Death by gamma-ray bursts may place first lower bound on the cosmological constant

GRB
Artist's illustration of a gamma-ray burst. Energy from the explosion is beamed into two narrow, oppositely directed jets. Credit: NASA/Swift/Mary Pat Hrybyk-Keith and John Jones

(Phys.org)—Sometimes when a star collapses into a supernova, it releases an intense, narrow beam of gamma rays. Gamma-ray bursts often last just a few seconds, but during that time they can release as much energy as the Sun will produce in its entire lifetime, making gamma-ray bursts the most powerful explosions ever observed in the universe. They are so intense that, if pointed at the Earth from even the most distant edge of our galaxy, they could easily cause a mass extinction, possibly obliterating all life on the planet. It's thought that a gamma-ray burst may have caused the Ordovician extinction around 440 million years ago, which wiped out 85% of all species at the time.

Clearly, the farther away a planet is from gamma-ray bursts, the better its chances of harboring advanced forms of life. In a new paper, scientists have shown that the risk to life favors a universe where all objects (like planets and gamma-ray bursts) are relatively far apart. And the main factor that tells how far apart everything is in the universe—or in other words, how things are spreading out and moving away from each other—is dark or the .

One of the biggest unanswered questions in cosmology is why does the cosmological constant have the particular value that scientists observe? Einstein initially devised the cosmological constant to be like an "anti-gravity" force, so that a larger value means that the universe is expanding very rapidly and objects are being pushed farther apart from each other. A smaller value means that the universe itself is smaller and objects are somewhat closer together.

Currently, the value of the cosmological constant is estimated to be about 10-123. Researchers have placed upper bounds on this value (it can't be more than 10-120 or else and other structures could not form because their matter could not have gotten close enough together). But so far, no research has been able to place a lower bound on the value.

GRB graphs
The number of protective halos increases as the value of the cosmological constant increases (different colors of lines represents different values of the constant). The two graphs represent two different sizes of halos, though they give similar results: for example, both show that few halos existed more than 7 billion years ago, which fits with the age of the Earth being about 4.5 billion years old. Credit: Piran, et al. ©2016 American Physical Society

By showing that the chances of advanced life existing is extremely small when planets are close to gamma-ray bursts, the new study makes an argument for placing the first lower bounds on the value of the cosmological constant. The scientists estimate that, when the value gets below 10-124, the number of protective "halos" of space (regions where planets stand a chance of avoiding gamma-ray bursts for long periods of time) sharply decreases. In other words, it would be pretty unlikely for humans to exist if the value were smaller than this number.

"We have found a lower limit on the cosmological constant," coauthor Tsvi Piran at The Hebrew University in Jerusalem told Phys.org. "As you know it is very small, 10-123. If it is so small, then why not zero? Zero is a 'round' number and one can look for a basic law of physics that will force the cosmological constant to vanish. Additionally, why not a negative value?"

By showing that the cosmological constant is very unlikely to be zero or negative, and much more likely to be close to its observed value, the results may help explain where this value comes from.

"This is important as it gives clues to the question of what is the origin of this constant," Piran said. "It is generally believed that the value of the cosmological constant is determined by some quantum process, and understanding its relevant range is important to have a clue on its origin."

The full analysis is more complicated, as the researchers had to account for other factors, such as the age of the universe—it can't be too young nor too old for advanced life. It can't be too old because planets need to orbit around a hydrogen-burning star like our Sun, which is young enough that it has not yet reached the end of its lifetime. But the universe also can't be too young because a galaxy (where protective halos reside) must have time to undergo chemical evolution to produce metal elements. A high metallicity decreases the odds of having a nearby gamma-ray burst, since the stars that cause these bursts have relatively low metal concentrations.

It's not surprising that Earth seems to occupy a favorable point in the researchers' simulations: a place with minimal exposure to gamma-ray bursts, and at a time with many hydrogen-burning like the Sun, along with a high average metallicity. This special place and time may help researchers search for other possible locations of life in the universe.

"We would like to further refine this limit and extend the range of parameters (beyond just the cosmological constant) that influence the rate of gamma-ray bursts, and investigate their implications for the possible locations of planets that can harbor life," Piran said.


Explore further

Researchers learn more about the possible role of gamma ray bursts on life extinction in the universe

More information: Tsvi Piran, et al. "Cosmic Explosions, Life in the Universe, and the Cosmological Constant." Physical Review Letters. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.081301. Also at: arXiv:1508.01034 [astro-ph.CO]
Journal information: Physical Review Letters

© 2016 Phys.org

Citation: Death by gamma-ray bursts may place first lower bound on the cosmological constant (2016, March 7) retrieved 18 August 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2016-03-death-gamma-ray-bound-cosmological-constant.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
2426 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Mar 07, 2016
Huh, this is definitely worth some thought.

Mar 07, 2016
As in other cases of parameter matching it is all too easy to come up with loose constraints for a prediction. Piran et al uses the putative ozon layer loss of GRBs at one end, something that is fraught with problems.

Yes, it may be that the ozone layer is fritzed for months. So is half the ozone layer at Antarctica, the harmful UVB is twice the usual amount, no ecological changes has been seen. No one knows how much UVB unclouded early and modern atmospheres would let through. Especially clouds are effective blockers and ~ 50 % of the planet is covered at any time. (So you can imagine a russian roulette of some places randomly covered during the ozone recovery.) And ~ 1 % of forests are cloud forests, over 1.4 km they are persistent cloudy assuming habitable planets are somewhat alike Earth.

Moreover we have blockage from ~1 m of water, in caves and burrows, possibly for nocturnal life, et cetera.

[tbctd]

Mar 07, 2016
[ctd]

"It's thought that a gamma-ray burst may have caused the Ordovician extinction".

"A small minority of scientists have suggested that the initial extinctions could have been caused by a gamma ray burst ... there is no unambiguous evidence that such a nearby gamma ray burst ever happened." [ https://en.wikipe...e_causes ]

Be what it may on the Ordovician extinction, in any case the continued existence of the biosphere and the absence of GRBs for other mass extinction events seems to maks GRBs somewhat inefficient Death Stars.

Mar 07, 2016
Be what it may on the Ordovician extinction, in any case the continued existence of the biosphere and the absence of GRBs for other mass extinction events seems to maks GRBs somewhat inefficient Death Stars.


I think you are getting it backwards. They are saying that GRBs would be very efficient Death Stars if we were closer to them, and we would be closer to them if the cosmological constant were smaller, but since we are alive, it must be that the constant cannot be that small.

Mar 07, 2016
Even if the universe was not expanding, the timeline until the Earth was formed 4 billion years ago would mean that any nearby supernovae blasts directed at Earth would have passed by long ago. So. assuming only expansion 'cosmological constant' taking supernovae far enough away, is putting the conclusion before the logic. This seems to be another inadvertent confirmation biased 'exercise' and 'result' which had the conclusion built-in from the get-go. Why didn't they realize that their argument for expansion and then their conclusion of expansion is circuitous argument in this exercise/conclusion? How many times do we have to read about such mere assumptives-riddled, confirmation-biased, circuitous-argument-dependent 'exercises' as some sort of 'valid science results' which 'support' predetermined Big Bang/Expansion/Dark Energy speculation built into the 'exercise'? Time to rethink what they're doing and curb their confirmation bias before offering more of this GIGO stuff.

Mar 07, 2016
@RC
Even if the universe was not expanding,..................blah, blah, blah................................


Yup, Einstein, give us an alternative idea that actually works. That is, modelling, and observation. There isn't one. And don't give me that Arp BS; that was shown to be crap years ago.

Mar 07, 2016
Hi jonesdave. :)

Why bring in Arp? I made an observation of the circuity of the assumptions and exercises depending on same. You haven't addressed the logic or physics involved, but merely made an appeal to authority which may or may not have any relevance directly to answering the observation I made. If you have no sensible scientific response addressing the point made, then please keep your irrelevant and anti-science attitude to yourself. There are enough trolls about without adding yourself to their ranks by your above-demonstrated disrespect for scientific discourse. Thanks. :)

Mar 07, 2016
Hear, hear!, JD.

I wonder why they used the Gabriela Mistral Nebula in the image? Would have made more sense to use something like Eta Carinae.

Mar 07, 2016
You haven't addressed the logic or physics involved, but merely made an appeal to authority...
The authority he appealed to was you, Einstein. Give us an alternative that works... A box of rocks would've been smart enough not to respond like you did.

Mar 07, 2016
You haven't addressed the logic or physics involved, but merely made an appeal to authority...
The authority he appealed to was you, Einstein. Give us an alternative that works... A box of rocks would've been smart enough not to respond like you did.
@Proto
you don't want him posting that kinda stuff...
this is the foundation that his ToE is based on here: http://earthlingclub.com/

feel free to peruse that web site and tell me if you really want him to post an alternative...

i'm just glad he is not trying to fix the climate like he threatened here: http://phys.org/n...fic.html

when he told everyone
...this GW solutions project has now become too urgent for me to leave it on the backburner any longer in all good conscience. Hang in there, guys! In both cases. The Reality-cavalry is coming to the rescue
our hero...*swoon*

LMFAO

Mar 07, 2016
you don't want him posting that kinda stuff...
Naw, 'course not. I'm waiting to see if he acts dumber than a box of rocks twice in one thread. Based on your links/quotes, I've set the bar too low. Way too low.

Mar 07, 2016
Hi Protoplasmix. :)
You haven't addressed the logic or physics involved, but merely made an appeal to authority...
The authority he appealed to was you, Einstein. Give us an alternative that works...
I answered his implied reference to the current orthodoxy of standard Big Bang Cosmology model and assumptions; which the above reported exercise is dependent on, courtesy of Einstein's Cosmological Constant etc etc which have been built into every 'exercise' so far as a-priori assumptions which confirmation based exercises like that above naturally 'finds' it 'confirms'. It was just as flawed an exercise as that BICEP2 'analysis/conclusions' was; because they started with the confirmation biased assumptions from Big Bang/Inflation/Expansion etc models. Why keep making it about the person instead of the scientific questions raised?

And an "alternative" was implicitly contained in my opening words in that post: "Even if the Universe was not expanding...". Miss it? :)

Mar 07, 2016
you don't want him posting that kinda stuff...
Naw, 'course not. I'm waiting to see if he acts dumber than a box of rocks twice in one thread. Based on your links/quotes, I've set the bar too low. Way too low.
@proto
holy cow... you are way, WAY too awesome...
it's like you willed it to happen and Lo, he doth drop his "box of rocks twice in one thread"!

you win the internet today, Proto!


Mar 07, 2016
HI CapS. :) Let it go, mate. Circumstances changed. I explained. Life gets in the way and things have a way of deciding schedules and priorities as we live it. Don't become unhealthily obsessed. And your desperately 'needy' and 'suckup' personal chatter with other personal chatterers is just reinforcing your irrelevance. Let it go, mate. Stick to the on-topic science discussion. :)

Mar 07, 2016
Stick to the on-topic science discussion
you mean like this?
as flawed an exercise as that BICEP2 'analysis/conclusions' was
SANS EVIDENCE, or
You convince yourself of whatever 'reality' it is that soothes your ego most, mate
Wow... scientific info!
you just effectively became one of those others, having nothing but cheap shots to make against someone working on substantive science which you ridicule
when you write up something like what is on the earthling club or in your books SANS EVIDENCE or MATH, you deserve to be ridiculed for pseudoscience!
I'm working on many fronts: Reality-physics-based ToE
sans MATH or EVIDENCE, that is... so how is it "reality based"? or is that a pun with your moniker in it?
LMFAO

i know you don't get my point, so...

L8er, cavalry sam
LMFAO

Mar 08, 2016
CapS, you're unhealthily obsessing and sounding childishly manic. Let it go, mate. :)

Mar 08, 2016
Why keep making it about the person instead of the scientific questions raised?
Because the person keeps failing to learn the basics about the scientific questions raised, and keeps talking bad about the people who are the experts and who are actually advancing the field. Thanks for not disappointing, RC.

Mar 08, 2016
Hi Proto. :)
Why keep making it about the person instead of the scientific questions raised?
Because the person keeps failing to learn the basics about the scientific questions raised, and keeps talking bad about the people who are the experts and who are actually advancing the field. Thanks for not disappointing, RC.
What are you talking about? I questioned the validity of their exercise, and gave scientific and logical reasons why it was confirmation biased exercise and conclusion. That is what SCIENCE demands, questioning claims and conclusions on the science and logics. Reputation of source and status of persons do NOT come into the Scientific Method. Period. Recall how I was the first here to question the validity of the BICEP2 exercise/claims, and how I was correct then too. Now, if you have no counter arguments based on science which contradict the alternative and logics I presented in this case, let's hear it. Otherwise keep the personal stuff to yourself. :)

Mar 08, 2016
I was the first here to question the validity of the BICEP2 exercise/claims...
@rc
STOP!
you never DID actually give any evidence as to why BICEP was wrong, let alone "gave scientific and logical reasons why it was confirmation biased exercise and conclusion"...

you never gave ANY evidence except for you claimed to have seen flaws
http://phys.org/n...nal.html

this, by definition, is at best an unfounded claim http://www.auburn...ion.html

the problem you still have is EVIDENCE
your opinion is NOT evidence: https://en.wikipe...evidence

in fact, your tactics demonstrate your unfamiliarity with the scientific method: https://en.wikipe...c_method

until you can come to grips with that, you will continue to have a martyr complex
https://en.wikipe..._complex

i can go on, but it will only fuel your delusion

Mar 08, 2016
CapS, you lost that one long ago. Give it up. Let it go, mate. :)

Mar 08, 2016
you lost that one long ago
@rc
lost?
LMFAO

the only way i could have "lost that one" is if you can provide a quote and link proving you explained the multiple flaws you "saw" in the BICEP paper...
YOU CAN'T

another point on that topic: this is where validation comes in-you were willing to denigrate a team of scientists with NO EVIDENCE (AKA- libel)

i know why you don't actually explain what you think you saw: because you know i will go straight to the source and validate your claims
and you know that, if you commit to something and i prove you wrong, you are proven, yet again, to have lied about something or misrepresented something (you know, the reasons you got the boot from SciForums AND Sapo's joint)

Science is all about validation... so, since you are so sure i "lost that one long ago" then provide the 4 fatal flaws you claimed to have seen written in the paper with links and references

should be easy if you are correct, right?

Mar 08, 2016
CapS, there was a whole year of doing just that to counter that half-truths tactics and fixation of yours just because you can't stand that I was and still am correct on the science despite what trolls and stalkers try to pretend different because they were and are wrong. Why would I keep doing that in this new year? Just because you can't seem to move on doesn't mean I have to be shackled to your continuing fixation. I understand that your reputation has suffered because of your trolls and half-truths about me, especially in denying the truth about the bannings which my Internet Experiments proved were due to moderator-troll collusions to abuse moderator position/power for their ego-tripping disgraceful games. Move on, CapS. Let the past be. Your reputation among your fellows will recover quickly if you stop this needless raking over old years 'personal' coals; just start sticking to science, logic discourse, not personalities, this new year. Let it go, mate. Good luck. :)

Mar 08, 2016
there was a whole year of
@rs
so.. that's a NO then, right?
you can't actually post anything here supporting your claims?
THANKS FOR VALIDATING MY POINT

yeah, i am going to continue linking this comment thread proving you could NOT validate your claim

Mar 08, 2016
CapS. Been there done that last year. Not playing your same game this year. I was proven correct, you and others proven wrong. Let it go, mate. :)

Mar 08, 2016
I was proven correct
@rc
you do realise that you can't just make this claim without being able to back it up with evidence, right?

Now, we know that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, therefore i will say this again - if you are correct and i am wrong, PROVE IT
YOU are making the claim that you proved it, now support the claim with evidence

demonstrate it by linking the evidence and threads for validation... just make sure that it actually covers all 8 flaws (especially the 4 fatal flaws)

in fact, i will make it far easier for you... just link the 4 fatal flaws! JUST THE 4 FATAL FLAWS should be easily done by you, right?

it's not about "playing games"... it is about SCIENCE- you know, the scientific method!
and one basic concept that seems to continually elude you which is VALIDATION

you made the claim
now validate it with evidence

Mar 08, 2016
CapS, give it up. That one you lost last year. Everyone who followed the saga knows I was proven correct and you/others wrong. Why keep picking at it like that? It's over. Your fellow trolls of the time won't thank you for reminding everyone of their debacle and embarrassment at the time. They moved on. You haven't. Not healthy. Let it go, mate. :)

Mar 08, 2016
give it up
@rc
so... that is a big resounding NO then?
you CANNOT PROVE YOUR CLAIM?
imagine that
That one you lost last year.
you keep using those words. i do not think it means what you think it means
https://www.youtu...OxYpVZpU

Everyone who followed the saga knows I was proven correct
funny! everyone i know says the same thing: WTF are you talking about and where is the PROOF of that?
LMFAO
you are hilarious

this is why you are an abject failure at science ... you can't prove your claims

I would like to thank you, though
this is all i needed from you. repeating the same crap saying you proved BLAH while not being able to actually prove anything
(called a FALSE CLAIM http://www.auburn...ion.html )

now i have the thread that i can point to as proof!
PROOF that you can't actually validate your claims

THANKS

good night, penguin head

Mar 08, 2016
before i go ... i gotta reiterate this
That one you lost last year. Everyone who followed the saga knows
repeating a lie doesn't make it true

this is the tactic you have used from the beginning, as noted in the thread i linked above with your claims...

just because you keep repeating that you "won" or that you "proved" something doesn't make it true

that is ALL you have: repetition

this is like saying: I am correct, and i can prove i am correct becuase i said it.
See here, i just said it and thus, you can't prove me wrong because i must be right ... i can repeat it and prove i'm right because i just said i was right. SEE right there! i said i was right, therefore you are wrong and by extrapolation i must be correct, thus i won, because i said i was right.

the difference between the above and your posts?
NONE

so like i said
you can't prove your claim and now i can link multiple threads proving it

嫌いな人たわごとステイン

THANKS


Mar 08, 2016
CapS. Come come, mate, the lie repeating was yours since you first lost your cookies when you found out those Internet Experiments proved beyond doubt I was vindicated against the moderator-troll abuses. It got worse since that BICEP2 debacle where you/others believed everything because it came from "reputable mainstream group". You still haven't recovered from the shock I was the first and only one here to find OBVIOUS flaws which you/others missed because of confirmation biased acceptance of it all. Give it up, CapS. I have been proven correct all along on the science and logic on many fronts; while you/other trolls wrongly harassed and lied about me. Get over it. Those people involved at the time, except for you, seemed to have got over it and moved on. Do the same or it will gnaw at you from inside. It's not healthy, CapS. Let it go and move on, mate. THis is a new year of discovery and reconciliation. Embrace it; let go of all that past personal baggage you carry. :)

Mar 08, 2016
CapS
@rc
TL;DR
more bullsh*t and more of this
I am correct, and i can prove i am correct becuase i said it.
See here, i just said it and thus, you can't prove me wrong because i must be right ... i can repeat it and prove i'm right because i just said i was right. SEE right there! i said i was right, therefore you are wrong and by extrapolation i must be correct, thus i won, because i said i was right.

good night, 嫌いな人たわごとステイン

if you can't even figure out how to validate your own claims or even READ the links that prove you wrong, how in the hell are you going to get peer review for your ToE or save the planet from climate change?
LMFAO

too funny...
L8er pseudoscience boy

Mar 08, 2016
CapS. Been there, done that, long ago. Why keep repeating the record which proves me correct and you/others wrong? The many times last year and the year before sufficed to inform fair observers of the facts. What trolls and liars responsible at the time want now is immaterial, since they lost long ago. Give it up. It's not healthy. Let it go, mate. :)

Mar 08, 2016
We will rid this forum of the Stumpys the Iras and the ottos and the other character assassins. Hide and watch.

This is not Twitter.

Mar 08, 2016
We are so lucky to enjoy different views. If only some of the closed minded deafness to alternative suggestions could be instead welcomed with enquiring minds.

But no. It's a constant battle to be the smartest or most popular.

Gone are the suggestions that a comment might be interesting and debatable, it's nowadays just a quick fall into personal attacks.

Sadly, I'm no exception so ...

If 'we' are choosing to 'rid' this forum of the dull and ignorant then Phys1, Vietvet and Anti-Thinking can go.

Actually, gkam, you can fuck off too.


Mar 08, 2016
@bluehigh

I've been diagnosed with stage IV lung cancer. The prognosis isn't good but the opportunity
to downrate your asinine comments will keep me going.

Mar 08, 2016
That's unfortunate Vietvet but I guess if you get your jollies enabling the abuse of kids, it's karma back at you. Go die, you're an evil dirtbag.

Mar 08, 2016
Very sorry to hear that, Vietvet. I grieve for you and your family.

Mar 08, 2016
I finally see two postums that actually did bother and get to me. Congrats for that you two morons, that is no little feat non.

Mar 08, 2016
"Then why would your dumbass rate the above a one. Or do you only accept condolences from approved sources?"
----------------------------------

YOU and Ira voted him, I did NOT!

I suggest you take your head out of my ass and use it to think. now, you have me talking like you and otto and Stumpy-dick.

Mar 08, 2016
Really you useless hypocrite?
Yeah, really.

Then why would your dumbass rate the above a one. Or do you only accept condolences from approved sources?
Why? You think it is hard to sort out? Because it was trite and insincere like most of his slogans. Including the "I grieve" is what got the one vote. See, that is not so hard to figure.

I suggest you take your head out of my ass and use it to think. now, you have me talking like you and otto and Stumpy-dick.
I am sure you are trying to say something, because you take the time to write that, but it seems you are singing off key again Cher..

Mar 08, 2016
had his way would never exist because he doesn't A - believe it can do what it does
@full-of-bs
you mean your magnetic super-anti-cancer Pyramid ET phone?
i wouldbelieve if you could actually provide some evidence that could be authenticated and validated... which was treated like ALL scientific studies (BTW- there are a LOT of cancer and other meds that have CRAPPY statistics, but because they work "well enough", they're used... so you have NO EXCUSE not to publish, moron)
B - didn't come from a source he approves of
I don't care WHAT the "source" is as long as:
1- it uses the scientific method
2- it publishes in a reputable peer reviewed journal
3- it is validated
I would even believe in Zephir's crap-o-la IF, and ONLY IF, it meets the above criteria

that is the problem with you pseudoscience religious nuts like bs, rc, et al!
you think because you SAY it, it must be true
NOT THE CASE

the scientific method works for a reason!!!


Mar 08, 2016
@full-of-bs TROLL
and I am in a position to help if he wants it
you mean, you are in a position that will allow you to make money off the suffering of others because you actually have NO PROOF that your machine does anything other than stick to metal (and fridge's)
Then again, people get what they deserve
if that were true, you would have been molested by rabid badgers and trampled by menstruating nuns as they practiced clogging while wearing spiked heels making you retarded and affecting your ability to see logic or reason...

oh wait... you already act like that...
explains a lot, really

.

I've been diagnosed with stage IV lung cancer
@Vietvet
I didn't post that here simply because of the lying idiot trolls who would post back to/about you
I PM'ed it to most everyone

.


Mar 08, 2016
Ira is also going to get a surprise.

Mar 08, 2016
You see, a genuine accent doesn't change when going from vocal to written, and therefore it is always written the same way
@full-of-bs
actually, this isn't true at all
My wife is a grammar nazi and an English major (published) but speaks with a heavy southern accent and can spill colloquial slang terms like a hemorrhaging arterial severed by a hacksaw ... but on paper, she is not only always proper, but seriously anal about everything (she doesn't even use contractions)

OR
you also have folk (like Ira) who are used to typing and writing reports and data, making it a requirement to write one way while speaking another

considering you think anecdote is equivalent to scientific evidence, then my experience in this makes it absolutely valid, just like your mechanized refrigerator magnets


Mar 08, 2016
had his way would never exist because he doesn't A - believe it can do what it does
@full-of-bs
you mean your magnetic super-anti-cancer Pyramid ET phone?


@ Captain-Skippy. I am sure you probably know this but maybe the other peoples don't.

bschott is used to be A2G here, and Rubberbandman. They used to talked to each about the wonderful up coming of physics changing work of A2G. Both of them are really named David Lapoint and he made a couple of youtube light show videos that were a flop and he is really mad about it. He was also reset-Skippy and no-fate-Skippy and some others I can not remember right now.

He was a really boring crankpot when he was A2G and Rubberbandman so that is why he gets to be on the "Don't Show Me This List", I took off with blue-Skippy just long enough to give them the one vote for being the first Skippys in a long time to actually bother me.

I mean, would you buy a magic cube from a person who talks to him self with puppets?

Mar 08, 2016
your opinion isn't worth used toilet paper and you are pretty much useless to the human race
@BSCHOTT
THANK YOU
when i get trolled by a pseudoscience crackpot, i know i have done the right thing and proven him a complete moron publicly...
Guess i hit the spot when i proved your "anecdote" and "mechanized pyramid-magnet ET super-anti-cancer cure" that the FDA and the WORLD are ignoring because "conspiracy" was a SCAM and pseudoscience
LMFAO

https://www.psych...ttle-ego

I am offering to help your friend, fuck off
and i am reminding everyone reading that you are promoting a pseudoscience that has ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR CONCLUSIONS

i hope my friend gets better, and if i thought your scam was worth it, i would personally buy it for him...

but since you can't prove anything, and EVERY anti-cancer cure has a web site of "anecdote" and
"proof" from posters...

Mar 08, 2016
Ira is also going to get a surprise.

You been saying that for about seven or six months now. I will be surprised to get my surprise. You been saying that to Otto-Skippy for a year and a half, I will be really really really surprised if you surprise him. You been promising Captain-Skippy a surprise for a month now too, when he going to get his surprise?

@ Captain-Skippy, don't be counting on getting your surprise like Otto-Skippy and me stopping counting it too. That is one of those silly things he says over and over. I call it Mock-Me-Material and I got a big collection of glam-Skippy Mock-Me-Material. He is the gift that just keeping in that department.

Mar 08, 2016
@full-of-bs cont'd
Last time I respond to your lunacy
you PROMISE? LMFAO
If VV wanted to he could speak directly to cancer survivors who did because of this tech
of course, he can also find the exact same thing HERE: http://www.cancer.../essiac/

does it make it true or science?
NOPE
(i am sure you won't get the point of the above, either, given your love of pseudoscience)
I think we can all see what you are really about
YEP. i am completely against lying stupid pseudoscience idiots like you posting ANECDOTE and calling it "SCIENCE"
... that is called FRAUD

and let me tell you, spunk-boy... promoting it on a web-site (like here) makes you every bit as complicit as your idiot friends who are running the CON
Why?
because you are trying to legitimize the LIE by posting to a SCIENCE site

IF you could PROVE your machine worked with reputable evidence, YOU WOULD HAVE PUBLISHED TO A JOURNAL and wouldn't be hawking it here!!

LEARN TO THINK, moron

Mar 08, 2016
@full-of-bs cont'd
Ya see despite Stump and I loathing each other, he is not full of shit because he honestly believes what he says
it aint about faith or belief
it is about what can be proven
it is about evidence, and being able to support a claim

when you finally pull your "nofate" head out of your butt and learn to think critically, you will understand

and it ISN'T that i don't believe that you believe in your machine... you really do
that is nice, but... It aint PROOF
and that is where we differ

this means, BY DEFINITION, you are no different than any other pseudoscience acolyte pushing something that can't be proven

PS- My wife is a nurse who does herbal remedies a lot
not the "hey, this cures everything" crap, but the honest researched stuff

i am very open to different medicine... and i TAKE it too

i just require something more than "billy bob dip-sh*t says it cured him, so it must be true"
(See My spoof of RC "i must be right" argument above)

Mar 08, 2016
That was about the time you were claiming that Madrid was close to the equator under whatever the hell your handle was back then.
I think you got me mixed up with somebody else, Cher. That was not me non.

But you ARE A2G David-Skippy. You admitted it when you were being no-fate-Skippy.

And Rubberbandman and A2G were both you, the reason you quit being them was when you slipped up and got the conversation looking like something out of bizarro-world, when A2G was saying what Rubberbandman was supposed to be saying. And Rubberbandman was saying the parts that A2G was supposed to be saying.

Mar 08, 2016
@ Captain-Skippy, don't be counting on getting your surprise like Otto-Skippy and me
@Ira
Yeah, i ignore those threats... he has sent a whole bunch of them to my e-mail address too
i think they are hilarious.. obviously he wants to do something and thinks a threat will accomplish his goal...
too bad he didn't actually seek legal advice! (or he did but thinks he can bluff us here, LMFAO)

Mar 08, 2016
Tell you what captain idiot, how much $ would you put on your belief that you have made a correct evaluation here?
@full-of-bs
a full years pay from my day job
And what would you accept as evidence that these people who had cancer and are now cancer free got there because of this tech?
1- do you not know what "the scientific method" means?
C'MON! it's not like i haven't already answered this question more than once!

2- clinical trials as well as controls done in a lab setting by actual scientists with your machine... you know, just like ANY OTHER MED or TREATMENT that the FDA approves and endorses (and it must specify it is approved for cancer, and which TYPES of cancer)

3- you can also publish the report to Science Mag or a similar reputable peer reviewed journal

IOW - if you can get the FDA to approve your mechanized pyramid fridge magnets as a viable cancer cure, i will pay you everything i make in one year as a researcher!

Mar 08, 2016
@ Captain-Skippy, don't be counting on getting your surprise like Otto-Skippy and me
@Ira
Yeah, i ignore those threats... he has sent a whole bunch of them to my e-mail address too)
He wrote a bunch to the nice peoples in the physorg front office too. They thought he was suffering from a mental conditions with all his "mean ol Ira" and "I am real" and "send my proofs" and "tweeter place"and "physorg is libel too for what Ira says". Some really crazy stuffs everybody thought was hilarious. (Mikey-Skippy who postums weird comments did too.)

Then, he tries to calm down for a week or so, and writes some more about volunteering to clean the place up by being a moderator for free to make sure everybody stayed in line. He just can't understand how they could say ""thanks, snicker snicker, but no thanks snicker snort"".

Mar 08, 2016
He wrote a bunch to the nice peoples in the physorg front office too
@Ira
just send them the links i left of his "proof"... they will just say the same thing i did: they need the SF180 so they can authenticate and validate
http://www.archiv...-180.pdf

being a moderator for free
yeah, that was because of the post-ums that i wrote about it... i've been sending them a list of people who would make great moderators (all degree'd pro's, too) and a method that would be "free" while also being self-correcting and leaving PO/ScienceX in charge

if they won't go for that then i don't see them making liar-kam a MOD... that would be like putting ken ham in charge of CERN
LMFAO

.

While I'm in a betting mood,
@BS
you gonna take me up too?
about the above and the FDA?

PLEEEEEEESE?
momma wants to travel to Europe next year

Mar 08, 2016
@Ira
just send them the links i left of his "proof"...
Well that won't be necessary, some truts are self evident. All anybody has to do is read his postums and see that he is not cut out for being the moderator of anything.

i've been sending them a list of people who would make great moderators (all degree'd pro's, too) and a method that would be "free" while also being self-correcting and leaving PO/ScienceX in charge
That probably can't happen. Too much work involved in that. It's just a comment section of a news place. Not a forum or place to do serious science stuffs. That makes Really-Skippy go bonkers when I tell him that.

That's why peoples like Mike-Skippy and Bennie-Skippy and glam-Skippy and Really-Skippy migrate to here, they get the boot from real forums for the stuff they try here. And they think they are brilliant geniuses, that is what makes them so much fun.

Magic Magnet Cubes,,,, hooyeei, you seen his interweb page or Yourtube stuffs?

Mar 08, 2016
Too much work involved in that
@Ira
not really... should be able to assign privileges to profiles easily enough (any programmer should be able to do that in less than an hour, and that is with a 45 minute coffee break)

the system i proposed also didn't allow for a whole lot of power to MODS... and no permaban except by consensus, and leaves the ADMIN appointed by the site as final judge (who would be smart to just go with the MOD flow as they're daily interacting, etc)
they think they are brilliant geniuses
well, i've never been banned from anywhere except wal-mart... got my first turkey there last year
bastards wouldn't let me keep it because apparently you can't discharge a firearm inside while customers are in a store... or something like that... i don't remember because i ran
[do i need to note this is humour?]
you seen his interweb page or Yourtube stuffs
NOPE
link it here! i need a laugh...

THANKS

Mar 08, 2016
Ok... interjection re: pseudoscience and the acolytes who fanatically follow!

so full-of-bs says to Ira
If you don't want to because you can't afford it I understand, it's what lying little chicken shits do when they shoot their mouth off but can't back it up because in reality they are completely wrong
now, i actually agreed to his demands and challenge, and i am willing to give up a full year of pay that i get for the research that i do!

I can even provide a contract guaranteeing this as long as all parties are willing to get their signed notarized copies to a lawyer for future enforcement!

so... why isn't bs taking me up on my offer?

well??

care to answer, BS?
or are the terms something you can't live with because you know you can't actually meet them?

care to answer?

or are you gonna run and pretend this never happened?

Mar 08, 2016
NOPE
link it here! i need a laugh...

THANKS


Well here you go, and you can use it to live to be 300 years old too,,,,,

http://www.primercube.com/

http://www.primercube.com/order/

http://www.primercube.com/new-page-3/

https://www.youtu...K77-7od0


Mar 08, 2016
@ Captain-Skippy. Have you seen the Primer Field Universe videos that David Lapoint (A2G, Rubberbandman, reset, and no-fate) put out on the Yourtube to prove gravity doesn't really do anything, the universe really runs on magnets? This is why he (and all the puppets) is so mad and angry all the time, not only he didn't get the Nobel Prize for them, the Skippys in Hollywood said they were too silly for the awards there too.

Here's the first to get you started on the path to learning how the universe really works. (He should see if he can get Really-Skippy to put up links to them in the Club House)

https://www.youtu...lyiW-xGI

If you must, you can watch all of them from that place.

If want to see some really sad desperation, you can just ask Google-Skippy to show you what he has on "Primer Field Theory" and see all the oohs and aaahs Lapoint-Skippy (puppets) wrote about him self all over the interweb.

Mar 08, 2016
I asked you about what you would take as evidence
@full-of-bs
but you already KNEW that
in other words you have said you will only accept the evidence you know I do not have
i will give you a full year to get it, as long as you will sign a contract that states the conditions and what you or i will lose at the completion of said year!

i am fully willing to bet my YEARS PAY from my research job to you if you can validate your claims using scientific empirical evidence that can be: authenticated AND validated (in the manner i stated)
You don't need the money, or is it "you don't want to because you can't afford it I understand, it's what lying little chicken shits [like you] do when they shoot their mouth off but can't back it up because in reality they are completely wrong'!!!!

2Bcont'd with IMPORTANT INFO

Mar 08, 2016
@bs cont'd
But a person or people with medical records showing a cancer...then a remission from cancer, do not constitute evidence to you
here is MY POINT
how can you guarantee that said remission is the cause of the MACHINE when you can't prove by any other means that it is the ONLY active influence on said cancer causing remission? (hence my requirement for clinical trials, "retard")

GET IT YET?
If you will talk about this you have a bet
i am MORE than willing to actually discuss this issue as well as put MY MONEY where my mouth is!

problem is, you don't know what constitutes evidence, so, considering that, i would suggest this:
lets use the LEGAL definition of what constitutes evidence in a COURT
Then we can also allow a non-participating third party (a judge) actually make the final decision on who pays what

still open to the bet?
what kind of money are YOU willing to part with to defend your tech?
whadda ya say, bs?

Mar 08, 2016
your definition of evidence precludes actual people who have been cured
@full-of-bs
no, it ignores people who make a claim that can't be substantiated by evidence... saying something doesn't mean it is TRUE
at the end of the day you will not accept anything they say
SAY? No.
if they could PROVE it? yes
So in considering YOUR description of what you will accept as evidence
i also gave a secondary definition and means of arguing said point: rules of US Court evidence
http://www.uscour...download

Of course, you will have to abide by all the rules as well as introduction of evidence, full disclosure, professional witnesses and more... ok?

That way it isn't "MY" interpretations of what constitutes scientific evidence vs your anecdote, but rather a well defined term and set of rules adjudicated by an impartial third party (or you can include a jury or peers)

the PDF of US court rules is the link i have in this post.

Mar 08, 2016
@bs
important note:
IF you are willing to accept the terms of the secondary definitions re: evidence,
& IF you are also willing to include a third party judge (and Jury if you want it)
& IF you are willing to argue said points publicly

then i would be glad to also include another rider-bet

Loser pays all court costs

let me know what you and your clan thinks about that!

you can post replies here to PO, but if you wait too long and this thread dies, you will have to LINK this thread as a reference when you finally get your fridge-pyramid-magic-magnet techies to answer

Just FYI- i can bet $ on this too: that company will never allow you to take their tech to be argued in a court to establish it's viability as a medical device, let alone subpeona their records & commenters into court

but i don't mind playing along while you "get in touch with all involved"

how do i know?

http://proxy2974....sclaimer

Mar 08, 2016
@bschott

I don't hate anyone, not even the old deranged sot @bluehigh.

I had my 1st consult at a premier cancer treatment center this morning. my care will be evidence based to include clinical trials if necessary. I have every confidence in my treatment team.

@gham

There is no tragedy. I'm not dead yet and if that does happen it's still not a tragedy. I've
had a good life, some regrets true but I have much to be grateful for and it has been a cause for celebration with family and friends.

Mar 08, 2016
VV, I had some things to discuss with you, but not here, with Ira and Stump. Their insensitivities ruin everything.

Peace.

Mar 09, 2016
I wouldn't drag them into this
@full-of-bs
so its a NO then?
you aren't going to put your money where your mouth is?

is it, using your own words... "you don't want to because you can't afford it I understand, it's what lying little chicken shits [like you] do when they shoot their mouth off but can't back it up because in reality they are completely wrong"?
When it has induced a remission, it has never failed anyone who stuck with it.
1- How do you know that your tech has been the source of said remission?
2- so, what you're saying is: if it works, it's the machine, but if it doesn't work, you didn't use it right? (or pray right, or believe in it right, whatever...)
and you can't see the problem there?

Sigh... and here i fully expected you to actually man up and allow me to meet your "challenge"

so much for your faith in your tech, eh?


Mar 09, 2016
problem is, you don't know what constitutes evidence
As is always the crux between you and I
@full-of-bs
you're track record with actual science isn't all that great
for instance, take your comments about growing stuff on Mars here: http://phys.org/n...oil.html

now see: http://www.alphag...eCode=en

i wonder how they mimicked the Martian soil?
LMFAO

well, guess you were wrong - AGAIN

So... you're scientifically illiterate (see link above or others if you want)
you refuse to accept the definitions of evidence in science
you're a conspiracy theorist ( http://phys.org/n...ing.html )
and you won't back up your word as you promised...

but you want everyone to believe in your tech because you and a couple unknown persons who can't be validated say so?

that doesn't inspire confidence in your tech, BTW

Mar 09, 2016
@bs
science and medicine talk time
but every single case is a stage 4 lost cause (according to the doctors doing the diagnosis)
1- how many opinions were given, and when/where?
2- correlation doesn't always mean causation
that more of these cases have remissed than have died is good enough evidence for anyone in that position
and again, until you can prove, with the scientific method, that your machine is the CAUSE, then it is speculation (an untested claim AT BEST)
First time you have ever pointed out something I hadn't already thought of
my question about that is WHY?
i am simply following the mandate as proscribed by the scientific method, including the levels of evidence as well as determining cause and effect
You don't even know what science I am involved in, other than the above
and i don't care, either
what i CAN demonstrate is that you are not following the scientific method, which is relevant to all our discussions

2Bcont'd


Mar 09, 2016
@bs cont'd
You pointed out the extent to which I would have to involve people who simply cannot be at this time
actually, no, you don't need to involve them
in fact, you can not only produce your own experiments, but you can also either validate their claims OR invalidate them
the only thing you would need from them is their own evidence, but only if you want to have a larger database for statistical analysis

one reason you will not get their evidence is the constraints of the scientific method are likely not met (which would be a good reason why they've not been able to procure FDA approval)

there really isn't a reason to deny their evidence database if you agree to maintain HIPA laws and confidence... which is consistent will all personal info databases used in studies

this isn't speculation on my part, either - they're own disclaimers state they're not liable for the effectiveness of said product or the claims on the site
WHY?

Mar 09, 2016
@bs cont'd
now, considering the loose constraints of the FDA, we can seriously consider the implications of the machines effectiveness and failure to get FDA approval... look here:
https://www.gpo.g...#page=82

https://clinicalt...cs/fdaaa

http://www.fda.go...3534.htm

100 patients in each group might have a power of 0.90 to detect a difference between placebo and trial groups receiving dosage of 10 mg/dL or more, but only 0.70 to detect a difference of 6 mg/dL
https://en.wikipe...al_trial

it doesn't take a high percentage to show the effectiveness or proof to be used in medicine because of the complexity of the human race, biology, other effects (like diet, exercise etc) ...
these things MUST be taken into consideration, but it doesn't require big numbers to get FDA approval

do i need to continue the point?

Mar 09, 2016
One last thing regarding above
Since mainstream medicine has it's ways of dealing with cancer, the only time the machine was able to be used was when someone was told that there is nothing left mainstream medicine can do
sorry, this is NOT an excuse
you will always be able to get people together for a study to find the effectiveness of a cancer treatment... we have an overabundance (IMHO) of subjects, and there are always those who are too poor for clinical treatments or trials, etc...

so you have a product that isn't tested
making claims it isn't willing to be liable for
selling something it can't actually prove works to a public that only sees anecdote (or personal claims)
and the public thinks that it is somehow scientific or justified because of the US laws on false claims and fraud...

but you can't understand why i don't believe it to be true?

really?

Mar 10, 2016
VV, I had some things to discuss with you, but not here, with Ira and Stump. Their insensitivities ruin everything.

Peace.
Do not trust missives of empathy.

"Manipulation is the key to the psychopath's conquests. Initially, the psychopath will feign false emotions to create empathy, and many of them study the tricks that can be employed by the empathy technique."

"It has often been noted that psychopaths have a distinct advantage over human beings with conscience and feelings because the psychopath does not have conscience and feelings."

"And make no mistake about it: you can NOT hurt their feelings because they don't have any! They will pretend to have feelings if it suits their purposes or gets them what they want.

"Oh, indeed, they can imitate feelings, but the only real feelings they seem to have - the thing that drives them and causes them to act out different dramas for effect - is a sort of "predatorial hunger" for what they want."

Mar 12, 2016
I sure wish people would stop voting up for those that get involved in a personality challenge that goes way off subject. That said, I just wanted to comment that I once flipped tails 19 time in a row, so the possibility of other intelligent life in the galaxy isn't that implausible.

Mar 13, 2016
from the article:

"...They are so intense that, if pointed at the Earth from even the most distant edge of our galaxy, they could easily cause a mass extinction, possibly obliterating all life on the planet...."

I have heard from a real physics expert that this is simply false and a common complete myth propagated and that a simple mathematical calculation shows such a gamma ray burst, because the radiation burst spreads with distance away according to the inverse square law, would have to occur within just a few tens of light years from Earth to have any chance to cause life on Earth a real problem and would certainly NOT cause a problem if it is "from even the most distant edge of our galaxy".

Is there any physics experts here that would confirm/refute that?

Mar 14, 2016
Do GRBs get focused along the axis of rotation?

Mar 14, 2016
Do GRBs get focused along the axis of rotation?


Well Google-Skippy has something to say about that Cher, and he don't have the 1000 letter rule to wrestle with.

Try plugging in
Do GRBs get focused along the axis of rotation?
and maybe you will find,,,,

https://www.googl...oe=utf-8

Mar 14, 2016
I could wiki it myself, but do not want to be one of those who did not really understand the concepts, but parroted the words. Some folk here are educated and experienced sufficiently to do that for me.

Thanks, anyway.

Mar 14, 2016
Do GRBs get focused along the axis of rotation?

http://arxiv.org/.../9903339

http://arxiv.org/.../0604320

http://arxiv.org/.../0505199

http://arxiv.org/...08.01034

http://scitation.....3682954

I could wiki it myself, but do not want to be one of those who did not really understand the concepts, but parroted the words
it's not like wiki doesn't have references... use them

it aint rocket surgery

Mar 14, 2016
I could wiki it myself,
Google-Skippy has a lot more than just the Wiki-Skippy.

but do not want to be one of those who did not really understand the concepts
Yet you never pass up the opportunity to show us that is exactly what you are. don't know THz/infrared,,,, don't know the difference between apparent/reactive/true power,,,, AM vs FM radio,,,,, the formula for force when you are trying to explain energy,,, can't convert Btu's to kWh's,,,, thought quadratic equations were differential equations,,,, don't know what Fourier transforms and series are used for,,, and dozens more?

but parroted the words.
Yeah, that is you to the tee Cher.

Some folk here are educated and experienced sufficiently to do that for me.
Sure. Do you really practice saying stupid things or does it come natural? Are they as educated and experienced as all the PhD scientist-Skippys on the Google Skippy interweb? How you know that because they just say so? Like you?

Mar 14, 2016
Ira, since youare unable to discuss technical matters, just go away, please. Your silly game of cajun-philosopher is not bright, nor convincing. I guess the folk from the North fall for it, and you probably put on a show for the tourists, but the rest of us know it is just an act.

Let's stop with the personal attacks, Ira. You thought I was another phony, like many here, but when I turned out to be a real person with real education and real experience in things in which you know nothing it just enraged you.

Mar 14, 2016
Ira, since youare unable to discuss technical matters, just go away, please.
Why I got to go away Cher? What I discuss is just as technical as anything you discuss, most of the times more technical.

Let's stop with the personal attacks, Ira.
Since when is giving a really good answer to your silly question a personal attack? You asked about the axis of the GRB and I postumed a link with a couple years worth of reading on the subject. Stuffs wrote by real experts by the way.

You thought I was another phony, like many here,
Still do Cher, since YOU bring it up.

but when I turned out to be a real person
Yeah, sure thing Skippy

with real education and real experience in things in which you know nothing
You keep saying that, but I (and others) keep having to school you.

it just enraged you
But you are the one angry all the time, not me non. You keep saying a lot things about other peoples that really describe you, eh?

Mar 14, 2016
Ira, since youare unable to discuss technical matters, just go away, please
Let's stop with the personal attacks, gkam
Your silly game of cajun-philosopher is not bright, nor convincing
Let's stop with the personal attacks, gkam
I guess the folk from the North fall for it
Let's stop with the personal attacks, gkam
you probably put on a show for the tourists, but the rest of us know it is just an act
Let's stop with the personal attacks, gkam
but when I turned out to be a real person with real education and real experience in things in which you know nothing it just enraged you
Let's stop with the personal attacks, gkam

PS - argument from authority is like opinion divined from used toilet paper:

-it doesn't matter what the point is you're trying to make if there is no evidence proving the point, especially when the point you make is contradicted by empirical evidence refuting your claim and argument from authority

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