Physicists continue to investigate why the universe did not collapse

December 23, 2015 by Lisa Zyga, Phys.org feature
This is the "South Pillar" region of the star-forming region called the Carina Nebula. Like cracking open a watermelon and finding its seeds, the infrared telescope "busted open" this murky cloud to reveal star embryos tucked inside finger-like pillars of thick dust. Credit: NASA

(Phys.org)—According to the best current physics models, the universe should have collapsed shortly after inflation—the period that lasted for a fraction of a second immediately after the Big Bang.

The problem lies in part with Higgs bosons, which were produced during and which explain why other particles have the masses that they do. Previous research has shown that, in the early , the Higgs field may have acquired large enough fluctuations to overcome an energy barrier that caused the universe to transition from its standard vacuum state to a negative energy vacuum state, which would have caused the universe to quickly collapse in on itself.

In a new paper published in Physical Review Letters, Matti Herranen at the University of Copenhagen and coauthors may have come a step closer to solving the problem by constraining the strength of the coupling between the Higgs field and gravity, which is the last unknown parameter of the .

As the physicists explain, the stronger the Higgs field is coupled to gravity, the larger are the fluctuations that may eventually trigger a fatal transition to the negative energy vacuum state.

In the new paper, the scientists calculated that a collapse after inflation would have happened only if the had been above a value of 1.

Combining this result with the lower bound of 0.1, which the same physicists derived last year by analyzing the requirements for stability during (rather than after) inflation, and the range of 0.1-1 constrains the coupling to near its historically estimated value of 1/6. This value of 1/6 is traditionally used as an estimate because it corresponds to zero Higgs-gravity coupling, though it is likely incorrect.

Narrowing down the Higgs-gravity coupling strength will guide physicists when analyzing experimental data to help pinpoint the coupling value with greater precision. Data on the cosmic microwave background radiation and gravitational waves, for example, are expected to help further constrain the value. When combined with other parameters, the Higgs-gravity coupling strength should produce a picture of a universe that did not transition to a state of collapse.

"It's a combination of parameters that actually determines the occurrence of such a transition, including the Higgs coupling to gravity, but also the energy scale of the inflation, which are not tightly constrained by current measurements," Herranen told Phys.org. "So, presently it is not possible to draw a conclusion on whether the standard model is in trouble due to instability-related issues, but it would be very interesting if the Higgs-gravity coupling and the scale of inflation could be constrained more tightly in the future by independent measurements, for example by observing resulting from inflation."

Taken together, the results should help scientists modify inflation models in order to describe a universe more like the one we live in.

Explore further: Gravity may have saved the universe after the Big Bang, say researchers

More information: M. Herranen, et al. "Spacetime Curvature and Higgs Stability after Inflation." Physical Review Letters. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.241301

Related Stories

A Higgs-gravity connection may leave traces in white dwarfs

September 29, 2014

(Phys.org) —The discovery of the Higgs boson at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) in 2012 marked an important step toward understanding the origin of the mass of fundamental particles. Since mass plays a major role in gravity, ...

Recommended for you

Converting heat into electricity with pencil and paper

February 19, 2018

Thermoelectric materials can use thermal differences to generate electricity. Now there is an inexpensive and environmentally friendly way of producing them with the simplest tools: a pencil, photocopy paper, and conductive ...

Bringing a hidden superconducting state to light

February 16, 2018

A team of scientists has detected a hidden state of electronic order in a layered material containing lanthanum, barium, copper, and oxygen (LBCO). When cooled to a certain temperature and with certain concentrations of barium, ...

301 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

arom
Dec 23, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
bschott
2.5 / 5 (38) Dec 23, 2015
shortly after inflation—the period that lasted for a fraction of a second immediately after the Big Bang.


A period of physical impossibility which immediately followed a theoretical event.

The problem lies in part with Higgs bosons, which were produced during inflation


And, if they had to exist in our reality, lasted for a fraction of a femto second.Just like the ones that CERN claim to have found.

the Higgs field


A mathematical construct no one has ever observed

an energy barrier that caused the universe to transition from its standard vacuum state to a negative energy vacuum state, which would have caused the universe to quickly collapse in on itself.


An energy barrier.....like in Star trek 5 ?

As the physicists explain, the stronger the Higgs field is coupled to gravity, the larger are the fluctuations that may eventually trigger a fatal transition to the negative energy vacuum state.


LMAO....
cantdrive85
2.9 / 5 (36) Dec 23, 2015
The title should be adjusted;
'Physicists continue down a dead-end path with their metaphysical pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo"
richardwenzel987
3.4 / 5 (10) Dec 23, 2015
I'm not clear about what collapse would entail in this context-- would collapse occur as rapidly as inflation? And what would be the end state after collapse? Since we don't seem to be sure what the initial state would have been, the result of a "collapse" is problematic. And it is not clear that the universe, after inflation, could return to an initial state, since post-collapse implies a history that the initial state would not have. It would be interesting to find that the universe we live in is actually what you would expect to find from a post-inflation collapse. It would be nice to have more first principles and less ad hoc.
bschott
2.8 / 5 (32) Dec 23, 2015
"It's a combination of parameters that actually determines the occurrence of such a transition, including the Higgs coupling to gravity, but also the energy scale of the inflation, which are not tightly constrained by current measurements," Herranen told Phys.org. "So, presently it is not possible to draw a conclusion on whether the standard model is in trouble due to instability-related issues, but it would be very interesting if the Higgs-gravity coupling and the scale of inflation could be constrained more tightly in the future by independent measurements, for example by observing primordial gravity waves resulting from inflation."


Inflation, Higgs and Primordial gravity waves....this is pure fiction published as though it carries scientific validity. There is nothing verifiable in mainstream theoretical physics, and judging by articles like this there never will be.

If aliens had to judge us on how we think physics works, and this is what we show them...

Bye.
Zzzzzzzz
2.5 / 5 (22) Dec 23, 2015
I'm not clear about what collapse would entail in this context-- would collapse occur as rapidly as inflation? And what would be the end state after collapse? Since we don't seem to be sure what the initial state would have been, the result of a "collapse" is problematic. And it is not clear that the universe, after inflation, could return to an initial state, since post-collapse implies a history that the initial state would not have. It would be interesting to find that the universe we live in is actually what you would expect to find from a post-inflation collapse. It would be nice to have more first principles and less ad hoc.

I'm thinking that the assumption is that the expanding universe we observe today cannot be a universe that experienced collapse directly after inflation.
DavidW
Dec 23, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
richardwenzel987
3.8 / 5 (28) Dec 23, 2015
"They don't publicly accept life as most important in life in public conversation"... this blather has nothing to do with cosmology or anything else, as far as I can tell. Science is the reason a lot of people are here, alive and ranting, rather than stillborn, dead of childhood diseases, or starving in a hovel. If humanity needs anything it is more science, more scientific thinking, more reason, and less primitive superstition. If we have not science, then we are left with magic. Good luck with your spells and incantations.
antialias_physorg
4.5 / 5 (25) Dec 23, 2015
Good luck with your spells and incantations.

Read: Litanies and prayers.

(Just in case DavidW doesn't get the hint. I'm pretty sure he doesn't understand that those are the same thing.)
Mike_Massen
2.6 / 5 (28) Dec 23, 2015
@bschott
Failed dismally to answer earlier questions snipes idle claims & negligible understanding of Math/Physics especially relativity...

In respect of Hubble's efforts & the expansion of the universe for the budding amateur astronomers who have unclear inarticulate complaints & insist on observing the local scale, there's a nice Nova (US TV) documentary, this was aired in Australia recently (SBS)
http://www.sbs.co...revealed

Those interested in pinning down details just Fail to offer any credible links as to why they imagine the accepted view, based on significant reliable evidence, is wrong ?

bschott over to you, why can't you articulate your position as to why you imagine;
"A period of physical impossibility which immediately followed a theoretical event"
"Inflation, Higgs and Primordial gravity waves....this is pure fiction.."

DavidW described all religions;
"..for their egos and NEVER for the common good"
the_higgs
3.4 / 5 (18) Dec 23, 2015
@bschott thanks for the hot take. It sounds like you have all the correct answers... what were those again?
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (22) Dec 23, 2015

They don't publicly accept life as most important in life in public conversation, so absolutely nothing they write can be taken as having any value whatsoever.

Did you watch "The Fifth Element" a few too many times?
Mike_Massen
2.7 / 5 (26) Dec 23, 2015
DavidW w& huge hypocrisy
.. They boast of the vacuum in their skull and have nothing to reason with
Like moses who accepted magic of a burning bush or why an all powerful god broke stone tablets or made his 'chosen people' wander for 40years or why his deity killed innocent children in two cities..

DavidW described his deity in Samuel
They do, however, kill the innocent and support and encourage those that do kill the innocent on a continuous basis
ie DavidW's egotistical god for killing 50,000 because those from the same cultural/societal group looked in a box

DavidW tell us how your claimed god communicates with All people equally ?

DavidW tell us why your claimed god acts exactly as if it doesnt exist ?

DavidW tell us why anyone should accept idle arbitrary claims of people who live in regions where drugs aren't illegal & gain; Status & Authority of claims a god spoke to them ?

DavidW, didn't the old testament david say god only spoke in a dream ?
bschott
3.2 / 5 (24) Dec 23, 2015
@bschott thanks for the hot take. It sounds like you have all the correct answers... what were those again?


I don't subscribe to the notion that something works the way someone tells me, unless they can provide a tangible methodology that can be verified by a real world application. Smashing proton packets into each other and claiming that femto second decay products which end up as photons are revealing a "fundamental reality" is not believable, not testable and is only valid to the people checking the math. The instrument we use for this is far more valuable than what is being done with it.

Mike. Links aren't necessary when observing reality completely falsifies a theory.

Cosmological redshift, according to mainstream physics, is due "spatial expansion".
If that is the cause, all light must therefore be redshifted between a stationary emitter and receiver as space would be expanding there too.

It's not. New explanation required.
bschott
3.1 / 5 (25) Dec 23, 2015
bschott over to you, why can't you articulate your position as to why you imagine;
"A period of physical impossibility


Well Mike, this is referred to as inflation, which is described by mainstream physics as "the faster than light expansion of the universe"...physical impossibility, not testable.

which immediately followed a theoretical event"


The Big Bang is a theoretical event - see above "physical impossibility" which is incorporated into BB theory.... "Inflation"

Higgs and Primordial gravity waves....this is pure fiction.."


Again, as mentioned above, a femto second decay product who's only visible significance is mathematical and a hitherto theoretical construct which is yet to be proven to exist.

And you make fun of Davids beliefs....cause you're smart.

Whydening Gyre
4.5 / 5 (15) Dec 23, 2015
@bschott thanks for the hot take. It sounds like you have all the correct answers... what were those again?

Like a majority of us, BS has more questions than answers. And faced with the bewildering array of theories and hypothesese placed in front of us (by venues such as physorg), it can be more than just a little confusing to arrive at a meaningful conclusion to a particular line of thought.
I find many times that a question can be more useful than an unsubstantiated answer - it makes you THINK...
Mike_Massen
2.8 / 5 (27) Dec 23, 2015
bschott claims
I don't subscribe to the notion that something works the way someone tells me, unless they can provide a tangible methodology that can be verified by a real world application
GPS included ?

& to be consistent then you don't subscribe to claims/beliefs of any religion then - as All religions are not "tangible" yes ?

bschott claims
... end up as photons are revealing a "fundamental reality" is not believable
Why pray tell ?

bschott says
Mike. Links aren't necessary when observing reality completely falsifies a theory
They are, Maths is key part of Physics & fully consistent with relativity, you seem to need education in both !

bschott says
If that is the cause, all light must therefore be redshifted between a stationary emitter and receiver as space would be expanding there too
Wrong. No such thing as 'stationary' anywhere, or tell us where that specific spot is ?

Did you miss relativity lectures or can't get your head around it ?
AGreatWhopper
2.7 / 5 (23) Dec 23, 2015
cantthink4shite 0/ 5 (5)

The title should be adjusted;
'Physicists continue down a dead-end path with their metaphysical pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo"


Gawd. You're even more stupid than bschott. I've said in the past that you've never accomplished anything in your life, but I stand corrected. That's no mean feat.

Entertain us further. What string of adjectives would you use to characterize your own spew? Motivation? Style? I think that's only fair. When the cranks cut and paste some string of adjectives, they should be required to say, "as opposed to my position which is...".

You do know how to look in the mirror, don't you? Oh, sorry. That was a low blow. Sensitive subject.
ogg_ogg
3.9 / 5 (7) Dec 23, 2015
Reality → Observers→Model→Parameters
Obviously, this report has it backwards.
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (18) Dec 23, 2015
I find many times that a question can be more useful than an unsubstantiated answer - it makes you THINK...

Problem is when the 'think' part is missing. Just asking questions doesn't make one smart.
(Just like recognizing one's own errors doesn't make one wise. It's the part where you go and do something about it that's when wisdom happens)
baudrunner
3 / 5 (10) Dec 23, 2015
The universe does not collapse for those guys because they are on the wrong track, obviously. They're trying to fit a Higgs boson into the picture, as if there could be a particle with the magical property of hanging around long enough to be other than just another intermediate vector boson and with some kind of miraculous agenda to blink the property of having mass into all the other particles. Look , read http://phys.org/n...ies.html and see that it proves that mass is a function of motion and velocity.
my2cts
3.2 / 5 (24) Dec 23, 2015

An energy barrier.....like in Star trek 5 ?

Yes exactly! Energy barriers are quite common in physics. Usually they are referred to as potential barrier. If you are interested in broadening your knowledge of physics beyond star trek, you could start here:
https://en.wikipe..._barrier
my2cts
3 / 5 (25) Dec 23, 2015

Smashing proton packets into each other and claiming that femto second decay products which end up as photons are revealing a "fundamental reality" is not believable, not testable

It is a test. What do you mean "not testable".
Cosmological redshift, according to mainstream physics, is due "spatial expansion".
If that is the cause, all light must therefore be redshifted between a stationary emitter and receiver as space would be expanding there too.
It's not. New explanation required.

It is. (mainstream) physics-bschott 1:0.
my2cts
3 / 5 (22) Dec 23, 2015
All of these people talk about science for their egos and NEVER for the common good.

You are a hypocrite. What does that have to do with science?
Should astronomers change bed pans instead ?
my2cts
2.8 / 5 (22) Dec 23, 2015

They don't publicly accept life as most important in life in public conversation, so absolutely nothing they write can be taken as having any value whatsoever. They boast of the vacuum in their skull and have nothing to reason with. They do, however, kill the innocent and support and encourage those that do kill the innocent on a continuous basis.

So now you accuse me of murder.
Stark raving mad is what you are.
Are you even allowed in the street without a chaperone?
You are a threat to public safety.
my2cts
2.8 / 5 (22) Dec 23, 2015
DavidW, you remind me of witch hunter general Hopkins.
Maybe he could be a role model for you ?
https://en.wikipe..._Hopkins
Seeker2
3.3 / 5 (6) Dec 23, 2015
"the Higgs field may have acquired large enough fluctuations to overcome an energy barrier that caused the universe to transition from its standard vacuum state to a negative energy vacuum state, which would have caused the universe to quickly collapse in on itself."

If we go with Feynman, antimatter is identical to matter going in reverse time. Tricky to go back in time from the beginning of time. Since pair production comes from energy (meaning, I presume, excitations of the Higgs field), antimatter is forced to return to where it came from - energy. This should prevent the universe from going back to a negative energy state. Nature is smarter than you think. And she loves nothing more than outsmarting the physicists.
Seeker2
2.7 / 5 (7) Dec 23, 2015
DavidW tell us why your claimed god acts exactly as if it doesnt exist ?
Most likely so we can have free will.
Mimath224
3 / 5 (4) Dec 23, 2015
@antialias_physorg, Whydening Gyre etc. As a layman I do enjoy reading articles like this one but it does give me problems. I read, I think somewhere a couple of years that the H-G coupling had yet to quantified and around the same time, by other authors, that this coupling isn't possible. As I understood the latter the Higg's particle/field only givens mass to certain members of the Std. Mod, whereas gravity, on the macro scale, blankets just about everything (mass/energy) I haven't yet found a paper that really explains, in lay terms, both sides of the coin as it were. Can one of you help me out? Thanks in advance.
Seeker2
2.2 / 5 (6) Dec 23, 2015
As the physicists explain, the stronger the Higgs field is coupled to gravity, the larger are the fluctuations that may eventually trigger a fatal transition to the negative energy vacuum state.
I don't think the Higgs field is coupled to gravity. I'll go with gravity as an emergent phenomenon - like as I understand entropic gravity - due to gradients in the vacuum pressure. Gradients caused initially from big bang turbulence and later by the accretion of matter. But you're probably tired of me opining on that one.
Seeker2
2.9 / 5 (7) Dec 23, 2015
Well Mike, this is referred to as inflation, which is described by mainstream physics as "the faster than light expansion of the universe"...physical impossibility, not testable.
Testing the big bang would be tricky if you couldn't repeat it. But I understand the observable universe is about 93bly which is pretty big considering it has only been around 13.7by. No problem though. The speed of light is restricted by the medium it passes through. No restrictions on the expansion of the medium itself that I know of.
Mike_Massen
2.1 / 5 (21) Dec 23, 2015
Seeker2 offered
DavidW tell us why your claimed god acts exactly as if it doesnt exist ?
Most likely so we can have free will
Well, other than 3 claims...

The biggest of all problems because, it must be clear for free will to be true we must have complete education, at least so as to make decisions in respect of that free will.

Evidence shows substantively ability to choose ie the exercise of free will is significantly hampered by (lack of) education. The claimed god Eg genesis did not offer Eve *any* education especially in Guile. So Eve did exactly what she (as an innocent) would naturally do, ie trust fully in the claims of the serpent that it was ok to choose from the tree !

Some claim god was testing Eve but, it means the god didn't know the outcome ie means it Cannot be a god !

In retort it was for eve's benefit but, had she been educated in Guile she would have realised she was lied to & in any case why punish ALL creation for such evil setup ?
snoosebaum
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 23, 2015
no one ever mentions Roger Penrose's conformal universe. makes most sense as there is no point source big bang. Also if a Roger Penrose is a 'big bang ' skeptic what does that say ?
Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (16) Dec 23, 2015
Mike Massen@
On top of that - it clearly shows that the "god" was guilty of practicing "guile" (lying to) on an innocent. Breaking his own rules for - what? Fun? Debugging his program?
Whydening Gyre
4.5 / 5 (15) Dec 23, 2015
no one ever mentions Roger Penrose's conformal universe. makes most sense as there is no point source big bang. Also if a Roger Penrose is a 'big bang ' skeptic what does that say ?

Penrose, et al used a non-standard simulation methodology which could point to different incorrect (or correct, for that matter) results...
Oh, yeah...
"Wikipedia"... "thump-thunk"
Protoplasmix
3.3 / 5 (7) Dec 24, 2015
If we go with Feynman, antimatter is identical to matter going in reverse time. Tricky to go back in time from the beginning of time.
Why should traveling from the beginning going backwards be trickier than traveling from the beginning going forwards? Like the past can't exist, but the future can? For example, say a photon creates a particle/antiparticle pair that come back together and annihilate creating a photon -- so in the "beginning", one particle travels forward in time to meet its antiparticle while the other travels backward in time to similarly meet its demise.

If that's a fair question, I wonder if our [universe's inflation imposed] "macro scale experience" of time is then emergent from things like scale dependence and relativistic frame dependence (which are essentially mathematical impositions from things like first principles and special relativity).
AmritSorli
2.2 / 5 (13) Dec 24, 2015
The unveiled secret of the universe is in space itself not in particles which CERN is searching. Every particle is structure of space and diminishes energy density of space which gives origin to inertial and to gravitational mass. Higgs boson is artificially made particle which does not exist in the universe on its own and has no longtime importance for Physics. Amrit Sorli - FOPI www.fopi.info
Colbourne
2.4 / 5 (14) Dec 24, 2015
I think scientists have to accept that the current model is incorrect. Get rid of dark matter and dark energy and replace it with an initial equal parts of matter and antimatter.
The anti-matter repluses normal matter and explains the early fast expansion of the universe.
viko_mx
2.7 / 5 (24) Dec 24, 2015
Мaterialists darwinist are looking for matter where they must find God's will. In their limited world there is no concept for spirit and will which gave sense to the matter and energy existence in nature.
The big bang theory is wrong concept from the beginning to the end. It does not correspond to the observed reality. Only with the social economic interest of the materialists in this world.
Supporters of the big bang claim that matter is consolidated in cosmic structures due to gravity, which is not able to stop the fictional expansion of the universe according to them. They are looking on space as 3d geometric object with infinite elasticity on which can be applied to arbitrary mathematical transformations instead as real physical object with physical properties and limitations, which is programmed mediator environment between the will of the Creator and constituent particles of matter.
my2cts
2.6 / 5 (23) Dec 24, 2015
@viko_mx
How do you know all this? You don't. It is a delusion, take a pill.
my2cts
2.4 / 5 (20) Dec 24, 2015
I think scientists have to accept that the current model is incorrect. Get rid of dark matter and dark energy and replace it with an initial equal parts of matter and antimatter.
The anti-matter repluses normal matter and explains the early fast expansion of the universe.

You should accept that the scientists entertained and rejected your idea when they were still in primary school and that they are lightyears ahead of you,.
Mike_Massen
2.4 / 5 (25) Dec 24, 2015
viko_mx claims
Мaterialists darwinist are looking for matter where they must find God's will
Prove it, how does your claimed god communicate equally ?

Its god will is it that all creatures suffer & die regardless of being 'born again', this is gods plan is it, to preside over immense & continuous suffering for all generations where *only* Science can alleviate it ?
Head of Smallpox, Polio, MS, Parkinsons, Alzheimers etc flesh eating bacteria along with approx 10 Million other species many pathogens causing horrible diseases, add to that fungi, viruii etc
So finding your god's will is to accept all that suffering as punishment of an innocent girl ?
Is that sane ?
Tell us viko_mx, is this claimed gods pattern of such immense & severe punishment *ever* used as a parenting example ?
Do you uphold the right of your god, any god to kill so very many on the flimsiest of reason ?
Why is it viko_mx, your god acts exactly as a Devil *or* is a bad explanation for causality ?
Mike_Massen
2.3 / 5 (24) Dec 24, 2015
Colbourne with immense ignorance of so called "Standard Model" (SM) egotistically claims with hubris
I think scientists have to accept that the current model is incorrect
Not thinking & as my2cts added, rejected long before you were in nappies

Learn Physics then appreciate the SM is a very GOOD fit indeed for very many particle interactions & other phenomena & relativity, colour of gold, melting point of Mercury (Hg), Mercury (planet) orbit, GPS etc

Read !
https://en.wikipe...rd_Model

Science process is asymptotic, as such a correction is possible but it is very unlikely to be major for the same reason you don't throw out Newton's gravitation, you add General Relativity which offers more completeness at expense of greater complexity ie Asymptotic

Colbourne claims with even more ignorance
..The anti-matter repluses normal matter and explains the early fast expansion of the universe
Wrong, gravitation still attracts

Learn Physics please !
Mike_Massen
2 / 5 (22) Dec 24, 2015
@Colbourne
Linguistic correction to my last post, in case grammar seen as ambivalent re SM, it does include gravitation but doesn't include it as consequence of relativity. ie I said "& relativity", ie In that respect I meant SM has a great deal of accuracy including gravitation & relativity is one of those incremental additions as part of the asymptotic process & when adding relativity is when you can very accurately explain the unexpected colour of gold, low melting point of Mercury metal & orbital corrections of Mercury the planet.

As such relativity is more like an overall background for the standard model as its additive, I guess its not included as relativity (so far) doesn't just pop out of the maths in the standard model.

In respect of dDM, we just don't know from this distance the actual mass components with sufficient detail but, even the extrapolated masses are far beyond what we would expect to see. As for observed expansion re DE, that's another issue
antialias_physorg
4.5 / 5 (15) Dec 24, 2015
I think somewhere a couple of years that the H-G coupling had yet to quantified and around the same time, by other authors, that this coupling isn't possible

Here's a bit of a writeup I found why Higgs and gravity is unrelated
http://profmattst...related/

Though, I think, there is a potential back door. At one point the author says
Gravitational fields have spin 2 and are described as part of space and time; they interact with all particles and fields in nature. The Higgs field, which has spin 0, only interacts directly with elementary particles and fields that also participate in the electromagnetic and weak nuclear forces.

It is still open whether there are spin 2 Higgs which would couple to gravity fields direct (I think. I'm not an expert in elementary particle physics).
viko_mx
3 / 5 (18) Dec 24, 2015
@Mike_Massen

?!
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (16) Dec 24, 2015
"the faster than light expansion of the universe"...physical impossibility

Expansion of space is not limited to the speed of light. Speed of light limit only applies to particles. Space is not a particle. Stuff getting further apart due to intervening space expanding is not motion at all.

This is why something like the theoretical Acubierre drive does not violate the "nothing can move faster than light" rule.

so in the "beginning", one particle travels forward in time to meet its antiparticle while the other travels backward in time to similarly meet its demise

Problem,as I see it, is that annihilation creates photons moving forward in time carrying the ENTIRE energy. If the antiparticle actually were moving back in time there would have to be some sort of "conservation of temporal motion" and we'd need also some "anti-time photons" created. These aren't observed. Neither coming nor going.
Tri-ring
2.8 / 5 (8) Dec 24, 2015
I speculate there was no inflation in the first place based on Einstein's general theory of relativity in which it dictates that all physics as we know it collapse beyond the Schwarzschild radius AKA the event horizon.
If energy and mass is interchangeable then there should be a spacial boundary in which amount of energy can be confined within a certain space. Simply put time, space and time did not start from zero at the start of big bang and expand exponentially but at start there was already space the size of the Schwarzschild radius to fit the amount of energy of the universe.
Basically our understanding of physics collapse without this rule.
antialias_physorg
4.5 / 5 (16) Dec 24, 2015
I think scientists have to accept that the current model is incorrect. Get rid of dark matter and dark energy and replace it with an initial equal parts of matter and antimatter.
The anti-matter repluses normal matter and explains the early fast expansion of the universe.

This doesn't work.

- If one were to posit as much antimatter as observed matter there's still the same amount of stuff missing (antimatter is NOT invisible).
- Antimatter has positive energy (and hence very likely positive mass) so it doesn't repulse anything.
- Antimatter has opposite charge (e.g. positrons are positively, antiprotons negatively charged). That attracts/repulses just like ordinary matter on average.
- Most importantly: Crystallization into matter happened AFTER inflation ended. So (anti)matter wasn't even around at the time.
Mike_Massen
1.9 / 5 (22) Dec 24, 2015
viko_mx exclaimed
@Mike_Massen
?!
But, viko_mx STILL didnt answer *any* key questions about his claimed god !

Tell us viko_mx, just WHY you can't know anything important about your 'creator' or any god ?

viko_mx, tell us where you got an education so you can claim "I know Physics well" as it seems you know nothing of Physics and have lied to us *and* your creator, is that acceptable ?

Critical thinking viko_mx ?

Learn Physics and don't lie you "know Physics" as its clear you don't ?

Tell us WHY viko_mx, that jesus' birth earlier in the year was aligned with the Northern hemisphere's winter solstice - so it was convenient but, not accuate at all ?

ie. Tending sheep in the pastures couldn't be done according to new testament unless climate change started way back then some 2030 yrs ago ?

I say 2030 because a pope fiddled the calender and our 1985 was actually year 2000 !

Your jesus is much overdue, will he communicate better than a papyrus book this time ?
my2cts
2.7 / 5 (21) Dec 24, 2015

Why is it viko_mx, your god acts exactly as a Devil *or* is a bad explanation for causality ?

god is much worse than a devil. He wipes mankind out in a rage. Men women children. The devil just tries to undermine you so you fall in his power. Not very nice but definitely morally superior.
The only reason to support such a god would be fear. god is fear, viko.
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (15) Dec 24, 2015
god is much worse than a devil.

If you go by body-count - most definitely:

God: 2.5 million killed (verified numbers according to the bible). If one includes cases where numbers aren't available (floods, Sodom & Gomorrah, Egypts firstborn, ...) then the tally can be estimated at roughly ten times as much.

Devil: ten (no, not ten million. Ten people total. And in that case god had a 50/50 responsibility)
http://dwindlingi...ist.html
bschott
3.3 / 5 (18) Dec 24, 2015
If that is the cause, all light must therefore be redshifted between a stationary emitter and receiver as space would be expanding there too
Wrong. No such thing as 'stationary' anywhere, or tell us where that specific spot is ?


LMAO...you and nocents take the same courses on how to think objectively?

In Toronto Canada there is a structure called the CN tower which has lights on top that can be viewed from many stationary locations, depending on the height of viewing and lensed optical aids, you can be quite far and see these lights.

Stationary emitter and receiver. No frequency shift.

It is. (mainstream) physics-bschott 1:0.


Nocents gem of the day in response to my posit that if space is expanding all light must be redshifted. He must not have read about Blueshift yet....true to form Homer, true to form.
bschott
2.9 / 5 (21) Dec 24, 2015
DavidW, you remind me of witch hunter general Hopkins.
Maybe he could be a role model for you ?
https://en.wikipe..._Hopkins


You remind of this kid with turrets syndrome who lived on my street, he was incapable of thinking before he said stuff too. And he really couldn't control what came out of his mouth.

You have a growing list of blindingly stupid comments here. Maybe you could "blueshift" towards serenity with some psychiatric drugs...or just try to think about what you're saying before you say it.
Seeker2
3 / 5 (4) Dec 24, 2015
- If one were to posit as much antimatter as observed matter there's still the same amount of stuff missing (antimatter is NOT invisible).
Yep. I only posit the antimatter-travelling-in reverse-time idea because it answers the question about the missing antimatter. It has returned to its state before crystallization occurred, that is, to its state before the beginning of time. Note that the beginning of time is the time crystallization occurred, not the time when inflation occurred. Any antimatter created before a/2 where a is the age of the universe has been recycled back into the energy of inflation. So in this sense antimatter does fuel the expansion of the universe, assuming the expansion of the universe really is a later stage of inflation.
Seeker2
3 / 5 (4) Dec 24, 2015
People get all flustered by the idea of the universe starting from a single point in spacetime. If you think about it when you blow up a balloon and it pops it starts the pop at a single point on the balloon. It has to start somewhere. No problem.
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (10) Dec 24, 2015
Couple of other issues with this, as it posits that normal matter was created all at one point in time while antimatter creation is smeared out over a very long time.

There's a very real rationale at what point (temperature) matter gelled out of the energy state post inflation. No such energy state exists for antimatter to gel from 'at the other end'.

And the resulting photons travelling forward in time is a pretty big ball breaker for the antimatter-move-backwards-in-time idea. If matter and antimatter were to annihilate without anything coming out then there'd be something there. But the way its observed right now I think it's just an artifact of how Feynman diagrams are set up.
Benni
3.3 / 5 (21) Dec 24, 2015
Genghis Khan was a conqueror by force. The wars led in his name killed some 40 million people (about 10% of the world's population at the time)! As you might guess, he didn't do that by peaceful negotiation and smooth diplomacy.


God: 2.5 million killed (verified numbers according to the bible). If one includes cases where numbers aren't available (floods, Sodom & Gomorrah, Egypts firstborn) then the tally can be estimated at roughly ten times as much.


......only "ten times" Anti_Physics? Seems God is having a hard time keeping up with Genghis Kahn. Let me ponder this a sec...... do I need Differential Equations to calculate what all these powers have done to the human race?...... No, I don't need DEs, so let's do it:

40,000,000 - (10 x 2,500,000)= 40,000,000 25,000,000= 15,000,000

It seems God has been having a hard time keeping up with just one man never mind adding the 65 million Mao Tse Tung added to that repertoire of human endeavor.

bschott
3.6 / 5 (16) Dec 24, 2015
It is a test. What do you mean "not testable".


Oh Homer, what is it testing with regards to the fundamental nature of reality?

Nothing that happens - A) ever takes place in reality, meaning our universe can never replicate the conditions of "the test" and - B) the results all convert to light because once the protons annihilate the only stable energy from they can transition to is photonic.

Interpreting what the "big pieces"of energy mean before they decay into photons is the not testable part. You can use all the math in the world in an attempt to attach significance to these. How each "big peice" was a quark, or W boson when inside the proton, and how this is verified by the photons left over at the end, proves absolutely nothing except that all of the frequencies of the "big pieces" add up to the original stable particle.

Stabilize what you think is a quark for study, then whatever the math claims is correct will be testable.
antialias_physorg
4.1 / 5 (14) Dec 24, 2015
It seems God has been having a hard time keeping up with just one man never mind adding the 65 million Mao Tse Tung added to that repertoire of human endeavor

Well, you can't rack up the kills when the best you can do is 'wipe out everyone except two' (great flood). What is god supposed to do? Create a billion more first just so he can get a high score?
As a percentage of people alive that certainly is nigh unbeatable (except with total extinction. But we've had (and have) a few world leaders toying with the idea every now and then. So he may lose top spot yet)

Seeker2
3.2 / 5 (5) Dec 24, 2015
Couple of other issues with this, as it posits that normal matter was created all at one point in time while antimatter creation is smeared out over a very long time.
I'd think particle pairs are created as long as there is enough energy available to turn virtual particles into real particles.
Seeker2
3.8 / 5 (5) Dec 24, 2015
And the resulting photons travelling forward in time is a pretty big ball breaker for the antimatter-move-backwards-in-time idea.
I understand photons are their own antiparticle so they can travel either way in spacetime.
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (13) Dec 24, 2015
I'd think particle pairs are created as long as there is enough energy available to turn virtual particles into real particles.

Sure, but that (again) goes against the idea of particles and antiparticles coming together accross time to annihilate. because now you are creating particle/antiparticle pairs that are not coming together but moving apart (in the same direction of time).

No, sorry, any way I look at it I can't get this anti-time mechanic to grok.
snoosebaum
3 / 5 (1) Dec 24, 2015
ok Penrose from Wiki
In simple terms, he believes that the singularity in Einstein's field equation at the Big Bang is only an apparent singularity, similar to the well-known apparent singularity at the event horizon of a black hole. The latter singularity can be removed by a change of coordinate system, and Penrose proposes a different change of coordinate system that will remove the singularity at the big bang. One implication of this is that the major events at the Big Bang can be understood without unifying general relativity and quantum mechanics, and therefore we are not necessarily constrained by the Wheeler–DeWitt equation, which disrupts time. Alternatively, one can use the Einstein–Maxwell–Dirac equations.
snoosebaum
3 / 5 (1) Dec 24, 2015
https://en.wikipe...osmology

& @ wyde gyre , i realize the purpose of these comments is to piss on each other but the dismissive quote about 'non standard approach' refers to their attempt to experimentaly validate the theory , a difficult job to say the least
Seeker2
2.7 / 5 (6) Dec 24, 2015
Sure, but that (again) goes against the idea of particles and antiparticles coming together accross time to annihilate. because now you are creating particle/antiparticle pairs that are not coming together but moving apart (in the same direction of time).
Bingo. Particles are not coming together but moving apart. Antiparticles back off in an electromagnetic field. Unless nature is pulling a cruel trick on us, antiparticles also back off in a gravitational field. Antimatter hangs out in spacetime where it can find the least gravitational force, like in intergalactic space. Unfortunately this is bad news for Hawking radiation. Black holes do not evaporate but continue to accrue matter from particle pair production until the energy necessary for particle pair production runs out. Our ultimate fate is one final gigantic black hole. At which time, I presume, the cycle starts all over again. World without end, or something like that.
Seeker2
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 24, 2015
only an apparent singularity, similar to the well-known apparent singularity at the event horizon of a black hole.
Jeez. Where have I been? I never recall hearing anything about a singularity at the event horizon. I would define a singularity as the abscence of any spacetime. If there was, where would it be on the event horizon?
Vietvet
4.3 / 5 (14) Dec 24, 2015
A detailed critique of Penrose's hyposis can be found here: http://blogs.disc...YmBUrKUk

It includes links to two of the studies that couldn't replicate Penrose's work.
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (14) Dec 24, 2015
Unless nature is pulling a cruel trick on us, antiparticles also back off in a gravitational field.

It would be surpising if antiparticles would exhibit antigravity (read: At current state of knowledge I wouldn't bet a tin copper on that)
Since gravity is dependent on moss (or energy-momentum). And both particles and their antiparticles have positive energ-momentum they'll behave the same in a gravitational field.

Antimatter hangs out in spacetime where it can find the least gravitational force, like in intergalactic space

That's a really surprising. Got anything to back that up with? Like all the crazy gamma rays we should be seeing coming from intergalactic space (which we don't)?

Our ultimate fate is one final gigantic black hole

Expansion (as observed) says: no.
Seeker2
3 / 5 (4) Dec 24, 2015
Antimatter hangs out in spacetime where it can find the least gravitational force, like in intergalactic space
That's a really surprising.
If antimatter was attracted to matter we would be toast. For example in the sourthern hemisphere under the inner Van Allen belts antimatter gets trapped by the electromagnetic field. Dont go there. And don't send satellites there either. Who knows there may really be something about the Bermuda triangle also.
matt_s
1.6 / 5 (13) Dec 24, 2015
"In Toronto Canada there is a structure called the CN tower which has lights on top that can be viewed from many stationary locations, depending on the height of viewing and lensed optical aids, you can be quite far and see these lights.

Stationary emitter and receiver. No frequency shift."

Given inflationary theory, how much shift would you expect when viewing the tower from 20 km away?

antialias_physorg
4.7 / 5 (12) Dec 24, 2015
If antimatter was attracted to matter we would be toast.

Let's make this fairly obvious: if antimatter isn't attracted to matter (remember: matter is attracted to matter) - shouldn't antimatter be attracted to antimatter? In that case we should be seeing antimatter stars (actually entire antimatter galaxies). But we don't. They would be fairly obvious, because there are jets of matter in this universe (from active galaxy cores) that are so fast they would still come in contact with them despite repulsive gravity. The gamma-ray fireworks would be spectacular. (Actually that would even happen if antimatter formed some optimally dispersed gas)

If antimatter is totally repulsive we would also observe negative lensing. But we don't

And as noted before: antimatter is not magically invisible.

Nah. That theory is even weaker than the backwards-through-time one.
Seeker2
3 / 5 (6) Dec 24, 2015
Our ultimate fate is one final gigantic black hole

Expansion (as observed) says: no.
Antimatter fuels the expansion as it's recycled back into the inflationary energy. But as the dark energy runs out, the production of particle pairs slows down and eventually stops, unless you believe in some infinite source of dark energy. Gravity then takes over. Some people say the repulsive force of antimatter actually drives the expansion.
Seeker2
3 / 5 (4) Dec 24, 2015
Let's make this fairly obvious: if antimatter isn't attracted to matter (remember: matter is attracted to matter) - shouldn't antimatter be attracted to antimatter?
That would be a violation of time asymmetry, if you want to call it that. Matter accrues, antimatter does the opposite - goes back to where it came from.
Seeker2
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 24, 2015
If antimatter is totally repulsive we would also observe negative lensing. But we don't
You'd think so. But antimatter being unsociable by nature doesn't accrue enough to do any detectable lensing. However I understand the universe is flat, which couldn't be unless antimatter wasn't doing some anti-lensing. I think plenty of it is going on because we can't detect the lensing of individual antiparticles hanging out in intergalactic space.
antialias_physorg
4.5 / 5 (15) Dec 24, 2015
Antimatter fuels the expansion as it's recycled back into the inflationary energy...

OK...before you were just making stuff up...but now this is getting ridiculous. That makes no sense whatsoever on any level.
Unless you have some real math to back that up I'll call: "BS".

antimatter does the opposite - goes back to where it came from.

Erm...you do realize that if that were the case then antimatter would never go anywhere?
Yeah...this is getting way into BS territory. I'm out.
Seeker2
3 / 5 (4) Dec 24, 2015
And as noted before: antimatter is not magically invisible.
Right. Why would you think that?
Seeker2
3 / 5 (6) Dec 24, 2015
Antimatter fuels the expansion as it's recycled back into the inflationary energy...

OK...before you were just making stuff up...but now this is getting ridiculous. That makes no sense whatsoever on any level.
Unless you have some real math to back that up I'll call: "BS".
Ok. Here's some math: Barring decay, the expected lifetime of antimatter before it is recycled is a/2 where where a is the age of the universe when it was created.
Seeker2
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 24, 2015
antimatter does the opposite - goes back to where it came from.

Erm...you do realize that if that were the case then antimatter would never go anywhere?
Yeah...this is getting way into BS territory. I'm out.
So antimatter came from nowhere? Ok. Bye-bye.
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (18) Dec 24, 2015
The big bang theory is wrong concept from the beginning to the end. It does not correspond to the observed reality.

And.... what is YOUR observed reality? At least an attempt is being made. Theory does not necessarily mean reality - it is merely an attempt to collate observations. As many scientists are aware, the Big Bang Theory is not the definitive answer as of yet.
Supporters of the big bang claim that matter is consolidated in cosmic structures due to gravity, which is not able to stop the fictional expansion of the universe according to them. They are looking on space as 3d geometric object with infinite elasticity on which can be applied to arbitrary mathematical transformations instead as real physical object with physical properties and limitations,...

What the hell does that even mean...?
my2cts
2.6 / 5 (18) Dec 24, 2015
"In Toronto Canada there is a structure called the CN tower which has lights on top that can be viewed from many stationary locations, depending on the height of viewing and lensed optical aids, you can be quite far and see these lights.

Stationary emitter and receiver. No frequency shift."

Given inflationary theory, how much shift would you expect when viewing the tower from 20 km away?


On a windstill night ;-). It would be an interesting exercise to calculate this to educate bs.
However he is beyond repair, fubar. Rest in peace bs.
my2cts
2.8 / 5 (20) Dec 24, 2015
It seems God has been having a hard time keeping up with just one man never mind adding the 65 million Mao Tse Tung added to that repertoire of human endeavor

Well, you can't rack up the kills when the best you can do is 'wipe out everyone except two' (great flood). What is god supposed to do? Create a billion more first just so he can get a high score?
As a percentage of people alive that certainly is nigh unbeatable (except with total extinction. But we've had (and have) a few world leaders toying with the idea every now and then. So he may lose top spot yet)

whether god is worse or not than chairman mao i don't know.
all i know is he's worse that the or a devil.
I worship none of the three but viko does.
antialias_physorg
4.8 / 5 (17) Dec 24, 2015
Given inflationary theory, how much shift would you expect when viewing the tower from 20 km away?

If you're at the same height and since you're not moving away from the tower theres no redshift (Earth -or anything else made up of matter for that...erm...matter- isn't inflating because the energy of electron orbitals is quantized. Bound atoms can't drift apart). However, if you are positioned above the tower (higher up in the gravity field) there will be a redshift. If you're lower there will be a blueshift.
If you want the actual value you can plug it into the formula found here:
https://en.wikipe...redshift
but a quick peek at it will show you that the red/blueshift will be very tiny (as the Earth doesn't have much of a gravitational field).

Note that if this weren't the case you could build a perpetuum mobile (free energy generator). Red/Blueshift was demonstrated over the height of a tower by Pound-Rebka experiment.
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (22) Dec 24, 2015
Oh. And Merry Christmas to y'all!
(Regardless if you celebrate it or not - it's the good thought that counts...:-))
Mimath224
5 / 5 (15) Dec 24, 2015


...Though, I think, there is a potential back door. At one point the author says
Gravitational fields have spin 2 and are described as part of space and time; they interact with all particles and fields in nature. The Higgs field, which has spin 0, only interacts directly with elementary particles and fields that also participate in the electromagnetic and weak nuclear forces.

It is still open whether there are spin 2 Higgs which would couple to gravity fields direct (I think. I'm not an expert in elementary particle physics).

Thank you for the link and will read it through.
To all, although I am not religious I do celebrate this holiday to some extent. Just an opportunity to wish everyone well. Merry Christmas and Happy New year
jyro
2.2 / 5 (10) Dec 24, 2015
Genesis 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (18) Dec 24, 2015
Genesis 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.

tsk, tsk, tsk... I see everything that I make and think it's pretty good, too.
But then, that's just my opinion...
DavidW
3.4 / 5 (15) Dec 24, 2015
Good luck with your spells and incantations.

Read: Litanies and prayers.

(Just in case DavidW doesn't get the hint. I'm pretty sure he doesn't understand that those are the same thing.)


You have nothing to request of me. If you will not admit that life is most important in life you have no foundation for sane thought. It's all BS from that point on.

You must yield to truth in conversation if you wish to have a real conversation, just as you expect others to do.

Fair is fair. Now I have put, what is technically defined as "the most important truth in life, and backed it up. Now yield to the truth or ignore/change the subject, again, like ALL the times before.

I have provided my foundation for the use of science. Please show us how life is not most important in life without using life and committing hypocrisy. Yield or your brain is going to break brother. This is too sharp for anyone to claim to be above.
DavidW
3 / 5 (18) Dec 24, 2015
god is much worse than a devil.

If you go by body-count - most definitely:l

god is much worse than a devil.

If you go by body-count - most definitely:

God: 2.5 million killed (verified numbers according to the bible). If one includes cases where numbers aren't available (floods, Sodom & Gomorrah, Egypts firstborn, ...) then the tally can be estimated at roughly ten times as much.

Devil: ten (no, not ten million. Ten people total. And in that case god had a 50/50 responsibility)
http://dwindlingi...ist.html


Not even close to the amount of people killed by the """"people"""" using science that did not hold that life is most important in life. People using science have killed far more than those with religious beliefs. In both cases, it's the """" people""""" attempting to subvert the most important truth in life and using whatever is at their disposal.
Mike_Massen
1.7 / 5 (17) Dec 25, 2015
bschott claims
In Toronto Canada there is a structure called the CN tower which has lights on top that can be viewed from many stationary locations, depending on the height of viewing and lensed optical aids, you can be quite far and see these lights.
Stationary emitter and receiver. No frequency shift
Beg pardon ?

What are you trying to articulate, we are talking scale of universe, not some local very short range experiment, in any case what is the level of accuracy & resolution ?

Please be precise in describing the "experiment", the hypothesis you want to explore and in what order of magnitude precision in respect of accuracy & resolution you need to define ?

bschott, its called experimental methodology.

If I understand your attempt, you are claiming there is no redshift between an emitter & receiver if there is no distance change between them and on a very short local distance too ?

Please clarify ?
Colbourne
2.4 / 5 (14) Dec 25, 2015
******* SPOILER *********
It is all quite simple really :-
To answer the question why there is SOMETHING rather than NOTHING leads to the answer that there is actually NOTHING
Except that Mathematics still exists 1 + 1 will still = 2
The universe is simply a set of rules under which a calculation is performed. It does not exist but the concept of the universe ( under that set of rules) does exist.
We are just one of the results of this calculation after it has been calculated to a point equating to about 14 Billion years. (N.B. Time does not really exist but is one of the rules of the calculation).
There is no difference from our point of view to living in a REAL PHYSICAL UNIVERSE and to living in the mathematical concept of a universe, We can not tell the difference.
Obviously a universe can be defined by many rules and
starting condition. Therefore there are an infinite number of universes but only a small percentage will evolve to the point that we experience.
Mike_Massen
2.1 / 5 (21) Dec 25, 2015
Vietvet offered
A detailed critique of Penrose's hyposis can be found here: http://blogs.disc...YmBUrKUk
...
Cool, a useful link & worthy of consideration, ideal for the thoughtful season, tah :-)

Wish idle -ve claimants could raise their level with pertinent links & maths

@Benni,
Complete calc re god needs to include its Huge punishment re genesis ie died from ALL diseases god is directly liable for Eg Smallpox 250M last century alone !
Slanted reference to DE's does you no credit, as you STILL fail re "radiative heat transfer" evaluation !

@bschott,
Math re just how much redshift you would expect & what instrument would be able to measure it, making idle jibes like those heard in a pub after work is facile & amateur

@viko_mx & DavidW ugh
Dark ages came after jesus time as christian zealotry spread, correlation or causation ?

Just goes to show good education always trumps propaganda
Mike_Massen
2.5 / 5 (24) Dec 25, 2015
DavidW claims
Not even close to the amount of people killed by the """"people"""" using science that did not hold that life is most important in life. People using science have killed far more than those with religious beliefs. In both cases, it's the """" people"""""
No, dead wrong & Badly so because your god made ALL diseases, all pathogens etc & REFUSED to educate to protect against them FFS :-

Look at some re 20th century:-

a. 30-50M died from influenza circa ~1918
b. 250M died from Smallpox alone

DavidW try to be genuine, get a basic education, you cannot 'use' Science as such because
Science = "The discipline of the acquisition of knowledge", when people kill others they use 'any' knowledge eg swords, gun powder, nuclear etc which demands you be honest re Provenance in respect of Intent.

You unfortunately prove all to well that your god is such VERY BAD communicator re morals, consequences etc because had it been better there'd be far less conflict !
Mike_Massen
2.1 / 5 (21) Dec 25, 2015
jyro uttered in a likely drunken xmas moment
Genesis 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good
Really ?

Satan good or didn't your god foresee that ?

Peoples lives good or didn't your god foresee effect of diseases it created to kill millions ?

How about communication methods, key issue proves overwhelmingly books about gods are fiction, mere idle claim, nothing more, because each & every god since the dawn of time relied on lazy uneducated humans to 'spread the word'.

Nothing ever god-like in *ANY* means of communications, only a book & then only initially before a tiny audience, no simulcast broadcast - nil !

Why can't an omnipotent god that REALLY cared for all its creation bring into existence a fully indestructible bible created for us at the time of our puberty, such that we would be free of family indoctrination, free of all others manipulation & exercise true & good free will ?

Because god can't stop children dying !
my2cts
2.9 / 5 (21) Dec 25, 2015
god is much worse than a devil.

If you go by body-count - most definitely:l

god is much worse than a devil.

If you go by body-count - most definitely:
God: 2.5 million killed (verified numbers according to the bible). If one includes cases where numbers aren't available (floods, Sodom & Gomorrah, Egypts firstborn, ...) then the tally can be estimated at roughly ten times as much.

Devil: ten (no, not ten million. Ten people total. And in that case god had a 50/50 responsibility)
http://dwindlingi...ist.html

Not even close to the amount of people killed by the """"people"""" using science

That is paranoid, psychopathic nonsense and also besides the point. Your god is a homicidal maniac and much worse than the devil. Yet you worship him. Also you accuse people of murder arbitrarily. I think you belong in a straightjacket, safely tucked away in a quiet institutio
viko_mx
Dec 25, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
my2cts
2.8 / 5 (20) Dec 25, 2015
@viko_mx
You worship a murderer, just like IS does.
You did not pass yet to the act of helping the "creator" to destroy "the wicked", meaning most people and scientists first, "in the name of the righteous and life".
I hope.
viko_mx
3.4 / 5 (18) Dec 25, 2015
God only destroys already dead people. He is life giver and destroy all which prevents the life and happiness of created beings in the universe.
my2cts
3.1 / 5 (23) Dec 25, 2015
God only destroys already dead people.

You also belong in a straightjacket.
He is life giver and destroy all which prevents the life and happiness of created beings in the universe.

So that is why there so much suffering going on, it is your destroyer at work. Are you already becoming happier or should we all die first ?
my2cts
2.9 / 5 (21) Dec 25, 2015
vivo, how much death and destruction does it take to make you happy ?
viko_mx
Dec 25, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
viko_mx
3.9 / 5 (15) Dec 25, 2015
Your statement is not true because in your scenario I would not bother to illuminate the truth.
viko_mx
3.8 / 5 (16) Dec 25, 2015
Some of connoisseurs of GR will you indicate where the mathematical apparatus of this theory does not work with 3D geometric space of the universe but with the vacuum of space, which is a real physical object that fills this 3D geometric space? Because if GR not operate with real physical objects, this mean that this theory is wrong, and as a consequence there is no reason to discuss the problems which big bang theory based on it creates.
my2cts
2.8 / 5 (20) Dec 25, 2015
I repeat, vivo_mx. Are you happy this christmas or would like to see even more misery?
Mike_Massen
2.4 / 5 (23) Dec 25, 2015
viko_mx claims
God is holy
Prove it, he kills arbitrarily ?
viko_mx claims
This mean that He is the only one Who can guarantee the eternal absolute justice in the universe
Prove it ?
viko_mx claims
He is forgiving and longer patient, but can not do compromise with the truth and sin, because life is the most important in the universe
Prove it, universe mostly chaos ?
viko_mx claims
The truth and love are the foundation of life
Then WHY is god silent ?
viko_mx claims
So the sin is incompatible with life in the long term and always leads to corruption and decay
What sin, Eve was innocent ?
viko_mx claims
Sin is non love dictated by pride and vanity which obscures reason and enslave man
Prove it - when your god is sinful ?
viko_mx claims
The biggest enemies of freedom and happiness in society are people with slave mentality
Indeed, you and all religious of your cult are mere robot slaves.

viko_mx how does your god communicate ?
my2cts
2.8 / 5 (20) Dec 25, 2015
Emotional discomfort is feelings by anyone who resists the truth because of his meaningless pride. Humility rises the man but the pride fails it.

Your hypocritical words cannot hide the fact that you worship death and destruction.
Out of fear.
You are like Bram Stoker's character Renfield.
https://en.wikipe...Renfield
antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (21) Dec 25, 2015
Not even close to the amount of people killed by the """"people"""" using science

Let me get this straight: you're saying that worshipping a mass murderer is OK if that mass murderer has killed less people than at least one other mass murderer. Is that really what you are arguing here? Really?

You're a pretty sick individual.
Protoplasmix
4.2 / 5 (15) Dec 25, 2015
Your statement is not true because in your scenario I would not bother to illuminate the truth.
Holy crap dude, in your scenario (read delusion) you apparently have a god who told you, "go unto yonder science website and make me look the fool with your much blathering."
Benni
3.6 / 5 (20) Dec 25, 2015
Not even close to the amount of people killed by the "people" using science


Let me get this straight: you're saying that worshipping a mass murderer is OK if that mass murderer has killed less people than at least one other mass murderer. Is that really what you are arguing here? Really?

You're a pretty sick individual.


Hey, Anti_Physics.....until I brought it up, the only "kill counts" you & the rest of the AGW & DM Brigade wanted to talk about were the "God kill counts".

Your 25 million "God Kill counts" by your own logic do not count in the overall total because you acknowledge the non-existence of "God", therefore it makes no sense for you to compare the "God kill counts" to those of the"Genghis Kahn kill counts" or the "Mao Tse Tung kill counts", someone who does not exist cannot kill anything. I know people like you with your mathless biology degrees find math a challenging endeavor, but is this simple enough math for you?
DavidW
3.2 / 5 (18) Dec 25, 2015
Not even close to the amount of people killed by the """"people"""" using science

Let me get this straight: you're saying that worshipping a mass murderer is OK if that mass murderer has killed less people than at least one other mass murderer. Is that really what you are arguing here? Really?

You're a pretty sick individual.


I can't be sick. I could have an illness though. lies

Come on and read what I wrote. Come clean. Stop changing the subject.
You and I both know I said it is the people that ignore truth ad life that cause these needless killoing of life.

I agree that all needless harm should be stopped. I don't agree with burning people at the stake in the name of god any more than I agree with killing people with bad vaccinations, gas chamber, and nuclear bombs. But you brought up that religion is the cause of soooo many deaths, when in fact it wasn't the religion that was at fault, it was the lack of accepting the truth we share in common.
DavidW
3.3 / 5 (16) Dec 25, 2015
You think if you all can just get feeling real upset to the point of complete hysteria that as a group you can collectively ignore the straight forward context of that which I wrote?

You can try., but no matter hard you do, life will be most important in life as true, and your position will not back up anything that disagrees with that.

The lot of you will seem to do anything to justify using science and not agreeing to that "life is most important in life", as true.

It matters not how you kill needlessly, only that you try not and uphold the importance of life.

People used science to make bullets. People pulled the trigger. People that oppose, in any way, shape or form, that "Life is Most Important in Life" is true, hold responsibility for all the needless deaths whether by religion or science or whatever they practice.
Mike_Massen
2 / 5 (20) Dec 25, 2015
Benni doesnt get it
Hey, Anti_Physics.....until I brought it up, the only "kill counts" you & the rest of the AGW & DM Brigade wanted to talk about were the "God kill counts"
You totally missed the point !

Its claimed to be a loving and forgiving god BUT, it kills !

Don't you get it AND it has nothing to do with Dark Matter - are you insane ?
Mike_Massen
2.2 / 5 (20) Dec 25, 2015
DavidW claims
People used science to make bullets. People pulled the trigger. People that oppose, in any way, shape or form, that "Life is Most Important in Life" is true, hold responsibility for all the needless deaths whether by religion or science or whatever they practice
You suffering from emotional hypnosis and cannot discriminate knowledge from intent !

Your god (in samuel) kills only by association, ie looking in a box !

How does your god communicate DavidW - any better than only idle claims of humans ?

Nothing god-like at all !
TechnoCreed
4.5 / 5 (15) Dec 25, 2015
Vietvet
4.3 / 5 (18) Dec 25, 2015
DavidW has been banned from at least one other forum, lied about it then threatened me for exposing him.

http://phys.org/n...ion.html

DavidW
3 / 5 (18) Dec 25, 2015
You suffering from emotional hypnosis and cannot discriminate knowledge from intent !

How does your god communicate DavidW


There is only a True and Living God. There can be no other. The True and Living God communicates through the Word. The Word is the Truth witnessed by Life. The most important thing the True and Living God has said is: 'Life is Most Important in Life'.

Your knowledge of your own intent is concerning, as you are most important.

You seem to want others to not accept that life is most important in life is true. Is this the case?

Let's stand at the first solid place and then take a closer look at what is going on around us.

Do you agree that life is most important in life is the most important truth in life?
If so, why do you fight against it. If not, there is nothing more important for you to reconsider.
rodkeh
3 / 5 (10) Dec 25, 2015
According to the best current physics models, the universe should have collapsed shortly after inflation—the period that lasted for a fraction of a second immediately after the Big Bang.


So typical, Modern Physics is a joke! It doesn't matter how much data and evidence contradicts the theory, they refuse to let go and try something else. The are just like monkey in a "monkey trap". They just keep on perpetuating the lies that pass for theory these days.
Protoplasmix
4.3 / 5 (15) Dec 25, 2015
Do you agree that life is most important in life is the most important truth in life?
No. The *quality* of life is most important to the living. You don't even know how to state the obvious. Please go away, this is a science site.
Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (17) Dec 25, 2015
'Life is Most Important in Life'.

How bout - 'Life is most important TO (other) Life'...?

Otherwise, we'd have nothing to eat...

Seeker2
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 26, 2015
they refuse to let go and try something else.
Yep. I've tried introducing Feynman's antimatter ideas but I get mostly moaning and groaning and gnashing of the teeth.
viko_mx
3.6 / 5 (14) Dec 26, 2015
@my2cts

"So that is why there so much suffering going on, it is your destroyer at work. Are you already becoming happier or should we all die first ?"

God gave to us free will, and ultimately everyone gets what he wanted. It is interesting that sinners murmur against sin only when personally feel the consequences of it. They want to live in peace and comfort, but confess and live according to the principles of chaos. They denied God because they do not want to be responsible because more love their passions than God's truth and the life. For the suffering of the people responsible is proud and vain father of the lie lucifer in who there is no truth and his subordinates. And God has left in his hands those who reject Him. What else can do after this is their will?
What would you do to solve this problem?
viko_mx
3.8 / 5 (16) Dec 26, 2015
@antialias_physorg

Hypocrite. How many hundred million people have died in the human history because of pointless wars for the interests of proud and vain tyrants sold their soul to lucifer? And because of mad philosophies and ideologies with impaired psyche who do not know or deny the principles of life because of their ego and slave sado masochism? How many millions of people died because of man hatred ideologies of communism and its cousin fascism, embraced by slaves with criminal psyche?
What makes a good gardener for the garden for which provides care to obtain hearty and healthy crop? Does it remains weeds and diseases intact to thrive or destroy them to give chance useful plants to develop and to provide useful fruit?
What makes oncologist with the tumor in the patient? Does it eliminates it from the patient's body to give chance of healthy cells to live or remains it to develop and destroy the body?
viko_mx
3.8 / 5 (16) Dec 26, 2015
So does the Creator will do with the sin and the wicked after long before warned them for this, to give them chance and time for change for the better. Luci constantly trying to derail these efforts and trying to drag more people into lake of fire with him because of his envy to the people and his ego. The Creator destroys only the destroyers of life .
Your moral standards are quite strange.
Mimath224
4.7 / 5 (13) Dec 26, 2015
Excuse me chaps, how did this thread get to 'slaves, ego,sado masochism, millions of dead, lucifer, a true living god [whatever that means...'cos I ain't never heard of dead one, Ha!]
Seems to be turning very morbid indeed.
viko_mx
3.6 / 5 (17) Dec 26, 2015
"No. The *quality* of life is most important to the living. You don't even know how to state the obvious. Please go away, this is a science site."

Adam and Eva had the highest standard of living in the human history before they break the will of God that gave to them life by the recommendation of the snake, and wish to become like gods by draw information from the false source - from the father of lies. From that moment their standard of living has fallen sharply.
Mike_Massen
2 / 5 (20) Dec 26, 2015
DavidW claims
There is only a True and Living God. There can be no other
Prove it ?

DavidW claims
The True and Living God communicates through the Word
Beg pardon ?

Whilst moses was hawking his "special relationship" as mere claim, peoples of All other parts of the WORLD didn't khear anything about his claims until *only* humans wrote things down & then *only* sporadically distributed bad copies as they pleased

Why can't an omnipotent god communicate equally to all ?

Why MUST it only communicate according to dictates of humans who obtain:-
Status, Authority & Power over others ?

Is this an example DavidW of the best attributes of your god, failure to communicate ?

And DavidW, is Samuel a good example of the violence of your god as it killed 50,000 just because they were associated with a couple of people who looked in a box ?

How is this an example of a 'loving' god ?

Why DavidW can't this god (or any god) communicate except through claims of men ?
Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (16) Dec 26, 2015
If I remember correctly, the name Lucifer means "Bringer of Light". Light allows you to see in the Dark, right? I mean, it allows you to see the truth of an observation that was hidden before.
Ya gotta kinda feel sorry for a guy that got named Lucifer early on in human history. Poor sap just showed some people a previously obscure truth and WHAM - bad guy for eternity...
Moral of the story - Some people (nay, MOST people) would rather stay huddled in the dark, fearing what they can't see around them in the night.
Which reminds me - why are "Illuminati" the bad guys, too?
If you're gonna be "enlightened", you gotta take home the whole enchilada...
And the lengths some people will go to, to refuse eating some parts of it they think they might not like, simply astounds me...
Oh - that was metaphor, btw...:-)
Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (17) Dec 26, 2015
Now, back to our regularly scheduled topic -
Why didn't the Universe collapse?
Facts and observations ONLY, please.
Mike_Massen
2.3 / 5 (22) Dec 26, 2015
Mimath224 observed
Excuse me chaps, how did this thread get to 'slaves, ego,sado masochism, millions of dead, lucifer, a true living god [whatever that means...'cos I ain't never heard of dead one, Ha!]Seems to be turning very morbid indeed
Well its because we have a couple of idle proselytizers imply a god & 'life' is the most important over all Science & also make the claim people kill more than their god did etc.

Fact is, those (emotionally) attached to the notion of *any* god have Great trouble with the most fundamental facets of critical analysis & just cannot see the essential issues either re Provenance or Logic, one wonders WHY ?

I asked one particular zealot some years ago, by what method does their god communicate its knowledge of its creation's origins to its subjects - the answer, was simply "perfect" - which proves this person had NIL idea of language, analysis & was (still) overwhelmed with being subject to immense emotional hypnosis !

cont
greenonions
4.1 / 5 (14) Dec 26, 2015
Viko
Adam and Eva had the highest standard of living in the human history before they break the will of God that gave to them life


There is a clear and basic flaw to the logic of your story. God - the all powerful creator of the universe - created two beings to be his friends. They did something bad - so god could no longer talk to them. As a result of doing bad - these beings were now banished to eternity in hell. Realizing the MISTAKE of his creation - god could of course have stopped the process right there - and thus saved billions of souls from eternal torment. Why did he not do that?

Now - to religionists on the board. Your story is flawed. Your story is a childish bunch of nonsense. If you disagree - please explain the above paradox. There are others also.

Now - this is a board that addresses (in a fairly lay persons manner) developments we are making in science and technology. Why are you here? Hello Hello - is anybody there?
cgsperling
3.3 / 5 (19) Dec 26, 2015
If I was a supreme being, I would create another supreme being if I wanted a companion. This idea of a supreme being creating and mucking around with messy biological organisms is silly.
my2cts
2.9 / 5 (19) Dec 26, 2015
We should be discussion physics, not some brain damaged delusion.
It is only because of the lack of moderation here that religious psychos continue to sabotage this site.
Put them on report and then on ignore.
DavidW
3.4 / 5 (15) Dec 26, 2015
If I was a supreme being, I would create another supreme being if I wanted a companion.


Or...the others exist only because the supreme one does. No more so than a baby having fault for being born. This makes perfect sense, as the truth must be innocent is in a: true god. Given that biological organisms are defined in truth as life, "most important", and given that status by what must be a true and living god, if that god were to exist, we see that the word truth actually matters and is evidence of something more, just like the warping of space from gravity. We don't define it, we witness it. The flaw in your logic is that you wish to place your thoughts above the truth by defining something without starting and staying with the truth. A common, but critical mistake, to ignore that which is most important while attempting to answer any question. The real answer is always the Truth. Can't blame a creator for us being here until you prove you are more important than life.
DavidW
3.4 / 5 (15) Dec 26, 2015
Until any of you can prove that that which I am saying is MOST IMPORTANT, isn't, while I am providing evidence that it is, MOST IMPORTANT, and stating that desire to speak of physics is baseless without concession to the first truth, then you don't have a valid position.

Yes, each and every one of you is causing incredible harm in this world for behaving this way in the name of science without a cause. At least I have a reason to talk about science that I can proven and agreed with by many of the those that have taught us much.

Yes 2cent, anti, mike, and the rest. You must yield to the truth in conversation or your position/point is baseless. You opened your mouth, told lies, now accept the responsibility that you insinuated you would if you knew more by participating in these forums. Lives have died, that didn't need to, because of your behavior.

DavidW
3.6 / 5 (14) Dec 26, 2015
Do you agree that life is most important in life is the most important truth in life?
No. The *quality* of life is most important to the living.


Thank you for answering. Now, you used life to answer the question. So your answer that' 'The *quality* of life is most important to the living.', using life, doesn't in ANY WAY prove that what I have said is not true AND does not validate your answer either, because you used life.

That is called hypocrisy. It's a type of lie.
Please do better.
DavidW
3.6 / 5 (14) Dec 26, 2015
'Life is Most Important in Life'.

How bout - 'Life is most important TO (other) Life'...?

Otherwise, we'd have nothing to eat...



Not bad, but you used life first. Something wrong with your math? So, you really didn't acknowledge the first point, the self-evident, most important one of them all, except in complete hypocrisy, of course.

Take care of your plants, don't GMO them, etc. Don't eat your dog, your horse, your cow or your pig unless you NEED to do it, or a failure to acknowledge their witnessed intelligence ignores that they have much more to provide by their intelligence alone alive, then by their flesh dead. But you have to care about the truth first: life.
Mike_Massen
1.7 / 5 (18) Dec 26, 2015
DavidW claims
Yes 2cent, anti, mike, and the rest. You must yield to the truth in conversation or your position/point is baseless. You opened your mouth, told lies, now accept the responsibility that you insinuated you would if you knew more by participating in these forums
No !

I have told no lies, I have asked you questions which you have FAILED to answer ?

Tell us DavidW, how does your claimed god communicate equally to all so as not to play favourites knowing full well your claimed "prophet" achieves:- Status, Authority & Power ?

Show us DavidW, how your god is "loving" when it kills 50,000 (Samuel) for looking in a box ?

DavidW, why are you NOT honest, why are you NOT able to deal with the truth ?

ALL religions are mere claim, ALL claimed gods are Silent !

Don't you get DavidW, your are suffering emotional hypnosis, deal with it & repent... !
DavidW
3.6 / 5 (14) Dec 26, 2015
Genesis 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.

tsk, tsk, tsk... I see everything that I make and think it's pretty good, too.
But then, that's just my opinion...


Your have an opinion because you have life.

However, your opinion does not change what is really is truthfully most important, just that you use your status as most important to unnecessarily take rather then give. Again, because you don't accept that which really is most important in your opinion.
TechnoCreed
4.1 / 5 (14) Dec 26, 2015
@DavidW

Will you please get the fuck out of here with your stupid sophism.

@Mike_H

Thanks for keeping Physorg stupid by inviting this ass hole back in the conversation.
DavidW
3.3 / 5 (14) Dec 26, 2015
"The biggest of all problems because, it must be clear for free will to be true we must have complete education, at least so as to make decisions in respect of that free will."

No, you lied right there. The biggest problem of all is not accepting that which is most important.

So, your math doesn't add up. All there rest of the bait and switch means nothing.

You either need to state that life IS most important in life, as agreed as true, then work from there, or your position is hypocrisy at this point in the conversation, due to the amount of comments and other threads.

Now do that, and we can look at any of these other things under the proper light of truth. You used the word "true", but fail to back up the word "true" with anything whatsoever, other than your opinion.

You want evidence. You have it. Yourself. You didn't need me for that. You are alive. That is true. Both are real real and exist.

Now either accept the infinite sigma and move forward.
DavidW
3.6 / 5 (14) Dec 26, 2015
@DavidW

Will you please get the fuck out of here with your stupid sophism.

@Mike_H

Thanks for keeping Physorg stupid by inviting this ass hole back in the conversation.


What is the matter. Your feelings hurt that I responded to you so well that all you could type was tears? Yeah, you messed up. We all have. How about an intelligent and proper response.

Please explain to us how you have a valid point to make now that I responded to you. Does it hurt. Awww, not as much hurt as you inflict on others. Not even close.

Benni
3.7 / 5 (18) Dec 26, 2015
@Mike_H

Thanks for keeping Physorg stupid by inviting this ass hole back in the conversation.


T......in case you haven't noticed, Stumpy has yet to check in. Or are you substituting?
greenonions
4.2 / 5 (15) Dec 26, 2015
my2cts
Put them on report and then on ignore.
I am conflicted on this one. When you see total jibberish pushed by DavidW above - yes - any debate is futile. Where I live - the religious debate is normalized - and presented as rational. As a result - we are trapped in a cultural black hole. I think there may be some point to calling out the dogbert/viko's of the world - who seem to have some level of shared reality - to point out how their narrative is crazy, and has no part on a science/rationalist site. They seem unwilling to truly respond to reasoned discussion - but at least we can point out that sky fairies, and netherlands - are not normal topics for rational discussion.
viko_mx
3.7 / 5 (16) Dec 26, 2015
@greenonions
You can no make right conclusions without without true information because you do not know the Gods words.
We can not find in the Bible text that say to as that God has promised eternal punishment for wicked in hell, because such punishment will not conform in strength with the sins of any man in his short life time, and will not correspond to God's hollyness. God has told us that He will destroy the destroyers of life once and for all in the lake of fire, but not that He will torture them forever which in fact is one of the non biblical ideas of the catholic church. In fact, Adam and Eve will be judged like all other people lived or living on Earth at the time of God's judgment day.
viko_mx
3.8 / 5 (16) Dec 26, 2015
So back to the article...
I do not get from the supporters of theory for the cosmic evolution named big bang, the answer to the question where in the GR on which this theory is based, we can see that it consider cosmic vacuum as real physical object with physical properties and limitations, instead to work with 3D geometric space without physical properties and limitations? For example, I would not believe in theory which is unknown to me or which does not correspond to the physical reality.
greenonions
4.1 / 5 (13) Dec 26, 2015
viko
Adam and Eve will be judged like all other people lived or living on Earth at the time of God's judgment day.


Why will they be judged? Did god not create them? Why would a supreme being create helpmates - and then judge them for being exactly the way they were created?

We can not find in the Bible


I do not look in the bible. I do not care what the bible says - any more than I care what the Koran/Talmud/Bagvad Gita etc. says. What makes you so sure that the bible is different than dozens of other holy texts? Do not tell me what the bible says is true - that is circular - given that I do not elevate the bible to any status - other than a book of fables. Give us a reasoned argument as to why we should respect the bible, over another text such as the Koran - without referencing the bible (you know that thorny old issue of circular reasoning). We need evidence viko, evidence....

Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (17) Dec 26, 2015
Not bad, but you used life first. Something wrong with your math? So, you really didn't acknowledge the first point, the self-evident, most important one of them all, except in complete hypocrisy, of course.

No, YOU used it first...
I was just showing you how it might be more properly stated.
We (biological life) are secondary adjunct to the mechanisms of the Universe. Which, btw, has no other "purpose" other than to BE.
And don't anthropomorphise that to mean it has an individual awareness of us. Kinda like those face mites another article discussed.
Oh, you didn't know you had them?

Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (16) Dec 26, 2015
@DavidW

Will you please get the fuck out of here with your stupid sophism.

@Mike_H

Please explain to us how you have a valid point to make now that I responded to you. Does it hurt. Awww, not as much hurt as you inflict on others. Not even close.


You haven't shown/proved your point to be valid, either. Just finger pointing accusations as to how the rest of us are doing it all wrong. I've dealt with your type before.
Careful, your ego flaws show through when you pronounce your word salad conglomerations as the Word to End All Words. Be a LITTLE humble about it, at least.
Don't you get it? There IS no end to it... and no real beginning, either.(Kinda what the article is about - in a roundabout sort of way...)
It's just your engrained (read - brain-washed) rationalization process shining through...
viko_mx
3.4 / 5 (18) Dec 26, 2015
@greenonions
The Creator do not need bio robots therefore create people with free will. Only the free man is capable of love. Love and truth are the foundation of life.

God wanted to reveal His knowledge to them gradually as meanwhile prepare them to grow up spiritually to be able to use this knowledge responsibly. But they chose the easy way and wrong source of information because they had free will, which is always within the borders of laws that supports the order and life in the system. Adam and Eva broke his will and felt naked and exposed. They lose their holiness and eternal life. Eve was seduced by the serpent by the promise that they would become as gods, knowing good and evil. Many people after them have fallen into this trap.
Benni
3.9 / 5 (21) Dec 26, 2015
You haven't shown/proved your point to be valid, either. Just finger pointing accusations as to how the rest of us are doing it all wrong. I've dealt with your type before.
..........sounds as if you are referring to Dark Matter Enthusiasts, lots of unseen faith in stuff you can't prove exists, just the writings of GodFather Zwicky.

my2cts
2.5 / 5 (17) Dec 26, 2015
@DavidW

Will you please get the fuck out of here with your stupid sophism.

@Mike_H

Thanks for keeping Physorg stupid by inviting this ass hole back in the conversation.


What is the matter. Your feelings hurt that I responded to you so well that all you could type was tears? Yeah, you messed up. We all have. How about an intelligent and proper response.

Please explain to us how you have a valid point to make now that I responded to you. Does it hurt. Awww, not as much hurt as you inflict on others. Not even close.


I fully agree with technocreed here.
my2cts
2.6 / 5 (18) Dec 26, 2015
my2cts
Put them on report and then on ignore.
I am conflicted on this one. When you see total jibberish pushed by DavidW above - yes - any debate is futile. Where I live - the religious debate is normalized - and presented as rational. As a result - we are trapped in a cultural black hole. I think there may be some point to calling out the dogbert/viko's of the world - who seem to have some level of shared reality - to point out how their narrative is crazy, and has no part on a science/rationalist site. They seem unwilling to truly respond to reasoned discussion - but at least we can point out that sky fairies, and netherlands - are not normal topics for rational discussion.

I think these people should be banned. They break all the rules. The only good side is that they demonstrate over and over again the evil side of religion.
Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (16) Dec 26, 2015
You haven't shown/proved your point to be valid, either. Just finger pointing accusations as to how the rest of us are doing it all wrong. I've dealt with your type before.
..........sounds as if you are referring to Dark Matter Enthusiasts, lots of unseen faith in stuff you can't prove exists, just the writings of GodFather Zwicky.

I think they have fairly conclusively proved it exists. What they haven't proved is in what form it exists...
BIG difference, Benni...
BTW - How was Christmas on the ol' "Estate"? Lot's of snow on that thar ski trail?
Hope ya had a good one..
greenonions
4.3 / 5 (15) Dec 26, 2015
viko
But they chose the easy way and wrong source of information because they had free will
So? They were acting as god must have known they would react. Or is god not omniscient? Even if god is not omniscient, and did not know that Adam and Eve would choose the easy way - god had to have known that this was a possibility. Thus - god created a race of beings - knowing that they may choose the easy way - and would thus be banished from communing with god. This story makes no sense - it is jibberish. The Christianity that most people in America follow - asserts that Adam and Eve, and all who do not accept Jesus - will go to hell - to suffer for eternity. This is all jibberish...
greenonions
4.1 / 5 (14) Dec 26, 2015
viko - you conveniently side stepped the question regarding why any one should value the Bible - over any other religious text.

Mike_Massen
2.3 / 5 (22) Dec 26, 2015
DavidW claimed
when I stated "The biggest of all problems because, it must be clear for free will to be true we must have complete education, at least so as to make decisions in respect of that free will."
No, you lied right there. The biggest problem of all is not accepting that which is most important
Wrong. Your irrational response shows you up, please explain then how its possible to have true free will WITHOUT any education, at least, the basics ?

DavidW Fails in comprehension claiming
So, your math doesn't add up. All there rest of the bait and switch means nothing
There is no maths in that statement, its a self-evident truism that was missed by those that wrote a badly communicated book for an 3000 yrs ago.

DavidW claims
You either need to state that life IS most important in life, as agreed as true, then work from there, or your position is hypocrisy at this point in the conversation...
What are you on ?

Tell us HOW your god communicates ?
Mike_Massen
2.3 / 5 (22) Dec 26, 2015
Benni claims
.........sounds as if you are referring to Dark Matter (DM) Enthusiasts, lots of unseen faith in stuff you can't prove exists, just the writings of GodFather Zwicky
Sure like you can't prove a silent badly communicating god exists ie That personally oriented god doesn't show up as a missing term in any direct equation.

Huge problem you face Benni, which gets worse the more time moves on, is you are not able to offer a reason *any* reason why the galaxies move the way they do without 'some' mass-like effect. Until that time isnt it logical to provide an algebraic substitute. You don't throw the whole equation out (yet) until the missing term has been investigated/poked/assessed.

Either its so called DM or some other effect equivalent, can't you tell that DM is merely a simple 'x' term in algebra (not enthusiasm) ie Place holder for effect in gravitation/motion !

Surely you did algebra in your Electrical Engineering course WITH Physics where x = ?
Benni
3.5 / 5 (21) Dec 26, 2015
You haven't shown/proved your point to be valid, either. Just finger pointing accusations as to how the rest of us are doing it all wrong. I've dealt with your type before.


..........sounds as if you are referring to Dark Matter Enthusiasts, lots of unseen faith in stuff you can't prove exists, just the writings of GodFather Zwicky.


I think they have fairly conclusively proved it exists. What they haven't proved is in what form it exists.

....hey, all you need to do is study the wrtings of your GodFather, Zwicky. Have you even bothered with that yet? Doesn't appear that way from the kinds of responses, and lack of them, that show up here from you DM Enthusiasts. I think I recall seeing only a couple Differential Equations in his bible, so even for you & Anti_Physics it should be a fairly easy read if you can follow high school algebra.

Why are you so hard on viko? After all, you believe in the same concepts of DM faith that he does.


Mike_Massen
2.2 / 5 (20) Dec 26, 2015
TechnoCreed offered
@Mike_H
Thanks for keeping Physorg stupid by inviting this ass hole back in the conversation
You prob mean me, plenty of space to copy/paste in full, can't see anyone with 'H' etc

Not inviting, I'm showing him up, you'll notice his invective has got quite nasty, this is a great development, he is a real life nutter - can't answer questions, blurts irrationalities, seems to be getting apoplexy, give it another round & he'll have a stroke as his god will get tired of his prostelysing Failures :-)

Look, make it easy on yourself, put him and me on ignore, then you wouldn't need to comment and then others wouldnt add even more noise adding to your comment on my comments, if you get my drift ;-)

Seasons greetings to all btw, something even more clear that DavidW - just can't understand its interpreted as holiday and already DavidW's position is already seen society as a whole as not that serious, so headway is being made

Physics DavidW please
Mike_Massen
2.1 / 5 (21) Dec 26, 2015
Benni, oh gawd adding his missing Calculus
I think I recall seeing only a couple Differential Equations in his bible, so even for you & Anti_Physics it should be a fairly easy read if you can follow high school algebra
The missing DE's from Benni's blurts, ah at it again !

Why Benni, can't understand DM is same as unknown in algebra, please read my post & offer actual Physics response, ie One based in maths you know - equations for gravitation where one of the 'm' terms has an 'm+x' which makes the equation fit, then apply angular momentum to that 'x' and work it back through, why can't you do that ?

Surely a claimed Electrical Engineer who became a Nuclear Engineer can do straightforward algebra commensurate with Physics/Math prerequisites in 1st/2nd year engineering, which for Nuclear *has to* include relativity & to PASS those exams too !

DM isnt faith at all, it balances the equation as 'x' term before we know for sure what it is ?

Your take on it please ?
Benni
3.7 / 5 (19) Dec 26, 2015
Huge problem you face Benni, which gets worse the more time moves on, is you are not able to offer a reason *any* reason why the galaxies move the way they do without 'some' mass-like effect.


Super cluster Galaxies are in collision throughout the entire universe as far out as the telescope can observe. There is no pattern to these collisions, they are random with regard to direction in complete accord with the Laws of Thermodynamics, namely Entropy.
Mike_Massen
2.3 / 5 (22) Dec 26, 2015
Benni asked
Why are you so hard on viko?
Benni I answer your questions, WHY can't you answer mine please ?

Many are & should be hard on viko_mx & DavidW as both are irrationally attached to a claim in a very old book with nil evidence

Re, DM, you SHOULD know Benni, its a place holder in equations of motion which include a force term in Gravitation ie F=G0m1m2/d^2 but WHY can't you see that ?

BTW: It should be clear that viko_mx & DavidW have different interpretations both of which are not only untestable but both based on interpretations influenced by emotional hypnosis & attachment to a belief system where there's NIL local evidence unlike G equation

Benni, clearly obvious Gravitation works at local solar system scale otherwise we wouldnt observe (& relation to relativity) & navigate Pioneer/Voyager accurately past outer planets

No need for local DM as 'x' term here, doesn't mean its the case galaxy wide, ie see 'limits' in Calculus.

Your take please ?
Mike_Massen
2.1 / 5 (21) Dec 26, 2015
Benni says
Super cluster Galaxies are in collision throughout the entire universe as far out as the telescope can observe. There is no pattern to these collisions, they are random with regard to direction...
Sure fine but at the comparatively local scales - overall at the larger scale there is dimming & red-shift which has a pattern "the telescope can observe" which is consistent with expansion - again in association with my earlier posts specifically to you as a Physicist that can understand maths its a separate 'x' term in equations of motion ie Acceleration in accordance with math is correctly managed as an unknown, its even high school algebra with benefit of higher order equations of motion at astronomical scales.

Comparatively local collisions between galaxies can easily be initiated by sufficient local gravitational attraction within *that* group - do dah math...

If not DM/DE then what is your take on how to manage both 'x' unknowns & astronomically ?
Mike_Massen
2.3 / 5 (22) Dec 26, 2015
@DavidW
Who STILL hasnt answered any of my questions and very oddly his behaviour shows even more irrationality ie He votes Benni a 5 despite fact that Benni thinks his god is the same as dark matter ie Fiction - LOL !

DavidW, tell us please WHY is your god and ALL gods such bad communicators ?

Can't you see DavidW, they ALL rely on lazy prosletysing humans who suit themselves according to their comfort, their status & control over others NOT anything ever beyond mere claim, so when moses, jesus, mohammed, joseph smith etc were wandering around with a book, their claimed god didn't immediately create copies for all other cultures to 'spread the word' caring & equally ie Eskimos, British, Australian Aboriginees, South American aztecs, North American indians some wiped out by settlers, Vikings, Asians in China, Japan, Cambodia, Malaysia, Polynesians etc etc ?

Why DavidW is your god & ALL other claimed gods so very bad communicators/distributors ?

Answers please ?
Benni
3.5 / 5 (21) Dec 26, 2015
It should be clear that viko_mx & DavidW have different interpretations both of which are not only untestable but both based on interpretations


.......and so do you & Zwicky when it comes to your DM faith. The Zwicky bible states that DM is found in an envelope only around Spiral Galaxies. Your favorite pop-sci interpretations of the Zwicky bible state DM makes up 80% of the mass of the universe. Problem is, Spiral Galaxies make up only a 1/3 of the mass of the universe, so the pop-sci crowd & Zwicky also have more than an untestable problem here, they have a math problem.

Squeezing 80% of the mass of the universe into configurations known to compose only 33% of the mass of the universe is an impossibility, but that's what faith is about isn't it? Doing the impossible within finite dimensions & magnitudes of what we observe.

gkam
1.7 / 5 (17) Dec 26, 2015
Who said it didn't collapse? Things used to be bigger in the past. I remember going back to the house I grew up in and seeing how small it had become in the intervening years. And the distance I can run has shrunk, too. That proves it.
viko_mx
3.6 / 5 (17) Dec 27, 2015
@greenonions

If Adam and Eve was helmates, all people now are at least two times helmetes because of several thousand years genetic entropy. But Adam and Eve had perfect genes without accumulated over time genetic mistakes in contrast with modern men.

They knew no sin and deception and so were easily deceived by the serpent, despite the warnings of God. They have rejected his authority curiosity that characterizes inquisitive person.
What has misled them is that they have not been learned the lesson that real information can only derive from the Creator. He who created them and who is most concerned about their well-being and development.
God does the people who seek the truth and have a good heart to grow spiritually and prepares them for the kingdom of God. They will be clothed with the imperishable eternal life in joy and harmony.
jsdarkdestruction
4.3 / 5 (12) Dec 27, 2015
Viko,, your God sent an angel to mass murder babies for something they had nothing to do with. The childrens parents also had very little to no control over the reasoning either.

Let's see, at most a handful of people won't let the slaves and Moses go free. Whats an omnipotent all loving savior to do? Vikos God -
" i could make pharaoh do it by my will. I could do any number of things like unrelenting rain/wind/snow/etc to make escape possible. I could make my people all invisible to the Egyptians."
"Wait..Eureka! I know what to do! I'll torture the shit out of a bunch of innocents and then send an angel to mass murder innocent little babies who did nothing wrong!"
Babies viko....your all merciful and all powerful god sent an angel to slaughter babies and torture people in general when his magic offers countless ways to do it directly. What kind of God is that? If your God is real and like you and your bible say said I'd spend eternity fighting his evil gladly
Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (17) Dec 27, 2015
@greenonions

If Adam and Eve was helmates, all people now are at least two times helmetes because of several thousand years genetic entropy.

What the hell is a helmate?
But Adam and Eve had perfect genes without accumulated over time genetic mistakes in contrast with modern men.

Guess that was part of getting thrown out of the garden...
They knew no sin and deception and so were easily deceived by the serpent, despite the warnings of God. They have rejected his authority curiosity that characterizes inquisitive person.

Sounds like the god didn't prepare them very well,soooo - why blame them for his lack of foresightedness?
viko_mx
3.5 / 5 (17) Dec 27, 2015
@greenonions
It is interesting. I ask scientific questions to which supporters of evolutionary theory are not able to respond. They ask me questions about the christian faith, to which I can answer without difficulty.

One of the first internal evidence that the Bible is truly God's Word is its unity. Although in reality it consists of 66 books, written on three continents, in three different languages, over 1500 years by more than 40 authors (who are most different backgrounds and lifestyles), the Bible remains one coherent whole from beginning to end and there is no controversy. This unity is unique, distinguished it from all other books and is evidence of the divine origin of the words which God moved men in such a way as to enroll them.

viko_mx
3.6 / 5 (17) Dec 27, 2015
Another evidence indicates that the Bible is truly God's Word are detailed prophecies that its pages contained. The Bible contains hundreds of detailed prophecies relating to the future of individual nations including Israel, the future of specific cities, the future of humanity in general and on the coming of the Messiah - the Savior of not only Israel, but all who would believe in Him. Unlike the prophecy in other religious books or, biblical prophecies are extremely detailed and absolutely always running. There are approximately over three hundred prophecies concerning Jesus Christ only in the Old Testament. Not only predict where will be born and whose family will come, but also how to die and how he will rise again on the third day. Logically can not explain how these prophecies were fulfilled only by divine. There is no other religious book that contains predictive prophecies in the level or in the form in which they appear in the Bible.
Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (17) Dec 27, 2015
What has misled them is that they have not been learned the lesson that real information can only derive from the Creator.

Hey, that's a control tool if I ever heard of one.
l He who created them and who is most concerned about their well-being and development.
Guess that's why he didn't tell them about lying snakes in the grass. Er - tree...
God does the people who seek the truth and have a good heart to grow spiritually and prepares them for the kingdom of God. They will be clothed with the imperishable eternal life in joy and harmony.

Now you're soundin' like me grandmother...
As long as you regurgitate the message of a controller, you are doomed to be controlled.
TechnoCreed
4.4 / 5 (14) Dec 27, 2015
@Mike the Brit?
You prob mean me...

_problem_?
_probation_?
_prob_: British Slang
http://dictionary...wse/prob

Don't worry; I know you meant 'probably', like you know I meant to write Mike_M. When I noticed the mishap, it was too late to correct and I felt sorry about that.

Hey, by the way! What about 'prostelysing'? a serious brain fart if you ask me... I did not take any chances; I went for the cut and paste on this one :-p

tbc
TechnoCreed
4.4 / 5 (14) Dec 27, 2015
...

What was the problem? You had a compulsive urge to defend your surname? I can understand that! There is a lot of history in Massen: http://www.surnam...e/Massen
By the way it would be maçon in French and it is the word for bricklayer. But I guess you would rather relate to stone cutters... builders of cathedrals. Or this: https://books.goo...;f=false
Mike, I am sure you can carve humongous stones so, when you use your chisels, have some pride and drive them into a solid piece. As for DavidW, sadly he is more like a scrap of Styrofoam and if you try to square him out, he will just crumble into pieces. He is better left on ignore as much for himself than for the Physorg community.
viko_mx
3.4 / 5 (18) Dec 27, 2015
"Hey, that's a control tool if I ever heard of one."

Yes, the Creator controls the universe and knows everything that can be learned.
So He is the only one source of reliable information after He creates this information and order.
Mike_Massen
1.5 / 5 (18) Dec 27, 2015
TechnoCreed offered
What was the problem? You had a compulsive urge to defend your surname?
Er no, thought u meant M Hanford, past, thick as 2short planks

TechnoCreed dug ... a lot of history in Massen: http://www.surnam...e/Massen Hmm, hope you're not copying Uncle Ira stalking, lied & defaming me too, Eg ebay nick being closed due to thieving (Purple_Engine) utter crap !
Great is you offer tech input something Uncle Ira can't do, he's only a sniper following low IQ prejudicial trend to try & gain qudos ie political :-(

FWIW: I'm descended from g/father "Pechmann Chevalier de Massen" old history, not brit, my family's property mostly France, search Arnaud PCdM our co/family lawyer, I'm in W.Australia for mo

NB Theres new d..k here, a dumb copyer sniper !
https://sciencex....e_Masson

TechnoCreed says
As for DavidW, sadly he is more like a scrap of Styrofoam..
Indeed, lets get him heated so he melts in his hell asap
my2cts
2.3 / 5 (18) Dec 27, 2015
Benni asked
Why are you so hard on viko?
Benni I answer your questions, WHY can't you answer mine please ?

B is here to annoy people, from which (s)he draws a psychotic pleasure.
You oblige.
The only way to continue scientific discussion here is to put all of these cranks on ignore permanently.
Mike_Massen
2.1 / 5 (21) Dec 27, 2015
viko_mx claims
Yes, the Creator controls the universe and knows everything that can be learned
Prove it please ?

So this creator knows how to duplicate all forms of communication methodologies long before humans worked out how to design/build a printing press ?

Why hasn't this so called claimed 'creator' made zillions of copies of key religious texts & distributed equally to all people proving its caring/loving nature so there'd never be any religious conflicts ie. Protestants vs catholics, crusades - christians vs muslims, shia vs sunni etc ?

Why is your god & ALL gods VERY bad communicators solely dependent on us ?

viko_mx claims
So He is the only one source of reliable information after He creates this information and order
How many examples can you come up with:-

1 Punishments of Eve and ALL creation for being misled by a satan god knew would lie ?
2 Killing innocent children in sodom/gomorrah etc
3 Flooding the world killing millions
4. Samuel
etc
my2cts
2.2 / 5 (17) Dec 27, 2015
@mike_m
What are you trying to achieve, the person you are reasoning with is devoid of reason.
I'll put you on ignore for a while. So long.
viko_mx
3.6 / 5 (17) Dec 27, 2015
@Mike_Massen

You forget that only the Creator knows the past, the present and the future. God know the future of the societies such Sodom and Gomor - the ancient capitals of corruption, and this future was not compatible with life. So it destroy it. Only He has the right to dispense justice because only He is the creator of life.

You clings like a drowning man to a straw in something that you can not hold only to lose something you offered freely and forever.
Mike_Massen
2.1 / 5 (21) Dec 27, 2015
my2cts said
Benni asked
Why are you so hard on viko?
Benni I answer your questions, WHY can't you answer mine please ?
B is here to annoy people, from which (s)he draws a psychotic pleasure
Maybe, however, I have a "burgeoning stratagem" :P

my2cts says
You oblige
Sorry no, still setting things up, mate you don't have to be involved at all, am happy to deal with the noise of Benni & the other dicks myself incl a recent d..k copyer
https://sciencex...._Masson/

I'd suggest, as I respect your input & that of TechnoCreed overall pls put Bennis, religious zealots & me on Ignore, that way no noise for U & TechnoCreed, no reason/interest in having to respond, both can do more important stuff, up to you of course

Fwiw: Having bit of fun showing up religious pricks, as for Benni, he might just have a (minor) point re dark matter but, he has trouble coming to terms with algebra & weight of experimental engineering training etc
greenonions
4.2 / 5 (15) Dec 27, 2015
viko
It is interesting. I ask scientific questions to which supporters of evolutionary theory are not able to respond
Not true viko - your scientific questions have been answered. I should not be the one to answer questions about evolution - as I have not spent my life studying it. Others have. You want to see an example of the answers? http://evolution....lines_01
One of the first internal evidence that the Bible is truly God's Word is its unity.
Laughable Viko - the bible is full of contradictions. What was Joseph's father's name? Here - have a read - http://infidels.o...ons.html

jsdarkdestruction
4.2 / 5 (15) Dec 27, 2015
So you are proud of your God Viko and not only condone his evil evil vain spiteful revengeful petty actions but think it's justified and morally correct, like sending angels to slaughter babies who might of very well been converted and been a loyal believer who would spread his(gods) word and convert more people?

You say God cares not for the non believer and revealing himself and communicating with them.
Yet your God repeatedly shows himself to non believers throughout history including your bible and advocates spreading his word the world over to try to get people to convert through his son and his sons preaching who he sent down to earth to reveal everything and then create and spread the new religion he made to as many people as he could?
Funny way of not revealing himself if you ask me. Also, why doesn't he smite down all the missionaries who are so adamant about converting all non believers? He seems to have no problem making even the loyalist believers die grusomely.
Mike_Massen
2 / 5 (20) Dec 27, 2015
my2cts offered
..What are you trying to achieve, the person you are reasoning with is devoid of reason. I'll put you on ignore for a while
Great idea, see last post

Happy to explore reasoning line to convergence, only those in play miss it badly ;-)

fwiw Did Electronic Engineering at Western Australian Institute of Technology @ bentley in Western Australia 1976-82 was most fortunate to study Cybernetics re neuron simulation under Clive Maynard, we developed a Universal Adaptive Logic Circuit (UALC) simulated on the then Super Computer DecSystems KL-10 at comp centre 309 with thought provoking results. Also fortunate to study from p/t tutor who studied Ai in France re Lisp & back as guest lecturer & dove in - in a really big way on Dec PDP-11 as result sold some property recently & put sizable share capital here :o)
http://www.asx.co...do#!/brn

Point is, text input from few forums collated into profiling code, nuff said for now :P
Mike_Massen
2.1 / 5 (21) Dec 27, 2015
viko_mx claims
You forget that only the Creator knows the past, the present and the future
But not that Eve who missed the gods education in Guile failed, so Prove it ?

viko_mx claims
God know the future of the societies such Sodom and Gomor - the ancient capitals of corruption, and this future was not compatible with life
Prove it ?

And has your god gone to sleep as there are very bad 'godless' societies it has done nothing about from Nazism to Stalin to Pol Pot etc Yet your god FAILED to do anything as claimed
re sodom/gomorrah, why viko_mx ?

A mere story, only idle claim, what else could it be as ALL gods are completely Silent ?

viko_mx claims
So it destroy it. Only He has the right to dispense justice because only He is the creator of life
You sure, prove it as it seems your god is lower & less powerful :-(

viko_mx says
You clings like a drowning man to a straw..
Prove it ?

Claims don't cut it anymore, Science is past that, Evidence ?
jsdarkdestruction
4 / 5 (12) Dec 27, 2015
Good points Mike. Sorry for the 4/5. Your comment is definetley a 5/5. We are never get through to him but their are lurkers and such who might (even if it's just momentarily, those moments can add up to them over time sometimes)so I say keep up the good work.
Mike_Massen
1.7 / 5 (18) Dec 27, 2015
Benni evidently Fails to read or comprehend my posts with
.......and so do you & Zwicky when it comes to your DM faith
Surely Benni, you worked through myriad labs experience as part of Electrical/Nuclear Engineering re unknowns algebraically & became adept @ resolving them via Calculus etc but, ffs why can't you do that re simple (non DE) gravitation ?

Benni claims
The Zwicky bible...
No, didn't you understand my question I directed specifically at you Benni, given algebra re "m+x" etc why can't you address it head on pls ?

Benni claims
Squeezing 80% of the mass of the universe into configurations known to compose only 33% of the mass of the universe is an impossibility, but that's what faith is about isn't it?
No, because obviously it depends on density of mass vs volume etc which is same as Eg current vs voltage capacity of a power source can't you focus Benni ?

Physics Benni, address it please, focus on mature convergence & dialectic for a change ?
Benni
3.7 / 5 (19) Dec 27, 2015
Benni claims
The Zwicky bible...

No, didn't you understand my question I directed specifically at you Benni, given algebra re "m+x" etc why can't you address it head on pls?
I wouldn't need to if you'd just study what Zwicky wrote, he answers all your questions you have about your faith in the unseen.

Benni claims
Squeezing 80% of the mass of the universe into configurations known to compose only 33% of the mass of the universe is an impossibility, but that's what faith is about isn't it?


No, because obviously it depends on density of mass vs volume etc which is same as Eg current vs voltage capacity of a power source
Is that what Zwicky wrote? Once again, you'd do better if you'd just study what Zwicky actually wrote, then you'd see how spaced out you are from reality when you find almost none of the things in his thesis that you keep muttering about.

Next, head over to a Zwicky site & actually read his dissertation.

greenonions
4.3 / 5 (16) Dec 27, 2015
Viko - one last quick question. You claim that the bible is so full of amazing things like prophecies that have come true etc. I have read the bible cover to cover - and find it a confusing, contradictory, weird text. For example - it advocates slavery. So - in Deuteronomy 22:20-21 - it states that if a woman is not a virgin when married, the men of the town should stone her to death. Do you believe this to be correct? Why do you think your god wrote this? I think it is preposterous, and hypocritical. No such test for a man? This is just one example of so many - that leave me absolutely convinced that this is not a book written by a god. What do you think?
Benni
3.4 / 5 (22) Dec 27, 2015
Viko - one last quick question. You claim that the bible is so full of amazing things like prophecies that have come true etc. I have read the bible cover to cover - and find it a confusing, contradictory, weird text. For example - it advocates slavery. So - in Deuteronomy 22:20-21 - it states that if a woman is not a virgin when married, the men of the town should stone her to death. Do you believe this to be correct? Why do you think your god wrote this? I think it is preposterous, and hypocritical. No such test for a man? This is just one example of so many - that leave me absolutely convinced that this is not a book written by a god. What do you think?


Greeno, how is it you know so much about this book? You'd do better to read the Zwicky bible & get the lowdown on some real faith in the unseen.
Mike_Massen
2 / 5 (20) Dec 27, 2015
Benni claims
I wouldn't need to if you'd just study what Zwicky wrote, he answers all your questions you have about your faith in the unseen
Really ?
I asked you before - which is the link YOU rely upon is called convergence ?

Benni as imprecise as ever said
Next, head over to a Zwicky site & actually read his dissertation
Which link/page please Benni ?

Please be smart & convergent as the Engineer you claim to be & supply the link you rely on & any critique re the maths you also rely upon ?

Benni you *should* have come across tutorials in your Electrical/Nuclear Engineering where items are discussed in straightforward dialectic fashion, in order to function thus efficiently one needs to share the link, why haven't you ?

You have mentioned Zwicky tangentially but, never addressed a paper - why is that ?

Please be genuine supply the link, this is not a game or fishing expedition, link please ?

Where from here
https://en.wikipe...z_Zwicky
DavidW
3.4 / 5 (15) Dec 27, 2015
... the noise of Benni & the other dicks...


Calling someone is a "dick" is a lie.

Prove it?

Sure, life is most important in life is a self-evident truth. You attempted to define someone as less than most important. Which is a lie.

You ask a lot of questions, but provide no evidence for your lies.

You can try to enjoy the rest of your life lying to yourself.

Yes, people did try to remind you of yourself. Explain to you why you really are most important. Yes, you called them dicks.

Enjoy your insanity. You will never have a whole thought again until you yield to the truth. That is the power of the truth. You have nothing to provide here, but hate and lies. Nothing you say is based on anything provable, as you deny the truth itself, as we have witnessed.
greenonions
4.1 / 5 (13) Dec 27, 2015
Benni
Greeno, how is it you know so much about this book?
I was raised in a fundamentalist Christian church. I spent half my life in church as a child - listening to bull shit, but sadly too young to understand how much gibberish I was absorbing into my world view. I now live in a fundamentalist christian society. I see that we are in a cultural black hole - trapped by the stupidity of millions of people - who are sadly still trapped by that gibberish. We will of course leave this gibberish behind in time - but sadly - my children will have to say goodbye to their dad - just like I did to mine - because we are advancing at a glacially slow pace compared to what we could be - if we taught critical thinking and science to our children - instead of gibberish. I read a little of your zwicky gibberish - sounds like the bullshit I grew up with.
Mike_Massen
1.9 / 5 (18) Dec 27, 2015
@Benni,
You have often tangentially implied so called Dark Matter (DM) is in no way real and you have failed to address my questions re gravitation & algebra re DM as a simple place holder for matter still to be found *or* an effect equivalent in Force. You have often given the suggestion albeit not directly that DM is a fiction & is not real at all, yet refused to clarify/converge, this is NOT how Physicists/Engineers converge on an issue...

You have recently suggested Zwicky has all the answers yet, this article states definitively that Zwicky accepts Dark Matter - which you don't:-
https://en.wikipe...k_matter

Given immense contradiction Benni, what's your precise position on DM as either you deny it & thus refute Zwicky's view or accept his then are unable to posit it in terms of the gravitational observations offered

What is your position please Benni & your best technical articulation, seems to come down to for or against Zwicky ?
Benni
3.6 / 5 (20) Dec 27, 2015
I asked you before - which is the link YOU rely upon is called convergence ?

You have mentioned Zwicky tangentially but, never addressed a paper - why is that ?

Please be genuine supply the link, this is not a game or fishing expedition, link please ?


Muttering Mikey, please. If I supply a link, your next obfuscation will be that it was not a valid site to the original Zwicky dissertation of DM, and that I make selective links to push a point of view simply because it is counter to the current Pop-Sci narratives. Stop being so concerned about these potential contradictions & get updated.
Mike_Massen
1.7 / 5 (18) Dec 27, 2015
DavidW claims
... the noise of Benni & the other dicks...

Calling someone is a "dick" is a lie
Sure & simple, you Fail to answer direct simple questions

How does your god communicate, start with that please ?

So far, all we have is an old book attributed to moses & his cohorts some 3000 yrs ago then some 1000 or so yrs later another book but, not written by jesus which is a bit sad as not only is there no evidence jesus' dad taught him to write, his dad took no effort to preserve any of the other scrolls and took no effort to ensure there was any religious consistency such that mohammed also made claims

As consequence jews (moses) argue with christians (jesus) who argue with muslims (mohammed), why couldn't your god forsee this to avoid ALL conflict & killing in their respect god's name ?

Or are you of the opinion all the gods: jew/christian/muslim are all the same & their conflict is not their god's fault because he chose wrong prophets ?

?
Mike_Massen
1.7 / 5 (18) Dec 27, 2015
Benni claims
.. If I supply a link, your next obfuscation will be that it was not a valid site to the original Zwicky dissertation of DM
So obviously where is the original paper as of course it would be immature to rely on a mere opinion piece which is NOT his paper - doh ?

Surely Benni, you are smart enough to understand Provenance & *only* use the original paper not a secondary artifact by a journo or opinion piece, that's intelligent isn't it as a basis for convergence, do you appreciate how you look refusing to be precise ?

ie. You rely on a reference to supply "..all the explanation" yet refuse to share in case it might be misconstrued, that suggests you havent read it through with attention to math detail & have missed many issues

I've posted a wikipedia link, it seems to take the view Zwicky accepts Dark Matter, where is there a more pertinent paper YOU have read ?

Use your best engineering critical thinking here, be smart & converge on essentials ?
Benni
3.7 / 5 (19) Dec 27, 2015
So far, all we have is an old book attributed to moses & his cohorts some 3000 yrs ago then some 1000 or so yrs later another book but, not written by jesus which is a bit sad as not only is there no evidence jesus' dad taught him to write, his dad took no effort to preserve any of the other scrolls and took no effort to ensure there was any religious consistency


How is it you know so much about this book but so little about what Zwicky wrote? Cease it with the Wiki links, 90% of what appears on those links are pop-sci opinions that frequently bear little semblance to what the AUTHOR wrote.

gkam
1.8 / 5 (21) Dec 27, 2015
There are NO contemporary accounts of Jesus. None. You would think if such a person had existed, there would be accounts in the writings of the day. But no mention of his existence comes out until over a hundred years after his alleged life. Flavius Josephus may have invented the entire thing.
Mike_Massen
2.4 / 5 (20) Dec 27, 2015
Benni asked
So far, all we have is an old book attributed to moses & his cohorts some 3000 yrs ago then some 1000 or so yrs later another book but, not written by jesus which is a bit sad as not only is there no evidence jesus' dad taught him to write, his dad took no effort to preserve any of the other scrolls and took no effort to ensure there was any religious consistency
How is it you know so much about this book but so little about what Zwicky wrote? Easy, I studied comparative religion ~35 yrs ago & Zwicky has not been in the mainstream despite it seems he also accepts Dark Matter which contradicts you !

Benni claims & FAILS to read the references
Cease it with the Wiki links, 90% of what appears on those links are pop-sci opinions that frequently bear little semblance to what the AUTHOR wrote
References Benni at the end of the wiki link, they are the real gold.

Engineers know this, they examine the references, why don't you ?
Mike_Massen
2.1 / 5 (21) Dec 27, 2015
@Benni
You're being evasive, you imply I'll challenge because its not the source, then FIND the source that YOU relied upon, although original is in German there are English translations & this appears quite good so far as only part way through as yet, here:-
http://articles.a...ype=.pdf

NB: Its from Harvard uni edu site, ie NOT a popsci opinion piece you previously relied on...

Is there a better one please Benni - yes or no ?

I trust you realise how you look Benni, you refuse to offer key link as you imagine I'd obfuscate, how the hell could I or would I do that if its the original - it is the best starting point for mature dialectic, can't you see that ?

Benni earlier suggested
Stop being so concerned about these potential contradictions & get updated
How can it be done if you don't post link to his original paper ?
Benni
3.5 / 5 (21) Dec 27, 2015


Benni claims & FAILS to read the references
Cease it with the Wiki links, 90% of what appears on those links are pop-sci opinions that frequently bear little semblance to what the AUTHOR wrote


References Benni at the end of the wiki link, they are the real gold.
.....no they aren't, they are mostly just links to more opinions about the topic. A serious student of General Relativity who needs to get a passing grade for a nuclear physics test would never study Wiki, but you like it because as merely the science aficionado that you are, you find the meager math content is at a level maybe even you & Anti_Physics are able to comprehend.

Engineers know this, they examine the references, why don't you ?
Because the references contain so little of the math on which a thesis is based. So now you now know why I never go to Wiki to study Zwicky or Einstein, I'm not intimidated by the math.

Mike_Massen
2.2 / 5 (20) Dec 27, 2015
Benni claims
Cease it with the Wiki links, 90% of what appears on those links are pop-sci opinions that frequently bear little semblance to what the AUTHOR wrote
Ah well which particular piece is wrong please from YOUR recollection & will you advise wikipedia ?

That should be a simple matter to converge upon, can you do that please ?

Whilst at it, what original paper would you compare it with if not link I just supplied in my last post to you ?

Trust you realise Zwicky's paper on the issue is October 1937 has been superseded many times by several other authors - heard of google scholar Benni ?

Despite & divergent pattern & admissions by Zwicky re Section I parts 1 to 4 its clear Zwicky wholly accepts principle of Dark Matter - ie a Mass that isn't readily observable that contribute to gravitational attraction which keeps the galaxy from flying apart & he has some bounds on that too, have you read the paper all the way through ?

Noticed it contradicts you ?
Mike_Massen
2.1 / 5 (21) Dec 27, 2015
Benni FAILED to notice
....no they aren't, they are mostly just links to more opinions about the topic
Dead Wrong, see paper I linked to, are you blind & Failed to even check ?

Engineers CHECK references, fact you didn't & assumed it was mere opinion proves you cannot have checked the link, wikipedia is well known for the references being reliable if they are not then its immediately updated - why the hell didn't you check ?

Benni claims
Because the references contain so little of the math on which a thesis is based
Wrong !
Check, the paper is there Benni - LOL !

Benni claims
So now you now know why I never go to Wiki to study Zwicky or Einstein, I'm not intimidated by the math
No. It tells you don't consider wikipedia front end as a useful entry point WITH pertinent references supplied besides you should have thought its not a static & still failed to check, Engineers check references, why didnt you ?

Notice Zwicky's paper accepts issue re DM ?
Benni
3.3 / 5 (21) Dec 27, 2015
...It tells you don't consider wikipedia front end as a useful entry point WITH pertinent references


That's for sure, I don't. Whenever I want to refresh my knowledge about something in General Relativity, I go to a site that actually contains the subject matter, not somebody's opinion about it.

Engineers check references, why didnt you?


Oh, I see, you continue to misunderstand. First I go to a valid source containing the original thesis, then I may parse the references Einstein or Zwicky may have listed, but I would never go to one of your selected links, Wiki or otherwise.

I'm not interested in personal opinions like you are. You DM Enthusiasts simply like the Pop-Sci narratives you are spoon fed. Pop-Sci narratives frequently circumvents inconvenient distractions created by the obvious contradictions of the original Zwicky's thesis compared to current Pop-Sci narratives.

Phys1
2.6 / 5 (20) Dec 27, 2015
All you get back from B. is crap.
Am I right or am I right ?
Benni
3.4 / 5 (20) Dec 27, 2015
NB: Its from Harvard uni edu site, ie NOT a popsci opinion piece you previously relied on...

Is there a better one please Benni - yes or no ?


I wouldn't know, I don't click on your selected opinion piece links. There are original Zwicky thesis sites containing ONLY the contents of the original thesis, I don't need anything more than that, but obviously you do because left on your own you can't follow the material.
Mike_Massen
1.8 / 5 (19) Dec 27, 2015
Benni claims
That's for sure, I don't. Whenever I want to refresh my knowledge about something in General Relativity, I go to a site that actually contains the subject matter...t
Your best example is please ?

Benni claims
First I go to a valid source containing the original thesis...
Which is ?

So WHY would you NOT go to Zwicky's paper:-
http://articles.a...ype=.pdf

Didn't you notice domain at head of link is harvard.edu ?

Why would you NOT get the paper FREE from opinion, what's possibly better than a direct link to the paper, takes a min to check ?

Benni claims
I'm not interested in personal opinions like you are
I'm not, doh, thats WHY I posted SOURCE link TO THE PAPER !

Benni claims
You DM Enthusiasts simply like the Pop-Sci narratives you are spoon fed
No, are you on something, what's better than the source please Benni ?
DavidW
3.6 / 5 (14) Dec 27, 2015
I already answer you mike. God communicates as truth, something you denied.

You deny truthful evidence, so there is no making you feel happy with the answer to your question.

Yet, my question, truthfully defined as "most Important" and truthfully proved as "most important" is deny by you. You seem to want people to not have reaffirmation when they think properly and that it should be denied. Your mind is broken and you can spew as much BS as you would like, but your mind is still broken. The evidence is in how you lie publicly, attempting to place yourself above others as more important without any truthful evidence to back it up. Every word out of your mouth is using life, in pure hypocrisy, to its own actual existence. Not too bright I might add. Seem harder to learn 1 +1 = 2. Seriously, how can you even still breathe with such blatant stupidity spewing from your lips.

'I want the evidence", but life and truth aren't most important' Dude, you have lost your mind
greenonions
4 / 5 (12) Dec 27, 2015
Benni
You'd do better to read the Zwicky bible & get the lowdown on some real faith in the unseen.
Well Benni - when I google Zwicky bible - I come up with sites like this - https://astudent....-matter/ - which is what I thought you were referring to. Now I think you may be talking about stuff like this - http://www.swemor...cky.html

Why don't you improve your communication skills - and include some links - so people will actually know what you are referring to.
Mike_Massen
2 / 5 (20) Dec 27, 2015
Benni seemingly unwell claims
Is there a better one please Benni - yes or no ?
I wouldn't know, I don't click on your selected opinion piece links
Really ?

You don't seem to be aware you don't have to click on the link to see its from harvard.edu - you may be new to this are you ?

If you don't already see the domain head on my post then move your mouse over the link & it shows it eg in status, its a useful means to check, here it is again, try it - you will see its authentic:-
http://articles.a...ype=.pdf

Benni claims
There are original Zwicky thesis sites containing ONLY the contents of the original thesis, I don't need anything more than that, but obviously you do because left on your own you can't follow the material
Beg pardon, I referenced the paper directly, no popsci, you refused to read it ! ?

Link to paper please ?
Mike_Massen
1.7 / 5 (18) Dec 27, 2015
DavidW claim
I already answer you mike. God communicates as truth, something you denied
How does your god communicate - by untestable claims from a book ?

DavidW claims
You deny truthful evidence, so there is no making you feel happy with the answer to your question
Top 3 examples of "evidence" please ?

DavidW says
Yet, my question, truthfully defined as "most Important" and truthfully proved as "most important" is deny by you
What does this mean ?

DavidW claims
You seem to want people to not have reaffirmation when they think properly and that it should be denied. Your mind is broken and you can spew as much BS as you would like, but your mind is still broken. The evidence is in how you lie publicly, attempting to place yourself above others as more important without any truthful evidence to back it up
No.
Self evident, your god is a bad communicator you *only* have an old book !

AND whats worse your god punishes capriciously & often...
Mike_Massen
2.1 / 5 (21) Dec 27, 2015
greenonions offered
Benni
You'd do better to read the Zwicky bible & get the lowdown on some real faith in the unseen
Well Benni - when I google Zwicky bible - I come up with sites like this - https://astudent....-matter/

Why don't you improve your communication skills - and include some links - so people will actually know what you are referring to
Hear hear - I second that greenonions !

Benni wouldn't be so stupid as to NOT notice the link I posted is to the source PDF only as the domain is readable, he also wouldn't be that stupid to NOT be curious to see if it actually covered the territory...

Benni, there are NO opinions by any others in the Zwicky paper, its ONLY his work but, it is only a discussion piece with several assumptions, approximations so be sensible & converge as normal technical people communicate can you please ?

Benni what is the link to the PAPER, not any popsci, that you relied upon please ?
Benni
3.7 / 5 (19) Dec 27, 2015
No, are you on something, what's better than the source please Benni?
.......Yep, I keep pointing that out to you in case you haven't noticed, provided the source is the AUTHOR. If the source is not the AUTHOR, I'm not usually interested.

In the case of the Dark Matter Narrative, I will read sources other than Zwicky, solely for the purpose of keeping updated with the variants. If Zwicky were here today reading about the Pop-Sci variants to his thesis, he would't recognize the subject material, little wonder his name is seldom invoked within the circles of DM Enthusiasts.
Benni
3.7 / 5 (19) Dec 27, 2015
You know Muttering Mikey, it is really very odd that you are so pushy for ME to click on links you Copy & Paste for Zwicky, or any other. You act almost offended, because I don't. Why can't you figure it out why I'm not interested when you are one of the ones providing the link?
Mike_Massen
1.8 / 5 (19) Dec 27, 2015
Benni claims
.......Yep, I keep pointing that out to you in case you haven't noticed, provided the source is the AUTHOR. If the source is not the AUTHOR, I'm not usually interested
And I keep asking you for the link to the source paper ?

Didn't you notice the source paper I linked to is hosted at Harvard.edu, its in the domain name, use the 'mouse-over' its part of the browser, why are you being so immensely evasive as if you have something to hide its simple ?

Benni claims
In the case of the Dark Matter Narrative, I will read sources other than Zwicky, solely for the purpose of keeping updated with the variants...
Well so what, not interested in your popsci non engineering non physics links, please post the link to the paper by Zwicky regarding your initial claim you made here

OR if you can't or refuse to do that then WHAT is the title of the paper please ?

And to be sensible where would you expect me to find it efficiently & immediately please ?
Mike_Massen
1.8 / 5 (19) Dec 27, 2015
Benni claims
You know Muttering Mikey, it is really very odd that you are so pushy for ME to click on links you Copy & Paste for Zwicky, or any other
Doh, because the link is to Zwicky's source paper, free of idle popsci opinion, engineering technical people prefer that & as you have claimed to be at that level its logical & sensible you check it, to do otherwise & be evasive is obstructive to convergence

Especially as you STILL havent posted a link to the paper you rely upon ?

Benni claims
You act almost offended, because I don't. Why can't you figure it out why I'm not interested when you are one of the ones providing the link?
Ah I see, shoot the messenger instead of even looking at the domain, its Harvard for christ's sake ?

Whats wrong with you, this is a technical discussion, you're avoiding sensible convergence:-

1 You fail to support your claim re Zwicky by refusing to post a link to his paper
2 You refuse to check a link to Zwicky's paper
Benni
3.2 / 5 (22) Dec 27, 2015
please post the link to the paper by Zwicky regarding your initial claim you made here

OR if you can't or refuse to do that then WHAT is the title of the paper please ?
Why do you care so much what that source is even if it may or may not be a website?

And to be sensible where would you expect me to find it efficiently & immediately please ?
I absolutely don't care where you would find it. I go with my trusted sources for safe content, and you can go somewhere else as you seem so persistent in trying to get me to do.
Mike_Massen
1.9 / 5 (18) Dec 27, 2015
@Benni
Funny you are so evasive as contrived ignorance, missing much, this on wikipedia link

"Zwicky has dealt critically with religion during his whole life. A 1971 diary entry states: "To base the inexplainabilty and the immense wonder of nature upon another miracle, God, is unnecessary and not acceptable for any serious thinker."

& elsewhere in ref to Zwicky's paper:-

Zwicky also measured the total light output of all the cluster's galaxies, which contain about a trillion stars altogether. When he compared the ratio of the total light output to the mass of the Coma Cluster with a similar ratio for the nearby Kapteyn stellar system, he found the light output per unit mass for the cluster fell short of that from a single Kapteyn star by a factor of over 100. He reasoned that the Coma Cluster must contain a large amount of matter not accounted for by the light of the stars. He called it "dark matter."

Prove Benni where Zwicky claims like you DM is a fiction ?
Mike_Massen
1.8 / 5 (19) Dec 27, 2015
Benni asked
Why do you care so much what that source is even if it may or may not be a website?
Keh ?
You *should* know this, its the protocol for dialectic & scientific convergence, doh, all uni people do it and many without benefit of uni study, its efficient and direct and smarter than the time wasting you are trying on !

Benni, YOU claimed DM is a fiction & claimed Zwicky stated it too, link to paper please ?

Benni claimed
I absolutely don't care where you would find it. I go with my trusted sources for safe content, and you can go somewhere else as you seem so persistent in trying to get me to do
What are you on, I am persistent as all technical people who are interested in a topic are persistent, his name has come up a couple of times recently doh, what is the paper that also confirms your claim ?

Why so evasive, its simple stuff Benni, what are you hiding, just the paper's title then ?
Mike_Massen
1.8 / 5 (19) Dec 27, 2015
@Benni,
Worked out how to see a domain pop up with 'mouseover', very useful & dead simple ?

There are 2 contenders for the closest Zwicky paper so far:
1. "On The Masses of Nebulae and of Clusters of Nebulae", Oct 1937
2. "On the Red Shift of Spectral Lines Through Interstellar Space", Aug 1929

Which one please Benni ?

If not either of the above, then title please Benni ?
Phys1
2.6 / 5 (20) Dec 27, 2015
B. lacks the psychological functionality that are required to have a meaningful conversation.
Machines do a much better job than (s)he nowadays, so I do think B. is either a real person
or a non state-of-the-art computer program.
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (19) Dec 27, 2015
Hi guys. :)

Just pause argument re Hypothesized Dark(non-Baryonic) Matter; to consider implications of....

Recent astronomical observations have revealed Ordinary (Baryonic) Matter content way higher than previously assumed when Dark Matter was first hypothesized. Baryonic Matter ESTIMATE has now been raised to many times previous. Much of it now found to have been undetectable with previous telescopes. Now we find that...

- galaxy 'masses' are much higher than previously estimated from visible light signature, with much Baryonic matter now detected extending way beyond galaxies' previously demarcated 'outer boundaries';

- intergalactic/intercluster Baryonic matter now detected to be many times previous assumptions;

- cosmic Web contains much previously undetected Baryonic matter than found in galaxies born at 'nodes' along that web;

These just SOME recently 'found' ORDINARY matter 'distributions'.

Consider: Does this make Hypothesized DM unnecessary? Discuss! :)
Benni
3.4 / 5 (22) Dec 27, 2015
If not either of the above, then title please Benni ?
.....pick whatever you want, I don't care what you read about with regard to anything. Satisfy yourself that the source contains the original content of Zwicky's hypothesis on Dark Matter, just as you would for any topic of a scientific nature. Happy reading about envelopes of DM enshrouding only Spiral Galaxies. Nothing in Zwicky's original content about the need for envelopes of DM holding Elliptical Galaxies together.
Benni
3.7 / 5 (19) Dec 27, 2015
Hi guys. :)

Just pause argument re Hypothesized Dark(non-Baryonic) Matter; to consider implications of....

Recent astronomical observations have revealed Ordinary (Baryonic) Matter content way higher than previously assumed when Dark Matter was first hypothesized. Baryonic Matter ESTIMATE has now been raised to many times previous.

Consider: Does this make Hypothesized DM unnecessary? Discuss! :)


http://earthsky.o...a-galaxy

........the Andromeda halo extends halfway to our Milky Way. A feat it could not do if Zwicky's envelope of DM actually existed. With the extraordinary forces of gravity so attributed to DM, those gravitational forces would have captured & prevented the observed Andromeda halo from ever being observed.
Uncle Ira
3.9 / 5 (21) Dec 27, 2015
Nothing in Zwicky's original content about the need for envelopes of DM holding Elliptical Galaxies together.


@ Bennie-Skippy. How you are Cher? I am fine as can be considering you claim you are not going to read this, thanks for asking.

You really should read what he wrote instead of pretending you read and hoping nobody else does read it. When the Zwicky-Skippy was first thinking about "DM", he was not thinking about elliptical or spiral galaxies rotating. He was wondering about humongous galaxy clusters. That have the elliptical AND spiral galaxies in him. It was only after that he got down to the spiral ones but put DM in them aside because he thought it would have to wait for better measuring stuffs.

You really should read the book about him if you are going to use him to back you up. It really makes you look bad for somebody as ignorant as me to have to help all the time.
greenonions
4.1 / 5 (14) Dec 27, 2015
I'm out - Benni is being an ignorant troll. When introducing a subject into a discussion - it is totally reasonable to ask for a reference - in order to make sure you are discussing apples and apples.
Phys1
2.7 / 5 (19) Dec 27, 2015
@rc
Sounds interesting but I have not seen any news flashes. Any links/refs?
TechnoCreed
4.5 / 5 (15) Dec 27, 2015
@rc
Sounds interesting but I have not seen any news flashes. Any links/refs?

Oh man, you are here for a treat! Ol'Ira is going to come and brief you on this case.
Enjoy!
Uncle Ira
3.9 / 5 (22) Dec 27, 2015
@rc
Sounds interesting but I have not seen any news flashes.


They have not been on the physorg. But some place Really-Skippy knows about must have them because he has been telling us about them for years and some more years too. He's working on his toes about everything so he keeps most of his good science and human stuffs to him self because he doesn't want anybody to steal his ideas. He's been working on it for 65 or 60 years since he was nine years old and he promised us it would be ready by the end of this year which is next Thursday.

Any links/refs?


I am so glad you asked about that. Here is some of his stuffs he was nice enough to put up for the public to tide us over until he can finish his secret toes about everything. It is sort of old and out of date but it's all you get until next Thursday.

Read Really-Skippy at: http://earthlingclub.com/

Yeah, he really did Really-Skippy write that stuffs all by him self.
Phys1
2.5 / 5 (21) Dec 27, 2015
@uncle Ira
So it is the usual c..p and nothing new ?
Disappointing, but I have gotten used to that here ;-)
TechnoCreed
4.1 / 5 (14) Dec 27, 2015
Salut vieux Ira. How are you doing? Me, I am enjoying a nice Holiday break at home.

It seems like Crocodile Mike te garde un chien de sa chienne. Would you mind giving me a link so I can see what the fuss is all about?
Uncle Ira
3.8 / 5 (20) Dec 27, 2015
It seems like Crocodile Mike te garde un chien de sa chienne. Would you mind giving me a link so I can see what the fuss is all about?


How you are Techno-Skippy. Non big deal. He decided he was going to call me to task and give me what for because he thought I was misbehaving. Well all that did was get me curious so I did some lookee-loo here and there and found these things on the interweb and he got mad because I postumed them up here on the physorg.

http://www.calais...p;page=4

http://www.niche.iinet.net.au/

I hope you appreciate this thing that I done because you asked me nice, and in pretty good French too. Because now Mike-Skippy is going to be sending the Sheriff back to my house and bothering the nice peoples at physorg with a bunch more of goofy emails about holding them criminal and civil responsible for all the damage (hurt feelings and embarrassment) I did to him and his business.
Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (12) Dec 27, 2015
If not either of the above, then title please Benni ?
.....pick whatever you want, I don't care what you read about with regard to anything. Satisfy yourself that the source contains the original content of Zwicky's hypothesis on Dark Matter, just as you would for any topic of a scientific nature. Happy reading about envelopes of DM enshrouding only Spiral Galaxies. Nothing in Zwicky's original content about the need for envelopes of DM holding Elliptical Galaxies together.

Pretty common sense to me. Spinning galaxies disperse DM, Eliptics are more likely to just hold it.
DM is just dust. Notice how you don't see all the dust floating around in your house until the sunlight hits it just right... (and then you'll see a LOT of it)
NO magic necessary.
Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (12) Dec 27, 2015
Salut vieux Ira. How are you doing? Me, I am enjoying a nice Holiday break at home.

It seems like Crocodile Mike te garde un chien de sa chienne. Would you mind giving me a link so I can see what the fuss is all about?

The translation I got was "Keep your dog of his bitch"...:-)
Hey Ira...:-)
DavidW
3.3 / 5 (16) Dec 27, 2015
God communicates as truth, something you denied.

READ MIKE
God communicates as truth, something you denied.
God communicates as truth, something you denied.
God communicates as truth, something you denied.
God communicates as truth, something you denied.
God communicates as truth, something you denied.
God communicates as truth, something you denied.
God communicates as truth, something you denied.
God communicates as truth, something you denied.
God communicates as truth, something you denied.
God communicates as truth, something you denied.
God communicates as truth, something you denied.

I said nothing of a book. Quit lying.

Everyone in their pack has lost their mind.. and they won't get it back without yielding to the truth.
They gave away a lifetime of sanity for an ego moment in public board. Very sad indeed.
They got their. Oh, their only complete life, lost from that moment on. Never to be regained with humility. Pure evil in the science community
DavidW
3.4 / 5 (15) Dec 27, 2015
What now folks? Going to tell us all how something is true and how the truth doesn't matter some more?

Going to make more stuff up and pretend that the truth of your lies and bad behavior is not seen by all?

No matter what you say, true of not, it doesn't mean a thing coming from a person that denies truth in the first place, as the lot of have. It's call hypocrisy. Byt none of you would understand that would you? How could you possibly understand truthful hypocrisy if you don't accept truth as real?

You want to kill, hurt, and enslave life for your jollies and addiction. That about sums it up. None of deserves any measure of trust. If your children hate you, it is for good reason.
Uncle Ira
4 / 5 (20) Dec 27, 2015
The translation I got was "Keep your dog of his bitch"...:-)


It's sort like what you call the idiom I am thinking. He's nipping at my heels, like a dog that chases cars. You ever see the Foghorn Leghorn cartoons where the little bitty chickenhawk is worrying with Foghorn all the time? Sort of like that.

Hey Ira...:-)


Well hey and how you are Whydening-Skippy? Hope you have the good holidays like I am having. This is the first year in four years that my off time covered Christmas time and we are having a great time Except we spend Christmas afternoon with Mrs-Ira-Skippette's sister's family up in the Big Sleazy. . They are nice enough but her sister is sort of a chore to get along with.

Oh yeah, I almost forget. Santa was really good to me so I am thinking he don't spend a lot of time fooling with the physorg.
Uncle Ira
4.1 / 5 (22) Dec 27, 2015
@ David-Skippy. How you are? About the same it looks from the peoples answering you.

Let me give you some good advice for the New Year and for everybody else too since there are too many peoples on here that take them selfs too seriously all the time.

Don't fret so much about how important life is or how other peoples should see it the way you do (fat chance of that happening, eh?)

We us humans only been mucking around with this for 200 or 150 thousands of years. That ain't nothing in the cosmoscientilogical history of every thing. And I really have my doubts that we will be around to keep mucking things up for another 200 or 150 thousands of years. We will be dead dust and dirt and the molecules and atoms we used to be a million or two billion years ago. In just another 100 years there probably won't be anybody around that has the slightest idea YOU were ever here. Interweb trolls probably are not very high on the list of things to put in history books.
Whydening Gyre
4.4 / 5 (13) Dec 27, 2015
Oh yeah, I almost forget. Santa was really good to me so I am thinking he don't spend a lot of time fooling with the physorg.

Santa is only as good to you as you are to yourself...:-)
And, yes, ol' dave seems pretty exasperated with the "lot" of us. Not understanding that self generated proclamations of "profound understanding" of Truth - usually aren't...
Whydening Gyre
4.4 / 5 (13) Dec 27, 2015
And, as you can see, he will "Have his vengeance" (by smiting all who do not see his truth) with his mighty 1 button...:-)
in the name of "The Lord", of course...:-)
TechnoCreed
4.7 / 5 (13) Dec 27, 2015
@vieux Ira :-D
It's sort like what you call the idiom I am thinking. He's nipping at my heels, like a dog that chases cars. You ever see the Foghorn Leghorn cartoons where the little bitty chickenhawk is worrying with Foghorn all the time? Sort of like that.

I took a chance. I didn't know if this expression was used in Cajun.

@Whydening Gyre
The best I can do for you is to send you a link via Google translate. It is no miracle but it will do an ok job on this one. https://translate...;act=url
RealityCheck
1.9 / 5 (18) Dec 27, 2015
Hi Phys1. :)
@rc Sounds interesting but I have not seen any news flashes. Any links/refs?
Sure, right here in Physorg. These are just SOME of the ones I recall most recently, where new IR wavelength telescopes have found normal matter distributions previously unsuspected. Note the 'dark NORMAL matter/cold gas' found in deep space regions range from interstellar to intergalactic to intra-/inter-galactic clusters. Read the news/articles carefully, noting the 'newness' of the discoveries by MAINSTREAM astronomical observations (not by'cranks'); also bearing in mind various 'processes' such as jets/winds which have been blasting ordinary matter out into interstellar/galactic/cluster space for eons. Consider well where that 'stuff' has 'gone' over all that time.

I'll put this link first, because it has implications for the original 'Galaxy Rotation Curve' data/interpretations/assumptions:

http://phys.org/n...ays.html

More links next post...
Whydening Gyre
4.4 / 5 (13) Dec 27, 2015

@Whydening Gyre
The best I can do for you is to send you a link via Google translate. It is no miracle but it will do an ok job on this one.

Techno, I typed it into google search fielded and got that translation...:-)
I got the contextual intent, if not the most exact translation...:-)
Thanks, tho!
RealityCheck
1.9 / 5 (18) Dec 27, 2015
[...cont] @ Phys1:

These links provide a cross-section of relevant mainstream observations which when combined create 'bigger picture' of MANY TIMES previous estimate of NORMAL matter being found where previously thought not to exist...

http://phys.org/n...axy.html
http://phys.org/n...arf.html
http://phys.org/n...lky.html
http://phys.org/n...way.html
http://phys.org/n...uds.html
http://phys.org/n...rby.html
http://phys.org/n...led.html
http://phys.org/n...ary.html
http://phys.org/n...ark.html
http://phys.org/n...acy.html

Mainstream finding vast quantities Baryonic matter.

Is 'exotic' DM needed anymore? :)
Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (11) Dec 27, 2015
RC -
All that invisible dust in your house that you don't see until the sunlight hits it at just the right angle...:-)
(Not "dark", anymore...:-)
It was only "exotic" in the imaginations of the unschooled...
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (18) Dec 27, 2015
Hi Whyde. :)

RC -
All that invisible dust in your house that you don't see until the sunlight hits it at just the right angle...:-)
(Not "dark", anymore...:-)
It was only "exotic" in the imaginations of the unschooled...
Mate, please don't turn it onto the 'unschooled'. It was the 'mainstream' who claimed it was NOT ordinary dust/cold gas. That is what all the arguments have been about! :)

I suspect you have wrong impression/info re mainstream hypothesis of what DM was supposed to be. According to mainstream hypothesis, it was supposed to NOT interact electro-magnetically and hence not radiate electro-magnetically and only interact gravitationally. That is, it was supposed to be 'exotic' NON-Baryonic 'matter'. It was mainstream hypothesis that made the error of discounting NORMAL Baryonic dust/cold gas etc as an explanation of the observed motions/gravity effects.

See? It wasn't 'the cranks' who thought it was 'exotic' DM; it was mainstream hypothesizers. Ok? :)
Whydening Gyre
4.4 / 5 (13) Dec 27, 2015
Wow....
All this over a misunderstanding of the term "Dark Matter"?
Mainstream called it that. Because it was unseen, not that it was exotic.
Perhaps I meant unschooled in the use of the English Language? Hmmm?
Uncle Ira
3.8 / 5 (20) Dec 27, 2015
observations which when combined create 'bigger picture' of MANY TIMES previous estimate of NORMAL matter being found where previously thought not to exist..


Nice try Really-Skippy. But Cher, not all those are discovering more new ordinary matter. Only that the ordinary matter is doing some surprising things, eh?

Oh yeah, I almost forget. No not MANY TIMES either, non Cher. ALL that stuffs added together is not even ONE times. And they need to find about eight times more. I think that is right but maybe I am reading them wrong.

Is 'exotic' DM needed anymore? :)


Well Cher, instead of needing eight times DM, with your new science shaking discoveries we only need seven point eight times DM.

Let's see if one or more of the really smart Skippys can help me tell it better than me because I don't really know all the right words.I don't mind being wrong if somebody can help me, as long as it is not something I missed in the Earthling Playhouse.
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (16) Dec 27, 2015
HI Whyde. :)
All this over a misunderstanding of the term "Dark Matter"?
Mainstream called it that. Because it was unseen, not that it was exotic.
No misunderstanding. The hypothesized DM 'morphed' into 'exotic stuff' when suggestions were made that we were NOT 'seeing' all the NORMAL matter which is many times that estimated via visible features/radiation. It is only recently that we find those suggestions were correct, and many times the ordinary baryonic matter now found distributed over vast regions of deep space; and if added up, would represent many times the 'visible' stellar/galactic feature 'estimated mass'. The 'exotic' claim by mainstream was made more 'weird' when they assumed that DM did NOT interact via electro-magnetic forces but only gravitational force. So, no; no misunderstanding

Ok? Mainstream claimed exotic, gravitational-only-interacting NON-baryonic 'stuff'.

PS: I long ago suggested multiple-galactic matter quantities ejected into deep space. :)
TehDog
4.5 / 5 (15) Dec 27, 2015
" You ever see the Foghorn Leghorn cartoons where the little bitty chickenhawk is worrying with Foghorn all the time?"

Oh man, I miss those guys, and Bugs, Daffy, even Pepe with his decidedly non-PC attitude towards anything that was possibly of the opposite sex.
Wily E. Coyote, best customer ACME ever had...
Gonna have to find a source for them now, skull and crossbones raised :)
Whydening Gyre
4.4 / 5 (14) Dec 27, 2015
" You ever see the Foghorn Leghorn cartoons where the little bitty chickenhawk is worrying with Foghorn all the time?"

Lemme tell ya, son... Now THAT's a chicken. (points to dog on chain)

Wily E. Coyote, best customer ACME ever had...

A true scientist, unafraid of the attempt - failure is only a lesson to be learned (albeit sometimes a hard one...:-))
Whydening Gyre
4.5 / 5 (15) Dec 27, 2015
Ok? Mainstream claimed exotic, gravitational-only-interacting NON-baryonic 'stuff'.

Funny... I only saw/read the "gravitationally interacting" part... Never read anything about non-baryonic...
Silly me. I must not have been reading the right (er-wrong) source material websites...
Seeker2
4 / 5 (4) Dec 28, 2015
Ok. Here's some math: Barring decay, the expected lifetime of antimatter before it is recycled is a/2 where where a is the age of the universe when it was created.
NO! The expected lifetime of an antiparticle is a where a is the time of its creation after the BB. That is, it will take a years to get back to the beginning of time. It so happens that any antiparticle created earlier than 13,7/2=6.85 by will already have returned to the beginning of time so we will not be able to observe it.
Seeker2
4 / 5 (4) Dec 28, 2015
Re, DM, you SHOULD know Benni, its a place holder in equations of motion which include a force term in Gravitation ie F=G0m1m2/d^2 but WHY can't you see that ?
Note the equations of motion are equally valid in reverse time as in forward time, something puzzling the physicists since f=ma. That;s because they are describing the laws of motion for antimatter.

Seeker2
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 28, 2015
It was mainstream hypothesis that made the error of discounting NORMAL Baryonic dust/cold gas etc as an explanation of the observed motions/gravity effects.
IMOP this would not be an error. The error would be in discounting entropic gravity resulting from gradients in the pressure of the vacuum energy due to BB turbulence.
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Dec 28, 2015
ok Penrose from Wiki
In simple terms, he believes that the singularity in Einstein's field equation at the Big Bang is only an apparent singularity, similar to the well-known apparent singularity at the event horizon of a black hole.
I don't buy it even if it is Wiki. The singularity would have to be somewhere inside the event horizon.
Garrote
2 / 5 (12) Dec 28, 2015
Looking at the density of the cranks on this site, one wonders if a collapse might happen around their servers. I thought I'd seen "thick" when I deal with people that confuse astronomy and astrology. Man. That doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of it compared with some of these comments!

It's pretty insulting to a professional. They don't have to do the hard yards and spend years learning the basics because that only leads you to the wrong conclusions! They wouldn't understand much about society as most seem to be squatting under a toadstool somewhere, but if they did ever interact with real people they might realize that knowledge is only meaningful in a context. Even wrong assumptions are a basis for communication and as they're worked out it brings the whole community along. That's it really. They say "bad assumptions" but they mean "scary community". I doubt most have ever had a meaningful, sustained social interaction to appreciate that.
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Dec 28, 2015
Penrose proposes a different change of coordinate system that will remove the singularity at the big bang.
Great. I don't get all the hullabalo about the singularity at the big bang. It seems the BB would have to start somewhere like when you pop a balloon. In a black hole it seems the singularity would have to be where matter has completely displaced the vacuum. This could be a point or a finite volume containing pure matter with no vacuum.
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Dec 28, 2015
It's pretty insulting to a professional.
I feel your pain. Try the ignore button. Works for me.
AGreatWhopper
1 / 5 (13) Dec 28, 2015
yro1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 24, 2015
Genesis 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.


So, did the devil make you or is your stupid God blind as well as an idiot?

Fuck you, viko_mx and DavidW and fuck your God. He's real? Show me so I can rip his fucking nuts off. And if you've got such a great relationship, how's about you lobby him to cease and desist the anal rape shit. Is that what you have against male homosexuals? Cutting into your turf?

God communicates as truth, something you denied.
God communicates as truth, something you denied.
God communicates as truth, something you denied.
God communicates as truth, something you denied.


Oh, this is acceptable posting? Fucking moderators. OK. I'll try to put it so you can understand. All sing along.

AGreatWhopper
1 / 5 (13) Dec 28, 2015
Jesus fucks me this I know
For my butthole tells me so
His little dick is weak and limp
His mom's a whore and he's a pimp

Yes Jesus loves me
Yes Jesus loves me
Yes Jesus loves me
My asshole tells me so!
antialias_physorg
4.1 / 5 (13) Dec 28, 2015
When I read Penrose's paper on his CCC (admittedly I did not understand it in full) I had a bit of a problem with his handling of entropy from one aeon to the next.

For reference: papoer can be viewed here: http://accelconf....PA01.PDF )

In that at one point he simply introduces conformal factor amounting to an infinte stretching of his metric so that it stretches smoothly accross the big bang boundary (from 'before' to 'after'...or conversely which becomes zero if one goes the other way). Instability of electrons is also an issue, as well as the necessity ofr an infintely large gravitational field at the big bang.

I don't find infinities particularly persuasive in this context.
(Note that his theory is still a good theory in the sense that it makes predictions. So: who knows?)
TechnoCreed
4.3 / 5 (11) Dec 28, 2015
@MattPettini

Interesting comment!

Except that I can feel much contempt on your behalf; it does not make you much of a sociologist. Let me put you in context; you are in the humble crowd of the Physorg community; here you will find much more individuals similar to Diogenes of Sinope than any kind of 'professionals'. The question is: are you the man?

As a heart warming gift, let me offer you a one star token of appreciation.
TechnoCreed
4.2 / 5 (10) Dec 28, 2015
@AGW
Jesus fucks me this I know
For my butthole tells me so
His little dick is weak and limp
His mom's a whore and he's a pimp

Yes Jesus loves me
Yes Jesus loves me
Yes Jesus loves me
My asshole tells me so!

I thought you were looking for the beautiful Grace. But, by the way you are expressing yourself, you seem to have found a fine alternative. You are a good model, a pure soul go on and spread the good news.
Seeker2
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 28, 2015
Try the ignore button.
Of course that might not help when Wiki talks about a singularity at the event horizon.
Seeker2
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 28, 2015
When I read Penrose's paper on his CCC
I got the impression that the universe is recycled from one aeon to the next. That makes more sense than a one-shot phenom.
antialias_physorg
4.1 / 5 (17) Dec 28, 2015
I got the impression that the universe is recycled from one aeon to the next.

That is a possibility.
However, the way he goes about collapsing the prior one into the current one seems rather ad-hoc to me (the way I understand it he just says "entropy increase is not a problem if you just make the entropy in the next one infinitely bigger and and convert everything to bosons along the way which don't care about time).
In the end he does have a big bang in his model (even if it is a smooth transition) - and I can't find the necessity in his model for such an event at all.
Mimath224
3 / 5 (6) Dec 28, 2015
@antialias doesn't RP also involve a granular phase space argument too?
Benni
3.6 / 5 (20) Dec 28, 2015
However, the way he goes about collapsing the prior one into the current one seems rather ad-hoc to me (the way I understand it he just says "entropy increase is not a problem if you just make the entropy in the next one infinitely bigger,


Anti_Physics, as a biologist, you have no comprehension & appreciation of the concept of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (entropy) & how it functions in the Universe we live in. Entropy in the distant Universe functions exactly the same as Entropy in the local Universe & you can't prove differently, there is no "infinite" environment in which Entropy can exist, ever.

The biggest part of the problem with Zwicky's DM cosmic fairy dust is that unlike Einstein, Zwicky failed to grasp the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics just as you & all the other DM Faithful who have been posting above, also whom have never taken a Thermodynamics course, passed a final exam & gotten a grade.

Stop imagining you're something you obviously are not.
antialias_physorg
4.1 / 5 (17) Dec 28, 2015
@antialias doesn't RP also involve a granular phase space argument too?

Not as far as I can see.

Anti_Physics, as a biologist,

I'm not a biologist. Whatever gave you that idea? I have PhD in human biology, but my uni degree is EE and my scientific career has beeen in the computer sciences sector. Reading papers in other science fields are just a hobby.

Entropy in the distant Universe functions exactly the same as Entropy in the local Universe

And I have not said it does (nor has anyone else, here. Not even Penrose).

The biggest part of the problem with Zwicky's DM cosmic fairy dust is that unlike Einstein, Zwicky failed to grasp the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics just as you & all the other DM Faithful who have been posting above, also whom have never taken a Thermodynamics course, passed a final exam & gotten a grade.

Mind rephrasing that in english?
Benni
3.7 / 5 (21) Dec 28, 2015
I'm not a biologist. Whatever gave you that idea? I have PhD in human biology, but my uni degree is EE and my scientific career has beeen in the computer sciences sector. Reading papers in other science fields are just a hobby.


And you're certainly a hobbyist here.......just one more rewrite of your resume in an attempt to present yourself as relevant. You continually posture your posts such that they carry the tone of taking both sides of every issue, then make smarmy remarks like:
Mind rephrasing that in english?


antialias_physorg
4.1 / 5 (18) Dec 28, 2015
.just one more rewrite of your resume in an attempt to present yourself as relevant.

No. Just a statement to correct your lies. I hate liars.

hen make smarmy remarks like:

Well, yeah: If you reread your own posts you will often find that the sentences are a garbled mess without meaning. You may THINK you're saying something but you're actually not. Sticking to some semblance of english sentence structure might help (especially for us non-native speakers).
Mike_Massen
2.1 / 5 (21) Dec 28, 2015
Benni said
The biggest part of the problem with Zwicky's DM cosmic fairy dust is that unlike Einstein, Zwicky failed to grasp the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics just as you & all the other DM Faithful who have been posting above, also whom have never taken a Thermodynamics course, passed a final exam & gotten a grade
FFS, more proof you couldn't have graduated as an Electrical then Nuclear Engineer !

Why ? - Because you are insecure of your technical base & Instead Attack the person with suggestions of odd intellectual failures, EE/NE's just don't write like this AT ALL, well not those that actually graduated. Rrefusal to supply Zwicky's link adds it too !

Benni, I'm interested in WHY you ignore maths re a term in gravitation ie mass in classic gravitation equation & cannot comprehend its math re G which works locally rather well but, only (so far) offers an 'm+x' - primarily algebra Benni

As for antialias_physorg, also like your para above clarified please ?
Mike_Massen
2.1 / 5 (21) Dec 28, 2015
Benni said
And you're certainly a hobbyist here.......just one more rewrite of your resume in an attempt to present yourself as relevant
FFS, if you really thought that even a bit AND you really were a graduated Electrical & Nuclear Engineer then you wouldnt be so insecure AND be able to articulate precise issue a heck of a lot better than you have so far, occurs to ask have you ever had a stroke or serious car accident long ago ?

No joke, met someone years ago with only tangential comprehension & used attack as a defense mechanism, they had difficulty arranging to be patient when challenged...

antialias_physorg, Captain_Stumpy, runrig, thermodynamics & many others including myself as history shows are *pleased* to supply links to papers & articles & especially so if we make Physics claims, its mature, sensible & efficient for convergence re dialectic as bulk of technical people do :-)

But, you Benni just don't, you are evasive & idiosyncratic, r u unwell ?
Mike_Massen
2.3 / 5 (22) Dec 28, 2015
Hang on Benni - do you really claim this
... problem with Zwicky's DM cosmic fairy dust is that unlike Einstein, Zwicky failed to grasp the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics...
In what specific respect as 2nd law postulate is (since you arbitrarily refuse to read my links):-

"..differences in temperature, pressure, and chemical potential tend to even out in a physical system that is isolated from the outside world.."
&
"..second law is a basic postulate applicable to any system involving heat energy transfer"

Explain please Benni, why you therefore imagine galaxy/nebulae Zwicky refers to is somehow isolated from the "outside world" or else what ?

Do you imply heat re entropy isnt affected by gravity from outside as you seem to imply should be treated as an isolated system ?

Do you consider Eg Gravity, re its galactic distribution, might not necessarily be any causal factor either for or against operation of the 2nd law re heat, can you describe your position on that ?
Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (12) Dec 28, 2015
Anti_Physics, as a biologist, you have no comprehension & appreciation of the concept of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (entropy) & how it functions in the Universe we live in. Entropy in the distant Universe functions exactly the same as Entropy in the local Universe & you can't prove differently, there is no "infinite" environment in which Entropy can exist, ever.

Not getting your "Infinite" context, but...
Entropy (in thermodynamic context) is a measure of energetic activity of baryonic material within a defined space. Let's say we have a nano sized mass particle in one cubic kilometre of space. That's not gonna produce much energy (Entropy) if you're looking at it from say, 3 billion light years, so it looks like - space. "Dark" (Thermodynamically speaking).
But if you add up all those trillions of nano sized particles (along with their afiliated trillions of square kilometres of space),and step back, it starts to show.
See my comment about dust in your house...
DavidW
3.3 / 5 (17) Dec 28, 2015

No. Just a statement to correct your lies. I hate liars.

So you hate yourself? You just said some people are liars. That's lying.

You also have never once substantiated a foundation for your words concerning truth. You cause the lies because you don't uphold the truth as most important. That's your fault. Totally on you dude.

Now you will insult them for behaving in a way that is fairly predictable and understandable given the lying environment you created, nurtured and encouraged?

Pull your head out of your ass.

DavidW
3.1 / 5 (17) Dec 28, 2015
antialias_physorg,

The behavior of 2cent, wopper, ira, Gyre is becasue you really didn't know how to behave properly.

This place is a mess because you, more than anyone else, 'as far as I can see'. Granted, people do have issues that you didn't cause. Yet, you chose to open your mouth and lie. It is you calling people names, once in a while, that is the catalyst for them all. If you retracted those comments and said they were wrong, that you lied when you called people something less than most important all those times that you did, then at least it would give them proper direction. Isn't you who spoke up as if you could lead a civilly intelligent discussion? You have enough age to know better, but for some reason you don't I came so you could fix that terrible flaw that stops those you claim to want to help from living and appreciating what we already have. You steal when you lie

PEACE
Perfect Equality Among Celestial Entities
Yield to the Truth
Mike_Massen
2.3 / 5 (22) Dec 28, 2015
DavidW with immense hypocrisy says
You also have never once substantiated a foundation for your words concerning truth
Pot calling kettle black !

ie You Fail dismally to explain YOUR interpretation of 'truth' & *should* know its fully dependent on shared definitions otherwise appears somewhat self-referential, not useful

DavidW sadly, your posts have areas of irrationality littered with disinterest articulating a position with any clarity & thus not seen as offering a credible position so aren't useful to make your case heard, paints yourself as crank !

You say "life is most important in life is a self-evident truth", it Cannot be "self-evident" as terms of reference re your language use are Not articulated anywhere

Only practical observable truth possible is re "life is important to life" as basis for Nature's brutal paradigm of "Eat & be eaten" its under your very nose otherwise its word mess

What does your creator say to you re Nature's huge brutality ?
Mike_Massen
2.3 / 5 (22) Dec 29, 2015
DavidW blurted
READ MIKE
God communicates as truth, something you denied
Then with 10 more repetitions !

Never denied that, what in heck does "..communicates as truth" mean please ?

What does your paradigm "..communicate as.." illustrate & your definition of "truth" in that context ?

DavidW claims
I said nothing of a book.Quit lying
No, I didnt lie, asked a Question & posited a book as possible, if NOT a book then how please ?

DavidW claimed
Everyone in their pack has lost their mind.. and they won't get it back without yielding to the truth
How is *any* 'truth' communicated clearly precisely & for all equally so there is no conflict generated by your claimed 'creator' ?

DavidW incoherently says
They gave away a lifetime of sanity for an ego moment in public board. Very sad indeed. They got their. Oh, their only complete life, lost from that moment on. Never to be regained with humility. Pure evil in the science community
Try again please
Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (18) Dec 29, 2015
antialias_physorg,

The behavior of 2cent, wopper, ira, Gyre is becasue you really didn't know how to behave properly.

This place is a mess because you, more than anyone else, 'as far as I can see'. Granted, people do have issues that you didn't cause. Yet, you chose to open your mouth and lie. It is you calling people names, once in a while, that is the catalyst for them all. If you retracted those comments and said they were wrong, that you lied when you called people something less than most important all those times that you did, then at least it would give them proper direction. Isn't you who spoke up as if you could lead a civilly intelligent discussion? You have enough age to know better, but for some reason you don't I came so you could fix that terrible flaw that stops those you claim to want to help from living and appreciating what we already have. You steal when you lie

PEACE
Perfect Equality Among Celestial Entities
Yield to the Truth

A keg about to blow.
Whydening Gyre
4.1 / 5 (17) Dec 29, 2015
If I can be serious for a moment...
I get an odd feeling Dave is on the verge of cracking - badly (Perhaps a PTSD situation of some sort...) and I fear someone could get hurt.
If anyone has an idea as to his location, contact someone to get him some help.
This not sarcastic or funny in any way... just a feeling...
Vietvet
Dec 29, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
AGreatWhopper
2.2 / 5 (20) Dec 29, 2015
Stupid is as stupid does.
Whydening Gyre
Dec 29, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
viko_mx
3.8 / 5 (16) Dec 29, 2015
If the gravity was strong enough to consolidate matter in cosmic structures, as we can see it today, the universe would never have the chance to expand, for which the theorist of big bang are insisting. So due to non love the truth, they are in logical trap from which can not escape without replacing purely scientific methods with abstractionism which introduces imaginary and elusive for the modern scientific equipment phenomena only to defend one failed theory with the status of a sacred cow. CERN are discovering virtual politically correct particles to conceal the fact that the official view for the physical reality in which we are living has failed.
viko_mx
3.8 / 5 (16) Dec 29, 2015
The universe exit because of life. Without intelligent being to which this physical reality to serve, it existence is pointless. The driving force of the motion is the ideas of the intelligent beings and their will.
my2cts
2.6 / 5 (18) Dec 29, 2015
Exit the universe, already ?
Just shows how people talk most of what they don't have.
In viko's case, intelligence.
my2cts
2.8 / 5 (20) Dec 29, 2015
If the gravity was strong enough to consolidate matter in cosmic structures, as we can see it today, the universe would never have the chance to expand, for which the theorist of big bang are insisting.

Spoken like true ignoramus.
So due to non love the truth,

Spoken like true religion psycho.
Mike_Massen
2.5 / 5 (22) Dec 29, 2015
viko_mx claims
If the gravity was strong enough to consolidate matter in cosmic structures, as we can see it today, the universe would never have the chance to expand, for which the theorist of big bang are insisting
You are False, & *should* know, if your claim "I know Physics well" were true, you would have a grounding in Calculus especially Limits but, you again FAIL to understand basic Physics re distance & time, go away !

Trying to obfuscate to prosletyse by lying is "bearing false witness", if your god existed he would be angry & should punish you !

viko_mx incoherently states
So due to non love the truth, they are in logical trap from which can not escape without replacing purely scientific methods with abstractionism which introduces imaginary and elusive for the modern scientific equipment phenomena only to defend one failed theory with the status of a sacred cow
viko_mx, you're showing yourself up to be an inarticulate crank

Learn Physics !
Mike_Massen
1.9 / 5 (20) Dec 29, 2015
Whydening Gyre offered the Golden Rule
If I can be serious for a moment...
I get an odd feeling Dave is on the verge of cracking - badly (Perhaps a PTSD situation of some sort...) and I fear someone could get hurt
Cool, you are showing the great human skill of empathy shared with the thoughtful & yes, when I first saw his utterings had similar thought he'd "lost it"

History shows gets riled then retreats then repeats now & then, he just doesn't get the essential pattern of all religions which prosletyse ie To exploit our inherent sense of Awe to manipulate and add us to their 'flock' to try & control us & treat us as mere robots overall :-(

DavidW doesnt show empathy whilst illustrating complete disregard of fact these forums are a Science agglomerator, sadly there are others who do the same, lie & cheat & FAIL to discriminate claim from Evidence, turns out worst is Uncle Ira, like DavidW reached their Fail asymptote, more important issues first

Physics is key
OdinsAcolyte
2 / 5 (4) Dec 29, 2015
I do not know.
The Higgs Field sounds a lot like Dark Energy to me. I get why they call it a God particle.
It is omnipresent and eternal. M'kay?
Kind of amusing, discussion wise.
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (14) Dec 29, 2015
Hi Whyde. :)
Never read anything about non-baryonic..
You apparently missed this recent physorg news/article re DM detectors designed/located to *exclude" baryonic matter/gas deep underground where ONLY *hypothesized* NON-baryonic 'Dark Matter particles' can reach because they (like Neutrinos do) are *hypothesized* to be able to penetrate solid baryonic matter of the Earth which would stop any incoming ordinary Baryonic dust/gas/cosmic-ray matter.

http://phys.org/n...tor.html

See? Original DM hypothesis 'morphed' from 'ordinary unseen' baryonic matter (ie, dust/gas) to CURRENT MAINSTREAM 'exotic unseen' non-baryonic matter. :)

Anyhow, links I posted couple days ago for Phys1 should give you idea just how MANY TENS of times ordinary baryonic dust/gas than previously estimated being found (in/around/ejected from huge numbers of newly discovered Low-Surface-Brightness galaxies; galactic polar jets; intergalactic filaments). :)
RealityCheck
2.8 / 5 (16) Dec 29, 2015
PS @ Whyde & Everyone, including moderators/staff at physorg...and all your respective families:

My sincere wishes to you all for a safe and happy New Year! Good luck, good thinking and goodbye for now----from your collective friend in Science and Humanity, RealityCheck. :)
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Dec 31, 2015
viko_mx claims
If the gravity was strong enough to consolidate matter in cosmic structures, as we can see it today, the universe would never have the chance to expand, for which the theorist of big bang are insisting
Viko, the universe is like a balloon. It expands under pressure. Actually the variations in the pressure is what causes (entropic) gravity. No pressure, no gravity, the universe falls apart.
Old_C_Code
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 17, 2016
The arrogance is simply incredible; to claim to know what happened at some "start" of the (probably infinite) universe, when they don't even understand the physics of our current local galaxy or even Sun for that matter.

Earth has a great atmosphere, yet Mars had it's atmosphere stripped off due to the solar wind because it has no magnetic field? Then explain Venus, it's much closer to the Sun and has no magnetic field either. Yet oxygen escapes at the same rate on all three planets.

Conclusion: dear geniuses, stop spending so much smart energy on absurd "beginnings" scenarios which are impossible to verify and add no real value, and focus on finding answers to more basic questions first.
Uncle Ira
2.9 / 5 (8) Jan 17, 2016
The arrogance is simply incredible;.


You are right about that Skippy.
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Jan 19, 2016
Yet oxygen escapes at the same rate on all three planets.
Then what happened to it on Mars and Venus?
Seeker2
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 19, 2016
Some claim god was testing Eve but, it means the god didn't know the outcome ie means it Cannot be a god !

In retort it was for eve's benefit but, had she been educated in Guile she would have realised she was lied to & in any case why punish ALL creation for such evil setup ?
So if there is a god he must know all outcomes? In which case god deliberately punished all creation because he knew the outcome before he even gave Eve the choice?
icesterftl
1 / 5 (1) Jan 29, 2016
It does, but only locally... Continuity of Universe assures gravitational equilibrium...
Jewish Science and Technology

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

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