particle motion required to understand anything different than you have been taught.

"Blah, blah, blah. Scientists don't know what they're talking about. They are stupid and evil, and Furlong is stupid and evil for believing them, even though he actually has first-hand experience with magnetic fields, having taken a moden-physics lab class, in which he physically worked with Helmholtz coils. DON'T YOU KNOW I AM WISEST HUMAN?"
In all of nature, charge dictates motion.

"Gravity? What's that? And what is this nonsense you call the strong interaction, and the weak interaction?

Why do I have to consider the last 100+ years of physics, when I can be stuck in the 1800's?"
##### thefurlong
5 / 5 (4) Sep 08, 2015
@Stump

I would feel a bit sorry for someone in your position however, because of the way you conduct yourself on this forum, combined your utter lack of knowledge or understanding of physical sciences...

Only you have demonstrated this, bucko.
you will be the person I laugh out loud at when...mainstream science has to redo the "standard model" based on magnetic field attraction and repulsion.

"Blah, blah, blah. I am stuck in the past, can't handle any modern physics, and the universe is made of electricity. Even though scientists just successfully detected something that they long predicted existed, I am going to continue to rag on the SM, because it contains unfamiliar math"

Speaking of math, I am willing to bet that you probably don't understand Maxwell's equations either.

For example, I am sure that you couldn't tell me why they suggest that electromagnetic energy density takes the form it does, or where the Poynting Vector comes from.
##### thefurlong
5 / 5 (4) Sep 08, 2015
Magnetic structure. Coming to an Astronomy course near you.

Well, I have a suggestion, but you probably aren't going to like it.

It involves taking your idea, and giving us some formulas and equations that predict results consistent with all observed physics within the domain it applies to.

Hell, even a toy model that only works in SOME situations would be preferable. Do you have this?
##### thefurlong
5 / 5 (5) Sep 08, 2015
@bschott
Also, even if space were filled with a non-negligible magnetic field, I don't see how, far away from charges, this field would somehow cause photons to lose energy.

The thing about Maxwell's equations, far from any charges, is that electromagnetic fields behave very simply. Basically, it is a superposition of non-interacting waves. Yes, technically, there would be some nonlinear effects from the far-away charges, but these are so small as to be negligible. So, no matter what your magnetic field looks like far away from charges, it's essentially going to be a manifestation of waves passing through each other.
##### thefurlong
5 / 5 (4) Sep 08, 2015
It's called the primerfields series...3 videos, all app. 1 hour in length. I doubt you will watch them, but hey...you asked.

I did watch them, a while ago. I immediately asked a few questions:
1) What, specifically, is the hypothesis the videos are making? I see only "Oh, look. Plasma forms cool structures when we apply fields to it."
2) Where is the theory associated with pimer fields? What are the formulas?
3) If there is not yet a theory, what is the data.

I could not find answers to these questions.
The fault lies in the assumption it is responsible for all motion.

...Nobody is saying gravity is responsible for all motion. Bucko.

In order for stars in a galaxy to move how we observe around the core, both an attractive and repulsive force is required in order to maintain the spacing between stars.

...Or matter, which does not interact with the EM field could be responsible. We are currently trying to detect locally. You are jumping the gun.
##### thefurlong
5 / 5 (4) Sep 08, 2015
I've never seen Maxwells equations, nor even attempted to understand the Poynting Vector

Well, maybe you should. They are what explain electromagnetism at a macroscopic level.

They also make it impossible for light to behave the way you want it.
I don't need "that kind" of math in order to understand why there are 3 different ways an electron moves in a magnetic field

What are those 3 different ways you speak of?

And of course you need that kind of math to describe it! That's electromagnetism! If you don't have something reliably spitting out numbers that you can compare to physical measurements, how do you know your theory is correct? Maybe it's wildly off, and you'll never know it, because you never did the calculations.
##### thefurlong
5 / 5 (4) Sep 08, 2015
Keep your "head in the sand" Ostrich mentality that nothing is wrong with the math/gravity delusion,

Actually, it's more like--GR works exceptionally well--so well that when we see galactic rotation curves not behaving as expected, we think it's more likely that the presence of matter is causing it. This might be true. We think it is, and experiments are underway to detect it.

As I said, if we don't detect DM, then we MIGHT have to modify GR in that domain, but keep in mind that that wouldn't mean it is incorrect, any more than Newtonian mechanics is incorrect. It would just mean that GR applies to a SMALLER domain. In our solar system, GR IS correct.
##### thefurlong
5 / 5 (5) Sep 08, 2015
Also, even if space were filled with a non-negligible magnetic field, I fair to see how far away from charges, this field would somehow cause photons to lose energy.

Why do you think a prism separates wavelengths of light? How do you think this works?
I believe that is in video #2.

A prism is made of matter. Specifically, it is made of atoms, with electrons (which are charged)

A prism works because the configuration of charged particles in the medium causes light waves of different frequencies to travel at different speeds (see index of refraction). This has the effect of refracting them at different angles. Hence, a beam of incoherent light will be split into bands of different frequencies because of GEOMETRY, and the charge configuration.

Inside the prism, you have to deal with NEAR FIELD EFFECTS because charges ARE NEARBY, and are configured in a semi-structured lattice.

You don't have this in the interstellar vacuum.
##### thefurlong
5 / 5 (5) Sep 08, 2015
Unless the polarity is the same, then you have a boundary condition of increased flux, the fields push off each other.

1) EM fields don't push off of each other.
2) I don't see what boundary conditions have to do with this.
3) Even if I could somehow make sense of this, out in interstellar space, the polarity of EM radiation WOULD NOT BE THE SAME.
##### Benni
1.8 / 5 (10) Sep 08, 2015
Furlong: You are clearly intelligent...as opposed to just being pulled around this forum with your tongue stuck in the asshole of those you "think" are intelligent.
..... Uhhhh, bschott, you need to rethink this statement , he doesn't even know the Mass/Energy Equivalence Principle was not derived in General Relativity & probably still thinks it is even though I've already corrected him. This would cast doubt on anything he knows about energy when he doesn't even know where E=mc*2 came from.
##### thefurlong
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 08, 2015
Furlong: You are clearly intelligent...

Well, thank you.
You can provide many links which support the various predictions of the SM, of course...it has been around for long time. I compare what the math one theory says vs. observations, or lack thereof, which suggest that the math I can't do isn't describing reality anyways.

But you don't know this, because you can't do the math. Basically, all you can do is defer to experts, which means that, if you want to be skeptical, you'll have to do better than reading popular science descriptions. Most of these articles are not written by people with technical degrees. They are written by people likely to misinterpret what the scientist is saying if his/her claim is esoteric.

I bet you'd be surprised that I, too, have doubted some of the conclusions of experts. This, actually, is one of the reasons why I study physics at a technical level--so I can see for myself whether their claims hold up. So far, they do.
##### Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 08, 2015
you will be the person I laugh out loud at when..
@bs
spoken like a true trolling pseudoscience acolyte. thanks
mainstream science has to redo the "standard model"
you don't know much about science or the scientific method, do you?
PROTIP- https://en.wikipe...cess.svg

Magnetic structure. Coming to an Astronomy course near you
if you truly believe that modern astrophysicists know nothing about megnetics, plasma, etc, then you are the delusional one. it can be refuted with a single site: http://www.pppl.gov/

My proof is that...
ummm....here is the only quote needed to debunk you
I've never seen Maxwells equations, nor even attempted to understand the Poynting Vector
your own words demonstrate you have NO evidence, nor do you have the ability to comprehend what is going on... you should listen to furlong

Nuff said?
##### thefurlong
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 08, 2015
..... Uhhhh, bschott, you need to rethink this statement , he doesn't even know the Mass/Energy Equivalence Principle was not derived in General Relativity

Haha. Benni, stop lying. Anybody can read upwards and find comments where I clearly stated that Mass-Energy Equivalence comes from Special Relativity, and is EXTENDED in GR by making the stress-energy tensor the source of gravity.

This would cast doubt on anything he knows about energy when he doesn't even know where E=mc*2 came from.

Actually, I know exactly where it comes from. I can derive it from first principles, in different ways.

One, I can combine the work-energy theorem with the 1st principle of SR to find that
E^2 = m^2c^4 + p^2c^2.

and two, I can do a thought experiment involving an object that emits photons in the rest frame.

So, Benni, how's that word problem I gave you coming along?
##### Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 08, 2015
Keep your "head in the sand" Ostrich mentality
@bs
no... the "head in the sand" would be something like this
I've never seen Maxwells equations, nor even attempted to understand...
how can you claim
the math/gravity delusion
when you don't actually comprehend the physics? you also refuse to study relevant knowledge? is the universe talking to you? or maybe a "god"?

just curious

a model based on gravity doesn't describe motion because the motion is actually dictated by magnetic interaction
would love to see actual evidence for this claim... this is similar to the argument eu used against the Shoemaker-levy hitting jupiter... but couldn't provide empirical evidence, so repeating it doesn't make it more true, it makes it more suspect
##### Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 08, 2015
If you only understand physics from a mathematical perspective, this isn't for you. It involves the ability, as I said, to understand and apply one theory to multiple observations and actually have them all work
@bs
so, how do you actually collect and quantify the data so that you can describe what is being seen if you don't actually use mathematical models to describe it?

knowing the mathematics is not about not comprehending what is observed, it is actually about knowing and being able to predict, with great detail and precision, what is happening

that is the reason the math exists

##### thefurlong
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 08, 2015
@Captain
Thanks for handling these chumps. Everything they say is just...well, how do I say this?

Wildly incorrect.

I don't have time to both work (today is the day before Demo Day), and correct each and every easily refutable claim that these guys make.

I'll be back later.

@bschott
Learn about EM on a technical level.

@Benni
...
Um...
Less mouth foam.
More solutions to the word problem I gave you.

##### Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 08, 2015
otherwise you wind up with current mainstream theoretical physics. One of the biggest "cons" of all time
@bs
there really is a simple solution: publish a model that refutes the "SM" you complain about and then get it validated
i guarantee it will be accepted by mainstream scientists if your empirical evidence is equivalent to or better than currently used evidence
No inspector, math exists to describe reality
that would mean, based upon your prior comments like
I've never seen Maxwells equations
describe you as being intentionally refusing to accept known descriptions of reality for the sake of ????
i also refuse to believe you have "a few years of technical dealing with EM" that is in ANY way more accurate if you don't know/refuse to know Maxwells equations... that is not "technical" knowledge (or knowledge at all), that is "looks like a duck" personal conjecture not based upon evidence

you could also accurately call it "monkey see; monkey do"
##### Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 08, 2015
@bs cont'd
more importantly... when you say
Mathematics isn't technical, hands on is technical. I have a few years of technical dealing with EM
after you claim
I've never seen Maxwells equations
this is equivalent to stating:
you are a Dump Truck driver, and because all your experience driving dump trucks, you can tell people about Hydraulics, thermodynamics, physics and psychology because you have worked a hydraulic lever, bled off water from Air brakes, driven up and down hills and you see drivers do crazy sh*t

Being a dump truck driver (or playing with magnets, EM, etc) doesn't make you an expert in ANY of the above mentioned any more than cooking hamburgers at McDonalds makes you an expert at ironing

##### Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 08, 2015
Outside parties attempting to replicate the experiment have parameters to work with
@bs
all that without quantifiable data? WOW... do you use psychic intervention?
Are you saying that you believe programming a model with a base set of variables, a portion of which cannot be confirmed, is akin to collecting accurate data about reality?
are you claiming that not knowing a parameter now means we never will?

are you saying that looking at the data and parameters and how they influence other data/parameters is not a good way to figure out the limitations for the actual input?

are you saying you can't learn about a parameter by observing how other data fits?

you don't really know much about the scientific method, do you?
i can tell you don't know much about investigating: in investigations, sometimes making an assumption about [parameters] is what can lead to a concrete conclusion

you can see that in: Columbo; CSI; ANY professional investigator/COP
##### Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 08, 2015
directly relating to the last post of mine
Are you saying that you believe programming a model with a base set of variables, a portion of which cannot be confirmed, is akin to collecting accurate data about reality? LOL...actually, you probably are
how do you think they figured out the parameters of the Higgs before it was discovered at CERN?

better yet, since i know you will moan and cry about the Higgs, etc...

how do you think they figured out the parameters for the Electron, Proton, Neutron or Atoms at all ????

to reiterate: a professional investigator (this is true in science) makes an assumption (hypothesis) and then tests it against observation and experiment... if it is supported, there is reason to believe said hypothesis is correct. if it is validated through secondary sources, you can call it more concrete and work with it
(forensics 101)

you cannot always exactly replicate a crime scene... so why is forensics so powerful?
same reason SCIENCE is
##### Uncle Ira
4.8 / 5 (22) Sep 08, 2015
@ Captain-Skippy. How you are? I am good me.

i also refuse to believe you have "a few years of technical dealing with EM" that is in ANY way more accurate if you don't know/refuse to know Maxwells equations... that is not "technical" knowledge (or knowledge at all), that is "looks like a duck" personal conjecture not based upon evidence

He has the few years experience making the same postums here. He used to be A2G-Skippy and Rubber-Skippy and they used to talk to each other. Then he was the No-Fate-Skippy. He was a couple of other Skippys too but I will have to dig them up.

He has the Your Tube light show videos that he thinks has turned modern physics on it's head and is waiting for his Noble Prizes or something. His real name is David Pointer or some such.
##### Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Sep 08, 2015
ok for starters @bs
That is what I call you posting here, and likely describes your though process a well
actually, my "though"[sic] process states thus-
you claim:
that you have empirical data supporting your claims, but somehow can't produce anything reputable (other than "believe me") - this is pseudoscience

using observation without quantifiable data (which would require math) is somehow more relevant than modern scientific evidence- again, pseudoscience

"essentially understanding that "probability" in a math equation is completely counter intuitive" but you can't support this with evidence - pseudoscience

you said "I have a few years of technical dealing with EM " but then also claim "I've never seen Maxwells equations" - BIG RED FLAG for pseudoscience

If you can't produce reputable evidence that is quantifiable and validated, then you are simply repeating rhetoric from pseudoscience

AKA "Monkey see; monkey do"
##### Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Sep 08, 2015
@bs cont'd
it's frequency proves to be of no practical value
says the pseudoscientist to the fundamental researchers - right! got it!
didn't they also say that about QM/QED?
The rest of the SA Particles are stable long enough to measure dumb ass
Now, but not so easily done THEN, which was the point... also: it still was a matter of hypothesis, test, results, conclusions
Nice desciption about a PI's MO
actually, that was ANY investigator
Um....in order to set up an experiment to attain information, you know how you set the experiment up
Um... which would include measurements in the experiment to quantify data, right?
so, if you have so much experimentation with evidence, why isn't it quantifiable enough to build mathematical models and equations to specifically demonstrate your point?

that is a real DUH moment there, so thanks for pointing out your problems in your posts yourself!

2Bcot'd
##### Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Sep 08, 2015
@bs cont'd
Those are your MEASURED variables. Your "crime scene"
but can't describe what actually happened unless you can replicate the data
Then there is motive (usually all speculation based upon some physical evidence and historical research), and lets not get involved with things like "psychological profiling" or other things, right?
yet each of these things have direct physical measurable items, and things (this is the important part) THAT YOU MUST SPECULATE ABOUT in order to investigate the scene,

thus, like the scientific method, you create a hypothesis ... follow the evidence to a conclusion, then apply the constraints of the hypothesis and test. repeat multiple times.

get it yet?
##### Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Sep 08, 2015
@bs
I should take science advice from a former grunt
Nope. you should follow the evidence...which means, mainstream has a LOT more evidence than pseudoscience or fringe belief systems quoting from rhetoric and unable to do enough math to comprehend EM anything... which you actually ADMIT to, BTW
the dumptruck is a Dolphin because their math verifies it
this is not only untrue, it is not even allegorically accurate. the math describes something that is OBSERVED and is accurate, per furlong and above, studies, etc... there is a difference. it isn't "dump truck=dolphin", it is "dolphin=dolphin"
But in the meantime are being accepted as fact....by people like you
no, i accept validation as far greater than a single study, and a single study is likely more accurate than supposition without evidence- all withing the constraints of measurement and accuracy ranges provided

and pseudoscience that is without ANY quantifiable evidence = total garbage
##### Benni
1.8 / 5 (10) Sep 08, 2015
This, actually, is one of the reasons why I study physics at a technical level--so I can see for myself whether their claims hold up. So far, they do.

...so then, how are you doin' with locating the Mass/Energy Equivalence Principle derivation within the Einstein thesis on General Relativity? You find it yet? Let me know, still waiting.

Yeah, someone who's unable to identify the derivation of E=mc*2 has math problems for his critics, but who has little tangible background for his own claims of proficiency in science & calculus.

Have you sent Peter Higgs your resume yet ? Or do you still think you're so much smarter than he is that you think he should send his resume to you?

##### Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 08, 2015
His real name is David Pointer or some such
@Ira
yeah.. i know. but there are people who actually believe his rhetoric, so sometimes it is very important to point out the flaws in his type argument

take above: he argues
but I should take science advice from a former grunt and a bunch of people who keep saying...
but fails to realise that this is the WHOLE BASIS of his own argument: he wants us to believe because he has a youtube video!
this is exactly like saying: "you must believe i am a MMA/UFC fighting champion because i can show you a picture of me punching a heavy bag in a gym"!!

so, bs gives claims and youtube, but furlong demonstrates hard facts, mathematics,etc etc...

basically: since bs offers only conjecture and personal opinion, then it can be dismissed as opinion or pseudoscience because there is no quantifiable data or analysis capable of supporting his assertions... especially with NO knowledge of Maxwell, etc
LOL

##### Benni
2.1 / 5 (11) Sep 08, 2015
there is a difference. it isn't "dump truck=dolphin", it is "dolphin=dolphin"
........you bet, like you imagine: "fire truck captain=scientist", when it is "scientist=scientist" not retired old firefighters like you imagining you're one of the "new scientists" because you've recently learned the Copy & Paste skills of every housewife in America.

##### Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 08, 2015
...so then, how are you doin' with
@benniTROLL
better yet... hey B! maybe you can explain how you can be an engineer but can't do basic math? http://phys.org/n...als.html

that isn't a matter of mixed up terminology in that thread, that is blatant stupidity and failure on basic addition/subtraction!
but then again, you claimed to be able to do ODE's, but can't figure out how to do them! here or on THIS thread: http://phys.org/n...ood.html

furlong has volunteered to demonstrate, and HAS demonstrated... why haven't you?
Have you sent the DOE your resume? or do you prefer Higgs?
figure out how to use SPELLCHECK yet, "schwarzchild " boy? or is the faux pas you made above somehow someone else's fault for phishing here on PO?

what is your excuse for screwing up easily researched terms and data, like "earth wobbles"????

please, fill us all in!
##### Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 08, 2015
.you bet, like you imagine: "fire truck captain=scientist"
@benni
please show me and quote me (with a link) where i have stated that i am a scientist?
I have done research, and i have assisted in research, but that doesn't mean i am a scientist. i am a Truck Captain (you can google that, or watch Ladder 49 & Backdraft to understand the difference between an Engine man and a Truckie)
because you've recently learned the Copy & Paste skills
at least i can validate my claims with evidence... so far, what have you offered other than easily refuted claims?

it is simply, benji!
you think you know it all, when you can't even validate simple terms before posting to the WWW and interwebz - proving you are a degenerating alzheimers patient

feel free to show us all how awesome you are with links or proof of all your credentials ... or even by taking up furlong on his offer and proving your ability to work ODE's
##### Uncle Ira
4.8 / 5 (22) Sep 08, 2015
proving your ability to work ODE's

I forget which is was, maybe Techno-Skippy, IMP-Skippy or maybe furlong-Skippy or Whydening-Skippy, but he told somebody awhile back that the "ODE" he didn't know what that acronyms stand for. Maybe it was Tim-Skippy or Q-Skippy..

Anyhoo, now he knows what it is, maybe "Yahoo-Answers-Bennie-Skippy's-Question" got him straight on that one too.

Ask Whydening-Skippy, I am pretty sure he was part of that gem of a argument.
##### Benni
1.8 / 5 (10) Sep 08, 2015
because you've recently learned the Copy & Paste skills

at least i can validate my claims with evidence.
.......that's for sure, you're the king of Copy & Paste around here, the one thing that highlights & makes obvious your lack of proficiency in science & math skills .

By the way Mr New Scientist, maybe you can help Furlong out here a little bit. Maybe with your Copy & Paste skills you can help him locate the derivation for Einsteins Mass/Energy Equivalence Principle? Hint retired old firefighter, it's not found in General Relativity.

##### thefurlong
5 / 5 (5) Sep 08, 2015
@Benni
Just chiming in here. Stop lying about me. I know where the mass/energy equivalence comes from, and I will gladly show you, right now, right here. Indeed, I wrote a blog posting about it here:http://mostbadass...tum.html

Also, allow me to preempt your impending inductive reasoning FAIL by saying, no, the name of the blog is not indicative about how I really feel about my scientific acumen.

In that posting, I did skip some steps, as I assumed the reader could figure them out for him/herself, but if you want, I can provide them for you here.

So, Benni?

Less lying.
More solutions to the word problem I gave you. :)
##### Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Sep 08, 2015
I forget which is was, ...but he told somebody awhile back that the "ODE" he didn't know what that acronyms stand for
@Ira
actually, that was the benji-skippy
It was part of the link above that proved he can't do math or ODE's! LMFAO
http://phys.org/n...ood.html

By the way Mr New Scientist, maybe you can help Furlong out here a little bit
@banji-Skippy TROLL
i already did... i proved:
1- you're a liar
2- you can't do basic math
3- you don't know how to do ODE's
4- you troll/bait post with circular arguments and absolutely no proof, but claim mental superiority, even though you can't PROVE anything other than your failure to operate a computer and google
5- can't spell or check your own data for accuracy

other than that, furlong doesn't need MY help... he already proved you are mathematically illiterate and only like to CLAIM you know about einstein
##### Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Sep 08, 2015
but he told somebody awhile back that the "ODE" he didn't know what that acronyms stand for
@Ira
it was probably the following conversation you are remembering
search this link for ODE
http://phys.org/n...ood.html

Whyde posted
And you still haven't answered my earlier question about an ODE...
Benji-TROLL follows that with
Techno: Look, I don't have the time to parse through somebody else's inability to properly format their math to make it intelligible, besides I don't even know what it is you & WG are even talking about, something about ODE whatever that is?
of course, that means he couldn't type ODE into any search engine
https://en.wikipe...equation

then you (Ira) posted
You don't want to let peoples see ol Ira-Skippy helping you out on this stuffs
LMFAO

proof positive benji-troll is a chronic pathological liar about his "skill set"- BTW
##### Uncle Ira
4.8 / 5 (23) Sep 08, 2015
I forget which is was, ...but he told somebody awhile back that the "ODE" he didn't know what that acronyms stand for
@Ira
actually, that was the benji-skippy
It was part of the link above that proved he can't do math or ODE's! LMFAO

Yeah, I knew it was Bennie-Skippy who said he did not know what ODE was while he was telling who he was talking to they never saw a differential equation they could cipher out. I just could not remember who he was arguing with. He uses that line so much it is hard to keep track of them all.

Like with his snip and glue and google comments while he uses the Yahoo-Answers-Bennie-Skippy's-Question and glues it word for word in his postum to get caught in Mrs-Ira-Skippette's plagerizer checker.
##### thefurlong
5 / 5 (4) Sep 08, 2015
@Captain
There are a lot of comments, there. Can you direct me to where he gets confused about math in
http://phys.org/n...od.html?

Thanks.
##### Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Sep 08, 2015
@furlong
you can search for ODE (as noted above) and get Benni's BS
Techno: Look, I don't have the time to parse through somebody else's inability to properly format their math to make it intelligible, besides I don't even know what it is you & WG are even talking about, something about ODE whatever that is?
& continue from that point
or search for "TechnoCreed Feb 21" or "Whydening Gyre feb 21"
y_2'=2y_1-2y_2+\sin(t)
And you still haven't answered my earlier question about an ODE...
where he opens the ball for Benji-TROLL to put up or shut up... Whyde is the one who actually started the kickoff...then Techno picked it up and ran with it... Benji couldn't figure out what "ODE" meant (as noted)
ODE: with so few people here who understand calculus, I simply thought somebody was making an anachronism
[sic]
his excuse
LOL
##### Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Sep 08, 2015
Can you direct me...
http://phys.org/n...od.html?
@furlong
please note, his last post was:
Thought I would check back ...

ODE: with so few people here who understand calculus, I simply thought somebody was making an anachronism. Then there is PDE, LPDE, NLPDE, a few more. Einstein used a lot of PDE in his GR
also note: not ONCE is there any attempt to actually solve or work any math at all, nor is there any demonstration of knowledge
except, of course, his typical ignorance with words, terms etc that are relevant
and of course... they never ending accusation that everyone else is stupid and only benjiTROLL knows how to to ODE"s, understands Einsteins equations or can do anything engineering physics related (except astrophysics, as noted)

conclusions:
ignorance on common terminology
failure to check data or references
no demonstration of ability
no validation of claims
liar with no remorse/knowledge
trolling
##### RealityCheck
1 / 5 (18) Sep 08, 2015
@CapS.
i will post something relevant from your own link.. this specifically applies to YOU, rc,
See what I mean, TehDog?

Stumpy just dishonestly 'presented' comment by a Sciforums poster who once was a mod on another forum and banned a poster from that other forum, both of whom joined Sciforums and had exchanges in the linked thread...

..NONE of which had anything remotely to do with me!

I present evidence.....EVIDENCE
Yeah, right. Like the outright lie/frame you just perpetrated above to mislead TehDog/others.

REASONS you got banned are on the Ban List page: notice there isn't one MOD/TROLL GANG reason there?
You expect mod-troll gangs colluders/abusers at Sciforums to tell the truth? The 'reason' was concocted; they COLLUDED to frame/ban me and lied as to 'why'...just like "Tach" troll and mod "prometheus" colluded to frame/ban me the FIRST time and lied. They were exposed/shamed/forced to leave Sciforums. New troll-mod colluders took over.

Capish? :)
##### Uncle Ira
4.8 / 5 (21) Sep 08, 2015
Oh boy, here we go again with the mafia/troll/bot/gang/mod and how they are colliding to get Really-Skippy of the interweb.
##### RealityCheck
1.2 / 5 (19) Sep 08, 2015
Hi TehDog. :)

Note how the "Uncle Ira" bot-voting dummy is totally oblivious to the PROVEN facts/record of mod-troll gang collusion/abuse-of-position/power. :)

This dumb 'cajun act' and poisonous 'toady of toadies' hangs with the CapS travesty-of-character-and-intellect in order to pepetuate their old lies and frames as if they haven't been well-proven false and malicious many times already. They still 'prefers' to make light of what has been going on for years with the mod-troll gang activity which has ruined the reputation of more than one site.

And what does this Uncle Ira bot-voting, 'lying parrot' 'post' in response to the proven facts re mod-troll abuses which I have exposed/confirmed (for all to see for themselves) via Internet Experiments...
Oh boy, here we go again with the mafia/troll/bot/gang/mod and how they are colliding to get Really-Skippy of the interweb.
It breaks one's heart there are still such malignant/mean mentalities out there. Pitiable. :(
##### TehDog
5 / 5 (10) Sep 08, 2015
@RC
Stumpy said;
"i will post something relevant from your own link.. this specifically applies to YOU, rc,..."
Let me finish that quote for you;
"and it is ALSO the reason you were perma-banned TWICE from SciForums"

{ Nope.
You were banned for being persistently obnoxious and ignorant.
But if you want to lie about it to make yourself feel better that's OK.
Since it was me that banned you I know exactly what the reason was.
}

"See what I mean, TehDog?"
Yep. You seem to have a persecution complex.

"Stumpy just dishonestly 'presented' comment by a Sciforums poster who once was a mod on another forum and banned a poster from that other forum, both of whom joined Sciforums and had exchanges in the linked thread..."
Nope. You dishonestly quoted selectively. By the way, if you're going to suggest collusion by mods (past or present) from different forums, I'd suggest you show some evidence.
##### TehDog
5 / 5 (10) Sep 08, 2015
@RC
And what does this Uncle Ira bot-voting, 'lying parrot' 'post' in response to the proven facts re mod-troll abuses which I have exposed/confirmed (for all to see for themselves) via Internet Experiments...

" Oh boy, here we go again with the mafia/troll/bot/gang/mod and how they are colliding to get Really-Skippy of the interweb. "

Well, he's right, this is about that time. And Ira is far from being a dumb Cajun (if there is such a thing ;)
##### RealityCheck
1 / 5 (18) Sep 08, 2015
TehDog. I didn't quote it all (limited text format, remember?). I alluded to it via part-quote, the full post can be viewed by anyone by reading back to the originating post by CapS. If you think that's a problem, you should see what CapS etc do in that vein to mislead/frame!

You also miss the point that it was gratuitous association with another person/situation which had nothing to do with me. But you accept that sort of thing from your gangmates and accuse me instead. Interesting.

I showed plenty of evidence over the years re mod-troll abuses. I even carried out Internet Experiments which PROVED I was right about the mod-troll abuses and collusion to frame/ban me. I even alluded above to one well known Sciforums case, involving "Tach" troll and "prometheus" Mod who abused the system. The record is at Sciforums; you only have to read/ask around there about "Tach" and "prometheus"; they BOASTED about their collusion, as proved!

You prefer to run with trolls/liars? Pity.
##### Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Sep 09, 2015
just dishonestly 'presented' comment
@rc
no i didn't- that can be verified

baiting/trolling
reported

you WERE obnoxious baiting/trolling
the outright lie/frame you just perpetrated
it aint a lie if it is TRUE
RealityCheck - perma-banned by prometheus for TROLLING
http://www.scifor...?page=11

your next name "Undefined" - Perma-banned by Trippy Flaming/Baiting Trolling
http://www.scifor.../?page=5

then you created multiple SOCKS trying to get back in, but got caught & perma-banned...

you realised the MODS weren't going to be fooled or let you back, so you claimed it was an "internet test"

it was a great test: you actually PROVED moderation works to get rid of trolling, baiting trash like you

you can call it a lie all you want, but the facts remain: it is TRUE
you got banned for being an obnoxious baiting flaming troll
you aint changed, and your still deluded
proven in black and white

epic fail 4 rc!

##### Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Sep 09, 2015
Nope. You dishonestly quoted selectively. By the way, if you're going to suggest collusion by mods (past or present) from different forums, I'd suggest you show some evidence.
@TehDog
I dont think he can actually see the site anymore... or see that his names are posted in the BAN list for everyone to read, so it may well be that he can't see the evidence that proves him delusional...

not that it matters, because he already knows WHY he was banned... and that i was instrumental in getting him perma-banned the second time because every time he baited and trolled, i reported his posts to the site

the best thing about his "internet tests" that he claims he ran were this: he proved MODERATION on a site works, and works well!
it keeps out the people like him who only post to piss people off and spread delusional beliefs without evidence (trolling)

.

@rc
for each further baiting post:
if i downvote it, then it is baiting/trolling and reported
##### RealityCheck
1 / 5 (18) Sep 09, 2015
@CapS. You've 'presented' so many lies/half-truths, you've begun to believe your doctored 'presentations' are 'truths'.

That collusion to abuse the rules/powers in order to 'frame' and ban me was PROVEN by the Internet Experiments which 'outed' them.

They even BOASTED about it; and eventually HAD TO ADMIT what they were doing behind the scenes via PERSONAL MESSAGING facility.

The "Tach" troll and "prometheues" mod colluded as charged. They left Sciforums in DISGRACE.

What MORE PROOF/TRUTH does one need?

Your 'CapS version' 'truth' is half-truths, outright lies, concocted/promulgated by the VERY SAME mod-troll gang PROVEN to have abused their mod position/privileges for personal ego-tripping/sabotage/ban of any who stood up/exposed them.

And don't mention "Trippy" or his lying 'reason' for banning me. He protected/colluded with 'paddobiy' troll; just like prometheus had protected/colluded with "Tach" troll.

Naturally I used new names for Exposure Experiments. Duh.
##### Benni
1.9 / 5 (9) Sep 09, 2015
i baiting trash like you

you can call it a lie all you want, but the facts remain: it is TRUE
you got banned for being an obnoxious baiting flaming troll
you aint changed, and your still deluded
proven in black and white
epic fail 4 rc!

El Stumpo: You are the most obscene case of persistent psychobabble I have ever come across on the internet. Here you are, somebody who can't even solve a high school trigonometry problem, trying to pretend you have relevancy on a science site.

You imagine Copy & Paste is an extraordinary computer science skill simply because you proliferate in so much of it, you think all that Copy & Paste stuff is what makes you relevant. I doubt even Ira reads your links.

In between your Copy & Paste links is nothing about science, only name calling, vitriol, hate & implied threats of every kind. You are the worst example my preteen children could have of retired people, which is why they are banned from this site.
##### thefurlong
5 / 5 (5) Sep 09, 2015
@bschott
Awesome...charge configuration. So you acknowledge that EM interaction does this...but still fail to understand why a minute field of flux that is millions of light years across can and does.

I don't know why you keep focusing on magnetic flux. Flux does not govern how waves propagate. The movement and distribution of charges governs how waves propagate.

At any rate, you are suggesting the tired light hypothesis. This hypothesis has been refuted overwhelmingly.

See here:
http://www.astro....dlit.htm

For example, if effects were due to interaction with fields or matter (as you are proposing), then you would have to propose a mechanism that doesn't ALSO change its momentum. Changing momentum would lead to blurring of images, which we don't see.
(to be continued)
##### thefurlong
5 / 5 (5) Sep 09, 2015
@bschott
(continued)
Do you have a mechanism for this? And I don't mean hand wavey words. I mean actual formulas.

By the way, there's another glaring error with your comparison to prisms. First, prisms don't attenuate light. They slow it down. The wavelengths remain the same.

Second, when light exits a prism, it starts propagating at the speed of the NEW medium (usually air), so they don't actually have the affect of altering light. They just alter its trajectory depending on its frequency and angle of incidence.

As I said, lean EM on a technical level. Then, you can explore all the crazy ideas you want, but at least you'll be able to verify for yourself whether they work.
##### thefurlong
5 / 5 (5) Sep 09, 2015
we think it's more likely that the presence of matter is causing it. This might be true. We think it is, and experiments are underway to detect it.

Then it shouldn't be reported as factual in every paper that evokes it.

1) Have you actually READ ANY DM papers?
2) Have you actually READ ENOUGH DM papers to be justified in making this accusation?
3) I don't know how many do talk about DM as if it were fact, but I CAN tell you this. Like jargon, or abuse of notation, there are certain ideas that are so common among experts that they are often omitted for the sake of brevity or practicality. Experts know that DM has not been 100% confirmed, but it would be silly for them to preface each and every research paper with this fact. To bring it down to your level, it would be like prefacing "I am a human, and live on Earth" every conversation you hold. It isn't necessary.
##### thefurlong
5 / 5 (5) Sep 09, 2015
@Benni
I am still waiting for you to solve that word problem.

By now, it seems very likely to me that you don't actually know how to deal with ODEs, let alone the tensor equations of GR.
##### thefurlong
5 / 5 (5) Sep 09, 2015
@bschott
but keep in mind that that wouldn't mean it is incorrect, any more than Newtonian mechanics is incorrect. It would just mean that GR applies to a SMALLER domain. In our solar system, GR IS correct.

Finding out that a model based on gravity doesn't describe motion because the motion is actually dictated by magnetic interaction wouldn't mean the model is incorrect???

No, that's not what I said.

I said that finding out that GR needed to be modified in part of its domain wouldn't mean that the model is incorrect.

Even IF DM turns out to be illusory, that does not mean that YOUR hypothesis is correct.

Besides, without formulas and equations, I don't see HOW you could have a theory, anyway. A theory has to make PRECISE PREDICTIONS. Otherwise, it's just a word game.
##### thefurlong
5 / 5 (4) Sep 09, 2015
Nobody is saying gravity is responsible for all motion. Bucko.

Bullshit...bucko. Otherwise GR wouldn't REQUIRE 75% more matter to accurately depict motion.

That is a non-sequitur. GR depicts the motion of MACROSCOPIC OBJECTS. It also incorporates electromagnetism. Look up gravito-electromagnetism. Just because it looks at gravity in a new way does not mean that it somehow discards all other interactions. That is just not true.

Dude. Study this stuff on a technical level. I am not saying this to discourage you from coming up with theories. I am actually trying to be helpful, despite my snark.

I, too, like to formulate wild ideas. I currently am testing out another wild idea. Coincidentally, it has to do with EM. But the thing I have over you is that I can take my wild idea, and figure out whether it actually is consistent with physics that we know WORKS by doing calculations.

You don't know the theories you disparage. Learn them.
##### Benni
1.9 / 5 (9) Sep 09, 2015
@Benni
I am still waiting for you to solve that word problem. it seems very likely to me that you don't actually know how to deal with ODEs, let alone the tensor equations of GR.

.........coming from someone who doesn't even know the derivation for the Mass/Energy Equivalence Principle is not found in General Relativity.

I see you've been working the internet & come up with ODE. You & Stumpy really need to start math class with one another & try high school trigonometry before moving on to math for which you have no comprehension.

Your math & science skills are well evidenced by the fact you can't even properly identify the derivation for Einstein's Mass/Energy Equivalence Principle. Try quoting it from a site on General Relativity & see how long it takes you to find that derivation. Hey, here's a deal for you, make an agreement with me that you won't return to this site until you've proven me wrong that Einstein's Mass/Energy Equivalence Principle is not found in GR.
##### thefurlong
5 / 5 (5) Sep 09, 2015
@Benni
.........coming from someone who doesn't even know the derivation for the Mass/Energy Equivalence Principle is not found in General Relativity.

Stop lying. I never said this.

All you are doing is saying the same thing over again. I already showed you a derivation of mass/energy equivalence here:http://mostbadass...tum.html

I wrote it a while ago. And yes, the title of the blog is sarcastic.

I see you've been working the internet & come up with ODE.

Haha, no Benni, I made it up on the spot. It wasn't difficult. Are you going to solve it?

Come on, Benni. I am only going to keep asking you to solve it. And every time you don't come through, it will be more evidence that you just ALL TALK.
##### Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Sep 09, 2015
You've 'presented' so many lies/half-truths
@rc
baiting/trolling
reported
don't just say blah blah whine cry boohooo blah... prove it
You imagine Copy & Paste is an extraordinary computer science skill
@benjiTROLL
no, i don't
but i do consider validation of commentary or proof by demonstration to be methods of validating a claim, neither of which you do, be it thru links, references (the copy/paste you hate so much) or demonstration
implied threats of every kind
threats are illegal and you have recourse, even on the interwebz
feel free to talk to a prosecutor. i am not anonymous
coming from someone who doesn't even know
furlong demonstrated knowledge, all you do is cry foul and whine about how smart you are
try demonstrating ...
EPIC FAIL for benjiTROLL
##### Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Sep 09, 2015
@benjiTROLL
here is a good example to use to demonstrate how stupid you look
What MORE PROOF/TRUTH does one need?
So, i actually linked the ban lists proving rc an idiot, so what does rc return with?
long winded diatribes without proof... just her opinion reflecting her narcissistic Dunning-Kruger delusions

YOU get challenged by furlong
furlong has a long history of methodical mathematical expressions, references and knowledge of physics, demonstrated repeatedly thru various threads

however, your biggest contribution is making up personal acronyms to vent your frustrations

not once have you ever actually been able to link, prove or validate a claim you have made, but you deride everyone else with commentary about "someone who doesn't even know"
you've been caught lying, and you can't demonstrate that YOU know anything but "name calling, vitriol, hate & implied threats"... that makes you a TROLL, not here for science or discourse

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